Nonexpert peer-based knowledge refinement, it turns out, is just as helpful as expert-centric knowledge refinement for improving the quality of results.

Online peer production communities such as open source software (OSS) projects attract both identified and anonymous peripheral contributions (APC) (e.g., defect reports, feature requests, or forum posts). While we can attribute identified peripheral contributions (IPC) to specific individuals and OSS projects need them to succeed, one cannot trace back anonymous peripheral contributions (APC), and they can have both positive and negative ramifications for project development. Open platforms and managers face a challenging design choice in deciding whether to allow APC and for which tasks or what type of projects. We examine the impact that the ratio between APC and IPC has on OSS project performance. Our results suggest that the OSS projects perform the best when they contain a uniform anonymity level (i.e., they contain predominantly APC or predominantly IPC). However, our results also suggest that OSS projects have lower performance when the ratio between APC and IPC nears one (i.e., they contain close to the same number of APC and IPC). Furthermore, our results suggest that these results differ depending on the type of application that a project develops. Our study contributes to the ongoing debate about the implications of anonymity for online communities and informs managers about the effect that anonymous contributions have on their projects.

Purpose Mobile technologies, such as QR codes, play a particularly important role in scaffolding the child user’s active learning in informal environments. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of QR code scanning on two informal learning outcomes: increased interest and greater knowledge understanding. Design/methodology/approach In total, 91 children and their families participated in the study as part of the iQ Zoo Project. Children in both the smartphone group and the control group completed were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively before and then after their zoo visits. Findings Qualitative findings suggest that most children’s interest in learning about animals was sustained as a result of the experience. Quantitative results reveal that QR code scanning was effective in promoting knowledge gains, especially on subjects that are challenging for the informal learner. Findings were comparable across the younger (5–8) and older (9–12) age groups. Originality/value This study provides empirical support for the value and usefulness of mobile technologies such as QR code scanning for children's learning in informal environments.

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher's web-site:Appendix S1 The NCRG Firewall. Appendix S2 Organizational Nomenclature. Appendix S3 NCRG-Funded Publication Data. REPLY TO COTTLER ET AL.'S LETTER TO THE EDITORIn their letter concerning our Editorial [1], Cottler et al.[2] assert that our analysis of conflict of interest (COI) and funding declarations in published papers supported by the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG) 'leads readers to think mistakenly that NCRG is exerting influence on the science it funds, and that NCRG awardees do not want to divulge the source of funding for fear their science will not be published'. We disagree with both these assertions.Our main point was that people receiving NCRG funding were not declaring a real or potential COI. Nowhere in their letter [2] do they question the accuracy of our estimate that few NCRG recipients are declaring a COI in their published reports. Identifying whether authors were reporting the funding source at all was only a secondary point of our comment. For our analysis of funding declarations, we counted only papers that acknowledged NCRG. As the NCRG Scientific Advisory Board members stated in their letter [2], we did not count the Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders or its successor, the Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders, which is described 'as an independent program of the NCRG' [3]. This is a major reason for the difference. The reason we focused on NCRG was that the sample was taken from the NCRG website, which states that all papers result from NCRG funding [4]. If NCRG and the gambling industry are taking credit for their support of gambling research, especially in their public relations activities, it is fair to ask why researchers are not acknowledging that credit, and even more frequently are failing to declare a potential COI. As noted in our Editorial [1], transparency and current ethical practice dictate that both the source of funding and the potential COI be declared with publication.Cottler et al. note rightfully that none of the papers in the sample referred to in the Editorial were selected from the most recent years available at that time. The reason is that the editorial was drafted in stages over a 2-year period, and the incidence of non-disclosure that precipitated our search of NCRG studies occurred in 2009. Accordingly, we see no reason to change our original statement that NCRG-funded research has not been documented adequately as having a real or potential COI. Declarations of interestNone.

No abstract