Advertisement

Internet and Innovative Knowledge Evaluation Processes: New Directions for Scientific Creativity?

  • Pier Franco Camussone
  • Roberta Cuel
  • Diego Ponte
Chapter

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Lave J. and E. Wenger (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nonaka I. And H. Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Wenger, E. and W. Snyder (2000) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier, Harvard Business Review, January-February 139–145.Google Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 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. 8.
    Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation, Available at: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books.htm.
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14.
    Brown, T. (2004). Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. Sense About Science: London.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spier, R. (2002) The history of the peer-review process, Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8): 357–358.Google Scholar
  16. 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. 17.
    Snodgrass, R. (2006) Single-versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature, Sigmod Record, 35(3): 8–21.Google Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Ware M. (2008) Peer Review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium: London.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ceci, S.J. and D. Peters (1984) How Blind Is Blind Review, American Psychologist, 39(12): 1491–1494.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morrison, J. (2006) The case for open peer review, Medical Education, 40(9): 830–831.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McAfee, A. (2006) Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration, MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3): 21–28.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Von Hippel, E. (2002) Horizontal Innovation Networks – by and for users, Working Paper 4366–02, MIT Sloan School of Management.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, D. M. (2007) Key Issues for Web 2.0 and Consumerization, Gartner Research Report.Google Scholar
  25. 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. 26.
    Dall’Aglio, P. (2006) Peer review and journal models, arXiv:physics/0608307v1.Google Scholar
  27. 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. 28.
    Duffy, T.M. and D. Jonassen (1992) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context, Westview Press: Boulder.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pier Franco Camussone
    • 1
  • Roberta Cuel
    • 1
  • Diego Ponte
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e Studi AziendaliUniversità degli Studi di TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations