Skip to main content Accesibility Help

Rich Media and Rich Science; Web Squared Cumulativity Conceptualization

  • Oscar Westlund (a1)

Scientists work by collecting observable evidence of different phenomena, from which they analyse and construct theoretical explanations. Consequently, science involves systematic efforts to increase human knowledge, a phenomenon that is usually described as ‘cumulativity’. Most scientists would probably agree that (excellent) research should be cumulative, and by this they usually mean that scientists should accommodate and refer to the publications of other scholars. This article suggests that our perception of science would benefit from a broader and more nuanced approach to cumulativity. The article therefore provides a discussion on how contemporary scholars can approach cumulativity by adopting the fundamental ideology of the web 2.0 and web squared concepts. A proposition for an altered approach is posited through web squared cumulativity conceptualization, involving a more open and collaborative approach. The discussion provides a foretaste of contemporary initiatives that suggest the spread of this emerging trend.

Hide All
1.Merton, R.K. (1988) The Matthew Effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, pp. 606623.
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. 417426.
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. 5663.
9.Burgen, A. (2010) Academia Europaea: origin and early days. European Review, 17, pp. 469475.
10.Stamm, J. (2010) Women in science – why networking matters. European Review, 18, pp. 121131.
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. 399416.
12.Pautasso, M. and Pautasso, C. (2010) Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers. European Review, 18, pp. 227237.
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. 213225.
15.Levy, M. (2009) Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), pp. 120134.
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. 1737.
17.Musser, J., O'Reilly, T. (2006) Web 2.0 principles and best practices. O'Reilly Radar,
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. 64789.
20.O'Reilly, T., Battelle, J. (2009) Web squared: web 2.0 five years on. Paper presented at the Web 2.0 Summit Special, Oct 20-22 2009, San Francisco, CA (
21.Mitchell, M.M. (2008) Science 2.0. Scientific American, 298, pp. 6873.
22.Eysenbach, G. (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol, 4, pp. 06920698.
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. 135139.
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. (
26.Vickers, A.J. (2006) Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials, 7(15), pp. 16.
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).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

European Review
  • ISSN: 1062-7987
  • EISSN: 1474-0575
  • URL: /core/journals/european-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed