Niedersächsische Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background</ns4:bold> : “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods</ns4:bold> : Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the various innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results</ns4:bold> : This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase “open peer review” has been used thus far, for the literature offers 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature reviewed. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions</ns4:bold> : I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process. </ns4:p>

<ns4:p>Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with a myriad of overlapping and often contradictory definitions. While the term is used by some to refer to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods.</ns4:p> <ns4:p>Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are then systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the many different innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking.</ns4:p> <ns4:p>Results: This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase “open peer review” has been used thus far, for the literature offers a total of 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature.</ns4:p> <ns4:p>Conclusions: Based on this work, I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the ethos of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.</ns4:p>

The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.

Abstract OpenAlex is a promising open source of scholarly metadata, and competitor to established proprietary sources, such as the Web of Science and Scopus. As OpenAlex provides its data freely and openly, it permits researchers to perform bibliometric studies that can be reproduced in the community without licensing barriers. However, as OpenAlex is a rapidly evolving source and the data contained within is expanding and also quickly changing, the question naturally arises as to the trustworthiness of its data. In this report, we will study the reference coverage and selected metadata within each database and compare them with each other to help address this open question in bibliometrics. In our large-scale study, we demonstrate that, when restricted to a cleaned dataset of 16.8 million recent publications shared by all three databases, OpenAlex has average source reference numbers and internal coverage rates comparable to both Web of Science and Scopus. We further analyse the metadata in OpenAlex, the Web of Science and Scopus by journal, finding a similarity in the distribution of source reference counts in the Web of Science and Scopus as compared to OpenAlex. We also demonstrate that the comparison of other core metadata covered by OpenAlex shows mixed results when broken down by journal, where OpenAlex captures more ORCID identifiers, fewer abstracts and a similar number of Open Access status indicators per article when compared to both the Web of Science and Scopus.

Abstract The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long‐term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.

This article puts forward recommendations for data and infrastructure service providers to support findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) research data within the scholarly ecosystem. Formulating such recommendations is important to coordinate progress in realizing a FAIR data ecosystem in which research data can be easily shared and optimally reused, with the aim of driving down inefficiencies in the current academic system and enabling new forms of data-driven discovery. Key recommendations—ranked by their perceived urgency—resulting from an extensive community consultation process include that (1) funders and institutions should consider FAIR alignment and data sharing as part of research assessment, among other criteria; (2) services should support domain-specific ontologies by identifying disciplines that lack ontologies and enriching existing registries of ontologies; (3) repositories should support FAIR data by developing tools, such as APIs, sharing best practices, and undergoing FAIR-aligned certification; and (4) institutions should support FAIR awareness and implementation by establishing data stewardship programs providing simple and intuitive training for researchers. The recommendations outlined in this article are meant to help guide the way forward to putting into practice the FAIR guiding principles for data management. The development and growing adoption of the FAIR data principles and associated standards as a part of research policies and practices place novel demands on research data services. This article highlights common challenges and priorities and proposes a set of recommendations on how data infrastructures can evolve and collaborate to provide services that support the implementation of the FAIR data principles, in particular in the context of building the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). The recommendations cover a broad area of topics, including certification, infrastructure components, stewardship, costs, rewards, collaboration, training, support, and data management. These recommendations were prioritized according to their perceived urgency by different stakeholder groups and associated with actions as well as suggested action owners. This article is the output of three workshops organized by the projects FAIRsFAIR, RDA Europe, OpenAIRE, EOSC-hub, and FREYA designed to explore, discuss, and formulate recommendations among stakeholders in the scientific community. While the results are a work-in-progress, the challenges and priorities outlined provide a detailed and unique overview of current issues seen as crucial by the community that can sharpen and improve the roadmap toward a FAIR data ecosystem. The development and growing adoption of the FAIR data principles and associated standards as a part of research policies and practices place novel demands on research data services. This article highlights common challenges and priorities and proposes a set of recommendations on how data infrastructures can evolve and collaborate to provide services that support the implementation of the FAIR data principles, in particular in the context of building the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). The recommendations cover a broad area of topics, including certification, infrastructure components, stewardship, costs, rewards, collaboration, training, support, and data management. These recommendations were prioritized according to their perceived urgency by different stakeholder groups and associated with actions as well as suggested action owners. This article is the output of three workshops organized by the projects FAIRsFAIR, RDA Europe, OpenAIRE, EOSC-hub, and FREYA designed to explore, discuss, and formulate recommendations among stakeholders in the scientific community. While the results are a work-in-progress, the challenges and priorities outlined provide a detailed and unique overview of current issues seen as crucial by the community that can sharpen and improve the roadmap toward a FAIR data ecosystem.

