EN

Data stewardship through the lens of Open Science Career Assessment Matrix

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Antti M. Rousi, Xiaolong Li, Lara Ejtehadia, Richard Dars, Pedro E.S. Silv, Udayanto Dwi Atmoj

Data stewardship is a key expertise needed for the transformation towards more open and transparent science. This is particularly relevant in research institutions, where data stewards play a direct role in supporting research under open science requirements.

However, the absence of established frameworks and merits for assessing this expertise has hindered recognition, professional development, and the integration of data stewardship into institutional practices.

This work aims to examine how multidisciplinary data stewardship work transpires through the Open Science Career Assessment Matrix (OS-CAM); a tool designed to assess open science contributions across various dimensions. Using a case study approach, we report findings from a workshop where a multidisciplinary team of experts engaged in data stewardship described their work in relation to OS-CAM.

This work presents a summary of the CV narratives and suggested merits for data stewardship developed in the workshop. Assessing data stewardship through OS-CAM provides a structured framework for evaluating, recognising, and rewarding these contributions, thereby increasing their visibility in academic and professional evaluations.

However, our study also reveals notable gaps in OS-CAM’s coverage of data stewardship, particularly the underrepresentation of infrastructure-related activities such as the management of data repositories.

It is important to note that while OS-CAM may offer value in academic research settings, it is less applicable for data stewardship roles that extend beyond research or open science.

Therefore, we recommend further research to include diverse institutions and participants, combined with other complementary frameworks, for a more comprehensive understanding of data stewardship’s contribution to science and its recognition in or beyond academic communities.

URL : Data stewardship through the lens of Open Science Career Assessment Matrix

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v19i1.1088

EN

To Be FAIR: Theory Specification Needs an Update

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Caspar J. Van Lissa, Aaron Peikert, Maximilian S. Ernst, Noah N. N. van Dongen, Felix D. Schönbrod, Andreas M. Brandmaier

Open science innovations have focused on rigorous theory testing, yet methods for specifying, sharing, and iteratively improving theories remain underdeveloped. To address this limitation, we introduce FAIR theory, a standard for specifying theories as findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable digital objects.

FAIR theories are findable in well-established archives; accessible in terms of their availability and ability to be understood; interoperable for specific purposes, such as selecting control variables; and reusable in that they can be iteratively and collaboratively improved on.

This article adapts the FAIR principles for theory; reflects on current FAIR practices in relation to psychological theory; and discusses FAIR theories’ potential impact in terms of reducing research waste, enabling metaresearch on theories’ structure and development, and incorporating theory into reproducible research workflows—from hypothesis generation to simulation studies.

We present a conceptual workflow for FAIRifying theory that builds on existing open science principles and infrastructures. More detailed tutorials, worked examples, and convenience functions to automate this workflow are available in the theorytools R package.

FAIR theory constitutes a structured protocol for archiving, communicating about, and iteratively improving theory, addressing a critical gap in open scholarly practices and potentially increasing the efficiency of cumulative knowledge acquisition in psychology and beyond.

URL : To Be FAIR: Theory Specification Needs an Update

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251401850

EN

Author Name Disambiguation in Scholarly Research: A Bibliometric Perspective

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Hesham Amin Hamdy El Shamly, Subaveerapandiyan A.

The rapid expansion of scholarly publishing has amplified the long-standing challenge of author name ambiguity in academic databases. This issue, manifesting as homonymy and synonymy, undermines the accuracy of bibliometric analyses, author-level metrics, and research evaluation systems. Author Name Disambiguation (AND) has thus emerged as a critical focus area in digital scholarship, with evolving strategies ranging from supervised machine learning and graph-based models to the adoption of persistent digital identifiers like ORCID.

Despite notable advancements, significant challenges remain – particularly in linguistically diverse and underrepresented regions – where metadata inconsistencies, transliteration issues, and limited ORCID adoption exacerbate disambiguation errors. This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 2,004 publications on AND from 2005 to 2024, sourced from the Scopus database.

