Online Survey on Open Journal Systems in Germany and the Network OJS-de.net
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the beginning of 2015 an online survey on the open source software Open Journal Systems (OJS) was launched in Germany to determine how the software is used at German research institutions and what scholars require when working with OJS. The survey was launched by the collaborative project OJS-de.net, a network initiative to support the use of the software in the German publishing landscape. It is a joint effort of the Center for Digital Systems (CeDiS) at the Freie Universität Berlin, Heidelberg University Library, and the Kommunikations-, Informations-, Medienzentrum (KIM) at the University of Konstanz. The following article presents an overview of the survey results and shows how these are implemented by OJS-de.net to improve the software adaption for German speaking researchers.Au début de l’année 2015, un sondage en ligne sur le logiciel open source Open Journal System (OJS) a été lancé en Allemagne, afin de savoir comment il est utilisé et mis en œuvre dans les institutions de recherche allemandes, et de déterminer les attentes qu’ont les chercheurs en l’utilisant et ce qui peut au contraire leur manquer. L’enquête a été lancée par le projet collaboratif « OJS-de.net », une nouvelle initiative collective allemande visant à encourager l’utilisation du logiciel OJS dans le paysage éditorial allemand. C’est un effort conjoint du Center for Digital Systems (CeDiS) de la Freie Universität Berlin, de la bibliothèque universitaire de Heidelberg, et du Kommunikations-, Informations-, Medienzentrum (KIM) de l’université de Constance. L’article qui suit présente un aperçu des résultats de l’enquête, et montre comment ils sont exploités par « OJS-de.net » pour améliorer l’adaptation du logiciel aux chercheurs germanophones.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".