{"found":50149,"hits":[{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"von Schr\u00f6der","given":"Asta","url":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5852-771X"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://winoda.de","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"winoda","status":null,"subfield":"1209","title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"
\n

Bei der Erstellung unserer Selbstlernkurse haben wir verschiedene Formate ausprobiert, um unsere Inhalte visuell ansprechend und interaktiv zu pr\u00e4sentieren.
Fr\u00fcher (ja, noch w\u00e4hrend des Corona-Lockdowns) wurden f\u00fcr E-Learning oft “klassische” Office-Formate genutzt. Allerdings fehlt Textdokumenten oder Pr\u00e4sentationsfolien, die als PDF-Dokumente (f\u00fcr Skripte, Pr\u00e4sentationen oder Arbeitsbl\u00e4tter) zum Download angeboten werden, in der Regel das “interaktive” Element, z.B. ein integriertes Quiz.

\n\n\n\n

Dabei lassen sich mit H5P kinderleicht interaktive Lehrmaterialien erstellen.
H5P ist ein html-basiertes Tool, mit dem verschiedene Quiz-Typen (Multiple-Choice, L\u00fcckentext, Flashkarten) einfach und ohne Programmierkenntnisse erstellt werden k\u00f6nnen. Das geht schnell, leicht und zuverl\u00e4ssig. Die fertigen H5P Dateien lassen sich in Lernplattformen (Moodle integriert H5P seit 2020 und Version 3.9.), oder gleich auf der eigenen Webseite (z. B. WordPress, Drupal) einbinden und ausprobieren.

\n\n\n\n

Die Erstellung von Quizfragen erm\u00f6glicht unser Moodle-System nat\u00fcrlich eigentlich auch mit Bordmitteln, immerhin wurde es f\u00fcr E-Learning entwickelt. Aber H5P sind leichter zu erstellen, sehen netter aus und lassen sich miteinander kombinieren. Zudem sind sie meist barrierefrei, es gibt es eine gute Dokumentation und zahlreiche Online-Tutorials.
Vor allem aber geht H5P weit \u00fcber kleine Quizze hinaus. Seiten-Layout-Elemente (Column, Page) lassen sich bspw. in ein Interactive Book integrieren.

\n\n\n\n

Und anders als ein Moodle Book lassen sich H5P-Books (oder Course Presentations, Game Maps, Portfolios und andere komplexere Formate) leicht au\u00dferhalb von Moodle nutzen.
So k\u00f6nnen wir f\u00fcr einen Kurs oder ein Kursmodul Inhalte und Aktivit\u00e4ten dauerhaft als Sinneinheit b\u00fcndeln, aus edu-sharing heraus f\u00fcr unser Moodle (und die Welt) freigeben, und in allen m\u00f6glichen Systemen und Kontexten wiederverwenden (lassen).
Das hei\u00dft, mit dem Umweg \u00fcber H5P k\u00f6nnen wir unser Moodle FAIR nutzen.

\n\n\n\n

F\u00fcr die Erstellung komplexerer Aktivit\u00e4ten erm\u00f6glicht H5P die Einbettung anderer H5P-Typen. So kann man nach einem “Infodump” Zwischenfragen stellen oder Definitionen abzufragen, oder vorbereitete Fragen zu einem Abschlussquiz kombinieren.
Will man einem bspw. einer Course Presentation eine Multiple-Choice-Frage hinzuf\u00fcgen, kann diese Frage auch \u00fcber den Zwischenspeicher aus einem bereits vorhandenen Quiz her\u00fcberkopiert und eingef\u00fcgt werden. Nicht elegant, aber funktioniert.

\n\n\n\n

Die Nutzung und Erstellung von H5P ist kostenlos (online Editoren verlangen oft eine Registrierung und/oder lassen sich den Speicherplatz bezahlen). Den Lumi Desktop Editor kann man aber auch lokal installieren. Auch unser Moodle-LMS und unser Repositorium (edu-sharing) haben jeweils einen integrierten H5P-Editor, mit dem sich Materialien direkt in der jeweiligen Systemumgebung erstellen und von dort einbinden lassen. Praktisch, weil sich unser Repo um Versionierung und Metadaten k\u00fcmmert!

\n\n\n\n

Es gibt aber auch Nachteile:
Weder Moodle noch edu-sharing erlauben ein einfaches Zwischenspeichern w\u00e4hrend der Erstellung. Will man speichern, schlie\u00dft sich der Editor und man muss die Datei mit mehreren Klicks erneut \u00f6ffnen – gerade bei gr\u00f6\u00dferen und komplexeren H5P-Elementen ist das m\u00fchsam und zeitaufwendig.
Lumi erlaubt ein Zwischenspeichern mit STRG+S.
Und ja: h\u00e4ufiges and regelm\u00e4\u00dfiges Zwischenspeichern ist sinnvoll, denn manchmal geht das Speichern auch schief…

\n\n\n\n

Deshalb erstelle ich die geplanten Quizfragen auch in separaten Textdokumenten. Wenn man sie gleich richtig formatiert – z. B. die L\u00f6sungen f\u00fcr L\u00fcckentexte in “*” einschlie\u00dft – kann man die Texte einfach kopieren und einf\u00fcgen.
Auch \u00dcberlegungen zum Layout und zur Illustration von Kursabschnitten “skizziere” ich mir lokal in PowerPoint – Text und Abbildungen auf die Folie, Alt-Text und Bildquellen in die Notizenfunktion. Was wie doppelte Arbeit klingt, hat mich leider schon oft gerettet.

\n\n\n\n

F\u00fcr mich hat sich folgender Workflow bew\u00e4hrt: in der Datei mit dem Textentwurf zum jeweiligen Lernziel stehen auch eine oder mehrere Quizfragen, die sich mit diesem Text beantworten lassen. So konnte ich die “Pr\u00fcfungen” zusammen mit den Texten den Kolleg:innen zum Peer-Review geben.
Die Quizfragen (Multiple-Choice, L\u00fcckentext, Wahr-Falsch-Fragen etc) – bekamen die Lernziel-ID und den Quiztyp als Titel, und sind so in jedem Kontext pr\u00e4zise einem Text zuzuordnen. (Und in Obsidian verlinkt!)

\n\n\n\n

Das alles funktioniert, aber leider nur in bestimmten Grenzen. H5P wurde als interaktive Erg\u00e4nzung zu statischem Content entwickelt – je gr\u00f6\u00dfer die Datei und je komplexer das Format, desto instabiler wird es offenbar.
Ein H5P Interactive Book w\u00e4re die nat\u00fcrliche L\u00f6sung f\u00fcr unsere Kurse, weil es die Gesamtheit der integrierten Quizzes am Ende auf einer Seite zusammengefasst auswerten k\u00f6nnte. Aber die Layout-Optionen sind sehr begrenzt – ein zweispaltiges Layout mit Bild links, Text rechts ist nicht m\u00f6glich. Das passte leider nicht zu unseren Pl\u00e4nen, Inhalte im Dialog unserer Personas zu vermitteln.

\n\n\n\n

H5P Course Presentations kann man (mit etwas Pr\u00e4sentationserfahrung) recht intuitiv bedienen und erlauben ein pr\u00e4zises Layout – aber in der Praxis “verschlucken” sie sich h\u00e4ufig an Farben oder Bildern, die nach dem Speichern pl\u00f6tzlich verschwunden waren.
Ich nutze unterschiedliche Textfarben f\u00fcr jede Persona, und viele Illustrationen f\u00fcr die Anschaulichkeit. Ich kann nicht mehr aufz\u00e4hlen, wie oft ich alle Bilddateien erneut einf\u00fcgen musste, nur weil ich einen Tippfehler korrigieren musste.

\n\n\n\n
\"Screenshot
Screenshot einer Quiz-Seite in einem H5P-Portfolio, das einen WiNoDa Selbstlernkurs enth\u00e4lt. (Demn\u00e4chst verf\u00fcgbar!)
\n\n\n\n

Wir haben uns schlie\u00dflich f\u00fcr H5P Portfolios entschieden: diese erlauben \u00fcber Platzhalter ein flexibleres Layout und bis zu vier Kapitelhierarchien. Mit ein paar schnell erstellten Templates ist es bequem zu bedienen und erm\u00f6glicht eine einheitliche Bildsprache \u00fcber Ersteller und Kurse hinweg.
Leider hat man kaum Kontrolle \u00fcber Breite oder H\u00f6he von Layoutelementen, sodass die Darstellung auf verschiedenen Monitoren unterschiedlich ausf\u00e4llt. Nicht ideal, aber es wird wohl funktionieren.

\n\n\n\n

H\u00e4tten wir noch etwas mehr Zeit, h\u00e4tte ich gerne LiaScript ausprobiert – ein Markdown-basiertes Format, das speziell zur Erstellung von OER entwickelt wurde. Vielleicht kann ich Euch demn\u00e4chst mehr dazu erz\u00e4hlen, aber f\u00fcr unsere bereits geplanten Kurse kann unser Team momentan keine weiteren Toolkompetenzen mehr aufbauen. Unser Fokus liegt jetzt allein auf der Fertigstellung und Publikation.

Habt Ihr mit LiaScript oder H5P schon Erfahrung? Was nutzt Ihr zur Erstellung interaktiver OER?

\n\n\n\n
Links\nhttps://h5p.org/\nhttps://lumi.education/de\nhttps://edu-sharing.com/ \nhttps://liascript.github.io/
\n\n\n\n

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/6n2nz-eem24","guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=12420","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot_WiNoDa-Moodle_2.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1773187200,"rid":"w8xm2-qev45","summary":"Bei der Erstellung unserer Selbstlernkurse haben wir verschiedene Formate ausprobiert, um unsere Inhalte visuell ansprechend und interaktiv zu pr\u00e4sentieren.Fr\u00fcher (ja, noch w\u00e4hrend des Corona-Lockdowns) wurden f\u00fcr E-Learning oft \"klassische\" Office-Formate [\u2026]","tags":["WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal","FAIR","H5P","OER"],"title":"OER erstellen mit H5P","updated_at":1780864497,"url":"https://winoda.de/2026/03/11/oer-erstellen-mit-h5p/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"von Schr\u00f6der","given":"Asta","url":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5852-771X"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://winoda.de","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"winoda","status":null,"subfield":"1209","title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"
\n

When creating our self-study courses, we tried out various formats to present our content in a visually appealing and interactive way.
In the past (yes, still during the coronavirus lockdown), often \"classic\" Office formats were used for e-learning. However, text documents or presentation slides that are offered for download as PDF documents (for scripts, presentations, or worksheets) usually lack \"interactive\" elements, such as an integrated quiz.

\n\n\n\n

But with H5P, creating interactive teaching materials is child’s play.
H5P is an HTML-based tool that can be used to create various types of quizzes (multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, flashcards) easily and without any programming knowledge. It’s quick, easy, and reliable. The finished H5P files can be integrated into learning platforms (Moodle has integrated H5P since 2020 and version 3.9) or directly into your own website (e.g., WordPress, Drupal).

\n\n\n\n

Of course, our Moodle system also allows us to create quiz questions using its built-in tools, as it was developed for e-learning. But H5P are easier to create, look nicer, and can be combined with each other. In addition, they are mostly accessible, there is good documentation, and numerous online tutorials.
Above all, H5P goes far beyond small quizzes. Page layout elements (column, page) can be integrated into an interactive book, for example.

\n\n\n\n

And unlike a Moodle Book, H5P Books (or Course Presentations, Game Maps, Portfolios, and other more complex formats) can easily be used outside of Moodle.
This allows us to bundle content and activities for a course or course module into a permanent unit of learning, share it from edu-sharing with our Moodle (and the world), and reuse it in all kinds of systems and contexts.
In other words, by taking a detour via H5P, we can make our Moodle FAIR.

\n\n\n\n

For creating more complex activities, H5P allows you to embed other H5P types. This means you can ask questions or quiz definitions after an \"infodump,\" or combine prepared questions into a final test.
If you want to add a multiple-choice question to a course presentation, for example, you can copy and paste this question from an existing quiz using the clipboard. It’s not elegant, but it works.

\n\n\n\n

The use and creation of H5P is free of charge (online editors often require registration and/or charge for storage space). However, the Lumi Desktop Editor can also be installed locally. Our Moodle LMS and our repository (edu-sharing) also have an integrated H5P editor, which can be used to create materials directly in the respective system environment and integrate them from there. This is practical because our repository takes care of versioning and metadata!

\n\n\n\n

However, there are also drawbacks:
Neither Moodle nor edu-sharing allow simple saving during creation. If you want to save, the editor closes and you have to reopen the file with several clicks \u2013 this is tedious and time-consuming, especially with larger and more complex H5P elements.
Lumi allows you to save your work with CTRL+S.
And yes: frequent and regular saving is a good idea, because sometimes saving can go wrong\u2026

\n\n\n\n

That’s why I create the planned quiz questions in separate text documents. If you format them correctly right away\u2014e.g., enclosing the answers for fill-in-the-blank texts in \"*\"\u2014you can simply copy and paste the texts.
I also \"sketch\" my ideas for the layout and illustrations of course sections locally in PowerPoint \u2013 text and images on the slide, alt text and image sources in the notes function. What sounds like double work has unfortunately saved me many times.

\n\n\n\n

The following workflow has proven successful for me: the file containing the draft text for the respective learning objective also includes one or more quiz questions that can be answered using this text. This allowed me to give the tests to my colleagues for peer review along with the texts.
The quiz questions (multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, true/false questions, etc.) were given the learning objective ID and the quiz type as their title, so they can be precisely assigned to a text in any context. (And linked in Obsidian!)

\n\n\n\n

All of this works, but unfortunately only within certain limits.H5P was developed as an interactive supplement to static content\u2014the larger the file and the more complex the format, the more unstable it apparently becomes.
An H5P Interactive Book would be the natural solution for our courses because it could evaluate all of the integrated quizzes at the end on a single page. However, the layout options are very limited\u2014a two-column layout with images on the left and text on the right is not possible. Unfortunately, this did not fit in with our plans to convey content in dialogue with our personas.

\n\n\n\n

H5P Course Presentations are quite intuitive to use (with a little presentation experience) and allow for precise layout \u2013 but in practice, they often \"swallow\" colors or images – they suddenly disappear after saving.
I use different text colors for each persona and lots of illustrations for clarity. I can’t count how many times I’ve had to reinsert all the image files just because I had to correct a typo.

\n\n\n\n
\"Screenshot
Screenshot of a Quizpage in an H5P Portfolio used for a WiNoDa self-study course (coming soon).
\n\n\n\n

We ultimately decided on H5P Portfolios: these allow for a more flexible layout using placeholders and up to four chapter hierarchies. With a few quickly created templates, it is easy to use and enables a consistent visual language across creators and courses.
Unfortunately, there is little control over the width or height of layout elements, so the display varies on different monitors. Not ideal, but it will probably work.

\n\n\n\n

If we had a little more time, I would have liked to try LiaScript\u2014a Markdown-based format developed specifically for creating OER. Maybe I can tell you more about it soon, but for our already planned courses, our team are currently unable to build up any further tool skills. Our focus is now solely on completing and publishing.

Do you have any experience with LiaScript or H5P? What do you use to create interactive OER?

\n\n\n\n
Links\nhttps://h5p.org/\nhttps://lumi.education/en/\nhttps://edu-sharing.com/\nhttps://liascript.github.io/
\n\n\n\n

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/11qxz-t4k64","guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=12435","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot_WiNoDa-Moodle_2.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1773187200,"rid":"9b75c-hrt08","summary":"When creating our self-study courses, we tried out various formats to present our content in a visually appealing and interactive way.In the past (yes, still during the coronavirus lockdown), often [\u2026]","tags":["Nicht Kategorisiert","WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal_en","FAIR","H5P","OER"],"title":"Creating OER with H5P","updated_at":1780864495,"url":"https://winoda.de/en/2026/03/11/creating-oer-with-h5p/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bellini","given":"Ginevra"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://winoda.de","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"winoda","status":null,"subfield":"1209","title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"
\n

Ein Dinosaurierfossil von einem anderen Kontinent. Ein gepresstes Herbariumblatt aus dem Jahr 1847. Was k\u00f6nnte daran ethisch problematisch sein?

\n\n\n\n

Ziemlich viel, wie sich herausstellt.

\n\n\n\n

Nehmen Sie an unserer brandneuen Seminarreihe \"Ethik in der Praxis: Der Umgang mit sensiblen Daten aus wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen\" teil und entdecken Sie, wie sich ethische Fragen rasch h\u00e4ufen, wenn man Pflanzen, Tiere und Gesteine, die vor Jahrzehnten oder Jahrhunderten gesammelt wurden, genauer unter die Lupe nimmt.

\n\n\n\n
\"Dinosaurierskelett
\n\n\n\n

Wer hat diese Objekte gesammelt und wie? Um wessen Land, wessen Wissen und wessen Gemeinschaften ging es dabei? Reproduzieren die aus diesen Sammlungen gewonnenen Daten alte Hierarchien, bedrohen sie gef\u00e4hrdete Arten oder untergraben sie die Rechte indigener V\u00f6lker \u2013 sogar noch heute?

\n\n\n\n

Von gepl\u00fcnderten Artefakten bis hin zu genetischen Ressourcen, von der kolonialen Geschichte des Erwerbs bis hin zu Rahmenwerken wie den CARE-Prinzipien f\u00fcr die indigene Datenverwaltung \u2013 unsere Expertenrunde wird die historischen und ethischen Dimensionen von Sammlungsdaten beleuchten, praktische Instrumente f\u00fcr verantwortungsbewusstes Handeln vorstellen und dabei helfen, einen Weg zu gerechteren und transparenteren Praktiken aufzuzeigen.

\n\n\n\n

Alle Veranstaltungen finden online statt, sind in englischer Sprache und kostenlos zug\u00e4nglich. Bitte registrieren Sie sich: https://winoda.de/lernangebote/seminarreihe-ethik-in-der-praxis/

\n\n\n\n

\u00dcbersicht \u00fcber die Vortr\u00e4ge:

\n\n\n\n

Daten in der Gesellschaft und Datafizierung: Wem sind Daten wichtig? \u2013 Prof. Sabina Leonelli [21. April, 13:15 \u2013 14:40 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Wie geht man mit umstrittenen naturhistorischen Sammlungen und deren Daten um? Fallstudien aus dem Museum f\u00fcr Naturkunde Berlin \u2013 Dr. Ina Heumann & Dr. Katja Kaiser [29. April, 14:00 \u2013 16:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Die Entstehung von Biodiversit\u00e4tsdaten: Die Digitalisierung von Sammlungen und ihre politische Dimension in naturhistorischen Museen \u2013 Dr. Roos Hopmann [6. Mai, 14:00 \u2013 16:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Internationale Verpflichtungen zu Zugang und Vorteilsausgleich (ABS): Was Sammlungen und Forscher wissen m\u00fcssen \u2013 Melania Mu\u00f1oz Garc\u00eda, Monique H\u00f6lting, Dr. Martin Wiemers [12. Mai, 10:00 \u2013 11:30 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Die verborgene Welt sensibler Arten-Daten \u2013 Tania Laity & Cam Slatyer [21. Mai, 9:00 \u2013 11:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Von den Depots zu den Beziehungen: Indigene Datenhoheit und die Zukunft der Biokollektionen \u2013 Dr. Leke (Leslie) Hutchins [4. Juni, 10:00 \u2013 12:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Das kulturelle Erbe wieder verbinden: Digitale Infrastruktur f\u00fcr Provenienz, Gemeinschaftswissen und Restitution \u2013 Dr. Anne Luther [11. Juni, 16:30 \u2013 18:30 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Ein digitales Verzeichnis kolonialer Pl\u00fcnderungen \u2013 Dr. Yann LeGall [18. Juni, 11:00 \u2013 13:00 Uhr MESZ]

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/hvec0-t4g97","guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=13061","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1776124800,"rid":"szr79-jzw45","summary":"Ein Dinosaurierfossil von einem anderen Kontinent. Ein gepresstes Herbariumblatt aus dem Jahr 1847. Was k\u00f6nnte daran ethisch problematisch sein? Ziemlich viel, wie sich herausstellt.","tags":["WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal","Veranstaltung"],"title":"Ank\u00fcndigung der Seminarreihe: Ethik in der Praxis \u2013 Umgang mit sensiblen Daten aus wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen","updated_at":1780864494,"url":"https://winoda.de/2026/04/14/ankuendigung-der-seminarreihe-ethik-in-der-praxis-umgang-mit-sensiblen-daten-aus-wissenschaftlichen-sammlungen/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"tritonstation","status":null,"subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"

Last time, we started talking about the data in the recent paper The Baryonic Mass-Halo Mass Relation of Extragalactic Systems. Here, we'll put on our dark matter hat, and use the data to make an accounting of the mass \u2013 both the dark matter and the baryons in all their various forms. From this conventional perspective we will obtain a method for relating what we see to what we don't. In the context of LCDM cosmology, this provides an alternative approach to abundance matching. It also provides a test: are the two consistent?

\n

The conventional picture we have in mind is a baryonic galaxy residing in a dark matter halo bathed in a background of intergalactic matter.

\n
\"\"

Fig. 1 of McGaugh et al. (2026): Conceptual elements of a galaxy: the stars (yellow/blue) and atomic gas (green) of NGC 6946 (Spitzer 3.6\u00b5 and 21 cm data: F. Walter et al. 2008) are shown embedded in an extended dark matter halo (black). The dark matter density decreases continuously with radius so the halo has no hard edge, but for convenience we adopt the common convention that the radius r200 marks the boundary of the dark matter halo and the dividing line between the circumgalactic medium (CGM) and the intergalactic medium (IGM; orange). The stars and atomic gas illustrated here appear within r < 20 kpc while r200 \u2248 220 kpc (not shown to scale).
\n

I've talked here about the stars and gas a lot because that's what we see. These are the essential components that define a galaxy and comprise the mass that correlates with rotation velocity to make the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation (BTFR). I've talked a bit about the stuff between the galaxies, the intergalactic medium (IGM), but I don't think I've previously had cause to talk much about the circumgalactic medium (CGM). As the name implies, this is gas in the vicinity of a galaxy, but not in the galaxy itself \u2013 at least not the part we can readily see. In the notional picture above, the distinction between the CGM and the IGM is the boundary of the dark matter halo that nominally demarcates gravitationally bound from unbound material.

\n

Notional is doing a lot of work here. There's a lot of gas in the IGM, and some of it is certainly in the vicinity of galaxies, so in that regard counts as circum-galactic. But there's no hard and fast distinction between these components just as there's no hard edge to a dark matter halo. Our brains don't like that, so we impose notional boundaries and proceed as if these are meaningful.

\n

Proceeding thus, we expect our dark matter halo* to contain its fair share of the cosmic baryon fraction, fb = Mb/M200 = 0.157 according to the Planck flavor of LCDM cosmology. We can test this by adding up all the baryons and comparing that to the total mass enclosed by r200. This is straightforward for the stars and gas we see, but not for the stuff we don't see \u2013 both dark matter and the gas in the CGM.

\n

There are some measurements of the CGM, but these tend to be statistical in nature (if we stack data for a bunch of galaxies, we sorta see something), not the precise, individual, galaxy-by-galaxy measurements that we have for the stars and atomic gas. The stars and atomic gas are the mass in the extended Tully-Fisher relations we discussed previously, and are the bulk of the normal material in the galaxies we see. The bulk of the CGM lies at much larger radii, beyond the stars and atomic gas, but within the notional edge of the dark matter halo, as depicted above. Since we don't measure it directly in individual galaxies, we're gonna leave the mass of the CGM as an open question rather than something to be included in the sum of known baryonic mass.

\n

The situation is even murkier for the dark matter, which we don't see at all, so we don't have a good way to measure the \"total\" mass of dark matter halos. This isn't even a well-defined quantity in principle since halos are not expected to have a hard edge. Conventionally, we adopt the mass within a radius that contains a density two hundred times the cosmic critical density, r200, as the notional edge. There are obscure historical reasons for this choice that I do not have the patience to describe. One could make other choices, arguably better choices, but r200 is the most common choice used in the literature so we'll stick with it here. The halo mass is the mass enclosed by this radius, M200. If one goes through the math, it turns out that the circular speed of a test particle, V200, orbiting at r200 scales with the Hubble parameter [h = H0/(100 km/s/Mpc)] such that V200 = h r200 when V200 is in km/s and r200 is in kpc. The dynamical mass (rV2/G) can then be written

\n
M200=(3.3\u00d7105M\u2299km\u22123s3)V2003.M_{200} = (3.3 \\times 10^5\\;\\mathrm{M}_{\\odot}\\,\\mathrm{km}^{-3}\\,\\mathrm{s}^3)\\,V_{200}^3.
\n

That is a lot of huffing and puffing to get a way to relate the halo mass to something we can (kinda sorta) measure. The flat rotation velocity Vf has always been taken as the signature of the dark matter halo. One therefore expects V200 ~ Vf. Indeed, these quantities cannot differ by much if dark matter is what explains flat rotation curves. However, the notional radius of the dark matter halo where V200 occurs is much larger, by roughly an order of magnitude or more, than the radius where Vf is measured. So they need not be identical, depending on the halo model. So to relate what we measure to what we'd like to know we define a little ol' fudge factor, fv, such that:

\n
Vf=fvV200V_f = f_v V_{200}
\n

If a rotation curve stays flat indefinitely (as our empirical experience suggests), fv = 1. If instead dark matter halos behave as they should in LCDM, then the rotation speed should gradually decline as we approach the halo's edge so that fv > 1. How much greater?

\n

One way to estimate the fudge factor fv is to fit dark matter halo models to data. This process does not directly measure V200, but it does provide an estimate of that quantity based on the data available a smaller radii. One can do this for as many halo models as one has the patience to consider. For example, here are the results for two common halo models, the traditional pseudo-isothermal halo first adopted to explain flat rotation curves and the CDM-expected NFW halo:

\n
\"\"
Figure 2 from McGaugh et al. (2026):\u00a0The observed flat velocity Vf as it relates to the fitted V200 for pseudo-isothermal (left panel) and NFW (right panel) halos (Li et al. 2020). Filled points have formal uncertainties <20% in V200; open points are less accurate fits. The solid line shows Vf\u00a0=\u00a0V200. The gray line in the right panel shows Equation (2a) of Katz et al. (2019), which corresponds roughly to fv\u00a0\u2248\u00a01.4.
\n

The result for pseudo-isothermal halos is consistent with fv = 1, as expected \u2013 this model was adopted to make flat rotation curves. There is nevertheless some scatter. This typically happens because the observed rotation is not observed to be flat over a large enough range of radii to enforce flatness further out (as often happens in dwarf galaxies) or because the stars account for so much of the mass over the observed range that the inferred dark matter component is still rising (as often happens in bright, high surface brightness galaxies). This sort of haziness is inevitable when one only measures the inner few percent of the notional virial radius.

\n

The result for NFW halos is approximately fv = 1.4, albeit with a lot more scatter. This happens for the same reasons as above, with the additional problem that the dark matter profile in real galaxies rarely looks like NFW. Of all the many halo models considered by Li et al. (2020), NFW consistently performs the worst. One is forcing a fit of a function that would rather not. One signature of this misfit is the occurrence of very large V200 for dwarf galaxies with small Vf. Taken literally, this would mean that some of the smallest dwarf galaxies reside in dark matter halos that outweigh those of giants like the Milky Way. This seems absurd, and it is. For example, by this approach, the dwarf galaxy NGC 3109 residing just outside the Local Group outweighs the Local Group and both its giants, Andromeda and the Milky Way, put together. But it is pretty clear from the local velocity field that the entire Local Group is not orbiting this little dwarf.

\n

The estimation of huge V200 for galaxies with small Vf happens because of the cusp-core problem. The density cusp predicted by NFW expects a curved shape for the inner rotation curve while the data show a more gradual, quasi-linear rise. Any decent fitting program will realize that it can make a curve look like a straight line if it stretches it out enough, so it does exactly this by making the halo very large. That sorta fits the data, but it makes no physical sense. Between this systematic effect and the large scatter induced by the other effects discussed above, one is better off inferring V200 from Vf with a fixed fudge factor. So we'll do that, leaving the exact value of fv as an open question, but noting that for most objects it almost certainly resides in the narrow range

\n
1\u2264fv\u22641.4.1 \\le f_v \\le 1.4.
\n

That's a lot of words to say the observed flat rotation speed gives us our best kinematic estimator or the dark matter halo mass. In this context, bear in mind the small scatter in the extended Tully-Fisher relations. This contrasts with the large scatter seen in the fits above. This strongly implies that Vf is more closely tied to the underlying mass^ than are the model-specific halo fits to the entire rotation curve. That might seem counterintuitive given that Vf is only a portion of the rotation curve (albeit a well-defined portion). However, it makes more sense when one considers that rotation curve fits must consider the contribution of stars as well as dark matter. Since the stellar mass-to-light ratio is never perfectly known, there is a degeneracy between the two that contributes to the scatter seen above. That variation is not real, it's just an artifact of the fitting procedure. But when we get to large radii, beyond the confounding effects of the stellar population, the signature of the dominant mass becomes apparent in the flat rotation speed.

\n

We saw above that we expect the halo mass M200 to correlate with V200. We observe that baryonic mass Mb correlates with the flat rotation velocity Vf. The natural assumption is that the stuff we see is proportional to the total (mostly dark) mass while the observed flat velocity is a property of the halo. Hence Mb ~ M200 and Vf ~ V200. This simple argument has been the basis for many papers claiming to explain the Tully-Fisher relation over the course of many years. This would be entirely satisfactory if it weren't so completely wrong.

\n

Here we need to introduce another fudge factor, mb, that relates the mass we see to the halo that spawned each galaxy:

\n
Mb=mbM200M_b = m_b\\,M_{200}
\n

The obvious assumption is that mb is a constant for all galaxies, in which case Tully-Fisher follows because Mb ~ M200 ~ V2003 and V200 ~ Vf. The wee problem is that this predicts a Tully-Fisher relation with slope 3: Mb ~ Vf3 when we observe one with slope 4: Mb ~ Vf4. In order to reconcile these two, our new fudge factor cannot be a constant. Worse, we need to fine tune it to transform the predicted power law into the observed one: mb ~ Vf. That\u2026 doesn't make any sense.

\n

We can refrain from thinking and plunge ahead to simply plot the baryon fraction. While we're at it, let's also plot the stellar mass fraction m* = M*/M200 because that is more commonly discussed in the literature. (Often stellar masses are available for galaxies without the corresponding gas mass measurements.) These fractions have to be increasing functions of circular velocity, or equivalently, mass (mb ~ Vf ~ Mb1/4):

\n
\"\"
Figure 4 from McGaugh et al. (2026):\u00a0The stellar mass fraction as a function of stellar mass (top) and the baryonic mass fraction as a function of baryonic mass (bottom). Data and symbols as in Figure 3 with the additional distinction that large squares in the top panel represent the sum of the stellar mass of all galaxies in a group or cluster while small squares are the stellar mass of the brightest galaxy only. The horizontal line is the cosmic baryon fraction fb\u00a0=\u00a00.157 (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020). The colored lines in the top panels show the stellar mass\u2013halo mass relations from abundance matching given by B. P. Moster et al. (2013; dashed\u2013dotted green line), P. S. Behroozi et al. (2013; dashed\u2013triple dotted pink line), and A. V. Kravtsov et al. (2018; red dashed line). The black line in the lower panel is mb = fb tanh(Mb/M0)1/4 where fb is the cosmic baryon fraction (0.157) and M0 = 5 x 1013 M\u2609.
\n

To be specific, I've computed the halo mass assuming fv = 1. Different assumptions just slide the data up and down; the trend persists. This is discussed more in the paper if you're interested in such details.

\n

This gives a nifty way to relate what we can see to what we can't. There's a simple formula:

\n
mb=fbtanh\u2061(MbM0)1/4m_b = f_b \\tanh\\left(\\frac{M_b}{M_0}\\right)^{1/4}
\n

where fb = 0.157 is the cosmic baryon fraction and and M0 = 5 x 1013 M\u2609 is the scale where the function bends, transitioning from the Mb ~ Vf4 of the BTFR that holds over most of the mass range to the mb = fb of rich galaxy clusters. The precise value of the turnover mass is not well constrained, as it happens in the one place that is not well sampled by the available data. Indeed, there is nothing special about the functional form; it is simply a choice that transitions nicely from one regime to the other. There's no physics in it&. Still, this is a useful way to estimate the halo mass of pretty much any extragalactic object just by summing up its observed baryonic mass.

\n

Indeed, this kinematic mass-matching relation is better than the widely used abundance matching relations in that it has less scatter. Abundance matching generally relies on stellar mass; that results in more scatter for the same reasons discussed for Tully-Fisher. This is particularly apparent at the low mass end of the top panel above, where galaxies of the same circular velocity (halo mass) have very different stellar masses. This goes away when baryonic mass is used instead.

\n

There is reasonable agreement between abundance matching and kinematics at intermediate masses. The lines representing various abundance matching relations parallel the kinematic data. The offsets that are apparent can be cured by an appropriate choice of fv. Always a free parameter to the rescue there is.

\n

At the high mass end, things go amiss again. Partly this is because abundance matching relations reference the stellar mass of the \"central\" galaxy. The picture is that each halo contains one central galaxy with many satellite galaxies in subhalos, so what matters is the stellar mass of the central. This is overly simplistic: galaxy clusters are messy, the brightest galaxy isn't necessarily at the center, and most have substructure with multiple groups rather than a single hierarchy. Besides that, the stellar mass tells you little about the halo mass without further environmental context: a galaxy with M* ~ 4 x 1011 M\u2609 could reside in halo masses spanning a couple of orders of magnitude.

\n

Setting aside the issue of centrals, there is a serious tension for individual high mass galaxies. The stellar mass fraction suggested by kinematics keeps going up where that of abundance matching turns over. This is due to the linearity of the Tully-Fisher relation compared to the knee in the Schechter function shape of the stellar mass function. The two don't match up, as discussed previously. This same tension has long been with us; in the '90s we were concerned with the difference between \"the luminosity function normalization\" and \"the Tully-Fisher normalization.\" This tension never went away. Still, the tension between abundance matching and kinematics doesn't seem tragic, and might be remedied with some appropriate finagling of both the baryon fraction and the velocity fudge factor.

\n

But where are all the baryons? They're all accounted for in clusters, which reach the cosmic baryon fraction. But in no other system is the checksum complete. There is a missing baryon problem locally in each and every dark matter halo below the cluster scale. To confound matters further, there is a fine-tuning problem: the amount of missing baryons scales precisely with the amount of observed baryons.

\n

The logarithmic plot above may understate the magnitude of the problem. To clarify this, we can plot the ratio of missing-to-observed baryons on a linear scale, at least in part:

\n
\"\"
Figure 7 from McGaugh et al. (2026):\u00a0The ratio of missing-to-observed baryonic mass as a function of baryonic mass. Data and symbols are the same as above. The ratio is linear in the bottom half of the diagram, then switches to logarithmic in the top half. Spiral galaxies are shown twice: once with fv\u00a0=\u00a01.0 (solid blue circles) and again with fv\u00a0=\u00a01.4 (small open circles). The Milky Way is the yellow point at the top of the gray band, which shows the range from zero CGM to that required to explain all of the locally missing baryons when fv\u00a0=\u00a01. Stars represent the CGM measurements of Milky Way\u2013mass galaxies by Miller & Bregman (2015), Bregman et al. (2022), and Zhang et al. (2026) from bottom to top. These suffice to explain the missing baryons provided that fv \u2248 1.4. This explanation becomes progressively less plausible for lower mass galaxies.
\n

The scatter blows up when we plot linear ratios; this is an artifact of error propagation. Nevertheless, it is helpful to see that the local missing baryon problem is not subtle. It is already a factor of ~2 for groups and ~3 for bright galaxies. It's not as if we've misplaced a few percent of the baryons. Most of the baryons that should be associated with galaxy dark matter halos are not in evidence.

\n

This problem has been known for a while, but doesn't seem to be acknowledged to be a problem. Not all baryons need condense down into the central galaxy; some might be left behind, still mixed in with the dark matter halo. The widespread assumption seems to be that the missing baryons are probably in the CGM.

\n

Accounting for the missing baryons with gas in the CGM almost works in bright galaxies like the Milky Way where we need \"only\" a factor of a few. Recent estimates suggest that the CGM is comparable in mass to the stars, or even somewhat more. These are very uncertain, as this mass is dispersed in diffuse gas over an enormous volume, and the total mass estimates often involve large extrapolations: the CGM is detected most readily nearby the central galaxy, but most of its implied mass is way far out near r200. Accepting these estimates at face value leads to the star symbols in the plot above. This makes the checksum complete provided the halo is not too massive, as happens if fv \u2248 1.4. This is what we expect for NFW halos, so it might work out if those were viable. However, there is a bigger issue.

\n

The local missing baryon problem gets progressively worse for lower mass galaxies. For 1010 M\u2609 galaxies \u2013 not all that much smaller than the Milky Way (Mb = 7 x 1010 M\u2609), the problem isn't a factor of two or three: there are ~6 baryons missing for every one that is observed. For 109 M\u2609 galaxies, the deficit is an order of magnitude. For even lower mass galaxies, the difference is so large we have to abandon the linear plot lest the interesting parts for bright galaxies get scrunched into invisibility. By the time we get to small dwarf galaxies of 106 M\u2609, the ratio of missing-to-observed baryons approaches 100:1. It is not plausible to imagine that the CGM of dwarf galaxies explains this deficit. (And yes, we've looked.)

\n

A common explanation for this variation is that low mass dark matter halos have shallower potential wells, so have a harder time holding onto their baryons. Supernova can drive material out of galaxies; these go off with the same energy regardless of the galaxy they're in so they may be more effective at blowing baryons out of lower mass systems. There is sufficient energy (IF properly% distributed) to completely unbind the baryons, so they might wind up in the IGM, defeating any hope of completing the checksum. This is the sort of argument that sounds clever but fails to address the real problem. The difficulty isn't just ridding ourselves of these meddlesome baryons, it is getting rid of exactly the right amount each and every time.

\n

As awkward as it is to realize that most of the baryons that should be in low mass halos are not in evidence, it is not difficult to imagine ways in which this might happen, like the aforementioned supernova-driven galactic winds. The more dire aspect of the problem is the fine-tuning. Galaxies of the same observed baryonic mass are always missing the same amount of baryons, whether that's a factor of 2 or 10 or 100. If the visible parts of a dwarf galaxy are only 1% of the available baryons, you'd expect a lot of scatter. Sometimes a halo of that mass might have 2% or even 3% of its baryons condense to the parts we see. That would show up in the scatter in a way it does not: galaxies of the same circular velocity (halo mass) have the same baryonic mass every time. They don't vary by factors of two (or more). So while we can build models that makes the baryon fraction just so, the fact that we can write a simple equation for it with practically zero scatter is profoundly uncomfortable.

\n

An extra bit of weirdness is that in LCDM, galaxies are built hierarchically by merging small objects into large ones. This poses a teleological problem. Consider a small halo at high redshift. If it remains alone, then it it will contain a dwarf galaxy at low redshift that has a low baryon fraction. But if it mergers into a larger system, then by the current time that larger system has to have a larger baryon fraction. In effect, a low mass halo has to know where it will end up some billions of years in the future. Will it remain alone and unmerged? Better blow out all those baryons! Will it merge into a larger system? Better hang on to the right amount of baryons. Does that system merge into a still larger object? Hope it held onto even more baryons, in exactly the right amount at every step along dozens of mergers.

\n

I can imagine all this happening in a stochastic fashion with the net result being that more massive systems wind up with a higher baryon fraction, at least on average. I cannot give credence to this process resulting in the small observed scatter. As people are always telling me, \"galaxies are complicated.\" Indeed, they should be \u2013 in LCDM. But in reality they're not! They obey simple scaling laws, laws that do not follow naturally from LCDM.

\n

The local missing baryon problem encapsulates one of the fine-tuning problems that has never been satisfactorily explained. This alone would be considered fatal for most theories. For LCDM, it is just another problem to be addressed through the eternal tweaking of models and simulations.

\n
\n

*Strictly speaking, M200 refers to all mass within r200, baryons as well as dark matter. I'm going to call it halo mass anyway, because that's what we mean, the baryons are a small fraction of the total, and because that's what everybody does in the literature. If we make some other choice for the definition of the mass of the halo, M\u0394, then the inferred baryon fraction of an objects scales by M200/M\u0394. The cosmic baryon fraction does not care what choice we make, so the implicit assumption is that one asymptotes to the cosmic fraction if one gets far enough out, irrespective of what r\u0394 we adopt. While this is a sensible assumption \u2013 individual objects must merge into the larger cosmos at some point \u2013 there is no guarantee that the universe cooperates. For example, the baryon fraction in galaxies declines with increasing radius, but that in galaxy clusters increases with radius. I've seen hints that it doesn't really settle down to the cosmic (or any particular) value. These are only hints \u2013 considerable extrapolation is involved \u2013 so we'll ignore this inconvenience and assume that the baryon fractions of individual objects do in fact converge to the cosmic value far enough out.

\n

^It makes the most sense if the underlying total mass is the observed baryonic mass.

\n

&I made a very similar fit in McGaugh et al. (2010) but didn't publish it because there was no physics in it. Since then the field has been awash in abundance matching relations that were similarly fit sans physics. There has been much ink spilled justifying it post-facto with feedback, but I have refrained from this exercise in intellectual onanism.

\n

%It is common to assume in simulations that a large fraction (50 \u2013 100%) of the energy from supernovae is returned to the surrounding gas. This process is not resolved in cosmological simulations, all the energy return happens as part of the \"subgrid\" physics, so the feedback efficiency is set, in practice, to make things work out as well as possible.

\n

Observationally, most of the SN energy finds its way out along the path of least resistance where the density of the surrounding gas is smallest (\"chimneys\"). This process couples to the surrounding gas with only a few percent efficiency.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/7qk7k-81e57","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=12398","image":"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/GalaxySchematic.png?resize=700%2C700&ssl=1","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780272000,"rid":"k01f8-d8056","summary":"Last time, we started talking about the data in the recent paper The Baryonic Mass-Halo Mass Relation of Extragalactic Systems. Here, we'll put on our dark matter hat, and use the data to make an accounting of the mass \u2013 both the dark matter and the baryons in all their various forms.","tags":["Cosmology","Dark Matter","Data Interpretation","LCDM"],"title":"The local missing baryon problem","updated_at":1780864474,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2026/06/01/the-local-missing-baryon-problem/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Sielert","given":"Deborah"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Das Blog der TIB \u2013 Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universit\u00e4tsbibliothek","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://blog.tib.eu/","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.65527","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"tib","status":null,"subfield":"1802","title":"TIB-Blog","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"TIB-Blog","blog_slug":"tib","content_html":"

\"Dear Dr Musterfrau, I came across your paper and thought your work could make a real impact if shared beyond academia.\"

\n
\"\"
Illustration: Jasmina El Bouamraoui and Karabo Poppy Moletsane, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
\n

Wer heutzutage wissenschaftlich publiziert, kennt sicherlich solche E-Mails, die zuhauf in Postf\u00e4chern von Forschenden landen. Anders als beim Predatory Publishing, wo Autor:innen mit schnellen aber qualitativ fragw\u00fcrdigen Angeboten f\u00fcr die Publikation von Artikeln angesprochen werden (mehr dazu hier), beziehen sich obige E-Mails auf Angebote im Bereich der Wissenschaftskommunikation, die sich an ein breiteres Publikum richten.

\n

Anbieter wie \"SciPod\", \"SciTube\", \"Research Outreach\" und \u00e4hnliche bieten an, Forschungsergebnisse in popul\u00e4re Formate wie Podcasts, Videos oder Infografiken zu \u00fcbertragen.

\n

Doch sind diese Dienste seri\u00f6s? Und wer soll sie bezahlen?

\n

Dieser Beitrag ordnet die kommerziellen Dienstleister:innen ein, diskutiert Alternativen und erkl\u00e4rt, warum Publikationsfonds hier meist nicht die Finanzierung \u00fcbernehmen.

\n

Warum Wissenschaftskommunikation oft delegiert wird

\n

Die Erwartung, dass Forschung in die Gesellschaft wirkt, w\u00e4chst stetig. In politischen Debatten wird betont, das Vertrauen der Bev\u00f6lkerung in die Wissenschaft zu st\u00e4rken. Daher gelten wissenschaftskommunikative T\u00e4tigkeiten als wichtiger Aspekt des Wissenschaftstransfers, um die L\u00fccke zwischen \u00d6ffentlichkeit und Wissenschaft zu schlie\u00dfen.

\n

F\u00f6rdergeber:innen legen zunehmend Wert auf Transfer-Aktivit\u00e4ten und die Dissemination von Forschungsergebnissen zu relevanten Zielgruppen. Personen- und institutionenbezogene Evaluationskriterien ber\u00fccksichtigen immer h\u00e4ufiger auch \u00f6ffentliche Sichtbarkeit und Transfer.

\n

Um Wissenschaft f\u00fcr Nicht-Expert:innen zug\u00e4nglich zu machen, braucht es vielf\u00e4ltige Publikationsformen (Elliot 2022). Dem stehen jedoch die Rahmenbedingungen der meisten Forschenden gegen\u00fcber: Ihnen fehlen oft Kompetenzen, Zeit oder Ressourcen. Hinzu kommt der sogenannte \"Sagan-Effekt\", der von einer aktiven Beteiligung abhalten kann.

\n

SciPod & Co.: nicht '\"predatory\", aber mit Vorsicht zu behandeln

\n

Der Bedarf an Wissenstransfer hat einen Markt f\u00fcr Dienstleister:innen geschaffen, die Forschungsergebnisse aufbereiten und vermarkten. Typische Angebote sind Kurzvideos, Podcasts, Animationen oder Artikel, die f\u00fcr das Publikum meist frei lizenziert und kostenfrei zug\u00e4nglich sind. F\u00fcr die Auftraggebenden liegen die Preise f\u00fcr ein Produkt zwischen 1.000 und 4.000 Pfund; oft werden zus\u00e4tzliche Reichweitenversprechen f\u00fcr Social Media oder Newsletter gemacht bzw. k\u00f6nnen sie \u00fcber entsprechende Pakete dazu gebucht werden.

\n

Ihre Kund:innen erreichen die Unternehmen unter anderem \u00fcber ausgiebige Kaltakquise mit den anfangs dargestellten E-Mails. Vor dem Hintergrund der Sensibilisierung vieler Forschender zum Thema \"Predatory Journals\" ruft dies verst\u00e4ndlicherweise erst einmal Skepsis hervor. Unserer Einsch\u00e4tzung nach ist zwar keiner der uns bekannten Dienstleister eindeutig als \"predatory\" einzustufen, manche Gesch\u00e4ftspraktiken k\u00f6nnen dennoch unseri\u00f6s scheinen. Die Diskussionen diesbez\u00fcglich unter Forschenden sind kontrovers. Wer trotzdem entsprechende Angebote nutzen will, sollte dies wohl\u00fcberlegt tun.

\n

Was Studien und Communities sagen

\n

Auf Plattformen wie ResearchGate oder Reddit wird das Thema diskutiert. Ein Diskussionsteilnehmer berichtet beispielsweise davon, dass die Kommunikation mit dem Editor so langwierig gewesen sei, dass er es am Ende lieber selber gemacht h\u00e4tte. Andere werden stutzig, weil Informationen \u00fcber die H\u00f6he der Kosten erst sp\u00e4t im Kommunikationsprozess mit den Anbieter:innen transparent gemacht wurden oder Angaben \u00fcber Lizenzen inkonsistent sind. Neben aggressivem Marketing werden den Anbieter:innen zum Teil undurchsichtige Geb\u00fchrenregelungen, \u00fcbertriebene Reichweitenversprechen oder Qualit\u00e4tsprobleme attestiert. Demgegen\u00fcber stehen aber auch zahlreiche Stimmen, die von positiven Erfahrungen und \u00e4u\u00dferst zufriedenstellenden Ergebnissen berichten.

\n

Eine Studie von Hamid R. Jamali (2025) befragte 104 Forschende, die Dienste wie researchoutreach.org oder researchfutures.com nutzten. Zwar war die (allgemeine) Zufriedenheit mit der Darstellung der Ergebnisse hoch, doch gaben 67 Prozent an, dass die Publikation keine nennenswerten Auswirkungen hatte. Jamali empfiehlt daher, vorab klare Ziele und Zielgruppen f\u00fcr die Ver\u00f6ffentlichung zu definieren.

\n

Soll ich das Angebot annehmen? Wenn ja, wie?

\n

Wie bei allen Publikationsangeboten empfehlen wir eine sorgf\u00e4ltige Pr\u00fcfung solcher Angebote hinsichtlich Finanzierung, Lizenzierung, Reichweitenversprechen und Kosten-Nutzen-Abw\u00e4gung.

\n\n

Nutzung interner und externer Alternativen

\n

Als erste Anlaufstelle sollten Sie die Presse- oder \u00d6ffentlichkeitsarbeit Ihrer Einrichtung kontaktieren. Oft bieten Hochschulen, Bibliotheken oder Fachgesellschaften eigene Formate an. Ein Beispiel ist die Podcast-Liste des Fachportals f\u00fcr internationale und interdisziplin\u00e4re Rechtsforschung: FID intRecht. Das BorgNetzwerks versucht mit dem WissKom Wiki aktuell eine Wikibase-basierte Online-Bibliothek f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Podcasts und Videos aufzubauen. Die TIB bietet mit dem AV-Portal und dem ConRec Service M\u00f6glichkeiten Forschungsergebnisse visuell aufzubereiten bzw. online zur Verf\u00fcgung zu stellen.

\n

Wo solche Angebote fehlen, lohnt es sich, deren Entwicklung aktiv anzuregen. Die Finanzierungsl\u00fccke versuchen derzeit nur wenige Initiativen zu f\u00fcllen, wie etwa der HRA-F\u00f6rderfonds der Hamburg Research Academy.

\n
\"\"
Illustration: Jonas Hauss, CC BY 4.0, Open Science-/ Open Access-Grafikpaket
\n

Fazit: Vorzug nicht-kommerzielle Alternativen

\n

Kommerzielle Anbieter sind zwar divers, verfolgen aber prim\u00e4r Gewinnziele, die nicht immer mit den Werten der Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft (Transparenz, Offenheit) \u00fcbereinstimmen. Insgesamt raten wir dazu, den Fokus auf nicht-kommerzielle Alternativen der Wissenschaftskommunikation zu legen, dies kann die Arbeit in und mit Wikipedia, \u00f6ffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten oder community-getragenen Podcasts und Blogs bedeuten. In allen F\u00e4llen sind nicht nur die Publikationen selbst frei zug\u00e4nglich, sondern auch kostenfrei f\u00fcr Autor:innen, mit zum Teil besseren Reichweiten als bei kommerziellen Anbietern.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.65527/kanaf-14236","guid":"https://blog.tib.eu/?p=32423","image":"https://blog.tib.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Waage_Wissen_Geld_Jonas-Hauss-scaled.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780272000,"rid":"c8t9z-nr126","summary":"\" Dear Dr Musterfrau, I came across your paper and thought your work could make a real impact if shared beyond academia.\" Wer heutzutage wissenschaftlich publiziert, kennt sicherlich solche E-Mails, die zuhauf in Postf\u00e4chern von Forschenden landen.","tags":["FORSCHUNG & PROJEKTE","WISSENSCHAFTLICHES ARBEITEN","Forschung","Forschungsergebnisse","Lizenz:CC-BY-4.0-INT"],"title":"Wissenschaftskommunikation outsourcen: kommerzielle Anbieter, Fallstricke und bessere Alternativen","updated_at":1780864473,"url":"https://blog.tib.eu/2026/06/01/wissenschaftskommunikation-outsourcen-kommerzielle-anbieter-fallstricke-und-bessere-alternativen/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

Ren\u00e9 Bekkers, 7 April 2026

\n\n\n\n

Responsible Research Practices: What You Must and What You Could

\n\n\n\n

Guidance for researchers at the School of Social Sciences, VU Amsterdam

\n\n\n\n

Duties: What You Must Do with Respect to Research Integrity

\n\n\n\n

1. Do the ethics self-check for each study, before collecting data: https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9HMDSbc1ZNVo24C

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2. Make sure before collecting data that informed consent procedures for each study involving data collection specify that collected data may be shared for research purposes, https://vunl.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/FSW-OE-ResearchOfficeFSS/ESqv_KBkeEJPnzIe4JwM7YUBVUY_etYwMWDodDm2Yq5pFQ?e=9a3rCQ 

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

3. Write a Data Management Plan for each study before collecting data, and keep it up to date while the project is running, https://dmponline.vu.nl/  

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

4. Before starting a project with external parties: write a contract specifying ownership of data and rights to publish the report.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

5. Archive the data for your completed study and create a publication package. For 'quantitative' research the package includes ethics review documents, all research materials, data files (raw and processed), the data management plan, and computer code produced in the research. For 'qualitative' research the package includes all data, the data management plan, interview and observation guides, and documentation of data collection activities.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

What you can do to support research integrity

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Discuss authorships with your colleagues when you are planning a publication and use the CRediT taxonomy at https://credit.niso.org/. Revisit the description of responsibilities during the research, and update them when you publish a preprint, and when you submit the paper to a journal.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. Pre-register your research design and hypotheses before collecting and analyzing data, https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/09/20/preregistration-why-and-how/ 
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. Execute the Data Management Plan and share data responsibly, https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/data-management-ssc
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. Declare the use of generative artificial intelligence using the GAIDeT, https://panbibliotekar.github.io/gaidet-declaration/
    5. \n\n\n\n
  5. Do a codecheck before submitting results for publication, https://codecheck.org.uk/guide/community-workflow-overview 
    6. \n\n\n\n
  6. Do a Research Transparency Check of your manuscript before you disseminate it, https://scienceverse.github.io/papercheck/ 
    7. \n\n\n\n
  7. Publish your manuscript as a preprint before submitting it to a journal https://help.osf.io/article/376-preprints-home-page 
    8. \n\n\n\n
  8. Make sure that the journal you intend to publish is not a predatory journal https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/beware-of-predatory-publishers/ 
    9. \n\n\n\n
  9. Publish your manuscript as a registered report, so that it will be accepted regardless of the empirical results: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports  
    10. \n\n\n\n
  10. Do the Erasmus University Dilemma Game, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nl.eur.dilemmagame&hl=en_US 
    11. \n
\n\n\n\n

At the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH) of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, research integrity is governed by eight policies:

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. The overarching policy is the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity adopted by the Royal Academy of Arts & Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Association of Universities (Universiteiten van Nederland, formerly VSNU), the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and other organizations; https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/publications/Netherlands%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Research%20Integrity%202018.pdf. The code of conduct is currently being revised. The new version will probably be published later in the Spring of 2026.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. The 2025 code of ethics for research in the social and behavioural sciences, adopted by the Deans of the Social Sciences (DSW): https://nethics.nl/onewebmedia/Nethics-Code-of-Ethics-digitaal.pdf;
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. The procedures for ethics review at the Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS); https://assets.vu.nl/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/c7e3795f-62b7-4b3f-9282-48859461e87e/RERC-Regulations-Feb18_tcm249-880617.pdf
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. The national guidelines for archiving research data in the behavioural and social sciences; https://zenodo.org/records/7583831. These guidelines will be superseded by a more extensive set of guidelines that will be published in the Summer of 2026.
    5. \n\n\n\n
  5. The VU Research Data and Software Management Policy: https://rdm.vu.nl/public/policies-regulations/RDSM-policy-VU-EN-v3.0.pdf
    6. \n\n\n\n
  6. The School of Social Sciences data management guidelines, available here: https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/ssc-guidelines-for-data-management
    7. \n\n\n\n
  7. For PhD candidates: the doctorate regulations ('promotiereglement') of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: https://assets.vu.nl/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/08b4502d-de82-47ca-9c4c-fd5ad70d47f0/20220901%20VU%20doctorate%20regulations.pdf
    8. \n\n\n\n
  8. For PhD candidates: the Graduate School for Social Sciences policies: see https://vu.nl/en/about-vu/faculties/faculty-of-social-sciences/more-about/the-graduate-school-of-social-sciences under 'Assessments during your PhD trajectory': the 'go/no-go product', https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/a99d5a4e-4a0e-4afc-95c8-091478b99cc1/VU-GSSS%20Go%20No%20Go%20assessment%20-%20introduction%20and%20explanations.docx, the plagiarism check, https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/e4be9bed-388e-45a9-8847-3bc085d0dec0/VU-GSSS%20Plagiarism%20check%20-%20background%20and%20procedure%20%281%29.pdf and particularly the final PhD portfolio, https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/8b1440ff-6056-4471-b697-c719e6b6d266/VU-GSSS%20Go%20No%20Go%20assessment%20-%20portfolio%20%28fill-in%20document%29.docx
    9. \n
\n\n\n\n

In your particular discipline, additional policies or codes of conduct may apply:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Throughout the cycle of empirical research, researchers and students at the Faculty of Social Sciences should act in line with the principles and guidelines expressed in the above codes of conduct and policies. The policies employ four instruments to encourage research integrity:

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Personal responsibility \u2013 your own conscience and internalized norms of good research and ethical standards.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. Transparency \u2013 the openness you give about the procedures you have followed in your research.
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. Peer review \u2013 the scrutiny of your work by others: supervisors, colleagues, critics.
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. Complaint procedures \u2013 violations of norms of good research and ethical standards may be punished by the Board of the Faculty of Social Sciences, the academic integrity committee at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and ultimately by the Netherlands office of research integrity (LOWI).
    5. \n
\n\n\n\n

Note: The Faculty of Social Sciences does not have audits of research projects.

\n\n\n\n

Step by step guide

\n\n\n\n

At https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/ssc-guidelines-for-data-management you'll find step by step guidelines for the organization of research projects.

\n\n\n\n

A. Planning your research

\n\n\n\n

When you are planning research, check whether your study requires ethics review by the FSS Research Ethics Review Board (RERC). Make sure you complete the checklist well ahead of the start of the data collection. In most cases ethics review takes less than a month, but in case the research plans raise ethics issues, you may need three months to complete the entire ethics review process.

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Do the ethics review self-check at https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9HMDSbc1ZNVo24C. Save the pdf you get. If the result is that your research does not need further review, you can start with your research. If the result is that your research needs further review, go to step 2.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. Discuss the risks with your supervisor and your department's representative on the SSC Research Ethics Review Committee (RERC), https://vu.nl/en/employee/research-support/research-ethics-review-ssc. Revise your research plan to reduce and tackle risks. Go back to step 1: complete the self-check again based on the revised plan. If the result is still that full ethics review is necessary, proceed to step 3.
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. Prepare a full ethics review. With your research team, create 1. A short description of the research questions, the societal and scientific relevance of the research, and the research design (max. 1 A4);\u00a0 2. the information for participants; 3. the consent form; 4. the research materials (manipulations, questionnaire, topic list); 5. the anonymization procedure; and 6. the data management plan. You can find examples of these materials at https://vu.nl/en/employee/research-support/ssc-templates-and-example-documents. Also look up the number of the ethics review self-check you completed (#1 above). If you have everything (i.e., six documents), go to step 4.
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. Complete the online Ethics Review Application Form at https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9tBjPqFq6bxv2Sx and upload the required documents. Note that only research project leaders can submit an application for ethics review. If you are a PhD candidate, ask your supervisor to submit the materials.
    5. \n
\n\n\n\n

B. Data collection

\n\n\n\n

General information about research data management at the Faculty of Social Sciences is available at https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/ssc-guidelines-for-data-management. If your project involves collection or analysis of data, write a Data Management Plan (DMP) before you start the data collection. Go to https://dmponline.vu.nl and create a new plan. DMPonline will guide you through the elements that comprise a good DMP. You can share your DMP with the faculty’s data steward Emily Barabas (e.k.barabas@vu.nl) to get feedback. Share the DMP with everyone involved in the research project. Update the data management plan when things change during the research project. Make sure to properly version the document, so changes can be tracked.

\n\n\n\n

Store the data in a secure location. The Faculty of Social Sciences recommends using Yoda, https://portal.yoda.vu.nl/.

\n\n\n\n

Pseudonymize raw data before analysis to prevent data leaks. Avoid working with the raw data to prevent data loss. Store raw data and the pseudonimyzation key file in a secure location where it cannot be lost, corrupted, or accidentally edited. This could possibly be the same place where your raw data will be archived after the project. Make sure that wherever they are stored, the raw data are accompanied by all information needed to understand the data. This includes metadata on when, where, why and by who the data was collected, and all documentation needed to understand variables, such as interviewer manuals. The faculty data steward can help in identifying what documentation or metadata to include.

\n\n\n\n

C. Analysis & write-up

\n\n\n\n

During the preparation of your research report, it is a good idea to discuss the analysis strategy and the findings with your supervisors and other colleagues. Document the code that produces the results reported. For suggestions see https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2021/04/02/how-to-organize-your-data-and-code/.

\n\n\n\n

To receive feedback on your work and improve it, you can prepare a working paper that you share with discussants and present at an internal research seminar. After internal discussion, it is a good idea to post a working paper in a public preprint repository such as SocArxiv or Zenodo and invite the academic community to review it and suggest improvements. Next, you can present your working paper at conferences. Based on the comments you received from peers, revise the working paper before submitting it to a journal, book editor, or to the funders of your research.

\n\n\n\n

D. Publication

\n\n\n\n

When you submit research reports based on the data you have collected for peer review to a journal or to book editors, also create a publication package containing pseudonymized data, analysis scripts, documentation, and metadata. Archive the publication package in a public repository. You can use Yoda for this purpose, https://portal.yoda.vu.nl/. Alternatively, you can use Dataverse https://dataverse.nl/dataverse/vuamsterdam, or Zenodo, https://zenodo.org/. You can also store data on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/ if you select an EU storage location.

\n\n\n\n

Have a DOI assigned to your data so others can cite the data you have collected. You can choose to upload data, documentation and metadata separately and have multiple publication packages refer to the same data set if this works better for your project.

\n\n\n\n

Never share privacy-sensitive raw data with the public. Such data should be stored securely. The Faculty of Social Sciences recommends using Yoda, https://portal.yoda.vu.nl/.

\n\n\n\n

E. Review

\n\n\n\n

When you are invited to review the work of others, it is a good principle to check whether the authors have made the data and the code available that they have used to produce the results they report. If not, you can request them or the editors of the journal that invites you to review to done so. With the data and code, you can verify whether the data and code produce the results and you can conduct robustness analyses.

\n\n\n\n

When you review research reports by others, do so in a constructive way. Here are some suggestions on how to review empirical research: https://osf.io/7ug4w/ and https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/scientific-criticism-and-peer-review-workshop-materials.pdf

\n\n\n\n

The guidelines for peer review of the Committee of Publication Ethics apply to all types of research: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf

\n\n\n\n

Getting advice on ethics and integrity issues

\n\n\n\n

When you are planning your research and have questions on ethical dilemmas, ask the FSS Research Ethics Review Committee (RERC) for advice. When you have questions on dilemmas during your research, ask colleagues and supervisors for advice. When you find errors in your own research after you published it, write to the journal or book editors to notify them of the error. In case of a minor problem, prepare a correction. When you no longer support the publication as a whole, ask for a retraction.

\n\n\n\n

When you have questions about the integrity of research of others, consult https://vu.nl/en/about-vu/more-about/academic-integrity. Step 1 is to talk to one of the confidential counsellors for integrity (vertrouwenspersoon integriteit). When you have good reasons to believe that others have violated norms of good science or ethical standards, you can submit a complaint to the executive board of the university, which can forward it to the Academic Integrity Committee (CWI). See the complaints procedure at https://assets.vu.nl/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/facfccb1-2b51-4f42-b32c-8bebfb29b89f/Academic%20Integrity%20Complaints%20Procedure%20Vrije%20Universiteit%20Amsterdam%20April%202022.pdf

\n\n\n\n

For issues with your supervisor, consult this guidance https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/d70b3e54-13e4-44a3-a0a3-d2b5739776cb/VU-GSSS%20Procedure%20for%20PhD%20candidates%20and%20supervisors%20in%20case%20of%20an%20issue%20in%20a%20PhD%20trajectory.pdf.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/7bfss-w9262","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=3621","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1696896000,"rid":"y27sp-m1p14","summary":"Ren\u00e9 Bekkers, 7 April 2026 Responsible Research Practices: What You Must and What You Could Guidance for researchers at the School of Social Sciences, VU Amsterdam Duties: What You Must Do with Respect to Research Integrity 1. Do the ethics self-check for each study, before collecting data: https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9HMDSbc1ZNVo24C 2. Make sure before collecting data that [\u2026]","tags":["Academic Misconduct","Data","Fraud","Open Science","Regulation"],"title":"Research Integrity Policies in Social Science Research at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam","updated_at":1780864433,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/10/10/research-integrity-policies-in-social-science-research-at-vrije-universiteit-amsterdam/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

A dashboard of transparency indicators signaling trustworthiness

\n\n\n\n

Our Research Transparency Check (Bekkers et al., 2025) rests on two pillars. The first pillar is the development of Metacheck (formerly known as Papercheck, DeBruine & Lakens, 2025), a collection of software applications that assess the transparency and methodological quality of research that we blogged about earlier (Lakens, 2025). Our approach is modular: for each defined aspect of transparency and methodological quality we develop a dedicated module and integrate it in the Metacheck package. The module assesses the presence, the level of detail and \u2013 if possible \u2013 the accuracy of information. Complete and accurate information for a large number of transparency indicators signals the trustworthiness of a research report (Jamieson et al., 2019; Nosek et al., 2024). On the dashboard a transparency indicator lights up in bright green when a research report passed a specific check. An orange light indicates that some information is provided, but more detail is needed. Metacheck gives actionable feedback, suggesting ways to provide more detailed information and correct inaccurate reporting.

\n\n\n\n

Respecting epistemic diversity

\n\n\n\n

How do we decide for which indicators we will develop a module that assesses research reports? Choosing these which indicators is not easy. This is where the second pillar comes in. It requires a series of deliberative conversations with researchers from different disciplines. In the social and behavioral sciences, there is much epistemic diversity (Leonelli, 2022). Researchers working with different data and methods in different disciplines have very different ideas about what constitutes good research. They may even disagree which aspects of research should count in the evaluation of quality. We designed Research Transparency Check to respect these differences. This means that we do not impose a set of good practices on researchers. We should not determine standards for good scientific practice. Instead, the trustworthiness of research should be evaluated with respect to \"the prevailing methodological standards in their field\" (De Ridder, 2022, p.18). Therefore we start with a series of conversation between researchers who all work with the same types of data. In the social and behavioral sciences, we see researchers regularly use different types of data, collected from seven different sources: from self-reports in surveys, from personal interviews of individuals and (focus) groups, from observations by researchers of behavior through equipment, from participant observation by researchers, from official registers, news and social media, and from synthetic data. We expect that structured conversations with researchers using the same category of data will produce consensus about a core set of indicators that should be transparent.

