Archives des mots-clés : Germany

Handling Open Research Data within the Max Planck Society — Looking Closer at the Year 2020

Posté le par

Authors : Martin Boosen, Michael Franke, Yves Vincent Grossmann, Sy Dat Ho, Larissa Leiminger, Jan Matthiesen

This paper analyses the practice of publishing research data within the Max Planck Society in the year 2020. The central finding of the study is that up to 40\% of the empirical text publications had research data available. The aggregation of the available data is predominantly analysed.

There are differences between the sections of the Max Planck Society but they are not as great as one might expect. In the case of the journals, it is also apparent that a data policy can increase the availability of data related to textual publications.

Finally, we found that the statement on data availability “upon (reasonable) request” does not work.

URL : Handling Open Research Data within the Max Planck Society — Looking Closer at the Year 2020

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18182

Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany

Posté le par

Authors : Eva Barlösius, Laura Paruschke, Axel Philipps

Peer review has developed over time to become the established procedure for assessing and assuring the scientific quality of research. Nevertheless, the procedure has also been variously criticized as conservative, biased, and unfair, among other things. Do scientists regard all these flaws as equally problematic?

Do they have the same opinions on which problems are so serious that other selection procedures ought to be considered? The answers to these questions hints at what should be modified in peer review processes as a priority objective. The authors of this paper use survey data to examine how members of the scientific community weight different shortcomings of peer review processes.

Which of those processes’ problems do they consider less relevant? Which problems, on the other hand, do they judge to be beyond remedy? Our investigation shows that certain defects of peer review processes are indeed deemed irreparable: (1) legitimate quandaries in the process of fine-tuning the choice between equally eligible research proposals and in the selection of daring ideas; and (2) illegitimate problems due to networks. Science-policy measures to improve peer review processes should therefore clarify the distinction between field-specific remediable and irremediable flaws than is currently the case.

URL : Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad032

How transformative are transformative agreements? Evidence from Germany across disciplines

Posté le par

Author : W. Benedikt Schmal

Research institutions across the globe attempt to change the academic publishing system as digitization opens up new opportunities, and subscriptions to the large journal bundles of the leading publishers put library budgets under pressure. One approach is the negotiation of so-called transformative agreements.

I study the ‘DEAL’ contracts between nearly all German research institutions and Springer Nature and Wiley. I investigate 6.1 million publications in 5,862 journals covering eight fields in the years 2016–2022 and apply a causal difference-in-differences design to identify whether the likelihood of a paper appearing in an eligible journal increases. The effect strongly depends on the discipline.

While material science, chemistry, and economics s tend to hift towards these journals, all other disciplines in my sample do not react. Suggestive evidence hints at the market position of the encompassed publishers before the ‘DEAL’ was established: Springer Nature and Wiley appear to benefit more from the contracts in disciplines in which they possessed a higher market share ex ante.

The transformative vigor of these agreements in terms of publication behavior seems to be limited. It and highlights that the developments in this intertwined market require further examination.

URL : How transformative are transformative agreements? Evidence from Germany across disciplines

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04955-y

Mapping the German Diamond Open Access Journal Landscape

Posté le par

Authors : Niels Taubert, Linda Sterzik, Andre Bruns

In the current scientific and political discourse surrounding the transformation of the scientific publication system, significant attention is focused on Diamond Open Access (OA).

This article explores the potential and challenges of Diamond OA journals, using Germany as a case study. Two questions are addressed: first, the current role of such journals in the scientific publication system is determined through bibliometric analysis across various disciplines. Second, an investigation is conducted to assess the sustainability of Diamond OA journals and identify associated structural problems or potential breaking points.

This investigation includes an in-depth expert interview study involving 20 editors of Diamond OA journals. The empirical results are presented using a landscape map that considers two dimensions: ‘monetized and gift-based completion of tasks’ and ‘journal team size.’ The bibliometric analysis reveals a substantial number of Diamond OA journals in the social sciences and humanities, but limited adoption in other fields.

The model proves effective for small to mid-sized journals, but not for larger ones. Additionally, it was found that 23 Diamond OA journals have recently discontinued their operations. The expert interviews demonstrate the usefulness of the two dimensions in understanding key differences.

