Görögh Edit, Vignoli Michela, Gauch Stephan, Blümel Clemens, Kraker Peter, Hasani-Mavriqi Ilire, Luzi Daniela , Walker Mappet, Toli Eleni, Sifacaki Electra
2017
The growing dissatisfaction with the traditional scholarly communication process and publishing practices as well as increasing usage and acceptance of ICT and Web 2.0 technologies in research have resulted in the proliferation of alternative review, publishing and bibliometric methods. The EU-funded project OpenUP addresses key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape and aspires to come up with a cohesive framework for the review-disseminate-assess phases of the research life cycle that is fit to support and promote open science. The objective of this paper is to present first results and conclusions of the landscape scan and analysis of alternative peer review, altmetrics and innovative dissemination methods done during the first project year.
Kraker Peter, Dennerlein Sebastian, Dörler, D, Ferus, A, Gutounig Robert, Heigl, F., Kaier, C., Rieck Katharina, Šimukovic, E., Vignoli Michela
2016
Between April 2015 and June 2016, members of the Open Access Network Aus- tria (OANA) working group “Open Access and Scholarly Communication” met in Vienna to discuss a fundamental reform of the scholarly communication system.By scholarly communication we mean the processes of producing, reviewing, organising, disseminating and preserving scholarly knowledge1. Scholarly communication does not only concern researchers, but also society at large, especially students, educators, policy makers, public administrators, funders, librarians, journalists, practitioners, publishers, public and private organisations, and interested citizens.
Vignoli Michela, Kraker Peter, Sevault A.
2015
Science 2.0 is the current trend towards using Web 2.0 tools in research and practising a more open science. We are currently at the beginning of a transition phase in which traditional structures, processes, value systems, and means of science communication are being put to the proof. New strategies and models under the label of “open” are being explored and partly implemented. This situation implies a number of insecurities for scientists as well as for policy makers and demands a rethinking and overcoming of some habits and conventions persisting since an era before the internet. This paper lists current barriers to practising Open Science from the point of view of researchers and reflects which measures could help overcoming them. The central question is which initiatives should be taken on institutional or political level and which ones on level of the community or the individual scientist to support the transition to Science 2.0.
Buschmann Katrin, Kasberger Stefan, Mayer Katja, Reckling Falk, Rieck Katharina, Vignoli Michela, Kraker Peter
2015
Insbesondere in den letzten zwei Jahren hat Österreichim Bereich Open Science, vor allem was Open Accessund Open Data betrifft, nennenswerte Fortschritte gemacht.Die Gründung des Open Access Networks Austria(OANA) und das Anfang 2014 gestartete Projekt e-InfrastructuresAustria können als wichtige Grundsteine fürden Ausbau einer österreichischen Open-Science-Landschaftgesehen werden. Auch das österreichische Kapitelder Open Knowledge Foundation leistet in den BereichenOpen Science Praxis- und Bewusstseinsbildung grundlegendeArbeit. Unter anderem bilden diese Initiativendie Grundlage für den Aufbau einer nationalen Open-Access-Strategie sowie einer ganz Österreich abdeckendenInfrastruktur für Open Access und Open (Research) Data.Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über diese und ähnlichenationale sowie lokale Open-Science-Projekte und-Initiativen und einen Ausblick in die mögliche Zukunftvon Open Science in Österreich.