Day 3

Ensuring reproducibility is one of the main goals of open science. To achieve reproducibility of scientific results, data and analytical computer code (if used) should ideally be openly available. Thus far, efforts have mostly focused on making research data open and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), whereas code-sharing has only recently started to gain attention.

A recent review of the state of code availability in ecological journals with code-sharing policies showed that, despite the policies, code-sharing is alarmingly low, suggesting that those policies are not adhered to by most authors. This project builds on that recent review to explicitly test whether journal code-sharing policies increase code availability. For that, we compare code availability between 14 journals with (n = 346 articles) and 13 journals without code-sharing policies (n = 350 articles) for the period between 2015 and 2019. Our study aims to provide essential information to help improve code-sharing and journal code-sharing policies in ecology and other fields, with the ultimate goal of making science more reproducible in the short- and long-term.

Our findings thus far provide evidence that the implementation of a journal code-sharing policy does not result in a substantial proportion of code-sharing. However, it does appear to contribute to an overall increase in the availability of code, which is a positive outcome. When considering eligible articles published, the percentage of papers that shared their code was significantly higher in journals with a code-sharing policy (27%) compared to journals without such a policy (3%). Another noteworthy observation is the progressive increase in code-sharing within journals lacking a code-sharing policy over time. Specifically, only 1% of papers published between 2015-2016 shared their code, whereas this figure rose to 4% between 2018-2019. In sum, our results suggest that although code-sharing policies lead to an increase in code availability, the scientific community still needs to ensure that those policies are truly implemented. For that, we suggest that journals must provide better support for researchers and have a system for ensuring that policies are adhered to.

Authors:
Aya Bezine¹, Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar¹, Antica Culina², Marija Purgar²
Organisation(s): 1: Bielefeld University; 2: Ruder Boskovic Institute, Zagreb

Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) and their infrastructures are vital for accountability, reproducibility, and credibility in research. They contribute to Open Science and Open Scholarship by fostering transparency, identification, and referencing of scientific outputs. PIDs like DOIs, ORCID iDs, and ROR iDs are essential for research funders, universities, and researchers to enhance visibility, reproducibility, and attribution. The success of PIDs depends on their added values, trustworthiness, and absence of risks. A comprehensive investigation conducted in 2022 explored the requirements for a well-functioning PID infrastructure. The study focused on risk and trust, adopting a stakeholder and case study approach involving PID Authorities, Service Providers, Managers, Owners, and Users.

A literature review clarified trust definitions and trustee nature, along with risk dimensions and management strategies. Qualitative interviews with 15 international PID experts were conducted, transcribed, and coded. Findings were analyzed across technological, social, economic, and political dimensions. This contribution highlights PIDs as socio-technical systems and crucial infrastructures for Open Science. The study revealed organizational, political, and social risks, as well as substantial trust in PID infrastructures. Recommendations are provided for PID infrastructure development, and suggestions were given for academic institutions, funding organizations, libraries, and publishers to improve PIDs’ permanence and reliability in line with the FAIR principles.

Authors:
Laura Rothfritz^1,6, Stephanie Palek², Pablo de Castro^3,6, Ulrich Herb^4,6, Joachim Schöpfel^5,6
Organisation(s): 1: Humboldt-University Berlin; 2: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek; 3: U Strathclyde Glasgow; 4: Saarland University; 5: University of Lille; 6: scidecode science consulting

Federation of Finnish Learned Societies and IT Center for Science have published open data on monitoring the implementation of open science policies in Finnish universities and research organisations. This talk introduces the monitoring results in the context of Universities of Applied Sciences in Finland (UAS).

The monitoring revealed that Finnish UASs are committed to the Declaration of Open Science and Research and have worked to promote open science practices in national and organisational level. The monitoring was based on various indicators and survey targeted to research organisations. A five-level model to determine the degree of openness (1-5) was created based on the key indicators and the number of points given.

In overall assessments of openness 39% of UAS were on the highest level (level 5) and 39% on the level 4, only three organisations were on the level 3 and two on level 2. Besides that, organisational open science and research profile – a set of organisational degrees of openness was calculated based on open science and research indicators in four areas: culture for open scholarship, open access to scholarly publications, open access of research data and methods, and open education and open access to educational resources.

Authors:
Anne Kärki¹, Hanna Lahtinen², Seliina Päällysaho³
Organisation(s): 1: Satakunta University of Applied Sciences; 2: Laurea University of Applied Sciences; 3: Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences

Open science policies have been implemented worldwide, but there is a research gap in understanding how these policies affect researchers’ knowledge production practices. In order to better understand how open science is incorporated into mode 2 of knowledge production in the basic sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology in Brazil, France, and Peru, this paper uses a qualitative research methodology. Researchers at the top institutions in each nation are asked for their ideas, perceptions, and experiences with the policies through semi-directed interviews. The interview transcriptions were analyzed using Nvivo software. The coding process employed a thematic analysis with an inductive category development approach. The research question is focused on understanding how open science policies have impacted knowledge production practices of researchers in these countries, highlighting differences and similarities across science disciplines. By addressing the existing research gap, it enhances the empirical literature on open science and adds diversity to the understanding of this subject.

