Requirements

Participants identified the dynamic development of compliance criteria as a central challenge. Funder requirements evolve continuously and therefore demand ongoing monitoring. Clear assignment of responsibilities within institutions was highlighted as essential, particularly in complex organizational environments where libraries, IT services, research support units, and administrative departments all play a role.

Communication emerged as another key issue. Ensuring that compliance requirements are correctly understood and implemented depends on effective exchange between researchers and infrastructure providers, but equally between content experts and technical staff. Limited financial and personnel resources further intensify the need for prioritization and transparent workflows. Participants also emphasized the value of institutional publication policies as binding reference points, provided their concrete benefits for researchers are clearly communicated.

On the infrastructure side, participants suggested establishing repository content curation as a dedicated service. This could be implemented, for example, through specialized roles such as data stewards. In addition, the introduction of automated checks for compliance requirements was considered a particularly effective approach. As initial steps, participants recommended centrally collecting best practices and bringing in advocates, such as data champions, to share expertise across the institution.

Researcher Consultation

Advising researchers on compliance requirements presents multiple challenges. Participants highlighted the difficulty of determining the compliance status of their own repositories in the absence of universally accepted standards. In addition, requirements vary considerably between funders and projects, adding another layer of complexity.

Reaching researchers at the right moment remains a persistent obstacle. General information events are often poorly attended, and researchers may engage only selectively with available support services. Recommending suitable repositories brings its own difficulties, as existing certificates and quality labels offer only partial guidance and tend to be limited to specific content types.

In response, participants recommended using established orientation tools such as the DFG whitelist for subject repositories and the TRUST principles for digital repositories. For day-to-day advisory work, strategic questions can help structure consultations effectively, in particular, identifying the precise level at which funder requirements are defined, such as whether the level of the funder, the program, or the individual call. This approach can help uncover information that is not publicly documented.

Technical Solutions

At the technical level, compliance and interoperability present a set of challenges. European funding programs often impose stricter requirements than German national schemes, particularly regarding metadata standards, persistent identifiers, and repository trustworthiness.

Practical challenges include implementing specific metadata fields, ensuring Persistent Identifier (PID) assignment, enabling indexing in relevant discovery services, managing large data uploads, and establishing robust rights and roles management. Cost-related information may be recorded in different systems, inside or outside the repository, further increasing complexity.

Participants recommended several approaches to navigate these challenges. Certifications can serve as a useful step toward compliance, while narrowing repository use cases helps ensure feasibility. Market analyses of available software solutions, including realistic assessments of costs and personnel resources, were seen as essential groundwork. Cooperation with partner institutions emerged as a particularly promising strategy, offering opportunities to improve interoperability and distribute development efforts more sustainably.

Diversity of Publication Formats

The growing diversity of scholarly outputs significantly complicates compliance with funder requirements. Participants pointed to conceptual ambiguities surrounding the definition of repositories and publications, particularly in relation to research data and non-textual outputs. Different funders apply different standards, making general harmonization difficult.

Research data as a publication type introduces its own set of demands. Metadata requirements increase, machine readability becomes a factor, and linking publications with associated datasets poses real practical difficulties, particularly when Persistent Identifiers are not yet available at the time of initial publication. Further complexity arises from formats such as posters, workshop reports, and Open Educational Resources.

Responsibilities for repository operation and compliance support are often poorly defined, especially where text publications and research data fall under different organizational units. Participants emphasized the importance of transparent coordination structures and regular communication. Distributed advisory models with discipline-specific working groups were recommended, alongside the strategic use of external expertise such as Nationale Forschungsdateninfrastruktur (NFDI) helpdesks.

Additional Challenges

Beyond the areas already mentioned, participants raised additional challenges. European requirements for depositing research data in “trusted repositories” remain difficult to interpret in practice. The assignment of new Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) during secondary publication can confuse researchers and make it harder to identify project-related outputs, particularly in the context of EU-funded research.

Insufficient incentives for researchers to provide complete funding information were also highlighted. Where funding acknowledgements are inconsistent or missing, both compliance and reporting suffer. Participants therefore stressed the importance of controlled project lists and standardized interfaces that make it easy for researchers to reference their funded projects accurately.

Visibility matters too. Continuous communication about available services is essential for promoting repository use and driving uptake, and a coherent outreach strategy can make a significant difference. Participants also articulated expectations toward funders and policy actors — above all, the provision of standardized project lists and APIs to support automated workflows and reduce administrative burden on institutions.

This guide provides a foundation for continued professional exchange. Repository operators, libraries, and institutional decision-makers will find valuable insights for establishing effective workflows within their institutions.

We extend our sincere thanks to all forum participants who contributed their expertise and experience to this collaborative effort. We welcome your feedback and look forward to continuing this important dialogue as we collectively strengthen the Open Access repository landscape.

For more information about Pro OAR DE and our upcoming activities, please visit our website. This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labeled sections – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

27.03.2026, 12:30–14:00 Uhr - Webinar „Open-Access-Reporting in der Praxis”

In diesem Webinar möchten wir die Realität der Berichterstattung im Kontext der Open-Access-Transformation beleuchten. In kurzen Vorträgen berichten Juliane Mörsel von der Bibliothek des Karlsruher Instituts für Technologie und Dirk Pieper von der Universitätsbibliothek Bielefeld von der Reporting-Praxis an ihren Einrichtungen. In der anschließenden Q&A-Session haben Teilnehmende die Gelegenheit, sich zu Erfahrungen und Herausforderungen, die ihnen in der Praxis begegnen, auszutauschen.

Diese Veranstaltung richtet sich an Mitarbeitende in wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen, die mit Monitoring und Berichterstattung im Kontext der Open-Access-Transformation betraut sind.

Zur Anmeldung

14.04.2026, 15:00–16:30 Uhr - Paneldiskussion „Open-Access-Reporting - Initiativen und Guidelines”

An dieser Paneldiskussion beteiligen sich Initiativen und Empfehlungen, die einen Bezug zum Open-Access-Reporting aufweisen. Die Veranstaltung kreist um die zentrale Frage, wie die Berichterstellung im Kontext der Open-Access-Transformation gestaltet werden kann und inwieweit eine einrichtungsübergreifende Standardisierung sinnvoll und möglich ist.

An der Paneldiskussion nehmen Expert*innen teil, die sich aus verschiedenen Perspektiven mit dem Thema befasst haben: Evgeny Bobrov (Mitinitiator der Open Science Monitoring Initiative) Stefanie Haustein (Ko-Autorin der Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL)) Bernhard Mittermaier (Ko-Autor eines Papiers der AG Wissenschaftliches Publikationssystem, Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen) Fatma Rebeggiani (Redaktionsmitglied des ersten deutschen Staatenberichts zur UNESCO-Empfehlung zu Open Science) Nina Schönfelder (Mitarbeit am Publikations- und Kostenmonitoring in Nordrhein-Westfalen (pkm_nrw))

Diese Veranstaltung richtet sich an Mitarbeitende in wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen, die mit Monitoring und Berichterstattung im Kontext der Open-Access-Transformation betraut sind.

Zur Anmeldung

Ein drittes Webinar mit Einblicken in die Erhebungspraxis befindet sich in Vorbereitung. Rückfragen können Sie gerne jederzeit an das Projektteam von OA Datenpraxis richten: info.oa-datenpraxis@listserv.dfn.de

Weitere Informationen über die Forschungsgruppe Information Management an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, einem der Partner im Projekt, finden sich auf der offiziellen Website der Gruppe. Informationen zum Helmholtz Open Science Office finden sich auf dieser Webseite.

Dieser Text – mit Ausnahme von Zitaten und anderweitig gekennzeichneten Abschnitten – steht unter der CC BY 4.0 DEED.

Bloggers

From the bloggers’ perspective, the discussion focused strongly on usability, legal clarity, and lowering barriers to participation. Many participants emphasized the need for clearer and more practical guidance on metadata integration. While metadata is widely recognized as essential for discoverability and preservation, bloggers often lack concrete instructions and standardized templates. There was a strong desire for predefined metadata schemas, clear explanations of required versus optional fields, and technical solutions, such as plugins, that could automate parts of the metadata workflow. Bloggers also asked for support on the subject of licenses. Additionally, Participants brought up that archiving comments would be a challenge, since the commentator’s consent would need to be required.

Information Infrastructure

Infrastructure experts focused on technical and legal constraints. One key issue was versioning: it remains unclear when a change to a blog or post should count as a new version and whether versioning should happen at the level of individual posts or entire blogs. Additionally, versioning is not yet an established practice for bloggers. Participants agreed that feeds and protocols such as RSS or ActivityPub function mainly as distribution tools and are not suitable for versioning or preservation. Instead, archiving and version control should take place within the blog’s backend or content management system. Legal concerns were especially pronounced for comments, as archiving content from many different authors without clear licenses is difficult. In practice, this often requires contacting authors individually, which is rarely scalable.

Plenary

In the plenary discussion, participants debated the role of libraries. Some argued that libraries could take on a stronger publishing role by hosting blogs, managing licenses, and assigning identifiers such as digital object identifiers (DOIs). Others favored a more limited role in which libraries provide technical infrastructure while leaving editorial responsibility with bloggers. It was also noted that institutional bureaucracy often discourages bloggers from using institutionally hosted solutions. One participant emphasized that the decentralised nature of blogs is already a strength, rather than a weakness. They proposed that there is no need for new inventions, but rather that there is a great potential to reuse and extend existing infrastructures. To conclude, rather than aiming for perfect solutions, participants agreed that simplifying processes and lowering entry barriers should be the highest priority. We will use this feedback to update the catalogue of requirements that can be commented on until February, 27th 2026. Updates on the publication of the revised catalogue will be published in English on our research group blog and in German on the project’s blog. The presentation associated with the event can be found here (Ochsner and Pampel 2026).

Further information about the research group can be found on our official website.

This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labelled parts – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

1. Common Technical Solutions for Text and Research Data Repositories:

Participants identified the development of shared metadata schemas and metadata exchange between different systems as fundamental challenges. To address this, they recommended clearly defining use cases before making technical decisions, aligning requirements with established standards, and clarifying organizational aspects, such as certification and trust-building.

2. Interaction Between Text and Data Repositories:

Key challenges arise from responsibilities being distributed across different organizational units (e.g., library and computing center), interoperability of various components, and the management of large data volumes. Participants recommended precisely defining requirements to determine whether an integrated or modular system is best, implementing consistent user guidance to reduce complexity, and establishing clear workflows for metadata cataloging.

