arxiv: 2604.19507 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.DL · cs.CY

Recognition: unknown

Market Dynamics, Governance and Open Research Metadata in the AI Era

Daniel W. Hook

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL cs.CY

keywords open research metadatainnovation annulusAI in researchscholarly infrastructuremarket dynamicstechnological frictiondata qualitygovernance

0 comments

The pith

The innovation annulus between free structured metadata and commercial refinements is a permanent feature that AI alters but governance must calibrate.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Debates framing scholarly infrastructure as a contest between openness and enclosure overlook the real tension. Producing and refining structured metadata carries ongoing costs from technological friction, while different communities demand varying quality, focus and granularity. The paper defines the innovation annulus as the zone between freely available data and advanced commercial products, a functional feature whose width reflects inefficiency set by friction and demand, analogous to the efficient market hypothesis. Artificial intelligence lowers basic structuring costs, raises the bar for valuable refinements, and adds risks from unprovenanced AI metadata, as seen in examples like CRediT statements and AI disclosures. Governance should adjust the annulus width to remain efficient for research while sustaining innovation, guided by a welfare framework analogous to optimal patent duration that generates testable predictions.

Core claim

We introduce the innovation annulus: the zone between freely available structured data and the advancing frontier of commercially refined knowledge products. This zone is a permanent, functional feature of the ecosystem -- not a pathology to eliminate. By analogy with the efficient market hypothesis, its width measures production inefficiency, set by the interplay of friction and demand. Artificial intelligence reshapes the annulus, lowering barriers to basic structuring, raising the threshold at which refinement adds value, and introducing systemic risks through unprovenanced AI-derived metadata. CRediT contributions, funding acknowledgements and AI disclosure statements illustrate the annn

What carries the argument

The innovation annulus, the zone between freely available structured data and the advancing frontier of commercially refined knowledge products, whose width is set by the interplay of technological friction and differentiated community demands.

If this is right

AI lowers barriers to basic metadata structuring but raises the threshold at which further refinement adds value.
Unprovenanced AI-derived metadata creates systemic risks that require boundary governance.
CRediT contributions, funding acknowledgements and AI disclosure statements demonstrate the lifecycle of the annulus.
A welfare framework analogous to optimal patent life characterises the trade-offs and yields testable predictions.
The Barcelona Declaration offers a promising forum for calibrating the boundaries of the annulus.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The annulus concept could extend to other knowledge ecosystems such as open source software repositories where similar cost and demand frictions exist.
Empirical measurement of metadata refinement costs before and after AI adoption would provide the missing grounding for the welfare framework predictions.
Improved provenance tracking for AI metadata might eventually narrow the annulus without eliminating it.
Policy experiments could test optimal annulus widths by varying disclosure requirements for AI use in research data.

Load-bearing premise

The innovation annulus is a permanent functional feature whose width is set by friction and demand in a manner directly analogous to the efficient market hypothesis, allowing a formal welfare framework analogous to Nordhaus optimal patent life to yield testable predictions without additional empirical grounding.

What would settle it

Empirical observation that AI tools produce fully provenanced, high-granularity structured metadata at negligible cost across all communities, eliminating any demand for further commercial refinement, would reduce the annulus width to zero and falsify the permanence claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19507 by Daniel W. Hook.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The debate about scholarly knowledge infrastructure has long been framed as a contest between openness and commercial enclosure. This framing distorts both policy and practice. The real tension lies between the persistent cost of producing and refining structured metadata under deep technological friction, and the differentiated demands distinct communities place on data quality, focus and granularity. We introduce the innovation annulus: the zone between freely available structured data and the advancing frontier of commercially refined knowledge products. This zone is a permanent, functional feature of the ecosystem -- not a pathology to eliminate. By analogy with the efficient market hypothesis, its width measures production inefficiency, set by the interplay of friction and demand. Artificial intelligence reshapes the annulus, lowering barriers to basic structuring, raising the threshold at which refinement adds value, and introducing systemic risks through unprovenanced AI-derived metadata. CRediT contributions, funding acknowledgements and AI disclosure statements illustrate the annulus lifecycle. Governance should calibrate the annulus, not abolish it: thin enough to serve research efficiently, wide enough to sustain innovation. A formal welfare framework, analogous to the Nordhaus optimal patent life, characterises the trade-offs and yields testable predictions. The Barcelona Declaration offers a promising forum for boundary governance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a useful new framing around the 'innovation annulus' for metadata costs and AI effects, but its promised formal welfare model is missing.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that Hook shifts the open research debate from enclosure versus access to the persistent costs of metadata refinement and how AI alters the boundary between basic open data and higher-value products. The innovation annulus is the new organizing idea here, described as a permanent zone whose width reflects production friction and community demand differences, with AI lowering entry barriers while raising provenance risks and the value threshold for refinement. Examples like CRediT, funding statements, and AI disclosures are used to trace the lifecycle inside that zone. This reframing is the clearest contribution and avoids the usual binary that dominates policy talk. It lands because metadata quality really does carry ongoing costs that basic openness does not erase, and different fields do need different granularity levels. The governance suggestion to calibrate rather than eliminate the annulus follows directly from that observation. The soft spot is the welfare framework. The abstract states that a Nordhaus-style model yields testable predictions about optimal annulus width under AI cost shifts, yet the text supplies no objective function, no supply or demand specification for metadata refinement, no comparative statics, and no parameter mapping to observed curation costs. The recommendation therefore stays intuitive rather than falsifiable. This is for readers who work on research infrastructure policy, funding standards, or AI governance in scholarly systems. Someone already following declarations like Barcelona or metadata initiatives will find the conceptual shift helpful even if they have to supply the missing modeling themselves. It deserves peer review. The core tension about friction and differentiated demand is grounded in observable practice, and the new concept is coherent enough to warrant referee input on making the welfare claims concrete or adding empirical anchors.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reframes the scholarly metadata debate away from open vs. commercial enclosure toward the persistent costs of producing and refining structured metadata under technological friction versus differentiated community demands for quality and granularity. It introduces the 'innovation annulus' as a permanent functional zone between freely available data and commercially refined products, whose width by analogy to the efficient market hypothesis measures production inefficiency arising from friction and demand. The authors argue that AI lowers barriers to basic structuring while raising the value threshold for refinement and introducing provenance risks, illustrate the annulus lifecycle with CRediT, funding acknowledgements and AI disclosures, and assert that governance should calibrate rather than eliminate the annulus. A formal welfare framework modeled on Nordhaus optimal patent life is said to characterize the trade-offs and generate testable predictions, with the Barcelona Declaration proposed as a governance forum.

Significance. If the asserted welfare framework were derived with explicit objective functions, supply/demand specifications for metadata refinement, and comparative statics calibrated to observed curation costs, the work could provide a structured policy lens for balancing research efficiency against innovation incentives in AI-augmented metadata ecosystems. The conceptual reframing of the annulus as a non-pathological feature offers a potentially useful alternative to binary open-access narratives, though its current significance is limited by the absence of the promised formalization and empirical grounding.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and welfare framework section] Abstract and the section introducing the formal welfare framework: the claim that this framework 'characterises the trade-offs and yields testable predictions' analogous to Nordhaus optimal patent life is not supported by any derivation, objective function, supply/demand model for metadata refinement, comparative statics, or parameter mapping to curation costs. This is load-bearing for the central policy recommendation that governance should calibrate annulus width, as the recommendation cannot be evaluated or falsified without the model.
[Innovation annulus definition section] Section defining the innovation annulus: the assertion that annulus width 'measures production inefficiency, set by the interplay of friction and demand' by direct analogy to the efficient market hypothesis is stated without reducing the core quantities to observable parameters or demonstrating the mapping; the analogy therefore remains unoperationalized and does not yet support quantitative governance prescriptions.

minor comments (2)