Authors:
Alejandra Manco
Organisation(s): Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1

Academic success is commonly evaluated by the number of published articles. Yet, focusing on this single metric selects against female academics with biased gender roles both within households and within academic institution. Novel social conditions induced by the COVID19 pandemic likely exacerbated this gender-bias if female academics took on heavier loads of caregiving, domestic, service and teaching tasks. We investigate the overall pandemic effect on the gender gap in research productivity through a systematic review and meta-analysis of 130 effect sizes from 55 published articles across scientific disciplines.

We also investigate how research field, breadth of gender gap before the pandemic, and authorship position influence this effect. We found that the gender gap in research productivity within academia has overall increased by 5% according to the numbers of publications and submissions during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in social sciences and medicine, fields that were previously nearest to being gender equal, with less or no change in natural science fields. We did not detect an influence of authorship position.

Based on our results, we call attention to the fact that traditional metrics of research productivity such as numbers of publications and submissions have disproportionately worsened for women researchers. Potentially, this could feedback into grant-allocation/tenure/promotion/hiring decisions, worsening academia’s “leaky pipeline”. The script and dataset in our systematic review and meta-analysis enables monitoring of longer-term effects by incorporating new research on the topic as and when it becomes available.

Authors:
Kiran Gok Lune Lee^1,2, Hannah Dugdale¹, Adele Mennerat³, Dieter Lukas⁴, Antica Culina^5,6
Organisation(s): 1: Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 2: Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 3: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 4: Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany; 5: Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia; 6: Netherlands Institute of Ecology

Leonhard Volz^1,2,3, David Joachim Grüning^2,4,5, Anne Sophie Giacobello^1,3, Maximilian Frank^2,6, Nitya Shah^1,3

Organisation(s): 1: Student Initiative for Open Science, NL; 2: Open Science AG, PsyFaKo e.V., DE; 3: University of Amsterdam, NL; 4: University of Heidelberg, DE; 5: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, DE; 6: Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, DE

Education is crucial within Open Science (OS) in at least two major ways. On the one hand, a central pillar of OS is Open Education, summarising efforts to ease access to educational resources. On the other hand, the application of OS requires knowledge and skills that need to be acquired. For OSC2023, we want to provide an informed student perspective on education in OS. From experience as members in active student-communities for OS, we suggest revising the existing content of teaching at universities by addressing three major aspects: (a) explicitly including OS content in academic education, (b) anchoring didactical aims more in OS principles, and (c) using OS tools (or resources) in diverse and rewarding ways.

This session is guided by the idea that everyone brings their unique background and perspectives into the (digital) room and structured thought exchange will open up new avenues to promote teaching of and with OS and
Open Education. In that spirit, everyone with a role in teaching is welcome.
Concretely, we will start with an input presentation that will introduce principles of Open Education and present a diverse collection of existing concepts that can inspire and reinforce concrete thinking about possibilities for one’s own action. The latter parts of the workshop will comprise guided discussion rounds and feedback / reflection forums that aim to develop ideas further and give valuable input, consider the feasibility of plans, and encourage subsequent engagement.

Our goal for the workshop outcomes is twofold. At the end of the sessions, we aim at having composed a wide collection of ideas on adapting education according to OS principles. Further, we want to arrive at concrete actions that each participant can implement in their own teaching-related activities.

Maria Cruz¹, Maaike de Jong², Carlos Martinez-Ortiz²

Organisation(s): 1: NWO; 2: Netherlands eScience Center

Software plays an increasingly important role in research and has become a key output of many research projects. Several aspects of its development, maintenance and curation need to be planned for. A software management plan is a document that describes how a specific software project will be developed, maintained and curated. Software management plans help to implement best practices during software development and ensure that software is accessible and reusable in the short and long term.

This workshop will address how software management plans contribute to open science and to the overall quality of research. Participants will learn how a software management plan can be beneficial to their research – in particular, how it stimulates good coding practices and the accessibility and reusability of research software; contributes to the reproducibility of research results; stimulates collaborative work on open-source software; and improves the long-term sustainability of research software. Based on the Practical Guide to Software Management Plans, participants will classify their own software (or examples of software provided by the organizers) and will get familiar with the elements of a software management plan. The workshop is targeted at researchers, research support staff, research software engineers, librarians, policy makers, and anyone with an interest in open research software.

The appropriate integration of open practices in research evaluation is deemed crucial for their acceptance and widespread adoption. In recent years, significant endeavors have been made to fundamentally reform the research assessment system, including the formation of a prominent coalition called COARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment). However, considering these advancements, it is important to ask whether the principles of Open Science are sufficiently reflected in this process. What aspects still need to be taken into account? How does this impact early-career researchers? These and other issues will be subject of the panel discussion.



Panellists:

• Lidia Borrell-Damian (Science Europe)
• Iain Hrynaszkiewicz (PLOS)
• Claudia Labisch (Leibniz Association)
• Iris Lechner (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Panel moderation: Klaus Tochtermann (ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics)