Since 2014, the PUBMET international conference has served as a significant venue for gathering editors, publishers, librarians, journalists, policymakers, scholars and practitioners investigating and advancing scholarly communication in open science. 

 

Editors
Drahomira Cupar
Zrinka Džoić


Technical editor
Ivana Končić


Linguistic advisor
Dado Čakalo


Design and typesetting
Ivana Končić

PUBMET2022: The 9th Conference on Scholarly Communication in the Context of Open Science

Introductory words

Jadranka Stojanovski

Since 2014, the PUBMET international conference has served as a significant venue for gathering editors, publishers, librarians, journalists, policymakers, scholars and practitioners investigating and advancing scholarly communication in open science. The ninth PUBMET2022 conference was held at the University of Zadar from 14 to 16 September 2022, continuing a series of very successful conferences organised by the University of Zadar, Croatian Association for Scientific Communication - ZNAK, University of Zagreb, University of Rijeka and Ruđer Bošković Institute, under the auspices of the OPERAS consortium, OpenAIRE, the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) and SPARC Europe.
We are happy that after two years of holding the conference online, we met again in person to discuss the latest developments in scientific communication and its most visible part, scientific publishing, and to share our knowledge, visions, expertise and the outcomes of numerous studies in this interdisciplinary field. This year we have seen the development and application of the principles of open science and open access as a prerequisite for achieving innovative scientific communication. Sharing all outputs in the earliest stages of research, including research data, software, protocols, methods, laboratory notes, reviewers’ reports, and publications, is the basis for the accelerated development of responsible science.
This year’s PUBMET2022 has brought us a series of invited lectures, short presentations, panel discussions, posters, and workshops, discussing the progress of open science and promoting transparent and informed reporting on the results of scientific research. PUBMET2022 is the result of the year-long hard work of the programme and organising committees. Our excellent speakers, poster presenters, panellists, workshop leaders and moderators contributed to the conference’s success with their valuable, carefully selected and peer-reviewed content. In addition, more than 300 registered participants from 42 countries attended the conference in person or online, providing exciting questions and comments and sharing their opinions.
Major themes of PUBMET2022 include:
Redesigning of open access - what can the scientific community do to retain rights over their research results, and what are the alternatives to the high fees for publishing in open access;
Raising efficiency and effectiveness in scholarly communication - changes that have been achieved by applying the principles of open science bring numerous advantages for scholars, but raise some new challenges;
The fairness of open science – transparency, responsibility, equity, diversity and cooperation in creating and sharing knowledge must be uncompromising;
Potentials of public engagement in science - how can research results make a more significant and positive impact on society?;
Assessing the quality of the research process, research outputs and publication channels - how does open science change the traditional quantitative research assessment criteria?

5-6


Open access for all

how to design an inclusive and diverse open scholarly communication system

Mario Malički, Pierre Mounier

The recent success of open access across the scientific landscape may hide strong inequalities among scientific communities in terms of adoption of open scholarly communications. It is a fact that concerns regarding equity, diversity and inclusion are quite recent in the community. Then, how should we try to redesign open access to address these concerns? The talk will aim at suggesting potential solutions and open a discussion with the audience.

13


A shared path to reforming rights retention in Europe

Vanessa Proudman, Stephen Wyber

The Stichting IFLA Foundation Programme in partnership with IFLA, LIBER, and SPARC Europe are implementing a three-year Arcadia Foundation-funded programme to reform copyright laws and regulations that enable libraries to significantly improve access to and use of copyrighted works. Knowledge Rights 21 aims to promote change at European, national, and local levels providing valuable examples for the rest of the world. The programme is driving reform in six key areas, including improving rights retention and open licensing policy and practice.

Europe has seen a significant growth in activity to establish and advance open access (OA) policies. However, copyright has been the thorn in the side of many authors, funders, and their institutions who wish to publish OA, since publisher policies and processes are no longer fit for purpose. Today, we require the rights to publish, share, adapt, and reuse material for research, educational, or multilingual needs. Governments, funders, and institutions are responding in different ways to counteract publisher deadlock or restrictions as regards rights retention and open licensing. National policies have been set up in France, Spain, and the Netherlands, and umbrella organisations are calling for legislation like LIBER with its Draft Law for the use of publicly funded scholarly publications.

Above all, publisher copyright policies often stand in the way of authors complying with today’s funder requirements. A SPARC Europe 2020 study provided insights into copyright policies of 10 large publishers and numerous smaller ones showing disparities between publishers and shining a light on the complexities that authors face when seeking the right to publish OA. Research funders such as the European Commission’s Horizon Europe programme and the cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy require authors to retain publishing rights to enable them to share their work more broadly, open access and openly licensed. Funders are currently developing and implementing their strategies, although more funders will need to introduce policies until publishers change their rights retention policies. However, it is also up to the institution that is closest to the author to set publication policies and ensure publication rights for OA as demonstrated by the Harvard model all those years ago and now by the UK (Edinburgh) or Norway (Tromso). Others are piloting rights retention action, such as at the University of Cambridge. However, more efforts need to be undertaken by institutions to make it easier for their authors to legally publish OA.

Knowledge Rights 21 intends to accelerate the uptake of rights retention and open licensing to enable researchers to share their work openly. It will do this by calling for publisher, institutional, and funder policy change and by empowering authors to refuse to cede their intellectual property. This presentation will shed light on some of the good practices learnt so far from publishers, institutions, and funders.

Knowledge Rights 21 aims to encourage copyright reform in Europe and set up a strong and activecopyright network of libraries to see it through. The development of grassroot capacity across countries will raise the voice of libraries on copyright and build new alliances with researchers, knowledge advocates, and knowledge service providers to bring a long-lasting change. This presentation will outline how we are building this network and how you can take part in bringing about reform in rights retention and open licensing.

14-15


Obtaining self-archiving permissions at scale to realize the potential of green Open Access

a case study

Delwen Franzen

Background. While there is evidence that open access (OA) has been growing (Hobert et al., 2021; Piwowar et al., 2018), many publications remain behind a paywall. In many cases, journal or publisher self-archiving policies allow researchers to make a version of their publication openly accessible in a repository, sometimes after an embargo period (green OA). The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (UNESCO, 2021) adopted in November 2021 recommends several priority areas of action, including fostering a culture of open science by ensuring diversity in scholarly communications and supporting non-commercial publishing models. In this study, we evaluated the potential of journal articles from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres to become green OA.

Methods. We assessed a sample of clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov or DRKS completed between 2009 and 2017 (Riedel et al., 2021). The analysis was limited to their results published between 2010 and 2020 in 1907 unique journal articles with a DOI resolved in Unpaywall. We queried Unpaywall (OurResearch) via its API to identify paywalled publications in our sample. A publication was considered paywalled if it was not accessible via any OA route (gold, green, hybrid, or bronze). We then queried Shareyourpaper (OA.Works) via its API to obtain self-archiving permissions of publications in our sample. Shareyourpaper  combines publication metadata and policy information to derive selfarchiving permissions at the level of individual publications. Publications were considered to have the potential for green OA if a “best permission” was found for archiving the accepted or published version in an institutional repository, and if the embargo (if applicable) had elapsed by the query date. The Unpaywall API was queried on 13 May 2022 and the Shareyourpaper API on 14 May 2022.

Results. We identified 870 (46%) articles that were not openly accessible via any route (gold, green, hybrid, or bronze). Of these, 753 (87%) had a “best permission” in Shareyourpaper for archiving the accepted or published version in an institutional repository. At the time of the query, 136 (15%) of otherwise paywalled publications with a permission for self-archiving in an institutional repository had been made openly accessible via this route.

Conclusions. For clinical trials to generate useful and generalizable medical knowledge, their results should be openly accessible, in line with established guidelines (World Health Organization, 2017). We found, however, that many results from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres remained behind a paywall, even though they could be self-archived in an institutional repository. Our findings suggest that the potential of green OA to broaden the dissemination of scientific knowledge and ensure equitable access remains relatively unfulfilled and encourage an ongoing intervention at the Charité to increase clinical trial transparency. This case study clearly illustrates how openly available tools can be used to obtain actionable information related to self-archiving at scale, and thereby empower authors and institutions to increase science discoverability.

Funding. This project was funded by the BMBF (01PW18012).

16-17


The landscape of scholarly book publishing in Croatia

finding ways for sustainable open access models

Iva Melinščak Zlodi

Even though open access to scholarly works is globally recognized as a goal to be achieved as soon as possible, it is far clearer how to achieve this for journals than for books. Even organizations firmly oriented towards open access to all results of publicly funded research, such as Coalition S, acknowledge the complexity of book publishing and recognize that open access to books will require more complex models of realization over a longer period (COAlition S Statement on Open Access for Academic Books, 2021). In recent years, the academic community has recognised the central role of books in scholarly communication in social sciences and humanities (SSH) and intensified discussions about possible roads to open access, especially within organizations such as OPERAS (Stone et al., 2021), Science Europe (Briefing Paper on Open Access to Academic Books, 2019), SPARC Europe or Open Access Book Network (A Plan S for Books?, 2021). These documents and discussions portray European book publishing as a fragmented space, with many smaller nationally oriented markets in which there is no domination of large publishers. It is clear that the models of transition to open access will not be unique for the whole European area. Diverse mechanisms and sustainable business models will be appropriate to different contexts.

In considering the most appropriate models of transition, an accurate and detailed insight into individual national and regional specifics can be of great importance. The aim of this research is to show the current state of scholarly book publishing in SSH in Croatia: who are the key stakeholders, what are their characteristics, and what is the current level of open access to scholarly books?

To answer these questions we rely on data from two different sources. The main source of funding to cover the costs of scholarly book publishing in Croatia are the direct subsidies from the Ministry of Science and Education. Given that data on grant recipients are publicly available, it is possible to see what types of books are being published by what types of publishers (research performing institutions, small and medium-sized enterprises, scholarly societies, and other types of organizations). The analysis will be based on data from 2018 to 2021 and will also use the insights from an earlier analysis of the same funding scheme by F. Horvat and Z. Velagić (2020).

The second source is the Croatian Scientific Bibliography (CROSBI), and our review will include data on SSH books (monographs and edited books) published over the same period (2018–2021). CROSBI provides information about active book publishers in Croatia, but also about e-editions, especially those in open access. Particularly useful is the information about OA books on publisher platforms (“gold” model) and in open repositories (“green” model), which gives an insight into preferred OA models for different types of publishers. In addition, publisher platforms provide info about standards used in digital publishing (quality assurance, standardized metadata and discoverability, licensing, indexing, and preservation).

These two sources give us a pretty accurate idea of the current state of SSH book publishing in Croatia and a good starting point for creating a national open science plan for book publishing.

18-19


Bringing efficiencies to tens of thousands of journals

The role of Open Source

Juan Pablo Alperin

In addition to the growing number of scholarly journals published by the so-called “big five”, there are tens of thousands of journals that are published by individual scholars or by academic institutions. These smaller operations are a source of great bibliodiversity that deserves to be encouraged but can also be seen as inefficiencies in the system as a whole. The use of a common software—Open Journal Systems (OJS)—is helping these journals take advantage of an economy of scale without needing to centralize or homogenize them. The key to promoting both efficiency and bibliodiversity is in OJS’s open source nature. This presentation will describe the ways in which PKP’s open source software is bringing efficacy to journal operations, to the discovery of their content, and, in the best of cases, to supporting a transformation of the system as a whole.

21


Adherence of the Spanish National Plan of Science and Innovation to open access mandates

advantages and disadvantages for scholars

Pablo Sastrón-Toledo, Patricia Alonso-Álvarez, Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez, Elías Sanz Casado

As one of the fundamental pillars of open science (De Filippo & Mañana Rodríguez, 2020; De Filippo, Silva & Borges, 2019), open access (OA) is the central topic of the European Commission’s Open Science Policy Platform (Mendez et al., 2020) and the main goal of the CoalitionS initiative for open publication of publicly funded research. The Spanish Science, Technology, and Innovation Act (BOE, 2011) requires that publicly funded research is published in OA, but with so many exceptions to the rule it makes OA rather a choice than a stipulation. Unfortunately, the draft of the new bill has retained the same formulation.
The Spanish National Plan of Science and Innovation (SNP) is Spain’s leading research funding instrument. This paper analyses publications derived from the projects funded by the SNP in the period 2013–2019 and their compliance with the OA recommendations. Projects obtained after 2019 are not included as most of them do not have published results. We investigate the presence of OA by area, how OA influenced the citation impact of the publications, and how did their inclusion in journals by journal quartile. These are the two most common measures of the quality of the article and a requisite for academic advancement in Spain.
OA rates noticeably vary between research areas and types of institutions. OA rates highly (with (over 60% of articles) in life sciences, biomedicine, physical sciences, and technology whereas in arts, humanities, and social sciences it is below 50%. As for the type of institution, regional research, government and technology centres and hospitals have over 70% of their academic production published in OA, whereas this decreases to 30% for private foundations. Surprisingly, the university rate is below 60%. Overall, OA has experienced a steady growth over the past years, which is reflected in a 9% increase in the studied period. This is an encouraging result compared to earlier reports (Borrego, 2016). Future research should look more closely into the differences between research areas and institution to inform policies and regulations on open access at universities and research institutions.
Our major finding is that the relationship between OA and citation count is positive (Mann-Whitney U test and GLM regression; p<0.01) controlling for research area, number of authors, presence in Q1, international collaboration, reference count, and other article measures such as paper and abstract length. This result is in line with previous reports of citation advantages of OA publications (Bautista et al., 2020; Piwowar et al., 2018). However, being published in a Q1 has a significant negative relationship with OA. Although preliminary, these results show that publishing in OA might be positive for the article impact in terms of citations but punitive in terms of academic advancement if evaluation agencies and public policies have not adapted to the new OS paradigm. Further research might explore the effects on individual authors, who might be forced to publish in high-impact open journals. More importantly, OA publication might be punitive if only a few high-impact OA journals are available.

22-23


Raising efficiency and effectiveness in scholarly communication

an example of the Bridge of Knowledge platform at Gdańsk University of Technology

Magdalena Szuflita-Żurawska, Anna Wałek

Current concerns about scholarly communication activities highlight its complexity (Baffy et al., 2020). Researchers need support in many areas, such as in disseminating research findings (both publications and research data) openly, in promoting scientific output, or in preparing data management plans (DMPs). Scholarly communication is constantly evolving by introducing new avenues such as Plan S, open peer review, or data citations shaping the academic environment and researchers’ recognition and prestige.
Changes in scholarly communication and difficulties caused by COVID-19 had given rise to new dissemination channels, openness in publishing results, and discussion between researchers, publishers, funders, or librarians on modern scholarly communication practices (Cuevas Shaw, 2021).
To keep up with these changes in the scholarly communication landscape, the Gdańsk University of Technology (Gdańsk Tech) Library had actively been involved in two projects that raised effectiveness and efficiency in sharing and disseminating research findings. The first project was the Multidisciplinary Open System Transferring Knowledge. The acronym of its name in the Polish language is “MOST Wiedzy”, which means “the bridge of knowledge”, and its primary objective was to introduce openaccess infrastructure to the academic community (Wałek & Lubomski, 2017). The second project – the Bridge of Data – was established to support researchers in managing different layers of research data. All our websites and services are available through the MOST Wiedzy platform. The project was unique in this part of Central and Eastern Europe and included launching of the Open Science Competence Centre as part of the Gdańsk Tech Library.
With a strong infrastructure composed of a current research information (CRIS) system, repositories (publications, OA publications, and research data), and scholarly support services we were able to establish a platform for managing and promoting scientific output. This platform develops with shifts in the scholarly communication environment (such as Plan S, evaluation units, and academic ranking), and we handle the challenges of open science and intellectual property rights as they emerge, shaping and guiding our platform’s further development. Working with and for researchers, the Gdańsk Tech Library seeks to tailor its infrastructure to meet new needs. At the same time, our Competence Centre offers customized services to upgrade research, digital, and information skills through webinars, training, interactive knowledge hubs, or professional working groups, and networking to improve the use of available infrastructure (e.g. we teach researchers how to fill in metadata).
The aim of our study is to review scholarly communication support provided by the Gdańsk Tech Library. We will first identify the main scholarly communication activities (e.g., creation, publication, dissemination, and discovery of academic research, applying for research funding, writing DMPs,
cross-checking requirements of Plan S, assessment & impact metrics) and then map the process against provided support and infrastructure (e.g. institutional repository, research data repository, training, copyright service). In addition, we will invite authors to identify areas that still need support and improvement. Our findings, we hope, will help to understand changes in scholarly communication and the supporting role of a modern library. Building support infrastructure and being part of cultural change toward openness in science may be challenging but is highly rewarding and far-reaching.

24-25


GoTriple, a central access point for the social sciences and humanities

Sona Lisa Arasteh, Emilie Blotiere, Paula Forbes, Stefano De Paoli

The TRIPLE project (Targeting Researchers through Innovative Practices and Linked Exploration) is developing a discovery platform dedicated to the social sciences and humanities (SSH). It gathers 21 partners from 15 European countries and is funded under the European Commission programme INFRA EOSC-02-2019 “Prototyping new innovative services’’.
The multicultural and multilingual GoTriple platform is harvesting three kinds of data available in nine languages (Croatian, English, French, German, Italian, Greek, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish). The beta version, available from October 2021, gives access to more than 1.6 million publications and data sets from big aggregators and smaller repositories to cover all SSH disciplines. GoTriple also responds to requests from SSH researchers to foster interdisciplinarity and enhance collaboration. For this reason, GoTriple will make available researcher profiles and research projects. Five innovative services complement this approach by making available the so called Trust Building System, Recommender System, Visualization Tool, Open Annotation Tool, and Crowdfunding Platform.
The TRIPLE project seeks to improve fairness of open science and ensure that research material is more accessible to SSH researchers and to society by (1) making SSH scientific publications available to as many people as possible without popularizing or simplifying the content and by (2) encouraging better connections between SSH and various sections of society (e.g. SMEs, Journalists, Policy Makers).
The TRIPLE project has made use of a co-design approach from the very start (late 2019), which includes relevant stakeholders through interviews and workshops to ensure that their needs are understood and that the platform will meet their needs.
The TRIPLE project has also developed an innovative approach to evaluate the success of the platform based on compass indicators of equality, diversity, and community building. These indicators will help to advance open science. Moreover, the project is currently engaging users to build a thriving community.
The OPERAS research infrastructure, supporting open scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities in the European Research Area will take an active part in the governance and sustainability of the platform.
At the conference we will present:

some aspects of the research underpinning the creation of GoTriple, including the Co-design work,
the key functionalities of GoTriple and how they can benefit research in the humanities,
how the platform will ensure discoverability and accessibility of SSH resources and highlight European diversity in terms of culture, language, and practices, and
the complexities of building new technologies serving the humanities.

26-27


Article processing charges and the stratification of open access publishing

Thomas Klebel

The Open Access movement promised to increase knowledge sharing within and beyond academia, sidestepping issues of structural inequality. In spite of this initial hope, emerging evidence shows that the model of author facing charges is erecting a new barrier, threatening equity in who can contribute to the scientific record. This talk will investigate the role of institutional resources in shaping publication outcomes across fields and countries and discuss wider implications of current threats to an equitable implementation of open research.

29


Challenges of promoting open science within the NI4OS-Europe project in Hungary

Ákos Lencsés

National Initiatives for Open Science in Europe (NI4OS-Europe) is a Horizon 2020 project, one of whose objectives is to promote the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and open science in 15 Central and East European EU states and EU associated countries.

This paper describes the variety of NI4OS-Europe promoting activities carried out in Hungary by the Governmental Agency for IT Development (KIFÜ). All these activities aim at different, and sometimes overlapping groups and involve:

publishing researcher interviews on research data management and open science practices for early career researchers;
open science news feed for open science practitioners;
publishing an e-learning course on EOSC and open science for graduate and PhD students;
testing research data management (RDM) tools for the Hungarian research community;
organising various events, including the Hungarian Open Science Forum targeting senior researchers and stakeholders;
an EOSC Champion programme at three major Hungarian universities.

Identifying good practices will give us the chance to find the best communication channels andmethods to promote open science and to manage expectations of funders, researchers, and librarians.

We will analyse audience diversity at six NI4OS events organised as part of the project. The anonymized dataset based on registration forms will be filtered by affiliation and profession. We will attempt to identify the main event features that mostly attract librarians or researchers. We will test the hypothesis that open science is generally more welcomed by research institutions’ librarians than, researchers, whose interests are more attached to funds and applications.

We will also study usage data of open science news feeds. Having around 200 posts and 5000 visitors from May 2021 to April 2022 gives us the chance to learn more about the characteristics of the most visited, event-related posts, followed by posts related to national policies, which are visited more frequently than international ones.

The paper will also argue that bottom-up and top-down approaches of promoting EOSC need to be used in a delicate balance to reach out to the widest audience possible.

30-31


How society publishers practice open science beyond open access publishing?

Janne Pölönen, Elina Late

Scholarly publishing has rapidly moved towards open access (OA) over the last few decades. However, OA publishing is only one part of a larger open science movement. The recent UNESCO recommendation for open science (UNESCO, 2021) defines open science broadly to cover the openness of scientific knowledge, science infrastructures, engagement with societal actors, and dialogue with other knowledge systems. In its recommendations, open scientific knowledge includes OA to scientific publications but also open research data, metadata, open educational resources, software, and source code and hardware. Earlier research about open scientific knowledge from the point of view of academic publishers has mainly been focused on one element such as OA publishing and neglected other elements.
This paper aims to fill this gap by surveying how society publishers in Finland adopted other elements of open scientific knowledge. In Finland, learned societies account for 70% of national journal output (Late et al., 2020) and their publishing model is mainly diamond open access, which excludes author processing charges and relies on publishing subsidies (Pölönen et al., 2020). Furthermore, their activities often go beyond scholarly publishing to include education and research activities such as funding research and collecting and storing research data (Korkeamäki et al., 2019).
We conducted an electronic survey addressed to Finnish learned societies in November 2021 to answer the following research questions: “To what degree society publishers take up the elements of open scientific knowledge including open access to publications, open data, and open education?” (RQ1) and “Are elements of open scientific knowledge cumulative?” (RQ2)
In total 97 society publishers responded (40% response rate). We analysed their responses through nine variables measuring how they adopted different elements of open scholarly knowledge (Table 1) in view of the UNESCO recommendations for open science.

The results show elements related to open scholarly publications prevail. Almost 70% of respondentspublish either gold, green, or hybrid OA publications. Most society publishers reported to support open data policies only some do collect, store, and provide open access to research datasets. Furthermore, only a few societies offer training for opening research data. Even so, a high share of publishers offers open education, and some share their educational materials openly. Although earlier studies have reported differences in adopting open science between disciplines (Rousi & Laakso, 2020), our analysis does not support these findings.
However, it has confirmed that adopting the elements of open scholarly knowledge is cumulative, as OA publishers are more likely to take up other elements of open scholarly knowledge. However, adopting all elements is not yet common. Since activities (e.g. collecting research data, offering education, etc.) of publishers other than societies seem to influence the take up of these elements, further research of their activities is needed. For example, it will show how often and how openly these other publishers provide research data or education beyond.

32-33


Collaboration between social science data archives and scientific journals in the development and implementation of data sharing policies

Marijana Glavica, Irena Kranjec, Janez Štebe, Sonja Bezjak

Major commercial scientific journal publishers have already introduced data sharing and citation policies, while independent journals are implementing such changes more slowly. As more and more funders of scientific research require researchers to make their research data as open as possible, all journals will have to adapt to support new ways of scientific communication. Social science data archives in Europe and around the world were established decades ago and have collectively accumulated vast experience in dealing with data, especially data that are sometimes hard to share because of various ethical and legal concerns. Because of this knowledge, they also have a role to play in supporting journal editors and publishers in developing and implementing editorial policies related to data sharing and citation.
In this short talk we will present examples of support activities for journals from the Slovenian and Croatian Social Science Data Archive (ADP and CROSSDA, respectively). Both are service providers (SPs) for CESSDA ERIC, a recognised European research infrastructure (RIs) for social sciences.
As a coordinator of the project establishing Research Data Alliance (RDA) Node in Slovenia, ADP prepared guidelines for Slovenian journals on implementing editorial policies related to data sharing and data citation (Štebe, Bezjak, Dolinar, 2020). These guidelines are based on internationally renowned practices and policies, particularly the RDA Research Data Policy Framework (Hrynaszkiewicz, I., at. al., 2020) and were adopted by four journals (from fields of archaeology, history, linguistics and social sciences) in a pilot phase (Štebe, Dolinar, Bezjak, Inkret, 2020).
Both ADP and CROSSDA are part of the ongoing CESSDA Journals Outreach project, which started in 2020. As part of the project, editors-in-chief of several social science journals were invited to share their views on data sharing and to discuss how data archives can provide support. At the same time, CESSDA SPs answered to a survey whose aim was to explore the capacities of data archives to support journals. In 2021, two events were organised for researchers, journal publishers, and data archives to discuss transparency in social science research and the challenges of sharing data through publications.
By now, ADP has helped three Slovenian journals to implement research data policies: Socialno delo, Central European Public Administration Review, and Economic and Business Review. These policies are not mandatory, and so far, no author decided to share their data before publishing the article. The journal Javnost, in turn, has taken a different approach. The guest editor of one supplement issue asked the authors who had passed peer review to share and cite their data before publishing with the
support of ADP. All authors agreed to make additional effort and prepare the data, documentation, and metadata, so that their results could be verified, and data reused.
In Croatia, one journal, Croatian Sociological Review, introduced its first open science policy, which is partly based on the TOP Guidelines (Nosek at al., 2021) and includes several elements of research transparency, not just data transparency (Vučković Juroš, 2021). Data sharing will not be mandatory, and transparency will be implemented taking into consideration various epistemological assumptions in the humanities and social sciences. The next step is to set up instructions for authors and reviewers to make this policy official, which will be done in cooperation with CROSSDA.


34-35


Open Science in an open cloud

Alen Vodopijevec, Draženko Celjak

European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) is an European wide initiative that aims to develop a ‘Web of FAIR Data and Services’ for science in Europe that will provide researchers, students, companies and citizens with a federated and open multi-disciplinary environment where they can collaborate, share and reuse data, tools and services. EOSC Portal Catalogue and Marketplace is an entry point which improves the findability and accessibility of the scientific resources, their curation, support and training activities.
In order to empower local stakeholders (researchers, policy makers, research performing organisations, etc.), NI4OS-Europe project (National Initiatives for Open Science in Europe) provides technical support for onboarding, i.e. making scientific web services compliant with the NI4OS/EOSC requirements and inclusion in catalogues. At the same time, as open science cloud initiatives emerge across the EU landscape, in the terms of infrastructure and policy development, it also supports building the Croatian Open Science Cloud (abbrev. locally HR-OOZ) Initiative. HR-OOZ is gathering prominent national institutions with an active role regarding open science covering all important stakeholder groups: research performing organisations (RPO), research funding organisations, research supporting organisations and policy makers. The Initiative aims to build a modern, high-quality, internationally relevant, and competitive science system based on the principles of open science, which is harmonised and connected with the European Research Area and relevant European initiatives. The Initiative has two main goals. The first goal is to set up the HR-OOZ which includes tasks of defining its organisational
structure, defining the technological principles of services that will make the HR-OOZ, and ensuring its sustainability. The second goal of the Initiative is to draft the proposal of the National Action Plan for Open Science and propose changes to the law governing scientific activities.
We will present the interconnections between national and European initiatives and how they complement each other as well as the proposed mechanisms for incentivizing and rewarding OS practices which are the vital components of the whole OS ecosystem.

36


Adoption of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines across journals

Inga Patarčić

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines include eight modular standards, with three tiers of increasing stringency, which journals can adopt to promote open science (Nosek et al. 2015). Standards evaluate journal policies on data citation, data transparency, material transparency, code transparency, design and analysis, study preregistration, analysis preregistration, and replication.
To get an idea about whether TOP guidelines are being adopted by journals, we analysed the policies of 1,219 journals available on the website of the Center for Open Science. Journals were categorized by the three stringency tiers of eight TOP standards - were analyzed. 68% of the journals have their policies aligned to at least one of the TOP standards, nearly 46% have their policies aligned to data citation standards, and only 10% have a policy for pre-registration of analysis plans or study preregistration. If a journal policy adopts TOP guidelines, it is most likely of the stringency Level 1 (less stringent) across all eight standards (median=70%). However, policies for the “Analysis code transparency” standard are more “stringent” compared to other standards, and half of the journals require Level 2 and 3 stringency, e.g. storage in an open repository and/or code reproducibility. In the future, we are planning to complement these preliminary results with information about the journal policy requirements stratified across different scientific disciplines and to add a component of time – the evolution of requirements from publishers for adoption of open science practices.
Our results already suggest two ways to improve implementation of open science practices:
1) adoption of policies that promote open science for journals that still have not adopted them, and
2) increasing the stringency of requirements for open science practices for journals that have.

37


Citizen Science

strengthening the bridge between the academic community and the society

Dóra Gaálné Kalydy

Citizen Science just like many other elements of Open Science has a different understanding in Western Europe than in Central-Eastern Europe (Ex-communist countries). Because of many reasons CS is still least-known though there are more and more background supporting opportunities. The new roles of the libraries are gaining appreciation as we are working with different stakeholders. Citizen Science could be one of the most valued pillar of Open Science if libraries are involved in it as aggregators, hubs, but the libraries must be ready to do so. The presentation is about how and why libraries should be engaged in Citizen Science.

39


Citizen Science in Europe

challenges in conducting citizen science activities in cooperation with university and public libraries

Alisa Martek, Dorja Mučnjak, Dolores Mumelaš

Citizen science (CS) has many definitions but is commonly known as collaboration between professional scientists and the rest of society (Ignat et al., 2018). Although there have been cases of its implementation in the past, the term became globally known in 2012 (Vohland et al., 2021). CS activities involve a wide range of academic disciplines and vary widely in what is required of participants in terms of knowledge, time commitment, travel, and use of technology (Cohen et al., 2015).
For the past ten years, academic, public, and research libraries have often supported and conducted CS to encourage greater interaction between science and society. Each of these library types has a specific user population; academic libraries have students and scientific and teaching staff, public libraries have local community, and research libraries have researchers. However, they seldom cooperate. Some collaboration challenges are owed to its complexity, uncertainty regarding research co-creation, and participant retention strategies (Cigarini et al., 2021), and its aspects have been explored by the LIBER project CeOS_SE Project - Citizen-Enhanced Open Science in Southeastern Europe Higher Education Knowledge Hubs (more information on https://libereurope.eu/project/ceos_se-project-citizenenhanced-open-science-in-southeastern-europe-higher-education-knowledge-hubs/). The main goal of the project is to raise awareness of mainstream open science and CS practices in Southeastern (SE) Europe. As a project partner, the National and University Library in Zagreb, in cooperation with the University Library of Southern Denmark, conducted a survey that included other European countries in addition to SE Europe to examine and collect good practices of civil engagement in university libraries. The survey was sent across the European university libraries with the help of other project partners (libraries from Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, and Bulgaria). The survey also investigated whether university libraries carried out CS activities in collaboration with public libraries and if not, why. A relatively small number of university libraries declared that they cooperated with public libraries in creating CS activities. Those that did were interviewed to see which challenges they faced and how they solved them.
Here we will present the main challenges, barriers, and difficulties that stand in the way of cooperation between university and public libraries in Europe. We will also try to explain the reasons for relatively modest cooperation in CS activities and suggest possible solutions from which both university and public libraries could benefit. Co-created activities modify the relationship between libraries and librarians but also with their users, shifting it towards a more participatory interaction (Cigarini et al., 2021)
.

40-41


National Contact Point for Citizen Science in an University Library

Tea Romih, Uroš Kunaver

Citizen Science is one of the tiles in the open science mosaic, as it involves general public in science and keeps it informed about research results and methods. Its growing importance is reflected in scientific research policies across the European Research Area and is an integral part of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) policy. The European Commission has been promoting this concept for many years and has strongly supported it financially through Horizon 2020 with more than 460 million euros for Science with and for Society (SwafS) sub-programme.
Citizen Science projects in Slovenia have been running in different ways for a long time but still await systematic funding through national research co-funding instruments. One way to do it is to set up a national contact point for citizen science (NCPCS) announced in Slovenia‘s Research and Innovation Strategy 2021–2030.
Here we present our analysis on which we will try to build the NCPCS. We will present the current state of Citizen Science in Slovenia with its organisational challenges, some Citizen Science projects, and a vision of NCPCS structure and function. We will also discuss the role of university libraries in creating and managing NCPCS. So far, information about existing projects had to be collected manually by monitoring institutional webpages or through personal contacts, which is less than optimal. A relatively large number of projects are currently underway, but they are poorly linked or visible.
NCPCS should be set up on recommendations such as BESPOC (Broad Engagement in Science, Point of Contact) and good international practices such as those of Österreich forscht (Austria, https://www.citizen-science.at/en/), Bürger schaffen Wissen (https://www.buergerschaffenwissen.de/) or Citizen Science Network Switzerland (Switzerland, https://citizenscience.ch/de/).
The key tasks of the NCPCS should be:
Active monitoring, promoting, and documenting Citizen Science projects,
Reviewing and promoting infrastructures that will be available to researchers for the implementation of Citizen Science projects,
Connecting different stakeholders,
Promoting the production of various documents in the Slovenian language for the implementation of Citizen Science projects, such as the Citizen Science Toolkit,
Support in crowdsourcing for projects,
International cooperation.
We will pay special attention to supporting the development of the Citizen Science concept at universities and to including a network of Slovenian public libraries to support Citizen Science projects at the local level.

42-43


Up and down the Ivory Tower

Charlotte Wien

The ‘Ivory Tower’ is a metaphor often used to describe an elitist and self-sufficient research culture, which is relatively indifferent to whether research is useful for the society or whether the society is aware of such research and its results. Outside the tower, in contrast, citizen science is carried out, presentations are given at community centres, interviews are given to journalists, exhibitions held, popular science articles written, all to make research understandable and digestible outside the tower. Over the past 50 years, scientists have alternately been chased up and down from the socalled Ivory Tower.
On the one hand, the current New Public Management paradigm demands measurable results from the universities, such that can easily be reported to the funders. The easiest way to meet this demand is to rely on a single-track publication strategy focused on publishing research results in international peer-reviewed journals.
On the other hand, university laws, journalists, the general population, politicians, and a large group of socially committed researchers regularly argue that other activities held below the tower should also count and adorn researcher’s CV.
The good news is that on 8 July 2022, an agreement has been finalised to reform current methods for assessing researchers and research quality. The initiative comes from the EU Commission, and the process has been short and effective. If the agreement is adopted, it could bring about a different, flexible, and multi-pronged publishing system that encourages researchers to publish on many alternative platforms and as such that they may inhabit and populate the area below the ivory tower and all its floors.

45


Developing a peer review information service for monographs

Niels Stern

The Peer Review Information Service for Monographs (PRISM) is offered to publishers who have registered with the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) and is provided by the DOAB Foundation on behalf of the OPERAS community. PRISM is currently operating in the beta stage and will move into production in the second half of 2022. It provides information from open access (OA) book publishers about their peer review procedure. The service enables publishers to provide information at both the publisher level and the individual publication level. The goal of the service is to build trust in OA book publishing by improving transparency around quality assurance of OA book publishers and their publications.
The service has been tested in partnership with a small and diverse group of commercial and noncommercial, small, medium, and large OA book publishers. Thanks to their involvement, the service has further been improved and made ready to accommodate many more publishers from 2022 onwards.
This presentation will describe the background and context for PRISM, its objectives, implementation (including its Scientific Committee), and potential future trajectories. Moreover, the presentation will highlight the relevance of the service for stakeholders other than OA publishers, such as research libraries, readers, and authors. More information about the service is available at https://doabooks.org/en/publishers/prism

46


Using open infrastructures for alternative quality assessment of research outputs

Vladimir Otašević

Decision-makers are not able to follow all the changes in the open science (OS) on the policy level as fast as needed. This affects the way how research outputs are assessed. Due to this, not all research outputs are recognised, and there are no mechanisms to trace and appraise all outputs. This paper presents open infrastructures and supporting methods which are capable of overcoming these deficiencies. The Scopus and Web of Science citation indexes have a significant impact on the quality assessment of research outputs, especially when it comes to research promotion and career development. At the same time, researchers produce scientific outputs that cannot be assessed using traditional approaches (Pravilnik o sticanju istraživačkih i naučnih zvanja, 2020).
Open infrastructures can support research communities by providing methods which are verifiable and available for integration with institutional infrastructures (such as repositories and CRIS systems). There are also some services that do not fall into the category of open infrastructure but support the concept by providing technical solutions that can be open access. Also, there is a tendency to make open infrastructures as compliant with OS principles as possible. Some of these infrastructures implement other closely related principles such as the FAIR data principles (GO FAIR initiative, 2022). When an institutional infrastructure adopts these principles and integrates services provided by open infrastructures, then benefits are seen by both researches and decision-makers.

Dimensions is an alternative to and more open and inclusive than a traditional citation database. Also, Dimensions is integrated with other infrastructures that embrace the concept of openness (Dimensions, 2019). Thanks to functionalities available through various open application programming interfaces (APIs), Dimensions has played an important part in technical adoption of OS principles in Serbia.
Alternative metrics like Altmetric could serve as another solution (Altmetric, 2018). Like Dimensons, Altmetric is not an open infrastructure, but it contributes to open infrastructures through open APIs that can track the impact of research outputs across the Internet. The main focus is on tracking research papers on social media (Facebook, Twitter) and multimedia platforms (YouTube) or their mentions in Internet communities. An important issue for each country is how to assess research outputs in humanities. Knowing that research outputs in this area focus mainly on locally relevant topics, it is difficult to track the impact of such results by relying on traditional citation databases.
Unlike Dimensions and Altmetric, OpenCitations is an open infrastructure which fully embraces the concept of OS and is compliant with the FAIR data principles inasmuch as the data it collects are findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable. Furthermore, OpenCitations has adopted the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) (Bilder, Lin and Neylon, 2020) and its infrastructure has been upgraded with a system that provides persistent identifiers (PIDs) (Peroni, Shotton, 2019).

All these solutions are mostly dealing with citations. However, there are research outputs like peerreview reports and editorial work that cannot be assessed only by the number of citations and require other metrics. Publons is far from an open infrastructure but at least provides some open access services for researchers. More relevant in this context is the recently launched OpenAlex, an open infrastructure that can serve as a search engine, research output monitor, and assessment tool. OpenAlex aggregates data from sources like Crossref and ORCID and seeks to present data in a standardised way

47-48


Incentives and rewards in scholarly communication: the good, the bad, and the possible

Radovan Vrana

Science is a dynamic system with many stakeholders performing different activities, expecting incentives or rewards for research outcomes such as published journal article, a conference paper, a book, a patent, or a research data set. Properly communicated, positive research outcomes tend to lead to new grants, academic promotion, or tenure, so it is important for scientists to remain highly motivated. Motivation usually comes from incentives or rewards given by academic institutions, industry, or funding bodies. The good and bad of the existing reward system have frequently been in focus of interest of researchers and science communicators, but problems with research integrity have shifted the spotlights on the reasons driving scientists to do bad science. Besides support (Jindal-Snape & Snape, 2006), current reward systems lure scientists into doing research that brings rewards and neglect or avoid research that does not. Some scientists choose publishable results over accurate ones (Nosek, Spies and Motyl, 2012) to advance their career, which is has become the major problem in science today.
Catillon (2020) identified three key motivators for scientists: a) the intrinsic reward of doing science, b) academic prestige, and c) monetary rewards. The pitfall of the last is that it can drive scientists to do bad science in exchange for money. Such scientists may have conflicted interests, especially if monetary rewards are stipulated by the right kind of results (Catillon, 2020). Zhao (2020) offered another view on types of incentives: 1.) material incentives – the salary incentive; 2.) affirmative incentive – affirming the accomplishment of task, affirming scientific and technological progress and affirming innovative ideas; 3.) cultural incentive; 4.) honorary incentive – linking work performance with promotion 5.) environmental incentive – creation of good office environment including technology advancement.
The EU funded project CONCISE, in turn, considers that incentives to engage in science communication arise from social commitment (whether as a way to pay back to tax payers or as an effort to advance democracy, inform society, raise awareness, or promote science). Other motives may include personal or professional benefit (to attract funding, scientific collaboration, broader audience or influence public policies, or to enjoy themselves). Some, however, fear that sharing research data may lose them competitive edge or diminish their credit in specific research.
This paper will take a look at major issues about incentives and rewards in science today and how they contribute or affect the quality of scientific endeavour.

49-50


Elucidating the effects of peer review

a living synthesis of studies on manuscript changes

Mario Malički, Ana Jerončić, Lex Bouter, Gerben ter Riet, John P.A. Ioannidis, IJsbrand J. Aalbersberg, Steven N. Goodman

Objective. The ability of peer review to improve the scientific endeavour, e.g., conduct, reporting, and validity of study findings, is increasingly being questioned (Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2020) and calls have been made to showcase changes that occurred to each study due to peer review (Limbu, 2020). Until such transparency is achieved, our objective is to identify and collect studies that analysed differences between preprints or submitted manuscripts and peer reviewed journal articles.

Design. We identified studies based on our knowledge of the field and by checking all research at peer review conferences (presented as podium presentations or posters). We also checked references of identified studies. For all included studies we then extracted the year of publication, sampling method, conflicts of interest, funding, data and protocol sharing, number of analysed version-pairs, sample size calculation, scholarly discipline, method used to compare versions, variables (i.e., manuscript sections) analysed for changes, and metric with which the changes were quantified or qualitatively classified. Future steps will include a search of bibliographic databases (and preprint servers) and launching of an online form that will allow anyone to submit missed studies for inclusion in the review. Current findings are only descriptive, but meta-analyses are planned.

Results. Of 25 studies published from 1990 till the end of 2021, 16 analysed changes between submitted and published papers and 9 between preprints and published papers. Changes were most often analysed by filling out questionnaires or scoring each of the two manuscript versions separately (n=11) or by comparing them visually (n=6). Median number of analysed version-pairs was 59 (IQR, 41- 122). Most studies analysed changes in health (n=18) or social sciences (n=4) manuscripts. Overall, they find a very high similarity between version-pairs, with largest changes occurring in introduction and discussion sections.

Conclusions. Current results indicate that submitted or pre-printed manuscript versions and their peer-reviewed journal version are very similar, with main (analysis) methods and main findings rarely changing. Quantification of these results is pending. Large differences between studies, type of changes, and methods with which they were measured indicate greater need for collaboration in the peer-review field and for core outcome measures for manuscript version changes.

51-52


Media visibility as a driver of scientific and social impact

Vedrana Simičević, Nenad Jarić Dauenhauer, Mario Malički

Well-known paradigms such as public understanding of science, public engagement in science and technology, and media visibility affect the perception of science in society but also the dynamics of the relationship between scientists, the public, and the media. The digital environment and social media have pushed the boundaries and created different aspects of visibility but have also raised issues such as the risk of data theft, misuse, manipulation or out-of-context use. Not only can media manipulate scientifically accurate information but can also spread misinformation.
It is argued that science must be visible not only to scientists but also to the public in order to gain legitimacy, advance knowledge, promote positive attitudes, and increase engagement. This kind of visibility is at the forefront of the open science movement, which advocates transparency, openness, and reproducibility.
Media and the digital environment have exponentially increased the availability of scientific knowledge to the general public and encouraged a growing number of scientists to tell their own stories on social networks or actively participate in public and media discussions, gaining in popularity along the way. The question arises, does this personal popularity contribute to the overall popularity of science and does it increase awareness of its significant impact on society and technology? Also, there is a continuous fear that scientific knowledge is vulnerable to misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
This panel entitled Media visibility as a driver of scientific and social influence will discuss perspectives based on trust, transparency, and ethics in communication between scientists and journalists and take a look at activities that can increase the visibility of science in the media, challenges involved, and at the role of scientists and their reputation in communication with the general public. We will also discuss the limit(ation)s of strategic management of visibility, especially online, which can very quickly become uncontrolled, damage a reputation or two, and expose scientists to public criticism and even hostility.

54


Assessing the quality of research outputs in physiotherapy

Manuela Filipec, Nikolina Zaplatić Degač, Anica Kuzmić

Assessing the quality of research output is challenging. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials have a pivotal role in informing clinical practice and policy decisions, and there is a broad agreement that the method quality of primary research should be carefully assessed (Albanese et al., 2020). One of the instruments to do that is the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, specifically designed to assess the quality of methods used in clinical trials in the field of physiotherapy (Elkins et al., 2013). Its reliability in terms of ICC values ranges from 0.55 (95% confidence interval CI: 0.47–0.65) for the original scale, to 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70–0.89) for the Portuguese version (Shiwa et al., 2011). The PEDro scale consists of 11 items encompassing the domains of external validity (item 1: Eligibility criteria and source), internal validity (items 2 to 9: Random allocation; Concealed allocation; Baseline comparability; Blinding of participants; Blinding of therapists; Blinding of assessors; Adequate follow-up (>85%); and Intention-to-treat analysis), and statistical reporting (items 10 and 11: Betweengroup statistical comparisons and Reporting of point measures and measures of variability) (Cashina, McAuleya, 2020). Each item is scored as either present (1) or absent (0), leading to a maximum score of 10 (Paci, Bianchini and Baccini, 2022). A trial is considered of moderate to high quality if it scores at least 6 of 10 (Paci, Bianchini and Baccini, 2022). The purpose of the PEDro score is to help researchers identify trials that have good internal validity (items 2–9) and that report enough data to make their results interpretable (items 10 and 11) (Moseleya et al., 2020). Interpreting these items correctly is critical to high-quality, evidence-based health practice. Unlike PEDro, however, the Cochrane Collaboration distinguishes between the methodological quality of a study and the risk of bias: a study of high quality can still be at high risk of bias (Higgins et al., 2011). The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool focuses on the internal validity of trials and assesses six domains of bias: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias (Higgins et al., 2011). These two tools can complement each other for an even better quality assessment of physiotherapy research and help disseminate and make transparent and available research output, encouraging interdisciplinary research along the way.

56-57


Current state of the preprint servers’ web accessibility

Matej Majdandžić, Igor Dobrača, Mario Malički, Ksenija Baždarić

Background. The concept of open science is related to several domains: open research data, open communication infrastructures, new metric indicators of scientific quality and impact, open and early sharing of scientific publications, concern for research integrity and public involvement in the scientific process (Open Science Factsheet, 2019). Early sharing of scientific publications is made possible by preprint servers (Fu & Hughey, 2019). Preprinting is an open science practice that allows deposition and distribution of manuscripts before submitting them to a journal for peer-review (Baždarić et al., 2021).
Aim. To test web accessibility of preprint servers for persons with various visual, verbal, or other disabilities (15% of the general population) (Campoverde-Molina et al., 2021) as one of the core human right and a priority of the World Wide Web Consortium.
Methods. We included 54 preprint server homepages (ASAP bio list; https://asapbio.org/preprintservers) with the WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (https://wave.webaim.org/), one of the most used automated tools to test web accessibility, which relies on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG v. 2.1) method (Campoverde-Molina et al., 2021). WAVE results are grouped into six categories: Errors, Contrast Errors, Alerts, Features, Structural Elements, and ARIA.
Results: Of the 54 server homepages, 47 could be tested. Most frequent Errors based on WCAG 2.1 are: 2.4.4 Link Purpose In Context (49%) and 1.1.1 Non-text Content (47%). Almost half the sites (45%) have Contrast Error (WCAG 1.4.3). Alerts are mainly related to 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (74%), 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (66%) and 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks (60%). Features errors are related to 3.1.2 Language of Parts (89%) and 1.1.1 Non-text Content (62%). Results for measure Structural elements are all over 60%: 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (68%), 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks (68%) and 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (64%). For measure ARIA only 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (53%) have results over 50%.
Conclusion: This automated test clearly shows that there is still ample room for preprint servers to improve accessibility to their web pages, but manual detection is needed to overcome possible mismatches made by an automated tool.

58-59


Working towards a more connected scholarly community: the Research Nexus and POSI

Vanessa Fairhurst

Crossref is a not-for-profit member organization that aims to make all research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref’s membership comprises over 17,000 member organizations from across more than 140 countries (Crossref, 2022). Publisher and funder members register research content with Crossref, they assign it a DOI, and deposit metadata about that piece of content. Crossref then processes this metadata so that connections can be made between publications, people, organizations, and other associated outputs.
At Crossref, we envision “a rich and reusable open network of relationships connecting research organizations, people, things, and actions; a scholarly record that the global community can build on forever, for the benefit of society” (Hendricks, G., 2021). This talk aims to explain how the Research Nexus is fundamental to making this vision a reality, how you can get involved, and how the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) ensure that these efforts will be here for the long term.
We all know how important it is for research objects to be persistently and uniquely identified, and while there is still work to be done in this area, this is only the first piece of the puzzle. The metadata that we collect from our members is open, standardized, and machine readable. It is beneficial to many organizations that build tools and services on top of the open infrastructure we provide and it is key to connecting research outputs to the bigger picture. Additionally, it is increasingly important to identify the relationships between research objects – bringing together published work, unpublished work, institutions, individuals, and much more and identifying the actions they take and the relationships between them, e.g., funding, publishing, creating, modifying, citing, and sharing. The Research Nexus brings together metadata and relationships to build a joined-up picture of the scholarly ecosystem and helps everyone identify these relationships and how they change through time. Metadata and relationships between research objects and entities can support the whole scholarly research ecosystem in many ways, including research integrity, reproducibility, reporting and assessment, and discoverability (Crossref, 2022).
The Research Nexus draws on the work of various scholarly infrastructure organizations. However, we can be sure the scholarly community can sustain these efforts through the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). POSI is a set of principles describing the desired governance arrangements, financial sustainability, and openness of infrastructure organizations and how they should operate in the scholarly space (Bilder G, Lin J, Neylon C, 2020). Organizations can formally adopt the POSI principles by publishing an initial self-assessment and committing to demonstrating evidence of following POSI in practice. Already, POSI is adopted by Crossref, Dryad, the Research Organization Registry (ROR), the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS), Our Research, OpenCitations, DataCite, OA Switchboard, and others.
We hope to advance knowledge by making the increasingly diverse landscape of scholarly outputs easy to navigate.

60-61


Using TikTok as a platform for science communication

the latest challenges and opportunities

Maja Hoić

The pandemic has changed the way we interact. The popularity of the TikTok platform, which allows creating short video content, was on the rise even before 2020 and skyrocketed during quarantine. Scientists have recognized its potential as a new means to communicate and share experience.
This poster will take a look at the content posted by the most popular science communicators and at the reasons for creating content of this type.
As the hashtags on the platform can be used to categorize content for algorithms and AI to understand it, we will explore science-related hashtags using information available at https://tiktokhashtags.com/ and select the most popular profiles (personal TikTok profiles of science communicators) for analysis in terms of science content, differences between video creators and presenters, and their background. The background will be analyzed from content posted on the platform (if they are openly talking about it on the platform) and comparison with content posted on other platforms. We will also look for reasons for their switching to TikTok. Our hypothesis is that shifts in social dynamics in the wake of coronavirus pandemic favoured a switch from big productions to user-friendly platforms like TikTok, and that its video-making options encourage those less experienced in video-making to create and share (science-related) content.
As TikTok is an open platform with egalitarian public engagement model, it can be used to build trust in science by, say, showing the process “behind the scenes”.

62


Navigating the new world of scientific publications

Croatian scientists and predatory journals

Ivana Hebrang Grgić, Kristina Romić

An increasing number of scholarly journals and scientific papers are available in open access on the journal’s websites (gold open access) and in repositories (green open access). Although both ways of achieving open access provide free access to end users, publishing costs still exist and are collected from a variety of sources, e.g. through article processing charges (APC) or crowdfunding (Spezi, Fry, Creaser, Probets and White, 2013). The idea of the open access model was to make high quality journals available to the widest possible public (BOAI, 2002) and the model today has many benefits for the scientific communication. Nevertheless, a deviation has developed recently. The deviation – the emergence of so-called predatory journals – threatens quality and reliability of scientific communication. Such journals attract authors with low APC fees, fast publication, and false indexation data (Beal, 2015; Jalalian, Mahboobi, 2014). Predatory journals and publishers promise quick peer-review, they often have fake editorials listed on their websites, send emails inviting authors to publish papers or offering them to be editors of their journals (Bowman, 2014). Those journals are in open access, they use article processing charges model but do not control the quality (i.e. peer review process is insufficient or, in most cases, non-existent). As the information published in such journals is not verified, there is a possibility that it is wrong and further research should not be based on it. Although there is a lot of information in the literature about the common features of predatory journals and publishers, they can be defined as “the entities which prioritize self-interest at the expense of financial gain and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publishing practices, lack of transparency, and/or persistent and random requests” (Grudniewicz et al., 2019, p. 211).
The number of predatory journals has grown, and this has become a major problem for scientific communication and the development of science. Various attempts have been made to characterize and identify predatory journals and help researchers and other participants of scholarly communication to distinguish them from reliable journals. One such attempt was to separate the two with lists (Dadkhah, Borchardt, 2016; Laine, Winker, 2017; Shen, Björk, 2015; Strinzel, et al, 2019). The best-known blacklist of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals” is the one by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian who coined the term “predatory” journal in 2015 (Beall’s list).

The aim of our study was to investigate whether Croatian scientists published in predatory journals and in how many of them. The sample consisted of open access (OA) papers published in 2016 and 2020 as listed by the Croatian Scientific Bibliography (CROSBI). First we separated those published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and DOAJ databases. The remainder was checked against three “blacklists”: the DOAJ list of journals that claim they are indexed in DOAJ but are not (DOAJ, 2022), the archived version of Beall’s list (Beall, 2017), and Kscien’s list of standalone predatory journals and publishers (Kscien, 2015).

63-65


Characteristics and rankings of European universities that support the library crowdfunding model for open access monographs

Mirela Rončević

Introduction. Several business models have emerged for open access (OA) monographs, and one of them is library crowdfunding (Collins, 2015; Speicher, 2018). Considering the importance of collaboration in OA (Deegan, 2017), it is no surprise that this model—which is based on libraries collaborating to fund the publishing of OA monographs—is considered innovative and possibly sustainable long-term (Leach-Murray, 2017). It encourages academic libraries to share the cost of publishing peer-reviewed OA monographs in various fields and take the burden of the author-pay model away from researchers (Reinsfelder, 2018). Well-known initiatives of this kind include Knowledge Unlatched (KU), Reveal Digital, and UnGlue.It (Bulock, 2018).
Purpose. This study investigates how sustainable is this model and which factors besides those already known (i.e., budgeting, relevance of content, and the OA principle) can influence institutions to adopt it. The investigation relies on the innovation diffusion theory (Pinfield et al., 2021), since library crowdfunding for OA monographs brings innovation to how OA monograph publishing is funded. It also starts with a premise that a closer look at institutions that have already adopted the model can help identify the ‘early majority’ types of institutions.
Methods. We traced the rankings of 124 European institutions that support or do not support the KU’s crowdfunding initiative for OA monographs from 2016 to 2020. The representative sample includes participating institutions from Western and Northern and largely non-participating Eastern European countries. The rankings were taken from THE World Rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities, and QS World University in six categories: overall world ranking score, research output score, citation score, international outlook score, student size, and faculty size. By examining the characteristics of various types of ‘adopters’ identified by the innovation diffusion theory, we set out to answer two main research questions: 1) What types of institutions support library crowdfunding for OA monographs? and 2) How adopters and non-adopters rank in the world and what are their characteristics?
Findings. Aside from institution’s budget, relevance of content, and belief in the tenets of the OA movement, the most reliable predictors for the crowdfunding model adoption include institution’s high world ranking, research output, citation impact, and international outlook. Student size and faculty size, in turn, are not as reliable predictors.
Limitations. The Our study is limited to institutions ranked by all three sources and to the data of only one of the several existing crowdfunding initiatives for monographs. Future studies should expand to cover non-ranking institutions and other crowdfunding initiatives and explore various other types of innovations in the OA domain, as crowdfunding is but one of a number of approaches to financing OA publishing.
 
Contribution. Despite its limitations, our study is the first to use the innovation diffusion theory and university ranking sources to profile institutions and to confirm the hypothesis that high-ranking institutions are the most likely to adopt library crowdfunding as their business model.

66-67


Non-BPC models and collective library funding for university and mission driven presses

Frances Pinter

In late 2020, COPIM, an Arcadia and Research England funded project, announced an innovative revenue model to sustainably fund open access (OA) monographs: Opening the Future. This initiative harnesses the power of collective library funding: increasing collections through special access to highly regarded backlists and expanding the global shared OA collection while providing a less risky path for smaller publishers to make frontlist monographs OA. Since Opening the Future launched, we have seen several other collective library funding models emerge in quick succession, including MIT’s Direct 2 Open, University of Michigan Press’s Fund to Mission, and Cambridge University Press’ Flip it Open. At the same time, new policies and recommendations were announced, which included OA requirements for monographs (e.g. Plan S). The landscape is clearly changing rapidly. In this presentation we will appraise our model in the context of this changing environment.
The programme has had success since its launch. The first publisher to adopt the model, Central European University Press, has accrued enough library support to fund their first seven OA monographs, and in 2021, the initiative was recognised by the publishing community and nominated for an ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing. And the programme is growing; a second well-respected publisher, Liverpool University Press, launched with Opening the Future in June 2021. The project has now begun to turn its focus to the thorny problem of scaling up. But herein lies a tension.
OA monograph publishing needs to be sustainable not just for publishers, but also for libraries. Opening the Future was designed to be low-cost and simple, slotting into acquisitions budgets and existing library purchasing workflows. Publishers are working with scholars and other stakeholders, including librarians, university administrators, and research funders to develop appropriate new business models that serve the needs of authors and readers alike. Equity considerations require sustainable non- exclusionary models, especially for authors who do not have access to the large fees of Book Processing Charges (BPC) – typically five times and more than an APC. Mandates from some research funders are coming soon, especially members of Plan S.
New models are being piloted now and this presentation will focus on how university presses in particular are developing their open access programmes and how funding issues might be addressed.

68-69


Automatic XML extraction from Word and e-book formatting

an insight into the Open Source Academic Publishing Suite (OS-APS) project

Markus Putnings, Frederik Eichler, Carsten Borchert

According to the OA Diamond Journals Study of diamond open access journal operators, 53% of journals employ less than one full-time worker, and 60% of journals rely heavily on volunteers. Due to these resource constraints, most diamond open access journals publish less than 25 articles per year, and 75% of journals are not able to provide their content in XML and HTML but only in PDF (Bosman et al., 2021, p. 7-8).
For them to keep up with larger commercial publishers and their professionalized content output, a high degree of process automation and streamlining is necessary. The Open Source Academic Publishing Suite (OS-APS, https://os-aps.de/en/) project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research aims to achieve this. Smaller and medium-sized publishers usually deliver Word manuscripts. OS-APS automatically extracts the underlying XML from these manuscripts, offers optimization, and, most importantly, export in various formats (PDF, HTML, XML, EPUB). Professional corporate design, such as that of the PDFs, is also managed automatically by reusing templates or by creating one’s own with the OS-APS Template Development Kit.
In addition, OS-APS will also connect to scholarly and community-driven publishing platforms such as Open Journal Systems (OJS), Open Monograph Press (OMP), and DSpace: the software will be able to be integrated into a wide range of publication processes, whether with small, low-resource, commercial, institutional, or diamond open access publishers. To understand the requirements of these heterogeneous publishers, the OS-APS project has a practical advisory and a scientific advisory board with representatives from the different publishing sectors. In addition, it regularly holds demo days with feedback opportunities. One such demo will be given at PUBMET2022.
The Open Source software could be a significant improvement for smaller, independent OA publishers to streamline their processes, create new e-book formats (such as HTML, EPUB), and secure their long-term presence and bibliodiversity. The project is in line with the recommendations of the OA Diamond Study and its call for cOAlition S funders and infrastructures to “support the development of generic tools to generate structured content in XML and HTML” (Becerril et al., 2021, p. 20).

70-71


Publication integrity viewed from different perspectives

a focus group study

Ivan Buljan, Rea Roje, Joeri Tijdink, Ana Marušić

Publication and communication of research findings are important for the development of science, since future scientific work relies and builds on previous findings. However, this is not possible if researchers cannot trust the published work or if the principles of research integrity are not implemented in all phases of the research process, including the publication of research results (ALLEA 2017, NASEM 2017). This study aimed to explore authorship and publication practices across different disciplinary fields and to identify areas related to the publication of research findings that require improvements. We used a purposive sample strategy to recruit researchers from different disciplinary fields (humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and medical sciences), different levels of seniority, and geographical locations. We conducted 30 focus groups with 174 researchers and other stakeholders from eight European countries (Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands). The data will be analysed using the thematic analysis approach to develop a thematic map with themes and sub-themes. Currently, we are analysing the data using the NVivo software (QSR International). Some of the codes and sub-codes already identified are: 1) authorship distribution (authorship statement/plan; disciplinary field/country specifics and differences regarding authorship distribution/practices, ethical issues in authorship, handling authorship disputes); 2) authorship, publications, and academic career (stakeholders’ evaluation of authorship and publications); 3) research publication and dissemination (examples of good publication practices, examples of issues related to publication process); 4) peer review (good peer review practices, poor peer review practices); and 5) open science (perceptions on open science; open access, open data, open collaboration, and reproducible research).
One possible limitation of our study, taking into account that publication practices differ significantly in different settings (countries, fields, etc.), could be that the knowledge obtained could not be generalised and applied globally, since we included participants from European countries alone. However, we believe that by including a large number of participants we managed to map publication practices in the European area and will be able to learn what should be improved and how to foster good publication practices by European researchers.

72-73


Building National Open Science Cloud Initiatives (NOSCIs) in Southeast Europe

supporting research and scholarly communication

Kalliopi Kanavou, Katerina Lenaki, Biljana Kosanović, Elli Papadopoulou, Ilias Papastamatiou, Electra Sifacaki, Milica Ševkušić, Eleni Toli

The National Initiatives for Open Science in Europe (NI4OS Europe) project supports the development of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) by contributing to its portfolio of services, by involving national and regional research communities in the EOSC governance, by strengthening open science (OS) practices, and by promoting the FAIR principles (Macan et al., 2020; Garavelli et al., 2021) to help build the infrastructure and create a favourable environment for open and intensive scholarly communication.
The main instrument in achieving this is the network of 15 national Open Science Cloud Initiatives (NOSCIs) established in the partner countries as national-level coalitions of Open Science stakeholders that have a prominent role and interest in the EOSC. The concept of NOSCI has been developed in response to the specific traits and challenges in the targeted region, based on complex and multilayered analyses of stakeholders, policies, and local contexts (Toli et al., 2020). Inclusive by nature, NOSCIs connect stakeholders from across the research lifecycle at the national level and provide not only a testbed for the formulation of OS policies but also a forum for knowledge dissemination and sharing.
Drawing on a secondary analysis of the abundant data collected and materials produced during the project, this presentation focuses on the challenges identified as the NOSCIs were built – from data collection in the context of landscaping (Kosanović & Ševkušić, 2019) and policy analysis, through concept development, to implementation, testing, and verification (use cases). It highlights the relationship between individual challenges and NOSCI elements that address these challenges.
The challenges are largely owed to diversities within the region, most notably the varying levels of integration into European structures (of the 15 partner countries, eight are not EU members), linguistic diversity, different research governance systems, policy traditions, and available funding. The framework for NOSCI development, the so-called blueprint (Toli et al., 2020), was designed in full recognition of these diversities. It relies on three modular workflows (Toli et al., 2021) and gives maximum flexibility to countries or national initiatives while making sure that all locally specific aspects are addressed.

We believe that the approach adopted by the NI4OS-Europe team could be applied in other highlydiversified environments, as has been demonstrated by the NI4OS-Europe use cases, thanks to the flexible mechanism of interaction between challenges and responses underlying the very concept of NOSCI.

74-75


Linguistic and semantic characteristics of articles and peer review reports in social and medical sciences

analysis of articles published in Open Research Central

Andrijana Perković Paloš, Ivan Buljan, Antonija Mijatović, Daniel Garcia-Costa, Francisco Grimaldo, Ana Marušić

Recently, initiatives to share data on peer review (Squazzoni et al, 2020) have brought about better understanding of the peer review process across different disciplines (Buljan et al, 2020, Squazzoni et al 2021a, Squazzoni et al 2021b). Some studies (Strang & Siler, 2015; Siler & Strang, 2016) examined the changes from initial submissions to journals to publication. Another study (Teplitskiy & Bakanic, 2016) explored how well peer reviews predict the article’s citation impact. A study of almost half a million peer review reports from 61 journals (Buljan et al., 2020) showed that peer review reports were longer in social science than in medical journals. It also showed that their language characteristics differed across disciplines (Buljan et al., 2020).
The aim of our study was to further examine structural and linguistic differences between articles and the characteristics of the peer review process, including the language used and outcomes of peer review reports, in medicine and health sciences vs. social sciences.
To select the articles we used the search engine of the Open Research Central (ORC) platform, which covers different fields, and applied the following filters: “Subject area: Medical and health sciences”, and “Subject area: Social science”. “Article type(s): Research article” filter was also applied. We ended up with 1912 medical and 477 social science articles. To create the samples of articles with clear medical/health vs. social sciences content, we excluded those with a tag for medicine and health sciences and any other disciplinary field except biology and life sciences and those with a tag both for social sciences, and biology and life sciences. This left 408 medical and 54 social science articles. Using the DOIs of filtered articles, we downloaded them manually in an XML format. Articles that had not been reviewed were excluded, yielding a total of 51 articles with a social sciences tag and 361 articles with a medicine and health sciences tag, as well as their peer review texts.
We analysed them using the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) text analysis software and word embeddings, a method in which words are given mathematical vector representation. To assess the differences between the articles and their reviews across medical and social sciences, we used the one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s test. For multivariate frequency distribution of the variables we used the contingency test.
All analyses were carried out in JASP, version 0.14.1.

Articles from medicine and health sciences and those from social sciences differed in structure. The median word count in the introduction section was 674 (IQR=308.0–637.0) for social sciences and 431 (IQR=420.5–1029.0) for medical sciences. The conclusion section was also longer in social sciences, with 263 words (IQR=135.5–516.0) vs. 94 words (IQR=64.0–168.0) in medical sciences (p<0.01, Mann Whitney). The percentage of articles with merged discussion and conclusion was higher in social sciences, whereas medical articles followed the IMRaD structure more often and contained fewer declarations and non-IMRaD sections. They also contained more figures. Linguistic analysis showed that social science articles had higher word count, higher clout, and a less positive tone.
Longer wording was also dominant in peer review reports on social science articles. However, the social and medical sciences did not significantly differ in the characteristics of the peer review process and comments from all stages of review or in the outcome of the peer review process (approved, approved with reservation, or rejected) between the two disciplines. There were also no statistically significant differences in manuscript changes between the disciplines, with the exception of text changes in the introduction section that changed more in the social sciences.

The review process for articles in social and medical/health sciences may not differ as much as is usually believed. This, however, may be partly owed to the use of the same ORC platform, which may have uniform policies and processes.

76-77


Communication in the research process

a prerequisite and result of research

Jasminka Maravić, Klara Bilić Meštrić

Introduction. During the COVID-19 pandemic, our research and development team at the Croatian Academic and Research Network (CARNET) studied the implementation of distance learning, and here we present our methodological approach which is focused on communication supported by digital technologies. Our method combines quantitative and qualitative approach, the first by means of an online questionnaire on a large sample of respondents consisting of 535 principals, 5,619 teachers and 20,717 parents (26,871 in total). The qualitative part was carried out with eleven participants: five teachers, three principals, and three pedagogues, who kept reflective diaries (logs, journals) about what they were doing and why (Turner, 2020) and participated in communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) and individual interviews. The objectives of the qualitative research were to:
gain insight into the practices of using technology in distance learning,
provide support to teachers, principals, and pedagogues to study their own practice and give recommendations for further possible distance learning.
Their testimonies describe each situation without the intervention of external researchers and provide researchers with insight into the actual practices of educators – participants / researchers (Meth, 2003).

Communication as a prerequisite and result of a qualitative approach

Throughout the writing phase of the research diaries, the coordinator closely collaborated with researchers who shared their experiences via weekly online meetings, e-mail, telephone. We also held 13 focus groups with the researchers. Communication of all involved was a prerequisite but also the result of the research. Due to its importance, we determined a communication strategy and selected the most efficient communication channels in advance, so that they did not require additional mastering of communication tools for video conferencing. Likewise, the pace and time of the meeting was measured so as not to further burden the researchers, who were primarily focused on writing diaries. This qualitative research resulted in more than 220 pages of diary entries and established two communities of practitioners – one consisting of pedagogues and principals and the other of teachers, who were meeting separately every two weeks. In addition, the research included dozens of hours of individual interviews.
Conclusion. Qualitative action research is based on communication between researchers, and if it is designed that way, between researchers and the research coordinator. In an online environment, communication needs to be planned and rely on the digital tool that will be used and on the dynamics of interactions.

78-79


Towards the Armenian Science Citation Index

Shushanik Sargsyan, Hrachya Astsatryan, Aram Mirzoyan

Evaluation of scientific productivity and output can be a challenge, especially for developing countries, as national or regional publications are often poorly covered by the international databases. To address this issue, policymakers adopt new instruments and mechanisms to evaluate local and international publications. A number of countries have developed national and regional indexes such as the Chinese Science Citation Database or SciELO, which started in Brazil, and is now covering most South American national output, Spain, and South Africa. In Armenia, the task to build a platform for the Armenian Science Citation Index (ASCI) has been undertaken by the Center for Scientific Information Analysis and Monitoring of the Institute of Informatics and Automation Problems of the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the scientific output of Armenian researchers, scientific groups, laboratories, and organizations and help develop Armenian journals. We have provisional arrangements in place and intend to have all local Armenian scientific journals included in ASCI. We also plan to cover the publications of Armenian authors published abroad. Our end goal is to establish cooperation with international open scientific databases and exchange information with them. According to our ongoing research, Armenian scientific journals receive a lot of citations abroad and exchange will highly contribute to further international visibility of Armenian scientific journals.
This paper presents the future centralized ASCI platform that will include local and international publications and the tools it will employ to analyse and evaluate institutional output, with a few specific examples. Thanks to the NI4OS project funded by EC Horizon 2020, the platform will provide services to interested researchers based on the FAIR principles and eventually be integrated with international scientific databases.

80-81


Scholars’ domain of information space

Mihaela Banek Zorica, Danijela Pongrac, Roman Domović

The article addresses scholars’ information behaviour and how they use technology to acquire information in three areas of their work: teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities. Research in information behaviour highlights fundamental problems concerning information availability, recognisability, and context (Jones et al., 2017). On the other hand, it can respond to information diffusion by demonstrating the perspective of information transmission and sharing (Vilar, 2014). Because context is so important, it is likely that scholars in different fields of science will have distinct informational habits when it comes to finding knowledge (Canary, McPhee, 2011; Yu & Zhou, 2015.). An assumption in the model of information space (I-Space) is that dissemination of information is weaker as the targeted audience is broader (Boisot, 1995).
The aim of our study was to find which communication channels academics utilize to find and share knowledge. Are they those targeting a broader audience, i.e. formal-explicit communication, or those targeting a narrower one, i.e. informal-tacit communication? Our questionnaire, which included 125 academics from Croatian public polytechnics, aimed to find how respondents received knowledge in the three primary areas of work through various communication methods. Nine possible statements were presented for each domain and scored on a seven-point Likert scale. The domains included personal level, informal and formal groups, and public modalities for disseminating information, such as the Internet and institutional intranets, social networks, and cloud technologies. With Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value we can confirm that the set of statements in questions has sufficient internal consistency and is reliable for further processing. Considering a large number of channels for each area of activity, a reduction was made through Principal Component Analysis (PCA), with the aim of determining new factors to find the latent component in various communication channels and to discover which type of communication is most represented in each domain and with a distinction between science field.
We discovered that academics typically locate material for teaching purposes in a narrower scope and in a more direct form inside communication channels, whereas information for research purposes is obtained in a broader scope and in a more explicit form. Although explicit in nature, information collection and dissemination through administrative operations takes place within a smaller scope in either formal or informal methods (Goes, 2015). Our factor analysis shows a distinction between social and technical domains of science in terms of how scholars collect material for administrative task.
This work is part of a larger study aimed at determining the mechanisms of information diffusion within an academic institution utilizing information space model.

82-83


Promoting student research at ST-OPEN

the analysis of a university overlay journal’s first two years of publishing

Danijel Gudelj, Luka Ursić, Vicko Tomić

Scholars have long recognized the potential of a university repository as a new avenue of open access publishing and creating university-led journals (Bankier & Perciali, 2008). The relationship between repositories and journals is not new; an overlay journal, which acts as an “overlay” of a repository adds value to deposited publications through the peer-review process (Cassella & Calvi, 2010). In 2018, the University of Split (UNIST) recognized the potential of both models and founded the ST-OPEN overlay journal with the aim to train students in research and increase the visibility of their own research by publishing student theses after a rigorous, two-round peer-review process and translation into English (Marušić, Tomić, Gudelj, Wager, & Marušić, 2019). By 2022, two full volumes have been published, containing 23 original research articles and four editorials.
Our 2021 editorial analysis discovered that the articles available on our OJS website and the Hrčak database were downloaded or visited 2472 times and that the journal had 10,153 visits overall (Gudelj, Ursić, Tomić, & Marušić, 2021). As members of the editorial team, we actively conduct editorial research to identify good practices and possibilities for improvement of our editorial and publication processes. By 2022, the 23 articles and four editorials published were downloaded or visited 13,810 times and a total of 132 manuscripts (original research articles only) were submitted to ST-OPEN. Of the 132 manuscripts, 102 (77.3%) had been previously deposited in the UNIST repository or the Croatian Dabar repository. Most submitted manuscripts (n=108, 81.8%) were students’ graduate theses. As the ST-OPEN editorial team actively screens Croatian repositories for acceptable theses (Marušić et al., 2019), most manuscripts were found through this method (n=59, 44.7%), yet a substantial number was also recommended by the editorial board (n=48, 36.4%) and submitted directly (n=25, 18.9%). While screening the repositories, we encountered the issue of access to deposited theses: 60 were open access (45.5%) and 40 limited access (30.3%) requiring institutional account to be downloaded. Fortyseven were withdrawn by authors during transformative review (35.6%), and 36 rejected by editors (27.3%). Considering that 25 (18.9%) manuscripts were published (including two published in 2022) and 8 (6.0%) were in copyediting or various other stages of review, a total of 92 (69.6%) manuscripts were rejected or the authors opted out of publishing. As ST-OPEN is a cross-department multidisciplinary journal, the published manuscripts came from various scientific fields. Most theses (n=47, 35.6%) came from humanities and social sciences, closely followed by those from biomedical and natural sciences (n=45, 34.0%).
Given the high quality of the published manuscripts, the average acceptance rate, and the high number of visits and downloads in the first two years of publishing, we believe we have considerably increased the visibility of student research at UNIST. Without our journal, most theses would never be published outside the repository.
Given the positive effect a journal’s tutorship can have on research skills, publication outcomes, and career advancement (Marusic, Markulin, Lukic, & Marusic, 2006; Šimić et al., 2021), we plan to continue and improve our role as educators and author facilitators (Marusic et al., 2004; Marušić et al., 2019). Some issues observed after the first published volume (Gudelj et al., 2021), such as difficulties in accessing theses and lack of contact information for authors, are still a barrier to our access to student theses. We will actively look for the ways to overcome these barriers and improve publication activities and visibility of UNIST students.

84-85


DIGITOOLS - the future of open digital education

Jerald Cavanagh, Mihaela Banek Zorica, Sandra Kučina Softić, Marko Odak

The Multiplier Events will see the participation of stakeholders, international experts, and academia. The aim of this regional multiplier event is to bring the results of the research conducted within the DIGITOOLS project. The workshop will also discuss the future of digital education in universities and European frameworks in the field of digital education. Special focus is on the role of Universities in the effective implementation of digital learning, Open educational resources and open access to resources.
The crisis generated by the COVID 19 pandemic has forced European universities to move their teaching activities to the online environment. Although most Higher Education Institutions have implemented E-Learning platforms years ago, the teaching staff are now experiencing difficulties in using these platforms and in creating and adapting the course content, needed to quickly adapt to a fast evolving and complex situation.
DIGITOOLS is a project aimed at introducing enhanced digital tools and methods to help university staff deliver quality education through online means. The DIGITOOLS project will develop five Intellectual Outputs which will support the teaching staff from Higher Education Institutions to acquire the skills and competencies needed to create and deliver high quality online courses, including blended teaching.
The role of university libraries will be crucial in this project, as they will have to adapt their services and provide digital learning materials as well as information and digital skills training, both to teaching staff and students. As a result of the DIGITOOLS project, the universities will be able to provide, through teaching staff and libraries, high quality online training courses, with a focus on subject – specific teaching. The project brings together seven Higher Education Institutions and one consulting SME, specialized in digitization, from seven countries and will focus on the implementation of online and blended teaching, encouraging, at every step, the unitary practice.

87


Science Communication Workshop

how to reach a broader audience for your research

Marko Košiček, Petra Buljević Zdjelarević

Among many other things, the COVID -19 pandemics taught the world the importance of providing rational information to the public and fostering a scientific way of thinking among people. Therefore, communicating science is crucial if we want the public to understand the basics of science so they would be able to make informed decisions about crucial topics such as their health, or changes in the environment. Furthermore, resarchers need funding to conduct their research. Most research is funded by the government, by the EU programs, and rarely by private funders. In all of these cases, you are required to report your findings to the funders. In all these examples, your funders are part of the general public, part of a broader audience.
As a researcher, you are an expert in your field of research, and you can easily communicate with your colleagues about your research and findings. You already know how to write a journal article that your colleagues can read and understand, and you are able to write a popular science article that can be understood by a researcher who is not in your field. But, could you explain your research to an 11-yearold student? How about a potential funder? Would a science reporter or a television host find your research worth presenting to a broader audience?

It does not matter whether a researcher is at the beginning of his or her career as a doctoral student or whether he or she is an experienced scientist with a long scientific career. For any researcher, communicating his or her research to a wider audience that is not part of the scientific community or familiar with his or her field can be a challenge.
In this workshop, participants will get practical advice on how to make the most of available communication tools and opportunities to successfully engage with their audience. In doing so, they will use the media as one of the most important channels and focus on how to get the most out of
their TV interview. For this purpose, we will simulate a TV interview and put the tips and tricks taught into practice.

88


Two pillars of open science

the future of scholarly communication and research integrity

Tiberius Ignat

CSI-COP Project is an EU-funded Project that investigates GDPR compliance to better understand how far we are being tracked by default as we use the Internet to visit websites and apps on our mobile devices. CSI-COP engages citizen scientists to address the growing concerns in society around privacy issues and the methods that are supposed to ensure integrity in the collection and use of data.
This workshop will highlight the fundament rights we all have to digital privacy, explores how much institutions comply with the GDPR, introduces tools and solution to protect your digital privacy and introduces you to a massive open online course on the topic. The workshop will pose questions and concerns about the system scholars use to communicate between themselves (e.g. academic journals and monographs) and with the broader public.
An interested observer will notice that the current digital content industry is heavily oriented towards building platforms that track users’ behaviour and seek to convince them to stay longer and come back sooner onto the platform. Similarly, authors are incentivised to publish more and to become champions of dissemination. Generally, the digital content industry is permeable to non-human contributors (algorithms that are able to generate content and reactions), anonymity and identity fraud.
It is pertinent to organise a series of workshops about the early signs of track and persuasion in scholarly communication. The CSI-COP project inspired an independent pilot study that tried to determine the opportunity for conducting research about the use of “track and persuade” technologies in scholarly communication. We collected observations on a sample of 148 relevant websites and we interviewed 15 experts related to the field. Through this work, we tried to identify 1) the essential questions that could inspire proper research, 2) good practices to be recommended for future research, and 3) whether citizen science is a suitable approach to further research in this field. The findings could contribute to determining a broader solution for building trust and infrastructure in scholarly communication. The principles of Open Science were used as a framework to see if they offer insights into this work.
The CSI-COP project offers an international discussion forum to exchange experiences on the matter of digital tracking and remains open to engaging with the larger public in order to raise awareness and refine results about the use of cookies and other digital trackers.
You are all welcome to join this workshop and explore together the depth of digital tracking in the scholarly communication field and beyond it.
CSI-COP project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 873169.

89


Kriyadocs - Let’s transform publishing together!

Ravi Venkataramani

Helping publishers bring their authors’ work to life is at the heart of what we do at Kriyadocs. We do this through our offerings, which include our journal and book production platform and publishing services.
As a publishing technology and service provider, our goals are to help publishers
streamline their production workflows,
publish high quality outputs,
reach wider audiences faster, and
scale their publications.
Built by publishing experts in collaboration with publishers, Kriyadocs is the partner of choice for leading journal, book, and abstract publishers worldwide.
We welcome you to join us in our PUBMET2022 sponsor workshop, where we will discuss the following aspects of our production platform and services:
Automated manuscript conversion, styling, and editing
XML-first workflows
Project management
Author proof reviews
Metadata management
Asset management
Proof and output package generation
Final delivery of outputs to hosting platforms and indexers
Publishing services, including copyediting, typesetting, indexing, data conversion, and more
Who is the workshop for?
Any and all stakeholders managing or involved in the production workflows for journals and books are welcome to attend this workshop.
Get in touch with us at hello@kriyadocs.com or visit www.kriyadocs.com, and let’s transform publishing together.

90


Improving institutional visibility and reputation in the Open Science era

Anton Degtev

Open Science calls for open access to research results and for more openness and greater transparency in the research process as well. But many institutions lack comprehensive tools to effectively communicate the latter: showcase their rich legacy, available resources, full range of achievements and potential to the wider world.
This presentation will cover several tools that are designed to increase the global visibility and reputation of your institution by demonstrating research activities, output, expertise and impact of individual authors and groups. Making this available to the public and professional academic or corporate users facilitates future collaborations.
But connecting and managing all the relevant data scattered across multitute of sources on a scale of even mid-size university without a system is impractical, if not impossible. I will focus on the publicfacing side of CRIS/RIM systems and repositories. Additionally I will touch on research data sharing and monitoring tools which is a fast growing topic for a number of institutions.

91


How to get published

supporting author’s journey

Marzena Giers-Fidler

Oxford University Press (OUP) is the world’s largest university press, with the widest global presence. This makes us uniquely placed to increase your impact, by connecting your ideas and research to a diverse readership. Our mission is to further the University of Oxford’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education, by publishing worldwide. This mission guides how we work with the academic community and the content we produce.
For over 500 years, OUP has published the world’s finest minds, shaping and developing important and rigorous research and scholarship. As an OUP author, you are part of a prestigious tradition of excellence.
When you publish with OUP, you benefit from our:
reputation for quality,
long term publishing experience coupled with future facing innovation and investment,
global presence and reach, connecting your work with diverse readers and maximizing your impact,
trusted relationships with the academic community.
Our dedicated and expert publishing teams support you every step of the way, adding value through constructive collaboration and helpful intervention to help your work reach its full potential. We connect powerful ideas with the widest audience, so that your research and scholarship achieve the greatest possible impact. We know, that publication represents the culmination of years of hard work, dedication, and passion.
We are future-facing and always innovating, keeping our eye on what is coming next for our community and how we can facilitate better research outcomes. We invest and innovate to help improve the scholarly communications landscape for both authors and readers, and to make sure that our content is available in a way that meets the changing needs of scholars and researchers.
Quality is the main criterion we consider when evaluating a new title for publication. All our publications are peer-reviewed by outside readers or our editorial staff, to ensure we maintain the highest standards of scholarship and research. OUP is committed to supporting different business models in the dissemination of our scholarly research and has read and publish agreements with institutions and consortia worldwide.
We believe in the power of research to make a better tomorrow, and so we invite you to partner with OUP to help your work reach its full potential and reach readers across the world.

92


Managing the Open Access publication process

Bentham Science and Research Square

Gareth Dyke, July Kim

Come learn about Bentham Science Open for journals and e-books and get insights about Managing the Open Access Publication Process. This presentation will focus on helping you understand the publication process, from how to submit a scientific paper through to how to manage your interactions with editors and reviewers to maximize your chances of a successful high-impact outcome for your research.
As a result of this course learners will understand:
how to effectively submit scientific papers;
write highly effective cover letters;
select effective and suitable reviewers;
ensure your work has the highest possible chance of getting published in your target journal;
how to effectively communicate with editors and what they expect from authors and reviewers,
and;
maximize the impact of your research after publication.
Course Content
The stages of publication:
what editors expect from submissions
navigating formatting requirements
an amazing cover letter – details and selling your work
initial review and how to survive
ensure your papers gets out for peer-review
dealing with peer-review comments, especially those you disagree with
managing your editor
revisions: how to do the most effective job while making the least number of changes
surviving rejection
how to make complaints if you feel unfairly treated

93


Emerald Publishing - Come on in, we are OPEN

Radka Krivankova

We are passionate about helping authors tell their story in a meaningful and timely way. In doing so, we are committed to providing a leading service for open research, celebrating transparency and co-creation in a way that instils trust and confidence in our communities and global audiences worldwide. We’re passionate about supporting all forms of open research.
As a leading social science publisher, we’re passionate about leading change, and align everything we do with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. In doing so we publish research that influences thinking, changes policies, and positively makes a difference to lives beyond the walls of academia.

94


Full-featured ARPHA Publishing Platform

your way to smooth journal management and publication

Maria Kolesnikova

We believe that when publishing a journal, no matter if it is a new or an already existing one, a modern, full-featured editorial management and publishing platform is a must. Streamlined editorial processes are a key to the success of a scholarly journal, however, they should also be enjoyable for its editors, authors, reviewers and readers.
At ARPHA Platform, we make sure that editorial work remains hassle-free and time-efficient for all journal users. ARPHA’s mission is to let journal editors focus on the scientific content, rather than time-demanding tasks, e.g. tracking manuscript turnaround, following up delayed revisions, moving data between different platforms, or disseminating content in both human- and machine-readable ways.
ARPHA is a full-featured open access publishing platform for journals, books and data, with provision of managed hosting services. Several other services (website design and setup, production, semantic markup, distribution, archiving, indexing, promotion, journal management and more) are available on demand.
Offered as Software as a Service (SaaS), ARPHA allows users to build their own publishing solution to manage and host journals, books, conference abstracts, proceedings and institutional documents.
Want to learn more about how it works and how to move your journal to ARPHA? Join our workshop!

95


Third TRIPLE ThatCamp on Sustainability in Open Science

Drahomira Cupar, Sona Lisa Arasteh

Sustainability is easily one of the most pressing matters and most discussed topics of our time. This is as true for the economy and society as it is for research and thereby for Open Science. At the third TRIPLE ThatCamp we want to discuss and brainstorm on the relationship between sustainability and Open Science with you. If you are a researcher, a librarian, an interested citizen or someone otherwise involved or interested in sustainability in Open Science you are welcome to join us at this event.
Topics of discussion could be:
How can the long-term quality of data be secured?
What governance/business models are sustainable for Open Science?
How do tools and services that have been developed within the life span of Open Science projects live on after?
Do training sessions provide sustainability?
How can we ensure sustainability in scholarly communication?
Any other topic that crosses your mind!

96-97


View All Issues