Using tools such as Biblioshiny and VOSviewer, the analysis identifies publication trends, leading authors and institutions, core sources, co-authorship networks, and thematic evolution in the field. Findings highlight increasing international collaboration, the dominance of computer science-driven methodologies, and the critical role of metadata quality and institutional frameworks.

The study concludes with recommendations for inclusive, multilingual, and interoperable disambiguation systems, advocating for cross-disciplinary collaboration to ensure equitable author identification in global scholarly communication.

URL : Author Name Disambiguation in Scholarly Research: A Bibliometric Perspective

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2025-0035

EN

Who supports STEM early career researchers’ active science communication? A qualitative ego-network-analysis

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Lennart Banse, Fenja Heinke, Friederike Hendriks

Early career researchers (ECRs) are increasingly socialised in professional environments where science communication is seen as part of their academic role.

ECRs respond to these expectations differently, shaped in part by social relationships within and beyond academia. stThis study uses ego-network interviews with 24 highly communicative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) ECRs in Germany to examine how social relationships influence the importance as well as the integration of science communication in their professional identity.

Results show that recognition and support often come from private contacts and the science communication community, while workplace environments are perceived as less supportive and formative. Moreover, different formats and processes of science communication seem to be tied to distinct networks and underlying communication motives.

URL : Who supports STEM early career researchers’ active science communication? A qualitative ego-network-analysis

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/156620251115064727

EN

Researchers’ Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free-Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Harufumi Tamazawa, Kazuki Ide, Kazuhisa Kamegai

A survey conducted in 2022 amongst members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (n = 633) about preprints and open access journals included qualitative data from free-response answers (n = 161). Analysis of the free-form responses suggests that researchers believe that peer review of papers is the foundation for ensuring the credibility of research content.

The trust-building mechanism achieved through peer review shapes the research community. For this reason, researchers are extremely cautious about preprints that have not undergone peer review within their own fields.

This foundation has fostered a sense of responsibility within the community, and this sense of responsibility, which is being fulfilled by ensuring the quality of research, is a mixture of both a sense of responsibility towards the community itself and a sense of responsibility towards the outside world, namely the relationship between researchers and society.

Researchers also appear to view the rise in Article Processing Charges (APCs) as a problem for the entire community, rather than simply an issue for individual researchers. In the field of molecular biology, where collaborative research between universities and companies is common, differences in normative awareness based on position are reflected in the various attitudes towards preprints and open access.

URL : Researchers’ Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free-Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2039

FR

Pour une éthique de l’intelligence artificielle dans le domaine de l’évaluation de la recherche

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Otmane Azeroual, Joachim Schöpfel

L’intelligence artificielle (IA) s’impose aujourd’hui dans de multiples secteurs, de la médecine à la logistique, en passant par la finance et l’éducation. Son intégration croissante dans les systèmes d’information sur la recherche (SI recherche) ouvre de nouvelles perspectives, mais soulève aussi des enjeux éthiques majeurs.

Cet article propose une réflexion sur le rôle de l’IA dans l’évaluation de la recherche, en mettant l’accent sur ses bénéfices, ses limites et la nécessité d’un cadre éthique rigoureux.

URL : Pour une éthique de l’intelligence artificielle dans le domaine de l’évaluation de la recherche

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15gp8

EN

Pursuing transparency: How research performing organizations in Germany collect data on publication costs

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Dorothea Strecker, Heinz Pampel, Jonas Höfting

This article presents the results of a survey conducted in 2024 among research performing organizations (RPOs) in Germany on how they collect data on publication costs. Of the 583 invitees, 258 (44.3%) completed the questionnaire.

This survey is the first comprehensive study on the recording of publication costs at RPOs in Germany.

The results show that the majority of surveyed RPOs recorded publication costs at least in part. However, procedures in this regard were often non-binding. Respondents’ ratings of the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs varied by the source of publication funding.

Eighty percent of respondents rated the contribution of collecting data on publication costs to shaping the open access transformation as « very important » or « important. » Yet, these data were used as a basis for strategic decisions in only 59% of the surveyed RPOs.

Moreover, most respondents considered the implementation of an information budget at their institutions by 2025 unlikely. We discuss the implications of these findings for the open access transformation.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08340