Transparency promotes the efficiency of research processes

The three key learnings:

• If you plan to publish research results and the associated data from the outset, this can contribute to a more structured and efficient way of working. This often eliminates the need for time-consuming post-processing of data and code. The willingness to disclose can also promote a certain discipline and diligence in research, because one is aware that the work will later be accessible and verifiable for others.
• Making research data and scripts accessible online has the advantage that they arouse long-term interest and can be used by others. At the same time, they are stored in a secure and structured location, which is particularly helpful if you frequently change institutions. Such repositories, such as GitHub for code scripts or Zenodo for data and supporting materials, offer a reliable way of storing important documents permanently and keeping them accessible.
• An important learning for science communication is to present your own research results precisely and not to get carried away with statements that go beyond your own research. Consultation with journalists and cooperation with the press office can help to avoid misunderstandings and ensure correct reproduction.

When did you first come into contact with the topic of Open Science? Was it in the context of your dissertation?

BS: Yes, the topic became really relevant for me with the dissertation. I had little contact with it during my Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes; course content was mainly taught via learning platforms such as Moodle, and we worked with freely accessible data from public institutions. I only got to know open science as an independent topic during my doctorate at the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) under the supervision of Professor Justus Haucap. Right at the beginning of my doctoral phase, he got me interested in the topic and, above all, the complexity of this market. In my dissertation, I analysed the effects of the DEAL agreements between German universities and large academic publishers on the competitive structures and market mechanisms in academic publishing.

Was there a particular trigger for your interest?

BS: It was during the literature research phase for our first joint project, an econometric evaluation of DEAL contracts and their impact on market processes: I thought to myself: “This market is so huge, so relevant for science and progress and at the same time so tricky because there is often no pricing mechanism for researchers and a complicated triangular relationship between publishers, libraries and researchers.” That has fascinated me ever since.

You have dealt with the DEAL agreement and the open access transformation. Just because you deal with a phenomenon in theory doesn’t necessarily mean that you apply it in practice, does it?

BS: That’s true, of course. I practise it, of course, but my own Open Science practice is not necessarily causally linked to my research. On the one hand, I have dealt with the topic theoretically and learnt a lot about open access, which is only one part of open science. On the other hand, aspects such as replicability in research tended to come up in other contexts, for example in doctoral courses or in dialogue with more experienced researchers. There it became clear how important it is for empirical research to be replicable, for codes to be shared that work and are reproducible instead of hiding countless experiments. In this respect, both areas have grown independently of each other for me.

What benefits do you experience through the application of Open Science practices?

BS: To be honest, I don’t have a counterfactual scenario to know what would be different without these practices. What definitely helps me is the discipline of disclosure: If you know from the beginning that you will publish empirical project data and codes at the end, you work in a more structured and efficient way. It saves a lot of time and effort because you don’t have to prepare the data and code afterwards. This leads to a more thorough way of working, even if the other approach is not necessarily worse or incorrect. But you work more consciously when you know that the work will be openly accessible at the end.

When you publish in open access, which route do you choose?

BS: Usually the green route first, as I initially circulate my papers as working papers. These are published on various platforms, often via EconStor or institutional repositories. I also use ArXiv or SSRN, depending on my co-authors. But every publication actually starts with a working or discussion paper.

What about your publications in publishing houses?

BS: Economics is highly hierarchical and ranking-oriented when it comes to final publications. It’s not uncommon to hear about “submission trees” in which you determine which (top) journal you submit to first and where you go in the event of rejection. If a paper is accepted, I usually decide in favour of the publisher’s standard option. With publishers such as Springer and Wiley, publication often takes place via Gold Open Access through the DEAL contracts. At De Gruyter, I’ve also had the opportunity to use gold open access because there was a framework agreement with Heinrich Heine University. But I don’t yet have a standardised, ex ante route. As I always deposit all my work in repositories first, you could perhaps say that the green route is standard for me, as the working papers are available online anyway. But that doesn’t rule out open access for journal publication. However, the costs for Gold Open Access without a framework agreement can be high and as a young researcher it is sometimes difficult to find sufficient funding, even in Germany, where universities are very well positioned in international comparison.

How do you manage the publication of your research data and scripts? Given the importance of replication in science that you have already mentioned, I would be interested to know if and how you share these resources with the scientific community.

BS: For me, this is absolutely essential, and I now always do this when I work with data, even without an explicit request from a journal. I usually make the code scripts available on GitHub. While I’m working, they are usually private, and as soon as a working paper or a publisher’s publication is available, I make them public. For data, I often use publishing repositories if it is possible to upload the data there, for example openICPSR, which is currently operated by a consortium of US universities and scientific societies. If there are no explicit specifications, I like to work with Zenodo, a CERN project. I upload the data, code files and usually a handout that guides me through the replication process. The practical thing about this is that the data and papers are available online and can thus continue to arouse interest. At the same time, they are stored in a secure location, which is particularly helpful if you frequently change universities or simply change computers. In this way, all important data and documents remain well-structured and securely stored in their final version, for example on a server or in a repository.

Does open peer review play a role for you?

BS: Yes, definitely, as more and more journals are publishing open peer reviews. To be honest, I don’t use a special platform for this, but if my reviews are to be published, I’m happy to agree to it.

Are these reviews published anonymously or by name?

BS: That varies, both occur.

What do you prefer?

BS: Both variants have advantages and disadvantages. If your own name is mentioned, you have “skin in the game” and your reputation stands for the quality and also the tone of the review, which reduces unfair judgements. However, there are also situations in which anonymity makes sense in order to enable honest, critical feedback.

Does it happen that a collaboration develops after a review?

BS: Not yet, as I haven’t been involved for long and open review is not yet widespread. However, I could imagine that such contacts could arise, as sometimes interesting ideas are developed that could lead to further collaborations that go far beyond the reviewed paper. It would be unfair to include this as a criterion for an acceptance recommendation in the review. But a co-operation is almost inevitable.

To what extent does science communication play a role for you? I have seen on your website that some of your papers, including those in collaboration with others, have been widely publicised. Do you endeavour to make your research accessible to a wider audience?

BS: Yes, communicating my research findings beyond the boundaries of the discipline and bringing them into society plays an important role for me. It was exciting to see how the paper on the productivity effects of COVID-19 was picked up in the media worldwide. I was able to learn how differently journalists perceive scientific content and what they value. In my view, it is crucial to understand that as a scientist, you have to be very precise and careful in your wording, while the media often favours exaggerated statements. The aim is to make scientific findings understandable and relevant to both the scientific community and a wider audience without losing scientific accuracy.

What tips would you give to researchers who have little experience with media work?

BS: It is important not to get bogged down in discussing specific individual cases and to be careful with political recommendations. You should stick to what your own research actually proves to be reliable and robust and not get carried away with statements that go beyond your own findings. It can be helpful to consult with your dialogue partners before publication to ensure that your statements are reproduced as you meant them. Co-operation with the university press office can also be useful, because that’s where the professionals are. However, my impression in the past has been that representatives of the press like to take the direct route to the researchers. As their own e-mail address is always on the title page of the paper and other contact options are easy to find online, it was often easier for them to contact my co-authors or me directly than to go via the press office.

How do you see the future of economic research with regard to Open Science?

BS: Open science is undoubtedly on the rise and will continue to establish itself, especially in the form of open code and open data. And that’s a good thing! When it comes to data, however, you have to bear in mind that economics often and gladly works with confidential company data that cannot always be published, either for reasons of intellectual property or because company partners do not want this. This is because these data often have a particular depth of detail or are simply still unexplored, which makes them promising for high-calibre journal publications. In some cases, shareability has to take a back seat. In such cases, it is often decided to keep the data confidential and only publish the results in order to avoid potential conflicts.

But in general, open science will continue to establish itself. We can already see that the leading journals have very strict requirements for replication and data publication. These standards will presumably be gradually transferred to the entire range of scientific journals and gradually become established there. While one-click replications are still rather rare today, in a few years they will probably not only be the standard in empirical economic research, but may also become common for empirical theses.

Thank you very much!

The interview was conducted on 3 September 2024 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.

About Dr Wolfgang Benedikt Schmal:

Dr Wolfgang Benedikt Schmal is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Economic Theory at Ilmenau University of Technology. He conducts research in the field of competition economics and deals with questions of market regulation and the economic analysis of market structures, particularly in the academic publication market and in corporate cartels. His work includes both theoretical and empirical studies, some of which are interdisciplinary and linked to information science.
He holds a Master’s degree in Quantitative Economics from University College Dublin and a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the Free University of Berlin.

Contact: https://www.tu-ilmenau.de/universitaet/fakultaeten/fakultaet-wirtschaftswissenschaften-und-medien/profil/institute-und-fachgebiete/fachgebiet-wirtschaftstheorie/dr-wolfgang-benedikt-schmal

Personal website: https://sites.google.com/view/wbschmal

ORCID-ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2400-2468

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wolfgang-benedikt-schmal/

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/W-Benedikt-Schmal

GitHub: https://github.com/schmalwb