Open Password – Monday April 4, 2022
#1050
Infinity Maps – Research – Johannes W. Grenzmann – Start-up – Heiko Haller – iMapping method – Michael Stieft – CERN – Blue Yonder – Google Map
Open Science Conference 2022 – Research software – Involvement of the public – Diamond Open Access – Data tracking – Regulation of “text and data mining” – Open science and inequality – Jasmin Schmitz – German Commission of UNESCO – UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science – David Patrician – Klaus Daughtermann – Horizon Europe – Research evaluation reform – Sharing research software – National Science Foundation – FAIR4RS – Computational Biology – Code Sharing Policy – PubMed Central – Citizen Science – Key questions – Road2Openness – Best practice examples – Open Science and Open Access – Operating Open -Access journals – Science Europe – cOAlition S – OPERAS – Action Plan for Diamond Open Access – NAL-live – DOIs – Academic freedom – Informational self-determination – Quasi-monopoly position of publishers – Personal profiles – Own publication infrastructures – “Fair Use” doctrine – Exception regulations on copyright – young scientists – pressure to publish – cultural change in academic institutions – teamwork – research into complex relationships – teaching – communication with the public – ON-MERRIT – gender equality – regional equality – openness towards society – multipliers
I
Interview with Johannes W. Grenzmann
research work clearer, more structured
and more efficient by a factor of 2 to 10 – lots of discussions with the InfoPros beforehand
II.
Open Science Conference 2022
Research software, public involvement, Diamond Open Access, data tracking, regulation of text and data mining, open science and inequality
as well as other central topics – By Jasmin Schmitz
Infinity Maps
Make research work clearer, more structured and more efficient by a factor of 2 to 10
Before that, lots of conversations with the InfoPros
Johannes W. Grenzmann, CEO of Infinity Maps (Karlsruhe), wants to bring the best possible research tool onto the market and is looking to talk to information professionals for the next development steps “in order to learn what the most important challenges are in this area and Above all, which solution ideas are most useful for the InfoPros.” Simply contact him: Phone: +49(0)176 4266 5779 – Web: infinitymaps.io – email: johannes@infinitymaps.io
The founding team of Infinity Maps (from right to left):
Johannes Grenzmann, Robin Lutz and Heiko Haller.
Mr. Grenzmann, how did you come up with the idea of founding a start-up and how did you come up with your product idea? I have always been a founder. Since I left university, I have been working on my own startup ideas continuously, albeit on the side. In 2017 I met my future co-founder Heiko Haller. Heiko, who is a psychologist by training, wanted to develop brain-friendly learning media. Along the way, he earned a doctorate in computer science and developed the iMapping method that forms the core of Infinity Maps.
How far has your company startup progressed? We founded our company in 2020, launched a first version of our product and Prof. Dr. We were able to win Michael Feint, a Karlsruhe researcher and successful founder, as an investor. Feint, a former quantum researcher at CERN, very successfully sold his own AI startup “Blue Yonder” to the Otto Group and later Panasonic. We have our office in Karlsruhe and now have five employees.
What is the unique selling point of your visualization tool? The USP of Infinity Maps is that it allows you to visually organize and structure large amounts of information. It’s basically a mix of a whiteboard, note-taking app, and visual file system. But while with a file system you have to open each folder individually, with Infinity Maps the contents from deeper layers can be viewed at any time – and can be easily accessed by “zooming in”. It’s like a Google Map.
What are your target groups so far and are there special application and company areas for your tools? The first few thousand users are very different people and use Infinity Maps for very different tasks. This ranges from consultants and managers to researchers and students to schoolchildren who use it to document their projects and prepare learning content visually.
However, our analyzes have shown that the greatest benefit comes from people who engage in some form of research activity. That’s why we would now like to find out more from them in order to learn which functionalities are particularly important for them.
Apart from research, Infinity Maps is also suitable for personal knowledge management as well as in a corporate context, for example for organizational development, and as an overview tool for complex and long-term projects.
Now you would like to talk to multipliers for whom research is an important area of responsibility. Correct.
What exactly do you want to tell you? We are currently working on a very innovative new approach that has the potential to make research work 2 to 10 times clearer, more structured and more efficient. And to learn what the most important challenges are in this area and, above all, which solution ideas are most useful for these people, we would like to talk to as many InfoPros as possible about it.
What exactly do you offer? Contribute to ensuring that the tool and its functionality are as tailored as possible to your own needs and those of other researchers. An information advantage even before the tool is brought onto the market.
What exactly do you hope to get from your interview partners? We hope to learn as much as possible from the InfoPros and get a lot of honest feedback in order to bring the best possible research tool to the market.
Open Science Conference 2022
Research software, public involvement, Diamond Open Access, data tracking, regulation of text and data mining, open science and inequality
as well as other central topics
By Jasmin Schmitz, schmitz[minus]jasmin[at]web[punkt]de
The 9th Open Science Conference 2022 took place in cooperation with the German Commission of UNESCO. A panel discussion on the “UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science” was offered as well as a workshop on the topic “Fostering Open Science in Africa – Practices, Opportunities, Solutions”. Once again it was a virtual event. Participants could ask questions via an app, and there were separate meet-the-speakers sessions for direct exchange. In addition, virtual poster sessions were also offered this year.
Over 280 participants from 49 countries registered for the online conference. These came from more countries than ever before. This year the conference was again confidently moderated by the journalist David Patrician.
Klaus Daughtermann: The Opening
Klaus Daughtermann emphasized in his introductory speech [1] that Open Science is constantly evolving. When applying for funding under the EU research framework program Horizon Europe, information is required as to what contribution will be made to Open Science. The European Commission recently launched an initiative to reform research evaluation, which focuses in particular on transparent research processes. This is also a central concern of the open science community.
_____________________________________________________
Sharing research software and code – and researchers’ attitudes towards it.
_____________________________________________________
The development of research software has now gained great importance in many disciplines. Research software is developed in 50% of projects funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). In order to make this software reusable, the FAIR principles known from the area of “research data management” are being transferred to research software as part of the FAIR4RS project [2].
To what extent are researchers willing to share research code or software? The results of a survey were presented. Journals in the field of “Computational Biology” are considering introducing a code sharing policy under pressure from their editors. In the journals in this field, code is currently shared in more than 40% of the articles. For comparison: Only 3.7% of articles in PubMed Central provide information about whether and where the underlying code can be viewed. Further results of the survey are: A policy would increase the willingness to share code by a good 25%. However, there are a number of reservations among researchers: 40% consider the additional time required to be a hindrance. 25% see technical dependencies that make sharing difficult. 20% of the researchers surveyed questioned their own ability to prepare the code so that it could be reused. Young researchers show a greater willingness to share code [3].
Laura Cadwallader: The Overlap
Between FAIR for Research Software and Open Science
_____________________________________________________
Key questions for involving the public in research projects.
_____________________________________________________
If the public is to be involved in research projects (e.g. in citizen science), the organization must ensure that participation is worthwhile for all parties. This is most likely to be the case when the public and researchers meet on an equal footing in the projects and the projects are generally accessible. Relevant interest groups should be involved and allowed to have a say in their role. The lecture [4] presented a series of key questions that are intended to help those responsible for (projects) design and concretize projects appropriately. Examples of key questions include: Why should the public be involved? Who exactly should participate and in what form?
_____________________________________________________
Help with the implementation of Open Science for institutions: Road2Openness.
_____________________________________________________
Many research institutions are interested in introducing open science practices. However, there is often a lack of knowledge about how Open Science can be implemented. The Road2Openness tool, which is being developed together with three German universities, is intended to help here. In addition to self-assessment features, the tool will include information about why certain opening steps should be taken. In addition, best practice examples are presented. Based on previous project experiences, many institutions define the topic of open science very narrowly and limit it to open access and research data. The exchange within an institution between those who are already familiar with certain aspects of Open Science should also be intensified [5].
_____________________________________________________
Support offers for open access journals without publication fees.
