Call for Project Presentations / Accepted Submissions

The review process for the Call for Project Presentations has ended. Overall, we received 88 submissions. Due to the high amount of excellent abstracts, the programme committee decided to accept 24 submission. The 7 most outstanding proposals will be presented as short talks and as posters. Furthermore, 17 additional contributions of high quality will be presented as posters (without lightning talk), see conference programme.

All abstracts have been reviewed by a review board (see below) based on the following reviewers criteria – rating from -2 (very low/poor) to 2 (very high/good):

  • Relevance for the conference topic
  • Practical relevance
  • Innovative and scientific relevance
  • Overall recommendation

The possible maximum average score is  8,0.

Accepted submissions of the Open Science Conference 2019

Following is the list of all accepted submission of the Open Science Conference 2019 including a scientific justification for their acceptance based on the reviewers’ comments. The shown rating values are the average of all independent reviews.

1. Building together an Open Science Monitor
David Osimo1, Thed Leeuwen2, Ingeborg Mejer2, Stephane Berghmans3, Laia Pujol Priego4, Jonathan Wareham4 and Jon Switters1 
1The Lisbon Council for Economic Competitiveness and Social Renewal
2CWTS
3Elsevier
4ESADE, Ramon Lull University

The EC Open Science Monitor in particular has both been highly anticipated and hotly debated within the community, as also described in the abstract.  It has the potential to become a crucial part of the EU Open Science landscape – measures quickly become targets, and hence the construction of the metrics and use of specific data-sources is a very politically potent issue. The Open Science Conference will provide an excellent forum for further discussion around this initiative.

Average reviewers ratings: 8,0

2. Change Culture, A Research Grant at a Time 
Ivo Grigorov1 and Foster Consortium Partners2
1Technical University of Denmark
2Horizon 2020 FOSTER+ Project

The abstract discusses an urgent issue: the role of Open Science within research evaluation frameworks. It starts by identifying what is missing in order to make OS relevant for evaluation practices: a cultural change. After that, it describes a project that aimed at packaging good OS practices, tools, and infrastructure, and integrating them into MSCA actions. It is an ideal and early case and also relevant for the training of open science practices.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,5

3. Getting Through the Maze – Reusable Strategies and Tools for Research Data Management
Katarzyna Biernacka1 and Kerstin Helbig1
1Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

The abstract describes strategies, roadmaps, guidelines, and open access material for a research data management infrastructure that have been collected and developed in the framework of a collaborative project among five universities. The project provides an interesting bunch of services, such as a self-evaluated strategy for research data management, a tool that helps to create an own research data policy, guidelines for implementing data policies as well as a “train-the-trainer” concept. The open manner of the project is outstanding.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,3

4.  Registered reports in Psychology: Why, for whom, and how?
Michael Bosnjak1, Erich Weichselgartner1 and Roland Ramthun1
1ZPID – Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information

Preregistration is a crucial way of making science more honest. The abstract highlights the unresolved impediments of preregistration such as a lack of incentive, integration, and decision aids.  It is an important contribution because it presents a solution for the replication crisis in psychology and the social sciences in general. It is important to implement such procedures to increase replicability and to foster trust in science.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,0

5.  Open Repository Developed into Full Service platform for Open Publishing – The Case of 25 Universities of Applied Sciences in Finland promoting Open Publishing
Minna Marjamaa1 and Tiina Tolonen1
1AMKIT Consortium, Laurea University of Applied Sciences

The described study provides a new way of looking at scholarly publishing through repositories. Integration of a repository into a CRIS system is not new, but this is on a new level and could provide information about the integration on a large-scale level for other research communities / countries.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,0

6.  Low availability of code in ecology: call for urgent action
Antica Culina1 and Simon Evans2
1Netherlands Institute of Ecology
2University of Oxford

Code quality and availability of scientific software is a key issue across the sciences and the arts. An in-depth analysis of proliferation of software engineering methods and principles is necessary. The abstract addresses the availability of code which is used for research publications within journals within a specific discipline (ecology). The clear design of the study and the research criteria as outlined are laudable, since both reflect what we know today about the specific use of code for research, research assessment, reproducibility, and reusability.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,0

