No description available.

Zwei Innovationen innerhalb von Open Science werden in dieser Dissertation untersucht: Open Access und der Umgang mit Forschungsdaten. Die Ergebnisse zeigen ein positives Meinungsbild gegenüber beiden Innovationen, was sich allerdings nicht in einer übergreifenden Umsetzung in der Wissenschaft niederschlägt. Die disziplinären Unterschiede sind markant. Es lassen sich aber übergeordnete Ebenen herausarbeiten: Soziologische, technische & infrastrukturelle, sowie strategische & monetäre Aspekte gehören hierzu, wobei starke Interdependenzen zu verorten sind. Traditionell werden Qualität und Prestige von veröffentlichten wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen als Maßgabe für die Reputation eines Wissenschaftlers angesehen, was klar in den Resultaten dieser Arbeit reflektiert ist. Sie präferieren die Nutzung von Publikationsorganen und Arbeitsabläufen, die in der Fachgemeinschaft etabliert sind. Daraus folgt ein zögerlicher Umgang mit Innovationen, z.B. dem offenem Zugang zu Forschungsdaten, wo es nur wenige etablierte Abläufe gibt. In der Diskussion dieser Arbeit wird die Notwendigkeit einer Verbindung zu heutigen Anreizsystemen und damit den Evaluierungssystemen in der Wissenschaft herausgestellt. Neue Strategien diesbezüglich sind im Aufbau, z.B. mit “zählbaren” Publikationen und Zitationen für Forschungsdaten. Die Kernthemen wurden in der Fallstudie der Hochenergiephysik genauer untersucht. Eine digitale Bibliothek erlaubte dort die praktische Implementierung von Open Science Werkzeugen. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen das Potential: mit gezielten Diensten und Anreizen können Wissenschaftler für Open Science gewonnen werden; in diesem Fall zur Teilnahme in einem Crowdsourcingprojekt der digitalen Bibliothek und zur Umsetzung von „data sharing“. Dem Informationsmanagement kommt dabei eine neue Rolle zu, insbesondere bei einer engen Betreuung von Wissenschaftlern im digitalen Forschungsumfeld. Das kann parallel für die Serviceentwicklung und –begleitung genutzt werden. / Two major Open Science innovations, Open Access and research data sharing, have been studied in detail in this thesis. A large-scale survey and personal interviews are used to gain detailed insights from a range of disciplines. In addition, a case study in the High Energy Physics (HEP) community was used to study the results in practice. The results show that a rather positive attitude towards both, Open Access and research data sharing is not reflected in the researchers’ practices. Disciplinary differences prevail and relate to the different publishing cultures and research workflows. The results indicate that quality and prestige of research output are perceived as very important in determining a researcher’s reputation. Researchers prefer community-approved publication outlets. They hesitate to explore new innovations, such as data sharing, for which only few established workflows exist in digital scholarly communication. Interviewees highlight the significance of a (missing) link between such approaches on the one hand and the current incentive system and the research assessment schemes on the other. The results indicate that barriers can be overcome. In the case study, a strong collaboration with the community facilitated enhanced feedback loops to develop tailored and targeted services for Open Science. Researchers in the case study were successfully engaged in new innovative workflows: a crowdsourcing tool and data sharing in a digital library. The results highlight that opportunities of Open Science are not yet explored widely. But with targeted support, it is possible to build on best practices and develop strategies that engage communities in new innovations. The results furthermore demand new strategies to establish links from Open Science services to the academic incentive system. It is needed to revisit the current research assessment scheme in regard to potential support mechanisms for Open Science.

