Internet and Innovative Knowledge Evaluation Processes: New Directions for Scientific Creativity?
This paper explores the evolution in the last decades of scientific knowledge evaluation processes. Both technological improvements (due to the Internet and the Web 2.0) and new theoretical frameworks (e.g., open innovation, open access initiatives, and crowd-sourcing) call for the exploration of new models of scientific knowledge evaluation. Analyzing second-hand data and a representative sample of scientific publishing initiatives, we show that the evaluation processes might be categorized in both incremental and radical innovations. The second group of innovations generates a radical change in the way scientific knowledge is evaluated, by making the process more collaborative, open and interactive. Although the shift to more collaborative approaches is moving slowly, we analyze how these innovative opportunities might have a huge impact on the creativity of the scientific publishing sector.
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the EU-funded project LiquidPub – Liquid Publications: Scientific Publications meet the Web (http://project.liquidpub.org; FET-Open grant number: 213360) and the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme within the Seventh Framework Programme for Research of the European Commission.
- 1.Lave J. and E. Wenger (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Nonaka I. And H. Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 3.Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka I. (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and release the Power of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- 4.Wenger, E. and W. Snyder (2000) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier, Harvard Business Review, January-February 139–145.Google Scholar
- 5.Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
- 6.Rohrbeck, R., Holzle, K. and Gemunden, H.G. (2009) Opening up for competitive advantage: How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem, R&D Management, 39(4): 420–430.Google Scholar
- 7.Chesbrough H.W. and K. Schwartz (2007) Innovating Business Models with Co-Development Partnerships, Research Technology Management, 50(1): 55–59.Google Scholar
- 8.Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation, Available at: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books.htm.
- 9.Ceyland, C., Dul, J., (2007) The effect of the work environment on employee creativity for innovation. Model and evidence. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
- 10.Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R. and Dellarocas, C.N. (2009) “Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence”. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4732–09. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1381502.
- 11.Davenport, T.H. and L. Prusak (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- 12.O’Reilly T. (2005) What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, Available: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
- 13.White, D. (2007) Results and analysis of web 2.0 services survey, UK: JISC. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/digitalrepositories/spiresurvey.pdf
- 14.Brown, T. (2004). Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. Sense About Science: London.Google Scholar
- 15.Spier, R. (2002) The history of the peer-review process, Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8): 357–358.Google Scholar
- 16.Guédon, J.C. (2001) In Oldenburg’s Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing, Association of Research Libraries: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- 17.Snodgrass, R. (2006) Single-versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature, Sigmod Record, 35(3): 8–21.Google Scholar
- 18.Hill S. And P. Provost (2006) The myth of the double-blind review?: author identification using only citations, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 5(2): 179–184.Google Scholar
- 19.Ware M. (2008) Peer Review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium: London.Google Scholar
- 20.Ceci, S.J. and D. Peters (1984) How Blind Is Blind Review, American Psychologist, 39(12): 1491–1494.Google Scholar
- 21.Morrison, J. (2006) The case for open peer review, Medical Education, 40(9): 830–831.Google Scholar
- 22.McAfee, A. (2006) Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration, MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3): 21–28.Google Scholar
- 23.Von Hippel, E. (2002) Horizontal Innovation Networks – by and for users, Working Paper 4366–02, MIT Sloan School of Management.Google Scholar
- 24.Smith, D. M. (2007) Key Issues for Web 2.0 and Consumerization, Gartner Research Report.Google Scholar
- 25.Taraborelli, D. (2008) Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Carry-le-Rouet, Provence, France, May 20–23.Google Scholar
- 26.Dall’Aglio, P. (2006) Peer review and journal models, arXiv:physics/0608307v1.Google Scholar
- 27.Kling, R., Spector, L. and G. McKim (2002) Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the Internet: The Guild Model, The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1).Google Scholar
- 28.Duffy, T.M. and D. Jonassen (1992) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 29.Virtuani R., Cantoni, F., (2009) Technology-mediated inspiration and concentration to hamper managers’ creativity. EURAM Conference: Renaissance and Renewal in Management Studies, European Academy of Management, May 11–14, 2009 Liverpool.Google Scholar
- 30.Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context, Westview Press: Boulder.Google Scholar