7.  What role can Open Science play in enabling South-North dialogues?
Johanna Havemann1 and Justin Segbedji Ahinon1
1AfricArXiv

The authors present a pre-print repository established to allow African scientists to publish their manuscripts in several African languages including English. The repository will allow African researchers to exchange research output, gain feedback and improve their work without any charge. This is a great opportunity for developing countries to collaborate with researchers globally. North-South dialogues and collaborations are of a very high relevance for the development of Open Science. This use case shows how such collaborations can work and how Open Science can overcome barriers and strengthen global and local knowledge communities at the same time.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,0

8.  Looking for the ‘O’ in EOSC? An participatory infrastructure to facilitate Scholarly Communication via Open Science.
Najla Rettberg1, Paolo Manghi2 and Pedro Principe3
1University of Göttingen
2CNR
3University of Minho

The abstract describes a European-wide data infrastructure that includes metadata of publications, data and funding information (among other data). The topic of Open Science monitoring is a hot topic within the community, especially with the recent tender for the EC Open Science Monitor, which has been criticized for its use of proprietary data and metrics. Therefore, alternative approaches to collect and present data around openly accessible research are highly relevant to open science and the conference.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,7

9.  Supporting Sustained Learning in Data Science with an Open Science Platform
Thomas Weißgerber1,  Michael Granitzer1 and Christofer Fellicious1
1University of Passau

The abstract describes an approach to apply Open Science methods in the machine learning domain. The abstract provides a very good description of the problematic situation with a sound proposal that fills an important gap addressing reproducibility problems at one of its cores. And it further addresses the computer science domains that generally lacks in applying Open Science methods.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,7

10.   Coupling a local GitLab instance with an institutional repository for instant research data publications
Christian Pietsch1, Jochen Schirrwagen1 and Vitali Peil1
1Bielefeld University

Zenodo already provides an integration with GitHub, so that snapshots from GitHub can be archived as research data on Zenodo. The authors present as similar internal solution for a university, in which a local GitLab is combined with an institutional data repository. This solution may be interesting for other research institutions.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,7

11.  The early access effect in bioRxiv preprints
Nicholas Fraser1, Fakhri Momemi2, Philipp Mayr2 and Isabella Peters1
1ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
2GESIS –  Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences

The abstract describes a project that tries to identify ‘genuine’ Open Access effects, e.g., by examining the underlying effects of the ‘Citation Advantage’. It is an important contribution and will hopefully explain why the effect differs across fields. The abstract provides a good introduction to the problem and the method of the study.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,5

12.  A scalable solution for transparent peer review
Ray Boucher1, Erin Arndt1, Chris Graf1, Michael Willis1, Debbie Menzies1, Lisbeth Cranfield1 and Tiago Barros2 
1Wiley
2Publons

Standards and workflows for the publication of peer review is an important and timely theme, so this abstract is a good and timely contribution. It is a relevant piece on the practical implementation of open peer review processes. It would be interesting to hear about the early feedback from participating researchers (as authors, reviewers, editors) and how the new system was communicated to them.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,3

13.  Open Scholarship in practice: presentation of a set of use cases collected
Gwen Franck1
1Gwen Franck GSV

The authors present results from interviews on open scholarship, giving the perspective of stakeholders (including high-profile CEOs and directors of leading Open Science service providers). This is an understudied area although it is of high relevance. The contribution provides an interesting complementary study to existing ones focusing on the researchers’ perspectives.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,3

14.   Testing new Formats of Participation in Science, Collections and Debates – The Experimental Field for Participation and Open Science at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
Wiebke Rössig1, Uwe Moldrzyk1 and Linda Galle1
1Museum für Naturkunde Berlin

The contribution introduces a new concept to bridge open and citizen science. It aims at the dissemination of research in a museum and at the same time allowing visitors to participate with the goal to enrich research and broaden diverse perspectives. This is an innovative and inspiring new approach and thus, of high relevance for the Open Science community.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

15.  Supporting the Open Access Monograph in the Humanities and Social Sciences: the HIRMEOS Project
Andrea Bertino1
1Gottingen State and University Library

