Abstract
This contribution examines various aspects of “openness” in research and seeks to gauge the degree to which contemporary “e-science” practices are congruent with “open science.” Norms and practices of openness are held to have been vital for the work of modern scientific communities. But concerns have arisen recently about the growth of strong technical and institutional restraints on access to research tools, data and information, in part because of the adverse implications these may have for the effective utilization of advanced digital infrastructures and information technologies in research collaborations. Our discussion first clarifies the conceptual differences between e-science and open science, and it then reports findings recent exploratory research on institutional policies and local practices affecting information access in U.K. e-science projects. In both of its parts the discussion underscores the point that it is unwarranted to presume that encouraging the development of e-science by providing enhanced technical infrastructures and tools alone will necessarily promotes global open science collaboration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The nmenonic Cudos was introduced by Merton’s 1942 essay on the normative structure of science, but the association of the “O” with originality was a subsequent modification that has become conventional (see Ziman, 1994).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Papers following Dasgupta and David (1987, 1994) in this genre include David, Mowery, and Steinmueller (1992), Trajtenberg, Henderson, and Jaffe (1992), Arora and Gambardella (1994, 1997); David (1994, 1996); Gambardella (1994), David and Foray (1995), Arora, David, and Gambardella (1998), Geuna (1999). Some of the foregoing are noticed in the wider survey of the economics of science by Stephan (1996).
- 5.
- 6.
In consequence, only occasionally, and rather tenuously, did their studies attempt to draw links between the ways in which communities of scientists were organized and rewarded, and the ways in which scientific statements were created and accepted within those communities. This is a gloss on a very extensive literature, for fuller discussion of which see Ben-David (1991), Callon (1995), and Leydesdorff (1995).
- 7.
- 8.
See Bacharach, Gambetta et al. (1994) for an exceptional departure from this tradition in economics.
- 9.
- 10.
See, e.g., Brock and Durlauf (1999), David (1998b, 2002). Apart from the policy-relevant considerations noted in the following text, it may be argued that the cumulative, incremental development of propositions on which quasi-stable consensuses are formed among scientists do constitute grounds for insisting on the validity of drawing a cognitive distinction between the scientific and the other cultural pursuits. Because such resistance to “relativism” remains strongly contested in some quarters of contemporary “science studies,” David develops an argument defending it on “evolutionary epistemological” grounds. For a defense of “objectivism” and criticism of “social constructivism” in science studies, see Schroeder (2007a).
- 11.
See Kitcher (1993, Ch. 8). This article, on “The Organization of Cognitive Labor,” opens by asking whether, in an “epistemically well-designed social system,” it is possible that “the individual ways of responding to nature matter far less than the coordination, cooperation, and competition that go on among the individuals?” (p. 303)
- 12.
See Blau (1973), Beaver and Rosen (1979), Katz (1994) for studies of scientific collaboration in the sociological and bibliometric tradition using co-publications. While economists have followed Jaffe, Trajtenberg, and Henderson (1993) who used patent co-citations, and cross-citations between scientific publications and patents to try to gauge the extent of knowledge flows and inferred collaboration between academic and university scientists, Mairesse and Turner (2006) recently have broken new ground in measuring and econometrically explaining variations in the intensity of co-publication among the members of the large community of physicists in the condensed matter section of the CNRS.
- 13.
The statistically significant positive factors include both characteristics of the individual researchers (e.g., age, professional status, publication history) and their structural or institutional situations (e.g., department or laboratory size and disciplinary specialization, institutional reputation, ease of face-to-face interactions gauged by spatial proximity to other laboratories with specialization in the same or complementary research field).
- 14.
- 15.
