Accepted Posters 2022

Accepted contributions for the Call for Poster Presentations 2022

Overall, we received 29 submissions for the Call for Poster Presentations. Among the high amount of excellent abstracts, 13 contributions will be presented as poster.

You can find all abstracts and posters on Zenodo:

All abstracts have been reviewed by a review board (see below) based on the following review criteria – rating from 0 (very low) to 10 (very high):

  • Scientific Quality / State of the art (10%)
  • Practical Relevance (10%)
  • Innovativeness (10%)
  • Thematic Relevance (10%)
  • Presentation and Language (10%)
  • Overall recommendation (50%)

The possible maximum average score is 100.

Following is the list of all accepted submissions that will be presented, including a scientific justification for their acceptance based on the reviewers’ comments. The shown rating values are the average of all independent reviews.

1. Promoting and Educating on Citizen Science in the Context of a Small Central European Country: The Case of Slovakia.
Zuzana Stožická1, Silvia Sofianos1, Mária Habrmanová1, Matej Harvát1, Jitka Dobbersteinová1
Organization(s): 1: Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information

The authors outline the state of Citizen Science in Slovakia and propose a multi-step plan to encourage Citizen Science projects in their country in order to promote Open Science. Thereby they highlight the design and implementation of a new course on Citizen Science as a potential element of scientific projects that are using participatory methods as a component of the work. The importance of communication in locally relevant languages is well outpointed. The course sounds fascinating and can be a blue-print for other countries . The authors provide also a reasonable outlook for future work. This contribution falls very well under the topic of the OSC because increasing the awareness of the impact on Citizen Science is a key element of promoting Open Science in a wider context.

Average reviewers ratings: 87.0

2. Semantic Metadata Annotation Service
Julia Sasse1,Johannes Darms1, Juliane Fluck1,2
Organization(s): 1: ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences, Cologne, Bonn, Germany; 2: University of Bonn, Germany

The poster presents a first prototype that addresses the problem of semantic interoperability, especially the problem that annotators have to manage a great variety of data standards, formats and terminologies. The prototype supports researchers in semantic annotations by a cross-domain and extensible semantic metadata annotation service that also includes terminology lookup possibilities. The prototype has been successfully evaluated for a use case in the medical domain. The contribution is of high value for the OSC because metadata are the centrepiece of the FAIR principles and rich metadata are laborious to create. Automated workflows to create metadata drawing from controlled vocabularies are therefore important and the authors provide a fruitful contribution towards operationalising the „I“ of the FAIR principles.

Average reviewers ratings: 84.3

3. IIIF collections as Research Data – an Integrated Approach by the Zentralbibliothek Zürich
Elisabeth-Christine Gamer1, Elias Kreyenbühl1
Organization(s): 1: Zentralbibliothek Zürich

The authors present a new and creative approach within the field of IIIF (International Image Interoperability Framework) applications. Images contain a lot of information and making this content (machine-) accessible is certainly important. It is interesting for the Open Science community to see a workflow automatically screening images, tagging them, linking this to vocabularies and provide a platform to search for this content and how the software solution fits into this workflow. Since this opens up an interesting new perspective on how to deal with one type of research data (images, image layers, image annotations, etc., used especially in the humanities but sometimes even in other disciplines), it fits into the concept of advancing the use of open research data by means of open standards.

Average reviewers ratings: 82.0

4. Student Involvement in Open Science
Iris Smal1, Hilbrand Wouters2, Christeen Saparamadu3
Organization(s): 1: University of Amsterdam; 2: Utrecht University; 3: Technological University Dublin

The contribution presents a valuable and praiseworthy initiative of engaging students in the Open Science movement. The topic is very relevant in the higher education because Open Science needs to be part of university education in every step. So far, the student community is only sparsely involved in the Open Science movement even though it is advisable to interlink students as early as possible in order to spread the Open Science among the research community. Accordingly, the authors present a good showcase of an important and relevant initiative with practical tips that could gain traction in other university cities or countries.

Average reviewers ratings: 81.7

5. Open Energy Metadata: Publishing Energy Data Enriched with Ontology References
Christian Hofmann1, Hannah Förster2, Ludwig Hülk1
Organization(s): 1: Reiner Lemoine Institut; 2: Öko-Institut

The authors present the OpenEnergyPlatform (OEP), which is a web interface that allows access to a community database for energy data. The standardized metadata format is developed publicly on GitHub. This is an important development in organizing shared knowledge about energy modelling. The activity is made in a very open spirit and the process of developing can serve as a best practice in itself. Additionally, it shows how to advance on data and metadata interoperability in the field of energy. It is also an interesting example how to promote the OpenEnergyOntology (OEO) in a way so that it can become a standard even to those who are not familiar with the concepts.

Average reviewers ratings: 81.0

6. A Road to Data Liberation in Helmholtz
Christine Lemster1, Constanze Curdt1, Sören Lorenz1
Organization(s): 1: Geomar, Helmholtz Metadata Collaboration

The authors present a Helmholtz initiative to provide comprehensive services, consulting, information and tools for an efficient handling of metadata. The support for managing research data is essential nowadays and it is extremely important to know how to transfer it to practice in different places and for several disciplines. The authors show a good use case that could be replicated in other institutions. Thus, the contribution will be very inspiring and useful for the attendees of the Open Science Conference.

