July 1, 2016

Standardization as an open innovation activity

An important but understudied form of open innovation is the network form (network as defined by Powell 1990). As we noted back in West et al (2006), OI needs more research on this area: at that point, OI had emphasized studying dyadic (bilateral) cooperation between firms, and a decade later that’s still true.

This week I am attending the 21st annual meeting of the European Academy for Standardisation (EURAS), being held at the University of Montpellier. The theme for EURAS 2016 is ‘Co-opetition and Open Innovation’, and so I was invited to deliver the keynote address. The slides for my talk (entitled “How standards research can inform open innovation”) are online at SlideShare.

The three-day conference (June 28-July 1) is taking place at the Université de Montpellier, which was established in 1289 by Pope Nicolas IV. Along the banks of Le Lez, we are only 5km from the Meditterane, and the small size (about 50 attendees) and mild summer climate have made for an enjoyable conference.

Networks in Open Innovation

Between our first book in 2006 (Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm) and the second in 2014 (New Frontiers in Open Innovation) my own personal role in the OI ecosystem became painfully obvious. Before the 2006 book, I had done research on standards wars, standardization, platforms, ecosystems and communities, and this continued again between the two books.

In the 2006 book, co-editor Wim Vanhaverbeke introduced the importance of networks in open innovation with two chapters (10, 13) as well as editing several other chapters on the role of networks. However, one notable omission in the book was a failure to mention communities, which Karim Lakhani and I addressed in 2008 with a paper about the overlap in a special issue based on his talk (and mine) at the 2007 EURAM conference.

For the 2014 book, I sought to bring together the prior research on the various network forms and tie them to open innovation. In Chapter 4 (West, 2014a), I listed these network forms:
  • Networks of alliances, which was the subject of my later introduction to the book on OI & strategic alliances (West, 2014b)
  • Communities: in addition to my 2008 paper with Karim, this is the subject of his 2011 paper with Siobhan O’Mahony (O'Mahony & Lakhani 2011) and my chapter with Jonathan Sims (West & Sims, forthcoming)
  • Consortia: although under-studied, this is an important topic of open innovation research, with limited prior OI research (notably Müller-Seitz & Sydow, 2012) and my paper in the EURAS proceedings.
  • Ecosystems of complementary product producers, encouraged by modularity (Baldwin, 2012); firms have an interest in incentivizing ecosystem participation by sharing value control with participants
  • Platforms: although founded by Bresnahan & Greenstein, this research area has almost single-handled been revived and grown by Annabelle Gawer (2009, 2010, 2014; Gawer & Cusumano, 2002, 2014)
Note that some two-sided markets (such as found in third-party software ecosystems) would fit into these categories, but other forms of two-sided markets (such as payment systems) usually would not; these networks are about conducting transactions but don't fit the OI requirement of providing innovations (or antecedents or commercialization of innovations) (West & Bogers, 2014).

Failed OI Network Strategies

Often the research in managing innovation networks (platforms etc.) has focused on the success cases; this is similar to the problem of open innovation more broadly, where we have lots of studies of success but (as Chesbrough has argued over years) we have few examples of failures (West & Bogers, 2014). Two of my own papers touch on this topic.

From 2007-2013, I worked to study the case of Symbian, the British software company that coined the term "smartphone” and had (thanks to Nokia’s smartphone sales) the leading global market share during the first decade of the smartphone OS wars. As predicted by Teece (1986), Symbian lacked the ability to commercialize its own innovations directly but instead partnered with leading cellphone makers to bring its technology to market. (Its founding was due in part to a desire by leading hardware makers to avoid having Microsoft take over the market).

Symbian successfully built one of the most complex ecosystems I have ever seen. Its multiple stakeholders corresponded to (at least) a four-sided market: handset makers, mobile operators, independent software vendors and end users. However, the most central relationship was between Symbian and the large handset makers (notably Nokia and Ericsson) that had founded the company as a spinoff of Psion.

