In dieser Ausgabe wird die Nationale Forschungsdateninfrastruktur (NFDI) in ihrer aktuellen Struktur (Stand Juli 2024) kurz vorgestellt. Es werden Beispiele für Services und Tools der NFDI-Konsortien und Basisdienste genannt, die Forschende für ein erfolgreiches Forschungsdatenmanagement nutzen können.

»Fake Science« ist eine von vielen Bezeichnungen für gefälschte oder manipulierte Wissenschaft. Wie andere Begriffe, die auf das Attribut »Fake« zurückgreifen, ist auch dieser jüngst von Umdeutungen betroffen. So machte sich die breit inszenierte Medienberichterstattung des Jahres 2018 zu unseriösen Zeitschriftenverlagen den Fake-Science-Begriff für das Phänomen »Predatory Publishing« großzügig zu eigen. Diese rhetorische Aneignung trägt zu sprachlicher Unschärfe bei, lenkt vom Kern des Problems ab und macht den Begriff für seine politische Vereinnahmung anfällig. In Bibliotheken sind die Kompetenzen vorhanden, sowohl gegen die angesprochenen Phänomene im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem selbst etwas zu tun als auch solche terminologischen Nebelkerzen zu löschen. / »Fake science« is one of many names for bogus or manipulated science. Like other terms that use the attribute »fake«, it has recently been subject to misinterpretation. For example, the broad media coverage of the year 2018 on dubious journal publishers generously adopted the »fake science« term for the phenomenon known as »predatory publishing«, which is, however, a very different problem. This rhetorical appropriation contributes to terminological imprecision, distracts from the core of the problem and makes the term vulnerable to political usurpation. Academic libraries have the competence not only to do something about the phenomena addressed in the academic publication system itself, but also to remove such terminological smoke candles.

Die Qualitätssicherung von Forschungsdaten ist im Kontext offener Wissenschaft ein wichtiges Thema. Sollen geteilte Daten dabei unterstützen, Forschungsergebnisse nachzuvollziehen und die Nachnutzung von Daten ermöglicht werden, bestehen entsprechende Anforderungen an ihre Qualität. Bei Datenqualität und Qualitätssicherung im Kontext von Datenpublikationen handelt es sich allerdings um komplexe und divers verwendete Konzepte. Bislang wird die Qualitätssicherung von Datenpublikationen punktuell ausführlich beschrieben, jedoch fehlt eine Betrachtung, die die möglichen Maßnahmen systematisch beschreibt. Darüber, wie einzelne Maßnahmen bei Repositorien verbreitet sind, ist ebenfalls kaum etwas bekannt. In der Dissertation wird herausgearbeitet, wie Qualität und Qualitätssicherung für Forschungsdaten definiert und systematisiert werden können. Auf dieser Basis wird ein theoretischer Ansatz für die Systematisierung qualitätssichernder Maßnahmen erarbeitet. Er dient als Grundstruktur für die Untersuchung von Data Journals und Repositorien. Dazu werden Guidelines von 135 Data Journals und Zertifizierungsdokumente von 99 Repositorien analysiert, die das Zertifikat CoreTrustSeal in der Version 2017–2019 erhalten haben. Die Analysen zeigen, wie Datenqualität in Data Journal Guidelines und durch Repositorien definiert wird und geben einen Einblick in die Praxis der Qualitätssicherung bei Repositorien. Die Ergebnisse bilden die Grundlage für eine Umfrage zur Verbreitung qualitätssichernder Maßnahmen, die auch offene Prozesse der Qualitätssicherung, Verantwortlichkeiten und die transparente Dokumentation der Datenqualität berücksichtigt. An der Umfrage im Jahr 2021 nahmen 332 Repositorien teil, die im Verzeichnis re3data indexiert sind. Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungen zeigen den Status quo der Qualitätssicherung und die Definition von Datenqualität bei Data Journals und Forschungsdatenrepositorien auf. Sie zeigen außerdem, dass Repositorien mit vielfältigen Maßnahmen zur Qualitätssicherung von Datenpublikationen beitragen. Die Ergebnisse fließen in ein Framework für die Qualitätssicherung von Datenpublikationen in Repositorien ein. / Quality assurance of research data is an important issue in open science. To enable transparency in research and data reuse, shared data have to meet quality requirements. However, the concepts of data quality and quality assurance are ubiquitous, yet elusive. Quality assurance practices have been researched for data publications in Data Journals, but not systematically for research data repositories. This dissertation elaborates how quality and quality assurance for research data can be defined and systematized. On this basis, a theoretical approach for quality assurance is developed. It is used for the analysis of quality assurance practices at data journals and research data repositories. For this purpose, guidelines of 135 data journals and certification documents of 99 repositories that have received the CoreTrustSeal certificate 2017–2019 are investigated. The analyses show how data quality is defined in data journal guidelines and by repositories and provide insight into repository quality assurance practices. The results informed a questionnaire that aims at analyzing prevalence of data quality assurance at research data repositories. The survey also covered aspects such open measures of quality assurance, responsibilities and transparent quality documentation. 332 repositories indexed in the re3data registry participated in the 2021 online survey. The results of this dissertations analyses indicate the status quo of quality assurance measures and definitions of data quality at data journals and research data repositories. Furthermore, they also show that repositories contribute to the quality assurance of data publications with a variety of measures. The results are incorporated into a framework for quality assurance of data publications at research data repositories.

Jahresbericht der Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz für das Berichtsjahr 2019 / Annual report of the University Library of Chemnitz in 2019

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2017-02-22T12:01:33Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquvo total.pdf: 18917608 bytes, checksum: fcfcd686ecacb39c53f8f45267048264 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-22T12:01:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquvo total.pdf: 18917608 bytes, checksum: fcfcd686ecacb39c53f8f45267048264 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-11-10 / This study deals with an innovative theme regarding the scenario of contemporary science. This perspective presents a new spectrum related to open science and changes that occur in current scientific practices. These practices are being improved and present new meanings, towards the new dynamics related to scientific outcomes and publishing. The Fourth Scientific Paradigm leads to a science that is based on intensive use of scientific information through the practices of the emerging model called e-Science. This type of science reflects a collaborative scientific environment that considers sharing, convergence, connectivity, interactivity, use and reuse of scientific data. This environment is based on the assumptions of a more open science and emerging models. In this context, the data life cycle model is adopted in order to drive and support scientific data management. Thus, this thesis constitutes a multidimensional and multidisciplinary study that relies on the confluence between Information Science and Law Sciences and its intersections with Economy and Technology. Theoretically, the study is supported by Commons Theory and Creative Economy; considering current intellectual property regulations and legislations as well as international guidelines for the new dynamics of e-Science. The core argument of this thesis is that in e-Science authority is collaborative practice; promoted by authorship rewards. The study object of the research is centered on authorship of scientific data considered as an intellectual asset. The work aims to elaborate standards that promote reward towards collaborative authority in e-Science. The research is predominantly qualitative. Bardin´s content analysis was used for categorizing, coding and performing inferences. The research also relied on the six dimensions (epistemological, theoretical, technical, morphological, political and ethical) according to study of Bufrem that guided the development of the chapters, content analysis and the conceptual model. The NVivo software was used for categorization, codification and corpus analysis. The multidimensional view and thematic connections resulted in five categories and thirteen subcategories that helped achieve the objective and indicate the standards of the proposed model for the representation of authorship in e-Science. It concludes that in the context of e- Science, authority is collaborative and ensured by copyright rewards through attribution, citation and accountability. Authorship attribution and citation are usual procedures, but in contemporary practice the responsibility is assigned to each collaborator proportionally. Thus, the thesis is confirmed and is represented by the conceptual model of collaborative authority in e-Science. The model is composed of multi-dimensional patterns that represent the scenario of collaborative open science that focuses on sharing, accessibility; oriented towards to the use and reuse of scientific data. Finally, each standard model represents guiding axioms that will help authors, researchers, curators, librarians, stakeholders, academic institutions, scientific and development agencies to conduct and share scientific data management projects in the context of e–Science to minimally guarantee authorship behalf of all the parties involved. / apresenta um novo espectro de uma ciência aberta com mudanças nas práticas científicas vigentes. Essas práticas estão sendo aprimoradas, ressignificadas e reconduzidas para as novas dinâmicas no fazer e publicar a pesquisa científica. O quarto paradigma científico conduz essa ciência que é baseada no uso intensivo de dados científicos através das práticas do modelo emergente da e-Science. A e-Science reflete um ambiente científico de colaboração, compartilhamento, convergência, conectividade, interatividade, uso e reuso de dados científicos. Esse ambiente constitui os pressupostos da ciência aberta e do modelo emergente. O ciclo de vida dos dados é adotado para conduzir e apoiar o gerenciamento de dados científicos. Dessa forma, a tese traz um estudo multidimensional e multidisciplinar através da confluência entre a Ciência da Informação e as Ciências Jurídicas e suas interseções com a Economia e Tecnologia. Teoricamente, o estudo apoia-se na vertente do commons preconizado pela Teoria do Commons e Economia Criativa, nas regulações e legislações da Propriedade Intelectual vigentes e em diretrizes internacionais para as novas dinâmicas da e- Science. O argumento de tese propõe que na e-Science a autoralidade é colaborativa e promovida pela recompensa autoral. O objeto de estudo está centrado na autoralidade dos dados científicos como bens intelectuais e o objetivo geral busca elaborar padrões que promovam a recompensa autoral na e-Science. A pesquisa é predominantemente qualitativa e adotou a análise de conteúdo de Bardin para a categorização, codificação e inferências do corpus de análise. Foi substanciada pelas seis dimensões (epistemológica, teórica, técnica, morfológica, política e ética) do estudo de Bufrem. Tal estudo foi norteador para o desenvolvimento dos capítulos, análise de conteúdo e constituição do modelo conceitual. Utilizou-se para a categorização e codificação do corpus de análise o software NVivo. A visão multidimensional e conexões temáticas resultaram em cinco categorias e treze subcategorias que ajudaram a alcançar o objetivo e constituir os padrões do modelo proposto para a representação da autoralidade na e-Science. Concluiu-se que a autoralidade no contexto da e- Science é colaborativa. A autoralidade colaborativa é garantida mediante a recompensa autoral através da atribuição, citação e responsabilização. A atribuição e citação são procedimentos usuais, contudo nas práticas contemporâneas a responsabilidade é atribuída a cada colaborador na proporcionalidade de sua participação. Assim, a tese se confirmou e está representada pelo modelo conceitual de autoralidade colaborativa na e-Science. O modelo é composto por padrões multidimensionais que representam o cenário da ciência aberta colaborativa, compartilhada e acessível orientada ao uso e reuso dos dados científicos. Por fim, cada padrão do modelo constitui-se em axiomas norteadores que auxiliarão autores, pesquisadores, curadores, bibliotecários e demais colaboradores, bem como instituições acadêmicas, científicas e agências de fomento a conduzirem projetos de compartilhamento e gerenciamento de dados científicos no contexto da e-Science com garantia mínima à autoralidade de todos os envolvidos.