DraCor (short for "drama corpora") is a growing collection of TEI-encoded plays in (mostly) European languages. The project showcases the concept of "Programmable Corpora", conceived as research ecosystems revolving around an API that provides access to bespoke slices of extracted data. DraCor also exposes a SPARQL endpoint to connect its semantic entities (authors, plays, characters, etc.) to the Linked Open Data cloud.

With an increasing demand for flexible management in software-defined networks (SDNs), it becomes critical to minimize the network policy update time. Although major SDN controllers are now optimized for rapid network update at the control plane, there is still room for data plane optimization in terms of update time, when using TCAM-based physical SDN commodity-off-the-shelf switches. A slow update directly affects network performance and creates bottlenecks. To minimize the flow entry update time, a dependency graph, a kind of directed acyclic graph (DAG), can be used for the access management of flow entries at the switch. Thanks to the DAG, unnecessary entry movements, which are the main factor slowing down flow entry updates, can be avoided. However, existing algorithms show limitations when updates become very frequent. We propose a new flow entry update algorithm, called FastRule, that exploits a greedy strategy with an efficient data structure to accelerate flow entry update with a DAG approach. Moreover, we also adjust our algorithm for other flow table layouts to make it scalable. We elaborate on the correctness of FastRule and test our algorithm using a hardware switch. Compared with existing algorithms, the evaluation shows that our algorithm is about 100x faster than state-of-the-art solutions with a flow table of 1k size.

As Open access (OA) is often perceived as the end goal of scholarly publishing, much research has focused on flipping subscription journals to an OA model. Focusing on what can happen after the presumed finish line, this study identifies journals that have converted from OA to a subscription model, and places these “reverse flips” within the greater context of scholarly publishing. In particular, we examine specific journal descriptors, such as access mode, publisher, subject area, society affiliation, article volume, and citation metrics, to deepen our understanding of reverse flips. Our results show that at least 152 actively publishing journals have reverse-flipped since 2005, suggesting that this phenomenon does not constitute merely a few marginal outliers, but instead a common pattern within scholarly publishing. Notably, we found that 62% of reverse flips (N = 95) had not been born-OA journals, but had been founded as subscription journals, and hence have experienced a three-stage transformation from closed to open to closed. We argue that reverse flips present a unique perspective on OA, and that further research would greatly benefit from enhanced data and tools for identifying such cases.

Several libraries have become active partners in Open Access publishing of books in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS). Not only have libraries started up their own presses, they are also collaborating with existing presses or forming alliances with other institutions on campus such as scholarly communication offices, ICT departments, and academic research centers. By combining institutional strengths and enabling the sharing of resources across institutions, these collaborations offer synergies and efficiencies in the scholarly book publishing business. This paper examines this new function taken on by libraries. Using research conducted by the European project “Open Access Publishing in European Networks” (OAPEN) on OA publishing models and business models for books, we look at libraries’ motives and challenges and explore how their new roles enable them to serve their customers in the most effective way. By combining digital repositories with scholarly publishing, libraries can facilitate and support HSS book publishing and can help sustain the scholarly monograph in the transition towards digital formats and an Open Access future.

This paper describes the general approach nestor – the German “Network of Expertise in Long-Term Storage of Digital Resources” has taken in order to design a catalogue of criteria for trusted digital repositories used for long-term preservation issues. Further developments are intended to led to the implementation of evaluation schemas and a formal certification process for trusted digital repositories.

Abstract This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010–2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

The development of an enzymeimmunoassay for 5 beta-pregnanetriol and its use for non-invasive monitoring of reproductive cycles in Asian elephants is described. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GCMS) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) confirmed the presence of 5 beta-pregnane-3 alpha,17 alpha,20 alpha/beta-triols as the two most abundant urinary progesterone metabolites. The assay developed used the antiserum anti-5 beta-pregnane-17 alpha,20 alpha-diol-3 alpha-gamma l glucuronide but was designed to measure the free steroid in urine samples after hydrolysis and extraction. HPLC confirmed the presence of immunoreactive pregnanetriol in urine, but indicated that the measurement was nonspecific. Immunoreactive pregnanetriol concentrations were significantly correlated with the concentrations of both progesterone (r = 0.98, n = 269, P < 0.01) and 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone (r = 0.95, n = 205, P < 0.01), the metabolic precursor of pregnanetriol. The mean +/- SEM deviation of cycles as determined by measurements of plasma progesterone, 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone and urinary pregnanetriol, respectively, were 15.54 +/- 1.5 (n = 23, where n = number of cycles), 15.21 +/- 1.7 (n = 15) and 15.45 +/- 0.94 weeks (n = 20). These results demonstrate that it is possible to monitor ovarian function in Asian elephants by the measurement of urinary immunoreactive pregnanetriol concentrations.

Abstract With the growth of open access (OA), the financial flows in scholarly journal publishing have become increasingly complex, but comprehensive data on and transparency of these flows are still lacking. The opacity is especially concerning for hybrid OA, where subscription‐based journals publish individual articles as OA if an optional fee is paid. This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher‐level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing. Our results show that Elsevier's hybrid OA uptake has grown steadily but slowly from 2015 to 2019, doubling the number of hybrid OA articles published per year and increasing the share of OA articles in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2.6 to 3.7% of all articles. Further, we find that most hybrid OA articles were invoiced directly to authors, followed by articles invoiced through agreements with research funders, institutions, or consortia, with only a few funding bodies driving hybrid OA uptake. As such, our findings point to the role of publishing agreements and OA policies in hybrid OA publishing. Our results further demonstrate the value of publisher‐provided metadata to improve the transparency in scholarly publishing.

This paper outlines the efforts of the OpenAIRE networking team to establish a Europe-wide open access initiative. OpenAIRE is an effort to realize the open access policies of the European Commission, and has built an infrastructure to support the widest possible dissemination of project results within a certain funding area, FP7. The purpose of the paper is to highlight how such a service can be established through the work of a successful network of European open access contacts and by effective communication with a range of stakeholders. The paper also outlines the flexible technical infrastructure and research activities within the project. Not without its challenges, the approach to tackling existing barriers, such as building repository interoperability, are explored. The paper also introduces the aims and initial activities of the continuation project, OpenAIREplus.

Abstract The assignment of document and publication types in scholarly databases plays an important role in bibliometrics, for example in decision-making or university rankings. However, scholarly databases apply different curation strategies and taxonomies when classifying documents, which makes it difficult to compare results from different database providers. In this study, the academic literature databases OpenAlex, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Semantic Scholar are used to analyze the extent of data variation and compare different approaches to taxonomy and data curation. Using a shared corpus of 9,575,603 publications from 2012 to 2022, we found large differences in the classification of document types such as research articles and editorials in these databases. We also found that many records without a publication type in OpenAlex are classified as conference proceedings in both Scopus and Semantic Scholar.

Abstract The ongoing controversy surrounding transformative agreements, which aim to transition subscription-based journal publishing to full open access, highlights the need for large-scale studies assessing the impact of these agreements on hybrid open access. By combining multiple open data sources, including cOAlition S Journal Checker, Crossref, and OpenAlex, we present a novel approach that analyzes over 700 agreements. Results suggest a strong growth in open access, from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022. Over 5 years, 11,189 hybrid journals provided open access to 742,369 out of 8,146,958 articles (9.1%). Authors who could make use of transformative agreements contributed 328,957 open access articles (44%) during this period, reaching a peak in 2022 with 143,615 out of 249,511 open access articles (58%). While this trend was predominantly driven by the three commercial publishers Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, open access uptake varied substantially across journals, publishers, disciplines, and countries. In particular, the OECD and BRICS areas revealed different publication trends. In conclusion, this study suggests that current levels of implementation of transformative agreements are insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to full open access.

