Call for Project Presentations / Accepted Posters

The review process for the Call for Project Presentations has ended. Overall, we received 56 submissions. Due to the high amount of excellent abstracts, we decided that the 10 most outstanding proposals will be presented as lightening talks and as posters. Furthermore, 11 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 score is  8,0.

Accepted contributions of the Open Science Conference 2018

Following is the list of all accepted contributions of the Open Science Conference 2018 including a scientific justification for their acceptance based on the reviewers’ comments. The shown rating values are the average of three to four independent reviews.

The final abstracts will be published soon.

1. RENGA, an open-source, highly scalable platform fostering cooperation in data science
Rok Roskar1, Eric Bouillet1, Luc Henry2, Olivier Verscheure1
1Swiss Data Science Center / ETH Zurich & EPFL
2Presidency / EPFL

The contribution presents the open data science platform RENGA (implemented in Python) that includes solutions to several problems of open data. The platform materializes data lineage into a knowledge graph representation that serves as the basis for traceability of research. The topic of this contribution is very suitable for the OSC community and proposes a very good application for open science and open data.

Average reviewers ratings: 8,0

2. Genomics For Everyone
Christine Mannhalter1 and Elisabeth Simboeck1
1CeMM and Genom Austria

The presentation describes a FAIR database of human genomes in Austria, a topic, which is highly relevant to the OSC. With Genom Austria the authors present a highly relevant project handling valuable datasets to improve insights into human genomics. The project showcases best practice examples for data management and for difficult questions surrounding personal data and openness. The authors address the important aspect of education regarding new technologies and data sensitivity and present concepts to better involve citizens and decision makers in the research process. Thus, the presentation is of high importance for the OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,5

3. FORSbase – Implementing the FAIR principles for social science data archives
Stefan Buerli1

The contribution presents the web application FORSbase that makes social science data as open as possible and supports researchers through the entire data life cycle. One innovative aspect is that FORSbase allows researchers to choose between different degrees of openness, as it is often necessary for data from social sciences. Such examples are highly valuable for putting the FAIR principles into practice. Furthermore, interoperability with other social science data archives and research information systems is provided. By this, the project covers the conference topic very well.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,2

4. FAIRization: What qualifies a search engine for distributed research data?
Timo Borst1, Anastasia Kazakova1, Atif Latif1, Fidan Limani1
1ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics

This presentation describes the development of a search engine for research data, which not only copies the algorithms of conventional search engines, but is also optimized for research data queries. The novel approach uses additional forms of contextual information (“proxies”) and can help to introduce a “judgment of relevance” within scientific discovery engines. Thus, it can provide a significant service for querying suitable research data. Solutions to improve the retrieval of research data are highly relevant and FAIRization seems of special interest  for the community of the OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 7,0

5. RDMO – Research Data Management Organiser
Jochen Klar1, Harry Enke1, Heike Neuroth2, Frank Tristram3, Claudia Kramer3, Jens Ludwig4
1Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP)
2Fachhochschule Potsdam (FHP)
3Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
4DINI/nestor-AG Digitale Forschungsdaten

This contribution presents an important tool for researchers to structure the data management process.  RDMO is designed for the data management process during the whole project and can be adapted to various situations. The open source approach of RDMO does especially considerate the installation by institutions and universities and its adaptation for discipline-specific or institutional needs. Thus, the contribution provides a valuable new tool of high interest for the community of the OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,8

6. OpenAIRE: supporting the EC’s Open Data Pilot in H2020
Sarah Jones1, Marjan Grootveld2, Elly Dijk2, Ellen Leenarts2, Ilaria Fava3
1University of Glasgow
3Göttingen State and University Library

OpenAIRE2020 aims to provide data access and to foster reuse of data. It is embedded in the third phase of OpenAIRE which focuses on research​ ​data management, ​data​ archiving,​ and​ ​sharing​ ​practices. In particular, the project presents the results of a​ ​survey​ ​on​ ​the​ ​European​ ​Commission’s​ ​approach​ ​to​ ​data management​ ​plans.​ ​The​ ​survey​ ​dealt FAIR​ ​principles​ ​for​ ​research​ ​data, discipline-specific​ ​guidelines, and common​ ​standards​ ​for ​data management​ ​plans. OpenAIRE supports the implementation of the EC’s requirements and recommendations on open access and open research data through its network. As such, a presentation on their recent survey on the European Commission’s approach to data management plans is highly valuable for the OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,8

7. 750 Volunteers Transcribing 31,000 Pages with 8.5 million Entries Online – an Evaluation
Jesper Zedlitz1, Norbert Luttenberger1
1University of Kiel

The proposal describes a crowdsourcing project to generate research and metadata. It is a technological and organizational approach to guarantee in-depth indexing of digital artifacts for scientific usage and represents a prototypical crowdsourced in-depth-indexing project. The approach is very innovative and provided good experience to facilitate the work of researchers. Thus, it is highly relevant for the community of the OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,3

8. CESSDA’s Stepping Stones in Realising the FAIR principles
Ron Dekker1

The Consortium of European Social Science data Archives (CESSDA) provides an innovative approach to support the FAIR principles. In particular, CESSDA’s submission is of interest, because it represents many important data centers in Europe – not just a project or a single service. CESSDA states that one of their key challenges is using the FAIR principles by taking into account the distributive infrastructure within social sciences and the sensitivity of man social science data. To hear how CESSDA’s realized the findability of social sciences’ research data is promising and of high interest for the OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

9. Preprints Servers as a Hub for Early Stage Research Outputs
Martyn Rittman1

In 2017, several new subject-specific preprint servers have started their work. The presentation aims to compare preprint servers and their services, such as linking to the paper’s additional research output (e.g. data and code). This is an important discussion towards standards for subject-specific preprint servers and their contribution to Open Science. Lack of standards in several areas is preventing wider acceptance of open science methods. This study contributes to greater transparency by comparing the strategies of different preprint services with a focus on additional sources and materials. Overall, the presentation addresses an important question in the open science ecosystem and thereby, the contribution is highly valuable for the OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

10. How Research libraries can build on the EOSC to support scientific communities
Ilaria Fava1, Valentino Cavalli2
1Göttingen State and University Library

The contribution describes detailed activities within the EOSCpilot (European Open Science Cloud for Research Pilot Project) which is an important activity to approach research data management challenges especially in multinational scenarios. The presented setup of 15 science demonstrators as well as interviews appears crucial to bring together both worlds of service providers and data creators and (re-)users. The EOSCpilot addresses extremely relevant topics (landscape of existing infrastructures and training plus the governance model). In addition, the science demonstrators put the researchers in the center of the discussion and could help to foster the cultural change to Open Science/FAIR data. The OSC 2018 will benefit from this presentation, because it will shed light on the researchers` attitudes.

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

11. Humanities data sharing: An exploration of conceptual approaches for data journals
Edit Gorogh1, Birgit Schmidt1
1University of Göttingen

The abstract focuses on initial results of a pilot study in the context of the EU project OpenUP, which evaluates how quality assessment and (open) peer review can be applied to research data in the humanities. These are very relevant topics with respect to research data management and this project can give valuable insights into the humanities as well input towards implementing FAIR data principles. The project is further well-integrated with other large-scale efforts such as DARIAH-EU (Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities).