For a report on the structured interviews, see Fry et al. (2008). David, den Besten, and Schroeder (2006) present a preliminary version of the framework of questions from which were developed both the structured interview protocol and subsequent online survey questionnaire, the result of which is reported by den Besten and David (2008). The complete set of survey questions may be consulted in den Besten et al. (2009) and is also available online as the Oxford eScience Information Access Survey at http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/oess/oesias; see Q. 8 for questions directly inspired by the Stanford checklist.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Seehttp://www.omii.ac.uk/about/index.jsp, emphasis added. The foregoing, however, is a rather different rationale than the one offered previously by Program Director Hey’s statement at the September 2004 e-Science All Hands Meeting (http://www.allhands.org.uk/proceedings/proceedings/introduction.pdf): “…Web Services still are ‘work in progress’ so we must adopt conservative strategies to safeguard our UK investments and ensure that we converge on the standards that eventually emerge….”
- 19.
The idiosyncratic features of the Globus license are discussed by David and Spence (2003, pp. 32–33, and Appendix 4).
- 20.
Non-client researchers, after registering and obtaining a login name and password, may proceed to download software packages, but they will not necessarily obtain the underlying source code. David et al. (2006) reported that an attempt to download version 1.0 of OMII’s certificate management tool yielded a tar-ball within which was a jar-file containing java byte-code; procedures for extracting the corresponding java source code from that file are far from straightforward. Since May 2007, OMII has made the source code available (Chang, personal communication). Chang, Mills, and Newhouse (2007) provide reflections on open source and sustainability from the perspective of OMII.
- 21.
Fry et al.’s (2009) structured interview protocol elaborated and modified the extended questionnaire proposed by David et al. (2006).
- 22.
As Fry et al. (2009) point out, “The effort to make the tools or data suitable or robust enough to make them into a commonly used resource may be considerable, and thus represents a Catch-22 situation for researchers: a large effort can be made, which may not be useful, but if it is not attempted, then it cannot be useful in the first place. Nevertheless, all projects expressed the aspiration to contribute to a common resource, even if this was sometimes expressed as a hope rather than a certainty or foregone conclusion.”
- 23.
Coordination and integration problems calling for solutions that take the form of interoperability standards posed particularly difficult challenges for on-going projects in the UK e-Science Pilot Programme, according to Fry et al. (2009), whereas some new software tools required compatibility with existing tools (for example, tools from the CQeSS project which developed e-social Science tools for large quantitative datasets needed to be interoperable with Stata) and this might be technically difficult to implement. Achieving integration with other tools that are currently under development confronts more fundamental uncertainties about the requirements for compatibility or interoperability. The same applies to complying with standards, ontologies, and metadata that are still in the process of development.
- 24.
See, e.g., David and Hall (2006); David (2007). Much of that discussion, however, has focused on the implications of the patenting of research tools, and sui generis legal protection of database rights (in the EU) in the areas of genomics, biogenetics, and proteinomics, the patenting of computer software (in the US) and computer-implemented inventions (in the EU), and extensive patenting of nanotechnology research tools. While those have been very active fields of academic science research, and growing university ownership of patents, they are not represented in the UK’s e-Science core program and so do not appear among the projects included in either the structured interview or the survey samples discussed here.
- 25.
This questionnaire instrument, the Oxford e-Science Information Access Survey (OeSIAS) which was posted on SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com), is reproduced in den Besten and David (2009). Particular questions among the 19 in the survey’s substantive portion (many of which were comprised of several sub-items) are referred to in the following text and footnotes by their number in source, thus [OeSIAS, Q.1].
- 26.
This number represented just over 10% of the projects listed by NeSC, implying a “project response rate” of 25%. The number of individual responses to this survey was larger, because P.I.s receiving the e-mail request were asked also to send it on to non-P.I. members of their project (which yielded an additional 21 responses that are not discussed here; also, in three cases more than one P.I. for a single project returned the questionnaire). The present analysis used only the one with the lowest frequency of “don’t know” responses. The low apparent response rate from P.I.s and projects may be due in some part to the relatively short time interval allowed for those who submitted survey replies to be eligible to receive a book-token gift. The existence of projects that appear more than once in the NeSC database and had multiple (co-) P.I.s also would contribute to reducing the apparent rate of “project” responses.
- 27.
Unlike other survey findings discussed in sections “contract terms and openness in research” and “provision of information access in e-science projects”, the results obtained from the seven items in Survey Question 8 are based on the complete tabulation of the answers from all 54 survey respondents – including both the three cases of reports on multiple projects by a single P.I., and the 21 non-P.I.s.
- 28.
Funding bodies sometimes seek to form larger joint projects by bringing together academics that have submitted separate (competing) proposals, especially where there are opportunities to exploit differences in the applicants’ respective areas of special expertise. For further discussion of the formal legal context of collaborative e-science, see David and Spence (2008, Sect. 2.3) and Fitzgerald (2008, Chs. 6, 11, 12).
- 29.
Among all the respondents who found these three questionnaire items (in Q 8) applicable to the circumstances of their respective projects, approximately 11% said they did not know the answer to the question.
- 30.
Considering only the “classifiable” group of projects, their percentage distribution among the broad “purpose-engagement” clusters is seen to be 31% with middleware (I), 42% with database applications (II), and 27% with end-user communities (III).
- 31.
In compiling the results reported in the text, counts of instances where respondents said the particular question was not applicable, or that they did not know, have been omitted.
- 32.
See den Besten et al. (2009, Table 2), for fuller presentation of the survey results reviewed here than the survey questions in [OeSIAS, Q. 10 and Q. 11].
- 33.
Over half of the projects having more diffuse purposes – that is, purposes not preponderantly oriented toward either construction of middleware, research community usage, or applications and database resources – failed to provide clear answers to questions 16 and 17. Responses from the “other purposes” group are not included in the analysis whose results are described in the text.
- 34.
Specifically, providing access to researchers outside the project was a significant concern for almost two-thirds of the data-centric projects and a third of community-centric projects.
- 35.
Perhaps this question should have been phrased differently, e.g., “Would the project be willing to pay repository charges, and for the inclusion of open access journals?”
- 36.
Eleven respondents listed external access among their project goals, nine said it was not an important concern, and another nine respondents left this question unanswered.
References
Allen, F. H. (2004). High-throughput crystallography: The challenge of publishing, storing and using the results. Crystallography Reviews, 10, 3–15.
Arora, A., David, P. A., & Gambardella, A. (1998). Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: estimating the effects on research group productivity. Annales d’ Economie et de Statistique, 49/50, 163–198 (Numero Exceptionelle, J. Mairesse, Ed.).
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). The changing technology of technological change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Research Policy, 23, 523–532.
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1997). Public policy towards science: picking stars or spreading the wealth? Revue d’economie industrielle, 79, 63–75.
Atkins, D. E., Droegmaier, K. K., Felman, S. I., Garcia-Molin, H., Klein, M.L., Messerschmitt, D.G., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure. Technical report, National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Washington, DC: NSF.
Atkinson, M., DeRoure, D., Dunlop, A., Fox, G., Henderson, P., Hey, T., et al. (2005). Web service grids: An evolutionary approach. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 17(2), 377–390.
Bacharach, M., Gambetta, D., et al. (1994). The economics of salience: A research proposal. Unpublished paper, Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistics.
Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration, Part 2: Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite. Scientometrics, 1, 133–149.
Ben-David, J. (1991). Scientific growth: Essays on the social organization and ethos of science. In G. Freudenthal (Ed.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Berman, F., & Brady, H. (2005). NSF SBE-CISE workshop on cyber-infrastructure and the social sciences. Final report, San Diego Supercomputing Centre.
Blau, J. (1973). Patterns of communication among theoretical high energy physicists. Sociometry, 37, 391–406.
Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Brock, W. A., & Durlauf, S. N. (1999). A formal model of theory choice in science. Economic Theory, 14(1), 13–130.
Callon, M. (1995). Four models for the dynamics of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch, (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 29–63). London: Sage Publications.
Carayol, N. (2003). The incentive properties of the Matthew effect in academic competition. Working Papers of BETA 2003-11 ULP, Strasbourg.
Carayol, N., & Dalle, J.-M. (2007). Sequential problem choice and the reward system in open science, BETA Working Papers of BETA 2003-12, ULP Strasbourg, 2003. Revised and published in Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18(2), 167–191.
Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.
Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.
Chang, V., Mills, H., & Newhouse, S. (2007, September10–13). From open source to long-term sustainability: Review of business models and case studies. In All Hands Meeting 2007, OMII-UK Workshop, Nottingham, UK.
Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Cole, S. (1978). Scientific reward systems: A comparative analysis. In R.A. Jones (Ed.), Research in sociology of knowledge, sciences and art (pp. 167–190). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cole, S., & Cole, J. (1967). Scientific output and recognition. American Sociological Review, 32, 377–390.
Coles, S. J., Frey, J. G., Hursthouse, M. B., Light, M., Carr, L., DeRoure, D., et al. (2005). The end-to-end crystallographic experiment in an e-science environment: From conception to publication. Proceedings of the Fourth UK e-Science All Hands Meeting, Nottingham, UK.
Coles, S. J., Frey, J. G., Hursthouse, M. B., Light, M. E., Meacham, K. E., Marvin, D. J., et al. (2005). ECSES – Examining crystal structures using “e-science”: A demonstrator employing web and grid services to enhance user participation in crystallographic experiments. Journal of Applied Crystallography, 38, 819–826.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study in productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699–714.
Dalle, J.-M., David, P. A., Ghosh, R. A., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2005). Advancing economic research on the free and open source software mode of production. In M. Wynants & J. Cornelis (Eds.), How open will the future be? Social and cultural scenarios based on open standards and open-source software. Brussels: VUB Press. Preprint available at http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/04-03.html
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1987). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In G. Feiwel (Ed.), Chapter 16 in Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory (pp. 519–542). New York: New York University Press .
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521
David, P. (1994). Positive feedbacks and research productivity in science: Reopening another black box. In O. Grandstrand (Ed.), Economics and technology (pp. 65–85). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
David, P. A. (1996). Science reorganized? Post-modern visions of research and the curse of success. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Research Funding, Ottawa.
David, P. A. (1998a). Common agency contracting and the emergence of “open science” institutions. American Economic Review, 88(2), 15–21.
David, P. A. (1998b). Communication norms and the collective cognitive performance of “invisible colleges”. In G. Barba Navaretti, P. Dasgupta, K.-G. Maler, & D. Siniscalco (Eds.), Creation and the transfer of knowledge: Institutions and incentives. New York: Springer.
David, P. A. (2002, December). Cooperation, creativity and closure in scientific research networks: Modelling the simpler dynamics of epistemic communities. SIEPR-CREEG Seminar Paper in Technology & Social Science. Paris: Bibliothque Albin Michel (Économie). Revision available at http:/siepr.stanford.edu/programs/SST_Seminars/David_All.pdf
David, P. A. (2003). The economic logic of “open science” and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information. In J. Esanu & P.F. Uhlir (Eds.), The role of scientific and technical data and information in the public domain: Proceedings of a symposium (pp. 19–34). Washington, DC: Academy Press.
David, P. A. (2004). Can “open science” be protected from the evolving regime of intellectual property rights protections. Journal of Theoretical and Institutional Economics, 160, 1–26. Available at: http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/02-42.html.