Submitted by Priscilla Araujo (priscilla@ibict.br) on 2017-08-08T19:22:05Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) anne_clinio_doutorado_final_14-06-17.pdf: 3610602 bytes, checksum: 90154e1d6df62ef68c8c3119f52f7b84 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-08T19:22:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) anne_clinio_doutorado_final_14-06-17.pdf: 3610602 bytes, checksum: 90154e1d6df62ef68c8c3119f52f7b84 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-08-04 / Descrevemos e analisamos novas culturas epistêmicas (KNORR-CETINA, 1999) que estão sendo engendradas por dois modos de ciência emergentes – a Ciência Aberta e a Ciência Comum – e que, apesar de inúmeras diferenças, convergem na crítica à noção de fato científico e na estratégia de transformar o caderno de laboratório em sua principal tecnologia literária. Adotamos a noção de cultura epistêmica para operacionalizar nossa análise sobre estratégias para configuração de objetos, tecnologias e sujeitos epistêmicos por sistemas de produção de conhecimento que, por sua vez, criam efeitos de verdade. Para tal, nos inspiramos nas etnografias de laboratório e na abordagem das “três tecnologias” de Shapin e Shaffer (1985) para explicar como os filósofos naturais do século XVII construíram a noção de fato científico (matter of fact) como uma “variedade de conhecimento” tão sólida que se tornou sinônimo de ciência. De modo análogo, procuramos compreender como os modos de ciência emergentes pretendem legitimar novas maneiras de produzir conhecimento e disputar a própria noção de ciência. No movimento contemporâneo da Ciência Aberta, abordamos o open notebook science, tal como proposto em 2006 pelo professor e pesquisador em Química Jean-Claude Bradley como “uma maneira de fazer ciência na qual – da melhor maneira possível – você torna toda a sua pesquisa livre e acessível ao público em tempo real” (BRADLEY, set 2010). Adentramos seu “laboratório aberto” através de uma pesquisa documental que identificou o caderno aberto como principal elemento de um complexo ecossistema de colaboração aberta. Articulada com tecnologias sociais e materiais, esta tecnologia literária pretende substituir uma ciência baseada na confiança por outra fundamentada na transparência e na proveniência dos dados. Sua cultura epistêmica não impõe a obtenção de um fato científico como condição sine qua non para a comunicação de conhecimento novo, mas valoriza, sobretudo, o registro adequado da prática experimental seja qual for seu resultado – o que chamamos de matter of proof pela ênfase na documentação. Já na Ciência Comum (LAFUENTE, ESTALELLA, 2015), abordamos o caderno aberto de laboratório cidadão (CALC) prototipado por Antonio Lafuente e práticas de documentação de pesquisadoras-mediadoras do Medialab Prado, instituição pública madrilenha se autodenomina “laboratório cidadão”. Aqui, a crítica à noção de fato científico dialoga com o composicionismo latouriano ao compreendê-lo como um (importante) subconjunto da realidade que, no entanto, não deve se sobrepor aos debates políticos, mas conectar-se às “questões de interesse” (matter of concern). Nesta perspectiva, a modernização epistêmica fomentaria um “terceiro setor do conhecimento” que disputaria a governança antecipatória de assuntos tecnocientíficos (LAFUENTE, 2007). Nossa observação participante identificou que as práticas atuais de documentação tendem a reproduzir a lógica do campo da produção cultural que fomenta novos imaginários políticos, mas