In the end, Symbian OS was unable to cope with competition from iOS and Android; the company was bought and its technology eventually killed by Nokia. Two factors in its OI strategy contributed to its problems:
  • Symbian attracted and promoted a large ecosystem of third-party software vendors. However, due to difficulties customers faced in buying software, few of these complementors achieved financial success: Symbian had an ecosystem but it wasn’t healthy and underestimated its problems and the significance of those problems. Similarly, Symbian considered establishing a direct distribution channel (before the arrival of the iTunes Store and Google Play) but it was constrained by pressures from its stakeholders (West & Wood, 2013).
  • Rather than rely on traditional venture capital, the company was funded by the corporate VC from its wealthy handset customer-partners. While this approach provided funds to develop innovations that were nominally in both parties’ interests, in the end the interests were not fully aligned, preventing Symbian from taking steps that would have assured the continuing health (in fact survival) of its platform (West, 2014).
PC standards wars of the 1980s were prior to a complete understanding of network effects, ecosystems, and tipping — let along modern platform strategy. IMHO, the smartphone OS contests of the past 20 years provide a much better avenue for studying platform strategies than any other computing environment, with a wide variety of entrants and strategies. Today we have two winners — iOS and Android — but other entrants also included Symbian, Windows, Palm OS as well as various Linux efforts such as Maemo, Moblin, Tizen and Bada.

Smartphones (as with early laptop computers) also provided an example of joint innovation in the ecosystem among multiple parties. While the Windows desktops soon became a commodity — and thus innovation was driven by component makers supplying to all systems vendors — the adoption and market success of smartphones clearly demonstrate an interdependent combination of innovation in both hardware (handsets and components) and software (OS, apps, cloud services).

Conclusions

Alliance networks, communities, consortia, ecosystems and platforms provide important opportunities for researchers to apply, develop and extend principles of open innovation. At the same time, as Chesbrough (2006) noted, open innovation builds upon many prior streams of research regarding inter-organizational cooperation in innovation.

Cooperative standardization between firms through consortia and communities can provide an important antecedent or input to firm-specific open innovation strategies (West & Sims, forthcoming). In their standardization efforts, firms must trade off the joint value creation of the common standard against their private value capture from products and services that leverage that standard (Simcoe, 2006). Even firms that unilaterally define their own platform must balance the value capture within their ecosystem of complementors (West & Wood, 2103). Meanwhile, the adoption of basic standards (such as ASCII or ISO 9000) enable the division of labor for decentralized innovation within cooperative value networks. As such, understanding how firms do (and have previously) cooperate to create and capture value through standards bears directly on core issues of open innovation.

References

Baldwin, Carliss Y. 2012. “Organization Design for Business Ecosystems,” Journal of Organizational Design 1(1): 20-23.

Chesbrough, Henry. 2006. “Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation,” in Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West, eds., Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12.

Gawer, Annabelle, ed. 2009. Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gawer, Annabelle. 2010. “The organization of technological platforms.” Research in the Sociology of Organizations 29: 287-296.

Gawer, Annabelle. 2014. “Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework.Research Policy 43 (7): 1239-1249.

Gawer, Annabelle, and Michael A. Cusumano. 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gawer, Annabelle, and Michael A. Cusumano. 2014. “Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (3): 417-433.

Müller-Seitz, Gordon, and Jörg Sydow. 2012. “Open innovation at the interorganizational network level - Collaborative Practices in a Semiconductor Industry Consortium,” Open Innovation: New Insights and Evidence conference, Imperial College London, June 25.

O’Mahony, Siobhán and Karim R. Lakhani. 2011. “Organizations in the Shadow of Communities,Research in the Sociology of Organizations 33, 3-36.

Powell, Walter W. 1990. “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy.Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295-336.

Simcoe, Timothy S. 2006. “Open Standards and Intellectual Property Rights,” in Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West (eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.161-183.

Teece, David J. 1986. “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy,” Research Policy 15 (6), 285-305.

