Social Sciences And Humanities Research Research Articles

Understanding Researchers’ Perspectives on Work Tasks in Digital Humanities and Computational Social Sciences

The usefulness of research infrastructures (RIs) for digital humanities (DH) and computational social sciences (CSS) depends on their capability to support research work tasks. RIs can provide more effective support and services when they have a clear understanding of the work practices and specific tasks researchers are engaged in. This paper explores the ways of working of social sciences and humanities (SSH) scholars to develop resources that truly endorse their data-intensive research processes. Particularly, the study investigates how SSH scholars interact with digital tools and materials to both determine their information needs and how to better support them. A qualitative analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews with potential end-users of a national RI for the DH and CSS that is currently under development revealed three themes: digitizing SSH research, meeting the information needs related to DH/CSS, and supporting DH/CSS research. Based on our findings, we were able to create an understanding of the work task-based requirements of SSH scholars that can be used to inform designs for improved RIs. Suggestions for enhancing the sustainability of resources and services in SSH are also put forth, emphasizing the importance of understanding and accommodating the unique scholarly practices within these fields.

Expanding the scope and roles of social sciences and humanities to support integrated ecosystem assessments and ecosystem-based management

Abstract Understanding social-ecological systems (SESs) is an important part of ecosystem-based management (EBM). One of the main decision support frameworks to develop scientific advice for EBM is integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs). Human dimensions in SESs are primarily captured through indicators derived from three social sciences: economics, anthropology, and sociology. The breadth of social sciences and humanities (SSH) research is much greater than those three fields, but they are generally underused in natural science-based decision support processes such as IEAs. Greater contributions of SSHs can enhance IEAs through various direct (e.g. to develop indicators) and indirect ways (e.g. to establish and maintain ethical practices). We examine a wider range of SSH disciplines and conclude that scientific advice processes that inform EBM can benefit from broader integration of SSH theories and methods through themes of contextualizing, facilitating, communicating, evaluating, and anticipating. We see this an opportunity to both widen the vocabulary used to describe social scientists and those who work in humanities in IEAs, and apply the underlying worldviews used to conduct SSH research to fundamentally enhance the IEA process and to further progress in EBM.

Putting the User in the Loop: Developing a Research Infrastructure for Social Sciences and Humanities Research

ABSTRACTThe development of research infrastructures (RIs) for social sciences and humanities (SSH) research is still incipient. Few of the existing facilities face several challenges that complicate researchers' interactions with RIs and its digital tools and materials. This study explores the creation of an information service for conducting data‐intensive SSH research by placing the end‐user at the center. Particularly, the study investigated what factors affect the development of the RI and if this process is integrating all the information needs of end‐users, putting a special focus on how these facilities should be evaluated. A qualitative analysis of 13 semi‐structured interviews with SSH scholars and computer/data scientists revealed three themes: developing a RI, needs and expectations of the RI, relationship with user feedback and user interactions. Based on our findings, we were able to raise several design implications to create more successful and sustainable information services for supporting SSH research processes.

Addressing disparities in European Social Sciences & Humanities research on climate, energy and mobility: insights from a Call for Evidence survey and analysis workshops on the challenges and opportunities of working in Southern and Central & Eastern Europe.

Despite the efforts of the EU, disparities remain in terms of the participation of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) researchers from both Southern and Central & Eastern Europe in research collaborations, as compared to Northern and Western European scholars. To better understand these disparities, the EU Horizon Europe SSH CENTRE project ran a Call for Evidence over December 2022 to March 2023. Specifically, respondents were asked about the challenges they faced in conducting SSH research on climate, energy and/or mobility, as well as the ways in which these challenges could be addressed. The Call's online survey was focused on maximising diversity, and it gathered views and experiences of 137 Southern and Central & Eastern European SSH researchers. The sample was balanced across genders (71 men, 66 women) and the three main themes (82 energy, 88 climate, 53 mobility), and included at least one respondent from each of the 27 target countries. The highest numbers of respondents were from Hungary (19) and Spain (21). To ensure that interpretation and analysis of the data was grounded in regional contexts, we ran two parallel analysis workshops hosted in a hybrid format (combining online and in-person participants): one in Pécs for Central & Eastern European SSH researchers (34 participants); and one in Bilbao for Southern European SSH researchers (26 participants). These workshops focused on discussing the relationship between SSH-STEM disciplines, analysing the institutional contexts, and discussing the implications for domestic and EU research funding relations. During the workshops, data collected through the survey were collectively analysed and the most important reflections were gathered into a common structure of 'Challenges' and 'Ways forward'. Key messages from the workshop are being distilled into a Position Statement that focuses on the common elements while also emphasising possible differences between Southern and Central & Eastern Europe.

Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 priority questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures

Energy transitions are at the top of global agendas in response to the growing challenges of climate change and international conflict, with the EU positioning itself as playing a pivotal role in addressing climate risks and sustainability imperatives. European energy transition policies identify ‘smart consumption’ as a key element of these efforts, which have previously been explored from a predominantly technical perspective thus often failing to identify or address fundamental interlinkages with social systems and consequences. This paper aims to contribute to interdisciplinary energy research by analysing a forward looking ‘Horizon Scan’ research agenda for smart consumption, driven by the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Reflecting on an extensive systematic Delphi Method exercise surveying over 70 SSH scholars from various institutional settings across Europe, we highlight what SSH scholars see as future directions for smart consumption research. Building from seven thematic areas (under which are grouped 100 SSH research questions), the study identifies three key ‘shifts’ this new smart research agenda represents, when compared to previous agendas: (1) From technological inevitability to political choice, highlighting the need for a wider political critique, with the potential to open up discussions of the instrumentalisation of smart research; (2) From narrow representation to diverse inclusion, moving beyond the shortcomings of current discourses for engaging marginalised communities; and (3) From individual consumers to interconnected citizens, reframing smart consumption to offer a broader model of social change and governance. Social Sciences and Humanities scholarship is essential to address these shifts in meaningful (rather than tokenistic) ways. This agenda and the shifts it embodies represent key tools to enable better interdisciplinary working between SSH and teams from the technical and natural sciences.

Open Science Training in TRIPLE

This case study focuses on the online training activities on Open Science delivered within the H2020 project Transforming Research through Innovative Practices for Linked Interdisciplinary Exploration (TRIPLE, Grant Agreement 863420). The project is dedicated to building a discovery platform for the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and is committed to promoting and supporting the uptake of Open Science within research practices. In order to address SSH research and training communities’ needs for enhanced competencies on Open Science and for stronger support in the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) management of digital training materials, two reusable outputs were produced. The work carried out is presented as a novel approach to tackle the issues related to FAIRifying research and training practices and to create training resources whose reusability and relevance reaches beyond the project lifetime and framework. The case study presents the methods by which the results were produced so as to encourage and enable their future adaptation and reuse. The TRIPLE Open Science training series (result 1) targets SSH researchers, research support personnel and infrastructure developers in need of practical tools and specific skills to integrate Open Science practices in their workflows. The training series provides 12 competence-oriented online training events in Open Access whose training materials are available as Open Educational Resources (OER). The TRIPLE Training Toolkit (result 2) targets training organisers and research performing organisations who wish to design and manage training events as OERs and increase the impact of their training following good practice. The Toolkit is an easily reproducible workflow designed to help trainers minimise the time they spend in managing training events following FAIR practice. The workflow follows a FAIR-by-design method to address the frequent findability and reusability issues related to the management of digital training resources.

