Open Password – Friday November 12, 2021
#997
APE 2022 – Future of the Permanent Record – Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities – Scholarly Communication – COVID Rules – Eric Merkel-Sobotta – Marta Dossi – Berlin Institute for Scholarly Publishing
Understandable Science – Opening Up Science – Mark Jonas – Marlene Stoll – Plan Psy – KLARtexte – Psychological Meta-Analysis – Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim – Science Barometer – Paywall – Open Science – Plain Language Summaries – Online Survey – Interest in Science – Clarity vs Accuracy – interest of the general public
Bertelsmann – Microsoft – Consumer Experiences – Deloitte – Thomson Reuters – Global Digital Transformation – FiscalNote – Government Information – Routledge Open Research – Alphabet – Isomorphic Lab – Lean Library – Librarian Futures – De Gruyter – Central European University Press – US Department of Justice – Simon & Schuster – Legal Zoom – Google Docs – Citation Tool – Outsell
I
Academic Publishing in Europe: The Future of the Permanent Record
- Title
Understandable Science – Opening Up Science – KLARtexte as a gateway to science – By Mark Jonas and Marlene Stoll, ZPID
III.
International News
APE 2022 – Academic Publishing in Europe,
11 – 12 January, in Berlin
The Future of the Permanent Record
Ladies and Gentlemen,
dear Speakers, Participants, Sponsors, and Friends of the APE Conference,
The APE Conference has been the first publishing event of the year since 2006. With an independent, interdisciplinary approach and a program that is created by and for the stakeholders in scholarly communications, the APE Conference is well-known for bringing together people for robust and open discourse on the key issues facing the wider ecosystem.
Last year, we held the first ever virtual APE Conference. The strength of the program was the same, but the serendipity that an in-real-life conference provides was sorely missed. We are happy to announce that on 11 and 12 January 2022, we will be running the conference in Berlin in the Leibniz Room of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities just like in the years before 2021. The legendary conference dinner will also happen on the evening of Tuesday, 11 January 2022.
As usual, the APE 2022 Program Committee has put together a varied and substantial Provisional Program which offers 40+ expert speakers on a wide array of topics (https://ape2022.eu/full- program/program. The main topic is THE FUTURE OF THE PERMANENT RECORD. Topics include building a framework for the future of the record of science, metadata quality and trustworthiness, threats to the version of record by papermills and other sources and ensuring public access to research data. Further highlights include a panel discussion with key tech entrepreneurs from Mendeley, ResearchGate and Morressier as well as the always popular “Dotcoms to watch”.
This year, the conference will be a physical event in Berlin. We will be offering online participation through a livestream which allows remote participants to contribute questions and comments via a chat function, which will be displayed in real time on screens in the conference venue. Dedicated staff will ensure that questions and comments are included in any discussions.
For further details, please check out the ticket options available here (https://ti.to/ape.eu/ape-2022).
APE 2022 is made possible by a large number of sponsors, including the full sponsors Wiley, Springer Nature, Elsevier, Morressier, De Gruyter, Taylor & Francis as well as many valued co-sponsors. We are also very grateful for the time and effort of the Program Committee in putting together the exciting program.
Please note that for the physical conference the Covid rules set up by local authorities apply (“2G” system): you must prove that you are either vaccinated or have recovered from having Covid in the six months prior to the conference. Unvaccinated attendees are welcome to participate via the livestream.
We hope that you will be able to join us for the next APE conference on 11-12 January 2022.
Best wishes from Berlin,
Eric Merkel-Sobotta and Marta Dossi
Managing Director Director Operations
Berlin Institute for Scholarly Publishing (BISP)
Understandable science
Opening Up Science –
KLARtexte as a gateway to science
By Mark Jonas and Marlene Stoll, ZPID
Mark Jonas
How can we give the general public access to scientific information? Mark Jonas and Marlene Stoll are employees of the PLan Psy project at the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) and are researching answers to this question. One answer could be the implementation of « KLARtexts » – these are short, layman’s and generally understandable texts that conform to guidelines and summarize the content of a psychological meta-analysis. The PLan Psy project examines how such texts should be designed in order to be as generally understandable as possible.
