Support structures to facilitate the dissemination and implementation of a national standard for research information – the German case of the Research Core Dataset

Biesenbender, Sophie; Herwig, Sebastian

doi:10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.088

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…RIM is defined as information about research activities, not research data generated by researchers. Research information can be collected, curated and processed by research institutions for different internal and external purposes, and for various recipients (Biesenbender & Herwig, 2019;Stvilia et al, 2019).…”

Section: Research Information Management and Development Of The Basicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Information Management in the Context of Open Science

Materska

2019

ZIN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose/Thesis: The aim of this paper is to discuss the mutual relationship between open science and theory and practice in RIM (Research Information Management), especially apparent in CRISs (Current Research Information Systems), with an emphasis on the context of research assessment requirements, open science policies and CRIS interoperability.Approach/Methods: The study has been based on the critical review of the newest literature (2015–2019) presenting international studies of chosen aspects. Institution-centric and researcher-centric approaches has been presented.Results and conclusions: The emerging new ecosystem of open science changes the way research is done and modifies the monitoring and evaluating of it. CRIS must take into account the new transformation processes and research evaluation measures. This allows more transparency and more interaction with the individual researcher, as well as with the institutional, national and international stakeholders. Full interoperability and open standards are desired to improve the discoverability and reusability of research outputs and metadata for different purposes.Originality/Value: The study shows the significance of new tendencies in RIM/CRIS for researchers and research-performing organizations at institutional, national and international level.

show abstract

Section: Research Information Management and Development Of The Basicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Information Management in the Context of Open Science

Materska

2019

ZIN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many cases, the data have to be created with much effort in the first place or gathered (manually) from different sources. Common reporting and metadata standards have to be defined and accepted across institutional boundaries in order to establish comparability at all (Hicks et al, 2015 ; Biesenbender and Herwig, 2019 ). With the development of the Core Data Set on Research Activities (KDSF—Kerndatensatz Forschung), the German Council of Science and Humanities has initiated an important process for standardization of research reporting which helps research institutions to set up an institutional research reporting system with comparable data (Wissenschaftsrat, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ORCID coverage in research institutions—Readiness for partially automated research reporting

Schnieders

Mierz

Boccalini

et al. 2022

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reporting and presentation of research activities and outcome for research institutions in official, normative standards are more and more important and are the basis to comply with reporting duties. Institutional Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) serve as important databases or data sources for external and internal reporting, which should ideally be connected with interfaces to the operational systems for automated loading routines to extract relevant research information. This investigation evaluates whether (semi-) automated reporting using open, public research information collected via persistent identifiers (PIDs) for organizations (ROR), persons (ORCID), and research outputs (DOI) can reduce effort of reporting. For this purpose, internally maintained lists of persons to whom an ORCID record could be assigned (internal ORCID person lists) of two different German research institutions—Osnabrück University (UOS) and the non-university research institution TIB—Leibniz Information Center for Science and Technology Hannover—are used to investigate ORCID coverage in external open data sources like FREYA PID Graph (developed by DataCite), OpenAlex and ORCID itself. Additionally, for UOS a detailed analysis of discipline specific ORCID coverage is conducted. Substantial differences can be found for ORCID coverage between both institutions and for each institution regarding the various external data sources. A more detailed analysis of ORCID distribution by discipline for UOS reveals disparities by research area—internally and in external data sources. Recommendations for future actions can be derived from our results: Although the current level of coverage of researcher IDs which could automatically be mapped is still not sufficient to use persistent identifier-based extraction for standard (automated) reporting, it can already be a valuable input for institutional CRIS.

show abstract

Investigating Assessment Standards in the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom

Petersohn

Biesenbender

Thiedig

2020

Shaping the Future Through Standardization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following contribution asks which role standards for research information play in practices of responsible research evaluation. The authors develop the notion of assessment standards against the background of functional standard classifications. The development of semantic and procedural assessment standards in the national research evaluation exercises of the Netherlands, Great Britain, and Italy are investigated using a qualitative case study design. A central finding of the study is that assessment standards incorporate conflicting values. A continuous tradeoff between the transparency of evaluation procedures and provided information as well as the variety of research outputs is being counterbalanced in all countries by compensating a higher level of semantic standardization with lower degrees of procedural standardization.

show abstract

Support structures to facilitate the dissemination and implementation of a national standard for research information – the German case of the Research Core Dataset

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Research Information Management in the Context of Open Science

Research Information Management in the Context of Open Science

ORCID coverage in research institutions—Readiness for partially automated research reporting

Investigating Assessment Standards in the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About