não inicia o ciclo de acumulação de conhecimento que o transformaria os laboratórios cidadãos em centros de cálculo (LATOUR, 2000). Os promotores de atividades tendem a reduzir a comunicação à divulgação de atividades para atrair participantes em potencial ou a prestação de contas, comprovando a realização de atividades. / We describe and analyze new epistemic cultures (KNORR-CETINA, 1999) that are being engendered by two emerging modes of science - Open Science and Common Science - that, despite numerous differences, converge on two aspects: the critique of scientific fact and their strategy of transforming laboratory notebooks into their main literary technology. We have adopted the notion of epistemic culture to operationalise our analysis of knowledge production systems strategies to configurate technologies, epistemic objects and subjects that, in turn, create effects of truth. To do so, we are inspired by laboratory ethnographies and Shapin and Shaffer's (1985) "three technologies" approach elaborated to explain how natural philosophers of the seventeenth century constructed the notion of scientific fact (matter of fact) so solid that it became synonym of science. Similarly, we aimed to understand how emerging modes of science seek to legitimize new ways of producing knowledge and disputing the very notion of science. In the contemporary Open Science movement, we approach open notebook science, proposed in 2006 by professor and researcher in Chemistry Jean-Claude Bradley as "a way of doing science in which - in the best possible way - you make all your research free and accessible to the public in real time" (BRADLEY, Sep 2010). We entered his "open laboratory" through documentary research that identified the open notebook as the main element of a complex ecosystem of open collaboration. Articulated with new social and material technologies, this literary technology aims to replace a science based on trust with one based on transparency and data provenance. Its epistemic culture does not impose a scientific fact as a sine qua non condition for knowledge communication, but values, above all, the adequate record of experimental practice whatever its outcome is - an epistemic culture that we have named a "matter of proof", given its emphasis on documentation. In Common Science (LAFUENTE, ESTALELLA, 2015), we investigated the open notebook of citizens' laboratory (CALC in spanish) prototyped by Antonio Lafuente and documentation practices of mediator- researchers at Medialab Prado, a public institution in Madrid that calls itself a "citizen's laboratory". Here, the critique of scientific fact dialogues with Latour´s compositionism since it is understood as an (important) subset of reality, which, however, should not supersede political debates, but rather relate to “matters of concern". In this perspective, the epistemic modernization process would foster a "third sector of knowledge" that would dispute the anticipatory governance of technoscientific subjects (LAFUENTE, 2007). Our participant observation has observed that current documentation practices tend to reproduce the logic of a cultural production field that fosters new political imaginaries, but does not initiate the knowledge accumulation cycle that would transform citizen laboratories into centre of calculation (LATOUR, 2000). Promoters tend to reduce communication to publicity of activities, attracting potential participants; or accountability, to prove that they carried out the projects.

