Abstract
In the last decades, the weight of renewable energies sources (RES) in the electricity generation mix of most European countries has considerably increased. The implementation of these policies has been relying on different supporting schemes such as: the existence of a price premium for RES (feed-in tariffs); the assignment of priority access to renewable sources over conventional sources when entering the electricity network; and subsidizing investments in RE. While these incentives have certainly played a very important role in launching renewable energy production in Europe, more recently, both scholars and practitioners are claiming that RE generation should now be exposed to market incentives in order to promote economic efficiency. However, the inclusion of RE in the market may significantly affect equilibrium outcomes arising in electricity wholesale markets. Recent empirical studies, e.g. Puller (2007), point that the inclusion of RES in the market reduces average electricity prices at the cost of increasing price volatility (merit of order effect). Such outcomes can be explained by the intermittent nature of RES together with the asymmetry on generation marginal costs between RES and non-renewable energy sources (with the former being quite low for most of the available RES). However, the inclusion of RES in the wholesale electricity market may also yield strategic effects, as firms may strategically manipulate renewable energy production in order to have greater market power. In this paper, we provide an overview of the investment challenges following the introduction of market-based mechanisms for renewable production. The next step of this research project will be the development of a theoretical model, building on Milstein and Tishler (2011) in order to address the regulatory challenges related to capacity investment in a market with uncertain demand in which two firms offer two different electricity generation technologies, respectively using renewable and non-renewable energy sources. The renewable energy production is assumed to have an intermittent nature.

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to compare the electricity market design currently adopted in Portugal and in Brazil. We shed light on the differences and similarities between the two models regarding their rationale and risks. In particular, we highlight their differences regarding the organization of the wholesale and the retail activities: while the Portuguese model builds upon the pillars of competitive generation and retail, the Brazilian model is based on a centralized auction-contracting mechanism in the wholesale market and on captive consumption in the downstream market. We assess the advantages and disadvantages of each model by reviewing the theoretical and empirical literature on the benefits and limitations of retail choice and the literature on the pros and cons of electricity markets (in Portugal) versus contracts markets (in Brazil). The first approach yields competition in the market, whereas the second one fosters competition for electricity supply. We characterize the most stringent flaws in each model and we conclude that there is room for regulatory innovation in both models. The Portuguese model needs to be adjusted to create the necessary incentives to invest in the capacity that is needed to achieve the country's environmental and supply security goals. The Brazilian model already privileges investment incentives but it needs to be redesigned in order to account for the excessive risk allocated to distributors, which are quite vulnerable to exogenous shocks (e.g. hydrological shocks or demand-side macroeconomic shocks).

Abstract
Innovation and knowledge creation are tightly related concepts. Collaborative innovation networks (COINs) are very productive ecosystems for knowledge generation. Acknowledging their relevance for innovation, we propose a novel ontology for knowledge management (KM) in COINs, which builds on COINs related literature and is partially derived from topic-related and enterprise ontologies. The utility of the ontology is illustrated through an application case in a software house. The ontology can be applied in different cases involving KM in COINs, such as support the development of IT-based KM services for knowledge co-creation in COINs or, be used as an auditing tool in collaborative innovation processes. © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Abstract

Abstract
Knowledge builds on itself. Scientific progress is achieved through piecewise advances, and is based on the enlightenment of prior evidence and discoveries. Accessing prior information has been a tremendously complex venture for centuries, and restricted to the privileged few. Technological progress and namely, the advent of Internet have opened a world of possibilities, including the instant sharing and diffusion of information. Reaping the full benefits of technological advances has however been prevented by the prerogatives of the publishing industry, which have been increasingly challenged over the last two decades. Major historical milestones include the creation of ArXiv.org, an online repository of electronic preprints in 1991; the launch of SciELO in Brazil in 1997 and its extension to 14 countries; the foundation of PLOS by the Public Library of Science, established as an alternative to traditional publishing and nowadays known as PLOS ONE, which is by far the world’s largest series of journals with over 30,000 papers published in 2015; the Budapest Declaration on Open Access in 2002; the campaign Access2Research and the US Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act, a foundational piece in the establishment of Open Access in the USA; and the initiative of the European Commission to require all research publications funded under Horizon2020 to be openly accessible, free of charge.  All these initiatives converged towards the same aim: fostering free and unrestricted access to publications, so as to ensure the widespread and rapid diffusion of research findings within, across and outside scientific communities. (...)

Abstract
This Spring Issue will discuss about big data and multiple aspects of its usability and applicability. Many of us have seen blockbuster movies Back to the future (premiere in 1985), The Terminator (1984) or Minority report (2002). The unifying element of the above mentioned movies is that manuscripts are introducing a superior competitive advantage factor. The protagonists create an advantage by having either real-time data (sometimes from the future) or all relevant (big and historical) data with enormous computing capacity over competitors. A bit after first two of those movies premiered, NASA scientists Cox and Ellsworth (1997) published an article where term ‘big data’ appeared first time (Press, 2014). Intelligence needs to be topped up in a way to create advantage. Data has been there for a long time, in all forms and sizes. It is applied in almost single every business sector and it is getting faster in sense of usability. The data storage capacity has been exponentially increasing over time, but the usability of this wealth of data remains a critical issue.(...)