3. Metadata Standards and Criteria for Interoperability:

While the DataCite metadata schema is a widely adopted standard,handling domain-specific metadata in generic repositories presents a particular challenge. Proposed solutions included creating internal guidelines and documentation, prioritizing long-term preservation, and recommending strategies to ensure compatibility with domain-specific infrastructures.

4. PIDs for Research Data Sets:

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and Handles have become established persistent identifiers for research data, while ORCID and ROR serve authors and institutions respectively. Participants recommended enhancing automation for metadata processes, using Data Stewards to raise researcher awareness, engaging with existing PID initiatives, and improving the usability of submission platforms.

5. Data Preparation Processes and Metadata Maintenance:

Continuous metadata maintenance proved to be a pressing challenge, particularly given limited time and staff. Participants emphasized that automation cannot replace the need for sufficient personnel. They recommended using controlled vocabularies and ROR links for institutional affiliations, and proposed integrating data literacy directly into university curricula.

6. Additional Challenges

Participants noted that metadata without curation is often of insufficient quality, significantly limiting discoverability and reusability. At the same time, researchers face time pressure and desire rapid publication. Proposed solutions included using AI to support metadata enrichment and quality control, assigning reserved DOIs, and aligning with NFDI (Nationale Forschungsdateninfrastruktur) developments to benefit from shared standards and expertise.

This guide provides a foundation for continued professional exchange. Repository operators, libraries, and institutional decision-makers will find valuable insights for establishing effective publication and cost monitoring workflows within their institutions.

We extend our sincere thanks to all forum participants who contributed their expertise and experience to this collaborative effort. We welcome your feedback and look forward to continuing this important dialogue as we collectively strengthen the Open Access repository landscape.

For more information about Pro OAR DE and our upcoming activities, please visit our website.

This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labeled sections – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

1. OpenAlex: Elevating Repositories as Primary Sources

OpenAlex where Kyle Demes serves as Chief Operating Officer, is a comprehensive index of scholarly works and research information. It aims to aggregate the full spectrum of research outputs, i.e., publications, authors, institutions, funders, and topics, into a single, fully open resource.

Kyle shared the exciting news that OpenAlex now recognizes institutional repositories as primary data sources, representing a shift from treating them merely as secondary links to alternative versions of existing works. This allows OpenAlex to mint new records for repository content, even when those works are absent from other aggregators. Demes also highlighted OpenAlex’s commitment to Open Code, Open Data, Open API, and Open User Interface practices.

This strategic pivot has fostered direct collaborations with major repositories, such as HAL (short for Hyper Articles en Ligne ‘Hyper Articles Online’) and Research Portal Denmark. OpenAlex is currently developing public “pipes” to ingest OAI‑PMH streams, thereby enhancing data curation and quality in accordance with OpenAIRE guidelines for repository managers.

Demes emphasizes the importance of distinguishing scholarly from non‑scholarly content and providing precise publication‑type descriptors. He argued that robust internal quality‑assurance processes are vital to improving the usability of metadata for downstream applications. However, the platform faces ongoing challenges. According to Demes, a particularly concerning trend is that works previously labeled as Open Access are being closed again, necessitating the review of numerous records included in OpenAlex.

2. COAR: Advancing Open Access Repositories

The Confederation of Open Access Repositories COAR with Kathleen Shearer as Executive Director, brings together 162 members and partners across 50 countries, uniting libraries, research institutions, and funding organizations in a global network.

Shearer spoke of COAR’s vision for an ecosystem of interoperable digital research objects that are dynamically versioned, searchable, amenable to text mining, and capable of near‑immediate dissemination. This ecosystem should support diverse post‑publication review models, recognize various contributorship roles, and integrate data, code, interpretations, preregistrations, data‑management platforms, and quality‑control mechanisms.

COAR’s Notify Initiative exemplifies this vision by developing a decentralized framework that connects research outputs with external services, such as overlay journals and open‑peer‑review platforms, through linked‑data notifications This has already been adopted by systems including DSpace, Harvard Dataverse, and EPrints.

Recent COAR projects highlight its commitment to enhancing repository functionality while maintaining openness. The organization’s July 2025 “Dealing with Bots” task force and its work on semantic multilingual searching address key technical challenges facing the repository community. COAR also promotes controlled vocabularies and Persistent Identifier (PID) interoperability through its PIDs Task Force, and a Community Framework for Good Practices which directly benefit platforms like OpenAlex that rely on high‑quality repository metadata. The newly launched International Repository Directory (IRD) further enhances accessibility to the global repository network, addressing limitations of older directory services.

3. Converging Priorities: The Value of Curation and Interoperability

OpenAlex and COAR share a fundamental commitment to rigorous curation and interoperability as cornerstones of effective open scholarly infrastructure. While OpenAlex focuses on ingesting and enriching repository metadata to build a comprehensive scholarly knowledge graph, COAR provides the normative and technical foundation that enhances this work. Through standardized vocabularies, PID coordination, best practice frameworks, its repository directory, and notification protocols, COAR creates the infrastructure that enables reliable and scalable metadata exchange. This synergistic relationship demonstrates how a well‑curated repository ecosystem can feed robust discovery platforms, ultimately advancing the broader mission of Open Science.

