Alexander Schniedermann ist Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter in der Abteilung "Forschungssystem und Wissenschaftsdynamik". Seine aktuelle Forschung begleitet die Einrichtung der Basisdienste für die Nationale Forschungsdateninfrastruktur (NFDI). Dabei analysiert er die sozialen und epistemischen Implikationen, die durch Professionen wie dem Forschungsdatenmanangement oder der Entwicklung von Forschungssoftware innerhalb der Wissenschaft entstehen. In seinen Arbeiten kombiniert Alexander szientometrische bzw. webometrische Analysen mit qualitative Interviews und Dokumentenanalysen.
In 2026 wurde Alexander mit einer Arbeit zur Standardisierung des Publikationswesens in der biomedizinischen Forschung an der Universität Leiden promoviert. Vor seinem Dissertationsprojekt studierte er an der Universität Bielefeld und absolvierte das Masterprogramm "History, Philosophy and Economics of Science" mit einer Arbeit zur Nachnutzung von Forschungsdaten. Neben seiner Forschungstätigkeiten engagiert sich Alexander als Ombudsgruppenmitglie in der deutschen STS Vereinigung stsing e.V., sowie im Kompetenznetzwerk Bibliometrie.
Dr. Alexander Schniedermann
Abteilung Forschungssystem und Wissenschaftsdynamik
wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
- 030 2064177-13
- Google Scholar
- Orcid
Wissenschaftliche Forschungsgebiete
Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation, Standardisierung in der Wissenschaft, Epistemologie, Wissenschaftliche Gemeinschaften, Forschungsinfrastrukturen
Projekte
Liste der Projekte
Publikationen
Liste der Publikationen
Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers’ comments tell us about reporting completeness?
Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers’ comments tell us about reporting completeness? Quantitative Science Studies, 2026 (online first). https://doi.org/10.1162/QSS.a.496 |
Standardization in science.Schniedermann, A. (2026).Standardization in science. Effects and issues of guidelines for biomedical reporting. (Dissertation). Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University. https://doi.org/doi:10.60602/1887-4304878 |
Analysis of the publication and document types in OpenAlex, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Semantic Scholar.Haupka, N., Culbert, J. H., Schniedermann, A., Jahn, N., & Mayr, P. (2025).Analysis of the publication and document types in OpenAlex, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Semantic Scholar. Quantitative Science Studies, 1-22 (online first). https://doi.org/10.1162/QSS.a.406 |
Collaborating with early career researchers to enhance the future of scholarly publication: A guide for publishers.Kohrs, F. E., Kazezian, V., Boisgontier, M. P., Brod, S., Carneiro, C. F. D., ... & Weissgerber, T. L. (2025).Collaborating with early career researchers to enhance the future of scholarly publication: A guide for publishers. Learned Publishing, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2028 |
Open Research Tools: Stand und Herausforderungen im Spannungsfeld von Forschungssoftware, Offenheit und digitaler Infrastruktur.Streicher, J., Schütz, M., Blümel, C., & Schniedermann, A. (2025).Open Research Tools: Stand und Herausforderungen im Spannungsfeld von Forschungssoftware, Offenheit und digitaler Infrastruktur. Graz, Wien, Klagenfurt: Joanneum Research. Abstract
Digitale Werkzeuge, Software und damit verbundene Infrastrukturen sind zentral für die moderne Wissenschaft. Mit Blick auf eine offene Wissenschaft (Open Science) gewinnen offene Software-Werkzeuge oder „Tools“ zunehmend an Bedeutung, da sie die Zusammenarbeit, die Reproduzierbarkeit und den Zugang zu Ressourcen fördern und unterstützen. Forschende tragen aktiv zur Entwicklung dieser „Open Research Tools (ORT)“ bei und gestalten damit die digitale Transformation des Wissenschaftssystems mit. Auch in Deutschland ist dieser Wandel spürbar, wobei hier der Bereich Forschungssoftware an Bedeutung gewinnt. Ziel der Studie ist es,... |
Guidance List for Reporting Bibliometric Analyses (GLOBAL): A two-round modified Delphi study.Ng, J. Y., Liu, H., Masood, M., Syed, N., Waltman, L., ... & Moher, D. (2025).Guidance List for Reporting Bibliometric Analyses (GLOBAL): A two-round modified Delphi study. In S. Sargsyan, W. Glänzel, & G. Abramo (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics (ISSI 2025) (S. 868-884). Yerevan: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. |
Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: What can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness?
Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: What can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness? In S. Sargsyan, W. Glänzel, & G. Abramo (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics (ISSI 2025) (Bd. 2025, S. 2199-2206). Yerevan: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.51408/issi2025_132 |
Using software for research: The role of transparency, reputation and compliance in practicing trust.Hartstein, J., Schniedermann, A., & Schwichtenberg, N. (2024).Using software for research: The role of transparency, reputation and compliance in practicing trust. In Getzinger, G. et al. (Hrsg.), Conference Proceedings of the 22nd STS Conference Graz 2024 (S. 7-29). Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz. http://dx.doi.org/10.3217/978-3-99161-033-5-001 |
Will ChatGPT Get Tenure?Schniedermann, A., Heßelmann, F., Stephen, D., Leckert, M., & Ottaviani, M. (12. Dezember 2024).Will ChatGPT Get Tenure [Blogbeitrag]. Abgerufen von https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/will-chatgpt-get-tenure |
Preprints in the German news media before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparative mixed-method analysis.Simons, A., & Schniedermann, A. (2023).Preprints in the German news media before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparative mixed-method analysis. In I. Broer, S. Lemke, A. Mazarakis, I. Peters, & C. Zinke-Wehlmann (Hrsg.), The Science-Media Interface. On the Relation Between Internal and External Science Communication (S. 53-78). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur (online first). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110776546-003 Abstract
Mainstream media widely references scientific publications for claims of factuality and authority. But how did science journalism deal with the sudden surge in preprint publications that provided rapid but often uncertain knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic? While several studies have investigated various aspects of preprint-based science communication, only a few have focused on the public discourse in Germany, albeit with substantial challenges and controversies. In this mixed-method study, we identified the usage of preprints for 1,006 in about 390,000 German news stories, qualitatively analyzed the contexts of these preprints, and developed codes that reflect the epistemic sentiments. We further compared ... |
On Top of the Hierarchy: How Guidelines Shape Systematic Reviewing in Biomedicine.Schniedermann, A., Blümel, C., & Simons, A. (2022).On Top of the Hierarchy: How Guidelines Shape Systematic Reviewing in Biomedicine. In S. Ehlers & S. Esselborn (Hrsg.), Evidence in Action between Science and Society - Constructing, Validating, and Contesting Knowledge (S. 102-126). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003188612-8 |
Shaping the Qualities, Values and Standards of Science. How Reporting Guidelines Improve the Transparency of Biomedical Research.Schniedermann, A. (2022).Shaping the Qualities, Values and Standards of Science. How Reporting Guidelines Improve the Transparency of Biomedical Research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. Frontiers, https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.846822 (Abgerufen am: 01.07.2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.846822 |
A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies.Schniedermann, A. (2021).A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04199-0 |
The neglected politics behind evidence-based policy: shedding light on instrument constituency dynamics.Simons, A., & Schniedermann, A. (2021).The neglected politics behind evidence-based policy: shedding light on instrument constituency dynamics. Policy & Politics (online first). https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16225469993170 |
Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda.Blümel, C., & Schniedermann, A. (2020).Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda. Scientometrics, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03431-7 |
Vorträge & Tagungen
Liste der Vorträge & Tagungen
From values to work: Defining roles and spaces of open research.Schniedermann, A., Hartstein, J., Blümel, C., & Schwichtenberg, N. (2026, Mai).From values to work: Defining roles and spaces of open research. Vortrag auf der Konferenz The Future of Open Research: Reliable, Responsible, Equitable (FOR2026), TUM Institute for Advanced Studies, München, Deutschland. |
Scopes and scapes of science: Between global reforms and local confrontations.Schniedermann, A. (2026, April).Session Scopes and scapes of science: Between global reforms and local confrontations auf der Konferenz STS NL Conference: Knowledge & Technology in Times of Global Shifts, Netherlands Research School for Science, Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC), University of Twente, Niederlande. |
