Maike Neufend

*Authors: Malte Dreyer, Martina Benz and Maike Neufend*

Open Access is developing in an area of tension between institutional
and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least
the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison
across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and
developments can be observed. Furthermore, this international and
comparative perspective helps us to assess the state of open access and
open science in Germany. In this series of
[Open4DE](https://open-access.network/vernetzen/open-access-projekte/open4de)
project blog posts, we will summarize what we have learned in our
in-depth conversations with experts on developing and implementing
nationwide Open Access strategies.

## *From Open Access to Open Science: a European trend*

Following the adoption of Open Access policies by numerous European
countries in recent years, the trend is now towards the design of Open
Science policies.
[Finland](https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/2022/07/07/open4de-spotlight-on-finland-an-advanced-culture-of-openness-shaped-by-the-research-community/)
has already announced that it will publish an Open Science strategy in
the near future, and
[France](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science/)
has already done so.
[Austria](https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/HS-Uni/Hochschulgovernance/Leitthemen/Digitalisierung/Open-Science/Open-Science-Policy-Austria.html)
also attracted attention earlier this year, publishing a guiding paper
that provides a roadmap for the implementation of Open Science in the
coming years. Reason enough for us to take a closer look at how this
paper came about and what the general state of Openness is in our
neighboring country.

*Our interview partner*

We met [Dr. Stefan
Hanslik](https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/Forschung/Forschung-in-Österreich/Strategische-Ausrichtung-und-beratende-Gremien/Leitthemen/Digitalisierung.html)
for a conversation about Open Science policy making in Austria. Stefan
Hanslik is an expert on Open Access and Open Science at the Austrian
Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research
([BMBWF](https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/en.html)) and acts as delegate in
various scientific committees at European level. As Head of Unit for
Technical Sciences, he is involved in the topics of data and research
infrastructures. In addition, Stefan Hanslik has been active in the
[EOSC](https://eosc-portal.eu/) process since 2018: through this
involvement he also came in touch with European initiatives on Open
Science.

## *The European framework*

The history of the development of Open Science and Open Access in
Austria clearly demonstrates the importance of the European framework in
which national research and publication infrastructures are situated. An
example of this is the EOSC process, which initially started in Austria
in 2016, among others in an informal group of representatives of
universities and ministries. This group, the so-called
[EOSC-Café](https://www.eoscsecretariat.eu/news-opinion/eosc-building-processes-austria-eosc-cafe){data-type="URL"
data-id="https://www.eoscsecretariat.eu/news-opinion/eosc-building-processes-austria-eosc-cafe"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"}, that focused on
coordination, information, reflection and consultation on European
processes, allowed to find a common understanding of Open Science. The
discussion of EOSC also led to the question of whether a national Open
Science strategy was necessary and what it might look like. The Open
Science topic finally received additional support during the Austrian EU
Council Presidency in the second half of 2018, Stefan Hanslik informs
us. „With the emerging discussions at EU level and the call for all
member state countries to take Open Science-related measures, there was
a willingness in Austria to become active. After all, no one wanted to
risk infringement proceedings." Finally, the commitment to the European
Research Area was included in the principles of the current government,
„a backbone for our Open Science activities, that was important
tailwind." European measures have often a strong inward effect, one can
sum up.

## *National factors*

In addition to the activities of the EU, numerous national initiatives
were also important for the development of Open Science in Austria: „The
initiative originally came from institutions that had already called for
more Open Science and Open Access activities in 2015 and 2016," Stefan
Hanslik reveals. The Open Access Network Austria
([OANA](https://www.oana.at/)), consisting of representatives of
Austrian universities, [had already made a clear recommendation that
Austria needed an Open Sccience
strategy.](https://oana.at/arbeitsgruppen/ag-open-science-strategie/empfehlungen-fuer-eine-nationale-open-science-strategie-in-oesterreich/)
In addition, in the process of European harmonisation in digitalisation,
the Information Sharing Law was passed at government level. This
initiative brought together several stakeholders, including the
[Wissenschaftsfond FWF](https://www.fwf.ac.at/de/). So why not continue
working together right away? At this favorable moment, it seemed clear
to all parties involved, that an initiative had to be taken in the field
of Open Science. As is often the case, a policy process was also
promoted by the favor of the hour.

## *Relevance of informal structures*

The example of Austria illustrates very well what has already been made
clear in the other contributions to this series: Policy processes are
rarely driven by a single factor, but often by several stimuli. These
can have a delayed effect and sometimes even partially contradict each
other. The example of Austria shows that informal associations can play
a key role in policy processes. For example, it was the EOSC Café, which
was initially conceived as an informal grouping for the exchange of
information on open science topics, in which ideas for the Austrian Open
Access Policy were formulated. „Austria is not large and the university
landscape is quite manageable" states Stefan Hanslik. At the operational
level, a particular challenge was to build consensus among the relevant
ministries, the  [Federal Ministry for Education, Research and Science
(BMBWF)](https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/), the Federal Ministry for
Digitalisation and Economic Location (Bundesministerium für
Digitalisierung und Wirtschaftsstandort BMDW, until 2020) and the
[Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility,
Innovation and Technogy (BMK](https://www.bmk.gv.at/en.html)).

> In this process, the EOSC Café, this informal group, attained the
> status of a very important working tool. Because there, we were able
> to elaborate ideas, involve all the important players little by little
> and prepare the adoption of the policy. That would have been very
> difficult without this group and would have taken much more time.

The launch of the EOSC in Vienna in 2018 marked a turning point for this
group and finally led to its institutionalisation. Today there are more
working tools than the EOSC Café: An EOSC wiki and a productive [EOSC
Support Office Austria](https://eosc-austria.at/) as well as [Open
Science Austria](https://www.osa-openscienceaustria.at/). In the
meantime, EOSC Café Austria invites guests, including from the European
Commission or other European countries and sees itself as an open forum.
„The EOSC Café has established itself and is used again and again to
deal with questions around Open Science. It is an Austrian melting pot
of Open Science-affine people and very dynamic as a group," Stefan
Hanslik tells us.