We extend our sincere thanks to Kyle, Kathleen, and all the participants. We welcome your feedback on all the activities of the project Pro OAR DE and look forward to continuing this important dialogue as we collectively strengthen the Open Access repository landscape.

For more information about Pro OAR DE and our upcoming activities, please visit our website.

This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labeled sections – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

Definitions of Publication and Cost Data

Publication data encompasses all information about published scientific works, including authors, titles, abstracts, and persistent identifiers (PIDs) such as DOIs. Cost data refers to the financial aspects of publication, such as publication fees, processing fees, and value-added tax. The diversity of categories, lack of glossaries, currency, completeness, and inconsistencies between disciplines were identified as central challenges. Clear definitions and collection of these data are essential for effective monitoring. Different departments within an institution, such as libraries, finance departments, and university management, have varying requirements for this information. Close collaboration and regular communication are therefore crucial to establish efficient and transparent workflows.

Integration of External Data Sources

The integration of various data sources into repositories poses significant technical challenges. A fundamental issue is avoiding duplicates, which regularly occur during data aggregation from multiple sources. Services like OpenAIRE can help aggregate data and remove duplicates, though the completeness and effectiveness of these functions remain under continuous development. Another challenge involves integrating proprietary research information systems (CRIS). The lack of standardization and limited interoperability of these systems significantly complicate automated data exchange. Many steps still need to be performed manually, limiting both scalability and data quality. In addition to establishing standard interfaces, participants recommended the data service DeepGreen for Open Access and secondary publications, noting that data verification workflows remain necessary.

Partners for Cooperation within the Institution and Beyond

Successful collaboration requires clear role descriptions and appropriate involvement of various stakeholders within the institution, such as faculties, libraries, IT departments, financial controlling, and other administrative units. Cross-institutional cooperation, including state initiatives, information infrastructure networks, and standardization projects, is equally important. Regular exchange with all stakeholders helps ensure that strategic considerations are coordinated and consistently developed. To this end, participants recommended the strategic selection of cost monitoring tools based on established standards and consistent alignment with best practices from other institutions.

Standards for Monitoring

Establishing uniform standards for recording and evaluating publication and cost data is essential. A controlled vocabulary for different data categories, such as cost and publication types, can improve the comparability of monitoring results. Projects like COAR and openCost offer promising approaches for developing such standards. Another complex area is the representation of costs for individual publications versus contract costs. Linking individual publications to overarching contracts poses an additional hurdle, particularly in transformative agreements where publication costs cannot be directly assigned to individual articles. To address the challenges posed by currently missing standards, participants recommended several practical solutions: systematic metadata comparisons between different sources, clear documentation of cost types, and the identification of net and gross amounts.

Workflows within the Institution and the Role of the Repository

Integrating publication and cost monitoring into existing institutional processes requires close cooperation between different stakeholders and departments. The use of different systems for various aspects of publication and cost monitoring, combined with heterogeneous cost data, pose central challenges. Participants recommended integrating all relevant functions into a single system, as this would make the processes significantly more efficient. The traditionally separate areas of cataloging, repository operation, and cost recording are gradually converging but remain far from full integration. Close cooperation between these areas for comprehensive cost and research reporting is seen as essential.

Additional Challenges

Beyond the challenges already mentioned, several additional issues can arise when implementing publication and cost monitoring systems. Communication with various stakeholders is often complex and can lead to uncertainties regarding fundamental questions, such as eligible publication costs and the role of the corresponding author. The continuous training of researchers and other involved parties also presents a challenge. Information events and training sessions are time-consuming to prepare and must be offered regularly. The high resource requirements for the comprehensive recording of all publications and their associated costs were also identified as challenges. The transition of cost management from Excel-based solutions to repositories or bibliographic systems poses a technical hurdle. Recommended solutions include direct presentations in scientific working groups, information offerings at events for early career researchers, and positioning as a central point of contact for publication-related matters.

This guide provides a foundation for continued professional exchange. Repository operators, libraries, and institutional decision-makers will find valuable insights for establishing effective publication and cost monitoring workflows within their institutions.

We extend our sincere thanks to all forum participants who contributed their expertise and experience to this collaborative effort. We welcome your feedback and look forward to continuing this important dialogue as we collectively strengthen the Open Access repository landscape.

For more information about Pro OAR DE and our upcoming activities, please visit our website.

This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labeled sections – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

Laura Rothfritz - Rescuing data, resisting loss

In her lightning talk, Laura shared results from her PhD research (Rothfritz 2025) which focuses on the first Data Rescue movement in 2017/2018 and asked when actions that feel resilient actually build resilience. Drawing on interview material she has collected for her thesis, she framed earlier data rescue efforts as “emergency curation”, which she defines as a form of first aid data duplication. This practice offered relief from fears around supposed data deletion but often produced redundancies of datasets without their contextual information, leading to unsustainable data practices. In her research, and in this talk, she is making a point to stress the importance of the affective consequences this sort of data activism might have, defined as such by my interviewees. These consequences range from feeling empowered and regaining agency in (politically) taxing times, to overwhelm and burnout.