West, Joel. 2014a. “Challenges of Funding Open Innovation Platforms: Lessons from Symbian Ltd.,” in Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West, eds., New Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71-93.

West, Joel. 2014b. “Open Innovation: Learning from Alliance Research,” in Refik Culpan, editor, Open Innovation Through Strategic Alliances, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1-16.

West, Joel and Marcel Bogers. 2014. “Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation,Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 4 (July 2014): 814-831.

West, Joel and Karim R. Lakhani, 2008. “Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation,Industry & Innovation 15 (2), 223-231.

West, Joel & Jonathan Sims, forthcoming. “How Firms Leverage Crowds and Communities for Open Innovation,” in Allan Afuah, Christopher L. Tucci and Gianluigi Viscusi (eds), Creating and Capturing Value through Crowdsourcing.

West, Joel, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Henry Chesbrough. 2006. “Open Innovation: A Research Agenda,” in Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West, eds., Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 285-307.

June 21, 2016

Research Policy added to FT journal list

Today the Financial Times announced that it has updated its list of journals used for ranking global business schools. The newspaper counts the per capita faculty publications in these journals to calculate the research ranking of faculty, and this research score accounts for 10% of the Global MBA, Executive MBA and Online MBA rankings.

The previous list of 45 FT journals was published in 2012, and an earlier list of 40 journals appeared around 2003. Based on a vote this month by the deans of 140 business schools, nine journals were added to the FT list
  • Human Relations
  • Journal of Management
  • Journal of Management Information Systems
  • Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
  • Manufacturing and Service Operations Management
  • Research Policy
  • Review of Economic Studies
  • Review of Finance
  • Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
and four were dropped
  • Academy of Management Perspecties
  • California Management Review
  • Journal of the American Statistical Association
  • RAND Journal of Economics
The complete list of journals is listed below. In an email to the deans, the FT explained its decision:
The starting point of this review was to look at the journals that contribute the least to the research rank. Given that the list is limited by nature, it is important to “capture” as much of the research published by business school faculty as possible in leading journals, if not necessarily in the most selective ones. However, it was never meant to demote nor to promote any journals. The FT list of journals is not a ranking. …  It is likely that 50 will be the upper limit for this list. So future reviews will also look at potential journals to drop and their replacement.
As an associate editor of Research Policy, I can say that the editorial board is very proud of the recognition that comes from being added to this list. While subjectively many would consider RP on par with journals such as Journal of Business Venturing and Journal of Management Information Systems, by Google’s ranking of high-impact (h5 index) papers it ranks at the top of Entrepreneurship & Innovation journals.

It is unclear what impact any of these changes will have upon business school hiring and promotion. US business schools tend to use the Business Week rankings while the rest of the world uses the FT rankings. Unlike in Europe, few American business schools have an innovation or technology management department, which means that innovation scholars tend to be found in strategy, management, entrepreneurship or operations management departments.

Still, it seems like a good omen for innovation studies in Europe and the rest of the world, and should bring RP greater visibility in the U.S. I remember when I was up for tenure in 2005, the department tenure committee was questioning my 2003 RP publication (which until recently was my most cited journal article). “What is Research Policy?” one of the committee members asked another colleague (who could offer the answer). Hopefully there will be less of that going forward.

