Offene Wissenschaft braucht offene Infrastrukturen: Zur Diskussion der Ergebnisse der Europäischen Mutual Learning Exercise: Open Science – Altmetrics and Rewards

Katja Mayer

doi:10.31263/voebm.v72i2.3175

Autor/innen

Katja Mayer Zentrum für Soziale Innovation / Universität Wien, Institut für Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1184-595X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31263/voebm.v72i2.3175

Schlagworte:

Offene Wissenschaft, Open Science, Offene Infrastrukturen, European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), Altmetrics, Incentives, Rewards

Abstract

Im Rahmen einer Europäischen Mutual Learning Exercise wurde der Wandel zu Open Science mit Schwerpunkt auf alternativen Metriken zur Vermessung und Bewertung, sowie neuen Anreizsystemen diskutiert. Der Artikel bereitet die Ergebnisse dieses Austausches im Lichte der Herausforderungen für offene Infrastrukturen auf. Es scheint jetzt der geeignete Zeitpunkt, Infrastrukturen im Hinblick auf deren sozio-technische Funktionen und Verantwortungen im öffentlich finanzierten Wissenschaftssystem neu zu bewerten und offen zu gestalten. Dies kann jedoch nur gelingen, wenn deren Architektur und Logik transparent gehalten werden, und das Wissen über deren Nutzungsweisen offenbleibt.

Downloads

Keine Nutzungsdaten vorhanden.

Literaturhinweise

Archambault, É. , Campbell, D. , Gingras, Y. and Larivière, V. (2009), Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(7), 1320-1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062

Borgman, C. L., Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Chalmers, M. K., Bowker, G. C., Ribes, D., … Calvert, S. (2013). Knowledge infrastructures: Intellectual frameworks and research challenges. Retrieved from http://knowledgeinfrastructures.org/

Bowker, G. C. (1994). Science on the run: Information management and industrial geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920-1940. MIT press.

Buschmann, K., Kasberger, S., Kraker, P., Mayer, K., Reckling, F., Rieck, K., & Vignoli, M. (2015). Open Science in Österreich: Ansätze und Status. Information - Wissenschaft & Praxis 66(2-3), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1515/iwp-2015-0025

Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review 32(1_suppl), 196–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

European Commission, Expert Group on Altmetrics. (2017a). Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/337729

European Commission, Open Science Skills Working Group. (2017b). Providing researchers with the skills and competencies they need to practise Open Science. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/121253

European Commission, Working Group on Rewards under Open Science. (2017c). Evaluation of Research Careers fully acknowledging Open Science Practices; Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/75255

European Commission, Mutual Learning Exercise Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility. (2018). Open Science: Altmetrics and Rewards. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/468970

European Commission (2018b). Turning FAIR into reality. Final report and action plan from the European Commission expert group on FAIR data. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/1524

Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One term, five schools of thought. In: S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science, 17–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2

Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C. E., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., … Zuccala, A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics 116(1), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0

Luukkonen, T. (2016). Mutual Learning Exercises A proposal for a new methodology. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/292023

Mayer, K. (2015). ERA Austria Policy Brief: Open Science. ERA Portal Austria. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.200187

Mayer, K. (2015). From Science 2.0 to Open Science - Turning rhetoric into action? STC Social Networking E-Letter 3(1). http://stcsn.ieee.net/e-letter/stcsn-e-letter-vol-3-no-1/from-science-2-0-to-open-science

Moedas, C. (2015). Open innovation, open science, open to the world. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/348700

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

OECD. (2015). Making open science a reality. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers (25), 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en

OSPP. (2018). Open Science Policy Platform Integrated Recommendations. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/958647

Pomerantz, J., & Peek, R. (2016). Fifty shades of open. First Monday 21(5). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i5.6360

Slota, S. C., & Bowker, G. C. (2017). How infrastructures matter. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 529–554.

Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research 7(1), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.111

Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(2), 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678