In her research, Laura proposes the concept of anticipatory maintenance, defined as a preventive, future-oriented form of (infrastructural) care that turns imagined disruption into present routines aimed at sustaining continuity under uncertainty. She argues that in large parts this is what both iterations of the Data Rescue movement, in 2017/2018 and 2024/2025 respectively, might be seen as. In line with Jackson (2014) and Rubio (2025), she draws on broken-world thinking, which can be defined as a mindset of thinking with fragility and treating it as a normal, relational condition we live with. If fragility is seen as ordinary, then resilience is not a set goal but should be understood as a practice that must continually be negotiated. This is where future-oriented anticipatory maintenance might help with feeling resilient and simultaneously building resilience.

The slides from Laura’s presentation are available on Zendodo at:

Rothfritz, L. (2025, November 6). Rescuing Data, Resisting Loss - Emergency Curation, Anticipatory Maintenance And The Limits Of Feeling Resilient. Resilience in times of crisis: Strengthening Open Science against geopolitical pressures, Leiden, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17570709

Further information about our research group can be found on our official website.

This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labelled parts – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

1. Supporting Researchers

A central challenge identified was bridging the gap between researcher needs and library requirements, particularly regarding manuscript versions. While libraries typically work with Author Accepted Manuscripts (AAMs), researchers often prefer using the Version of Record (VoR) for secondary publication. Low awareness of institutional repositories awareness frequently prevents researchers from considering secondary publication altogether. Participants recommended strengthening the institutional presence of Open Access officers as central contact points, integrating Open Access topics into training programs, developing efficient workflows through connection with existing structures, and implementing automated notification systems for publication opportunities. Participants emphasized that secondary publication should not burden researchers but rather serve as a professional library service that minimizes administrative and technical effort.

2. Open Access Policies of Funding Organizations

Participants stressed the need for clear communication and comprehensible guidelines. They called for concrete frameworks for secondary publication, including a maximum embargo period of 12 months and use of the VoR. Sustainable availability should be ensured through long-term archiving in certified repositories. Given the inconsistent success with implementation, participants discussed whether stronger political mandates from federal and state governments could foster a more consistent Open Access landscape.

3. Publisher Open Access Policies

Participants identified core elements for transparent publisher policies: clear definitions of permitted secondary publication strategies, permissible manuscript versions and publication venues, and precise specifications regarding embargo periods, licensing conditions, and citation requirements. For legal certainty, they recommended documenting each publisher policy through screenshots or PDF exports. Practical tools and direct publisher contact were also recommended. To optimize processes, participants suggested verifying upfront whether authors possess the required manuscript version. Active networking in the open-access.network focus group on secondary publication.

4. Workflows and Opportunities for Automation

Participants emphasized aligning secondary publication processes with institutional priorities, particularly to promote Green Open Access. Technical solutions highlighted included open-source applications and automated interfaces to rights-checking platforms. For capturing publications, they recommended ORCID profiles, subject database exports, and specialized library tools. Participants prioritized standardization as a critical prerequisite for automation: routine procedures, email templates, and centralized documentation systems for publisher policies can significantly streamline workflows. They also recommended anchoring mandatory submission of accepted manuscript versions in institutional publication policies.

5. The Role of Green Open Access in the Open Access Transformation

Participants discussed resource challenges, observing that Gold Open Access tends to absorb most institutional capacity, leaving Green Open Access to be managed as a secondary priority. Nevertheless, some institutions reported successful Green publication pathways supported by technical solutions such as self-submission systems with rights transfer options and automated reminders. Despite declining significance due to transformative agreements, participants emphasized the strengths of the Green route: cost-free access would enable all institutions to participate in the Open Access movement, especially for older publications with restricted access. The increase in secondary publication could be strategically leveraged in future publisher negotiations, with the role of preprints considered in a differentiated, discipline-specific manner.

6. Reform of Secondary Publication Rights

Participants called for secondary publication of publisher versions under short embargo periods with CC BY licenses. The current 12-month embargo period was criticized as too long, as was the difficult-to-verify 50% funding clause in the German Copyright Act (UrhG § 38 Abs. 4). They recommended a multi-step approach to rights verification, systematic documentation of publisher policies, and interpreting them in favor of authors. Library and institutional leadership should be encouraged to actively utilize secondary publication rights, particularly given the difficulty of obtaining early manuscript versions in disciplines without established preprint cultures.

7. Additional Challenges

Participants identified technical challenges in the interaction between research information systems and repositories, particularly the need to distinguish between primary and secondary publications using metadata. Other core challenges included legal consultation, compliance with funding requirements, and the resource-intensive article acquisition process. Recommended solutions included increased networking for exchanging best practices, workflow automation, and adequate staffing capacity. Participants particularly emphasized the untapped potential of UrhG § 38 Abs. 4 and the need for systematic public outreach regarding secondary publication services.

This guide provides a foundation for continued professional exchange on secondary publication practices. Repository operators, libraries, and institutional decision-makers will find valuable insights for developing effective secondary publication workflows that support both researchers and institutional Open Access goals. We extend our sincere thanks to all forum participants who contributed their expertise and experience to this collaborative effort. We welcome your feedback and look forward to continuing this important dialogue as we collectively strengthen the Open Access repository landscape in Germany and beyond. BTW: We just published a study in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST): https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.70016. In this systematic review, we examine the key challenges institutional repositories face in advancing Open Access and supporting the dissemination of scholarly work. These include issues of strategic alignment, sustainable funding, staffing, technology, and researcher engagement. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating IRs with institutional strategies, strengthening professional and technical capacities, and ensuring consistent support to reinforce IRs as vital components of the Open Science ecosystem. For more information about Pro OAR DE and our upcoming activities, please visit our website. This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labeled sections – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

Standardisierung

An der Station „Standardisierung“ diskutierten die Teilnehmenden, welchen Herausforderungen sie im Hinblick auf die Vereinheitlichung von Prozessen in ihren Einrichtungen begegnen. Dabei zeigte sich, dass über klassische Publikationsformate hinaus auch weitere Objekte und Formen zunehmend relevant werden. Genannt wurden u. a. Konferenzbeiträge, die Publikationsgebühren in der Teilnahmegebühr enthalten, Einreichungsgebühren, Beiträge zu Diamond-Open-Access-Formaten sowie experimentelle Langform-Publikationen und Bücher im weiteren Sinne. Für letztere wurden zusätzliche Kostenaspekte wie Layout, Lektorat, Videoschnitt, Programmierung (z. B. für Publikationswebseiten), Archivierung oder Disseminationsgebühren hervorgehoben. Dies verdeutlicht, dass je nach Disziplin spezifische Erfahrungen und Bedarfe existieren, die für die Weiterentwicklung eines Metadatenstandards zur Erfassung von Publikationskosten berücksichtigt werden müssen. In Bezug auf die Kostendatenerfassung wurde deutlich, dass an vielen Einrichtungen noch erheblicher Unterstützungsbedarf besteht. Genannt wurden insbesondere die Herausforderung, Daten aus unterschiedlichen Quellen abzugleichen, die Weiterentwicklung bestehender Systeme oder Kostenmodule sowie Fragen des Rechtemanagements. Diskutiert wurde auch die Nutzung einrichtungsindividueller Tabellen und Formate, etwa im Kontext der Ablieferung an OpenAPC, sowie die Notwendigkeit, community-geleitet gemeinsame Standards für mehr Effizienz und Vergleichbarkeit zu entwickeln. Der Bedarf an Standardisierung wurde somit klar als Mittel zur individuellen Arbeitserleichterung und zur Bewältigung gemeinsamer Herausforderungen identifiziert. Dies unterstreicht zugleich die Relevanz, in der weiteren Projektphase von openCost verstärkt am internen Kostenmanagement wissenschaftlicher Einrichtungen zu arbeiten. Schließlich befasste sich die Diskussion mit der Frage, wie Publikationen zuverlässig als vertragsfinanziert identifiziert werden können. Hierbei wurde die Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek (EZB) als möglicher Referenzpunkt für einrichtungsindividuelle Vertragsinformationen hervorgehoben. Diskutiert wurde, welche bestehenden Systeme bereits genutzt werden, welche Synergien möglich sind und wie sich Schnittstellen – etwa zu LAS:eR, FOLIO oder über API-Abgleiche – künftig bestmöglich gestalten lassen. Auch die Erwartungen an eine künftige Vertrags-Registry wurden thematisiert, insbesondere in Hinblick auf Funktionen, Zugriffsebenen und die Integration in bestehende Workflows.

Transparenz

Die Station „Transparenz“ lud Teilnehmende dazu ein, über Maßnahmen zur Förderung von Kostentransparenz an ihren Einrichtungen zu sprechen. Teilnehmende betonten, dass es zunächst wichtig sei, den Adressatenkreis der Transparenzinitiative zu definieren: Für wen und zu welchem Zweck soll Transparenz geschaffen werden, und auf welcher Ebene? Daraus können Anforderungen an die Datengrundlage abgeleitet werden, etwa die Aggregationstiefe. In den Gesprächen stellte sich heraus, dass Transparenzbestrebungen an den Einrichtungen variieren. Ihr Erfolg ist häufig abhängig von der Ausgestaltung der Zusammenarbeit der beteiligten Einheiten, beispielsweise ob die datensammelnde Stelle Einsicht in das Finanzmanagementsystem erhält. Teilnehmende berichteten, dass Transparenz als Steuerungsmittel von Hochschulleitungen gewünscht ist. Die Erfahrung zeigt, dass ein Auftrag der Hochschulleitung Bibliotheken dabei hilft, dezentrale Kosten zu erfassen; er kann jedoch auch für Spannungen zwischen der Bibliothek und Fakultäten sorgen. Teilnehmende betonen, dass Transparenz nicht nur zur Kommunikation nach außen wichtig ist - Transparenz über die Aufteilung der Kosten innerhalb der Einrichtung ist ebenfalls wichtig. Mit Blick auf die Transparenz seitens der Verlage stellten die Teilnehmenden fest, dass sich einige Verlage bereits um Transparenz bemühen. Preise alleine seien jedoch schwer zu beurteilen, ohne auch die Produktionskosten zu kennen und einschätzen zu können, z.B. welche Ausgaben für Marketing angemessen sind. In Verhandlungen wäre ein vollständiger Überblick über die informationsbezogenen Finanzströme einer Einrichtung ideal, Non-Disclosure-Agreements stehen dem jedoch entgegen. Teilnehmende stellten fest, dass Non-Disclosure-Agreements vermieden werden können, wenn dies Teil des Mandats in Verhandlungen ist, wie ein Beispiel aus der Schweiz zeigt.