List of 50 Journals Used in FT MBA Rankings
  1. Academy of Management Journal 
  2. Academy of Management Review 
  3. Accounting Review 
  4. Accounting, Organisations and Society 
  5. Administrative Science Quarterly 
  6. American Economic Review 
  7. Contemporary Accounting Research 
  8. Econometrica 
  9. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 
  10. Harvard Business Review 
  11. Human Relations
  12. Human Resource Management 
  13. Information Systems Research 
  14. Journal of Accounting and Economics 
  15. Journal of Accounting Research 
  16. Journal of Applied Psychology 
  17. Journal of Business Ethics 
  18. Journal of Business Venturing 
  19. Journal of Consumer Psychology 
  20. Journal of Consumer Research 
  21. Journal of Finance 
  22. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 
  23. Journal of Financial Economics 
  24. Journal of International Business Studies 
  25. Journal of Management
  26. Journal of Management Information Systems
  27. Journal of Management Studies 
  28. Journal of Marketing 
  29. Journal of Marketing Research 
  30. Journal of Operations Management 
  31. Journal of Political Economy 
  32. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
  33. Management Science 
  34. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management
  35. Marketing Science 
  36. MIS Quarterly 
  37. Operations Research 
  38. Organization Science 
  39. Organization Studies 
  40. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 
  41. Production and Operations Management 
  42. Quarterly Journal of Economics 
  43. Research Policy
  44. Review of Accounting Studies 
  45. Review of Economic Studies
  46. Review of Finance
  47. Review of Financial Studies 
  48. Sloan Management Review 
  49. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
  50. Strategic Management Journal 
A merged version of the 2003, 2012 and 2016 lists can be found on Google Drive.






June 8, 2016

MB Sarkar, 1961-2016

Mitrabarun Sarkar, Lenfest Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Temple University, died Tuesday at age 54. He leaves behind a wife and two adult daughters.

I first met MB in Boston at the 1997 Academy of Management meeting, where we both participated in the doctoral consortium of the Technology and Innovation Management division. (Other participants that year included Ajay Agrawal, Erwin Danneels, Lee Fleming and Alan MacCormack). MB was then a Ph.D. student at Michigan State, where he graduated in 1999.

Upon graduation, he joined the University of Central Florida where he was an assistant and then associate professor. He joined Temple’s Fox School of Business in 2008, and became the H.F. “Gerry” Lenfest Professorship in Entrepreneurship and Innovation in 2014.

During the past 20 years, his publications included 5 in AMJ, 4 in SMJ, 2 JIBS, 2 Org Sci, as well as papers in JBV, JMR and Mgt Sci; his h-index is 24 (i.e., he has 24 papers with 24+ Google citations). In 2005, AMJ selected his paper as the best paper of 2014. He wrote about e-commerce, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and construction. At the time of his death, he was an associate editor of SEJ and on the editorial boards of AMJ, GSJ and SMJ.

However, at Temple he was known for his teaching, having won in 2013 the university's highest teaching honor. Within the business school, he won more than a dozen teaching awards and created its Global Immersion Program in Emerging Markets. 

Before entering grad school, he spent 6½ years as Founder/CEO of Infocom, an Indian media company. He has an MBA from IIM in Ahmedabad and a BA in Economics from St. Stephen's College, Delhi.

The Temple press release states that “He is survived by his wife, Tanu, and their daughters, Mohenna, who lives and works in Brooklyn, N.Y., and Aeshna, who attends Tulane University.”

MB Sarkar, 1961-2016: requiescat in pace.

Photo credit: MB Sarkar's public LinkedIn page.


March 21, 2016

2016 User and Open Innovation Conferences

The CFPs have been issued for #OUI2016 and #WOIC2016, the premier conferences for user innovation and and open innovation (respectively). The OUI rotation brings the conference back to the U.S., while WOIC is making its first ever European appearance.

Open and User Innovation Conference: HBS, Boston, August 1-3

This year the official title of Eric von Hippel’s conference is the “14th International Open and User Innovation Conference,” acknowledging the conference’s origins as a small workshop in Vienna back in 2003. It is (to my knowledge) the first time the word “International” has been used in the title.

The key dates:
There are two policies that are newly explicit. The conference is intended for “academics and scholars who are faculty, postdoctoral fellows or students currently enrolled in PhD programs,” which would appear to exclude industry, master’s or undergraduate students. Secondly, research that is “not yet completed or in the planning stages” should be presented as a poster rather than a paper presentation.