[Examples of annulus lifecycle] The examples of CRediT contributions, funding acknowledgements and AI disclosure statements are invoked to illustrate the annulus lifecycle but receive only brief mention; expanding these into a dedicated subsection with concrete before/after metadata quality metrics would strengthen the empirical grounding of the conceptual claim.
[Terminology and notation] Notation for the annulus (width, friction, demand) is introduced informally; providing an explicit schematic or simple functional form even at a conceptual level would improve clarity for readers expecting a welfare model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which correctly identify gaps in the formalization of our proposed framework. These points are well taken and will be addressed through targeted revisions to strengthen the manuscript's analytical rigor and policy relevance.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and the section introducing the formal welfare framework: the claim that this framework 'characterises the trade-offs and yields testable predictions' analogous to Nordhaus optimal patent life is not supported by any derivation, objective function, supply/demand model for metadata refinement, comparative statics, or parameter mapping to curation costs. This is load-bearing for the central policy recommendation that governance should calibrate annulus width, as the recommendation cannot be evaluated or falsified without the model.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript presents the welfare framework primarily at a conceptual level and does not include the explicit derivation, objective function, supply/demand specifications, comparative statics, or empirical parameter mapping. This limits the falsifiability of the governance recommendations. In the revised version, we will expand the relevant section to include a formal model. We will specify a social welfare objective function that trades off metadata refinement benefits against production costs and innovation incentives, define supply and demand for refinement activities as functions of technological friction and community demand heterogeneity, derive the optimal annulus width analogously to Nordhaus (1969), map parameters to observable curation costs (e.g., from CRediT and funding metadata workflows), and provide comparative statics showing AI-induced shifts along with testable predictions for governance interventions. revision: yes
Referee: Section defining the innovation annulus: the assertion that annulus width 'measures production inefficiency, set by the interplay of friction and demand' by direct analogy to the efficient market hypothesis is stated without reducing the core quantities to observable parameters or demonstrating the mapping; the analogy therefore remains unoperationalized and does not yet support quantitative governance prescriptions.

Authors: We concur that the analogy to the efficient market hypothesis remains illustrative rather than operationalized in the present text. In the revision, we will explicitly reduce annulus width to observable parameters, defining it as the measurable differential (in time, cost, or quality) between raw structured data release and commercially refined products. Friction will be mapped to quantifiable factors such as data integration effort and access latency, while demand will be linked to field-specific granularity requirements evidenced by usage logs and citation patterns. This operationalization will enable derivation of quantitative governance thresholds and prescriptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rely on external analogies without internal reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper defines the innovation annulus by explicit analogy to the efficient market hypothesis and asserts the existence of a Nordhaus-style welfare framework that 'characterises the trade-offs and yields testable predictions,' but supplies no equations, objective functions, parameter fittings, or derivations within the text. No step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a fitted input or self-referential definition by construction. The central policy recommendation rests on unelaborated external economic analogies rather than any self-contained loop, self-citation chain, or renaming of known results. This is the normal case of a conceptual paper whose load-bearing moves are not internally circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on domain assumptions about persistent metadata costs and community demand variation, plus the newly introduced annulus concept without independent empirical anchors.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The cost of producing and refining structured metadata remains persistently high due to deep technological friction.
Presented as the foundational real tension driving the annulus.
domain assumption Differentiated community demands on data quality, focus and granularity create ongoing value for refinement beyond basic structuring.
Used to define the width of the annulus.

invented entities (1)

innovation annulus no independent evidence
purpose: To model the zone between free structured data and commercially refined knowledge products as a permanent functional feature.
Newly coined term whose width is said to measure production inefficiency.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5502 in / 1351 out tokens · 57304 ms · 2026-05-10T00:59:05.789878+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Structured peer review metadata might currently fall into this category— some data exists, but neither demand nor produc- tion investment is deep

A segment that isthin and close to the centrerep- resents a data type that is low-cost to produce, for which adequate systems are in place, and where lit- tle innovation is required. Structured peer review metadata might currently fall into this category— some data exists, but neither demand nor produc- tion investment is deep
[2]

Basic bibliographic metadata with DOIs is approaching this state

A segment that isthin and far from the centre represents the success case: mature systems, good standards, and open provision that has caught up with the frontier. Basic bibliographic metadata with DOIs is approaching this state. The annulus has been compressed by standards adoption and collective disclosure through Crossref. 6 FIG. 2.Sectoral Dimensions ...
[3]

A segment that isthick and close to the centrerep- resents either gatekeeping (significant structuring hasoccurredbutlittleisopenlyavailable)oranem- bryonic field where the data are expensive and diffi- cult to mine. The legacy Web of Science model ex- emplified a gatekeeping pattern: the inner arc was veryclosetothecentre(almostnothingopen)while the oute...
[4]

unless a researcher is able to tap into a network of cognoscenti, they would not know about the data, or not know how to use it

A segment that isthick and far from the centre indicates a data type with extensive development at the frontier and a substantial commercial zone, but also a meaningful open core. Domain-specific enrichment—pharmaceutical patent-to-publication linkage, translational alignment data, institutional analytics—sits here. The thickness reflects the gen- uine co...