Offene Daten

Im Mittelpunkt der Diskussion an Station 3 stand die Nutzung offener Datenquellen für das Open-Access-Monitoring, insbesondere im Hinblick auf Publikationsaufkommen und -kosten. Die Teilnehmenden tauschten Erfahrungen, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven für die zukünftige Nutzung aus. Dabei zeigte sich, dass offene Daten bereits vielfältig eingesetzt werden, ihre Qualität und Verlässlichkeit jedoch stark variieren. Einige Teilnehmende berichteten, dass an ihren Einrichtungen offene Datenquellen genutzt werden – zum Beispiel OpenAlex für das Publikationsmonitoring. Die Erfahrungen zeigen, dass die Nutzung von OpenAlex einige Limitationen mit sich bringt. So variiert beispielsweise die Abdeckung der Disziplinen. OpenAlex erfasst außerdem eine Vielzahl an Publikationstypen, was zu einem „Overreporting“ führen kann. Eine weitere Herausforderung stellt die Datenqualität dar; etwa erschweren fehlende Affiliationsangaben eine effektive Nutzung. Teilnehmende betonten zudem, dass OpenAlex nur aktuelle Verlagslistenpreise abbildet, nicht jedoch die tatsächlich angefallenen Kosten. Der Dienst ist daher für das Kostenmonitoring nicht geeignet. Weitere genutzte offene Datenquellen sind unter anderem Unpaywall, Crossref, Sherpa/Romeo, DOAJ, Wikidata, DataCite und DBLP (insbesondere für die Informatik). Einige Einrichtungen ergänzen offene Daten durch Verlagsdashboards oder Verwaltungsdaten, um ein vollständigeres Bild zu erhalten. Über die Diskussion zum Thema Datenqualität hinaus wurde auch die Veränderlichkeit offener Datenquellen thematisiert: Angemerkt wurde, dass Aktualisierungen der Daten eine Herausforderung darstellen können. Betont wurde jedoch das Potenzial offener Daten. Sie, so die Teilnehmenden, können wesentlich zur Transparenz, Vergleichbarkeit und Effizienz in der Open-Access-Berichterstattung beitragen – vorausgesetzt, ihre Qualität, Pflege und Integration in institutionelle Infrastrukturen werden weiter verbessert. Damit offene Daten im Monitoring künftig eine tragende Rolle spielen können, nannten die Teilnehmenden mehrere Voraussetzungen: die Verbesserung der Datenqualität und Standardisierung, die Nachvollziehbarkeit von Änderungen und die Einführung einer Versionierung, die Verknüpfbarkeit mit institutionellen Datenquellen, transparente Governance-Strukturen für die Pflege und Weiterentwicklung der Daten sowie eine Community-basierte Qualitätssicherung und den Austausch zwischen Einrichtungen über Nutzungsperspektiven.

Fazit

Die Diskussionen an den drei Stationen verdeutlichten, dass die Komplexität von Open-Access-Modellen und Kostenstrukturen eine zentrale Herausforderung für das Monitoring darstellt. Zwar müssen organisatorische und technische Lösungen – wie die Etablierung geeigneter Workflows, die Zuweisung von Rollen oder die Anbindung von Schnittstellen – in jeder Einrichtung individuell umgesetzt werden. Zugleich wurde deutlich, dass alle Einrichtungen vor vergleichbaren Herausforderungen stehen, insbesondere im Bereich der Kostenerfassung. Daraus ergibt sich ein klarer Auftrag, gemeinsame Standards und Werkzeuge weiterzuentwickeln, die lokal angepasst werden können, aber dennoch einheitliche und vergleichbare Lösungen ermöglichen. Die Beiträge der Teilnehmenden zeigten auch, dass Zweck und Adressat*innen von Transparenzinitiativen definiert werden sollten, damit Maßnahmen zielgerichtet geplant werden können. Die Nutzung offener Datenquellen könnte durch Hilfestellungen zum Umgang mit Limitationen und zur Datenbereinigung gefördert werden. Für die drei Projekte OA Datenpraxis, openCost und Transform2Open wurden in dem sehr anregenden und informativen Workshop weitere Handlungsfelder für die weitere Arbeit identifiziert.

Hinweis: Dieser Post wird parallel bei openCost veröffentlicht.

Weitere Informationen über die Forschungsgruppe Information Management an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin finden sich auf der offiziellen Website der Gruppe.

Dieser Text – mit Ausnahme von Zitaten und anderweitig gekennzeichneten Abschnitten – steht unter der CC BY 4.0 DEED.

Discussion

Based on two thesis participants discussed the role of scholarly blogs as open access tools.

Conclusion

Scholarly blogs are already an important part of open science communication today: they create visibility, increase accessibility and enable a low-threshold form of scientific exchange. At the same time, numerous open questions arise with regard to institutional embedding, for example, questions about responsibilities, resources and technical standards.

Further information about the research group Information Management can be found on the official website at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labelled parts – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.