As before, this group is open: anyone involved in Open Science can
participate. Amongst others, the [TU Vienna](https://www.tuwien.at/),
the [University of Vienna](https://www.univie.ac.at/), the [Academy of
Fine Arts Vienna](https://www.akbild.ac.at/de), the [Natural History
Museum Vienna](https://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/) and other institutions are
involved.

## *The Austrian Strategy: Designable Framework, Supporting Measures*

It was also with the help of this group, the EOSC-Café, that the
[Austrian Open Science
Policy](https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/HS-Uni/Hochschulgovernance/Leitthemen/Digitalisierung/Open-Science/Open-Science-Policy-Austria.html)
was initially created. This Policy serves as a framework helping
individual institutions to develop their own strategies.  „The policy
may therefore seem a bit like a toothless tiger", admits Stefan Hanslik,
"but the intention was to first bring all stakeholders to the table
under the umbrella of agreeable guidelines. At the same time, it was
clear all along that we wanted to keep the policy open for more
elaborate positions that individual institutions, such as universities,
already have and can develop further."

Additionally, this Open Science Strategy is flanked by numerous
practical measures: [Activities around Open Science are financed and
supported](https://eosc-austria.at/austrian-country-profile/), for
example by a funding program to support the digital transformation, in
which more than 50 million euros are spent on 5 large projects. Although
this program expires in 2024, Stefan Hanslik said that follow-up
programs are already being considered.

## *Researchers, libraries and research funders*

However, even well-funded programs are of no help if researchers do not
agree. As in other countries, many researchers in Austria are very
committed by heart. But -- from Stefan Hanslik's point of view -- even
more interesting are those who are not yet sufficiently informed. „There
is a strong need to catch up across all sectors in our country," he
diagnoses the situation. „For example, I recently had a conversation
with a quantum physicist who had more questions than answers and a large
need for information. That's when I'm glad that [Open Science Austria
(OSA)](https://www.osa-openscienceaustria.at/) exists. They set
themselves the goal of tackling this, and reaching out into the finest
roots of the research world, across all disciplines."

Equally important and differently developed are the libraries. „We
involve them, but with varying degrees of success" notes Stefan Hanslik.
The situation is different when it comes to research funders. "Here,
Austria's benefit is that there are only two funding agencies: the [Fond
zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung
(FWF)](https://m.fwf.ac.at/de/) and the [Austrian Research Promotion
Agency (FFG)](https://www.ffg.at/en). Both are committed to research
infrastructure programs." Stefan Hanslik emphasizes that they have
successfully put a lot of thought into
[PlanS](https://www.coalition-s.org/) and have thus helped to shape the
Austrian policy process.

## *Challenges*

But policy processes are never over, as Stefan Hanslik remarks: „Our
policy lacks examples and concrete measures for almost all topics."
Another well-known challenge in the area of Open Science is monitoring.
Here, too, helpful initiatives already exist at European level, such as
the [EOSC Observatory Monitoring
System](https://eoscobservatory.eosc-portal.eu/home). „We will feed this
monitoring system with our data and create a Country Profile. This will
also influence budget decisions, because we want to know to what extent
what needs to be funded. But there's often a question about how to
quantify certain Open Science activities."

## *What can we learn from Austria?*

Austria and Germany are similar in many respects. Both countries have
well-developed and very active open access and open science networks, a
level of knowledge on openness that varies from discipline to
discipline, and a federal system that can help shape decisions and
policy processes in a participatory way. In addition to these
similarities, however, Stefan Hanslik points to some clear differences
between Austria and Germany: „I feel envious when I look at the research
infrastructure and the research data infrastructure in Germany" he
admits. But he also sees that Germany has other scale dimensions to deal
with. This makes it more difficult, especially in a federal system, to
get stakeholders, responsible parties at EU and at governance level at
the same table and to coordinate different interests. For the
development of a federal policy process in Germany, he advises to take a
close look at actors who have been able to implement successful policy
models in Europe. „That way, you can learn from each other." Indeed, it
was precisely this intention that motivated us to conduct this and other
interviews. However, a preliminary evaluation of our interviews and a
[discussion with representatives of the federal and state governments of
Germany](https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/2022/08/09/open-access-in-deutschland-stakeholder-workshop-mit-bund-und-laender/)
led to the conclusion that no policy model of another country is
transferable to the complex German situation. On the other hand, the
international comparison offers inspiration and points to aspects that
would otherwise have been ignored. Austria's early adaptation of the
Open Science idea and its integration with the European Union's science
policy can provide helpful and interesting hints here.


Authors: Malte Dreyer, Martina Benz and Maike Neufend

Open Access is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed.

Open4DE Spotlight on Austria: How European and National Levels Interact

Maatje Sophia Duine

Autorinnen: Maaike Duine
([ORCiD](https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3412-7192){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}) und Maxi Kindling
([ORCiD](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0167-0466))

``` wp-block-preformatted
Zitierhinweis: Duine, Maaike & Kindling, Maxi (2022) Das BUA Open Science Dashboard Projekt: die Entwicklung disziplinspezifischer Open-Science-Indikatoren. Open Access Blog Berlin. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59350/26ft6-dmv65
```

**Open-Science-Praktiken**

Open Access, Open Data, Open Educational Resources, Open Hardware, Open
Software, Open Code, Citizen Science: Das Konzept von Open Science
umfasst viele Praktiken, die im wissenschaftlichen Alltag zunehmend
relevant werden. Sie haben zum Ziel, den wissenschaftlichen
Arbeitsprozess, seine Quellen und Ergebnisse langfristig offen
zugänglich, nachvollziehbar und nachnutzbar zu machen. Im Berliner
Hochschulgesetz wird offene Wissenschaft seit 2021 im §41 adressiert.
Dort ist formuliert, dass sie sich auf den „uneingeschränkten und
langfristigen Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen Texten, Forschungsdaten,
Software und weiteren Forschungsergebnissen und -quellen sowie Lehr- und
Bildungsmaterialien" bezieht, den die Hochschulen ebenso unterstützen
sollen wie „einen transparenten Forschungsprozess einschließlich der
Bereitstellung von Forschungsinformationen".

