The governance and standardization of research information in different science systems: a comparative analysis of Germany and Italy.
Biesenbender, S. (2019).
The governance and standardization of research information in different science systems: a comparative analysis of Germany and Italy.
Higher Education Quarterly, 73(1), 116-127.
|
Support structures to facilitate the dissemination and implementation of a national standard for research information – the German case of the Research Core Dataset.
Biesenbender, S., & Herwig, S. (2019).
Support structures to facilitate the dissemination and implementation of a national standard for research information – the German case of the Research Core Dataset.
Procedia Computer Science, 146, 131-141.
|
Using Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) to showcase national and institutional research (potential): research information systems in the context of Open Science.
Biesenbender, S., Petersohn, S., & Thiedig, C. (2019).
Using Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) to showcase national and institutional research (potential): research information systems in the context of Open Science.
Procedia Computer Science, 146, 142-155.
|
Bezahlt oder unbezahlt? Überstunden im akademischen Mittelbau.
Ambrasat, J. (2019).
Bezahlt oder unbezahlt? Überstunden im akademischen Mittelbau.
Forschung und Lehre, 2/2019.
|
Eine post-positivistische Betrachtung der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung.
Rungius, C., & Weller, C. (2019).
Eine post-positivistische Betrachtung der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung.
In M. Barbehön et al. (Hrsg.), Was bedeutet Interpretieren? Interpretative Verfahren der Politikforschung, Sonderband der Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer.
|
Was gewinnen wir durch Open Science und Open Innovation?
Blümel, C., Fecher, B., & Leimüller, G. (2019).
Was gewinnen wir durch Open Science und Open Innovation?
Essen: Stifterverband.
|
What are clinician scientists expected to do? The undefined space for professionalizable work in translational biomedicine.
Hendriks, B., Simons, A., & Reinhart, M. (2019).
What are clinician scientists expected to do? The undefined space for professionalizable work in translational biomedicine.
Minerva(Reihe), Wiesbaden: Springer.
Abstract
Clinician scientists have gained institutional support in the era of translational research, as the key solution to closing the ‘translational gap’ between biomedical research and medical practice. However, clinician scientists remain an ‘endangered species’ in search of a secure niche, while new grants and training programs attempt to counteract their measurable decline in numbers over the past decades. Our study asks how an occupational space for clinician scientists is currently situated between the politics of translation, professional dynamics, and the specialization of academic disciplines. We interviewed clinician scientists, their adjacent professions—clinicians and biomedical researchers—, and contrast their views with expectations
|
Making sense of social interaction: Emotional coherence drives semantic integration as assessed by event-related potentials.
Schauenburg, G., Conrad, M., von Scheve, Chr., Barber, H., Ambrasat, J., Aryani, A., & Schröder, T. (2019).
Making sense of social interaction: Emotional coherence drives semantic integration as assessed by event-related potentials.
Neuropsychologia. (online first).
|
A Conceptual Framework: An internal working paper defining the conceptual framework for the case studies.
Rungius, C. (2018).
A Conceptual Framework: An internal working paper defining the conceptual framework for the case studies.
Deliverable 2.5, Berlin/Innsbruck/Vienna: S4D4C.
|
Der Kerndatensatz Forschung: Aufbau, Anwendung und die Rolle der Bibliothek.
Thiedig, C. (2018).
Der Kerndatensatz Forschung: Aufbau, Anwendung und die Rolle der Bibliothek.
GMS Medizin — Bibliothek — Information, 18(3) 2018.
|
Elicitive Ansätze in der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung.
Rungius, C. (2018).
Elicitive Ansätze in der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung.
Bonn: lehrgut.hypotheses.org.
|
Does the Winner Take it All? Increasing Inequality in Scientific Authorship.
Rauhut, H., Winter, F., & Johann, D. (2018).
Does the Winner Take it All? Increasing Inequality in Scientific Authorship.
In M. C. Buchmann & R. A. Scott (Hrsg.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken: Wiley Online.
|
Text data mining and data quality management for research information systems in the context of open data and open science.
Azeroual, O., Saake, G., Abuosba, M., & Schöpfel, J. (2018).
Text data mining and data quality management for research information systems in the context of open data and open science.
In ESI-CNRST, N. Ibnlkhayat (Hrsg.), Proceedings of 3rd International Colloquium on Open Access - Open Access to Science Foundations, Issues and Dynamics (29-46), 28-30 November 2018, Rabat-Morocco, 11/2018.
ISBN 978-9920-36-568-0
|
Using Argumentation Visualization to Foster Transparency of Development Processes: An Evaluation Study.
Riechert, M., Biesenbender, S., Becker, J., & Zarnekow, R. (2018).
Using Argumentation Visualization to Foster Transparency of Development Processes: An Evaluation Study.
Research Papers in Information Systems Management, Band 19, 1-30, Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.
|
Academic coaching and decision analysis: Ways of deciding whether to pursue an academic career.
Morais, A.S., & Hariskos, W. (2018).
Academic coaching and decision analysis: Ways of deciding whether to pursue an academic career.
PLoS ONE 13(11): e0206961.
|