The principles of Open Access – if not the practice – are relatively accepted among the STEM community where monographs are rare. In the humanities and social sciences that rely heavily on the monograph for publication of their research, acceptance of or even knowledge about Open Access is not that common. This project might help bridge that gap and move the humanities and social sciences toward greater acceptance of the Open Access model.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

16.  Implementing a Data Sharing Agreement in a biomedical research consortium
Christian Deisenroth1 and Christoph Schickhardt2
1National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT)
2German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)

The contribution presents a case study of data sharing in the context of systems medicine. The described project outlines that most reservations are due to “the fear of being scoped” or not being credited appropriately. To establish a data sharing agreement and data usage agreements in a medical research project should help to overcome uncertainties of data sharing in this medical field and thus, provides an interesting perspective to the future developments of Open Science.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

17.  GFBio – A FAIR infrastructure network to support and assist scientists in data management
Janine Felden1, Tina Astor2, Michael Diepenbroek1, Maren Gleisberg3, Frank Oliver Glöckner4 , Peter Grobe5 , Anton Güntsch3,9 , Robert Huber1, Jens Kattge6 , Birgitta König-Ries7 , Ivaylo Kostadinov8 , Claudia Müller-Birn9 , Jens Nieschulze10  , Bernhard Seeger11, Dagmar Triebel12 and Tanja Weibulat8
1MARUM, Universität Bremen
2Göttingen State and University Library
3Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin
4Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
5Zoologische Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig
6Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
7Friedrich Schiller University Jena
8GFBio e.V.
9Freie Universität Berlin
10Georg August University Göttingen
11Philipps-University Marburg
12Staatliche Naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen Bayerns

The contribution presents a national project, which supports scientists in Germany in matters of data management. The authors raise two issues, which are very interesting for the Open Science community: First, which incentives service providers can implement to steer researchers towards doing Open Science. Second, what are appropriate sustainability models for 3rd-party funded infrastructure projects (non-profit association). Thereby, the contribution combines two highly relevant and timely topics: FAIR data and the NFDI (a German research data infrastructure initiative).

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

18.  Canadian Research Data Repository Solutions and Innovations
Jeffrey Moon1 and Lee Wilson1
1CARL Portage

The contribution outlines two examples of highly relevant infrastructure services for RDM in the research landscape. These national-scale initiatives (in Canada) provide robust and flexible repository options that address the emerging data-deposit requirements. Accordingly, the described data repository solutions and innovations are also relevant use cases to meet broader, internationally-accepted Open Science ideals.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

19.  Learning from experience: innovative ways of surfacing manuscripts at different stages of the publication process
Georgiana-Simona Baciu1, Lakshmi Goyal2 and Sabine Kleinert3
1Elsevier
2Cell Press
3Lancet

The authors describe a very practical implementation of Open Science (open access) in journal publishing processes. Having workflows in place to give the option to easily channel submissions to preprint servers as a standard part of publication workflows will greatly increase the uptake of preprints. The two described programs are inspiring examples for the Open Science community.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

20.  Embedding Open Science practice into Data Science Training
Hugh Shanahan1, Rob Quick2, Sarah Jones3, Marcela Alfaro4, Louise Bezuidenhout5, Clement Onime6 and Simon Hodson7
1Royal Holloway, University of London
2Indiana University Bloomington
3Digital Curation Centre
4Universidad de Costa Rica
5Universit of Oxford
6International Centre for Theoretical Physics
7CODATA

The authors describe the work of a Task Force that aims to provide training on skills around data science, research data management, and Open Science practices. This is achieved through a series of schools around the globe, with a particular focus on low and middle income countries. As training is a key aspect in promoting and establishing the Open Science principles, showcasing such efforts can facilitate both uptake and duplication of the activities in other disciplines. Overall, this contribution addresses an important step to further foster Open Science in the community.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

21.  Open Science by Design – Rethinking the Research Process
Sonja Schimmler1,2, Fabian Kirstein1,2, Sebastian Urbanek1,2, Hannes Wünsche1,2 and Manfred Hauswirth1,2
1Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society
2Fraunhofer FOKUS