Die Verbreitung von Praktiken offener Wissenschaft ist allerdings im
Vergleich von Forschungsinstitutionen, Disziplinen und
Wissenschaftler\*innen unterschiedlich weit fortgeschritten. Weithin
bekannt ist, dass der Anteil an Open-Access-Publikationen in
Zeitschriften in den Lebens- und Naturwissenschaften höher ist als in
den Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften
[\[1\]](https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17328.2). In der
Umweltforschung sind Citizen-Science-Praktiken, d.h. die Beteiligung der
Öffentlichkeit bzw. von Laien-Wissenschaftler\*innen an der Forschung,
verbreiteter als in anderen Disziplinen
[\[2\]](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178778). Weitere Beispiele
findet man im Bereich der Veröffentlichung von Preprints, d.h.
nicht-begutachteten Vorabveröffentlichungen von Manuskripten im Open
Access, die in der Mathematik und anderen naturwissenschaftlichen
Fächern gängiger sind (z.B. über die Preprintserver ArXiv oder BioArXiv)
[\[3\]](https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab039). Auch das Teilen von
Forschungsdaten (Data Sharing) nimmt zwar in allen Disziplinen stetig
zu, aber im disziplinären Vergleich gibt es große Unterschiede.
Disziplinen wie die Hochenergiephysik, in denen traditionell viel in
(großen) Forschungskollaborationen zusammengearbeitet wird und Data
Sharing notwendig ist, werden eher Daten nach den Prinzipien von
Offenheit geteilt, als in Disziplinen, in denen das weniger üblich und
notwendig ist \[[4](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0),
[5](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.024)\].

**Was ist Monitoring und wozu machen wir das? Warum ist das ein
wichtiges, aber auch schwieriges Thema?**

Mit der Verbreitung offener Wissenschaft steigt auch der Bedarf nach
einem Monitoring von Open-Science-Praktiken. Dies erlaubt einen breiten
Blick auf die Aktivitäten, kann neue Anreize schaffen, Open Science
umzusetzen und setzt Impulse für die Entwicklung von Policies oder
Infrastrukturangeboten. Ein Monitoring kann sowohl quantitative wie auch
qualitative Darstellungen enthalten. So kann es einerseits darum gehen,
den Anteil von offen verfügbar gemachten Publikationen in Bezug auf eine
Gesamtzahl von Publikationen zu bestimmen. Aufgrund der
unterschiedlichen Publikationskulturen in den Disziplinen ist diese „an
Zahlen orientierte" Herangehensweise aber nicht in allen
Forschungsfeldern sinnvoll und adäquat. Eine qualitative Beschreibung
von Open-Science-Aktivitäten kann daher ebenso von Bedeutung sein, indem
beispielsweise Projekte oder Publikationen deskriptiv und
kontextualisierend dargestellt werden, um den Impact in einem bestimmten
Forschungsgebiet hervorzuheben.

Ein Monitoring kann sich darüber hinaus auf die Aktivitäten einzelner
Wissenschaftler\*innen, auf Institutionen, auf Förderprogramme, auf eine
nationale oder z.B. auf die europäische Ebene beziehen. Ein Monitoring
kann beispielsweise für Förderorganisationen einen Einblick in die
Anzahl der Open-Access-Publikationen aus einem bestimmten Förderprogramm
geben oder für Institutionen ein Benchmarking (einen Vergleich mit, bzw.
eine Orientierung an anderen Institutionen) ermöglichen. Dies
zeigt bereits, dass mit dem Monitoring bestimmte Herausforderungen
verbunden sind. Dazu gehört die Frage, inwieweit ein Monitoring zum
unpassenden Vergleich von Disziplinen führt. Eine weitere Frage ist die
nach der Bedeutung etablierter Indikatoren für wissenschaftliche
Leistungen im Vergleich zu Open-Science-Indikatoren. Der Journal Impact
Factor als Parameter ist hier ein häufig angeführtes und kritisch
betrachtetes Beispiel, um die wissenschaftliche Leistung von Individuen
und Institutionen zu vergleichen. Initiativen wie die [San Francisco
Declaration on Research
Assessment](https://sfdora.org/read/read-the-declaration-deutsch){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} und [Plan
S](https://www.coalition-s.org/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} haben zum Ziel, Verfahren zur
Leistungsmessung über den Journal Impact Factor und Journal Metrics
hinaus zu entwickeln. Die Entwicklung von Indikatoren für offene
Wissenschaft (z.B. für die im nächsten Abschnitt erwähnten
Monitoring-Ansätze) gehen in die gleiche Richtung, die
Forschungsevaluation neu zu denken und beispielsweise Indikatoren wie
den offenen Zugang zu Ergebnissen wie Daten und Software, aber auch die
Durchführung von offenen Begutachtungsprozessen (Open Peer Review) oder
die Zusammenarbeit (Team Science) zu fördern.

**Monitoring-Ansätze**

Auf europäischer Ebene gibt es verschiedene Initiativen, die das
Monitoring von Open-Science-Praktiken voranbringen wollen. Ein Beispiel
ist OpenAIRE's [Open Science
Observatory](https://osobservatory.openaire.eu/home){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}, das die Anzahl der
Open-Access-Publikationen, Open Data und Open-Access-Journals pro Land
anzeigt. Zur Visualisierung der Daten aus verschiedenen Quellen werden
Dashboards entwickelt. Im Fall des Open Science Observatory basieren die
Daten auf dem [OpenAIRE Research
Graph](https://graph.openaire.eu/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}, der Daten von institutionellen Repositorien
und Zeitschriften mit Daten von Services
wie [Crossref](https://www.crossref.org/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}, [Unpaywall](https://unpaywall.org/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}, [ORCID](https://orcid.org/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} und [Grid.ac](http://grid.ac/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} verknüpft. Ein anderes Beispiel ist der [Open
Science
Monitor](https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science/open-science-monitor_en){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} der Europäischen Kommission. Er zeigt in
unterschiedlichen Dashboards Trends für Open-Access-Publikationen, Open
Data und Open Collaboration. Das Monitoring der
Open-Access-Publikationen basiert
auf [Scopus](https://www.scopus.com/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}, Unpaywall
und [DataCite](https://datacite.org/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} sowie qualititativen Daten von Umfragen.
Darüber hinaus wird angezeigt, wie oft OA-Publikationen auf Social Media
und anderen Medien erwähnt werden und die Anzahl der Policies von
Forschungsförderorganisationen zu Open Access, Open Data sowie Journal
Policies zu Open Data, Open Code und Open Hardware wird angegeben. 

