Search results

The authors contribute to the literature on leadership by investigating how characteristics of principal investigators (PIs) affect innovation performance, and how collaborative and non-collaborative projects moderate this relationship within the context of inter-organisational research projects.

The authors analysed panel data from the National Science and Technology Information Service on 171 research projects within a biomedical and regenerative medicines programme overseen by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute. The authors used a hierarchical regression model, based on the ordinary least squares method, to examine the relationship between PI characteristics and performance, considering both quantity and quality.

The results show that the characteristics of PIs have diverse effects on the quantity and quality of innovation performance. Gender diversity within PIs negatively affects the quality of innovation performance, while the capacity of PIs positively influences it. Moreover, the degree of PI’s engagement is positively associated with the quantity of innovation performance but does not have a significant relationship with the quality of performance. In terms of moderating effects, collaborative projects with multiple leaders seem less reliant on PI capacity than non-collaborative projects led by a single leader, in terms of innovation performance.

The results contribute significantly to the literature on innovation management by examining the role of leadership in collaborative environments to enhance innovation performance, addressing the need for empirical evidence in this area. Analyses of PI characteristics in government R&D management can lead to improved team performance, more efficient processes and effective resource allocation, ultimately fostering innovation.

This paper explores the different open science policy effects on the knowledge generation process of researchers in basic sciences: biology, chemistry and physics.

This paper uses a qualitative methodology with a content analysis approach. It uses seventeen semi-directed interviews.

The main perceived effect of open science is access to research inputs, with open access, open research data and code reuse as primary sources. Another issue is the increase of collaboration with other colleagues in terms of the ability to collaborate faster and encouraging the exchange of ideas. However, this benefit does not translate to the division of labor in large transnational teams. Time spent on tasks like cleaning up data and code, scooping and other ethical issues are unfavorable aspects noted.

Policymakers could use this study to enhance current open science policies in the countries.

This study analyzes the perspectives of basic sciences researchers from two countries about open science policies. The main conclusion is the fact that open science policies should focus on the research process itself – rather than research outputs – in order to effectively tackle inequalities in science.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0135