David, P. A. (2006). Toward a cyberinfrastructure for enhanced scientific collaboration: providing its “soft” foundations may be the hardest part. In B. Kahin (Ed.), Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy (pp. 431–454). Cambridge: MIT Press Preprint available at http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/publications/RR4.pdf
David, P. A. (2007). Innovation and Europe’s universities: Second thoughts about embracing the Bayh-Dole regime. In F. Malerba & S. Brusoni (Eds.), Perspectives on innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Preprint available at http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/04-27.html
David, P. A., den Besten, M., & Schroeder, R. (2006, December). How “open” is e-science? e-Science ’06: Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd International Conference on eScience and Grid Computing, Amsterdam, v. Iss, 33 ff. Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4030972/4030973/04031006.pdf?isnumber=4030973âˆ=STD&arnumber=4031006&arnumber=4031006&arSt=33&ared=33&arAuthor=David%2C+P.A.%3B+den+Besten%2C+M.%3B+Schroeder%2C+R.
David, P. A., & Foray, D. (1995). Accessing and expanding the knowledge-base in science and technology. STI-Review, 16, 13–38.
David, P. A., & Hall, B. H. (2006). Property and the pursuit of knowledge: an introduction. Research Policy, 35(June–July) [Special Issue, Guest-edited by P. A. David & B. H. Hall].
David, P. A., Mowery, D. R., & Steinmueller, W. E. (1992). Analyzing the payoffs from basic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2(4), 73–90.
David, P. A., & Spence, M. (2003). Toward institutional infrastructures for e-science. Oxford Internet Institute Research Report 2, Oxford. Available at http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/project.cfm?id=26
David, P. A., & Spence, M. (2008). Designing institutional infrastructures for e-science, Ch. 5. In B. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Legal and policy framework for e-research: Realizing the potential. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.
David, P. A., & Uhlir, P. F. (2005, September 1–2). Creating the global information commons for e-science: Workshop rationale and plan. UNESCO, Paris. Available at http://www.codataweb.org/UNESCOmtg/workshopplan.html
David, P. A., & Uhlir, P. F. (2006, April 17). Creating global information commons for science: An international initiative of the committee on data for science and technology (CODATA). Unpublished prospectus..
De Roure, D. (2006, April 10–12). The OMII experience. Presentation to the OSSWatch Conference on Sustainability and Open Source, Said Business School, Oxford. Available at http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/events/2006-04-10-12/presentations/davidderoure.pdf
den Besten, M., & David, P. A. (2009, January). Data and information access in e-research: Results from a 2008 survey among UK e-science project participants. Report 18, Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1323812
den Besten, M., & David, P. A. (2008, September 11–13). Mapping e-science’s path in the collaboration space. Paper presented to the conference on Oxford e-Research Conference 2008. Retrieved from http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/eresearch08/
den Besten, M., David, P. A., & Schroeder, R. (2009). Will e-science be open science? In W. H. Dutton & P. Jeffreys (Eds.), World wide research.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fitzgerald, B. (Ed.). (2008). Legal and policy framework for e-research: Realizing the potential. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.
Frey, J. G. (2004). Dark lab or smart lab: The challenges for the 21st century laboratory software. Organic Research and Development, 8(6), 1024–1035.
Fry, J., Schroeder, R., & den Besten, M. (2009). Open science in e-science: Contingency or policy? Journal of Documentation, 65(1), 6–32.
Fuller, S. (1994). A guide to the philosophy and sociology of science for social psychology of science, Ch. 17. In W. Shadish & S. Fuller (Eds.), The social psychology of science. New York: The Guilford Press.
Gambardella, A. (1994). Science and innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hey, T. (2005). e-Science and open access. Berlin 3 Open Access: Progress in Implementing the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. University of Southampton, UK.
Hinds, C., Jirotka, M., Rahman, M., D’Agostino, G., Meyer, C., Piper, T., et al. (2005). Ownership of intellectual property rights in medical data in collaborative computing environments. First International Conference on e-Social Science.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 557–598.
Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Hartswood, M., Slack, R., Simpson, A., Coopmans, C., et al. (2005). Collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: The eDiaMoND case study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(4), 369–398.
Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.
Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without Illusions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. 1st/2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Leenaars, M. (2005). e-Infrastructures roadmap. e-Infrastructure Reflection Group Technical Report. Available at http://www.e-irg.org/roadmap/eIRG-roadmap.pdf
Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communities. 2nd ed. Leiden: DSWO Press, Universal Publishers: uPUBLIS.com. Available at http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm
Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton, LA: Universal Publishers.
Mairesse, J., & Turner, L. (2006). Measurement and explanation of the intensity of co-publication in scientific research: an analysis at the laboratory level, Ch. 10. In C. Antonelli, D. Foray, B. Hall, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), New frontiers in the economics of innovation and new technology: Essays in honour of Paul A. David. Cheltenham: Edward. Elgar.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. N. W. Storer (Ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Popper, K. R. (1959). Logic of scientific discovery, London: Hutchinson.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Quine, W. V. O. (Ed.). (1953). Two dogmas of empiricism. From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (Ed.). (1962). Carnap and logical truth. Logic and language: Studies dedicated to professor Rudolf Carnap on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (pp. 350–374). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Quine, W. V. O. (Ed.). (1969). Epistemology naturalized. Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University PressSchroeder, R. (2007a). Rethinking science, technology and social change. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schroeder, R. (2007b). e-Research infrastructures and open science: Towards a new system of knowledge production? Prometheus, 25(1), 1–17.
Schroeder, R. (2008). e-Sciences as research technologies: Reconfiguring disciplines, globalizing knowledge. Social Science Information, 47(2), 131–157.
Stanford University (1996). Openness in research. Stanford University Research Policy Handbook, Ch. 2.6, Stanford, CA. Openness in research checklist at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/C-Res/ITARlist.html
Stephan, P. (1996). The Economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1262.
Taylor, J. (2001). Presentation at e-science meeting by the Director of the Research Councils, Office of Science and Technology, UK. Available at: http://www.e-science.clrc.ac.uk.
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. B. (1992). Ivory tower versus corporate lab: An empirical study of basic research and appropriability, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4146 (August).
Turner, L., & Mairesse, J. (2002). Explaining individual productivity differences in public research: How important are non-individual determinants? An econometric analysis of French Physiciists (1986–1997). Working Paper-Cahiers de la MSE 2002-66. Université Paris-I.
Uhlir, P. F., & Schroder, P. (2007). Open date for global science. Data Science Journal, 6. (Special Issue, Part 2: Analysis of Policy Issues), OD36–OD53.
van Raan, A. F. J. (Ed.). (1988). Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wikipedia (2008). Entry for “OASIS.” Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OASIS_(organization). Last accessed on November 14, 2008.
Ziman, J. M. (1994). Prometheus bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Institutionalization and patterns of evaluation in science, reprinted in R. K. Merton. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 460–496). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Acknowledgments
Most of the authors’ research on the underlying data has been supported by ESRC grant RES-149-25-1022 for the Oxford e-Social Science (OeSS) Project on Ethical, Legal and Institutional Dynamics of Grid-enabled e-Sciences. Our thanks go first to Jenny Fry, Jeremy Frey and Mike Fraser for their contributions in connection with the structured interviews, and to Anne Trefethen for her help in the fielding of the online survey of UK e-Science P.I.s. We also are grateful for the institutional support received from several quarters during the research planning stage and the preparation of this essay: the Oxford internet Institute (David, and Schroeder) and the Oxford e-Research Centre (den Besten). David also acknowledges with gratitude the support of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research’s Program on Knowledge, Networks and Institutions for Innovation (KNIIP), for his research and writing on open science which the present work has drawn upon. Responsibility for the judgments expressed, as well as any mistakes and misinterpretations that may be found herein, remains solely ours.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
den Besten, M., David, P.A., Schroeder, R. (2009). Research in e-Science and Open Access to Data and Information. In: Hunsinger, J., Klastrup, L., Allen, M. (eds) International Handbook of Internet Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9788-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9789-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)