Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science
暂无分享,去创建一个
Karim R. Lakhani | Christoph Riedl | Kevin J. Boudreau | Eva C. Guinan | K. Boudreau | K. Lakhani | Christoph Riedl | E. Guinan
[1] F. Knight. The economic nature of the firm: From Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit , 2009 .
[2] J. Ben-David,et al. Roles and Innovations in Medicine , 1960, American Journal of Sociology.
[3] R. Nelson. Uncertainty, Learning, and the Economics of Parallel Research and Development Efforts , 1961 .
[4] R. Merton. The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.
[5] N. Mullins. The development of a scientific specialty: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology , 1972 .
[6] John Law,et al. The Development of Specialties in Science: the Case of X-ray Protein Crystallography , 1973 .
[7] H. Simon,et al. Perception in chess , 1973 .
[8] Allen Newell,et al. Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .
[9] A. Tversky,et al. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.
[10] S. B. Levenberg. Professional training, psychodiagnostic skill, and kinetic family drawings. , 1975, Journal of personality assessment.
[11] James M. Utterback,et al. A dynamic model of process and product innovation , 1975 .
[12] Mary Warnock,et al. Schools of thought , 1977 .
[13] Baruch Fischhoff,et al. Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art , 1977 .
[14] John B. Kidd,et al. Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs , 1979 .
[15] Dorothea P. Simon,et al. Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.
[16] B. Brehmer. In one word: Not from experience. , 1980 .
[17] Paul J. Feltovich,et al. Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..
[18] J. R. Cole,et al. Chance and consensus in peer review. , 1981, Science.
[19] Albert N. Link,et al. The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research: A Test of Nelson's Diversification Hypothesis , 1981 .
[20] Eric J. Johnson,et al. Product familiarity and learning new information , 1984 .
[21] P. E. Johnson,et al. Multimethod study of clinical judgment. , 1982, Organizational behavior and human performance.
[22] S. Winter,et al. An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .
[23] G. Dosi. Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .
[24] B. Marshall,et al. UNIDENTIFIED CURVED BACILLI ON GASTRIC EPITHELIUM IN ACTIVE CHRONIC GASTRITIS , 1983, The Lancet.
[25] J. Hicks,et al. The economics of science , 1996 .
[26] Gerardo R. Ungson,et al. Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry. , 1984 .
[27] John W. Payne,et al. Effort and Accuracy in Choice , 1985 .
[28] Robert J. Meyer,et al. The Learning of Multiattribute Judgment Policies , 1987 .
[29] John H. Holland,et al. Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery , 1987, IEEE Expert.
[30] M. Chi,et al. The Nature of Expertise , 1988 .
[31] Eric J. Johnson,et al. Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. , 1988 .
[32] J. Berger. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis , 1988 .
[33] Jean Bédard,et al. Expertise in auditing: Myth or reality? , 1989 .
[34] P. Romer. Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.
[35] Paul Thagard,et al. Induction: Processes Of Inference , 1989 .
[36] D. Chubin,et al. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy , 1990 .
[37] R. Fletcher,et al. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. , 1990, JAMA.
[38] M. Dogan,et al. Creative Marginality: Innovation at the Intersections of Social Sciences. , 1992 .
[39] K. A. Ericsson,et al. Toward a general theory of expertise : prospects and limits , 1991 .
[40] Harold Maurice Collins,et al. New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System , 1991 .
[41] Norman Hackerman,et al. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy , 1992 .
[42] J. March. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.
[43] Colin Camerer,et al. The process-performance paradox in expert judgment - How can experts know so much and predict so badly? , 1991 .
[44] Devendra Sahal,et al. Technological guideposts and innovation avenues , 1993 .
[45] G. Dosi. Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories , 1993 .
[46] P. Anand,et al. Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk. , 1993 .
[47] P. David,et al. Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .
[48] S. Schwartzman,et al. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .
[49] Craig R. Fox,et al. Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance , 1995 .
[50] K. A. Ericsson,et al. The Road To Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games , 1996 .
[51] Greg A. Stevens,et al. 3,000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success! , 1997 .
[52] Daniel A. Levinthal. Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .
[53] A. Elzinga. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .
[54] F. Godlee,et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.
[55] Paul A. David,et al. The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness , 2000 .
[56] D. Simonton. Origins of genius : Darwinian perspectives on creativity , 1999 .
[57] P. Rothwell,et al. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.
[58] Howard L. Bleich,et al. Technical Milestone: Medical Subject Headings Used to Search the Biomedical Literature , 2001, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..
[59] O. Sorenson,et al. Science as a Map in Technological Search , 2000 .
[60] Liv Langfeldt,et al. The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome , 2001, Peer review in an Era of Evaluation.
[61] Nigel W. Bond,et al. A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings , 2003 .
[62] Benjamin F. Jones. The Burden of Knowledge and the 'Death of the Renaissance Man': Is Innovation Getting Harder? , 2004 .
[63] Benjamin F. Jones. Age and Great Invention , 2004 .
[64] M. Hakel,et al. An Examination of Sources of Peer-Review Bias , 2006, Psychological science.
[65] M. Chi. Two Approaches to the Study of Experts' Characteristics , 2006 .
[66] Scott Stern,et al. Climbing Atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research , 2006 .
[67] Paul J. Feltovich,et al. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , 2006 .
[68] Liv Langfeldt,et al. The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments , 2006 .
[69] Samir Elhedhli,et al. The Effectiveness of Simple Decision Heuristics: Forecasting Commercial Success for Early-Stage Ventures , 2006, Manag. Sci..
[70] Daniel A. Levinthal,et al. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .
[71] Benjamin F. Jones,et al. Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .
[72] Juan Miguel Campanario,et al. Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[73] Nigel W. Bond,et al. Peer review process: Assessments by applicant-nominated referees are biased, inflated, unreliable and invalid , 2007 .
[74] Fiona Murray,et al. Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science , 2007, Organ. Sci..
[75] Benjamin L. Hallen. The Causes and Consequences of the Initial Network Positions of New Organizations: From Whom Do Entrepreneurs Receive Investments? , 2008 .
[76] Ulf Sandström,et al. Persistent nepotism in peer-review , 2008, Scientometrics.
[77] John R. Anderson,et al. The acquisition of robust and flexible cognitive skills. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.
[78] L. Bornmann,et al. The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. , 2008, Angewandte Chemie.
[79] H. Marsh,et al. Improving the Peer-review Process for Grant Applications , 2022 .
[80] Michèle Lamont,et al. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment , 2009 .
[81] F. Gobet,et al. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , 2006 .
[82] M. Weitzman,et al. Recombinant Growth , 2009 .
[83] Heidi L. Williams,et al. Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome , 2013, Journal of Political Economy.
[84] D. Meyer,et al. Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Som Text Figs. S1 to S6 References Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups , 2022 .
[85] William M. Tierney,et al. Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? , 2010, PloS one.
[86] Gustavo Manso. Motivating Innovation , 2010 .
[87] T. Steen,et al. The double-edged sword , 2011 .
[88] Nicholas Graves,et al. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[89] Liv Langfeldt,et al. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment , 2011 .
[90] Kathlyn E. Fletcher,et al. The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal , 2011, PloS one.
[91] Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al. Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review , 2012, Scientometrics.
[92] Carole J. Lee. A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review , 2012 .
[93] Yu Xie,et al. Is American Science in Decline , 2012 .
[94] Paula E. Stephan. How Economics Shapes Science , 2012 .
[95] T. Kuhn,et al. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition , 2012 .
[96] Danielle Li. Expertise vs . Bias in Evaluation : Evidence from the NIH ∗ , 2013 .
[97] W. Myers,et al. Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013 .
[98] Fatima M. Albar,et al. Fast and frugal heuristics for new product screening – is managerial judgment ‘good enough?’ , 2013 .
[99] Keyvan Vakili,et al. The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation , 2013 .
[100] Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al. Bias in peer review , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[101] Linus Dahlander,et al. Distant Search, Narrow Attention: How Crowding Alters Organizations’ Filtering of Suggestions in Crowdsourcing , 2014 .
[102] K. Boudreau,et al. 'Open' Disclosure of Innovations, Incentives and Follow-on Reuse: Theory on Processes of Cumulative Innovation and a Field Experiment in Computational Biology , 2015 .
[103] Sarah Kaplan,et al. The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation: The Double-Edged Sword of Recombination , 2015 .
[104] Mooweon Rhee,et al. Exploration and Exploitation , 2016 .
[105] Ethan Mollick,et al. Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts , 2015, Manag. Sci..
[106] Danielle Li. Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH , 2017 .