_____________________________________________________
background
_____________________________________________________
The most viewed YouTube video in 2020 was a scientific article: an information video by Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim (Corona video by Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim at the top, 2020). The popularity of such posts on social media shows that people today enjoy engaging with science and research. In the 2020 Science Barometer, 60% of those surveyed said they were “somewhat” to “very” interested in scientific topics and 59% agreed with the statement that they personally benefit more from science and research (Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar, 2020 ). But scientific information doesn’t just provide factual knowledge – it can also strengthen the ability to make informed decisions. Improved access to scientific information can help society as a whole to ensure that research is discussed objectively, the room for misunderstandings is limited and a constructive conversation can take place. Especially against the backdrop of global challenges such as the corona pandemic, climate change and dealing with “fake news”, it seems more important than ever that everyone has access to scientific information
This access requires both a technical and an intellectual approach. Access to research literature is crucial for making informed decisions, write Nunn & Pinfield ( 2014) . But barriers exist, especially for the general population, such as the paywall of scientific publishers, which often charge large sums of money for reading individual scientific studies. Even with technological access, scientific studies are difficult for the general population to understand. Making research results publicly available and preparing them in an understandable way are both central concerns of the open science movement (Fecher & Friesike, 2014) .
One aspect that makes accessing scientific information difficult is language (Plavén-Sigray et al., 2017; Snow, 2010) . Questions, methods and results are sometimes reported in highly formalized jargon – for example, specific technical terms or statistical parameters are used. Within a discipline, this can standardize communication among researchers and ensure a quality standard. However, it is challenging for readers who are not specialized in the subject to understand the content of an academic paper because of the technical language used. Many people are unable to simply identify the core message of a work (Best et al., 2005) . Ultimately, both the exchange between different disciplines and the usefulness of research results in everyday life suffer.
How is it possible to provide the general population with access to scientific information that does not compromise scientific accuracy? Plain Language Summaries (PLS) are a possible solution to this problem. These short summaries can be presented in addition to a regular scientific abstract. In order to make psychological research more accessible to the general public, ZPID has launched the “PLan Psy” project. Our goal is to find a standardized way to translate psychological meta-analyses into PLS – the “KLARtexts”. To this end, guidelines for writing these texts as well as training material for authors are being created based on several studies. As part of the study presented here, we wanted to find out, among other things, whether such short summaries are suitable as a “gateway” to scientific information for the general public. Does the PLS encourage readers to read scientific studies?
_____________________________________________________
method
_____________________________________________________
In a first pre-registered study, i.e. already disclosed in advance with regard to the survey and methodology, which is currently still unpublished as part of the project ( Kerwer, Stoll & Chasiotis, 2021) , 2051 participants between the ages of 18 and 90 with diverse educational backgrounds ( Secondary school and secondary school leaving certificate as well as Abitur) were surveyed in an online survey about PLS. They were randomly assigned to one of two topic areas and read two PLS from the respective area (developmental processes in young children: PLS I, II; vs. resilience research: PLS III, IV). Both the presentation order and the characteristics of the two PLS were varied between participants. For example, there were differences in the explanations given for technical terms regarding the exact procedure of the studies included in the meta-analyses (operationalization) and the significance of meta-analyses in comparison with individual studies (quality of evidence).
After reading each PLS, participants were asked the following question: “After reading this summary, would you like to read the original study?” This question could be answered with “yes” or “no”. The participants then had the opportunity to give reasons for and against their decision. The analysis of the research questions therefore includes the evaluation of the frequencies of the desire for and against reading the original study as well as a synthesis of the free text answers in the form of answer categories.
_____________________________________________________
Results
_____________________________________________________
Marlene Stoll
Across all four PLS, 62% (2658/4310) of participants said they did not want to read the original study, while 38% (1652/4310) said they still wanted to read it. An analysis of the individual PLS showed that the desire to read the original study was lowest for PLS IV (36%, 318/886), followed by PLS I (38%, 406/1056), PLS II (39%, 410/1055) and PLS III (43%, 377/880).
The participants’ reasons for or against further engagement with the original study were summarized into general categories. The most common reason for a pro-original study decision was personal interest (40% – 64% of all yes answers per PLS). Other reasons were the desire for additional details and greater accuracy (5% – 24%) for concrete information on the operationalization of included studies (0% – 11%), skepticism about the results (3% – 8%) and understanding of the original meta-analysis (2% – 16%). However, the most common reason participants felt against further reading the original study was lack of interest (36% – 49% of all no answers). In addition, satisfaction with the information content of the PLS (13% – 22%), fears about the incomprehensibility of the topic (4% – 32%) and skepticism with regard to the study results (especially PLS I: 5%, and PLS II: 8%) mentioned.
It should be emphasized that when the PLS is considered separately, fears regarding the incomprehensibility of the topic (PLS III/IV: 24% and 32% vs. PLS I/II: both 4%) as well as the desire for additional details and accuracy (PLS III/IV : 24% and 16% vs. PLS I/II: 8% and 5%) increased when participants had read PLS III/IV. These tended to contain a larger number of effects and a higher density of defined technical terms.
