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

Authors

Katja Mayer Centre for Social Innovation / University of Vienna, Department of Science and Technology Studies https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1184-595X

DOI:

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

Keywords:

Open Science, Open Infrastructures, European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), Altmetrics, Incentives, Rewards

Abstract

Within the framework of a European Mutual Learning Exercise, the transition to Open Science was discussed with a focus on alternative metrics for measurement and evaluation, as well as new incentive systems. The article presents the results of this exchange in the light of the challenges for open infrastructures. Now seems to be the right time to reassess and open up infrastructures in terms of their socio-technical functions and responsibilities in the publicly funded science system. However, this can only succeed if their architecture and logic are kept transparent and the knowledge about their usage remains open.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

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