Die digitale Transformation verändert die Wissenschaft und deren Forschungsprozesse: Interdisziplinäre Verbünde, IT-basierte und datengestützte Forschung eröffnen neue Innovationsräume und stellen zugleich komplexe Anforderungen an ein adäquates Forschungsdatenmanagement. Eine Antwort darauf liefert das Konzept des ‚Embedded Data Manager‘, das neben aller Innovation und Agilität vor allem auf ein Prinzip setzt: Partnerschaft. Hier liegt auch die Chance, wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken wieder mehr in die Forschungsprozesse einzubinden und langfristig in der Wissenschaft zu verankern.

Das "Hochkommissariat fr Flchtlinge der Vereinten Nationen" (UNHCR) ging fr Ende des Jahres 2017 von ber 68 Millionen Flchtlingen, Menschen in "flchtlingshnlichen Situationen" sowie Binnenvertriebenen weltweit aus (UNHCR 2018: 2). 4 Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass der Begriff "Brgerkrieg" in der Konfliktforschung uneinheitlich verwendet wird. Alternativ wird auch von "innerstaatlichen Kriegen" gesprochen. Auch zum Verstehen der bewaffneten Konfliktdynamik in Syrien erscheint dieser Begriff unterkomplex, betrachtet man die Vielzahl der (Gewalt-)Akteure sowie die Internationalisierung des Konflikts. Der Begriff wird hier beibehalten, um zu markieren, dass es sich im Kern um einen Konflikt um die innerstaatliche politische Ordnung in Syrien (oder Teile davon) handelt. Damit schliee ich mich an folgende Definition von Peter Waldmann an: "Brgerkriege sind massive bewaffnete Konflikte von erheblicher Dauer, die zwischen zwei oder mehreren Gruppen innerhalb eines Staates um die Erlangung,

Purpose DRIVER embodies a bold vision – that of worldwide networks of scientific data repositories. This paper seeks to examine the aims of the European Union funded project, to explore the development of a distributed infrastructure that enables enhanced interoperability of data, resulting in a global knowledge infrastructure supporting the scholarly communication of the future. Design/methodology/approach The primary objective of DRIVER was to establish a flexible, robust, and scalable infrastructure for all European and world‐wide digital repositories, managing scientific information in an open access model increasingly demanded by researchers, funding organisations and other stakeholders. Adopting a result‐driven approach, activities focused on the expansion of the content base with high quality research outputs, including textual research papers, data sets and other scholarly publications. Findings The release of the D‐NET v1.0 open source software proved a successful basis for a distributed service‐oriented architecture, enabling enhanced interoperability of data and service‐providers, and offering wide‐ranging functionality including search; recommendation; collection building, and personal profiling as innovative tools for repository managers. In addition, it was found that in building a robust network of voluntary content providers, known as the DRIVER Confederation, the infrastructure came to support a durable organisational structure, now formally constituted as the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR). The international repository organisation enables further collaboration between research communities in a co‐ordinated network comprising a growing number of institutional repositories, national federations and research institutions and data aggregators. Practical implications The development of COAR is the extension of the EU‐based infrastructure to global research communities in China, India, Africa and Latin America, deploying a vigorous awareness and advocacy programme. Evolving from the DRIVER Confederation, COAR aims to provide an ongoing support service for repository managers, in a dynamic set of guidelines aimed at data interoperability, and to provide the strategic support required to implement new forms of scholarly communication. These issues are addressed in terms of technical infrastructure developments but will focus on strategic issues of policy development, improved services and additional functionality offered to the scholarly community. Originality/value This paper outlines DRIVER's unique response to the changing global information environment. Concepts of strategic international collaboration are pursued in COAR, based on the scientific and technical collaboration achieved in DRIVER. The paper addresses significant repository development goals that currently challenge repository managers, librarians, scholars and funders and that indicate the future of Open Access publication – in the ultimate goal of a global and interactive representation of human knowledge.