Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science

References

• Agrawal A, Catalini C, Goldfarb A (2014) Crowdfunding science. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
• Anand P (1993) Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Astebro T, Elhedhli S (2006) The effectiveness of simple decision heuristics: Forecasting commercial success for early-stage ventures. Management Sci. 52(3):395–409.Link, Google Scholar
• Bedard J (1989) Expertise in auditing: Myth or reality? Accounting, Organ. Soc. 14(1):113–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J (1985) Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blackburn JL, Hakel MD (2006) An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psych. Sci. 17(5):378–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornmann L, Daniel H-D (2008) The effectiveness of the peer review process: Inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie Internat. Ed. 47(38):7173–7178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau K, Lakhani K (2015) “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Res. Policy 44(1):4–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brehmer B (1980) In one word: Not from experience. Acta Psych. 45(1):223–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Johnson EJ (1991) The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? Ericsson KA, Smith J, eds. Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 195–217.Google Scholar
• Campanario JM, Acedo E (2007) Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 58(5):734–743.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chase WG, Simon HA (1973) Perception in chess. Cognitive Psych. 4(1):55–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chi MTH (2006) Two approaches to the study of experts characteristics. Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Cambridge University Press, New York), 21–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chubin DE, Hackett EJ (1990) Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy (State University of New York Press, Stony Brook).Google Scholar
• Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214(4523):881–886.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coletti MH, Bleich HL (2001) Medical subject headings used to search the biomedical literature. J. Amer. Medical Informatics Assoc. 8(4):317–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cowan R, David PA, Foray D (2000) The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Indust. Corporate Change 9(2):211–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23(5):487–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res. Policy 11(3):147–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ericsson KA, Smith J, eds. (1991) Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967) Learning and Skilled Performance in Human Performance (Brock-Cole, Belmont, CA).Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Tversky A (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quart. J. Econom. 110(3):585–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furman J, Stern S (2011) Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: The impact of institutions on cumulative research. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(5):1933–1963.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, London).Google Scholar
• Graves N, Barnett AG, Clarke P (2011) Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. British Medical J. 343:d4797.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hallen BL (2008) The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations: From whom do entrepreneurs receive investments? Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(4):685–718.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holland JH, Holyoak KJ, Nisbett RE, Thagard PR (1986) Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning and Discovery (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL (2011) The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N (2003) A multilevel cross-classified modeling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 166(3):279–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ (1988) Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. Chi MTH, Glaser R, Farr MJ, eds. The Nature of Expertise (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 209–228.Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Payne JW (1985) Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Sci. 31(4):395–414.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Russo JE (1984) Product familiarity and learning new information. J. Consumer Res. 11(1):542–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson PE, Hassebrock F, Duran AS, Moller JH (1982) Multimethod study of clinical judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 30(2):201–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones BF (2009) The burden of knowledge and the “death of the Renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? Rev. Econom. Stud. 76(1):283–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Vakili K (2015) The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(10):1437–1457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM (2010) Editorial peer reviewers? Recommendations at a general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS ONE 5(4):e10072.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhn TS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Lamont M (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langfeldt L (2006) The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Res. Evaluation 15(1):31–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CJ (2012) A Kuhnian critique of psychometric research on peer review. Philos. Sci. 79(5):859–870.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2013) Bias in peer review. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 64(1):2–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li D (2015) Expertise vs. bias in evaluation: Evidence from the NIH. HBS Working Paper 16-053, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Manso G (2011) Motivating innovation. J. Finance 66(5):1823–1860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW (2008) Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Amer. Psychologist 63(3):160–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McNutt R, Evans A, Fletcher R, Fletcher S (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 263(10):1371–1376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810):56–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mollick E, Nanda R (2016) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Sci. 62(6):1533–1553.Link, Google Scholar
• Murray F, O’Mahony S (2007) Exploring the foundations of cumulative innovation: Implications for organization science. Organ. Sci. 18(6):1006–1021.Link, Google Scholar
• Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human Problem Solving (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2014) Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organization’s filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Acad. Management J. 58(3):856–880.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer P (1990) Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. 98(5, Part 2):S71–S102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothwell PM, Martyn CN (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience—Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123(9):1964–1969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sahal D (1985) Technological guideposts and innovation avenues. Res. Policy 14(2):61–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandström U, Hallsten M (2008) Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics 74(2):175–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephan PE (1996) The economics of science. J. Econom. Literature 34(3):1199–1235.Google Scholar
• Stephan PE (2012) How Economics Shapes Science (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sternberg RJ (1996) Costs of expertise. Ericsson KA, ed. The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 347–354.Google Scholar
• Stevens GA, Burley J (1997) 3,000 raw ideas = 1 commercial success! Res. Tech. Management 40(3):16–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sugimoto CR, Cronin B (2013) Citation gamesmanship: Testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review. Scientometrics 95(3):851–862.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Travis GDL, Collins HM (1991) New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Sci., Tech., Human Values 16(3):322–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback J, Abernathy W (1975) A dynamic model of product and process innovation. Omega 3(6):639–656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers? Recommendations: A randomized trial. British Medical J. 318(7175):23–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML (1998) Recombinant growth. Quart. J. Econom. 113(2):331–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams H (2013) Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome. J. Political Econom. 121(1):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xie Y, Killewald AA (2012) Is American science in decline? (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar