2017, Löwe, Peter Heinz, Neteler, Markus, Goebel, Jan, Tullney, Marco

As a contribution to the currently ongoing larger effort to establish Open Science as best practices in academia, this article focuses on the Open Source and Open Access tiers of the Open Science triad and community software projects. The current situation of research software development and the need to recognize it as a significant contribution to science is introduced in relation to Open Science. The adoption of the Open Science paradigms occurs at different speeds and on different levels within the various fields of science and crosscutting software communities. This is paralleled by the emerging of an underlying futuresafe technical infrastructure based on open standards to enable proper recognition for published articles, data, and software. Currently the number of journal publications about research software remains low in comparison to the amount of research code published on various software repositories in the WWW. Because common standards for the citation of software projects (containers) and versions of software are lacking, the FORCE11 group and the CodeMeta project recommending to establish Persistent Identifiers (PIDs), together with suitable metadata setss to reliably cite research software. This approach is compared to the best practices implemented by the OSGeo Foundation for geospatial community software projects. For GRASS GIS, a OSGeo project and one of the oldest geospatial open source community projects, the external requirements for DOI-based software citation are compared with the projects software documentation standards. Based on this status assessment, application scenarios are derived, how OSGeo projects can approach DOI-based software citation, both as a standalone option and also as a means to foster open access journal publications as part of reproducible Open Science.

2016, Mihaljević-Brandt, Helena, Santamaría, Lucía, Tullney, Marco

Despite the increasing number of women graduating in mathematics, a systemic gender imbalance persists and is signified by a pronounced gender gap in the distribution of active researchers and professors. Especially at the level of university faculty, women mathematicians continue being drastically underrepresented, decades after the first affirmative action measures have been put into place. A solid publication record is of paramount importance for securing permanent positions. Thus, the question arises whether the publication patterns of men and women mathematicians differ in a significant way. Making use of the zbMATH database, one of the most comprehensive metadata sources on mathematical publications, we analyze the scholarly output of ∼150,000 mathematicians from the past four decades whose gender we algorithmically inferred. We focus on development over time, collaboration through coautorships, presumed journal quality and distribution of research topics—factors known to have a strong impact on job perspectives. We report significant differences between genders which may put women at a disadvantage when pursuing an academic career in mathematics.

2016, Oberländer, Anja, Tullney, Marco

[no abstract available]

2017, Pampel, Heinz, Tullney, Marco

Ein Open-Access-Publikationsfonds ist ein Finanzierungs- und Steuerungsinstrument wissenschaftlicher Einrichtungen zur Übernahme von Open-Access-Publikationsgebühren. Dieser Beitrag befasst sich mit Aufbau und Betrieb eines solchen Fonds.

2014, Heller, Lambert, Tullney, Marco

Früher schrieben Forscherinnen und Forscher dicke Bücher. Heute kommt neues Wissen vor allem durch Aufsätze in Fachzeitschriften in die Welt – immer häufiger auch online. Das verheißt neue Chancen: Kolleginnen und Kollegen können die Texte leichter finden, schneller zitieren und verlinken. Worauf ist beim digitalen Publizieren zu achten?

2018, Auer, Sören, Blümel, Ina, Ewerth, Ralph, Garatzogianni, Alexandra, Heller,, Lambert, Hoppe, Anett, Kasprzik, Anna, Koepler, Oliver, Nejdl, Wolfgang, Plank, Margret, Sens, Irina, Stocker, Markus, Tullney, Marco, Vidal, Maria-Esther, van Wezenbeek, Wilma

The document-oriented workflows in science have reached (or already exceeded) the limits of adequacy as highlighted for example by recent discussions on the increasing proliferation of scientific literature and the reproducibility crisis. Despite an improved and digital access to scientific publications in the last decades, the exchange of scholarly knowledge continues to be primarily document-based: Researchers produce essays and articles that are made available in online and offline publication media as roughly granular text documents. With current developments in areas such as knowledge representation, semantic search, human-machine interaction, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence, it is possible to completely rethink this dominant paradigm of document-centered knowledge exchange and transform it into knowledge-based information flows by representing and expressing knowledge through semantically rich, interlinked knowledge graphs. The core of the establishment of knowledge-based information flows is the distributed, decentralized, collaborative creation and evolution of information models, vocabularies, ontologies, and knowledge graphs for the establishment of a common understanding of data and information between the various stakeholders as well as the integration of these technologies into the infrastructure and processes of search and knowledge exchange in the research library of the future. By integrating these information models into existing and new research infrastructure services, the information structures that are currently still implicit and deeply hidden in documents can be made explicit and directly usable. This revolutionizes scientific work because information and research results can be seamlessly interlinked with each other and better mapped to complex information needs. As a result, scientific work becomes more effective and efficient, since results become directly comparable and easier to reuse. In order to realize the vision of knowledge-based information flows in scholarly communication, comprehensive long-term technological infrastructure development and accompanying research are required. To secure information sovereignty, it is also of paramount importance to science – and urgency to science policymakers – that scientific infrastructures establish an open counterweight to emerging commercial developments in this area. The aim of this position paper is to facilitate the discussion on requirements, design decisions and a minimum viable product for an Open Research Knowledge Graph infrastructure. TIB aims to start developing this infrastructure in an open collaboration with interested partner organizations and individuals.

2014, Brembs, Björn, Förstner, U.Konrad, Hammitzsch, Martin, Heise, Christian, Heller, Heller, Hürlimann, Daniel, Kaise, Rene, Kasberger, Stefan, Kraker, Peter, Lohmeier, Felix, Mietchen, Daniel, Nauber, Jens, Neuschäfer, Markus, Pampel, Heinz, Trissom, Thorsten, Tullney, Marco

Mission Statement der deutschsprachigen Open Science AG in der Version 1.0.

2016, Jahn, Najko, Tullney, Marco

Publication fees as a revenue source for open access publishing hold a prominent place on the agendas of researchers, policy makers, and academic publishers. This study contributes to the evolving empirical basis for funding these charges and examines how much German universities and research organisations spent on open access publication fees. Using self-reported cost data from the Open APC initiative, the analysis focused on the amount that was being spent on publication fees, and compared these expenditure with data from related Austrian (FWF) and UK (Wellcome Trust, Jisc) initiatives, in terms of both size and the proportion of articles being published in fully and hybrid open access journals. We also investigated how thoroughly self-reported articles were indexed in Crossref, a DOI minting agency for scholarly literature, and analysed how the institutional spending was distributed across publishers and journal titles. According to self-reported data from 30 German universities and research organisations between 2005 and 2015, expenditures on open access publication fees increased over the years in Germany and amounted to € 9,627,537 for 7,417 open access journal articles. The average payment was € 1,298, and the median was € 1,231. A total of 94% of the total article volume included in the study was supported in accordance with the price cap of € 2,000, a limit imposed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as part of its funding activities for open access funding at German universities. Expenditures varied considerably at the institutional level. There were also differences in how much the institutions spent per journal and publisher. These differences reflect, at least in part, the varying pricing schemes in place including discounted publication fees. With an indexing coverage of 99%, Crossref thoroughly indexed the open access journals articles included in the study. A comparison with the related openly available cost data from Austria and the UK revealed that German universities and research organisations primarily funded articles in fully open access journals. By contrast, articles in hybrid journal accounted for the largest share of spending according to the Austrian and UK data. Fees paid for hybrid journals were on average more expensive than those paid for fully open access journals.

2016, Tullney, Marco, Eppelin, Anita

[no abstract available]

2017, Tullney, Marco

Open-Access-Monitoring ist ein vage definiertes, aber immer wichtiger werdendes Tätigkeitsfeld im Open-Access-Kontext. Es korrespondiert mit Open-Access-Strategien und -Vorgaben und dient sowohl der Planung von Open-Access-Aktivitäten als auch der Messung von deren Erfolg. Unter Zeitdruck werden Open-Access-Kriterien nicht immer sauber ausdefiniert, und pragmatische und interessengeleitete Abkürzungen tauchen auf. Im Zuge der Open-Access-Transformation wird es mehr denn je wichtig sein, transparente und vergleichbare Messungen von Open Access vornehmen zu können. Transparenz im Hinblick auf verwandte Definitionen, Daten und Instrumente ist dabei ebenso wichtig wie der Zugriff auf standardisierbare und stabile Informationen zum Publikationsoutput.