Average reviewers ratings: 81.0

7. French Second National Plan for Open Science: Support and Opportunities for Universities’ Open Infrastructures and Practices.
Sophie Forcadell2, Adeline Rege1
Organization(s): 1: University of Strasbourg; 2: SciencesPo

The authors present two use cases of the French second National Plan for Open Science. It will be very insightful for other countries and international visitors of the Open Science Conference how the topic Open Science is supported on the political level and how the measures are implemented especially including interaction in an European context. The described examples provide fruitful and inspiring instances of Open Science practice and fit very well in the topics of the OSC 2022.

Average reviewers ratings: 80.3

8. The First 6 Months of Open Science
Lynnee Marie Argabright1, Allison Michelle Kittinger1
Organization(s): 1: UNC-Wilmington

The aim of the poster is to present new data librarian roles to fulfil the various needs in Open Science support services. This is a very important topic because currently many organizations are thinking how to improve the support services in Open Science at the researchers’ level and to raise awareness of its practices. The presented project of support is a good practical example and can be copied by other people and institutions. Thus, the contribution is of high relevance for the Open Science community.

Average reviewers ratings: 79.3

9. Handling Machine-generated Statistics in Open Repositories
Tal Ayalon1
Organization(s): 1: World Bank Group

The authors tackles actual issues of metrics like views and downloads. Key performance indicators for the success of Open Science repositories are of high relevance. If the statistics can be cleaned of bot-generated influences, this can increase confidence in the indicators. Therefore, the approaches outlined in the submission are important.

Average reviewers ratings: 77.0

10. Open Access in Greece: Perceptions in Academic Institutions
Athanasia Salamoura1, Maria Frantzi2,  Giannis Tsakonas2
Organization(s): 1: HEAL-Link, Scholarly Communication Unit, Greece; 2: Library & Information Center, University of Patras, Greece;

The contribution aims to present the outcomes and insights derived from a survey addressed to all academic member institutions in Greece, that was developed in order to identify what enables or/and prohibits the adoption of Open Access at a nationwide level. This work is very relevant to the topic of this conference, and is rather timely as it aims to provide actionable input to the decision-making process of the new operating unit of the South-Eastern countries consortium of academic libraries. The presented evaluations of a survey are initially important for the national strategy, but can provide conclusions for the international Open Science movement.

Average reviewers ratings: 77.0

11. An Increased Use of the Institutional Repository by Researchers from 7% to 45%: Lessons from the Open Access Campaign at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana.
Matic Bradač1
Organization(s): 1: University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business (SEB LU)

The submission gives a view of Open Access publication development in one school of the University of Ljubljana. The author described a success story where the use of an institutional repository jumped from 2% to over 45% in a short time span. The lessons learned from this campaign can be of much interest to others dealing with similar situations: creating institutional repositories is one thing, making sure they are actually used is a challenge of its own.

Average reviewers ratings: 75.7

12. Reflecting Open Practices on Digital Infrastructures
Johannes Hiebl1, Tamara Heck1, Sylvia Kullmann1, Marc Rittberger1
Organization(s): 1: DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education

The submission deals with an analysis of the functionalities of infrastructure, which support Open Educational Resources and Open Educational Practices. Since there are several infrastructure needs for different aspects such as publishing, exchange of documents or teaching the landscape is very diverse. A closer look at the functionalities might therefore give an overview and provide some orientation.

Average reviewers ratings: 75.7

13. Improving Community Funding and Workflows for Scholar-led Journals and Blogs
Marcel Wrzesinski1, Philipp Hess2
Organization(s): 1: Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society; 2: Knowledge Unlatched

The poster deals with the funding of scholar-led journals. This is very relevant since scholar-led journals can be considered as an additional pillar to raise the share of Open Access articles and provide publication infrastructure for those who are neither able  nor willing to afford high APCs. Initiative such as „Stop tracking science“ see them also as one means to diminish the influence of the big publishers. It is a very important effort to put scientific publishing in the hands and responsibility of academic communities.

Average reviewers ratings: 74.7

Review Board

  • Nicolás Alessandroni, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • Alessia Bardi, CNR
  • Loek Brinkman, Utrecht Medical Cente
  • Andreas Czerniak, Bielefeld University
  • Konrad Förstner, ZB MED
  • Bernadette Fritzsch, AWI
  • Wilhelm Hasselbring, Kiel University
  • Lambert Heller, TIB – Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology
  • Anne Kärki, Satakunta University of Applied Sciences
  • Ignasi Labastida, Universitat de Barcelona
  • André Lampe, freelance science communicator
  • Stephanie Linek, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Paolo Manghi, CNR – ISTI
  • Philipp Mayr, GESIS
  • Peter Mutschke, GESIS
  • Seliina Päällysaho, Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu
  • Isabella Peters, ZBW Leibniz Information Center for Economics
  • Jessica Polka, ASAPbio
  • Fotis Psomopoulos, Centre for Research and Technology Hellas
  • Rima-Maria Rahal, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
  • Alessandro Sarretta, CNR-IRPI
  • Guido Scherp, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Jasmin Schmitz, ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences
  • Anne-Floor Scholvinck, Rathenau Instituut
  • Antonia Schrader, Helmholtz Open Science Office
  • August Hubert Wierling, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences