Tag: Open Science

Wissenschaftskommunikation als kommunikativer Aktionismus?

Eine Replik zum Grundsatzpapier des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung zur Wissenschaftskommunikation

Das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) hat am 14. November 2019 das Grundsatzpapier des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung zur Wissenschaftskommunikation veröffentlicht. In diesem Papier schreibt das BMBF von der Notwendigkeit, dass sich „Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler in den öffentlichen Diskurs einbringen, über ihre Forschungsarbeit allgemeinverständlich kommunizieren und Zusammenhänge einordnen“. Hierfür soll das Papier eine Strategie beschreiben, mit der ein „Kulturwandel hin zu einer kommunizierenden Wissenschaft“ weiter fortgesetzt wird. So lobenswert „kommunizierende Wissenschaft“ auch ist, das BMBF schafft mit dem Papier weder Klarheit darüber, wie innerhalb der Wissenschaft zeitliche und finanzielle Ressourcen geschaffen und Kompetenzen aufgebaut werden sollen, noch warum externe Wissenschaftskommunikation direkt bei Wissenschaftlerinnen verankert sein muss. Noch dazu werden essenzielle Rahmenbedingungen der Wissenschaft an sich außer Acht gelassen. Sieben Kritikpunkte mit Gegenforderungen.

Read more →

Hits: 346

Downloads and Impact in Scholarly Book Publishing

resist meaningless metricsIt’s hard to tell how often a scholarly book has been read. Neither digitalisation nor open access change that. Misrepresenting downloads as impact or usage of books—paywalled or open access—isn’t useful and can even be irresponsible, when this metric is used as a justification.


Read more →

Hits: 855

Reasoning and Interest: Clustering Open Access

Reasoning and Interest-Clustering Open Access_KnöchelmannThe conception of an open future with scholarly publications being freely accessible, sharable, and reusable cannot be easily subsumed under a single term. That is, it can. But the term has conflicting objectives. The reasoning behind Open Access interests is diverse with two essential concepts being ‘research advancement’ and ‘economic benefit’. This article clusters stakeholders regarding their Open Access interest and reasoning, leading to the clusters a Open Access as a threat, b a pain, c the ideal Open Access, and d the exploitative Open Access. 

Read more →

Hits: 3977

Open Access as the New Standard: Disruption at What Cost?

open access disruption at what costThe current phase of transition shows that gold Open Access (OA) is likely to be a disruptive force for the establishment. Libraries and institutions aim to cut costs by pushing for more Open Access; publishers seek to raise profits, or at least stay in business. New ventures are growing in between those needs: they’re cheaper than established offerings, but can survive on lower profit margins. Those ventures gradually build the infrastructure for future scholarly communication. But at what cost?

*** This article originally appeared with minor changes in SYP’s InPrint 2017 autumn edition; it’s the teaser for my talk at SYP’s conference in Oxford on  the 11th November 2017. ***

Read more →

Hits: 1610

Open Access and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

Open Access Book PublishingGold Open Access is an accepted, yet isolated model in academic book publishing. Publishing houses only dare to scale open access in small steps. While books, especially monographs, are still the preferred medium to communicate scholarship in many disciplines, foremost in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, the overall market of academic books is in recession. Less sold books means less access. Large scale Open Access publishing may be a solution. But publishing houses seem to be in a prisoner’s dilemma: to adapt Open Access on a large enough scale required a systematic approach in which all publishing houses would have to act. My recently published study (June 2017, UCL Press) provides a theoretical explanation for this.


Read more →

Hits: 2275

Sci-Hub—Elsevier: 62 million for more openness—15 million against

“This ruling should stand as a warning to those who knowingly violate others’ rights,” comments Matt McKay of the STM Association on the decision of a New York district court against Sci-Hub. The court ruled that Sci-Hub, the Library of Genesis, and similar illegal projects will have to pay $15m to the claimant. Sounds about right, it’s copyright infringement. Of all the laws, publishers should hold up those dealing with intellectual property the highest.

Yet, the claimant is Elsevier, which gives the ruling a bitter taste.

Read more →

Hits: 5154