References
- Ackermann, MR, et al. 2019. Global persistent identifiers for conferences and Crossmark for conference proceedings - publishing in progress. URL:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1URIvkUpzcfjSd2YFISrdRIrOyrKSbFfhkdpGPRTAFI/edit# (visited on 03/18/2020). - Aktas, G and Demirel, B. 2019. The genuine needs of conference attendees: An analysis by the modern quality function deployment. International Journal for Quality Research, 13(1): 13–32. ISSN: 18006450. DOI: 10.24874/IJQR13.01-02
- Asadi, A, et al. 2018. Fake/Bogus conferences: Their features and some subtle ways to differentiate them from real ones. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2): 779–784. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9906-2
- Bandrowski, A, et al. 2015. The resource identification initiative: A cultural shift in publishing. F1000Research, 4: 134. ISSN: 2046-1402. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6555.2
- Bleiklie, I. 2018.
New Public Management or Neoliberalism, Higher Education . In: Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions, 1–6. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. ISBN: 978-94-017-9553-1. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_143-1 - Bogner, A, Littig, B and Menz, W (eds.), 2009. Experteninterviews: Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder. 3., grundlegend überarbeitete Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. ISBN: 9783531162591.
- Brown, J, Wilmers, C and Haak, L. 2015. Final Report: Sloan ORCID Adoption and Integration Program 2013–2014. URL:
https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Final_Report_Sloan_ORCID_Adoption_and_Integration_Program_2013_2014/1290632 . DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1290632.v1 - Bryl, V, et al. 2014. What is in the proceedings? Combining publisher’s and researcher’s perspectives. In: García Castro, A, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Semantic Publishing co-located with the 11th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2014). Anissaras, Greece,
May 25th, 2014 . - Cousijn, H. 2020. The new DataCite Membership and Fees Model. DOI: 10.5438/xn0c-m298
- Cousijn, H, et al. 2021. Connected research: The potential of the PID graph. Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2(1): 100180. DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2020.100180
- Dappert, A, et al. 2017. Connecting the persistent identifier ecosystem: Building the technical and human infrastructure for open research. Data Science Journal 16. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2017-028
- Demeranville, T, et al. 2016. Organisation Identifiers - Minimum viable product requirements. URL:
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Organisation_Identifiers_-_Minimum_viable_product_requirements/3479141 . DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3479141.v1 - Eaton, SE. 2018. Avoiding Predatory Journals and Questionable Conferences: A Resource Guide. DOI: 10.11575/PRISM/20
- Färber, M. 2019.
The Microsoft academic knowledge graph: A linked data source with 8 billion triples of scholarly data . Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 113–129. Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_8 - Fenner, M and Petryszak, R 2020. FREYA webinar - The PID Graph in practice - Jupyter Notebook demonstration. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4004426
- Grudniewicz, A, et al. 2019. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786): 210–212. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
- Haak, LL, et al. 2012. ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4): 259–264. ISSN: 09531513. DOI: 10.1087/20120404
- Hansen, TT and David, BP. 2018. The impact of academic events—A literature review. Research Evaluation, 27(4): 358–366. ISSN: 0958-2029. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvy025
- Hauss, K. 2018. Der Nutzen wissenschaftlicher Konferenzen in der Nachwuchsausbildung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. ISBN: 978-3-658-19625-7. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-19626-4
- Hauss, K. 2020. What are the social and scientific benefits of participating at academic conferences? Insights from a survey among doctoral students and postdocs in Germany. Research Evaluation, 24: 21. ISSN: 0958-2029. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa018
- Helfferich, C. 2019.
Leitfaden- und Experteninterviews . In: Baur, N and Blasius, J (eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 669–686. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, ISBN: 978-3-658-21307-7. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_44 - Klump, J and Huber, R. 2017. 20 years of persistent identifiers – Which systems are here to stay? Data Science Journal, 16. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2017-009
- Klump, J, Huber, R and Diepenbroek, M. 2016. DOI for geoscience data - How early practices shape present perceptions. Earth Science Informatics, 9(1): 123–136. ISSN: 1865-0473. DOI: 10.1007/s12145-015-0231-5
- Kochetkov, D, Birukou, A and Ermolayeva, A. 2020. The Importance of Conference Proceedings in Research Evaluation: a Methodology for Assessing Conference Impact. arXiv: 2010.01540 [cs.DL].
- Lammey, R. 2020. Solutions for identification problems: A look at the Research Organization Registry. Science Editing, 7(1): 65–69. ISSN: 2288-8063. DOI: 10.6087/kcse.192
- Laplante, P, et al. 2009. Quality in Conference Publishing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(2): 183–196. ISSN: 0361-1434. DOI: 10.1109/TPC.2009.2017989
- Lawrence, S, et al. 2001. Persistence of Web references in scientific research. Computer, 34(3): 26–31. ISSN: 00189162. DOI: 10.1109/2.901164
- Lehnert, K, et al. 2021. IGSN 2040 Summary Report: Defining the Future of the IGSN as a Global Persistent Identifier for Material Samples. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5118289
- Ley, M. Aug. 2009. DBLP: Some lessons learned. Proc. VLDB Endow, 2(2): 1493–1500. ISSN: 2150-8097. URL. DOI: 10.14778/1687553.1687577
- Lynch, C. 2005. Identifiers and their role in networked information applications. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 24(2): 17–20. ISSN: 00954403. DOI: 10.1002/bult.80
- Mayring, P and Fenzl, T. 2019.
Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse . In: Baur, N and Blasius, J (eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 3: 633–648. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. ISBN: 978-3-658-21307-7. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42 - Meho, LI. 2019. Using Scopus’s CiteScore for assessing the quality of computer science conferences. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1): 419–433. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.006
- Nassi-Calò, L. 2017. Evaluation metrics in science: Current status and prospects. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 25:
e2865 . DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.0000.2865 - Object Management Group. 2017. Unified Modeling Language. Version 2.5.1.
https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDF . - Paskin, N. Dec. 2009.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System . Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 1586–1592. Third Edition. CRC Press. DOI: 10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044418 - Peroni, S and Shotton, D. 2018.
The SPAR Ontologies . In: Vrandečić, D et al. (eds.), The Semantic Web – ISWC 2018, 119–136. Cham: Springer International Publishing. ISBN: 978-3-030-00668-6. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-00668-6_8 - Przyborski, A and Wohlrab-Sahr, M. 2019.
Forschungsdesigns für die qualitative Sozialforschung . In: Baur, N and Blasius, J (eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 41: 105–123. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. ISBN: 978-3-658-21307-7. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_7 - Steele, C, Butler, L and Kingsley, D. 2006. The publishing imperative: The pervasive influence of publication metrics. Learned Publishing, 19(4): 277–290. ISSN: 09531513. DOI: 10.1087/095315106778690751
- Stocker, M, et al. 2020. Persistent identification of instruments. Data Science Journal, 19. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2020-018
- Vahdati, S, et al. 2020. A comprehensive quality assessment framework for scientific events. Scientometrics, 126(1): 641–682. ISSN: 0138-9130. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03758-1
- Wilkinson, MD, et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3: 160018. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18