Research software communism? What we don’t know about practices of use, trust and evaluation of and with research software infrastructures.Hartstein, J., Schwichtenberg, N., Schniedermann, A., & Thiedig, C. (2026, März).Research software communism? What we don’t know about practices of use, trust and evaluation of and with research software infrastructures. Vortrag auf der Konferenz deRSE26: Conference for Research Software Engineering in Germany, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart. Abstract
Infrastructures and policies for sharing research software have been mushrooming in Germany, Europe and the World for almost a decade now. This sharing imperative is the latest iteration of what scholars in the Social Studies of Science have discussed as the scientific norm of ‘communism’ for almost a century. The Open Science Movement, too, fosters openly sharing resources such as publications, data and -- more recently -- software. For doing so, the scientific community has created a large number of infrastructures where such artifacts are held and await being accessed by researchers. However, we do not know much about what happens with research software after sharing it through said infrastructures. In our talk about the role of research |
Histories and futures of science reform - from reporting guidelines to metascience.Schniedermann, A. (2025, Juli).Histories and futures of science reform - from reporting guidelines to metascience. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 5th ISA Forum of Sociology "Knowing Justice in the Anthropocene", Rabat, Marokko. |
Guidance List for repOrting Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL): A two-round modified Delphi Study.Stephen, D. (2025, Juni).Guidance List for repOrting Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL): A two-round modified Delphi Study. Vortrag im Rahmen der Ad-hoc-Gruppe GLOBAL auf der Konferenz 20th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Conference, Yerevan, Armenia. |
Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: What can reviewers’ comments tell us about reporting completeness?
Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: What can reviewers’ comments tell us about reporting completeness? Vortrag auf der Konferenz 20th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Conference, Yerevan, Armenia. |
The medicalisation of research and the organisation of epistemic critique.Schniedermann, A. (2025, März).The medicalisation of research and the organisation of epistemic critique. Vortrag auf der Konferenz STS-Hub 2025: Diffracting the Critical, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15795881 |
Open Research Tools. Status-Quo, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven für Deutschland.Streicher, J., Blümel, C., Schniedermann, A., Hartstein, J., & Schütz, M. (2025).Workshop Open Research Tools. Status-Quo, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven für Deutschland., Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Berlin, Deutschland. |
Improving Transparency and Quality of Bibliometric Methods and Reporting.Haustein, S., Ng, J. Y., Stephen, D., Schniedermann, A., Stahlschmidt, S., ... & Glänzel, W. (2024, September).Session Improving Transparency and Quality of Bibliometric Methods and Reporting auf der Konferenz 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators 2024 (STI), Berlin, Germany. |
Roles and perceptions of publication genres in times of crisis.Simons, A., & Schniedermann, A. (2024, September).Roles and perceptions of publication genres in times of crisis. Vortrag auf der Konferenz Science, Technology, Humanity, and the Earth. 11th ESHS Conference, European Society for the History of Science (ESHS), Barcelona, Spain. |
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. |
CV
Seit 10/2018
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Deutschen Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung, Abteilung 2 Forschungssystem und Wissenschaftsdynamik
05/2021 - 06/2026
Promotion zum Thema "Standardization in science. Effects and issues of guidelines for biomedical reporting" (CWTS, Universität Leiden)
03/2017 - 10/2018
Wissenschaftliche Hilfskraft im Bereich Forschungsevaluation und Third-Mission Aktivitäten (Bayrisches Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung, München)
10/2016 - 01/2017
Auslandssemster mit Schwerpunkt Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Universität Zürich)
10/2015 - 01/2019
Masterstudium "History, Economics and Philosophy of Science" (ISoS, Universität Bielefeld)