____________________________________________________
Discussion and outlook
_____________________________________________________
In our survey of participants who read PLS in an experiment, we found that the majority (almost 60%) were not interested in reading the original scientific study on which it was based after reading the PLS. Readers from the general population often find themselves unable to adequately assess the methodology and quality of scientific studies “first hand” (Bromme et al., 2013; Bromme & Goldman, 2014) . It therefore initially does not seem surprising that the majority of participants in our studies also stated that they did not want to read the full meta-analyses. At this point, PLS seem to be a good way to get started with scientific topics: they can satisfy existing thirst for knowledge and satisfy readers’ desire for access to scientific information. This is supported by the fact that in our study, depending on the condition, 13 – 20% of the participants stated that they were satisfied with the information content of the PLS – so the PLS was able to open the door to scientific information for them.
At least 40% of the participants said they would like to continue working with the original text. Among other things, reading the PLS encouraged them to engage more elaborately with substantive questions about the topics or more critically with certain aspects of the meta-analyses. In the best case scenario, the PLS act as a door opener to scientific studies for people with a wide range of educational backgrounds, so that they can acquire further knowledge themselves.
Ultimately, writing PLS represents a balancing act for experts. It is important to carefully weigh up clarity on the one hand and accurate presentation of research on the other. This becomes particularly clear in connection with the topic of resilience (PLS III/IV). These PLS contained a larger number of defined technical terms than the PLS on the topic of “developmental processes in young children” (PLS I/II). Introducing a large number of technical terms, even in simple language terms, can be intimidating and overwhelming. In the worst case scenario, PLS go from being a door opener to being another door guard. Further research is required to ensure the ideal compromise between clarity and avoidance of excessive simplification (Rescher, 2007) .
In the PLan Psy project we are currently conducting studies in which characteristics of PLS psychological meta-analyses (e.g. text structure) are varied and their impact on text properties such as “understandability” or “readability” are examined. We want to use the findings from the studies to implement the so-called KLARtexts: guidelines and training material are to be developed for texts that are as generally understandable as possible and these will be evaluated in collaboration with and by surveying KLARtext authors. To enable the use of our results – including beyond psychology – we plan to publish our key project results (including guidelines and training material) under a Creative Commons license.
Our goal in the open science area is to break through the barrier described between scientific studies on the one hand and the general public’s interest in research results on the other. We would like to achieve this not least by providing researchers, journal editors and research institutions from other scientific disciplines with a standardized basis for making their work accessible to a broader audience. Because as we stated at the beginning with a view to the science barometer: There will still be a great interest in science and scientific research in society in 2021. The door should be opened to this interest.
Sources :
Best, RM, Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, DS (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders , 25 (1), 65–83.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S.R. (2014). The Public’s Bounded Understanding of Science. Educational Psychologist , 49 (2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2013). From Understanding to Deference: Laypersons’ and Medical Students’ Views on Conflicts Within Medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B , 5 (1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.849017
Corona video of Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim at the top . (2020, December 3). The Daily Mirror. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/medien/youtube-videos-des-jahrs-corona-video-von-mai-thi-nguyen-kim-an-der-spitze/26684182.html&sa=D&source=editors&ust= 1626773613172000&usg=AOvVaw0mdy1LXyVgqRFVmrDe1gTr
Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing (pp. 17–47). Basel: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Kerwer, M., Stoll, M., & Chasiotis, A. (2021). Translating the evidence of psychological meta-analyses into plain language . Preregistration: https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.4471
Nunn, E., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Lay summaries of open access journal articles: Engaging with the general public on medical research. Learned Publishing , 27 (3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1087/20140303
Plavén-Sigray, P., Matheson, GJ, Schiffler, BC, & Thompson, WH (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. ELIFE , 6 (e27725). https://elifesciences.org/articles/27725.pdf
Rescher, N. (2007). Oversimplification. Epistemologia , 30 (1), 115–130.
Snow, C.E. (2010). Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning About Science. Science , 328 (5977), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597
Science Barometer 2020 . (2020). Science in Dialogue/Kantar Emnid. https://www. Wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Projekte/Wissenschaftsbarometer/Documents_20/WiD-Wissenschaftsbarometer_2020_Broschuere_final.pdf
International News
Bertelsmann and Microsoft Partner to Transform Consumer Experiences in Media and Education
Bertelsmann is leveraging data and AI to deliver personalized, brand-safe content as well as tailored and efficient learning experiences, ultimately lowering costs to consumers and business partners alike. This follows a strategic mandate by Bertelsmann’s Executive Board to magnify efforts in technology and data-driven business models, setting a clear agenda as Tech & Data Alliance to drive partnerships, build platforms and connect people and skills throughout the group. Microsoft will support Bertelsmann to power this new generation of data-driven models, both in business-to-business as well as consumer-facing offerings.
