Accepted contributions
and review process

Call for Speakers

In total, we received 20 submissions for the Call for Speakers. All abstracts have been reviewed by the programme committee / review board based on the following review criteria – rating from 0 (very low) to 10 (very high):

  • Wider and Forward-looking Perspective (10%)
  • Topicality (10%)
  • Expertise (10%)
  • Thematic Relevance (10%)
  • Presentation and Language (10%)
  • Overall Recommendation (50%)

Of the high amount of excellent submissions, the conference committee decided that 8 outstanding proposals are invited to give a talk at the conference. Beside the quality of the submissions a broad coverage of the conference topics and diversity aspects were aso included in the decisions. The following talks have been accepted:

Representation and Inclusion in Open Science: Working Towards a Global Digital Commons
Louise Bezuidenhout, DANS

Meta-science and open science for ecology: the revolution we need
Antica Culina, Ruder Boskovic Institute

Barriers and enablers of global research equity
Jo Havemann, Access 2 Perspectives

Leading change in organizations – towards an open knowledge infrastructure for nature
Jana Hoffmann, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin

Open Science Indicators: a new tool to understand researchers and our progress towards Open Science
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, PLOS

Unite behind the (Open) Science – Open Science for a Global Energy System Transformation
Ludwig Hülk, Reiner Lemoine Institut

Teaching Open Science in Media Studies
Kai Matuszkiewicz, Philipps-Universität Marburg

Student Education in Open Science: Highlighting Academic Structures
Leonhard Volz, University of Amsterdam

Call for Practical Solutions

In total, we received 36 submissions. All abstracts have been reviewed by the programme committee / review board based on the following review criteria – rating from 0 (very low) to 10 (very high):

  • State of the Art (10%)
  • Practical Relevance (10%)
  • Innovativeness (10%)
  • Thematic Relevance (10%)
  • Presentation and Language (10%)
  • Overall Recommendation (50%)

Among the high amount of excellent abstracts, the conference committee decided to accept 23 abstracts. This corresponds to an average score greater than 75.5 (maximum average score is 100). The following abstracts have been accepted:

The Turing Way – a book, a community, a global collaboration
Arielle Bennett1,3, Malvika Sharan1,3, Emma Karoune1,3, Esther Plomp2,3, Kirstie Whitaker1,3
Organisation(s): 1: The Alan Turing Institute; 2: TU Delft; 3: The Turing Way Project

Design and Implementation of an Open Peer Review Process for Posters: Addressing Challenges and Sharing Insights
Angelos Konstantinidis
Organisation(s): University of Groningen

Persistent identifiers for survey variables: an infrastructure developed to foster open science
Janete Saldanha Bach1, Claus-Peter Klas2, Peter Mutschke3
Organisation(s): 1: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences; 2: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences; 3: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences

From Catalogues to Curricula: taking a deep dive into training materials catalogues and the opportunities for Open Science education (retracted)
(The authors decided to retract the contribution)
Louise Bezuidenhout1, Kim Ferguson1, Helen Clare2
Organisation(s): 1: DANS-KNAW; 2: Jisc

Advancing Open Science Skills: Insights from Curricular Courses at the University of Zurich
Melanie Röthlisberger
Organisation(s): University of Zurich

The Research Software Directory: Show your research software to the world!
Maaike de Jong, Ewan Cahen, Jason Maassen
Organisation(s): Netherlands eScience Center

GoTriple. The European hub for social sciences and humanities
Sona Arasteh1, Emilie Blotière2
Organisation(s): 1: Max Weber Stiftung/OPERAS; 2: CNRS/Huma-Num

Achieving granularity and accountability for author contributions with MeRIT
Malgorzata Lagisz
Organisation(s): University of New South Wales Sydney

Use it or Lose it: Facilitating the Use of Interactive Data Apps (IDAs) in Psychological Research Data Sharing
Franziska Usée
Organisation(s): Philipps-Universität Marburg

Open up your Research, a game on Open Science
Katherine Hermans
Organisation(s): University of Zurich

Introducing Workflow-Integrated Data Documentation
Mio Hienstorfer-Heitmann, Leon Froehling, Arnim Bleier
Organisation(s): GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences

The COPIM Project’s Tools and Infrastructures to Support Open Access Monographs
Tom Grady1, Joe Deville2, Rupert Gatti3
Organisation(s): 1: Birkbeck, University of London; 2: Lancaster University; 3: University of Cambridge

Mapping Open Science resources from around the world by discipline and principles
Jo Havemann
Organisation(s): Access 2 Perspectives

