Paper short abstract:

Citizen science is frequently being facilitated through online platforms that operate in a tension between calls for democratising science and academic impact. Using a lens of commons-based peer-production, this contribution explores how different citizen science platforms address these challenges.

Paper long abstract:

“Citizen science” describes a broad set of methodologies centered around involving citizens as volunteers in the process of scientific knowledge production – including in data collection, analyses or research co-leadership. As a transdisciplinary approach, citizen science is frequently viewed as one of the dimensions of "open science", i.e. by opening up science to societal contributors. Thus, citizen science is commonly presented as democratising research.

As for open science broadly, many forms of citizen science rely on digital infrastructures and online platforms to facilitate their efforts. With this come similar questions as for other open science platforms: How are they being developed, funded and governed, and to whose benefit are they being run? In case of citizen science platforms, these questions are particularly relevant, given the inherent tensions between the larger ambition of democratising science while also wishing to produce "impactful" science within the larger academic framework in which the mostly academic-led citizen science platforms typically exist.

Taking the lens of commons-based peer-production, this contribution examines how different citizen science platforms are trying to address these challenges and which trade-offs are being made. This includes both the design decisions made on a practical level, in terms of how participation and different ways of contributing are being enabled generally, but also how the high-level platform design contributes to different types of governance and power sharing and how impact metrics contribute to such operationalisations. Overall, this will explore how citizen science platforms can or can not contribute to a deeper, democratic citizen science.

Paper short abstract:

Taking the example of REPOD, a repository for scientific policy advice, we explore the role of open science platforms in connecting researchers and policymakers. We consider the repository as a potential boundary object facilitating cooperation between diverse stakeholders.

Paper long abstract:

Open science platforms can serve as a central point of access to scientific knowledge and expertise by sorting, archiving and making it available to relevant audiences. In our view, open science platforms can also act as a bridge between the scientific community and societal actors wanting to make use of scientific knowledge. An example of such a platform is REPOD - a recently launched repository that provides access to research-based advisory documents for policymakers in Germany.

Based on insights that were collected from interviews with potential contributors and users of the repository, we analyze what role digital infrastructures can play in connecting researchers and policymakers from three different perspectives. Firstly, we look at the producers of content for this open science platform, the researchers: How does it affect the self-understanding of researchers to provide documents to the repository? These documents are written for an external rather than academic audience and confront research with other values than those inherent to science? Secondly, we address the users of such a platform, the policymakers: How does the repository fit into the political reality of an urgent demand for not only evidence, but also for positions and experts? And lastly, regarding the repository as an infrastructure: What are the prerequisites and quality criteria that need to be fulfilled to make an open science platform between science and policy-making work? Can we regard the repository as a boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989; Star, 2010) that allows for diverse stakeholders to cooperate despite their differences?

Paper short abstract:

We explore the fragility of infrastructures, emphasizing governance’s role in maintaining cohesion. Using OpenEdition as a case study, we examine how practitioners engage with their landscape, through semantic analysis and interviews. We propose a framework likening infrastructures to ecosystems.

Paper long abstract:

Infrastructures, intricate assemblages of stakeholders and socio-technical components, inherently face fragility. Constantly challenged by centrifugal forces like hardware wear, information corruption, and unresolved controversies, governance norms and practices become crucial for maintaining their cohesion. Open digital knowledge infrastructures have reshaped traditional structures, introducing new elements such as digital publications, data, platforms, and open licenses. This evolution has led a variety of stakeholders, such as infrastructure practitioners, researchers, as well as managers, to use the term “ecosystem” to describe this new configuration, encompassing infrastructures, communities, and their surroundings.

Examining the French public open infrastructure OpenEdition, we illustrate how practitioners perceive and engage with their ecosystem. Utilizing a semantic analysis of OE’s internal documentation, a survey, and interviews, we explore the practical application of an ecological framework, focusing on vocabulary use. The objective is to discern whether and why this framework is employed, ranging from defining new infrastructural dynamics to coordinating diverse stakeholders or merely as window-dressing of age-old objects.

This empirical study aims to contribute to a theory of the governance of open digital knowledge infrastructures. Drawing inspiration from Simondon’s mecanology and conceptualizing infrastructures surrounded by an associated milieu, we can conceive of governance as organizing these elements into an assemblage. The term "ecosystem" is defined as the global scale where singular infrastructures dynamically interact through their milieux – akin to a non-governed meta-milieu.This theoretical framework sets the stage for realizing Star and Ruhleder’s "ecology of infrastructures," providing insights into how governance norms and practices shape open digital knowledge infrastructures.

Paper short abstract:

By comparing the legal tools and design choices of 4 clinical trial data sharing platforms, this contribution visibilises how open science platforms are situated within a political economy of data and innovation commodification, which shapes the priorities of knowledge production.

Paper long abstract:

At present, corporate actors exercise a large amount of control over what becomes data (i.e constitutive power) and what is done with this data (i.e distributive power). This is particularly stark in life sciences research. Enclosure of clinical trial data by pharmaceutical companies, combined with their sponsorship capabilities and existing neoliberal legal frameworks for patents and privacy, shapes the priorities of life sciences research itself. While there are legal mandates for data sharing, clinical trial data sharing platforms also attempt to redistribute corporate infrastructural control over data and knowledge in new ways.

This contribution analyses 4 such platforms - CURE ID, Project Data Sphere, the Yale University Open Data Access Project, and Duke Clinical Research Institute’s project on Supporting Open Access for Researchers. It compares the legal tools and design choices of these platforms to illuminate restrictions on data re-use, which in turns shapes what kinds of knowledge can be produced from this data and the actors who benefit from this knowledge.

What emerges from this analysis is that despite positioning themselves as enablers of open science and open data, these clinical trial data sharing platforms are situated within a political economy of data and innovation commodification, which yields tensions with the historical context underpinning clinical trial regulations. To truly democratize science, this political economy needs to be disrupted – which entails disrupting existing legal frameworks for data and knowledge transfers; rethinking collective health data governance; and democratizing the existing institutional framework for life sciences research.

Paper short abstract:

The role of institutional repositories in Germany has changed over the past 30 years – from document servers to the concept of “Next Generation Repositories”. The presentation identifies and addresses some of the challenges along this path of becoming future-proof information infrastructures.

Paper long abstract:

The role of Institutional Repositories in Germany has significantly changed over the past 30 years. Initially serving as document servers for their institutional members, they collected and archived qualification theses to document the intellectual output of their respective institutions. However it had become evident that serving as passive institutional archives was insufficient; instead, they needed to be more integrated into all stages of the research cycle. This shift in self-understanding is also apparent in the science-policy and infrastructural reform movement of repositories. The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) has emphasized the need for repository advancement since 2017 through its initiative "Next Generation Repositories." The "Report on Repository Survey in Europe" (Shearer et al., 2023) highlights the current challenges in operating repositories: the need for contemporary and interoperable software solutions for repository operation, consistent implementation of "good practice" for metadata, long-term archiving, and usage statistics, as well as adequate visibility within the scientific community.

Expanding on this, the "Pro OAR DE" project at the Berlin School for Library and Information Science identified and tackled major challenges repositories face in advancing into cutting-edge information infrastructures. Our presentation will highlight findings from a recent interview study involving stakeholders from German institutional repositories. We will delve into the connections between institutional repositories and current research information systems (CRIS), along with the significance of preprints. As we will illustrate, institutional repositories possess the requisite tools, yet incentives and change management strategies are necessary for their transformation into competitive open science infrastructures.