Die Psychologie und andere empirische Wissenschaften befinden sich in einer Krise, da vielen Forschenden bewusst geworden ist, dass viele Erkenntnisse nicht so stark empirisch gestützt sind, wie sie einst glaubten. Es wurden mehrere Ursachen dieser Krise vorgeschlagen: Missbrauch statistischer Methoden, soziologische Verzerrungen und schwache Theorien. In dieser Dissertation gehe ich davon aus, dass ungenaue Theorien unvermeidlich sind, diese aber mithilfe von Induktion einer empirischen Prüfung unterzogen werden können. Anhand von Daten können Theorien ergänzt werden, sodass präzise Vorhersagen möglich sind, die sich mit der Realität vergleichen lassen. Eine solche Strategie ist jedoch mit Kosten verbunden. Induktion ist daher zwar notwendig, aber führt zu einem übermäßigen Vertrauen in empirische Befunde. Um empirische Ergebnisse adäquat zu bewerten, muss diese Verzerrung berücksichtigt werden. Das Ausmaß der Verzerrung hängt von den Eigenschaften des induktiven Prozesses ab. Einige induktive Prozesse können vollständig transparent gemacht werden, sodass ihre Verzerrung angemessen berücksichtigt werden kann. Ich zeige, dass dies bei Induktion der Fall ist, die beliebig mit anderen Daten wiederholt werden kann, was die Bedeutung von computergestützter Reproduzierbarkeit unterstreicht. Induktion, die die Forschenden und ihr kognitives Modell einbezieht, kann nicht beliebig wiederholt werden; daher kann die Verzerrung durch Induktion nur mit Unsicherheit beurteilt werden. Ich schlage vor, dass die Verringerung dieser Unsicherheit das Ziel von Präregistrierung sein sollte. Nachdem ich die Ziele von Reproduzierbarkeit und Präregistrierung unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Transparenz über Induktion präzisiert habe, gebe ich in den wissenschaftlichen Artikeln, die als Teil der Dissertation veröffentlicht wurden, Empfehlungen für die praktische Umsetzung beider Verfahren. / Psychology and other empirical sciences are in the middle of a crisis, as many researchers have become aware that many findings do not have as much empirical support as they once believed. Several causes of this crisis have been suggested: misuse of statistical methods, sociological biases, and weak theories. This dissertation proposes the following rationale: to some extent, imprecise theories are unavoidable, but they still can be subjected to an empirical test by employing induction. Data may be used to amend theories, allowing precise predictions that can be compared to reality. However, such a strategy comes at a cost. While induction is necessary, it causes overconfidence in empirical findings. When assessing findings, this overconfidence must be taken into account. The extent of the overconfidence depends on the properties of the inductive process. Some inductive processes can be made fully transparent, so their bias can be accounted for appropriately. I show that this is the case for induction that can be repeated at will on other data, highlighting the importance of computational reproducibility. Induction involving the researcher and their cognitive model can not be repeated; hence, the extent of overconfidence must be judged with uncertainty. I propose that reducing this uncertainty should be the objective of preregistration. Having explicated the goals of computational reproducibility and preregistration from a perspective of transparency about induction in the synopsis, I put forward recommendations for the practice of both in the articles published as part of this dissertation.

In recent years, the UK higher education sector has seen notable policy changes with regard to how research is funded, disseminated and evaluated. Important amongst these changes is the emphasis that policy makers have placed on disseminating peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles via Open Access (OA) publishing routes e.g. OA journals or OA repositories. Through the Open Science agenda there have also been a number of initiatives to promote the dissemination of other types of output that have not traditionally been made publicly available via the scholarly communication system, such as data, workflows and methodologies. The UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 introduced social/economic impact of research as an evaluation measure. This has been a significant policy shift away from academic impact being the sole measure of impact and has arguably raised the profile of public engagement activities (although it should be noted that public engagement is not equivalent to social/economic impact, but is an important pathway to realising such impact). This exploratory study sought to investigate the extent to which these recent policy changes are aligned with researchers publication, dissemination and public engagement practices across different disciplines. Furthermore, it sought to identify the perceptions and attitudes of researchers towards the concept of social/economic impact. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach consisting of a questionnaire- based survey and semi-structured interviews with researchers from a broad range of disciplines across the physical, health, engineering, social sciences, and arts and humanities across fifteen UK universities. The work of Becher (1987) and Becher & Trowler (2001) on disciplinary classification was used as an explanatory framework to understand disciplinary differences. The study found evidence of a lack of awareness of the principle of OA by some researchers across all disciplines; and that researchers, in the main, are not sharing their research data, therefore only the few who are doing so are realising the benefits that have been championed in research funders policies. Moreover, the study uncovered that due to the increased emphasis of impact in research evaluation, conflicting goals between researchers and academic leaders exist. The study found that researchers, particularly from Applied and Interdisciplinary (as opposed to Pure) disciplinary groups felt that research outputs such as articles published in practitioner journals were most appropriate in targeting and making research more accessible to practitioners, than prestigious peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. The thesis argues that there is still more to learn about what impact means to researchers and how it might be measured. The thesis makes an overall contribution to knowledge on a general level by providing greater understanding of how researchers have responded to the impact agenda . On a more specific level, the thesis identifies the effect of the impact agenda on academic autonomy, and situates this in different disciplinary contexts. It identifies that it is not only researchers from Pure disciplines who feel disadvantaged by the impact agenda , but also those from Interdisciplinary and Applied groups who feel an encroachment on their academic autonomy, particularly in selecting channels to disseminate their research and in selecting the relevant audiences they wish to engage with. Implications of the study s findings on researchers, higher education institutions and research funders are highlighted and recommendations to researchers, academic leaders and research funders are given.

Introduction. Research data management is a topic of ongoing discussion, particularly in academic institutions, where researchers strive to effectively handle diverse types of data. This study examines the practices of research data management in selected digital humanities projects at Uppsala University. The objective is to as- sess the impact that data management plans (DMPs) on these interdisciplinary projects and evaluate the applica- tion of the FAIR guiding principles. It is crucial to consider the researchers’ perspective on this matter. Universi- ties could invest in robust data management practices by taking into account the needs and skills of researchers. Method. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using purposive sampling targeting researchers from various departments within the Faculty of Arts who were involved in interdisciplinary digital humanities pro- jects. Eight interviews were carried out with principal investigators (PIs) and researchers. Analysis. The interviews, along with the provided DMPs, were thematically analysed to address the re- search questions regarding the effect of DMPs in the selected projects. Results. The study findings indicate that the PIs and researchers do not perceive the DMP as an integral part of their research work in digital humanities projects. Nonetheless, most participants recognise its signifi- cance and its role could be enhanced in research projects. Challenges typically arise during stages of the research data life cycle, such as data analysis, rather than in the development of the DMP itself. Moreover, the practical implementation of the FAIR principles often poses difficulties due to variations in data types and project goals. Conclusion. The results of this study highlight the need for more actionable DMPs in digital humanities projects and further training for researchers on data management issues. The interdisciplinary nature of these projects facilitates collaboration among researchers in the development of DMPs.

