October 28, 2013

MOOI: Best practice in open innovation

There's a webinar this Wednesday on improving best practices in OI in companies. The invitation came in an email from my friend and co-author Wim Vanhaverbeke. It’s hard to imagine that any reader of this blog is not on Wim’s email list, but for the sake of Google® searches, I thought it was important to summarize and link to the post.

The October 30 webinar will talk about Project MOOI, which is described as
MOOI – a beautifully ambitious OI best-practice project
In the last decade Open Innovation (OI) has become part of the daily operations of many companies in different sectors of industry. Despite the soaring popularity of OI practices, only few companies succeed in optimally preparing their internal organization for their OI endeavors and thus make effective use of the many opportunities OI has to offer.

Our experience is that finding best practices and good advice is a daunting exercise. We therefore launch a major community based initiative to gather, structure, and evaluate publicly available information on the best OI practices in companies.
The webinar will talk about how managers and other innovation professionals will benefit by joining the community and pooling their best practices.

The presentation will be given by Henry Chesbrough (UC Berkeley & ESADE), Wim Vanhaverbeke (Hasselt, ESADE & NUS), and Nadine Roijakkers (Hasselt). It starts at 4pm CET, 3pm UK, 11am EDT and 8am PDT, and will last 50 minutes. For more information, see the notice on InnovationManagement.se.

October 6, 2013

More fraud: coming soon to an online journal near you

The Guardian published a story of a phony article submitted to 304 open access journals in less than a year:
The paper, which described a simple test of whether cancer cells grow more slowly in a test tube when treated with increasing concentrations of a molecule, had "fatal flaws" and used fabricated authors and universities with African affiliated names, [John] Bohannon revealed in Science magazine.

He wrote: "Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless."
Bohannon, who wrote the paper, submitted around 10 articles per week to open access journals that use the 'gold' open access route, which requires the author to pay a fee if the paper is published.

The "wonder drug paper" as he calls it, was accepted by 157 of the journals and rejected by 98. Of the 255 versions that went through the entire editing process to either acceptance or rejection, 60% did not undergo peer review. Of the 106 journals that did conduct peer review, 70% accepted the paper.
The Guardian story is based on a paper by John Bohannon, a correspondent for Science.

Of course, Science is to open access journals what the (late great) Encyclopedia Britannica is to Wikipedia: it’s not exactly a neutral party in the conflict between open access and proprietary publication business models. (And since Science published one of the 50+ fraudulent articles by social psychologist Diederik Stapel, it can hardly be considered above reproach on such matters.)

Still, the ease by which Bohannon generated 150+ future retractions suggests that we academics will be accessing even more low quality information via Google Scholar — even without the massive scale of a Gottinger or his recent successors.