Journals in two of the four quadrants of the map exemplify sustainable conditions, while the other two quadrants raise concerns about long-term stability. These concerns include limited funding leading to a lack of division of labor and an excessive burden on highly committed members.

These findings underscore the need for the development of more sustainable funding models to ensure the success of Diamond OA journals.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13080

Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA

Posté le par

Authors : Niels Taubert, Anne Hobert, Najko Jahn, Andre Bruns, Elham Iravan

This study investigates the determinants for the uptake of Full and Hybrid Open Access (OA) in the university landscape of Germany and distinguishes between three factors: The disciplinary profile, infrastructures and services of universities that aim to support OA, and large transformative agreements.

The uptake of OA, the influence of the disciplinary profile of universities and the influence of transformative agreements is measured by combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 4.0 list, and lists of publications covered by transformative agreements).

For infrastructures and services that support OA, a structured data collection was created by harvesting different sources of information and by manual online search. To determine the explanatory power of the different factors, a series of regression analyses was performed for different periods and for both Full as well as Hybrid OA.

As a result of the regression analyses, the most determining factor for the explanation of differences in the uptake of both OA-types turned out to be the disciplinary profile. For the year 2020, Hybrid OA transformative agreements have become a second relevant factor.

However, all variables that reflect local infrastructural support and services for OA turned out to be non-significant. To deepen the understanding of the adoption of OA on the level of institutions, the outcomes of the regression analyses are contextualised by an interview study conducted with 20 OA officers of German universities.

URL : Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04716-3

Balancing interests between freedom and censorship: Organizational strategies for quality assurance in science communication

Posté le par

Authors : Benedikt Fecher, Freia Kuper, Birte Fähnrich, Hannah Schmid-Petri, Thomas Schildhauer, Peter Weingart, Holger Wormer

While science communication is increasingly being discussed as a third mission alongside research and teaching, there is little research on how universities and research organizations deal with issues regarding the quality of science communication.

This article examines, from an organizational perspective, which new forms of quality assurance processes scientific organizations in Germany apply when addressing quality risks for science communication such as exaggeration in press releases or in the online communication of individual faculty members.

Six focus group discussions were conducted with 22 participants (rectors or presidents of universities, heads of communication, ombudsmen, and high-impact researchers). Based on the results, proposals were developed to extend central as well as decentral organizational structures to assure good scientific communication practice.

Their possible implementation was discussed in a workshop with representatives of all abovementioned groups. In conclusion, recommendations for future institutional policy are presented.

URL : Balancing interests between freedom and censorship: Organizational strategies for quality assurance in science communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac043

RDM in a Decentralised University Ecosystem—A Case Study of the University of Cologne

Posté le par

Authors : Constanze Curdt, Jens Dierkes, Sonja Kloppenburg

The University of Cologne (UoC) has historically grown in highly decentralised structures. This is reflected by a two-layered library structure as well as by a number of decentralised research data management (RDM) activities established on the faculty and research consortium level.

With the aim to foster networking, cooperation, and synergies between existing activities, a university-wide RDM will be established. A one-year feasibility study was commissioned by the Rectorate in 2016 and carried out by the department research management, library and computing centre.

One study outcome was the adoption of a university-wide research data guideline. Based on a comprehensive RDM service portfolio, measures were developed to put a central RDM into practice.

The challenges have been to find the right level of integration and adaptation of existing and established decentralised structures and to develop additional new structures and services.

We will report on first steps to map out central RDM practices at the UoC and to develop a structure of cooperation between loosely coupled information infrastructure actors. Central elements of this structure are a competence center, an RDM expert network, a forum for exchange about RDM and associated topics as well as the faculties with their decentralized, domain-specific RDM services.

The Cologne Competence Center for Research Data Management (C3RDM) was founded at the end of 2018 and is still in its development phase. It provides a one-stop entry point for all questions regarding RDM. T

he center itself provides basic and generic RDM services, such as training, consulting, and data publication support, and acts as a hub to the decentral experts, information infrastructure actors, and resources.

URL : RDM in a Decentralised University Ecosystem—A Case Study of the University of Cologne

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-020