In Deutschland ist der [Open Access
Monitor ](https://open-access-monitor.de/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}ein wichtiges Instrument zur Erfassung des
Open-Access-Publikationsaufkommens deutscher akademischer Einrichtungen
in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften. Der Monitor bereitet die Angabe
kategorisiert nach Gold/Green/Hybrid OA und Closed Access auf. Der Open
Access Monitor Deutschland basiert ebenfalls auf mehreren Datenquellen.
Dazu
gehören [Dimensions](https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}, [Web of
Science](https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}, Scopus, Unpaywall, [Directory of Open Access
Journals](https://doaj.org/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} und weitere. Es können aber auch weitere
Indikatoren bei nationalen Monitoring-Ansätzen vorgefunden werden: Im
[niederländischen Open Science
Dashboard](https://bi-poc.dataverse.tk/superset/dashboard/6/?preselect_filters=%7B%7D&standalone=true&native_filters=%28%29){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} und dem [französischen Open Science
Monitor](https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} werden z.B. die Zertifizierung von und die
Nutzung von persistenten Identifikatoren für Forschungsdaten in
Repositorien dargestellt.

Auch auf Landesebene ist das Monitoring relevant: Das OABB koordiniert
seit einigen Jahren eine Arbeitsgruppe, die seit 2016 das
Open-Access-Publikationsaufkommen in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften
für die neun publikationsstärksten Berliner Hochschulen erfasst. Dies
steht im Zusammenhang mit dem in der Berliner Open-Access-Strategie
formulierten Ziel, bis 2020 einen Open-Access-Anteil bei
Zeitschriftenartikeln von 60 % zu erreichen. Der zuletzt [erschienene
Bericht](https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-11774){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} über das Publikationsjahr 2019 wies einen
Open-Access-Anteil von 51,6 % nach (der Bericht über das
Publikationsjahr 2020 wird derzeit vorbereitet).

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-1024x598.png"
class="wp-image-1037" loading="lazy"
srcset="https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-1024x598.png 1024w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-300x175.png 300w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-768x449.png 768w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-250x146.png 250w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-550x321.png 550w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-800x467.png 800w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-308x180.png 308w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-513x300.png 513w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44-856x500.png 856w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-17.23.44.png 1121w"
sizes="(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 1362px) 62vw, 840px"
width="1024" height="598" />
<figcaption>Abbildung 1: Screenshot des Open Access Monitor Deutschland:
Gold Open Access und die Anteile für Open/Closed Access bei
Zeitschriftenartikeln der letzten fünf Jahre (Abrufdatum: 11. April,
2022). URL: <a
href="https://open-access-monitor.de/">https://open-access-monitor.de/</a></figcaption>
</figure>

Diese Monitoring-Ansätze sind spezialisiert auf das Publizieren in
Zeitschriften und zeigen aus verschiedenen Gründen nicht die Diversität
der Publikationsformate in den Fachkulturen, die auch Monografien,
Sammel- und Konferenzbände, Forschungs-/Kulturdaten, Software,
Quellcode, Lehrbücher, Open Educational Resources, Publizieren in Blogs
sowie nicht-textuelle Medien, wie z.B. Audio-visuelle Medien und
3D-Modelle umfassen. Ein Problem sind die fehlenden bzw. nicht
standardisierten Nachweisquellen, fehlende Indikatorik, Metriken und
automatisierte Screening-Tools für diese Formate. Daher sind
Monitoring-Ansätze bzw. Dashboards, die auf Disziplinen fokussieren,
bislang die Ausnahme.

**Das BIH Quest Dashboard**

Für die biomedizinische Forschung hat das BIH QUEST Center das Charité
Dashboard on Responsible Research erstellt. Die fünf dargestellten
OS-Indikatoren Open Access, Open Data, Open Code, Preprints und Anzahl
der Forscher\*innen mit ORCiD. Datenquellen für OA-Artikel, Preprints
und ORCiD sind Unpaywall, Dimensions, und die ORCiD API. Für die
OS-Indikatoren Open Data und Open Code wurden die Charité-Publikationen
mit einem von QUEST entwickelten Textmining-Algorithmus analysiert:
ODDPUB (Open Data Detection in Publications)
[\[6\]](http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-042). ODDPub durchsucht den
Volltext der Publikationen nach Aussagen, die auf Daten- oder
Code-Sharing hindeuten.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22.png"
class="wp-image-1039" loading="lazy"
srcset="https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22.png 953w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-300x171.png 300w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-768x437.png 768w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-250x142.png 250w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-550x313.png 550w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-800x455.png 800w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-316x180.png 316w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-527x300.png 527w, https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-access-berlin/files/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-04-07-at-15.54.22-879x500.png 879w"
sizes="(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 1362px) 62vw, 840px"
width="953" height="542" />
<figcaption>Abbildung 2: Screenshot des Charité Dashboards: Indikatoren
für Open Science (Abrufdatum: 7. April, 2022). URL: <a
href="https://quest-dashboard.charite.de/">https://quest-dashboard.charite.de/</a></figcaption>
</figure>

Zuletzt wurde das [Charité
Dashboard ](https://quest-dashboard.charite.de/#tabFAIR){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}um ein FAIR Dashboard erweitert:
Forschungsdaten, die in Publikationen von Charité-Autor\*innen aus dem
Jahr 2020 erwähnt wurden, werden auf die Umsetzung der FAIR Data
Principles geprüft, d.h. ob sie in den Repositorien, in denen sie
veröffentlicht wurden, auffindbar, zugänglich, interoperabel und
nachnutzbar sind [\[7\]](https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18). Dafür
wurde
das [F-UJI](https://www.f-uji.net/index.php?action=home){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"} Automated FAIR Data Assessment Tool
verwendet. Anhand von 16 Metriken wird so die FAIRness eines
Forschungsdatenobjekts in einem Repositorium bewertet und kann als
Hilfsmittel für Forscher\*innen dienen, Services auszuwählen, die Daten
möglichst umfassend nachnutzbar bereitstellen.

**Entwicklung prototypischer Dashboards im BUA Open Science Dashboard
Projekt**

Für das Monitoring im biomedizinischen Bereich besteht mit dem Charité
Dashboard eine funktionale Lösung, während es für viele weitere
Disziplinen keine vergleichbaren Ansätze gibt. Ziel des von der Berlin
University Alliance (BUA) geförderten Projekts Open Science Dashboards
ist es, mit weiteren ausgewählten Instituten bzw. wissenschaftlichen
Communities an den BUA-Einrichtungen zusammenzuarbeiten und gemeinsam
Indikatoren für ein prototypisches Dashboard zu entwickeln. Die
bestehenden Open-Science-Indikatoren des Charité Dashboards können als
Ausgangspunkt für weitere disziplinspezifische Dashboards genutzt
werden. Außerdem können neue Indikatoren wie z.B. für Citizen Science,
Software, Open Educational Resources oder Open-Access-Bücher entwickelt
werden.

Die Dashboard-Prototypen können von Instituts- oder Fakultätsleitungen
intern genutzt, von Forscher\*innen der Communities selbst verwendet,
sowie bei Wunsch auch offen verfügbar gemacht werden. Ein besonderer
Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Automatisierbarkeit der Erhebung von
Indikatoren sowie der Berücksichtigung der FAIR-Prinzipien.

Wir freuen uns über Fragen und Feedback zu diesem
Projekt: [oabb@open-access-berlin.de](mailto:oabb@open-access-berlin.de){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}.

**Referenzen**

1. Severin A, Egger M, Eve MP and Hürlimann D. Discipline-specific open
 access publishing practices and barriers to change: an
 evidence-based review \[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1
 approved with reservations\]. F1000Research 2020,
 7:1925. [https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17328.2](https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17328.2){target="_blank"
 rel="noreferrer noopener"}
2. Pettibone L, Vohland K, Ziegler D (2017) Understanding the
 (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science:
 A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria. PLoS ONE 12(6):
 e0178778. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178778](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178778){target="_blank"
 rel="noreferrer noopener"}
3. Kristijan Armeni, Loek Brinkman, Rickard Carlsson, Anita Eerland,
 Rianne Fijten, Robin Fondberg, Vera E Heininga, Stephan Heunis, Wei
 Qi Koh, Maurits Masselink, Niall Moran, Andrew Ó Baoill, Alexandra
 Sarafoglou, Antonio Schettino, Hardy Schwamm, Zsuzsika Sjoerds,
 Marta Teperek, Olmo R van den Akker, Anna van't Veer, Raul
 Zurita-Milla, Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices:
 The role of open science communities, Science and Public Policy,
 Volume 48, Issue 5, October 2021, Pages
 605--611. [https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab039](https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab039){target="_blank"
 rel="noreferrer noopener"}
4. Tedersoo, Leho & Küngas, Rainer & Oras, Ester & Köster, Kajar &
 Eenmaa, Helen & Leijen, Äli & Pedaste, Margus & Raju, Marju &
 Astapova, Anastasiya & Lukner, Heli & Kogermann, Karin & Sepp, Tuul.
 (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request
 differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific Data. 8.
 192. [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0){target="_blank"
 rel="noreferrer noopener"}
5. Zuiderwijk A, and Spiers H (2019) Sharing and re-using open data: A
 case study of motivations in astrophysics. International Journal of
 Information Management: 49, pp:
 228-241. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.024](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.024){target="_blank"
 rel="noreferrer noopener"}
6. Riedel, N., Kip, M. and Bobrov, E., 2020. ODDPub -- a Text-Mining
 Algorithm to Detect Data Sharing in Biomedical Publications. Data
 Science Journal, 19(1),
 p.42. [http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-042](http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-042){target="_blank"
 rel="noreferrer noopener"}
7. Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. et al. The FAIR
 Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship.
 Sci Data 3, 160018
 (2016). [https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18](https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18){target="_blank"
 rel="noreferrer noopener"}

Autorinnen: Maaike Duine (ORCiD) und Maxi Kindling (ORCiD) Zitierhinweis: Duine, Maaike &amp; Kindling, Maxi (2022) Das BUA Open Science Dashboard Projekt: die Entwicklung disziplinspezifischer Open-Science-Indikatoren. Open Access Blog Berlin.

Das BUA Open Science Dashboard Projekt: die Entwicklung disziplinspezifischer Open-Science-Indikatoren

Authors: Maike Neufend, Martina Benz, Malte Dreyer



Open access is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed. Furthermore, this international and comparative perspective helps us to assess the state of open access (OA) in Germany. In this series of <a href="http://www.open-access-berlin.de/projekte/open4de/index.html">Open4DE project</a> blog posts, we will summarize what we have learned in our in-depth conversations with experts on developing and implementing nationwide open access strategies.



The open access movement in France plays a vital role since the beginning in the European region. Already around the 2000s French research institutions launched the <a href="http://www.revues.org/?lang=en">Revues.org platform</a> (1999) – now <a href="https://journals.openedition.org/">OpenEdition</a> – for open access journals primarily in Humanities and Social Sciences. In 2001 the <a href="https://www.cnrs.fr/">Centre national de la recherche scientifique</a> (CNRS) started running <a href="http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/index.php?langue=en">HAL open archive</a> (2001), a repository open to all disciplinary fields. In 2003 the CNRS signed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities">Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities</a>. During many years open access was a matter of personal involvement from individuals within institutions, says Pierre Mounier, deputy director of OpenEdition and coordinator of <a href="https://www.operas-eu.org/">OPERAS</a>:



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The personal commitment based on political values works locally, but at one point you reach a glass ceiling. You don’t get that general movement because it is only a matter of individuals. It really changed in France…</blockquote>



In 2021 France has already published the <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science/">Second National Plan for Open Science. Generalising Open Science in France 2021-2024</a>. And during the recently held <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/a-look-back-at-the-european-open-science-conference-now-online/">Open Science European Conference (OSEC)</a> the French Committee for Open Science presented the <a href="https://osec2022.eu/paris-call/">Paris Call on Research Assessment</a>, calling for &#8222;an assessment system where research proposals, researchers, research units and research institutions are evaluated on the basis of their intrinsic merits and impact […]&#8220;. In line with the general development across Europe, according to the <a href="https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation">UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science</a> and other policy papers, Open Science is no longer a question of few committed librarians, information scientists and researchers, but part of the national strategy on scholarly communication.



<h2>What can be achieved by a national strategy?</h2>



In Germany multiple stakeholders publish their own policies and strategies, committing to open access practices and values. <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-5295">Marin Dacos</a>, national open science coordinator at the French <a href="https://fundit.fr/en/institutions/ministry-higher-education-and-research-france-menesr-0">Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation</a>, emphasizes that a national strategy is a strong signal no matter what, because multiple stakeholders receive concrete directions by such strategies. In addition, it might be more efficient to speak as a country regarding these issues, in particular at the international level, f.e. within the <a href="https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/open-science.htm">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)</a>, the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en">European Commission </a>and <a href="https://conosc.org/#page-content">The Council for National Open Science Coordination (CoNOSC)</a>, a network of national coordinators in the UN-European region supported by <a href="https://sparceurope.org/">SPARC Europe</a>.



Looking at France, for certain topics national negotiations seem more convenient: Considering investment in green open access or diamond open access, it is more realistic to achieve progress on the national level instead of federal, local or institutional levels only. Setting open access on the national agenda allows for strategic planning. This argument is not only supported by the content of the two national plans for open science in France from 2018 and 2021, but also on the recently published <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/6282403">Action Plan for Diamond Open Access</a> &#8222;to further develop and expand a sustainable, community-driven Diamond OA scholarly communication ecosystem&#8220;. Prepared by OPERAS, PLAN S, Science Europe and French National Research Agency (ANR) the plan was commented by experts of a workshop sponsored by the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation in preparation for the OSEC conference. A summary of this conference and links to recordings are available <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/a-look-back-at-the-european-open-science-conference-now-online/">online</a>.



<h2>The National Plan and its infrastructure</h2>



But how did the first national plan actually come about in 2018? After the election in 2017, Frédérique Vidal became Minister for Higher Education, Research and Innovation. Since 2017 Marin Dacos is open science advisor to the director-general for research and innovation at the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. He has been highly involved in the writing process of the French Open Science Plan. The open science committee was founded in 2019, consisting of a steering committee of open science, a permanent secretariat for open science (SPSO), colleges and expert groups as well as the forum for open science.



The steering committee meets 3–4 times a year to make strategic decisions related to the national strategy, acts as the Council of Partners of the National Fund for Open Science (GIS FNSO) and decides which initiatives to fund. The permanent secretariat headed by the national coordinator for open science gathers monthly to prepare the work of the steering committee, and to ensure the implementation of its conclusions. It coordinates the work of the colleges of the open science committee, oversees the editorial board of the <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/home/">ouvrirlascience.fr</a> website, and monitors the progress of ongoing projects for the operational implementation of the national open science policy. The colleges and expert groups are standing bodies composed of experts on various aspects of the national open science policy. They review issues, propose guidelines, issue opinions, and initiate and lead projects. The forum for open science supports the committee by bringing in the experience of professionals from academia and research institutions. It provides a space for dialogue, exchange and development of shared expertise. As <a href="https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/academic-libraries-and-oa-books-france/release/1">Morka and Gatti</a> point out, the open science committee is one of the &#8222;main platforms where librarians engage in discussions on open access&#8220;.



Moreover, in the French case, a national fund (<a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/creation-of-the-national-open-science-fund">Fonds National pour la Science Ouverte, FNSO</a>) is in place since the first National Plan on Open Science (2018) funded by &#8222;ministerial allocations and voluntary contributions from institutions of higher education, research and innovation, as well as contributions from foundations and patrons&#8220;. Through this fund the steering committee for open science can incentivize concrete projects to foster implementation of measures articulated in the national plan, &#8222;it helps to target specific actions, an important transformation effect to help move forward&#8220;, says Mounier. 48 projects have been selected by the steering committee, <a href="https://www.openaire.eu/blogs/ouvrir-la-science">22 projects</a> in 2019 mainly on research infrastructures, digital platforms and editorial initiatives and <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Laureats-AAP-FNSO-2.pdf">26 projects</a> in 2021 focusing on editorial platforms and structures as well as editorial content. Beside the fact that the fund is limited in its financial power, it is an important addition for a successful implementation of a national strategy.



<h2>What is there to consider for the German landscape?</h2>



One important lesson to learn from France refers to the administration of open access within the ministry. Open science and open access is <a href="https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/fr/science-ouverte-50360">highly coordinated inside</a> the ministry and thus funds are not administered differently for these closely linked topics. However, the level of diversity included in the French national strategy is something to look up to. This is also visible in how the implementation of the national strategy is monitored in France. One aim of the French national open science strategy is the objective of a 100% open access rate in 2030 and progress is <a href="https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/">monitored on the national level</a>. But different from the <a href="https://jugit.fz-juelich.de/synoa/oam-dokumentation/-/wikis/Quelldatenbanken/Quelldatenbanken">German Open Access Monitor</a> the French version relies only on &#8222;using reliable and controlled open data&#8220; like data from Unpaywall, DOAJ or OpenAPC – source databases like Web of Science or Scopus are not included. In addition, the <a href="https://frenchopensciencemonitor.esr.gouv.fr/about/methodology">French Open Science Monitor</a> aims at including all scientific output and thus shows not only open access articles published in peer-reviewed journals but <a href="https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/publications/general?id=general.genres-ouverture">proceedings, book chapters, books and preprints</a> as well. Sorting <a href="https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/publications/fields?id=disciplines.dynamique-ouverture">according to disciplines</a> and their open access output is presented and the <a href="https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/publications/general?id=general.langues-ouverture">language of publication</a> is shown as well. It is positive to see that both, the German and the French monitor, include diamond open access and thus differentiate it from full APC gold open access already.