As before, the conference is being run using tracks:

Topics

Chair(s)

Communities: User Innovation and Open Source

Christopher Lettl, Vienna University of Economics & Business
Johann Fuller, Universität Innsbruck

Contests, Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation

Karim Lakhani, Harvard Business School
Frank Piller, RWTH Aachen University

Crowdfunding

Lars Bo Jeppesen, Copenhagen Business School
Pedro Oliveira, Católica-Lisbon School of Business & Economics

Firm's Interactions with User Innovation

Christina Raasch, TUM School of Management
Joachim Henkel, TUM School of Management

Law, Policy and IP

Katherine Strandburg, New York University School of Law
Andrew Torrance, University of Kansas, School of Law

Toolkits and Problem Solving

Nik Franke, Vienna University of Economics and Business
Georg von Krogh, ETH Zurich
Eric von Hippel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

User Innovation and Diffusion

Dietmar Harhoff, Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition
Jeroen de Jong, Utrecht University School of Economics

User Innovation and Psychology

Ruth Stock Homburg, Technische Universität Darmstadt

User Innovation in Healthcare

Pedro Oliveira, Católica-Lisbon School of Business & Economics
Stephen Flowers, Kent Business School, University of Kent
Eric von Hippel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sharing Economy and Platforms

Christoph Hienerth, Otto Beisheim School of Management

While in recent years there hasn’t been much open innovation (as commonly defined) in OUI, this year brings a marked improvement. The grouping with crowdsourcing is a logical one given that crowdsourcing is both a highly popular theme at OUI each year and a major part of the recent open innovation literature. Lakhani and Piller are prolific, influential and (with Lakhani’s recent tenure at HBS) senior scholars who are thought leaders in these overlapping research streams.

Still, those who want an open innovation audience may find Spain a better venue this year.

World Open Innovation Conference: ESADE, Barcelona, December 15-16

After its inauguration in Napa Valley and subsequent session in Silicon Valley, the WOIC leaves California (Henry Chesbrough’s home turf) for Europe — specifically the coastal capital of Catalonia (and Spain’s second largest city). As in previous years, we hope to continue the mix of industry and academic attendees, which was highly valued by the 2015 attendees.

Although it’s not yet up on the website, here are the relevant dates.
  • July 1, 2016: submission website opens
  • August 15, 2016: deadline for extended abstracts
  • September 15, 2016: notification of accepted abstracts
  • December 1, 2016: submission of full papers
The conference leadership include some new and familiar faces from the first two WOIC meetings:
  • Conference Chair: Henry Chesbrough (UC Berkeley & ESADE)                     
  • Conference Co-Chair: Wim Vanhaverbeke (Hasselt, ESADE & NUS)
  • Academic Program Chair: Marcel Bogers (U. Copenhagen)
  • Associate Program Chairs: Jonathan Sims (Babson) & Ann-Kristin Zobel (ETH Zürich)
  • Industry Program Chair: Solomon Darwin (UC Berkeley)
The conference will be combined with the annual Chesbrough-Vanhaverbeke OI Ph.D. short course, which will be held Dec. 13-14.

This will be the first year that I won’t be leading WOIC, after being co-chair (with Chesbrough, Piller and Chris Tucci) of the inaugural conference, and last year being program chair (with Chesbrough as the sole chair).

However, after managing submission process for two years — where we had more Europeans than Americans — I have long felt that the "W" in WOIC meant we need to sometimes meet in Europe. ESADE was the natural venue, given Chesbrough and Vanhaverbeke’s long ties there — and that Barcelona in December is a lot more temperate than many of the other possible venues.

I look forward to seeing friends and colleagues in Boston and Barcelona. (Because AOM was kind enough to bring its annual conference to me — I drive or take the train through Anaheim every day en route to work — I will also be there, but the chances of seeing friends among the horde of 10,000+ are slim at best).

December 10, 2015

Finding the limits of open innovation

In preparing for #AOM2016 and another session on open innovation, one of the potential participants raised the issue of the limits of open innovation. I am certain sympathetic: since 2006, I have noticed “open innovation” used as though it were a sacred incantation or magic pixie dust that somehow could turn lead into gold or gruel into caviar. And as has long been said, a theory of everything is a theory of nothing.

