1.Merton R.K. (1988) The Matthew Effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, pp. 606–623.
2.Arunachalam S. (2008) Open access to scientific knowledge. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 28, p. 7.
3.Piscopo C. and Birattari M. (2008) The Explanation of the Success of Science. IRIDIA Technical Report Series 013. (Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles).
4.Kuhn T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
5.Chalmers A.F. (1999) What is this Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and its Methods (Buckingham: Hackett).
6.Drenth P.J.D. (2010) Research integrity; protecting science, society and individuals. European Review, 18, pp. 417–426.
7.Piscopo C. and Birattari M. (2008) The Explanation of the Success of Science. IRIDIA Technical Report Series 013. (Brussels: Univesité Libre de Bruxelles).
8.Merton R.K. (1968) The Matthew Effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science considered. Science, 159(3810), pp. 56–63.
9.Burgen A. (2010) Academia Europaea: origin and early days. European Review, 17, pp. 469–475.
10.Stamm J. (2010) Women in science – why networking matters. European Review, 18, pp. 121–131.
11.Arnaldi S., Boscolo F. and Stamm J. (2010) Living the digital revolution – explorations into the futures of the European society. European Review, 18, pp. 399–416.
12.Pautasso M. and Pautasso C. (2010) Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers. European Review, 18, pp. 227–237.
13.Franzoni C. (2008) Research instruments and operating tools: how open science contributes to technology. Innovation Studies Working Paper (ISWoP), no. 3/2008. (Pyltechnic of Turin, Italy).
14.Axelsson A-S. and Schroeder R. (2009) e-enabled data-sharing in Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 52, pp. 213–225.
15.Levy M. (2009) Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), pp. 120–134.
16.O'Reilly T. (2007) What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65, pp. 17–37.
18.Vossen G. and Hagemann S. (2007) Unleashing Web 2.0: from concepts to creativity, (Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann).
19.Fuchs C. (2010) Social software and web 2.0: their sociological foundations and implications. In S. Murugesan (ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications. Volume II (Hershey, PA: IGI-Global), pp. 64–789.
21.Mitchell M.M. (2008) Science 2.0. Scientific American, 298, pp. 68–73.
22.Eysenbach G. (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol, 4, pp. 0692–0698.
23.Evans J.A. and Reimer J. (2009) Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323, p. 1025.
24.Mann F., Von Walter B., Hess T. and Wigand R.F. (2009) Open access publishing in science. Communications of the ACM, 52, pp. 135–139.
25.Dallmeirer-Tiessen S., Goerner B., Darby R., Hyppoelae J., Igo-Kemenes P., Kahn D., Lambert S., Lengenfelder A., Leonard C., Mele S., Polydoratou P., Ross D., Ruiz-Perez S., Schimmer R., Swaisland M., van der Stelt W. (2010) First results of the SOAP Project. Open access facts: what publishers offer, what researchers want, Presentation at the Fifth UNICA Scholarly Communication Seminar: ‘Find it, Get it, Use it, Store it’, 7–9 November 2010, Lisbon, Portugal. (http://www.slideshare.net/ProjectSoap/soapfall2010).
26.Vickers A.J. (2006) Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials, 7(15), pp. 1–6.
27.Borgman C.L. (2007) Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
28.E-mail correspondence with Swedish National Data Service, May 2010. The results are based on a survey with 544 professors and 1147 PhD candidates in Sweden during spring 2009.
29.McChesney R.W. (1999) Rich Media, Poor Democracy – Communication Politics in Dubious Times (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press).