Mapping research activities and societal impact by taxonomy of indicators: uniformity and diversity across academic fields

PurposeSeveral frameworks have been developed to map and document scientific societal interaction and impact, each reflecting the specific forms of impact and interaction that characterize different academic fields. The ReAct taxonomy was developed to register data about “productive interactions” and provide an overview of research activities within the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The purpose of the present research is to examine whether the SSH-oriented taxonomy is relevant to the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines when clarifying societal interactions and impact, and whether the taxonomy adds value to the traditional STEM impact indicators such as citation scores and H-index.Design/methodology/approachThe research question was investigated through qualitative interviews with nine STEM researchers. During the interviews, the ReAct taxonomy and visual research profiles based on the ReAct categories were used to encourage and ensure in-depth discussions. The visual research profiles were based on publicly available material on the research activities of the interviewees.FindingsThe study provided an insight into how STEM researchers assessed the importance of mapping societal interactions as a background for describing research impact, including which indicators are useful for expressing societal relevance and impact. With regard to the differences between STEM and SSH, the study identified a high degree of cohesion and uniformity in the importance of indicators. Differences were more closely related to the purpose of mapping and impact assessment than between scientific fields. The importance of amalgamation and synergy between academic and societal activities was also emphasised and clarified.Practical implicationsThe findings highlight the importance of mapping societal activities and impact, and that societal indicators should be seen as inspiring guidelines depending on purpose and use. A significant contribution is the identification of both uniformity and diversity between the main fields of SSH and STEM, as well as the connection between the choice of indicators and the purpose of mapping, e.g. for impact measurement, profiling, or career development.Originality/valueThe work sheds light on STEM researchers' views on research mapping, visualisation and impact assessment, including similarities and differences between STEM and SSH research.

GoTriple, a central access point for the social sciences and humanities

The TRIPLE project (Targeting Researchers through Innovative Practices and Linked Exploration) is developing a discovery platform dedicated to the social sciences and humanities (SSH). It gathers 21 partners from 15 European countries and is funded under the European Commission programme INFRA EOSC-02-2019 “Prototyping new innovative services’’.The multicultural and multilingual GoTriple platform is harvesting three kinds of data available in nine languages (Croatian, English, French, German, Italian, Greek, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish). The beta version, available from October 2021, gives access to more than 1.6 million publications and data sets from big aggregators and smaller repositories to cover all SSH disciplines. GoTriple also responds to requests from SSH researchers to foster interdisciplinarity and enhance collaboration. For this reason, GoTriple will make available researcher profiles and research projects. Five innovative services complement this approach by making available the so called Trust Building System, Recommender System, Visualization Tool, Open Annotation Tool, and Crowdfunding Platform.The TRIPLE project seeks to improve fairness of open science and ensure that research material is more accessible to SSH researchers and to society by (1) making SSH scientific publications available to as many people as possible without popularizing or simplifying the content and by (2) encouraging better connections between SSH and various sections of society (e.g. SMEs, Journalists, Policy Makers).The TRIPLE project has made use of a co-design approach from the very start (late 2019), which includes relevant stakeholders through interviews and workshops to ensure that their needs are understood and that the platform will meet their needs.The TRIPLE project has also developed an innovative approach to evaluate the success of the platform based on compass indicators of equality, diversity, and community building. These indicators will help to advance open science. Moreover, the project is currently engaging users to build a thriving community.The OPERAS research infrastructure, supporting open scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities in the European Research Area will take an active part in the governance and sustainability of the platform.At the conference we will present:▸ some aspects of the research underpinning the creation of GoTriple, including the Co-design work,▸ the key functionalities of GoTriple and how they can benefit research in the humanities,▸ how the platform will ensure discoverability and accessibility of SSH resources and highlight European diversity in terms of culture, language, and practices, and▸ the complexities of building new technologies serving the humanities.

An agenda for future Social Sciences and Humanities research on energy efficiency: 100 priority research questions

Decades of techno-economic energy policymaking and research have meant evidence from the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)—including critical reflections on what changing a society’s relation to energy (efficiency) even means—have been underutilised. In particular, (i) the SSH have too often been sidelined and/or narrowly pigeonholed by policymakers, funders, and other decision-makers when driving research agendas, and (ii) the setting of SSH-focused research agendas has not historically embedded inclusive and deliberative processes. The aim of this paper is to address these gaps through the production of a research agenda outlining future SSH research priorities for energy efficiency. A Horizon Scanning exercise was run, which sought to identify 100 priority SSH questions for energy efficiency research. This exercise included 152 researchers with prior SSH expertise on energy efficiency, who together spanned 62 (sub-)disciplines of SSH, 23 countries, and a full range of career stages. The resultant questions were inductively clustered into seven themes as follows: (1) Citizenship, engagement and knowledge exchange in relation to energy efficiency; (2) Energy efficiency in relation to equity, justice, poverty and vulnerability; (3) Energy efficiency in relation to everyday life and practices of energy consumption and production; (4) Framing, defining and measuring energy efficiency; (5) Governance, policy and political issues around energy efficiency; (6) Roles of economic systems, supply chains and financial mechanisms in improving energy efficiency; and (7) The interactions, unintended consequences and rebound effects of energy efficiency interventions. Given the consistent centrality of energy efficiency in policy programmes, this paper highlights that well-developed SSH approaches are ready to be mobilised to contribute to the development, and/or to understand the implications, of energy efficiency measures and governance solutions. Implicitly, it also emphasises the heterogeneity of SSH policy evidence that can be produced. The agenda will be of use for both (1) those new to the energy-SSH field (including policyworkers), for learnings on the capabilities and capacities of energy-SSH, and (2) established energy-SSH researchers, for insights on the collectively held futures of energy-SSH research.

Defining discovery: Is Google Scholar a discovery platform? An essay on the need for a new approach to scholarly discovery.

This essay discusses the concept of discovery, intended as content discovery, and defines it in the new context of Open Science, with a focus on Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Starting from the example of Google Scholar, the authors show that this well established service does not address the current needs, practices, and variety of discovery. Alternatives in terms of technical choices, features, and governance, do however exist, offering richer and more open discovery. The paper presents in particular the implementations and research work of the H2020 project TRIPLE (Transforming Research through Innovative Practices for Linked Interdisciplinary Exploration). Dedicated to the building of a discovery platform for the SSH, the project is meant to address the specificities and evolution of discovery in this field. Prevailing scholarly resource platforms like Google Scholar limit discovery by focussing only on publications, and favouring through their algorithm well-cited papers, English content, and discipline-specific resources. A limitation in the context of cross-disciplinary and collaborative Open Science, such a service more specifically hinders discovery in the SSH. Characterized by a fragmented landscape, a variety of languages, data types, and outputs, research in the SSH requires services that fully exploit discovery potentialities. Moreover, a survey conducted within the TRIPLE project showed that most SSH researchers use Google Scholar as their starting point, and that they recognise the lack of control they have with this system. Beyond the extension of features and content, transparency is the other important criterion for the building of an Open Infrastructure actually serving the research community. In light of this, we present in some detail the GoTriple platform, which exploits today's technological potential and incorporates the best known functionalities in order to unveil more and innovative scholarly outputs and lead to international and interdisciplinary research project collaborations.

Book Publishing Patterns in Social Sciences and Humanities in Lithuania: Analysing Trends in DB “Lituanistika”

The aim of this article is to reconstruct and analyse scholarly book (or monograph) publication patterns in Lithuanian Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) registered in national database “Lituanistika”. Database “Lituanistika” provides a good starting point and repository of empirical data as it indexes and abstracts different types of scholarly publications in SSH, monographs included. The empirical part of the research consists of finding registered monographs, attributing them to the individual SSH disciplines, comparing the number of monographs and scholarly articles in various SSH, and retracing the timeline of registered monographs across different disciplines etc. The analytical approach of our research is based on an idea of (social) constructivism. We aim at reconstructing the motives behind the publishing of scholarly books or abstaining from such practice. In this article we argue that the motives to publish (or not to publish) a scholarly book are a product of a broader Lithuanian social, institutional and disciplinary context, which influences and regulates the actions of individual SSH researchers.

Defining discovery: Is Google Scholar a discovery platform? An essay on the need for a new approach to scholarly discovery

This essay discusses the concept of discovery, intended as content discovery, and defines it in the new context of Open Science, with a focus on Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Starting from the example of Google Scholar, the authors argue that this well-established service does not address the current needs, practices, and variety of discovery. Alternatives in terms of technical choices, features, and governance, do however exist, offering richer and more open discovery. The paper presents, in particular, the implementations and research work of the H2020 project TRIPLE (Transforming Research through Innovative Practices for Linked Interdisciplinary Exploration). Dedicated to the building of a discovery platform for the SSH, the project is meant to address the specificities and evolution of discovery in this field. Prevailing scholarly resource platforms like Google Scholar limit discovery by focussing only on publications, and favouring through their algorithm well-cited papers, English content, and discipline-specific resources. A limitation in the context of cross-disciplinary and collaborative Open Science, such a service more specifically hinders discovery in the SSH. Characterized by a fragmented landscape, a variety of languages, data types, and outputs, research in the SSH requires services that fully exploit discovery potentialities. Moreover, a survey conducted within the TRIPLE project showed that most SSH researchers use Google Scholar as their starting point, and that they recognise the lack of control they have with this system. Beyond the extension of features and content, transparency is the other important criterion for the building of an open infrastructure serving the research community. In light of this, we present the GoTriple platform, which exploits today’s technological potential and incorporates the best known functionalities, in order to unveil more and innovative scholarly outputs and lead to international and interdisciplinary research project collaborations.

Beyond technology: A research agenda for social sciences and humanities research on renewable energy in Europe

This article enriches the existing literature on the importance and role of the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in renewable energy sources research by providing a novel approach to instigating the future research agenda in this field. Employing a series of in-depth interviews, deliberative focus group workshops and a systematic horizon scanning process, which utilised the expert knowledge of 85 researchers from the field with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and expertise, the paper develops a set of 100 priority questions for future research within SSH scholarship on renewable energy sources. These questions were aggregated into four main directions: (i) deep transformations and connections to the broader economic system (i.e. radical ways of (re)arranging socio-technical, political and economic relations), (ii) cultural and geographical diversity (i.e. contextual cultural, historical, political and socio-economic factors influencing citizen support for energy transitions), (iii) complexifying energy governance (i.e. understanding energy systems from a systems dynamics perspective) and (iv) shifting from instrumental acceptance to value-based objectives (i.e. public support for energy transitions as a normative notion linked to trust-building and citizen engagement). While this agenda is not intended to be—and cannot be—exhaustive or exclusive, we argue that it advances the understanding of SSH research on renewable energy sources and may have important value in the prioritisation of SSH themes needed to enrich dialogues between policymakers, funding institutions and researchers. SSH scholarship should not be treated as instrumental to other research on renewable energy but as intrinsic and of the same hierarchical importance.

A citizens workgroup helps researchers reflect on their work

Abstract. In our transdisciplinary project (http://www.transens.de) several academic disciplines work on questions and solutions for high-level nuclear waste disposal in Germany. Adding to this interdisciplinary setting, in our sub-project on trust, we have enlisted a group of 16 citizens (citizens workgroup, CWG), reflecting with us on our research with regard to research questions and approaches. In this talk, we present results from a joint workshop of researchers and the CWG on the role of trust in scientists. We want to understand how participants perceive and relate to science and how this may affect trust in scientists and experts. During a first workshop (conducted online in March 2021), the CWG members were allocated to three breakout groups (1)–(3) to discuss three guiding questions: a. What expectations do you have of a scientist from Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)/Natural Sciences and Engineering (NSE) in the TRANSENS project? b. What characterizes a scientist from SSH/NSE that you trust? c. What would have to happen for you to no longer trust him/her? The group in breakout room (1) was asked to answer questions (a)–(c) for a fictitious SSH researcher. The group in breakout room (2) was asked to do the same for a fictitious NSE researcher. The group in breakout room (3) was asked whether they perceived differences in the trust of SSH and NSE researchers. For SSH we found that a scientist should be sympathetic and non-condescending, represent a neutral point of view, and consider all opinions. Remarkably, discussants in this group struggled to define a role for SSH scientists in high-level waste disposal research. Some participants ascribed SSH a moderating or mediating role. If necessary (e.g. communication of results), mediation between the NSE and the public can be added. SSH scientists may train other scientists with regard to their performance. Participants stated that scientists from NSE should present information in full and clarify the current state of research (provisional nature of knowledge acknowledged). A scientist should not conceal any information, uncertainties, or risks, be neutral and objective, have experience in the field (professionalism, experience, reputation), and not exclusively reproduce one's own opinion or spread untruths. In all groups, participants judged the NSE as “harder”, more serious and more tangible. It was also discussed that the scientist's appearance is of great importance and that a scientist can “pick up” the audience in an exciting way when communicating. Personal experience was mentioned several times in all groups as a basis for trust. These results match findings on the effect of value similarity (Siegrist et al., 2000, and own survey in 2020 in Germany): If a person is perceived as advocating similar values, it is more likely that I trust that person. Personal experience of – among other issues – similar values may increase trust. Moreover, and importantly, trust also emerges when participants know exactly how issues will be considered, e.g. if input from the CWG is considered or not – and if not: why? In general, participants want to be taken seriously. Thus, transparent and binding rules for all participants may be key for a relationship of trust.

Understanding the Societal Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities: Remarks on Roles, Challenges, and Expectations.

Science is increasingly expected to help in solving complex societal problems in collaboration with societal stakeholders. However, it is often unclear under what conditions this can happen, i.e., what kind of challenges occur when science interacts with society and what kind of quality expectations prevail. This is particularly pertinent for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), which are part of the object they study and whose knowledge is always subject to provisionality. Here we discuss how SSH researchers can contribute to societal problems, what challenges might occur when they interact with societal stakeholders, and what quality expectations arise in these arrangements. We base our argumentation on the results of an online consultation among 125 experts in Germany (representatives from SSH, learned societies, stakeholders from different societal groups, and relevant intermediaries).

Representation of Slovak Research Information (A Case Study)

In the light of the increasing importance of the societal impact of research, this article attempts to address the question as to how social sciences and humanities (SSH) research outputs from 2019 are represented in Slovak research portfolios in comparison with those of the EU-28 and the world. The data used for the analysis originate from the R&D SK CRIS and bibliographic Central Register of Publication Activities (CREPČ) national databases, and WoS Core Collection/InCites. The research data were appropriate for the analysis at the time they were structured, on the national level; of high quality and consistency; and covering as many components as possible and in mutual relations. The data resources should enable the research outputs to be assigned to research categories. The analysis prompts the conclusion that social sciences and humanities research outputs in Slovakia in 2019 are appropriately represented and in general show an increasing trend. This can be documented by the proportion represented by the SSH research projects and other entities involved in the overall Slovak research outputs, and even the higher ratio of SSH research publications in comparison with the EU-28 and the world. Recommendations of a technical character include research data management, data quality, and the integration of individual systems and available analytical tools.

Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities?

Altmetric.com is one of the leading and widely used commercial providers of altmetrics. Altmetrics is a broad term that encapsulates the collection of multiple digital indicators related to scholarly work (NISO, 2016). In this paper, the group of altmetrics provided by Altmetric.com is called Altmetric.com scores. This study assesses whether Altmetric.com scores are currently effective indicators to evaluate the research impact of social sciences and humanities (SSH). This research covers 1,253,028 records from the SSCI and A&HCI for five years (2013–2017), three publication types (articles, reviews, and proceedings papers), and 10 altmetrics provided by Altmetric.com to test the effectiveness of Altmetric.com scores through four proposed dimensions, including transparency, fairness, availability, and validity. Results show that the transparency of Altmetric.com scores is underexposed. And Altmetric.com scores favored English publications authored by North American researchers. Except for Altmetric attention score, Posts, Readers, and Tweeters, the data presence of most Altmetric.com scores was insufficient. As to research impact, Altmetric.com scores can help to reflect different impacts of SSH research. Overall, the results suggest that Altmetric.com scores are not yet sufficiently effective for evaluating the impact of SSH research though they can provide new insights into impact evaluation.

GOTRIPLE: A User-Centric Process to Develop a Discovery Platform

Social sciences and humanities (SSH) research is divided across a wide array of disciplines, sub-disciplines and languages. While this specialization makes it possible to investigate the extensive variety of SSH topics, it also leads to a fragmentation that prevents SSH research from reaching its full potential. The TRIPLE project brings answers to these issues by developing an innovative discovery platform for SSH data, researchers’ projects and profiles. Having started in October 2019, the project has already three main achievements that are presented in this paper: (1) the definition of main features of the GOTRIPLE platform; (2) its interoperability; (3) its multilingual, multicultural and interdisciplinary vocation. These results have been achieved thanks to different methodologies such as a co-design process, market analysis and benchmarking, monitoring and co-building. These preliminary results highlight the need for respecting diversity of practices and communities through coordination and harmonization.

The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities

This article presents a vision for a scholarly communication research infrastructure for social sciences and humanities (SSH). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the pressing need to access research outputs without the traditional economic and temporal barriers. This article explores the current scholarly communication landscape, assessing the reasons for the slower uptake of open access in SSH research. The authors discuss such frontiers as commercial interests, sources of academic prestige and discipline-specific genres. This article defines and discusses the key areas in which a research infrastructure can play a vital role in making open scholarly communication a reality in SSH: (1) providing a federated and easy access to scattered SSH outputs; (2) supporting publication and dissemination of discipline-specific genres (e.g. monographs, critical editions); (3) providing help with evaluation and quality assurance practices in SSH; (4) enabling scholarly work in national languages, which is significant for local communities; (5) being governed by researchers and for researchers as a crucial factor for productive, useful and accessible services; (6) lastly, considering the needs of other stakeholders involved in scholarly communication, such as publishers, libraries, media, non-profit organisations, and companies. They conclude that a scholarly-driven, inclusive, dedicated infrastructure for the European Research Area is needed in order to advance open science in SSH and to address the issues tackled by SSH researchers at a structural and systemic level.

The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities.

This article presents a vision for a scholarly communication research infrastructure for social sciences and humanities (SSH). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the pressing need to access research outputs without the traditional economic and temporal barriers. This article explores the current scholarly communication landscape, assessing the reasons for the slower uptake of open access in SSH research. The authors discuss such frontiers as commercial interests, sources of academic prestige and discipline-specific genres. This article defines and discusses the key areas in which a research infrastructure can play a vital role in making open scholarly communication a reality in SSH: (1) providing a federated and easy access to scattered SSH outputs; (2) supporting publication and dissemination of discipline-specific genres (e.g. monographs, critical editions); (3) providing help with evaluation and quality assurance practices in SSH; (4) enabling scholarly work in national languages, which is significant for local communities; (5) being governed by researchers and for researchers as a crucial factor for productive, useful and accessible services; (6) lastly, considering the needs of other stakeholders involved in scholarly communication, such as publishers, libraries, media, non-profit organisations, and companies. They conclude that a scholarly-driven, inclusive, dedicated infrastructure for the European Research Area is needed in order to advance open science in SSH and to address the issues tackled by SSH researchers at a structural and systemic level.