It seems to me that idea of “limits” has at least three possible meanings.

1. When Does OI Work?

OI started as a normative managerial theory in a book from HBS Press. So one limit on OI is on when it works and when it doesn’t work.

I have heard Henry Chesbrough say for many years that we need to know more about failure of OI in practice, including at the 1st and 2nd annual World Open Innovation Conference. The oldest example (I know of) for this call is his 2012 interview with a Swedish website, where he said:
The question of unintended side effects for open innovation is one area where we need a lot more work since academics are still publishing open innovation success cases for the most part.  Companies are trumpeting their successes; consulting firms are packaging open innovation services for interested clients – none of these groups so far have had much to say about open innovation failures.
As Marcel Bogers and I surmised in citing this lack of open discussion of managerial failure:
Finally, little is known about the failures of open innovation. Chesbrough speculates that this is because companies and consultants are trumpeting their successes and hiding their failures, thus making it difficult for researchers and managers to learn from those failures (Pop, 2012).
2. What Is and Isn’t OI?

Not everything that is called OI is actually OI. This is a challenge I have faced on the program committee for both WOIC conferences and three special issues (RP, ICC, and now CMR) on OI.

Perhaps Chesbrough’s first OI definition was published in 2006:
Open Innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively. Open Innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as they look to advance their technology (Chesbrough 2006: 1)
The latest Chesbrough definition of OI is
open innovation is a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with each organization’s business model. (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014: 27).
It allows for non-firm organizations to utilize OI, although (unfortunately) it implies that the external partner must be an organization — ruling out out organizations sourcing innovations from individuals (e.g. crowdsourcing).

Still, from this, I would suggest at least two limits on the definition of open innovation.
  • Open. Knowledge flows across firm boundaries are needed for it to be “open”. By this measure internal contests may use OI (or crowdsourcing) principles, but do not involve firms being open (in the sense of having permeable firm boundaries).
  • Innovation. I sometimes see “open innovation” papers with no evidence of an actual innovation (at least as defined by Chris Freeman or the pioneers of innovation studies.) Getting a crowd to provide free user generated content on your website may be (or once have been) an innovative business model, but it’s not open innovation.
Conversely, just because something is not called open innovation doesn’t mean it isn’t: practices similar to open innovation has been around for decades (if not centuries). For example, much of the research on how firms use open source software in the period 2000-2010 is about open innovation, even though it isn’t called that. Similarly (as Frank Piller and I noted in our 2014 book chapter), some economic activity is both user innovation and open innovation, but neither is a proper subset of the other.

3. What are the Limits to OI’s Theoretical Predictions?

There is a minor debate whether OI is a theory, paradigm, framework, phenomenon, or something else. (A similar and much longer argument exists over the “resource-based view” vs. “resource-based theory”). That said, empirical (including qualitative) OI academic research over the past 10+ years has contributed to theory by making causal claims about what happens and what doesn’t.

Every theory in any field has boundary conditions — conditions when the theory applies and when it does not. These are the limits of the theoretical predictions that can be made by a theory (or paradigm etc.)

Sometimes these limits demark a frontier: I would argue that crossing firm (organization) boundaries is an essential prerequisite. At the same time, that frontier can change:
  • Chesbrough’s 2003 HBS book emphasized economic transactions between organizations, but West & Gallagher (2006) identified the importance of individuals as a source of innovation (and that they might have non-economic motives).
  • The HBS book assumed that OI only applied to profit-making firms, but Chesbrough and Di Minin (2014) have shown how the principles of OI have been applied in government and not-for-profit settings.
Finally, as in any theory, researchers seek to define the moderators of any causal effects. Yes, we believe the direct effects are true, but under what conditions? Tens of thousands of papers have been published by finding the mediators and moderators of well-accepted causal theories, and such papers have earned tenure for hundreds (if not thousands) of researchers.