But what works well in France is not necessarily the right path for Germany. University presses are well-developed in France, while the national publishing platform OpenEdition provides an infrastructure to publish open access books as well as journals. In Germany a decentralized library system operates quite autonomous on institutional levels, with different library consortia across federal states. A national publishing platform like OpenEdition may look like a desirable model, but as Pierre Mounier points out, does it really make sense for Germany? An important impulse from our interviews with French open science experts has been the question, how we can use the federated infrastructure in Germany as an advantage and not an obstacle for a national open access agenda.



References



(2017). &#8222;Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity.&#8220; Accessed April 6, 2022. <a href="https://jussieucall.org/jussieu-call/">https://jussieucall.org/jussieu-call/</a>.



Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche&nbsp; et de l’Innovation (2018). &#8222;National Plan for Open Science.&#8220; Accessed April 6, 2022. <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/National-Plan-for-Open-Science_A4_20180704.pdf">https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/National-Plan-for-Open-Science_A4_20180704.pdf</a>.



Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche&nbsp; et de l’Innovation (2021). &#8222;Second National Plan for Open Science Generalising Open Science in France 2021-2024.&#8220; Accessed April 6, 2022. <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science/">https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science/</a>,



Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (2022). &#8222;Paris Call on Research Assessment.&#8220; Accessed April 6, 2022. <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/paris-call-on-research-assessment">https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/paris-call-on-research-assessment</a>.



Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (2022). &#8222;Action Plan for Diamond open access.&#8220; Accessed April 6, 2022. <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/action-plan-for-diamond-open-access-2">https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/action-plan-for-diamond-open-access-2</a>.



Mounier, Pierre (2019). &#8222;From Open Access as a Movement to Open Science as a Policy.&#8220; Presented at the 2019 2nd AEUP Conference: (Re-)Shaping University Presses and Institutional Publishing. Profiles – Challenges – Benefits, Brno, Czech Republic, October 3. Accessed April 6, 2022. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3471026">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3471026</a>.



Morka, Agata, and Rupert Gatti (2021). &#8222;France.&#8220; In Academic Libraries and Open Access Books in Europe: A Landscape Study. PubPub. Accessed April 6, 2022. <a href="https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.6df6495e">https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.6df6495e</a>.

*Authors: Maike Neufend, Martina Benz, Malte Dreyer*

Open access is developing in an area of tension between institutional
and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least
the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison
across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and
developments can be observed. Furthermore, this international and
comparative perspective helps us to assess the state of open access (OA)
in Germany. In this series of [Open4DE
project](http://www.open-access-berlin.de/projekte/open4de/index.html)
blog posts, we will summarize what we have learned in our in-depth
conversations with experts on developing and implementing nationwide
open access strategies.

The open access movement in France plays a vital role since the
beginning in the European region. Already around the 2000s French
research institutions launched the [Revues.org
platform](http://www.revues.org/?lang=en) (1999) -- now
[OpenEdition](https://journals.openedition.org/) -- for open access
journals primarily in Humanities and Social Sciences. In 2001 the
[Centre national de la recherche scientifique](https://www.cnrs.fr/)
(CNRS) started running [HAL open
archive](http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/index.php?langue=en) (2001), a
repository open to all disciplinary fields. In 2003 the CNRS signed the
[Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
Humanities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities).
During many years open access was a matter of personal involvement from
individuals within institutions, says Pierre Mounier, deputy director of
OpenEdition and coordinator of [OPERAS](https://www.operas-eu.org/):

> The personal commitment based on political values works locally, but
> at one point you reach a glass ceiling. You don't get that general
> movement because it is only a matter of individuals. It really changed
> in France...

In 2021 France has already published the [Second National Plan for Open
Science. Generalising Open Science in France
2021-2024](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science/).
And during the recently held [Open Science European Conference
(OSEC)](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/a-look-back-at-the-european-open-science-conference-now-online/)
the French Committee for Open Science presented the [Paris Call on
Research Assessment](https://osec2022.eu/paris-call/), calling for „an
assessment system where research proposals, researchers, research units
and research institutions are evaluated on the basis of their intrinsic
merits and impact \[...\]". In line with the general development across
Europe, according to the [UNESCO Recommendation on Open
Science](https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation)
and other policy papers, Open Science is no longer a question of few
committed librarians, information scientists and researchers, but part
of the national strategy on scholarly communication.

## What can be achieved by a national strategy?

In Germany multiple stakeholders publish their own policies and
strategies, committing to open access practices and values. [Marin
Dacos](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-5295), national open science
coordinator at the French [Ministry of Higher Education, Research and
Innovation](https://fundit.fr/en/institutions/ministry-higher-education-and-research-france-menesr-0),
emphasizes that a national strategy is a strong signal no matter what,
because multiple stakeholders receive concrete directions by such
strategies. In addition, it might be more efficient to speak as a
country regarding these issues, in particular at the international
level, f.e. within the [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)](https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/open-science.htm), the
[European
Commission](https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en)
and [The Council for National Open Science Coordination
(CoNOSC)](https://conosc.org/#page-content), a network of national
coordinators in the UN-European region supported by [SPARC
Europe](https://sparceurope.org/).

Looking at France, for certain topics national negotiations seem more
convenient: Considering investment in green open access or diamond open
access, it is more realistic to achieve progress on the national level
instead of federal, local or institutional levels only. Setting open
access on the national agenda allows for strategic planning. This
argument is not only supported by the content of the two national plans
for open science in France from 2018 and 2021, but also on the recently
published [Action Plan for Diamond Open
Access](https://zenodo.org/record/6282403) „to further develop and
expand a sustainable, community-driven Diamond OA scholarly
communication ecosystem". Prepared by OPERAS, PLAN S, Science Europe and
French National Research Agency (ANR) the plan was commented by experts
of a workshop sponsored by the French Ministry of Higher Education,
Research and Innovation in preparation for the OSEC conference. A
summary of this conference and links to recordings are available
[online](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/a-look-back-at-the-european-open-science-conference-now-online/).