Leitfragen

Im Zentrum des Hands-on-Labs stand eine intensive Gruppenarbeitsphase in Form eines World Cafés. Alle Teilnehmenden durchliefen drei moderierte Stationen, an denen konkrete Fragestellungen zur Verstetigung von Projekten diskutiert wurden. Die Ergebnisse wurden anschließend im Plenum zusammengetragen und werden im Folgenden dokumentiert.

Perspektiven und nächste Schritte

Die Diskussionen zeigten, dass der Weg von der Projektförderung hin zu einer verstetigten Infrastruktur kein Automatismus, sondern ein aktiver, oft herausfordernder Gestaltungsprozess ist. Erfolgsfaktoren sind frühzeitige Beteiligung, klare Verantwortlichkeiten, transparente Kommunikationswege und tragfähige Organisationsformen. Besonders betont wurde die Bedeutung gemeinsamer Werte wie Offenheit, Teilhabe und Verlässlichkeit, aber auch das Spannungsfeld zwischen Idealismus und Pragmatismus. Das Hands-on-Lab verstand sich als Auftakt für einen kontinuierlichen Austausch zum Thema.

Weitere Informationen über die Forschungsgruppe Information Management an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin finden sich auf der [offiziellen Website] der Gruppe. (http://hu.berlin/infomgnt).

Dieser Text – mit Ausnahme von Zitaten und anderweitig gekennzeichneten Abschnitten – steht unter der CC BY 4.0 Lizenz.

1. Interoperability for Automated Data Flows

The participants identified essential prerequisites for successful interoperability. They emphasized that interoperability can only be guaranteed when the precise purposes of each actor and system are clearly defined as these purposes determine the required quality level, actual workload, and access authorizations for different data views (for researchers versus administrators) with appropriate granularity. This specificity is particularly important because interoperability exists in varying degrees, and the mapping of relationships must function bidirectionally between systems. Core challenges emerged around the standardization of metadata schemas, international connectivity through multilingual labels, and the consistent use of PIDs, particularly in the versioning of preprints. Attendees proposed several possible solutions. These included stakeholder involvement in determining responsibilities, clear guidance systems for data types, Linked Open Data, and regular quality management. Active participation in relevant networks and collaborative projects can further support these efforts.

2. Repository and CRIS - Complementary Systems

Critical organizational factors include the need for clear system definitions, the determination of a lead system, and the explicit institutional anchoring of responsibilities. Technical hurdles stem from diverse resource types and varying levels of metadata detail. The proposed solution begins with a comprehensive inventory analysis, followed by transparent assignment of responsibilities across departmental boundaries. The graphical representation of workflows was emphasized as a particularly valuable tool for communication among involved actors.

3. Standards for Research Information

Insufficient harmonization between the KDSF – Standard für Forschungsinformationen in Deutschland and library standards presents a significant obstacle, alongside further development of research evaluation criteria in the context of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) agreement. Participants identified consistent use of PIDs as a crucial technical prerequisite. CRIS systems show particular promise in adding value to the information budget through the systematic capture of publication costs.

4. System Diversity and Isolated Solutions

Participants identified several barriers, such as insufficient user-friendliness, imprecise requirement profiles, inadequate data management, and limited system upgradeability. To address these challenges, they proposed establishing institutional networking and cooperation strategies guided by a dedicated steering group. In addition, they highlighted the precise definition of responsibilities and the strategic involvement of the institutional leadership. Resources emerged as a crucial factor, with particular emphasis on securing adequate IT competencies. This should be complemented by professional project management. The group proposed that user requirements should be systematically documented through user stories and discussed in an interdisciplinary manner.

5. Diversity of Data - Publication Data and Other Research Information

At the organizational level, participants pointed to insufficient coordination as a central problem. This manifests in poor interdepartmental coordination, unclear responsibilities, and difficulties in collaboration. The situation is further complicated by the diversity of interest groups, different disciplinary cultures, and a lack of technical standards. To address these issues, participants recommended implementing a clear leadership strategy that meaningfully involves all stakeholders while precisely defining responsibilities. They placed particular emphasis on establishing ongoing dialogue with researchers, whose relief and support should be a central priority. The CoARA recommendations provide a valuable guiding framework for these efforts. From a technical perspective, participants advocated leveraging existing data sources like OpenAlex and adopting uniform data standards to enhance system interoperability.

6. Further Challenges

Organizationally, complexities arise in coordinating repositories and CRIS systems, requiring close collaboration among different organizational units. Technical considerations demand preserving the autonomy of individual systems while simultaneously developing uniform standards for various entry types. The disciplinary dimension adds another layer of complexity, requiring careful consideration of different institutional workflows. Attendees recommended an approach combining several key elements, such as a thoroughly documented, professionally moderated development process, sustainable financing models that ensure long-term viability, and targeted training initiatives at the intersection of administrative and technical requirements.

This guide provides a foundation for continued professional exchange. Repository operators, libraries, and institutional decision-makers will find valuable insights for dataflows between institutional Open Access repositories and CRIS systems.

We extend our sincere thanks to all forum participants who contributed their expertise and experience to this collaborative effort. We welcome your feedback and look forward to continuing this important dialogue as we collectively strengthen the Open Access repository landscape.

For more information about Pro OAR DE and our upcoming activities, please visit our website.

This text – excluding quotes and otherwise labeled sections – is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 DEED.