2024
[5]

Suber,Open Access(MIT Press, 2012)

P. Suber,Open Access(MIT Press, 2012)

2012
[6]

Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information, Barcelona declaration on open research information (2024)

2024
[7]

S. Y.-S. Khoo, Article processing charge hyperinflation and price insensitivity: An open access sequel to the se- rials crisis, LIBER Quarterly29, 1 (2019)

2019
[8]

Butler, L

L.-A. Butler, L. Matthias, M.-A. Simard, P. Mongeon, and S. Haustein, The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges, Quantitative Science Studies4, 778 (2023)

2023
[9]

Debat and D

H. Debat and D. Babini, Plan S in Latin America: A pre- cautionary note, Scholarly and Research Communication 11, 10.22230/src.2020v11n1a347 (2020)

work page doi:10.22230/src.2020v11n1a347 2020
[10]

D. W. Hook, Barcelona: A beautiful horizon, Digital Sci- ence Blog (2024)

2024
[11]

Porter, No shortcuts to research information citizen- ship, Digital Science Blog (2026)

S. Porter, No shortcuts to research information citizen- ship, Digital Science Blog (2026)

2026
[12]

E. F. Fama, Efficient capital markets: A review of the- ory and empirical work, The Journal of Finance25, 383 (1970)

1970
[13]

D. W. Hook, S. J. Porter, and C. Herzog, Dimensions: Building context for search and evaluation, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics3, 23 (2018)

2018
[14]

Teixeira da Silva and S

J. Teixeira da Silva and S. Nazarovets, The role of publons in the context of open peer review, Publishing Research Quarterly , 760 (2022)

2022
[15]

Vincent, Rethinking the research seminar for a post- COVID world with cassyni, LSE Impact Blog (2021)

P. Vincent, Rethinking the research seminar for a post- COVID world with cassyni, LSE Impact Blog (2021)

2021
[16]

Gillett, Relaunching the academic seminar, Reseach Information (2021)

T. Gillett, Relaunching the academic seminar, Reseach Information (2021)

2021
[17]

S. J. Porter and D. W. Hook, Connecting scientometrics: Dimensions as a route to broadening context for analyses, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics7, 835139 (2022)

2022
[18]

C. L. Borgman,Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Schol- arship in the Networked World(MIT Press, 2015)

2015
[19]

P. N. Edwards, S. J. Jackson, M. K. Chalmers, G. C. Bowker, C. L. Borgman, D. Ribes, M. Burton, and S. Calvert,Knowledge Infrastructures: Intellectual Frameworks and Research Challenges, Tech. Rep. (Deep Blue, University of Michigan, 2013)

2013
[20]

Wiener,The Human Use of Human Beings: Cyber- netics and Society, 2nd ed

N. Wiener,The Human Use of Human Beings: Cyber- netics and Society, 2nd ed. (Doubleday Anchor, Garden City, NY, 1954)

1954
[21]

C. D. Peeler, From the providence of kings to copyrighted things (and French moral rights), Indiana International and Comparative Law Review9, 423 (1999)

1999
[22]

B. Z. Khan, An economic history of copyright in Europe and the United States, inEH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by R. Whaples (Economic History Association, 2008)

2008
[23]

Larivière, S

V. Larivière, S. Haustein, and P. Mongeon, The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era, PLoS ONE10, e0127502 (2015)

2015
[24]

Mongeon and A

P. Mongeon and A. Paul-Hus, The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis, Sci- entometrics106, 213 (2016)

2016
[25]

OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts

J. Priem, H. Piwowar, and R. Orr, OpenAlex: A fully- open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, insti- tutions, and concepts, arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833 (2022)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[26]

Dasgupta and P

P. Dasgupta and P. A. David, Toward a new economics of science, Research Policy23, 487 (1994)

1994
[27]

A. B. Jaffe, Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value, American Economic Review76, 984 (1986)

1986
[28]

M. D. Wilkinson, M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg,et al., The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data manage- ment and stewardship, Scientific Data3, 160018 (2016)

2016
[29]

D. E. Stokes,Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation(Brookings Institution Press, 1997)

1997
[30]

Adams, The fourth age of research, Nature497, 557 (2013)

J. Adams, The fourth age of research, Nature497, 557 (2013)

2013
[31]