_____________________________________________________
In the initial phase of Open Access, the focus was primarily on the accessibility of scientific literature. There is currently a greater focus on the operation of open access journals. Research shows that 36% of over 16,000 academic journals are open access. 77% of these are published by institutions that only offer a magazine. Many of these journals can be assigned to the social sciences and humanities, are community-driven and do not require funding from publication fees (Diamond Open Access). The “Action Plan for Diamond Open Access” developed jointly by Science Europe, cOAlition S, OPERAS and French research funding is intended to promote community building, ensure visibility and enable the long-term operation of the journals. So far, 40 institutions that publish relevant journals have joined the initiative [6].
_____________________________________________________
The magazine NAL-live with “living articles”.
_____________________________________________________
Digitalization in the area of communication of scientific results makes it possible to move away more from the concept of a printed journal with completed articles. Completed articles are essentially an artificial construct and at best represent an interim status that needs to be further worked on. The NAL-live magazine follows the concept that article versions go through review but can be continually commented on and updated after publication. The main challenges mentioned with this approach were convincing authors of the additional work that needed to be done and finding a sufficient number of commentators. The latter should be promoted by assigning DOIs for comments. Reviews and comments are thus made citable and the commentators are rewarded with “reputation points” [7].
Joschka Seliger, Data Tracking in Research: Academic Freedom at Risk?
Drawings: Karen Schliehe
_____________________________________________________
Data tracking in science.
_____________________________________________________
“Data tracking in science” has been discussed for some time. The lecture provided an overview of the extent to which academic freedom and the right to informational self-determination are endangered by data tracking. Scientific publishers are increasingly disseminating more than just scientific information. Rather, they are turning more into data collectors and analysts and developing sellable products on this basis. Among other things, the extent to which researchers access scientific literature is tracked and analyzed.
This is problematic for several reasons: Firstly, researchers are left in the dark about what exactly happens to their data. On the other hand, in many cases, given the quasi-monopoly position of some publishers, scientists cannot switch to another publisher if a specific article is needed for research. In addition, collecting data restricts academic freedom if researchers can no longer approach research topics completely freely.
In the case of open access publications, collecting data is problematic because these publications should be made available without any prerequisites. What makes it even more difficult is that we don’t know how big the problem actually is. It is unknown to what extent academic publishers use the opportunity to create comprehensive personal profiles and possibly even access researchers’ private activities online. In any case, research institutions should take care of this problem, as they have an obligation to protect their researchers and ensure academic freedom. These developments provide a strong argument that research institutions should build their own publication infrastructures in order to reduce dependencies on private publishers [8].
_____________________________________________________
Legal regulations on “text and data mining”.
_____________________________________________________
At the European level, research institutions have been allowed to carry out “text and data mining” for some time. While in the USA “text and data mining” is covered by the “fair use” doctrine, in Europe it has the status of an exception to copyright law. For example, “text and data mining” is regulated in the German copyright law in the “barrier regulations for legally permitted use for teaching, science and institutions” (§ 60d). However, the scope within which the exemption may be used is very narrow. The initially liberal-sounding motto for European copyright reform: “the right to read is the right to mine” also means that institutions are only allowed to engage in “text and data mining” if they have subscribed to the texts or published them open access became. Furthermore, although it is possible to save the texts for analysis, it is not possible to pass on the corpora that were analyzed. This runs particularly counter to the Open Science principle that research data must be disclosed [9].
_____________________________________________________
More permanent positions for scientific staff to increase quality.
_____________________________________________________
Working carefully and transparently in research according to the principles of Open Science and the standards of good scientific practice requires additional time investment. There are currently too few permanent positions for researchers in the academic sector who are given sufficient time to do this. The reason for the shortage is the need for constant innovation, which is to be met with a “selection of the best” and the regular exchange of scientific staff. The few permanent positions are deliberately awarded to young researchers who have made particular contributions according to certain criteria (e.g. publications in certain journals). This leads to high pressure to publish and the associated stress, which can affect the quality of your research. In addition, the ongoing exchange of academic staff ensures a lack of continuity.