The contribution presents the “Open Science by Design” approach, which aims to install Open Science as an integral part of the authors’ institute culture. While the vision described by the authors is mainly a technical one, the important human factor in research is not neglected. The proposed platform will help scientists to share data, work on data, and even reach out to the public. Additionally, the mentioned “research identity” could help researchers overcome the fear of opening their “data vaults” by giving them the functionality to identify with all the work they have done. Furthermore, the implementation of Citizen Science and the “Auto Science” concept described by the authors is very thoughtful in contrast to many other approaches which are solely data driven.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

22.  Including open science to research projects since their submission: a library perspective
Romain Féret1 and Marie Cros1
1University of Lille

The author outlines an interesting approach how institutions may implement Open Science requirements. The library support service described in the contribution sounds like a promising way to ensure that research projects are handled in compliance with Open Science requirements. Also, including an Open Science Librarian in the research team makes the role and tasks of Open Science Librarians much more attractive for qualified staff. Overall, the presented case study is an interesting example for best practices in Open Science implementation and education.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,7

23.  Enabling Open Science publishing for Research Communities and Research Infrastructures via OpenAIRE
Pedro Príncipe1, Alessia Bardi2, André Vieira1, Paolo Manghi2 and Miriam Baglioni2
1University of Minho
2CNR-ISTI

In the proposal, authors address the details of the Dashboard for Research Communities. As this tool provides researchers the functionality to publish, monitor and discover research outputs while following Open Science principles, it appears to be an excellent addition to the collection of available OS tools. Thus, the presentation of this infrastructure project is of high relevance for the Open Science community.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,7

24.  Towards Open, Transparent, and Reproducible Data­Driven Science with Whole-Tale
Bertram Ludäscher1
1University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The author describes an open-source, community-driven project and presents a cloud-based tool that allow researchers to easily develop and share tales, which they call “living papers”. These living papers can encompass a science narrative, all relevant data (directly or by reference), analysis code, and the actual execution environment. Besides the innovative character, a main benefit of this project is the intention to collaborate with other projects that have similar approaches. This open-mindedness towards joining forces is beneficial for Open Science.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,7

 

Review Board

  • Nicolás Alessandroni, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • Vilte Banalyte, Public Policy and Management Institute
  • Michael Bosnjak, ZPID – Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information
  • Hans-Joachim Bungartz, Technical University of Munich
  • Philipp Conzett, UiT The Arctic University of Norway
  • Sascha Friesike, Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Konrad Förstner, ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences
  • Marion Goller, Universität Münster
  • Edit Gorogh, University of Gottingen
  • Christian Grimm, DFN-Verein
  • Wilhelm Hasselbring, Kiel University
  • Tamara Heck, DIPF – German Institute for International Educational Research
  • Lambert Heller, TIB – Leibniz Information Centre For Science and Technology and University Library
  • Maria Henkel, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf
  • Peer Herholz , Laboratory for Multimodal Neuroimaging, Philipps-Universität Marburg / International Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research, Université de Montréal & McGill University         
  • Markus Huff, German Research Institute for Adult Education
  • Alexandra Jobmann, University Library Bielefeld / National Contact Point Open Access OA2020-DE
  • Reiner Jung, Kiel University
  • Robert Jäschke, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
  • Peter Kraker          , Open Knowledge Maps  
  • Bianca Kramer, Utrecht University
  • Dieter Kranzlmüller, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
  • Ignasi Labastida, Universitat de Barcelona
  • André Lampe, freelance
  • Atif Latif, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics                    
  • Stephanie Linek, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics          
  • Philipp Mayr, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
  • Julika Mimkes, Göttingen State and University Library
  • Peter Mutschke, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
  • Elli Papadopoulou, Athena Research and Innovation Center
  • Isabella Peters, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics          
  • Hans Pfeiffenberger, Alfred Wegener Institute
  • Fotis Psomopoulos, INAB|CERTH
  • Anthony Ross-Hellauer, Göttingen State and University Library
  • Alessandro Sarretta, CNR-ISMAR
  • Guido Scherp, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Jochen Schirrwagen, Bielefeld University Library
  • Jasmin Schmitz, ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences
  • Rene Schneider, Haute Ecole de Gestion 
  • Willi Scholz, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Malvika Sharan, EMBL
  • Erich Weichselgartner, ZPID – Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information
  • Maike Weisspflug, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
  • Nicolas Wöhrl, University Duisburg-Essen