Forscher:innen eindeutig zu identifizieren ist durch Namensgleichheit, Namensänderungen oder verschiedene existierende Namensvarianten und Schreibweisen eine anhaltende Herausforderung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb. Eine Lösung für dieses Problem bietet die international anerkannte Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), die wir in dieser Ausgabe näher vorstellen.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the impact of open access costs on university library collection develop-ment and service offerings, specifically focusing on the major changes resulting from the Open Science movement as identified by library officers. It aims to provide insights into the challenges faced by university libraries in managing open access costs and the strategies employed to overcome them.The central research question addressed in this thesis is: What major changes do library officers identify in library offerings as a result of the Open Science movement?The thesis utilizes collection development theory as a framework to evaluate and manage library collections. Ad-ditionally, the theory explores the challenges associated with open access costs and the strategies employed by libraries to address them.The thesis employs an interview-based approach to gather data and insights from eight librarians and library of-ficers. These interviews aim to capture the perceptions of library officers regarding the impact of open access costs on collection development and service offerings. The analysis explores the strategies implemented by libraries to manage open access costs and assesses the sustainability of open access funding models. The study also compares the experiences of small and large libraries to identify any differences in strategies employed and challenges faced.The primary material used in this thesis consists of interview transcripts from the eight librarians and library of-ficers. These interviews provide valuable qualitative data on their perspectives, experiences, and strategies related to open access costs and their impact on library offerings

Die sog. FAIR-Prinzipien haben sich mittlerweile als Standard-Anforderung im Forschungsdatenmanagement etabliert. In Förderanträgen und -berichten müssen Wissenschaftler:innen darlegen, wie sie Forschungsdaten gemäß den FAIR-Prinzipien verwalten und veröffentlichen. Auch immer mehr Fachzeitschriften bzw. Verlage fordern von ihren Autor:innen, dass sie ihre Forschungsdaten gemäß den FAIR-Prinzipien teilen, um die Reproduzierbarkeit und Überprüfbarkeit ihrer Ergebnisse zu gewährleisten. Was das Akronym FAIR eigentlich bedeutet und worauf Forschende in diesem Zusammenhang achten sollten, fasst dieser Beitrag kurz zusammen.

The purpose of this study is through the research librarians, to shed light on their perceptions, competencies and strategies related to open science at the Swedish research libraries. The transition to open science is ongoing nationally and globally and research librarians at research libraries at universities have extensive knowledge while constantly facing major challenges in the field which develops their competencies and strategies in open science. A valuable aspect in order to develop open science for the future is studying the individuals behind. Semi-structured interviews with five research librarians at two main research libraries at two stateowned Swedish universities were conducted, and the interviews were analyzed thematically. The theory of fenomenology is applied to the study for the purpose of throughly examine every individual – every research librarians perceptions, competencies and strategies related to open science. The analysis maps the empirical material and a selection of previous ones research on librarians and open science to put the study in a relevant context. Also the empirical material helps to identify the possibilities for the development of open science for the future. The study identifies several areas of interest. The results show that Swedish research librarians perceive open science as comprehensive, with many different challenges, unclear and transparent – overall open science is complex. Research librarians acquire skills in open science, primarily when they collaborate, read as well as when they apply open science. The open science strategies that are particularly prominent are partly the work with research support, partly the strategic work. The prerequisite for the development of open science is the human aspect in the life world of research librarians. Findings reveal that research librarians mainly educate themselves in open science. The prerequisite for selfeducation and to develop strategies is their driving force. The study also show that Swedish research librarians have a potential to influence the development of open science. It is important to highlight that open science needs to be supported and developed within the research community so that open science becomes a natural part of contemporary and future research culture. In the unstable situation of the world in times of permacrisis, it is even more urgent to share research. Open science can provide opportunities to change human rights such as equality, democracy, social development, climate and health for the better – naionally and globally. This is a two-year master´s thesis in Library and Information Science.

Yes / In recent years, there has been a focus in social psychology on efforts to improve the robustness, rigour, transparency and openness of psychological research. This has led to a plethora of new tools, practices and initiatives that each aim to combat questionable research practices and improve the credibility of social psychological scholarship. However, the majority of these efforts derive from quantitative, deductive, hypothesis-testing methodologies, and there has been a notable lack of in-depth exploration about what the tools, practices and values may mean for research that uses qualitative methodologies. Here, we introduce a Special Section of BJSP: Open Science, Qualitative Methods and Social Psychology: Possibilities and Tensions. The authors critically discuss a range of issues, including authorship, data sharing and broader research practices. Taken together, these papers urge the discipline to carefully consider the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of efforts to improve psychological science, and advocate for a critical appreciation of how mainstream open science discourse may (or may not) be compatible with the goals of qualitative research.