The lecture [10] made it clear that a cultural change is needed in academic institutions. This would not only have to lead to an expansion of permanent positions, but also to the fulfillment of other demands:
- greater focus on teamwork. The members of the teams should have different – complementary – expertise and be, for example, theorists, statisticians and experts in data processing;
- Research into complex relationships within the framework of a research program instead of many small, poorly connected projects;
- Promoting good scientific practice and openness through training and other measures;
- Ensuring that teaching receives the same reputational value as research;
- greater attention to other services, such as communication with the public.
_____________________________________________________
Does open science increase inequalities? – Results from the ON-MERRIT project.
_____________________________________________________
In principle, Open Science carries the risk that it will further increase existing inequalities and that objectives with a view to greater inclusion and participation and the removal of barriers will not be met. A lecture [11] presented findings from the EU project ON-MERRIT. This explored how discipline, region, gender, access to resources and other factors influence how open science is practiced. Key results are:
- Publication fees to finance open access disadvantage the global south.
- Prestigious institutions publish more in journals with high publication fees.
- Open science practices are not sufficiently rewarded. The values of researchers and those of their institution are increasingly diverging.
Individual results from the study’s subprojects have already been published or are about to be published. The project report, which also contains summary recommendations for action, will be available shortly.
_____________________________________________________
Panel discussion on the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation.
_____________________________________________________
The discussion was introduced by two presentations that provided insights into the process of developing the recommendations [12]. The subsequent panel discussion focused in particular on the question of how these can be implemented sensibly for all interest groups. The central results of the discussion are:
- The discussants repeatedly returned to the demands for more equality. For example, gender equality: In several cultures it is anything but a given that women are trained to become scientists. Or the equality of the regions: Researchers from the Global North are still significantly more privileged than those from the Global South.
- Science has a responsibility to be open to society because it is the one that funds science.
- The evaluation of research needs to be reformed. Currently, open science working methods are hardly rewarded, even though they ensure better quality of results. In addition, not all work tasks and results are included in the assessment of the quality of research.
- Ultimately, it depends on the multipliers how Open Science is implemented and the recommendations are implemented in the individual UNESCO member countries.
Abstracts are available on the conference website: https://www.open-science-conference.eu/ .
The lectures were recorded. The complete YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3VQAlJen7ozVyZjhi4qkeKS1ahSW0XUV .
The presentations and posters will be published on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/communities/osc2022 .
Links to the lectures
[1] Klaus Daughtermann: Opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyFTt8HA0eI
[2] Daniel S. Katz: The Overlap Between FAIR for Research Software and Open Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Uc1EEVDv8
[3] Lauren Cadwallader: Researchers’ attitudes toward sharing code: Findings from a survey and policy implementation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyY7C2Ya50Q
[4] Anne-Floor Scholvinck: Aligning Form to Purpose: Meaningful Public Engagement From the Open Science Perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WcF9WHNMpE
[5] Verena Heise: Road2Openness – a Web-based Open Science Self-assessment Tool for Research Performing Organizations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGSWov_U4Vs
[6] Suzanne Dumouchel: Scholarly Communication in the Open Science framework: The Diamond Open Access model: https://youtu.be/du-N7CmL5YM
[7] Diethard Tautz: NAL-live: The New Online Journal for Open Scientific Exchange: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1b-wCZLJ8E
[8] Joschka Selinger: Data Tracking in Research: Academic Freedom at Risk?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-viejVEd3bQ
[9] Pawe? Kamocki: New Copyright Exception for Text and Data Mining for Scientific Research Purposes – a Pyrrhic Victory for Open Science?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS-d7oBdHWk
[10] Rima-Maria Raha: On the Importance of Permanent Employment Contracts for Research Quality and Robustness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2RhqepHTRk
[11] Tony Ross-Hellauer: Mitigating risks of cumulative advantage in the transition to Open Science: The ON-MERRIT project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnCAq7SGQDo
[12] Vera Lacoeuilhe: Which new potentials does the UNESCO Recommendation open up, especially for countries of the Global South?
Peggy Oti-Boateng & Ghaith Fariz: Implications and initiatives: How the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation is being put into practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvVc56i-W_4
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