## The National Plan and its infrastructure

But how did the first national plan actually come about in 2018? After
the election in 2017, Frédérique Vidal became Minister for Higher
Education, Research and Innovation. Since 2017 Marin Dacos is open
science advisor to the director-general for research and innovation at
the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. He has
been highly involved in the writing process of the French Open Science
Plan. The open science committee was founded in 2019, consisting of a
steering committee of open science, a permanent secretariat for open
science (SPSO), colleges and expert groups as well as the forum for open
science.

The steering committee meets 3--4 times a year to make strategic
decisions related to the national strategy, acts as the Council of
Partners of the National Fund for Open Science (GIS FNSO) and decides
which initiatives to fund. The permanent secretariat headed by the
national coordinator for open science gathers monthly to prepare the
work of the steering committee, and to ensure the implementation of its
conclusions. It coordinates the work of the colleges of the open science
committee, oversees the editorial board of the
[ouvrirlascience.fr](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/home/) website, and
monitors the progress of ongoing projects for the operational
implementation of the national open science policy. The colleges and
expert groups are standing bodies composed of experts on various aspects
of the national open science policy. They review issues, propose
guidelines, issue opinions, and initiate and lead projects. The forum
for open science supports the committee by bringing in the experience of
professionals from academia and research institutions. It provides a
space for dialogue, exchange and development of shared expertise. As
[Morka and
Gatti](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/academic-libraries-and-oa-books-france/release/1)
point out, the open science committee is one of the „main platforms
where librarians engage in discussions on open access".

Moreover, in the French case, a national fund ([Fonds National pour la
Science Ouverte,
FNSO](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/creation-of-the-national-open-science-fund))
is in place since the first National Plan on Open Science (2018) funded
by „ministerial allocations and voluntary contributions from
institutions of higher education, research and innovation, as well as
contributions from foundations and patrons". Through this fund the
steering committee for open science can incentivize concrete projects to
foster implementation of measures articulated in the national plan, „it
helps to target specific actions, an important transformation effect to
help move forward", says Mounier. 48 projects have been selected by the
steering committee, [22
projects](https://www.openaire.eu/blogs/ouvrir-la-science) in 2019
mainly on research infrastructures, digital platforms and editorial
initiatives and [26
projects](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Laureats-AAP-FNSO-2.pdf)
in 2021 focusing on editorial platforms and structures as well as
editorial content. Beside the fact that the fund is limited in its
financial power, it is an important addition for a successful
implementation of a national strategy.

## What is there to consider for the German landscape?

One important lesson to learn from France refers to the administration
of open access within the ministry. Open science and open access is
[highly coordinated
inside](https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/fr/science-ouverte-50360)
the ministry and thus funds are not administered differently for these
closely linked topics. However, the level of diversity included in the
French national strategy is something to look up to. This is also
visible in how the implementation of the national strategy is monitored
in France. One aim of the French national open science strategy is the
objective of a 100% open access rate in 2030 and progress is [monitored
on the national
level](https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/). But different
from the [German Open Access
Monitor](https://jugit.fz-juelich.de/synoa/oam-dokumentation/-/wikis/Quelldatenbanken/Quelldatenbanken)
the French version relies only on „using reliable and controlled open
data" like data from Unpaywall, DOAJ or OpenAPC -- source databases like
Web of Science or Scopus are not included. In addition, the [French Open
Science
Monitor](https://frenchopensciencemonitor.esr.gouv.fr/about/methodology)
aims at including all scientific output and thus shows not only open
access articles published in peer-reviewed journals but [proceedings,
book chapters, books and
preprints](https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/publications/general?id=general.genres-ouverture)
as well. Sorting [according to
disciplines](https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/publications/fields?id=disciplines.dynamique-ouverture)
and their open access output is presented and the [language of
publication](https://barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr/publications/general?id=general.langues-ouverture)
is shown as well. It is positive to see that both, the German and the
French monitor, include diamond open access and thus differentiate it
from full APC gold open access already.

But what works well in France is not necessarily the right path for
Germany. University presses are well-developed in France, while the
national publishing platform OpenEdition provides an infrastructure to
publish open access books as well as journals. In Germany a
decentralized library system operates quite autonomous on institutional
levels, with different library consortia across federal states. A
national publishing platform like OpenEdition may look like a desirable
model, but as Pierre Mounier points out, does it really make sense for
Germany? An important impulse from our interviews with French open
science experts has been the question, how we can use the federated
infrastructure in Germany as an advantage and not an obstacle for a
national open access agenda.

**References**

(2017). „Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity." Accessed
April 6, 2022. <https://jussieucall.org/jussieu-call/>.

Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche  et de
l'Innovation (2018). „National Plan for Open Science." Accessed April 6,
2022.
<https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/National-Plan-for-Open-Science_A4_20180704.pdf>.

Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche  et de
l'Innovation (2021). „Second National Plan for Open Science Generalising
Open Science in France 2021-2024." Accessed April 6, 2022.
[https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-s[cience/]{.underline}](https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science/),

Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de
l'Innovation (2022). „Paris Call on Research Assessment." Accessed April
6, 2022.
<https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/paris-call-on-research-assessment>.

Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de
l'Innovation (2022). „Action Plan for Diamond open access." Accessed
April 6, 2022.
<https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/action-plan-for-diamond-open-access-2>.

Mounier, Pierre (2019). „From Open Access as a Movement to Open Science
as a Policy." Presented at the 2019 2nd AEUP Conference: (Re-)Shaping
University Presses and Institutional Publishing. Profiles -- Challenges
-- Benefits, Brno, Czech Republic, October 3. Accessed April 6, 2022.
<https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3471026>.

Morka, Agata, and Rupert Gatti (2021). „France." In Academic Libraries
and Open Access Books in Europe: A Landscape Study. PubPub. Accessed
April 6, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.6df6495e>.

Authors: Maike Neufend, Martina Benz, Malte Dreyer

Open access is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed.

Messages de Rogue Scholar

Open4DE Spotlight on Austria: How European and National Levels Interact

Das BUA Open Science Dashboard Projekt: die Entwicklung disziplinspezifischer Open-Science-Indikatoren

Political Commitment toward Open Science: Open4DE Spotlight on the Open Access Landscape in France