\n\n\n\n

The quality of surveys as an example

\n\n\n\n

Think about surveys for example. Surveys are a ubiquitous source of data in the social and behavioral sciences: researchers in almost all disciplines use them. Regardless of their discipline, survey researchers have agreed for decades that it is important to know how the sample of participants was determined, what the researchers did to take selectivity in response rates and dropout into account, and how researchers made sure that the reliability and validity of the survey questions posed to respondents was high (Deming, 1944; Groves & Lyberg, 2010). Without information about the sampling frame, the sampling method, the response rate, and the reliability and validity of measures in the questionnaire, it is impossible to evaluate the quality of data from a survey. Still, a large proportion of research reports relying on surveys published in 'top journals' in the social sciences do not provide information on these transparency indicators (Stefkovics et al., 2024).

\n\n\n\n

Despite consensus about these indicators, there may still be differences in opinions about the importance of other indicators. Political scientists for instance tend to care a lot about weighting the data, for instance with respect to voter registration, or voting behavior in the previous election. Personality psychologists do not value weights as much, because there are e.g. no objective standards for the true distribution of intelligence or neuroticism in the population.

\n\n\n\n

When researchers agree on the importance of a certain indicator, there may still be disciplinary specific standards of good practice. Researchers in different disciplines value different practices for the same methodological quality indicator as good practices. For instance, standards for the number of items to compose reliable measures in surveys vary between disciplines. Surveys about intergenerational mobility in sociology typically ask just one or a few question about educational attainment (Connelly et al., 2016); measuring implicit attitudes in social psychology requires dozens of repeated measures (Nosek et al., 2010). These differences may be understandable given that researchers in different fields study different phenomena that are inherently more variable and more difficult to measure with high levels of precision in some fields than in others. Another example is the norm for p-values, which is .05 in most fields but much lower in others, such as 0.00000005 (5 x 10-8) in behavioral genetics (Benjamin et al., 2018). The point is that different fields set different standards for the same quality indicators, even when they are working with similar data sources. Thus, it is important to use field-specific norms when evaluating the methodological quality of a study.

\n\n\n\n

Toward reporting standards

\n\n\n\n

Transparency is a necessary condition to evaluate research quality (Vazire, 2017; Hardwicke & Vazire, 2023): \"transparency doesn't guarantee credibility, transparency and scrutiny together guarantee that research gets the credibility it deserves\" (Vazire, 2019). Only when research reports include information about indicators of methodological quality in sufficient detail and clear language, can the quality of the research be evaluated. In some fields, scholars, publishers, associations and funders have come together to define reporting standards. Authors who wish to publish a paper in a journal of the American Psychological Association are requested to conform to the APA Journal Article Reporting Standards. Funders and regulators in biomedicine impose reporting standards, for example CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of randomized control trials, or SPIRIT guidelines for their protocols. Automated checks such as in Metacheck should not replace peer review, but help relieve the burden on human reviewers to determine the degree of compliance with such reporting guidelines (Schulz et al., 2022).

\n\n\n\n

In other fields, however, it's almost as if anything goes. In most areas of the social sciences, journals do not impose reporting standards (Mali\u010dki, Aalbersberg, Bouter & Ter Riet, 2019). They may have rules on the cosmetics of submitted journal articles, such as on language, style, and formatting of tables and figures, which editorial assistants enforce. But the way sampling frames, sampling methods, response rates and information about the reliability and validity of study measures are typically not subject to reporting standards. That should change, if we want a more reliable and valid evaluation of research quality. It is also possible since journals can simply mandate reporting standards (Mali\u010dki & Mehmani, 2024).

\n\n\n\n

The identification of transparency indicators and the collection of examples of good and poor practices in data communities will guide researchers in the social and behavioral sciences toward precise and valid reporting standards. The field of biomedicine is ahead of the social sciences, with more than 675 reporting guidelines developed for very specific study types (Equator Network, 2025). As we develop modules to automate checks of methodological quality in research reports, we benefit from the experiences of toolmakers in biomedicine (Eckmann et al., 2025).

\n\n\n\n

A multidimensional measure of research quality

\n\n\n\n

With multiple modules assessing the methodological quality of research reports for various transparency indicators, we obtain a multidimensional and more refined measure of research quality. The modular approach helps solve a difficult problem in the Recognition and Rewards movement: the lack of consensus about valid and reliable measurement of the quality of science. In the absence of such a measurement, universities have used \"one size fits all\" metrics of the volume and prestige of science publications.  

\n\n\n\n

Universities incentivized researchers to produce as many publications in peer reviewed journals as possible, generally regarding them as proxy measurements of 'high quality' science. Furthermore, the number of citations to the work of scholars became the standard measure of scholarly 'impact'. Universities and science funders rewarded scholars who published proficiently and were cited more frequently in international peer-reviewed journals by promoting them, giving them more research time, and grants for research. Institutions ranked journals into tiers, and rewarded employees more for publishing in 'top journals' than in 'B-journals'.

\n\n\n\n

As a result, these incentives reshaped scholarly behavior. Scholars created networks of co-authors, each producing an article in turn, inviting colleagues to read along and pretend they helped produce the paper. In practice, the contributions were typically uneven, but the advantage was large: the number of co-authors on publications increased (Henriksen, 2016; Chapman et al., 2019), as did overall publication and citation counts. Scholars also sought to publish in journals that on average receive higher numbers of citations, so called 'high-impact journals'. However, both journal rank and citation counts are not correlated with higher methodological quality of research; in some cases the reverse is true, with worse science in the higher ranked journals (Brembs, Button & Munaf\u00f2, 2013; Dougherty & Horne, 2022).

\n\n\n\n

Scholars behaved according to Campbell's Law (Campbell, 1979): \"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor\", with a result in line with Goodheart's Law (Goodheart, 1975): \"when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure\" (Varela, Benedetto, & Sanchez-Santos, 2014). Over time, citations have become a less informative indicator of research quality (Brembs, Button & Munaf\u00f2, 2013; Koltun & Hafner, 2021).

\n\n\n\n

What we've learned from the hyper focus on peer reviewed journal articles is that one size doesn't fit all. It is not only misguided to evaluate the quality of research by the number of articles published or the number of citations and derivatives such as the H-index or the journal impact factor, it can lead to creation of perverse incentives and questionable research practices (Higginson & Munaf\u00f2, 2016; Smaldino & McElreath, 2016; Edwards & Roy, 2017).

\n\n\n\n

Recognition and rewards for transparent and good science

\n\n\n\n

Once the perverse effects of these incentives became clear, the resistance against quantitative output driven rewards grew. More than 3,500 organizations including the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centers (NFU), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA, 2025), promising not to measure the performance with quantitative indicators. In the effort to recognize and reward good science rather than a high volume of publications in peer reviewed journals, universities around the world \u2013 and particularly those in the Netherlands \u2013 have diversified the criteria for tenure and promotion guidelines, in line with the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (COARA, 2022).

\n\n\n\n

The problem that has remained unsolved is the measurement of research quality. In due course, Research Transparency Check may help to address this problem. For transparency indicators that data communities agree upon as relevant, we will have an automated screening tool, that provides good examples for best practices. Because the assessments can be updated with every revision, institutions can not only measure the eventual quality of a publication, but also the quality of an initial preprint, and the change from the first draft to the published version. The added value of going through peer review can also be measured, incentivizing journals to provide better value for money. Journals could use Metacheck to ensure that authors adhere to journal reporting guidelines. On their end, authors can use Metacheck before they submit their manuscript to ensure that it passes. At the same time, they are directed to the best practices in their field.

\n\n\n\n

References

\n\n\n\n

Bekkers, R., Lakens, D., DeBruine, L., Mesquida Caldenty, C. & Littel, M. (2025). Research Transparency Check. TDCC-SSH Challenge grant. Proposal: https://osf.io/cpv4d. Project: https://osf.io/z3tr9.

\n\n\n\n

Benjamin, D.J., et al., (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 6\u201310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z

\n\n\n\n

Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munaf\u00f2, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in human Neuroscience, 7, 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

\n\n\n\n

Campbell, D.T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2 (1): 67\u201390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X.

\n\n\n\n

Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., … & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1916), 20192047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047

\n\n\n\n

COARA (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. https://coara.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf

\n\n\n\n

Connelly, R., Gayle, V., & Lambert, P. S. (2016). A review of educational attainment measures for social survey research. Methodological Innovations, 9, https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799116638001

\n\n\n\n

DeBruine, L., & Lakens, D. (2025). Metacheck: Check Scientific Papers for Best Practices. R package version 0.0.0.9056, https://github.com/scienceverse/papercheck.

\n\n\n\n

Deming, E. (1944). On Errors in Surveys. American Sociological Review, 9(4): 359-369. https://doi.org/10.2307/2085979

\n\n\n\n

De Ridder, J. (2022). How to trust a scientist. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 93: 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.003

\n\n\n\n

DORA (2025). 3,488 individuals and organizations in 166 countries have signed DORA to date. https://sfdora.org/signers/?_signer_type=organisation

\n\n\n\n

Dougherty, M. R., & Horne, Z. (2022). Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. Royal Society Open Science, 9(8), 220334. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334

\n\n\n\n

Eckmann, P. et al. (2025). Use as Directed? A Comparison of Software Tools Intended to Check Rigor and Transparency of Published Work. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.17991

\n\n\n\n

Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

\n\n\n\n

Equator Network (2025). Reporting Guidelines. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/

\n\n\n\n

Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019). Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action. GigaScience, 8(6), giz053. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz053

\n\n\n\n

Goodhart, C. (1975). Problems of Monetary Management: The UK Experience. Papers in Monetary Economics. Papers in monetary economics 1975; 1; 1. – [Sydney]. – 1975, p. 1-20. Vol. 1. Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17295-5_4

\n\n\n\n

Groves, R.M. & Lyberg, L. (2010). Total Survey Error: Past, Present, And Future. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74 (5): 849\u2013879. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq065  

\n\n\n\n

Hardwicke, T. E., & Vazire, S. (2023). Transparency Is Now the Default at Psychological Science. Psychological Science, 35(7), 708-711. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231221573

\n\n\n\n

Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980\u20132013). Scientometrics 107, 455\u2013476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

\n\n\n\n

Higginson, A. D., & Munaf\u00f2, M. R. (2016). Current incentives for scientists lead to underpowered studies with erroneous conclusions. PLoS Biology, 14(11), e2000995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000995

\n\n\n\n

Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231-19236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116

\n\n\n\n

Koltun, V., & Hafner, D. (2021). The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397

\n\n\n\n

Lakens, D. (2025). Introducing Papercheck: An Automated Tool to Check for Best Practices in Scientific Articles. https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2025/06/introducing-papercheck.html

\n\n\n\n

Leonelli, S. (2022). Open science and epistemic diversity: friends or foes? Philosophy of Science, 89(5), 991-1001. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.45

\n\n\n\n

Mali\u010dki, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Bouter, L., & Ter Riet, G. (2019). Journals' instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines. PLoS One, 14(9), e0222157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222157

\n\n\n\n

Mali\u010dki, M., & Mehmani, B. (2024). Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ, 12, e17514. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514

\n\n\n\n

Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., … & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053

\n\n\n\n

Nosek, B. A., Allison, D., Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Nielsen, A. B., & Wolf, S. M. (2024, December 23). A Framework for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Research Findings. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jw6fz

\n\n\n\n

Schulz, R., Barnett, A., Bernard, R. et al. (2022). Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Research Notes, 15, 203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6

\n\n\n\n

Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

\n\n\n\n

Stefkovics, A., Eichhorst, A., Skinnion, D. & Harrison, C.H. (2024). Are We Becoming More Transparent? Survey Reporting Trends in Top Journals of Social Sciences. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 36, edae013. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae013

\n\n\n\n

Varela, D., Benedetto, G., Sanchez-Santos, J.M. (2014). Editorial statement: Lessons from Goodhart’s law for the management of the journal. European Journal of Government and Economics, 3 (2): 100\u2013103. https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2014.3.2.4299

\n\n\n\n

Vazire, S. (2017). Quality Uncertainty Erodes Trust in Science. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74

\n\n\n\n

Vazire, S. (2019). Do We Want to Be Credible or Incredible? Psychological Science website, December 23, 2019. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/do-we-want-to-be-credible-or-incredible

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/x5h3c-54450","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=4138","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1757721600,"reference":[{"id":"https://osf.io/cpv4d","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://osf.io/z3tr9","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-x","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://coara.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799116638001","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://github.com/scienceverse/papercheck","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2085979","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.003","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://sfdora.org/signers/?_signer_type=organisation","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.17991","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz053","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17295-5_4","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq065","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231221573","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000995","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2025/06/introducing-papercheck.html","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.45","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222157","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jw6fz","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae013","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2014.3.2.4299","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/do-we-want-to-be-credible-or-incredible","unstructured":"Unknown title"}],"rid":"x1j1b-kfh78","summary":"A dashboard of transparency indicators signaling trustworthiness Our Research Transparency Check (Bekkers et al., 2025) rests on two pillars. The first pillar is the development of Metacheck (formerly known as Papercheck, DeBruine &","tags":["Academic Journals","Academic Misconduct","Data","Incentives","Open Science"],"title":"A Modular Approach to Research Quality","updated_at":1780864431,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2025/09/13/a-modular-approach-to-research-quality/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

Why is it that higher educated individuals are more likely to engage in blood donation, charitable giving and volunteer work?

\n\n\n\n

You might think it has something to do with what you get from going to school: the knowledge gained and skills trained in education. Through education, people learn what the needs of the world are, and schools may also promote the willingness and confidence to do good for society.

\n\n\n\n

From studies co-twin control designs, comparing monozygotic twins, raised in the same families, we know that the education gradient is not due to the number of years in education or the highest level attained. Such studies found that twins who were born with the same package of genes and who grew up in the same families and societies can achieve very different levels of educational attainment. Those achieving higher levels of education are not more active in charitable giving, volunteering, and voting than their twin siblings who spent fewer years in education. These results indicate that individual experiences in education are probably not responsible for the higher level of engagement in prosocial behavior. From other studies we know that the education gradient is already present before adolescents leave school.

\n\n\n\n

This must mean that the education gradient is due to things that happened before the highest level of education is attained. The education gradient in prosocial behavior comes from the people who attain a higher level of education, not so much from spending more time in schools.

\n\n\n\n

What is it then?

\n\n\n\n

Broadly speaking, there are two groups of factors that may be responsible for most of the positive association between engagement in formal prosocial behaviors and educational attainment: the genes they are conceived with, and shared environmental conditions that siblings share with each other.

\n\n\n\n

In a new paper with Eva-Maria Merz and Ting Li, recently published in Acta Sociologica, we analyzed data from 5,967 respondents in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) to examine which characteristics of individuals and families create the association between educational attainment and engagement in prosocial behavior.

\n\n\n\n

To study the genetic variants that help children attain a higher level of education, behavioral geneticists compiled a database comparing more than a million persons. They found more than 1200 genetic variants that are robustly associated with educational attainment. This discovery was not guided by a theory explaining why certain genetic variants are associated with educational attainment. Behavioral geneticists have virtually no clue why the associations are there. Regardless, the fact remains that people with certain genetic variants do better in school.

\n\n\n\n

Place your bets now!

\n\n\n\n

Could we use this genetic information to explain why educational attainment is associated with prosocial behavior? Can giving time, money and blood be predicted by the genetic variants that people who attain a higher level of education are born with? Or is giving something people learn from their parents and in their families, regardless of their genetic makeup?

\n\n\n\n

We placed our bets on both. To check our predictions, we studied siblings from the same families with different genetic variants for educational attainment differ in their levels of giving. The primary WLS participants have been tracked since 1957. Fast forward to 2004: primary participants as well as their siblings reported their educational attainment and engagement in a wide variety of prosocial behaviors. They had also provided DNA samples, which had allowed the construction of so called polygenic scores for educational attainment, capturing 1,271 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), ~ genetic variants ~ that Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) found to be robustly associated with the number of years individuals spent in education.

\n\n\n\n

Genetic and shared environmental correlates of formal prosocial behavior

\n\n\n\n

Analyzing these data, we found that respondents with a higher genetic propensity to spend a higher number of years in education – measured by the polygenic score for educational attainment – were more likely to engage in formal prosocial behaviors such as blood donation, charitable giving and volunteer work 57 years later. We confirmed that WLS participants and their siblings with more genetic variants that are associated with educational attainment in fact give more time, money and blood.

\n\n\n\n

By itself, the polygenic score for educational attainment explained ~2% of the variance in formal prosocial behaviour. The association was reduced by 38% when educational attainment was added, suggesting that participants with a higher genetic propensity for educational attainment give more time, money and blood partly because they attain a higher level of education.

\n\n\n\n

At the same time, persons who achieved a higher level of education were more engaged in giving, net of their sharing a very similar package of genes at the start of their lives. We confirmed that the association was also present within families: the higher educated sibling in a family was more engaged in giving time, money, and blood.

\n\n\n\n

We also find that parental income, father's education, and family socio-economic status measured in 1958 are positively associated with prosocial behaviour measured 47 years later. When shared environmental influences are controlled by family fixed effects we find that the association between educational attainment and prosocial behaviour in formal settings is weaker by about one quarter.

\n\n\n\n

We find that educational attainment is still correlated with prosocial behaviour when a polygenic score is included, even in models including family fixed effects. This finding indicates that educational attainment is not only associated with prosocial behaviour because of genetic effects and shared family background effects on educational attainment, but also in other ways.