Adams and M

J. Adams and M. Szomszor, National research impact is driven by global collaboration, not rising performance, Scientometrics129, 2883 (2024)

2024
[32]

Szomszor, J

M. Szomszor, J. Adams, R. Fry, C. Gebert, D. A. Pendle- bury, R.W.K.Potter,andG.Rogers,Interpretingbiblio- metric data, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, 628703 (2020)

2020
[33]

S. C. Bradford, Sources of information on specific sub- jects, Engineering137, 85 (1934)

1934
[34]

Garfield, Bradford’s law and related statistical pat- terns, Current Contents , 5 (1980), reprinted inEssays 18 of an Information Scientist, vol

E. Garfield, Bradford’s law and related statistical pat- terns, Current Contents , 5 (1980), reprinted inEssays 18 of an Information Scientist, vol. 4, pp. 476–483

1980
[35]

Mills, One index, two publishers and the global re- search economy, Oxford Review of Education , 1 (2024)

D. Mills, One index, two publishers and the global re- search economy, Oxford Review of Education , 1 (2024)

2024
[36]

Wouters,The Citation Culture, Ph.D

P. Wouters,The Citation Culture, Ph.D. thesis, Univer- sity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (1999)

1999
[37]

Herzog, D

C. Herzog, D. Hook, and S. Konkiel, Dimensions: Bring- ing down barriers between scientometricians and data, Quantitative Science Studies1, 387 (2020)

2020
[38]

D. W. Hook and S. J. Porter, Scaling scientometrics: Di- mensions on Google BigQuery as an infrastructure for large-scale analysis, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics6, 656233 (2021)

2021
[39]

Czépán and A

G. Czépán and A. Dima, Representation of the Global South in bibliometric databases: A systematic review, Scientometrics129, 2109 (2024)

2024
[40]

J. I. Lane,Democratizing Our Data: A Manifesto(MIT Press, 2020)

2020
[41]

J. I. Lane and N. Potok, Democratizing data: Our vi- sion, Harvard Data Science ReviewSpecial Issue 4, 10.1162/99608f92.03719804 (2024)

work page doi:10.1162/99608f92.03719804 2024
[42]

Adams, K

J. Adams, K. Gurney, D. W. Hook, and L. Leydesdorff, International collaboration clusters in Africa, Sciento- metrics98, 547 (2014)

2014
[43]

Pinfield,Achieving Global Open Access: The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness(Rout- ledge, London, 2024)

S. Pinfield,Achieving Global Open Access: The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness(Rout- ledge, London, 2024)

2024
[44]

W. D. Nordhaus,Invention, Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change(MIT Press, 1969)

1969
[45]

Klemperer, How broad should the scope of patent pro- tection be?, RAND Journal of Economics21, 113 (1990)

P. Klemperer, How broad should the scope of patent pro- tection be?, RAND Journal of Economics21, 113 (1990)

1990
[46]

N. T. Gallini, Patent policy and costly imitation, RAND Journal of Economics23, 52 (1992)

1992
[47]

Scotchmer,Innovation and Incentives(MIT Press, 2004)

S. Scotchmer,Innovation and Incentives(MIT Press, 2004)

2004
[48]

J. E. Stiglitz,Economics of the Public Sector, 3rd ed. (W. W. Norton, 2000)

2000
[49]

Hendricks, Crossref and responsible AI data use, Crossref Blog (2023)

G. Hendricks, Crossref and responsible AI data use, Crossref Blog (2023)

2023
[50]

A. B. Atkinson and J. E. Stiglitz,Lectures on Public Eco- nomics(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)

1980
[51]

Mazzucato,The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs

M. Mazzucato,The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths(Anthem Press, 2013)

2013
[52]

A. B. Jaffe and J. Lerner,Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innova- tion and Progress, and What to Do About It(Princeton University Press, 2004)

2004
[53]

Arrow, Economic welfare and the allocation of re- sourcesforinvention,TheRateandDirectionofInventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors , 609 (1962)

K. Arrow, Economic welfare and the allocation of re- sourcesforinvention,TheRateandDirectionofInventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors , 609 (1962)

1962
[54]

Shapiro and H

C. Shapiro and H. R. Varian,Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy(Harvard Busi- ness School Press, 1999)

1999
[55]

Porter, The Barcelona Declaration: Exploring our responsibilities as metadata consumers, Digital Science Blog (2024)