Octopus.ac: A new approach to scientific publishing
Timothy Alan Fellows1, John Kaye1, Alexandra Freeman2
Organisation(s): 1: Jisc; 2: Octopus Publishing CIC

The German Reproducibility Network – Let’s collaborate to implement Open Science practices in Germany
Maximilian Frank, Verena Heise
Organisation(s): German Reproducibility Network (GRN)

Open up with a new Copyright License Policy for Collection Digitization
Elisa Herrmann, Frederik Berger, Falko Glöckler, Anke Hoffmann, Jana Hoffmann, Mareike Petersen, Christiane Quaisser, Franziska Schuster, Nadja Tata
Organisation(s): Museum für Naturkunde – Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science

PsychNotebook: A Tool for Open Education and Open Analyses (retracted)
(Since the operation of PsychNotebook will be discontinued, the contribution was retracted)
Stefanie Mueller, Lars-Dominik Braun
Organisation(s): Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie ZPID

Sharing practices of software artifacts and source code for reproducible research
Claire Jean-Quartier
Organisation(s): Graz University of Technology

DINA – An Open Source System for the Management of Natural Science Collections and Related Research Data
Falko Glöckler1, Christian Bölling1, James Macklin2, David Shorthouse2
Organisation(s): 1: Museum für Naturkunde Berlin; 2: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Open Research Europe: Innovations and Developments on the European Commission’s
open research platform
Kelly Woods
Organisation(s): F1000

An Implementation of Open Research Data Infrastructure through the Data Intensive Research Initiative of South Africa (DIRISA)
Nobubele Angel Shozi
Organisation(s): Data Intensive Research Initiative of South Africa (DIRISA)

Facilitating FAIR Data and Open Science in the Social Sciences and Humanities domain – An example of the Dutch science landscape
Nicole Emmenegger1, Nils Arlinghaus1, Ricarda Braukmann2, Loek Brinkman2
Organisation(s): 1: TDCC Social Sciences and Humanities; 2: DANS

ProTIS: A tool that facilitates monitoring data management and Open Science indicators in research projects
Vincent Brunst, Maisam M. Dadkan, Aristotelis Kandylas, Garrett Speed
Organisation(s): Faculty of Geosciences, Universiteit Utrecht

Call for Scientific Contributions

In total, we received 11 submissions. All abstracts have been reviewed by the programme committee / review board based on the following review criteria – rating from 0 (very low) to 10 (very high):

  • Scientific Quality (10%)
  • Practical Relevance (10%)
  • Innovativeness (10%)
  • Thematic Relevance (10%)
  • Presentation and Language (10%)
  • Overall Recommendation (50%)

Of the high amount of excellent submissions, the conference committee decided that 6 outstanding proposals are invited to give a highlight talk at the conference. This corresponds to an average score greater than 79.3 (maximum average score is 100). The following abstracts have been accepted including a scientific justification for their acceptance based on the reviewers’ comments:

What drives Open Science pioneers? Evidence from Open Science award winners
Ronny Röwert
Organisation(s): Hamburg University of Technology

The peer reviewers rated the research question addressed – namely, what drives the pioneers of open science and what tensions come into play when they open up their scientific knowledge production and dissemination – as highly relevant, as it could improve the development of open science. The methodology of this study was also assessed as very good.

The COVID-19 pandemic has widened the gender gap in research productivity within academia
Kiran Gok Lune Lee1,2, Hannah Dugdale1, Adele Mennerat3, Dieter Lukas4, Antica Culina5,6
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

The reviewers were impressed by the timely nature of this meta-analysis, which is of high relevance to the field of open science. The gender gap and how the COVID 19 pandemic has influenced it is an often overlooked pattern.

Open Science Policies seen from the perspective of basic sciences researchers‘ communities
Alejandra Manco
Organisation(s): Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1

The reviewers noted the high relevance of this paper to the field of open science, namely a qualitative study with semi-directed interviews that explores researchers‘ opinions, perceptions and experiences with open science policies in relation to knowledge production processes in Brazil, France, and Peru.

Results of monitoring on open science and research in Finland – Perspective of UAS sector
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

The authors present a method to evaluate Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) in Finland on a number of Open Science dimensions using a point scale. The method is based on an extensive evaluation of Open Science implementatations at UAS on the national level. The results demonstrate that different facts of Open Science developed very differently among UAS. Both the main tendencie derived from this study and also details about the indicators will be particularly interesting for the conference.

Risk and trust in PID infrastructures
Laura Rothfritz1,6, Stephanie Palek2, Pablo de Castro3,6, Ulrich Herb4,6, Joachim Schöpfel5,6
Organisation(s): 1: Humboldt-University Berlin; 2: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek; 3: U Strathclyde Glasgow; 4: Saarland University; 5: University of Lille; 6: scidecode science consulting

The authors present an investigation about the socio-technical-organizational requirements for trust and risks to establish an Open Science ecosystem. The overall concept of theand approach is sound and meets the state of the art. Details about the results, conclusions and further recommendations for good practices will be of high interest for the conference.

Do journal code-sharing policies increase code availability?
Aya Bezine1, Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar1, Antica Culina2, Marija Purgar2
Organisation(s): 1: Bielefeld University; 2: Ruder Boskovic Institute, Zagreb

The authors present a study about the impact of code-sharing policies for academic journals on the availability of code. The preliminary findings indicate that such policies do increase code-sharing on a low level. It will be interesting how the preliminary results about this quickly evolving topic tie into a longer timescale and what the current state of practice is.

Call for Workshops

In total, we received 11 submissions. All abstracts have been reviewed by the conference committee based on the following review criteria – rating from 0 (very low) to 10 (very high):

  • Practical Benefits (10%)
  • Practical Relevance (10%)
  • Didactical Quality (10%)
  • Thematic Relevance (10%)
  • Presentation and Language (10%)
  • Overall Recommendation (50%)

Among the high amount of excellent abstracts, the conference committee decided to accept 8 workshops. This corresponds to an average score greater than 84.0 (maximum average score is 100). The following workshops have been accepted.

Designing Training for FAIR and Open Data
Kim Ferguson, Maaike Verburg
Organisation(s): DANS-KNAW

Harmonising Access Procedures for Sensitive Data
Wim Hugo2, Ricarda Braukmann2, Jorik van Kemenade1
Organisation(s): 1: SURF; 2: DANS

How can Open Science reduce Research Waste across fields
Antica Culina1, Maria Cruz2, Matthew Grainger3, Tin Klanjscek1, Shinichi Nakagawa4, Marija Purgar1
Organisation(s): 1: Ruđer Bošković Institute; 2: Dutch Research Council; 3: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 4: UNSW Sidney

Integrating Open Science Practices into Teaching – Bridging Stakeholders in Education
Leonhard Volz1,2,3, David Joachim Grüning2,4,5, Anne Sophie Giacobello1,3, Maximilian Frank2,6, Nitya Shah1,3
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

Establishing global research equity
Jo Havemann
Organisation(s): Access 2 Perspectives

How do software management plans advance open science and contribute to research quality?
Maria Cruz1, Maaike de Jong2, Carlos Martinez-Ortiz2
Organisation(s): 1: NWO; 2: Netherlands eScience Center

Research Infrastructure Roles: Perspectives, Paths, and Open Research Practices
Emma Karoune1, Arielle Bennett1, Esther Plomp2, Malvika Sharan1
Organisation(s): 1: The Alan Turing Institute; 2: Delft University of Technology

Technical and cultural roadmap for the creation of a research hardware publication ecosystem
Julien Colomb1, Moritz Maxeiner3, Robert Mies2
Organisation(s): 1: HU Berlin; 2: TU Berlin; 3: FU Berlin

Programme Committee / Review Board

  • Nicolás Alessandroni, Concordia University
  • Ari Asmi, Research Data Alliance Association (Europe) AISBL
  • Alessia Bardi, CNR
  • Maximilian Frank, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
  • Wilhelm Hasselbring, Kiel University
  • Tamara Heck, DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education
  • Kerstin Helbig, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
  • Jana Hoffmann, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
  • Markus Huff, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien
  • Ludwig Hülk, Reiner Lemoine Institut
  • Malika Ihle, Ludwig-Maximilian University (LMU)
  • Anne Kärki, Satakunta University of Applied Sciences
  • Daniel S. Katz, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
  • André Lampe, freelance
  • Stephanie B. Linek, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Peter Löwe, WZB Berlin Social Science Center
  • Paolo Manghi, CNR – ISTI
  • David Philip Morgan, University of Mannheim
  • Peter Mutschke, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
  • Seliina Päällysaho, Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences
  • Isabella Peters, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics
  • Jessica Polka, ASAPbio
  • Rima-Maria Rahal, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
  • Marc Rittberger, DIPF
  • Tony Ross-Hellauer, Graz University of Technology
  • 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
  • Helene Strauß, TIB – Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology
  • August Wierling, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
  • Andreas Witt, Leibniz Institute for the German Language
  • Philipp Zumstein, Mannheim University