\n\n\n\n

What have we learned about the etiology of prosocial behavior that we did not already know?

\n\n\n\n

First, we found that the polygenic score for educational attainment was not related with informal prosocial behaviors, such as helping friends, neighbours, co-workers, and family members. This means that direct, informal helping was equally common among those who were born with many or just a few genetic variants that help them do better at school. The educational gradient in prosocial behavior only appears in forms of engagement that involve intermediary (usually non-profit) organizations.

\n\n\n\n

Second, we learned from the analyses of engagement in formal prosocial behavior that results from research designs that do not take genetic effects into account are likely to overestimate shared environmental effects of social background characteristics. By including genetic effects we understand some of the pathways of intergenerational transmission in the association between education and prosocial behaviour a bit better. It is not just growing up in a family with higher educated parents that makes children give more time, money, and blood.

\n\n\n\n

Third, to our surprise, genetic variants of those who do better on intelligence tests were hardly correlated with giving time, money, and blood. So it is not that people who attain a higher level of education are giving more because they are born with genetic variants for being smart. In fact, genetic variants associated with cognitive performance were not correlated with prosocial behavior when the polygenic score for educational attainment was included in the analysis. It is likely that non-cognitive skills and attitudes create the association between educational attainment and prosocial behavior.

\n\n\n\n

What we don’t know

\n\n\n\n

We don’t know exactly which characteristics of persons link genetic variants associated with educational attainment to prosocial behavior. We could not measure every possible pathway that may link genetic factors and rearing environments supporting educational attainment to prosocial behavior. Having an open mind, patience and persistence in life, and feeling responsibility for the future get children and adolescents through school and these qualities are also likely to create engagement in prosocial behaviors.

\n\n\n\n

Significant correlations with polygenic scores for educational attainment do not mean that ‘genetics is destiny’. Genetic differences are statistically associated with educational attainment and prosocial behavior, but that does not mean that a higher diploma and giving time, money and blood for the benefit of others is determined by our genes. Genes don’t make you do anything. The associations are not deterministic. Furthermore, the associations we found for the WLS participants may be radically different in other samples. What we don’t know is whether these results can be generalized to other populations. Therefore, it is important to replicate the analyses with respondents to other surveys, preferably in other countries.

\n\n\n\n

The article “Learning to give: both genetic and shared environmental influences are reflected in the association between educational attainment and prosocial behaviour” is published in Acta Sociologica. You can access a preprint of the article here: https://osf.io/gwp6q. A replication package including a pre-analysis plan for this study, the code producing the results, and appendices with additional results is available here: https://osf.io/db4wq.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/243k1-4vd02","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=4156","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1765065600,"rid":"yqte5-c7f10","summary":"Why is it that higher educated individuals are more likely to engage in blood donation, charitable giving and volunteer work? You might think it has something to do with what you get from going to school: the knowledge gained and skills trained in education.","tags":["Blood Donation","Data","Helping","Household Giving","Informal Giving"],"title":"What is it in formal education that creates civic engagement?","updated_at":1780864430,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2025/12/07/what-is-it-in-formal-education-that-creates-civic-engagement/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

One of the students in my Social Science Literacy class asked: how can I tell if a published article is peer reviewed? The student assumed that a having gone through peer review indicates research quality.

\n\n\n\n

The student is not alone. Many people think that 'peer reviewed' means that the quality is good. Unfortunately, you cannot blindly assume that articles published in journals are reliable, even when they are published in prestigious journals such as “Nature” and “Science” or when they are written by authors from expensive universities such as Harvard. This is because the quality control that peer review is supposed to provide usually does not work properly. In recent years, more and more scientific research has been conducted into the quality of scientific research assessments. I have summarized a small part of that research on pages 20 and 21 of https://osf.io/zrgk9/files/3jsre. Among other things, the research shows that peer reviewers often fail to spot errors in statistical analyses. Many publications that appear as articles in journals are virtually identical to their draft versions, which can already be found on the internet as 'working papers' or 'preprints' before the reviewers have looked at them. This means that the quality control is not very effective. Sometimes authors even make their articles worse in order to meet the reviewers’ wishes. For example, reviewers sometimes ask authors to adjust their hypotheses to fit the results ('harking', https://detectingbadscience.wordpress.com/2024/09/29/harking-hypothesizing-after-results-are-known/). Reviewers regularly suggest that authors should cite the reviewer’s work in the revised version of the article ('coercive citation', https://detectingbadscience.wordpress.com/2024/09/27/selective-citation/). That work is not always relevant. The use of artificial intelligence makes it easier for researchers to produce articles quickly, but their quality is often inferior. I have already experienced researchers citing so-called articles of mine that do not exist: these are often hallucinations of ChatGPT or other language models.

\n\n\n\n

An article should state what the quality control process has been. Most articles do not reveal details about peer review. An example is the article below. Articles published in the journal do not mention any details about the review procedure. The journal website provides no information about how the journal reviews articles published.

\n\n\n\n
\"\"
\n\n\n\n

Greater openness can reveal the shortcomings in the quality control that science currently performs and, in the long term, reduce them. A significant minority of journals publish the dates on which published articles were submitted, accepted, and published. If there is little time between these stages, you can assume that the quality control has not been very good. This is often the case with publications from so-called 'predatory publishers', fake journals that are primarily a way of making money. They publish almost all articles that people submit, as long as they pay. The assessment is usually not strict, which you can deduce from the time it took to improve it. If an article is published within a month of submission, you can assume that there was no proper quality control. Almost all journals published by MDPI are fake. You should also be very careful with Frontiers articles, especially if they are from after 2015. More information about this can be found at https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/beware-of-predatory-publishers/.

\n\n\n\n

Some journals publish the names of the reviewers. This is becoming increasingly common, which is a good thing. At least then you know who did the review. But usually the names of the reviewers are not listed.

\n\n\n\n

A nice example of an exception to this rule is Meta-Psychology, which publishes the names of the editor, the reviewers, and the data editor, along links to data and code producing the results reported, and availability statements for data, materials, code, computational verification, and preregistrations.

\n\n\n\n
\"\"
\n\n\n\n

Some journals have data editors who check the analyses and statistics. Usually, this is not mentioned in the article, but you have to look for it on the journal’s website. In sociology, this almost never happens. Only European Sociological Review and European Societies and Sociological Science have recently started working this way.

\n\n\n\n

Very few journals also publish the peer reviews with an article, allowing you to see what the reviews were. This does not happen often. Usually, you cannot see how strict the reviews were and how the authors improved their work. This should be the case.

\n\n\n\n

Even fewer journals publish researchers’ responses to the reviews. This allows you to see how the authors have changed the article to address the reviewers’ criticisms. This would be even better, especially in combination with openness about the content of the reviews. But you will rarely encounter this combination.

\n\n\n\n

Scientists are like students in a study group: they often divide the work among themselves and do not always check each other’s work. One does the statistics, another writes the article, someone else has secured funding for the research, and so on. Increasingly, articles include a division of labor in the form of a CReDIT statement. As a reader, you can then see who did what. But I sometimes wonder whether that information is reliable. I have never seen a two factor authentication for author contributions.

\n\n\n\n

In most cases, you cannot see who performed which quality control checks on a study. That is why it is best to take a critical look at it yourself.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/jmb1f-myg95","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=4185","image":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/psyag.png?w=1024","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1769731200,"rid":"s80q4-dcx80","summary":"One of the students in my Social Science Literacy class asked: how can I tell if a published article is peer reviewed? The student assumed that a having gone through peer review indicates research quality. The student is not alone. Many people think that 'peer reviewed' means that the quality is good.","tags":["Academic Journals","Fraud","Methodology","Open Science","Peer Review"],"title":"How can you tell if an article has been peer reviewed?","updated_at":1780864429,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2026/01/30/how-can-you-tell-if-an-article-has-been-peer-reviewed/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"the-geneva-learning-foundation"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"7e26491f-41c6-4665-9088-5aa6643a1ba8","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Learning to make a difference","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/7e26491f-41c6-4665-9088-5aa6643a1ba8/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://redasadki.me/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"redasadki","status":null,"subfield":"3304","title":"Reda Sadki","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Reda Sadki","blog_slug":"redasadki","content_html":"

Lire en fran\u00e7ais

\n\n\n\n

Dear Reader,

\n\n\n\n

You know that colleagues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda are supporting communities hit by a Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak.

\n\n\n\n

They are taking real risks to work for health.

\n\n\n\n

Here are three things you can do today to support them, each in less than three minutes.

\n\n\n\n

1\ufe0f\u20e3 Join the first Bundibugyo virus disease Teach to Reach session on Thursday, 4 June 2026.

\n\n\n\n
\n
CONFIRM YOUR PARTICIPATION
\n
\n\n\n\n

Join us in our Zoom studio, where you can speak and be heard. You can also confirm your place on LinkedIn.

\n\n\n\n

We have reorganized this session so we can listen to and learn from colleagues in Uganda and the DRC who are in the response.

\n\n\n\n

2\ufe0f\u20e3 Send this invitation to one colleague who is in this fight with you.

\n\n\n\n

Share it now on WhatsApp, X/Twitter, or Facebook. Read more on LinkedIn in English or French.

\n\n\n\n

Do not just click. Talk to your colleagues. Help them enroll.

\n\n\n\n

3\ufe0f\u20e3 Prepare. Enroll for the first peer learning certification on Bundibugyo virus disease and share your experience now.

\n\n\n\n
\n
JOIN THIS COURSE
\n
\n\n\n\n

Sharing your experience can help a colleague to save lives. When you take the course, you will be invited to share your experience. Here is the question that fits you. Read it now, then share your story inside the course.

\n\n\n\n

If you are directly involved in the Bundibugyo response

\n\n\n\n

Tell us about a time during this Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak when you faced a hard moment at work. Think of one specific day. When was it, where were you working, and what was your role? It could be a suspected case, an infection prevention decision, a safe burial, contact tracing, or a difficult talk with a family. What was happening, and who was affected? What did you do or decide in that moment? What got in your way, such as missing supplies, fear, or unclear guidance? Who else helped, and how did your community shape what you did? What happened next? What did you learn, and what would you do differently now? Share what you can, in your own words. To close, what is one tip you would give a colleague who meets the same situation at another site? Your story can help a peer who is facing this today.

\n\n\n\n

If you have responded to an Ebola outbreak in the past

\n\n\n\n

Think of one time during a past Ebola virus disease outbreak when you learned something you would carry into a Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) response today. When was it, where were you working, and what was your role? What was the situation, and who was affected? What did you do or decide, and what got in your way? Who else was involved, and how did the community shape the response? What happened next, and what did that moment teach you? Looking back, what would you do the same, and what would you change? Share as much or as little as feels right. To close, what is the one lesson from that outbreak you would most want a colleague responding to BVD right now to know, and why? Your experience can save a colleague time when it matters most.

\n\n\n\n

If your community has not yet had to respond to an Ebola outbreak

\n\n\n\n

The Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak may not have reached your work, but you may still feel concerned. Tell us about a moment when this outbreak was on your mind. When was it, and where were you? What did you feel, and what made you feel that way? What did you do with that worry, if anything, such as reading, talking to a colleague, or checking your own readiness? If you have responded to another outbreak before, you can share that too. What is the one question about BVD you most want answered right now? Share what you can, in your own words. Your honest question can help us and your peers prepare the support that colleagues like you need before the next case.

\n\n\n\n

You will find the description of this new certification below.

\n\n\n\n

Best regards,

\n\n\n\n

Reda Sadki and Charlotte Mbuh
The Geneva Learning Foundation

\n\n\n\n

PS Did you miss the Thursday session? Catch up here.

\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

\ud83d\udccb Share experience: Bundibugyo virus outbreak response in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo

\n\n\n\n

This short course gives you clear, practical guidance for working in a Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak. It also gives you a place to share what you see, learn from colleagues, and support each other during a public health emergency. You learn, you share your experience, and you connect your work to the wider response.

\n\n\n\n

If your work supports people to prepare, respond to, or recover from a Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak, this course is for you.

\n\n\n\n

\u27a1\ufe0f Learn more and enroll for this certification.

\n\n\n\n

Certification

\n\n\n\n

You earn a Certificate of Contribution from The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) that documents what you produced in the course. This certificate opens the door to our full Certificate peer learning programme for humanitarian health. Each module aligns with professional development frameworks for public health, nursing, and medicine. We encourage you to submit the certificate to your employer or your professional body.

\n\n\n\n

Why this course exists

\n\n\n\n

The course does not teach you the official guidance. Other technical trainings do that.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

What you know and what you are doing can help colleagues, help the community, and strengthen our collective response.

\n\n\n\n

Who this is for

\n\n\n\n

This course is for anyone working for health in a community affected by an outbreak.

\n\n\n\n

This may include nurses, doctors, lab staff, community health workers, burial teams, contact tracers, risk communication staff, Red Cross and Red Crescent staff, local organisations, and managers.

\n\n\n\n

You do not need a formal health title or qualification to take part.

\n\n\n\n

Three reasons to make time for this

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. You join a network responding to the same emergency. The Primer connects you with peers who are responding to the Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak, so we can learn together.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. You work on what is in front of you. Each activity asks you to connect the guidance to your own site, team, patients, and community.
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. You learn by combining experiential and technical knowledge. You write, review peer work, and receive peer feedback, so real experience becomes shared knowledge.
    4. \n
\n\n\n\n

Who developed this course?

\n\n\n\n

This course was developed by The Geneva Learning Foundation with the TGLF Scholar networks in DRC and Uganda. TGLF Scholars are health and humanitarian leaders who support and learn from each other to better serve their communities. The course draws on trusted health guidance referenced in the course, including WHO guidance on infection prevention and control, WHO and IFRC guidance on safe and dignified burial, WHO guidance on supportive care for Ebola virus disease, and WHO guidance on risk communication and community engagement.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/vhbt7-kgk43","guid":"https://redasadki.me/?p=23712","image":"https://redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/bundibugyo-english.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780444800,"rid":"xz260-3sa18","summary":"Lire en fran\u00e7ais Dear Reader, You know that colleagues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda are supporting communities hit by a Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak. They are taking real risks to work for health. Here are three things you can do today to support them, each in less than three minutes.","tags":["The Geneva Learning Foundation","Bundibugyo Virus Disease","Democratic Republic Of Congo","Ebola","Health Workers"],"title":"Alert: how do you respond to Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak?","updated_at":1780864425,"url":"https://redasadki.me/2026/06/03/alert-how-do-you-respond-to-bundibugyo-virus-disease-outbreak/","version":"v1"}}],"items":[{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"von Schr\u00f6der","given":"Asta","url":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5852-771X"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://winoda.de","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"winoda","status":null,"subfield":"1209","title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"
\n

Bei der Erstellung unserer Selbstlernkurse haben wir verschiedene Formate ausprobiert, um unsere Inhalte visuell ansprechend und interaktiv zu pr\u00e4sentieren.
Fr\u00fcher (ja, noch w\u00e4hrend des Corona-Lockdowns) wurden f\u00fcr E-Learning oft “klassische” Office-Formate genutzt. Allerdings fehlt Textdokumenten oder Pr\u00e4sentationsfolien, die als PDF-Dokumente (f\u00fcr Skripte, Pr\u00e4sentationen oder Arbeitsbl\u00e4tter) zum Download angeboten werden, in der Regel das “interaktive” Element, z.B. ein integriertes Quiz.

\n\n\n\n

Dabei lassen sich mit H5P kinderleicht interaktive Lehrmaterialien erstellen.
H5P ist ein html-basiertes Tool, mit dem verschiedene Quiz-Typen (Multiple-Choice, L\u00fcckentext, Flashkarten) einfach und ohne Programmierkenntnisse erstellt werden k\u00f6nnen. Das geht schnell, leicht und zuverl\u00e4ssig. Die fertigen H5P Dateien lassen sich in Lernplattformen (Moodle integriert H5P seit 2020 und Version 3.9.), oder gleich auf der eigenen Webseite (z. B. WordPress, Drupal) einbinden und ausprobieren.

\n\n\n\n

Die Erstellung von Quizfragen erm\u00f6glicht unser Moodle-System nat\u00fcrlich eigentlich auch mit Bordmitteln, immerhin wurde es f\u00fcr E-Learning entwickelt. Aber H5P sind leichter zu erstellen, sehen netter aus und lassen sich miteinander kombinieren. Zudem sind sie meist barrierefrei, es gibt es eine gute Dokumentation und zahlreiche Online-Tutorials.
Vor allem aber geht H5P weit \u00fcber kleine Quizze hinaus. Seiten-Layout-Elemente (Column, Page) lassen sich bspw. in ein Interactive Book integrieren.

\n\n\n\n

Und anders als ein Moodle Book lassen sich H5P-Books (oder Course Presentations, Game Maps, Portfolios und andere komplexere Formate) leicht au\u00dferhalb von Moodle nutzen.
So k\u00f6nnen wir f\u00fcr einen Kurs oder ein Kursmodul Inhalte und Aktivit\u00e4ten dauerhaft als Sinneinheit b\u00fcndeln, aus edu-sharing heraus f\u00fcr unser Moodle (und die Welt) freigeben, und in allen m\u00f6glichen Systemen und Kontexten wiederverwenden (lassen).
Das hei\u00dft, mit dem Umweg \u00fcber H5P k\u00f6nnen wir unser Moodle FAIR nutzen.

\n\n\n\n

F\u00fcr die Erstellung komplexerer Aktivit\u00e4ten erm\u00f6glicht H5P die Einbettung anderer H5P-Typen. So kann man nach einem “Infodump” Zwischenfragen stellen oder Definitionen abzufragen, oder vorbereitete Fragen zu einem Abschlussquiz kombinieren.
Will man einem bspw. einer Course Presentation eine Multiple-Choice-Frage hinzuf\u00fcgen, kann diese Frage auch \u00fcber den Zwischenspeicher aus einem bereits vorhandenen Quiz her\u00fcberkopiert und eingef\u00fcgt werden. Nicht elegant, aber funktioniert.

\n\n\n\n

Die Nutzung und Erstellung von H5P ist kostenlos (online Editoren verlangen oft eine Registrierung und/oder lassen sich den Speicherplatz bezahlen). Den Lumi Desktop Editor kann man aber auch lokal installieren. Auch unser Moodle-LMS und unser Repositorium (edu-sharing) haben jeweils einen integrierten H5P-Editor, mit dem sich Materialien direkt in der jeweiligen Systemumgebung erstellen und von dort einbinden lassen. Praktisch, weil sich unser Repo um Versionierung und Metadaten k\u00fcmmert!

\n\n\n\n

Es gibt aber auch Nachteile:
Weder Moodle noch edu-sharing erlauben ein einfaches Zwischenspeichern w\u00e4hrend der Erstellung. Will man speichern, schlie\u00dft sich der Editor und man muss die Datei mit mehreren Klicks erneut \u00f6ffnen – gerade bei gr\u00f6\u00dferen und komplexeren H5P-Elementen ist das m\u00fchsam und zeitaufwendig.
Lumi erlaubt ein Zwischenspeichern mit STRG+S.
Und ja: h\u00e4ufiges and regelm\u00e4\u00dfiges Zwischenspeichern ist sinnvoll, denn manchmal geht das Speichern auch schief…

\n\n\n\n

Deshalb erstelle ich die geplanten Quizfragen auch in separaten Textdokumenten. Wenn man sie gleich richtig formatiert – z. B. die L\u00f6sungen f\u00fcr L\u00fcckentexte in “*” einschlie\u00dft – kann man die Texte einfach kopieren und einf\u00fcgen.
Auch \u00dcberlegungen zum Layout und zur Illustration von Kursabschnitten “skizziere” ich mir lokal in PowerPoint – Text und Abbildungen auf die Folie, Alt-Text und Bildquellen in die Notizenfunktion. Was wie doppelte Arbeit klingt, hat mich leider schon oft gerettet.

\n\n\n\n

F\u00fcr mich hat sich folgender Workflow bew\u00e4hrt: in der Datei mit dem Textentwurf zum jeweiligen Lernziel stehen auch eine oder mehrere Quizfragen, die sich mit diesem Text beantworten lassen. So konnte ich die “Pr\u00fcfungen” zusammen mit den Texten den Kolleg:innen zum Peer-Review geben.
Die Quizfragen (Multiple-Choice, L\u00fcckentext, Wahr-Falsch-Fragen etc) – bekamen die Lernziel-ID und den Quiztyp als Titel, und sind so in jedem Kontext pr\u00e4zise einem Text zuzuordnen. (Und in Obsidian verlinkt!)

\n\n\n\n

Das alles funktioniert, aber leider nur in bestimmten Grenzen. H5P wurde als interaktive Erg\u00e4nzung zu statischem Content entwickelt – je gr\u00f6\u00dfer die Datei und je komplexer das Format, desto instabiler wird es offenbar.
Ein H5P Interactive Book w\u00e4re die nat\u00fcrliche L\u00f6sung f\u00fcr unsere Kurse, weil es die Gesamtheit der integrierten Quizzes am Ende auf einer Seite zusammengefasst auswerten k\u00f6nnte. Aber die Layout-Optionen sind sehr begrenzt – ein zweispaltiges Layout mit Bild links, Text rechts ist nicht m\u00f6glich. Das passte leider nicht zu unseren Pl\u00e4nen, Inhalte im Dialog unserer Personas zu vermitteln.

\n\n\n\n

H5P Course Presentations kann man (mit etwas Pr\u00e4sentationserfahrung) recht intuitiv bedienen und erlauben ein pr\u00e4zises Layout – aber in der Praxis “verschlucken” sie sich h\u00e4ufig an Farben oder Bildern, die nach dem Speichern pl\u00f6tzlich verschwunden waren.
Ich nutze unterschiedliche Textfarben f\u00fcr jede Persona, und viele Illustrationen f\u00fcr die Anschaulichkeit. Ich kann nicht mehr aufz\u00e4hlen, wie oft ich alle Bilddateien erneut einf\u00fcgen musste, nur weil ich einen Tippfehler korrigieren musste.

\n\n\n\n
\"Screenshot
Screenshot einer Quiz-Seite in einem H5P-Portfolio, das einen WiNoDa Selbstlernkurs enth\u00e4lt. (Demn\u00e4chst verf\u00fcgbar!)
\n\n\n\n

Wir haben uns schlie\u00dflich f\u00fcr H5P Portfolios entschieden: diese erlauben \u00fcber Platzhalter ein flexibleres Layout und bis zu vier Kapitelhierarchien. Mit ein paar schnell erstellten Templates ist es bequem zu bedienen und erm\u00f6glicht eine einheitliche Bildsprache \u00fcber Ersteller und Kurse hinweg.
Leider hat man kaum Kontrolle \u00fcber Breite oder H\u00f6he von Layoutelementen, sodass die Darstellung auf verschiedenen Monitoren unterschiedlich ausf\u00e4llt. Nicht ideal, aber es wird wohl funktionieren.

\n\n\n\n

H\u00e4tten wir noch etwas mehr Zeit, h\u00e4tte ich gerne LiaScript ausprobiert – ein Markdown-basiertes Format, das speziell zur Erstellung von OER entwickelt wurde. Vielleicht kann ich Euch demn\u00e4chst mehr dazu erz\u00e4hlen, aber f\u00fcr unsere bereits geplanten Kurse kann unser Team momentan keine weiteren Toolkompetenzen mehr aufbauen. Unser Fokus liegt jetzt allein auf der Fertigstellung und Publikation.

Habt Ihr mit LiaScript oder H5P schon Erfahrung? Was nutzt Ihr zur Erstellung interaktiver OER?

\n\n\n\n
Links\nhttps://h5p.org/\nhttps://lumi.education/de\nhttps://edu-sharing.com/ \nhttps://liascript.github.io/
\n\n\n\n

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/6n2nz-eem24","guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=12420","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot_WiNoDa-Moodle_2.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1773187200,"rid":"w8xm2-qev45","summary":"Bei der Erstellung unserer Selbstlernkurse haben wir verschiedene Formate ausprobiert, um unsere Inhalte visuell ansprechend und interaktiv zu pr\u00e4sentieren.Fr\u00fcher (ja, noch w\u00e4hrend des Corona-Lockdowns) wurden f\u00fcr E-Learning oft \"klassische\" Office-Formate [\u2026]","tags":["WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal","FAIR","H5P","OER"],"title":"OER erstellen mit H5P","updated_at":1780864497,"url":"https://winoda.de/2026/03/11/oer-erstellen-mit-h5p/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"von Schr\u00f6der","given":"Asta","url":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5852-771X"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://winoda.de","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"winoda","status":null,"subfield":"1209","title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"
\n

When creating our self-study courses, we tried out various formats to present our content in a visually appealing and interactive way.
In the past (yes, still during the coronavirus lockdown), often \"classic\" Office formats were used for e-learning. However, text documents or presentation slides that are offered for download as PDF documents (for scripts, presentations, or worksheets) usually lack \"interactive\" elements, such as an integrated quiz.

\n\n\n\n

But with H5P, creating interactive teaching materials is child’s play.
H5P is an HTML-based tool that can be used to create various types of quizzes (multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, flashcards) easily and without any programming knowledge. It’s quick, easy, and reliable. The finished H5P files can be integrated into learning platforms (Moodle has integrated H5P since 2020 and version 3.9) or directly into your own website (e.g., WordPress, Drupal).

\n\n\n\n

Of course, our Moodle system also allows us to create quiz questions using its built-in tools, as it was developed for e-learning. But H5P are easier to create, look nicer, and can be combined with each other. In addition, they are mostly accessible, there is good documentation, and numerous online tutorials.
Above all, H5P goes far beyond small quizzes. Page layout elements (column, page) can be integrated into an interactive book, for example.

\n\n\n\n

And unlike a Moodle Book, H5P Books (or Course Presentations, Game Maps, Portfolios, and other more complex formats) can easily be used outside of Moodle.
This allows us to bundle content and activities for a course or course module into a permanent unit of learning, share it from edu-sharing with our Moodle (and the world), and reuse it in all kinds of systems and contexts.
In other words, by taking a detour via H5P, we can make our Moodle FAIR.

\n\n\n\n

For creating more complex activities, H5P allows you to embed other H5P types. This means you can ask questions or quiz definitions after an \"infodump,\" or combine prepared questions into a final test.
If you want to add a multiple-choice question to a course presentation, for example, you can copy and paste this question from an existing quiz using the clipboard. It’s not elegant, but it works.

\n\n\n\n

The use and creation of H5P is free of charge (online editors often require registration and/or charge for storage space). However, the Lumi Desktop Editor can also be installed locally. Our Moodle LMS and our repository (edu-sharing) also have an integrated H5P editor, which can be used to create materials directly in the respective system environment and integrate them from there. This is practical because our repository takes care of versioning and metadata!

\n\n\n\n

However, there are also drawbacks:
Neither Moodle nor edu-sharing allow simple saving during creation. If you want to save, the editor closes and you have to reopen the file with several clicks \u2013 this is tedious and time-consuming, especially with larger and more complex H5P elements.
Lumi allows you to save your work with CTRL+S.
And yes: frequent and regular saving is a good idea, because sometimes saving can go wrong\u2026

\n\n\n\n

That’s why I create the planned quiz questions in separate text documents. If you format them correctly right away\u2014e.g., enclosing the answers for fill-in-the-blank texts in \"*\"\u2014you can simply copy and paste the texts.
I also \"sketch\" my ideas for the layout and illustrations of course sections locally in PowerPoint \u2013 text and images on the slide, alt text and image sources in the notes function. What sounds like double work has unfortunately saved me many times.

\n\n\n\n

The following workflow has proven successful for me: the file containing the draft text for the respective learning objective also includes one or more quiz questions that can be answered using this text. This allowed me to give the tests to my colleagues for peer review along with the texts.
The quiz questions (multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, true/false questions, etc.) were given the learning objective ID and the quiz type as their title, so they can be precisely assigned to a text in any context. (And linked in Obsidian!)

\n\n\n\n

All of this works, but unfortunately only within certain limits.H5P was developed as an interactive supplement to static content\u2014the larger the file and the more complex the format, the more unstable it apparently becomes.
An H5P Interactive Book would be the natural solution for our courses because it could evaluate all of the integrated quizzes at the end on a single page. However, the layout options are very limited\u2014a two-column layout with images on the left and text on the right is not possible. Unfortunately, this did not fit in with our plans to convey content in dialogue with our personas.

\n\n\n\n

H5P Course Presentations are quite intuitive to use (with a little presentation experience) and allow for precise layout \u2013 but in practice, they often \"swallow\" colors or images – they suddenly disappear after saving.
I use different text colors for each persona and lots of illustrations for clarity. I can’t count how many times I’ve had to reinsert all the image files just because I had to correct a typo.

\n\n\n\n
\"Screenshot
Screenshot of a Quizpage in an H5P Portfolio used for a WiNoDa self-study course (coming soon).
\n\n\n\n

We ultimately decided on H5P Portfolios: these allow for a more flexible layout using placeholders and up to four chapter hierarchies. With a few quickly created templates, it is easy to use and enables a consistent visual language across creators and courses.
Unfortunately, there is little control over the width or height of layout elements, so the display varies on different monitors. Not ideal, but it will probably work.

\n\n\n\n

If we had a little more time, I would have liked to try LiaScript\u2014a Markdown-based format developed specifically for creating OER. Maybe I can tell you more about it soon, but for our already planned courses, our team are currently unable to build up any further tool skills. Our focus is now solely on completing and publishing.

Do you have any experience with LiaScript or H5P? What do you use to create interactive OER?

\n\n\n\n
Links\nhttps://h5p.org/\nhttps://lumi.education/en/\nhttps://edu-sharing.com/\nhttps://liascript.github.io/
\n\n\n\n

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/11qxz-t4k64","guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=12435","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot_WiNoDa-Moodle_2.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1773187200,"rid":"9b75c-hrt08","summary":"When creating our self-study courses, we tried out various formats to present our content in a visually appealing and interactive way.In the past (yes, still during the coronavirus lockdown), often [\u2026]","tags":["Nicht Kategorisiert","WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal_en","FAIR","H5P","OER"],"title":"Creating OER with H5P","updated_at":1780864495,"url":"https://winoda.de/en/2026/03/11/creating-oer-with-h5p/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bellini","given":"Ginevra"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://winoda.de","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"winoda","status":null,"subfield":"1209","title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"
\n

Ein Dinosaurierfossil von einem anderen Kontinent. Ein gepresstes Herbariumblatt aus dem Jahr 1847. Was k\u00f6nnte daran ethisch problematisch sein?

\n\n\n\n

Ziemlich viel, wie sich herausstellt.

\n\n\n\n

Nehmen Sie an unserer brandneuen Seminarreihe \"Ethik in der Praxis: Der Umgang mit sensiblen Daten aus wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen\" teil und entdecken Sie, wie sich ethische Fragen rasch h\u00e4ufen, wenn man Pflanzen, Tiere und Gesteine, die vor Jahrzehnten oder Jahrhunderten gesammelt wurden, genauer unter die Lupe nimmt.

\n\n\n\n
\"Dinosaurierskelett
\n\n\n\n

Wer hat diese Objekte gesammelt und wie? Um wessen Land, wessen Wissen und wessen Gemeinschaften ging es dabei? Reproduzieren die aus diesen Sammlungen gewonnenen Daten alte Hierarchien, bedrohen sie gef\u00e4hrdete Arten oder untergraben sie die Rechte indigener V\u00f6lker \u2013 sogar noch heute?

\n\n\n\n

Von gepl\u00fcnderten Artefakten bis hin zu genetischen Ressourcen, von der kolonialen Geschichte des Erwerbs bis hin zu Rahmenwerken wie den CARE-Prinzipien f\u00fcr die indigene Datenverwaltung \u2013 unsere Expertenrunde wird die historischen und ethischen Dimensionen von Sammlungsdaten beleuchten, praktische Instrumente f\u00fcr verantwortungsbewusstes Handeln vorstellen und dabei helfen, einen Weg zu gerechteren und transparenteren Praktiken aufzuzeigen.

\n\n\n\n

Alle Veranstaltungen finden online statt, sind in englischer Sprache und kostenlos zug\u00e4nglich. Bitte registrieren Sie sich: https://winoda.de/lernangebote/seminarreihe-ethik-in-der-praxis/

\n\n\n\n

\u00dcbersicht \u00fcber die Vortr\u00e4ge:

\n\n\n\n

Daten in der Gesellschaft und Datafizierung: Wem sind Daten wichtig? \u2013 Prof. Sabina Leonelli [21. April, 13:15 \u2013 14:40 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Wie geht man mit umstrittenen naturhistorischen Sammlungen und deren Daten um? Fallstudien aus dem Museum f\u00fcr Naturkunde Berlin \u2013 Dr. Ina Heumann & Dr. Katja Kaiser [29. April, 14:00 \u2013 16:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Die Entstehung von Biodiversit\u00e4tsdaten: Die Digitalisierung von Sammlungen und ihre politische Dimension in naturhistorischen Museen \u2013 Dr. Roos Hopmann [6. Mai, 14:00 \u2013 16:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Internationale Verpflichtungen zu Zugang und Vorteilsausgleich (ABS): Was Sammlungen und Forscher wissen m\u00fcssen \u2013 Melania Mu\u00f1oz Garc\u00eda, Monique H\u00f6lting, Dr. Martin Wiemers [12. Mai, 10:00 \u2013 11:30 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Die verborgene Welt sensibler Arten-Daten \u2013 Tania Laity & Cam Slatyer [21. Mai, 9:00 \u2013 11:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Von den Depots zu den Beziehungen: Indigene Datenhoheit und die Zukunft der Biokollektionen \u2013 Dr. Leke (Leslie) Hutchins [4. Juni, 10:00 \u2013 12:00 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Das kulturelle Erbe wieder verbinden: Digitale Infrastruktur f\u00fcr Provenienz, Gemeinschaftswissen und Restitution \u2013 Dr. Anne Luther [11. Juni, 16:30 \u2013 18:30 Uhr MESZ]

\n\n\n\n

Ein digitales Verzeichnis kolonialer Pl\u00fcnderungen \u2013 Dr. Yann LeGall [18. Juni, 11:00 \u2013 13:00 Uhr MESZ]

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/hvec0-t4g97","guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=13061","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1776124800,"rid":"szr79-jzw45","summary":"Ein Dinosaurierfossil von einem anderen Kontinent. Ein gepresstes Herbariumblatt aus dem Jahr 1847. Was k\u00f6nnte daran ethisch problematisch sein? Ziemlich viel, wie sich herausstellt.","tags":["WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal","Veranstaltung"],"title":"Ank\u00fcndigung der Seminarreihe: Ethik in der Praxis \u2013 Umgang mit sensiblen Daten aus wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen","updated_at":1780864494,"url":"https://winoda.de/2026/04/14/ankuendigung-der-seminarreihe-ethik-in-der-praxis-umgang-mit-sensiblen-daten-aus-wissenschaftlichen-sammlungen/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"tritonstation","status":null,"subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"

Last time, we started talking about the data in the recent paper The Baryonic Mass-Halo Mass Relation of Extragalactic Systems. Here, we'll put on our dark matter hat, and use the data to make an accounting of the mass \u2013 both the dark matter and the baryons in all their various forms. From this conventional perspective we will obtain a method for relating what we see to what we don't. In the context of LCDM cosmology, this provides an alternative approach to abundance matching. It also provides a test: are the two consistent?