Deloitte Tax and Thomson Reuters have announced a strategic alliance to help corporate tax and legal departments across the world transform how they work. By combining the content, software and technology of Thomson Reuters with Deloitte’s capabilities in consulting and technology implementation, the alliance will deliver solutions for in-house tax and legal teams to address the growing challenges they may face from global compliance and regulatory demands, as well as the urgent need to become more efficient, nimble and digital.
FiscalNote is a legal data and analytics company that provides more than 3,000 global subscription customers – including nearly half the Fortune 100 and hundreds of government contracts – with a technology platform that collects and analyzes vast amounts of publicly available government information to enable better navigation of uncertainty , opportunity, and risk in an increasingly complex geopolitical world. The transaction values FiscalNote at a pro forma market capitalization of approximately $1.3 billion, representing a multiple of approximately 6.9x enterprise value to 2022E pro forma revenue.
Routledge- part of Taylor & Francis Group- will launch the world’s first open research publishing platform specifically for the HSS community that combines books, articles, and other research outputs in one interdisciplinary venue in the Spring of 2022. The publishing platform, known as Routledge Open Research, will utilize the publishing model, technology and knowledge pioneered by their open research publishing partner F1000 (which Taylor & Francis Group acquired in 2020) to provide HSS scholars with a rapid, accessible and collaborative venue to publish their work.
Alphabet has launched a new company called Isomorphic Lab, a commercial venture that aims to reimagine the entire drug discovery process from first principles with an AI-first approach and, ultimately, to model and understand some of the fundamental mechanisms of life. Demis Hassabis will serve as CEO for Isomorphic’s initial phase, while remaining as DeepMind CEO, partially to help facilitate collaboration between the two companies where relevant, and to set out the strategy, vision and culture of the new company.
Lean Library, a ‘Technology from SAGE’ company, today releases “Librarian Futures,” a white paper based on a large-scale survey of 4,000 librarians and patrons that examines librarian-patron workflows and relationships. The report finds that while patrons are unaware of the full extent of librarian support (with 77% beginning research discovery outside of the library), more than 80% greatly appreciate librarians and would want the library more deeply embedded in their natural workflows.
De Gruyter Enters Strategic Partnership with Central European University Press
De Gruyter has established a global strategic partnership in eBook distribution with Central European University Press (CEUP). De Gruyter will host and distribute the press’s entire publishing portfolio through degruyter.com, close to 500 frontlist, backlist and archive titles. Around 100 previously unavailable archive titles will be digitized as eBooks by De Gruyter.
US Department of Justice Sues to Block Bertelsmann’s S&S Deal
The Biden administration is seeking to stop Penguin Random House owner Bertelsmann from acquiring its rival Simon & Schuster in a $2.2bn deal. The Department of Justice (DoJ) said the acquisition could be detrimental to authors in an antitrust case filed against PRH in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Both publishers have vowed to fight the lawsuit « vigorously ».
LegalZoom Curates Network of Small Business Service Providers
LegalZoom has developed a curated partner ecosystem of complementary, best-in-class services to provide small businesses with tools and services to manage and grow their business. Small business owners can gain access, significant discounts and the ability to sign-up through a simplified process to Brex, Intuit QuickBooks, and Square.
Google Docs Intros Updated Citation Tool
The updated citation feature streamlines the citations process, ensures correct formatting, and reduces manual errors. It allows users to search cited materials and automatically format them for MLA, APA and Chicago styles. Searches can be conducted for online articles using a URL and for printed books using ISBN.
Source: Outsell
OpenPassword
Forum and news
for the information industry
in German-speaking countries
New editions of Open Password appear three times a week.
If you would like to subscribe to the email service free of charge, please register at www.password-online.de.
The current edition of Open Password can be accessed immediately after it appears on the web. www.password-online.de/archiv. This also applies to all previously published editions.
International Cooperation Partner:
Outsell (London)
Business Industry Information Association/BIIA (Hong Kong)
Open Password Archive – Publications
OPEN PASSWORD ARCHIVE
DATA JOURNALISM
Handelsblatt’s Digital Reach
MARKET TRENDS
Library Trends 2022
What are the key trends in the library market for 2022?
Online-Publications | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | GPT AI SEARCH
Print Archive | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000
