Publikationen

Die Trendumfrage FDI 2024 ist Teil der Begleitforschung zu den NFDI-Basisdiensten (Base4NFDI). Wir betrachten in der vorliegenden Umfrage Wahrnehmung, Nutzung und Bewertung bestehender und neuer Dateninfrastukturen und Dienste in der deutschen Forschungslandschaft. Die Trendumfrage adressiert die Perspektive der (potentiellen) Nutzenden.

This study introduces an approach to estimate the uncertainty in bibliometric indicator values that is caused by data errors. This approach utilizes Bayesian regression models, estimated from empirical data samples, which are used to predict error-free data. Through direct Monte Carlo simulation—drawing many replicates of predicted data from the estimated regression models for the same input data—probability distributions for indicator values can be obtained which provide the information on their uncertainty due to data errors. [...]

Die DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023 ist eine Onlinebefragung des hauptberuflichen wissenschaftlich-künstlerischen Personals an deutschen Universitäten und gleichgestellten Hochschulen mit Promotionsrecht. Sie wird als Trendstudie zur Erforschung der Arbeits- und Forschungsbedingungen an deutschen Universitäten und gleichgestellten Hochschulen in regelmäßigen Abständen wiederholt. Die DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023 wurde von Januar bis März 2023 durchgeführt. Die Befragten blicken also retrospektiv auf ihre Arbeits- und Forschungsbedingungen während der Covid-19-Pandemie sowie auf ihre aktuelle postpandemische Situation. [...] Vollständiger Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:scs2023:1.0.0

The presence or absence of publishers in large bibliographic databases highlights tangible and symbolic differences between small and large publishers, underlining their diverging incentive structures. To assess these differences, this contribution explores reference data from small (open access) publishers and their journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. The analysis focuses on references that are not indexed in these databases and examines them from a text-as-data approach. The study frames two dimensions of relevance - visibility and impact - as proxies for assessing the scholarly bibliodiversity represented by small (open access) publishers.

The number of researchers' publications is a widely used proxy measure for scientific output, individual achievement, and performance. Despite well-known criticism from the bibliometric community, the use of bibliometric databases as a basis for measuring publication output is widespread. At the same time, there are established survey instruments that also measure the publication output per researcher. We use survey-bibliometric matching with Scopus publication records to compare the alternative publication counts. A Scopus author ID match could be found for 70 % of the respondent researchers. The number of publications per researcher varies greatly between these data sources. [...]

The citations to open access preprint versions of papers and citations to papers in journals translated to English are not regularly counted in major proprietary citation index databases or in ordinary bibliometric research assessment even though they arguably reflect a true part of a work’s scientific impact. Here we explore the extent of these phenomena using Web of Science data.

This study examines how well an idiosyncratic authorship counting rule for co-authored publications recommended by the German Science Foundation (DFG) for medical schools and widely used in performance-based funding systems aligns with the empirical evidence. The DFG rule and two other co-author credit rules are compared with empirical data of percentage contribution statements of authors of co-authored papers in medicine.

Here we study how the lengths of the periods from submission to acceptance (review duration) and from acceptance to publication (publication delay) relate to research quality, as operationalized by F1000Prime recommendations, for a large dataset of publications from the life and health sciences. We find a statistically detectable relationship between shorter peer review duration and recommendations, but its effect size is negligibly small.

This study investigates whether researchers whose published research record is more thematically broad —covering more, and more semantically distant, topics— are also characterized by specific patterns in their mobility between research organizations and countries and their co-authorship patterns. We study a large sample of productive authors in STEM fields who have been active in Germany. Our results show that specific types of international mobility go together with slightly elevated epistemic breadth. But scientists with larger co-author networks have relatively greater epistemic breadth. [...]