S. Porter, The Barcelona Declaration: Exploring our responsibilities as metadata consumers, Digital Science Blog (2024)

2024
[56]

Allen, J

L. Allen, J. Scott, A. Brand, M. Hlava, and M. Altman, Publishing: Credit where credit is due, Nature508, 312 (2014)

2014
[57]

Brand, L

A. Brand, L. Allen, M. Altman, M. Hlava, and J. Scott, Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collabo- ration, and credit, Learned Publishing28, 151 (2015)

2015
[58]

M. K. McNutt, M. Bradford, J. M. Drazen, B. Han- son, B. Howard, K. H. Jamieson, V. Kiermer, E. Marcus, B. K. Pope, R. Schekman, S. Swaminathan, P. J. Stang, and I. M. Verma, Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific pub- lication,ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences 115, 2557 (2018)

2018
[59]

How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions?

L. Allen, A. O’Connell, and V. Kiermer, How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is help- ing the shift from authorship to contributorship, Learned Publishing32, 10.1002/leap.1210 (2019)

work page doi:10.1002/leap.1210 2019
[60]

Allen, V

L. Allen, V. Kiermer, S. Porter, and R. Whittam, A ten-year drive to credit authors for their work—and why there’s still more to do, Nature648, 33 (2025)

2025
[61]

Hrynaszkiewicz, A

I. Hrynaszkiewicz, A. Birukou, M. Astell, S. Swami- nathan, A. Kenall, and V. Khodiyar, Standardising and harmonising research data policy in scholarly publishing, International Journal of Digital Curation12, 65 (2017)

2017
[62]

Kiermer, A

V. Kiermer, A. Mudditt, and N. O’Connor, Rethinking how we publish to support open science, Learned Pub- lishing 10.1002/leap.2006 (2025)

work page doi:10.1002/leap.2006 2006
[63]

Colavizza, I

G. Colavizza, I. Hrynaszkiewicz, I. Staden, K. Whitaker, and B. McGillivray, The citation advantage of linking publications to research data, PLoS ONE15, e0230416 (2020)

2020
[64]

Mazzucato, Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities, Industrial and Corporate Change27, 803 (2018)

M. Mazzucato, Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities, Industrial and Corporate Change27, 803 (2018)

2018
[65]

Mazzucato,The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy(Allen Lane, 2018)

M. Mazzucato,The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy(Allen Lane, 2018)

2018
[66]

J. Lane, J. Owen-Smith, and B. A. Weinberg, How to track the economic impact of public investments in AI, Nature630, 302 (2024)

2024
[67]

Mingardi, A critique of Mazzucato’s Entrepreneurial State, Cato Journal35, 603 (2015)

A. Mingardi, A critique of Mazzucato’s Entrepreneurial State, Cato Journal35, 603 (2015)

2015
[68]

Jasanoff,Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States(Princeton University Press, 2005)

S. Jasanoff,Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States(Princeton University Press, 2005)

2005
[69]

Ostrom,Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action(Cambridge University Press, 1990)

E. Ostrom,Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action(Cambridge University Press, 1990)

1990
[70]

Kramer, C

B. Kramer, C. Neylon, and L. Waltman, Barcelona dec- laration on open research information (2024)

2024
[71]

Waltman, Responsible research assessment requires open scholarly metadata, Workshop on Open Citations and Open Scholarly Metadata, Bologna (2020)

L. Waltman, Responsible research assessment requires open scholarly metadata, Workshop on Open Citations and Open Scholarly Metadata, Bologna (2020)

2020
[72]

Hicks, P

D. Hicks, P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. de Rijcke, and I. Rafols, Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for re- search metrics, Nature520, 429 (2015)

2015
[73]

Wouters, C

P. Wouters, C. R. Sugimoto, V. Larivière, M. E. McVeigh, B. Pulverer, S. de Rijcke, and L. Waltman, Re- thinking impact factors: Better ways to judge a journal, Nature569, 621 (2019)

2019
[74]

total cost of publication

S. Pinfield, J. Salter, and P. A. Bath, The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Insti- tutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 1751 (2016)

2016
[75]

D. W. Hook, S. J. Porter, H. Draux, and C. T. Her- zog, Real-time bibliometrics: Dimensions as a resource for analysing aspects of COVID-19, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics5, 595299 (2021)

2021