Cette thèse s’intéresse aux données de la recherche, dans un contexte d’incitation croissante à leur ouverture. Les données de la recherche sont des informations collectées par les scientifiques dans la perspective d’être utilisées comme preuves d’une théorie scientifique. Il s’agit d’une notion complexe à définir, car contextuelle. Depuis les années 2000, le libre accès aux données occupe une place de plus en plus stratégique dans les politiques de recherche. Ces enjeux ont été relayés par des professions intermédiaires, qui ont développé des services dédiés, destinés à accompagner les chercheurs dans l’application des recommandations de gestion et d’ouverture. La thèse interroge le lien entre idéologie de l’ouverture et pratiques de recherche. Quelles formes de gestion et de partage des données existent dans les communautés de recherche et par quoi sont-elles motivées ? Quelle place les chercheurs accordent-ils à l’offre de services issue des politiques de gestion et d’ouverture des données ? Pour tenter d’y répondre, 57 entretiens ont été réalisés avec des chercheurs de l’Université de Strasbourg dans différentes disciplines. L’enquête révèle une très grande variété de pratiques de gestion et de partage de données. Un des points mis en évidence est que, dans la logique scientifique, le partage des données répond un besoin. Il fait partie intégrante de la stratégie du chercheur, dont l’objectif est avant tout de préserver ses intérêts professionnels. Les données s’inscrivent donc dans un cycle de crédibilité, qui leur confère à la fois une valeur d’usage (pour la production de nouvelles publications) et une valeur d’échange (en tant que monnaie d’échange dans le cadre de collaborations avec des partenaires). L’enquête montre également que les services développés dans un contexte d’ouverture des données correspondent pour une faible partie à ceux qu’utilisent les chercheurs. L’une des hypothèses émises est que l’offre de services arrive trop tôt pour rencontrer les besoins des chercheurs. L’évaluation et la reconnaissance des activités scientifiques étant principalement fondées sur la publication d’articles et d’ouvrages, la gestion et l’ouverture des données ne sont pas considérées comme prioritaires par les chercheurs. La seconde hypothèse avancée est que les services d’ouverture des données sont proposés par des acteurs relativement éloignés des communautés de recherche. Les chercheurs sont davantage influencés par des réseaux spécifiques à leurs champs de recherche (revues, infrastructures…). Ces résultats invitent finalement à reconsidérer la question de la médiation dans l’ouverture des données scientifiques. / The thesis investigates research data, as there is a growing demand for opening them. Research data are information that is collected by scientists in order to be used as evidence for theories. It is a complex, contextual notion. Since the 2000s, open access to scientific data has become a strategic axis of research policies. These policies has been relayed by third actors, who developed services dedicated to support researchers with data management and sharing.The thesis questions the relationship between the ideology of openness and the research practices. Which kinds of data management and sharing practices already exist in research communities? What drives them? Do scientists rely on research data services? Fifty-seven interviews were conducted with researchers from the University of Strasbourg in many disciplines. The survey identifies a myriad of different data management and sharing practices. It appears that data sharing is embedded in the researcher’s strategy: his main goal is to protect his professional interests. Thus, research data are part of a credibility cycle, in which they get both use value (for new publications) and exchange value (as they are traded for other valuable resources). The survey also shows that researchers rarely use the services developed in a context of openness. Two explanations can be put forward. (1) The service offer comes too early to reach researchers’ needs. Currently, data management and sharing are not within researchers’ priorities. The priority is publishing, which is defined as source of reward and recognition of the scientific activities. (2) Data management services are offered by actors outside the research communities. But scientists seem to be more influenced by internal networks, close to their research topics (like journals, infrastructures…). These results prompt us to reconsider the mediation between scientific communities and open research data policies.

No description available.

No description available.

<p dir="ltr">Open-access bioinformatics data enables accessible public health research for a variety of stakeholders, including teachers and low-resourced researchers. This project outlines two case studies utilizing open-access bioinformatics data sets and analysis software as proofs of concept for the types of research projects that can be adapted for workforce development purposes. The first case study is a spatial temporal analysis of Lyme disease rates in the United States from 2008 to 2020 using freely available data from the United States Department of Agriculture and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine how urbanization and other changes in land use have impacted Lyme disease rates over time. The second case study conducts a pangenome analysis using bacteriophage data from the Actinobacteriophage Database to determine conserved gene regions related to host specificity.</p>