Presentations and conferences

Unfortunately, there is no result available for this search combination

Pour une éthique de l'IA dans le domaine de l'évaluation de la recherche.

Azeroual, O., & Schöpfel, J. (2024, Juni).
Pour une éthique de l'IA dans le domaine de l'évaluation de la recherche. Vortrag auf dem Seminar Anniversary Seminar of the International Thematic Network for Ethics in Human Sciences, le « Réseau Thématique International sur l’Ethique en SHS », Ecole Doctorale SHS, Geriico, iSchool, l’Université de Lille en coopération avec l’UNESP - São Paulo State University, Brazil & University of León, Spain et du Groupe sur l’Éthique et le Numérique en Information - Communication (GENIC) de la SFSIC, Lille, Frankreich.
Abstract

Our study examines the importance of ethical considerations related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research evaluation. The theme underscores the need to integrate ethical principles into the development and application processes of AI algorithms to ensure fair, transparent, and unbiased evaluations. It highlights the potential risks and challenges associated with the use of AI in research evaluation and proposes measures to mitigate these risks. The goal is to establish guidelines and best practices that promote the responsible use of AI in research evaluation and ensure the integrity of the evaluation process.

Aktuelle Entwicklungen rund um den KDSF und die KFiD.

Biesenbender, S., & Petersohn, S. (2024, Juni).
Aktuelle Entwicklungen rund um den KDSF und die KFiD. Vortrag im Rahmen der Informationsveranstaltung zum KDSF-Standard für Forschungsinformationen in Deutschland, Geschäftsstelle der KFiD und BMBF.

“And the winner is…” – PIDs for research awards and prizes in the KDSF Standard for Research Information.

Both, G., & Güdler, J. (2024, Juni).
“And the winner is…” – PIDs for research awards and prizes in the KDSF Standard for Research Information. Vortrag auf der Tagung PiDfest, National Library of Technology, Prague.
Abstract

Research prizes shape careers in science and humanities. One prize often leads to another. Research organizations pride themselves with winners of prestigious prizes. Yet, it can be challenging for research organizations to keep track of their laureates. In our talk we will introduce you to our upcoming registry and metadata service for research awards and prizes which will tackle this challenge. The registry will provide PIDs and metadata for relevant research prizes and awards, such as, Shaw Prizes, Holberg prize, and Leibniz prize but also for academic honors, such as the appointment of honorary professors and the acquisition of a prestigious ERC grant. The planned metadata include information on subject, country of origin [...]

Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited? Interventions in the scientific discourse and how citing communities deal with epistemic risk using the example of retractions.

Schmidt, M. (2024, Juni).
Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited? Interventions in the scientific discourse and how citing communities deal with epistemic risk using the example of retractions. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 8th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation, Athens, Greece.

Aktuelle Entwicklungen rund um den KDSF und die KFiD.

Biesenbender, S., & Petersohn, S. (2024, Mai).
Aktuelle Entwicklungen rund um den KDSF und die KFiD. Vortrag im Rahmen der Informationsveranstaltung zum KDSF-Standard für Forschungsinformationen in Deutschland, Geschäftsstelle der KFiD, BMBF und Projektträger DLR.

The platformization of expertise and the ambiguous worth of Altmetrics.

Leckert, M., & Köchling, S. (2024, Mai).
The platformization of expertise and the ambiguous worth of Altmetrics. Vortrag auf der Tagung Expertise in Digitaler Transformation, Forschungsgruppe "Reorganisation von Wissenspraktiken" am Weizenbaum Institut in Kooperation mit der DGS-Sektion "Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung", Weizenbaum-Institut, Berlin.
Abstract

Expertise in research (e-)valuation is a currently debated matter (CoARA, 2022; DORA, 2012; Wilsdon et al., 2015). The Altmetrics- (Priem et al., 2010) and the Leiden Manifesto (2015) exemplified diametrical visions of how expertise in assessing research should be distributed and practiced (Leckert, 2021). As inherently ambiguous measures, Altmetrics offer insights into how new forms of expertise arise, namely platformized information brokerage. We analyze how multi-dimensional ambivalences around Altmetrics are silenced by motifs of discursive convergence in order to show a) how research assessment is induced with new objectives, and b) how new forms of expertise re-distribute competences and responsibilities in research (e-) valuation.