Average reviewers ratings: 6,0

12. The Connections between online post-publication peer review and retractions
Hadas Shema1 and Isabella Peters1
1ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics

The submission focuses on the need for transparency in scientific communication as one of the major goals in open science. The research question is if post-publication peer review based on discussions in social media and other platforms is effective in detecting flaws in scholarly works, which could lead to a retraction of said work. Indeed this work could contribute to accept that many forms of post-publication peer review are very valuable, because such feedback channels could be used in altmetrics and could prevent the citing of retracted (or to be retracted) papers in the future. Generally, evidence-based research on open peer review services and tools is still a neglected area in the open science discourse.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,8

13. Work in progress report: Geospatially-enabled discovery tools for economics and social sciences to blend survey data with spatial data while respecting data privacy issues. And honoring the FAIR principles.
Peter Löwe1, Jan Goebel1
1DIW Berlin

This contribution describes the implementation progress of the geospatially-enabled discovery system GeoBlackLight in the GIS-based workflows of the Socio-Economic Panel, in order to facilitate a combined use of geospatial content and restricted survey data. Dealing with sensitive poll data from microeconomics and their spatial analysis, the authors describe a potential FAIR data use case. As such, FAIR does not necessarily mean open data availability.  This is a very good initiative about processing data that includes data of sensitive nature.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,5

14. Getting closer to the researcher’s desk – from acquisition and management to publishing scientific data
Stephan Mäs1, Daniel Henzen1, Lars Bernard1
1TU Dresden

The abstract presents an architecture for the Collaborative Early Warning Information Systems for Urban Infrastructures (COLABIS) which aims to provide research data management for the whole research data life cycle.  The implementation of the software architecture seems to comply with state-of-the-art standards. It is a best practice candidate to facilitate data sharing and management that should be discussed in different discipline specific communities for common use.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,5

15. Researcher Identifiers, Metadata and Scholarly Communication in the Linked Data Environment: The Implication for University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Anchalee Panigabutra-Roberts1
1University of Tennessee, Knoxville

This abstract describes a study to evaluate different researcher identification systems and their metadata to define a metadata model for a linked data environment that is inclusive of metadata from such diverse systems.  It is a well-chosen topic and approach, which is at the very core of an infrastructure for Open Science. Researcher identification management is a key element of the linked open data landscape. A study that evaluates a broad field of different systems is highly relevant. Although it has a focus on the US and excludes discipline-specific systems it will help others to understand the issues and how the resulting metadata model can be applied to other institutions.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,3

16. Tracking open research data re-use in scholarly journal papers
Stephanie van de Sandt1, Maxi Kindling1
1Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

This submission describes a research project that aims at tracking data re-use in scholarly articles through different methods, including text mining. This is especially interesting as research has shown that the overwhelming majority of data sets are not formally cited. By analyzing the context of data re-use and the properties of the mentioned datasets, the project should also shed further light into findability and accessibility data sets. Thus, empirical findings of data citation practices and methods to track data re-use should be presented and discussed at OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,3

17.  FOSTER Plus – Fostering the practical implementation of Open Science in Horizon 2020 and beyond
Helene Brinken1, Joy Davidson2, Birgit Schmidt1
Goettingen State and University Library
2University of Glasgow, Digital Curation Centre (DCC)

The authors aim to present two training resources of the FOSTER Plus project for Open Science: 1) a handbook and 2) an e-learning course. The abstract shows a broad perspective on the issue of open data (beyond research data management in a narrower sense) as it includes for example open access publishing, open peer review and open source software and workflows. This adds to its innovative value and practical relevance. Discipline specific problems are addressed as well, which is strongly required by scientific communities. Thus, the author’s work is of high practical relevance for the conference.

Average reviewers ratings: 5,0

18. The Open Archives of Knowledge-Data Experiment at University of Strasbourg
Stéphanie Cheviron1, Adeline Rege1
1Université de Strasbourg

This abstract describes the support of an ambitious goal, namely making all research outputs of University of Strasbourg open by default. It presents the user-driven, multi-stakeholder approach adopted by the university, which helps to identify best practices and to facilitate acceptance by researchers. The project seems to have a clear aim and describes a series of useful steps based on observing researchers in their approach to open science. The collaboration between several departments to involve relevant stakeholders and the consideration of organizational structures additional to technical implementations underlines its practical relevance and valuable contribution to OSC 2018.

Average reviewers ratings: 4,8

19. Open Science as-a-Service for research communities: preliminary results and use cases from the OpenAIRE-Connect project
Pedro Príncipe1, Paolo Manghi2, Natalia Manola3
1University of Minho
3University of Athens

The authors present two services (called “OSaaS” – “Open Science as a Service”) in the context of the EU project OpenAIRE: 1) A service to enable communities to publish research artifacts (packages and links) 2) A service to monitor the impact of those packages. It is a nice proposal depicting the consequences of Open Science related topics and strategies on the operational level of software based services and data modelling. In the light of a leading question like “What does Open Science practically mean?” the proposal conveys some basic insights with reference to a European Infrastructure project.

Average reviewers ratings: 4,8

20. Practice of Research Data Management: Findings from the IFLA LTR Project
Anna Maria Tammaro1, Krystyna Matusiak2, Vittore Casarosa3, Frank Sposito2
1University of Parma
3Cranfield University

The submission covers characteristic tasks and responsibilities of data curators in international and interdisciplinary contexts. It offers empirical insights on data management from data management professionals, in particular technical systems and services structured around research data, social activities, and policy initiatives. This is done by analyzing several hundred job announcements with relation to RDM plus in depth interviews with RDM experts. These insights are novel and could be helpful for many participants of the conference.

Average reviewers ratings: 4,8

21. A National Approach to Open Science and Research in Canada
Portia Taylor1, Mark Leggott2
1Government of Canada
2Research Data Canada

The proposal is showcasing the national approach on Open Science and Open Data in Canada. It promises to present a few examples of use cases and best practices from a country, which is dedicated to be among the leading nations, when it comes to open science. It could be an interesting experience since the government bodies are engaged in the process and some research institutions are committed to include open science principles in their performance.     

Average reviewers ratings: 4,8


Review Board

  • Lidia Borrell-Damian, European University Association
  • Timo Borst, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Hans-Joachim Bungartz, Technical University of Munich
  • Benedikt Fecher,  Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
  • Konrad Förstner, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
  • Sascha Friesike, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Edit Gorogh, Goettingen State and University Library
  • Christian Grimm, DFN
  • Wilhelm Hasselbring, Kiel University
  • Tamara Heck, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
  • Christian Heise, Open Knowledge Foundation DE / Leuphana University
  • Markus Huff, German Research Institute for Adult Education (DIE)
  • Reiner Jung, Kiel University
  • Markus Konkol, University of Münster
  • Angelina Kraft, German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB)
  • Peter Kraker, Open Knowledge Maps
  • Dieter Kranzlmüller, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
  • Harald Kusch, University Medical Center Göttingen
  • Igsani Labastida, Universitat de Barcelona
  • Andre Lampe, Freelancer
  • Elisabeth Lex, Graz University of Technology
  • Stephanie Linek, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Natalia Manola Athena, Research and Innovation Centre
  • Philipp Mayr, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
  • Athanasios Mazarakis, Kiel University & ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Alexia Meyermann, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF)
  • Julika Mimkes, University Library Goettingen
  • Peter Mutschke, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
  • Astrid Orth, University Library Goettingen
  • Isabella Peters, Kiel University & ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Cornelius Puschmann, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
  • Matthias Razum, FIZ Karlsruhe – Leibniz Institute for Information Infrastructure
  • Bernd Rupp, Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare Pharmakologie (FMP)
  • Guido Scherp, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Birgit Schmidt, Goettingen State and University Library & University of Goettingen
  • Jasmin Schmitz, ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences
  • Willi Scholz, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Jürgen Schupp, Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) in the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin)
  • Malvika Sharan, European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  • Olaf Siegert, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Ralf Toepfer, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Sven Vlaeminck, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Doris Wedlich, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
  • Erich Weichselgartner, Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID)
  • Gabriele von Voigt, Leibniz Universität Hannover