Étiquette : Germany

Catégories
EN

Comparison of OpenAlex and Scopus coverage of German institutions’ publications in top-tier journals

Authors : Andrey Lovakov, Ivan Sterligov

OpenAlex has recently emerged as a leading alternative to proprietary bibliometric sources. However, concerns remain regarding the quality of its metadata, especially the institutional profiles which are crucial for evaluating organizations. This study assesses the quality of affiliation data in OpenAlex using German research institutions.

Publications from top-tier journals were analyzed and institutional publication counts in OpenAlex were systematically compared with counts in Scopus. The results show that OpenAlex generally contains more publications at the journal level, reflecting its broader coverage. However, institutional publication counts in OpenAlex are consistently lower, indicating missing or incorrectly assigned affiliations.

Nevertheless, the correlations between institutional outputs in both databases are very high, suggesting that relative institutional rankings remain stable. These findings suggest that OpenAlex is suitable for comparative institutional analyses in academic research but requires further improvement in affiliation metadata before it can be used for evaluation contexts that rely on absolute publication counts.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.01337

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

How transformative are transformative agreements? Evidence from Germany across disciplines

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

Catégories
EN

Mapping the German Diamond Open Access Journal Landscape

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