Reporting guidelines and their impact on papers, practices, and patterns in biomedical research.

Schniedermann, A. (2024, Mai).
Reporting guidelines and their impact on papers, practices, and patterns in biomedical research. Vortrag auf dem Workshop Research Seminar, Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Netherlands.

Research Information Systems.

Biesenbender, S. (2024, Mai).
Research Information Systems. Impulsvortrag im Rahmen des Virtual Brainstorm der CoARA WG on Supporting the alignment of research assessment systems with CoARA in biomedical disciplines through administrative reforms and governance, Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA).

Public participation and transparency: Does open governance promote inclusion and accountability?

Cruz Romero, R. (2024, Mai).
Public participation and transparency: Does open governance promote inclusion and accountability? Vortrag auf der Konferenz 8th Global Conference on Transparency Research (GCTR), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract

The study offers a longitudinal-comparative approach, qualitatively analysing the role of transparency and public participation within the number of commitments, the level of completion, and the performance reported in each action plan submitted to the OGP. The analysis will centre on five cases, each highlighting different stages and different engagement levels to the OGP structures and principles. The findings highlight tendencies in multi-level governance models regarding official goals and (self-)reporting biases vis-a-vis independently assessments. The study offers policymakers and stakeholders a critical insight into potential lines of action to improve inclusion and accountability within an open governance paradigm.

„Wie nutzen Hochschulen Befragungs- und Prozessdaten? - Diskussion der Auswertungsstrategie und Einblicke in die Fallstudien im Projekt NuDHe“.

Wegner, A., & Thiedig, C. (2024, Mai).
„Wie nutzen Hochschulen Befragungs- und Prozessdaten? - Diskussion der Auswertungsstrategie und Einblicke in die Fallstudien im Projekt NuDHe“. Vortrag im Rahmen des Forschungskolloquiums der Abteilung 2 "Forschungssystem und Wissenschaftsdynamik" , DZHW, Berlin.

Trust by transparency? How can Open Science tools reform the values for science?

Schniedermann, A. (2024, Mai).
Trust by transparency? How can Open Science tools reform the values for science? Vortrag auf der Konferenz STS CONF GRAZ, TU Graz, Graz, Österreich.

Researchers’ Disciplinary Perspectives on Science-Society Relations: Insights from an Online Survey on Knowledge Transfer.

Just, A., & Janßen, M. (2024, Mai).
Researchers’ Disciplinary Perspectives on Science-Society Relations: Insights from an Online Survey on Knowledge Transfer. Vortrag auf der Konferenz STS CONF GRAZ, TU Graz, Graz, Österreich.

The structure of science and the trajectories of its development in the post-Soviet countries.

Lovakov, A. (2024, April).
The structure of science and the trajectories of its development in the post-Soviet countries. Vortrag auf dem Kolloquium I²SoS, Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Science (ISOS), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

Neuere Entwicklungen zum KDSF-Standard.

Biesenbender, S. (2024, April).
Neuere Entwicklungen zum KDSF-Standard. Vortrag im Rahmen des Netzwerktreffens "FIS Niedersachsen", Universität Osnabrück & Anwender*innengruppe FIS Niedersachsen, Osnabrück. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11059725

KDSF-Module als Standards für die Berichtslegung.

Biesenbender, S. (2024, April).
KDSF-Module als Standards für die Berichtslegung. Vortrag im Rahmen des Workshops mit Vertreter*innen aus Wissenschaftsministerien zum Thema Forschungsinformationen und -berichterstattung, Kommission für Forschungsinformationen in Deutschland (KFiD).

Contact

Clemens Blümel
Clemens Blümel Acting Head +49 30 2064177-31
Stephan Stahlschmidt
Dr. Stephan Stahlschmidt Acting Head +49 30 2064177-18
Peter van den Besselaar
Prof. Dr. Peter van den Besselaar Acting Head +49 30 2064177-0
Guido Speiser
Dr. Guido Speiser Deputy Head +49 30 2064177-24

Projects

All research department projects

Staff

All research department staff

Publications

All research department publications

Presentations and conferences

All research department presentations and conferences