\n

The conventional picture we have in mind is a baryonic galaxy residing in a dark matter halo bathed in a background of intergalactic matter.

\n
\"\"

Fig. 1 of McGaugh et al. (2026): Conceptual elements of a galaxy: the stars (yellow/blue) and atomic gas (green) of NGC 6946 (Spitzer 3.6\u00b5 and 21 cm data: F. Walter et al. 2008) are shown embedded in an extended dark matter halo (black). The dark matter density decreases continuously with radius so the halo has no hard edge, but for convenience we adopt the common convention that the radius r200 marks the boundary of the dark matter halo and the dividing line between the circumgalactic medium (CGM) and the intergalactic medium (IGM; orange). The stars and atomic gas illustrated here appear within r < 20 kpc while r200 \u2248 220 kpc (not shown to scale).
\n

I've talked here about the stars and gas a lot because that's what we see. These are the essential components that define a galaxy and comprise the mass that correlates with rotation velocity to make the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation (BTFR). I've talked a bit about the stuff between the galaxies, the intergalactic medium (IGM), but I don't think I've previously had cause to talk much about the circumgalactic medium (CGM). As the name implies, this is gas in the vicinity of a galaxy, but not in the galaxy itself \u2013 at least not the part we can readily see. In the notional picture above, the distinction between the CGM and the IGM is the boundary of the dark matter halo that nominally demarcates gravitationally bound from unbound material.

\n

Notional is doing a lot of work here. There's a lot of gas in the IGM, and some of it is certainly in the vicinity of galaxies, so in that regard counts as circum-galactic. But there's no hard and fast distinction between these components just as there's no hard edge to a dark matter halo. Our brains don't like that, so we impose notional boundaries and proceed as if these are meaningful.

\n

Proceeding thus, we expect our dark matter halo* to contain its fair share of the cosmic baryon fraction, fb = Mb/M200 = 0.157 according to the Planck flavor of LCDM cosmology. We can test this by adding up all the baryons and comparing that to the total mass enclosed by r200. This is straightforward for the stars and gas we see, but not for the stuff we don't see \u2013 both dark matter and the gas in the CGM.

\n

There are some measurements of the CGM, but these tend to be statistical in nature (if we stack data for a bunch of galaxies, we sorta see something), not the precise, individual, galaxy-by-galaxy measurements that we have for the stars and atomic gas. The stars and atomic gas are the mass in the extended Tully-Fisher relations we discussed previously, and are the bulk of the normal material in the galaxies we see. The bulk of the CGM lies at much larger radii, beyond the stars and atomic gas, but within the notional edge of the dark matter halo, as depicted above. Since we don't measure it directly in individual galaxies, we're gonna leave the mass of the CGM as an open question rather than something to be included in the sum of known baryonic mass.

\n

The situation is even murkier for the dark matter, which we don't see at all, so we don't have a good way to measure the \"total\" mass of dark matter halos. This isn't even a well-defined quantity in principle since halos are not expected to have a hard edge. Conventionally, we adopt the mass within a radius that contains a density two hundred times the cosmic critical density, r200, as the notional edge. There are obscure historical reasons for this choice that I do not have the patience to describe. One could make other choices, arguably better choices, but r200 is the most common choice used in the literature so we'll stick with it here. The halo mass is the mass enclosed by this radius, M200. If one goes through the math, it turns out that the circular speed of a test particle, V200, orbiting at r200 scales with the Hubble parameter [h = H0/(100 km/s/Mpc)] such that V200 = h r200 when V200 is in km/s and r200 is in kpc. The dynamical mass (rV2/G) can then be written

\n
M200=(3.3\u00d7105M\u2299km\u22123s3)V2003.M_{200} = (3.3 \\times 10^5\\;\\mathrm{M}_{\\odot}\\,\\mathrm{km}^{-3}\\,\\mathrm{s}^3)\\,V_{200}^3.
\n

That is a lot of huffing and puffing to get a way to relate the halo mass to something we can (kinda sorta) measure. The flat rotation velocity Vf has always been taken as the signature of the dark matter halo. One therefore expects V200 ~ Vf. Indeed, these quantities cannot differ by much if dark matter is what explains flat rotation curves. However, the notional radius of the dark matter halo where V200 occurs is much larger, by roughly an order of magnitude or more, than the radius where Vf is measured. So they need not be identical, depending on the halo model. So to relate what we measure to what we'd like to know we define a little ol' fudge factor, fv, such that:

\n
Vf=fvV200V_f = f_v V_{200}
\n

If a rotation curve stays flat indefinitely (as our empirical experience suggests), fv = 1. If instead dark matter halos behave as they should in LCDM, then the rotation speed should gradually decline as we approach the halo's edge so that fv > 1. How much greater?

\n

One way to estimate the fudge factor fv is to fit dark matter halo models to data. This process does not directly measure V200, but it does provide an estimate of that quantity based on the data available a smaller radii. One can do this for as many halo models as one has the patience to consider. For example, here are the results for two common halo models, the traditional pseudo-isothermal halo first adopted to explain flat rotation curves and the CDM-expected NFW halo:

\n
\"\"
Figure 2 from McGaugh et al. (2026):\u00a0The observed flat velocity Vf as it relates to the fitted V200 for pseudo-isothermal (left panel) and NFW (right panel) halos (Li et al. 2020). Filled points have formal uncertainties <20% in V200; open points are less accurate fits. The solid line shows Vf\u00a0=\u00a0V200. The gray line in the right panel shows Equation (2a) of Katz et al. (2019), which corresponds roughly to fv\u00a0\u2248\u00a01.4.
\n

The result for pseudo-isothermal halos is consistent with fv = 1, as expected \u2013 this model was adopted to make flat rotation curves. There is nevertheless some scatter. This typically happens because the observed rotation is not observed to be flat over a large enough range of radii to enforce flatness further out (as often happens in dwarf galaxies) or because the stars account for so much of the mass over the observed range that the inferred dark matter component is still rising (as often happens in bright, high surface brightness galaxies). This sort of haziness is inevitable when one only measures the inner few percent of the notional virial radius.

\n

The result for NFW halos is approximately fv = 1.4, albeit with a lot more scatter. This happens for the same reasons as above, with the additional problem that the dark matter profile in real galaxies rarely looks like NFW. Of all the many halo models considered by Li et al. (2020), NFW consistently performs the worst. One is forcing a fit of a function that would rather not. One signature of this misfit is the occurrence of very large V200 for dwarf galaxies with small Vf. Taken literally, this would mean that some of the smallest dwarf galaxies reside in dark matter halos that outweigh those of giants like the Milky Way. This seems absurd, and it is. For example, by this approach, the dwarf galaxy NGC 3109 residing just outside the Local Group outweighs the Local Group and both its giants, Andromeda and the Milky Way, put together. But it is pretty clear from the local velocity field that the entire Local Group is not orbiting this little dwarf.

\n

The estimation of huge V200 for galaxies with small Vf happens because of the cusp-core problem. The density cusp predicted by NFW expects a curved shape for the inner rotation curve while the data show a more gradual, quasi-linear rise. Any decent fitting program will realize that it can make a curve look like a straight line if it stretches it out enough, so it does exactly this by making the halo very large. That sorta fits the data, but it makes no physical sense. Between this systematic effect and the large scatter induced by the other effects discussed above, one is better off inferring V200 from Vf with a fixed fudge factor. So we'll do that, leaving the exact value of fv as an open question, but noting that for most objects it almost certainly resides in the narrow range

\n
1\u2264fv\u22641.4.1 \\le f_v \\le 1.4.
\n

That's a lot of words to say the observed flat rotation speed gives us our best kinematic estimator or the dark matter halo mass. In this context, bear in mind the small scatter in the extended Tully-Fisher relations. This contrasts with the large scatter seen in the fits above. This strongly implies that Vf is more closely tied to the underlying mass^ than are the model-specific halo fits to the entire rotation curve. That might seem counterintuitive given that Vf is only a portion of the rotation curve (albeit a well-defined portion). However, it makes more sense when one considers that rotation curve fits must consider the contribution of stars as well as dark matter. Since the stellar mass-to-light ratio is never perfectly known, there is a degeneracy between the two that contributes to the scatter seen above. That variation is not real, it's just an artifact of the fitting procedure. But when we get to large radii, beyond the confounding effects of the stellar population, the signature of the dominant mass becomes apparent in the flat rotation speed.

\n

We saw above that we expect the halo mass M200 to correlate with V200. We observe that baryonic mass Mb correlates with the flat rotation velocity Vf. The natural assumption is that the stuff we see is proportional to the total (mostly dark) mass while the observed flat velocity is a property of the halo. Hence Mb ~ M200 and Vf ~ V200. This simple argument has been the basis for many papers claiming to explain the Tully-Fisher relation over the course of many years. This would be entirely satisfactory if it weren't so completely wrong.

\n

Here we need to introduce another fudge factor, mb, that relates the mass we see to the halo that spawned each galaxy:

\n
Mb=mbM200M_b = m_b\\,M_{200}
\n

The obvious assumption is that mb is a constant for all galaxies, in which case Tully-Fisher follows because Mb ~ M200 ~ V2003 and V200 ~ Vf. The wee problem is that this predicts a Tully-Fisher relation with slope 3: Mb ~ Vf3 when we observe one with slope 4: Mb ~ Vf4. In order to reconcile these two, our new fudge factor cannot be a constant. Worse, we need to fine tune it to transform the predicted power law into the observed one: mb ~ Vf. That\u2026 doesn't make any sense.

\n

We can refrain from thinking and plunge ahead to simply plot the baryon fraction. While we're at it, let's also plot the stellar mass fraction m* = M*/M200 because that is more commonly discussed in the literature. (Often stellar masses are available for galaxies without the corresponding gas mass measurements.) These fractions have to be increasing functions of circular velocity, or equivalently, mass (mb ~ Vf ~ Mb1/4):

\n
\"\"
Figure 4 from McGaugh et al. (2026):\u00a0The stellar mass fraction as a function of stellar mass (top) and the baryonic mass fraction as a function of baryonic mass (bottom). Data and symbols as in Figure 3 with the additional distinction that large squares in the top panel represent the sum of the stellar mass of all galaxies in a group or cluster while small squares are the stellar mass of the brightest galaxy only. The horizontal line is the cosmic baryon fraction fb\u00a0=\u00a00.157 (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020). The colored lines in the top panels show the stellar mass\u2013halo mass relations from abundance matching given by B. P. Moster et al. (2013; dashed\u2013dotted green line), P. S. Behroozi et al. (2013; dashed\u2013triple dotted pink line), and A. V. Kravtsov et al. (2018; red dashed line). The black line in the lower panel is mb = fb tanh(Mb/M0)1/4 where fb is the cosmic baryon fraction (0.157) and M0 = 5 x 1013 M\u2609.
\n

To be specific, I've computed the halo mass assuming fv = 1. Different assumptions just slide the data up and down; the trend persists. This is discussed more in the paper if you're interested in such details.

\n

This gives a nifty way to relate what we can see to what we can't. There's a simple formula:

\n
mb=fbtanh\u2061(MbM0)1/4m_b = f_b \\tanh\\left(\\frac{M_b}{M_0}\\right)^{1/4}
\n

where fb = 0.157 is the cosmic baryon fraction and and M0 = 5 x 1013 M\u2609 is the scale where the function bends, transitioning from the Mb ~ Vf4 of the BTFR that holds over most of the mass range to the mb = fb of rich galaxy clusters. The precise value of the turnover mass is not well constrained, as it happens in the one place that is not well sampled by the available data. Indeed, there is nothing special about the functional form; it is simply a choice that transitions nicely from one regime to the other. There's no physics in it&. Still, this is a useful way to estimate the halo mass of pretty much any extragalactic object just by summing up its observed baryonic mass.

\n

Indeed, this kinematic mass-matching relation is better than the widely used abundance matching relations in that it has less scatter. Abundance matching generally relies on stellar mass; that results in more scatter for the same reasons discussed for Tully-Fisher. This is particularly apparent at the low mass end of the top panel above, where galaxies of the same circular velocity (halo mass) have very different stellar masses. This goes away when baryonic mass is used instead.

\n

There is reasonable agreement between abundance matching and kinematics at intermediate masses. The lines representing various abundance matching relations parallel the kinematic data. The offsets that are apparent can be cured by an appropriate choice of fv. Always a free parameter to the rescue there is.

\n

At the high mass end, things go amiss again. Partly this is because abundance matching relations reference the stellar mass of the \"central\" galaxy. The picture is that each halo contains one central galaxy with many satellite galaxies in subhalos, so what matters is the stellar mass of the central. This is overly simplistic: galaxy clusters are messy, the brightest galaxy isn't necessarily at the center, and most have substructure with multiple groups rather than a single hierarchy. Besides that, the stellar mass tells you little about the halo mass without further environmental context: a galaxy with M* ~ 4 x 1011 M\u2609 could reside in halo masses spanning a couple of orders of magnitude.

\n

Setting aside the issue of centrals, there is a serious tension for individual high mass galaxies. The stellar mass fraction suggested by kinematics keeps going up where that of abundance matching turns over. This is due to the linearity of the Tully-Fisher relation compared to the knee in the Schechter function shape of the stellar mass function. The two don't match up, as discussed previously. This same tension has long been with us; in the '90s we were concerned with the difference between \"the luminosity function normalization\" and \"the Tully-Fisher normalization.\" This tension never went away. Still, the tension between abundance matching and kinematics doesn't seem tragic, and might be remedied with some appropriate finagling of both the baryon fraction and the velocity fudge factor.

\n

But where are all the baryons? They're all accounted for in clusters, which reach the cosmic baryon fraction. But in no other system is the checksum complete. There is a missing baryon problem locally in each and every dark matter halo below the cluster scale. To confound matters further, there is a fine-tuning problem: the amount of missing baryons scales precisely with the amount of observed baryons.

\n

The logarithmic plot above may understate the magnitude of the problem. To clarify this, we can plot the ratio of missing-to-observed baryons on a linear scale, at least in part:

\n
\"\"
Figure 7 from McGaugh et al. (2026):\u00a0The ratio of missing-to-observed baryonic mass as a function of baryonic mass. Data and symbols are the same as above. The ratio is linear in the bottom half of the diagram, then switches to logarithmic in the top half. Spiral galaxies are shown twice: once with fv\u00a0=\u00a01.0 (solid blue circles) and again with fv\u00a0=\u00a01.4 (small open circles). The Milky Way is the yellow point at the top of the gray band, which shows the range from zero CGM to that required to explain all of the locally missing baryons when fv\u00a0=\u00a01. Stars represent the CGM measurements of Milky Way\u2013mass galaxies by Miller & Bregman (2015), Bregman et al. (2022), and Zhang et al. (2026) from bottom to top. These suffice to explain the missing baryons provided that fv \u2248 1.4. This explanation becomes progressively less plausible for lower mass galaxies.
\n

The scatter blows up when we plot linear ratios; this is an artifact of error propagation. Nevertheless, it is helpful to see that the local missing baryon problem is not subtle. It is already a factor of ~2 for groups and ~3 for bright galaxies. It's not as if we've misplaced a few percent of the baryons. Most of the baryons that should be associated with galaxy dark matter halos are not in evidence.

\n

This problem has been known for a while, but doesn't seem to be acknowledged to be a problem. Not all baryons need condense down into the central galaxy; some might be left behind, still mixed in with the dark matter halo. The widespread assumption seems to be that the missing baryons are probably in the CGM.

\n

Accounting for the missing baryons with gas in the CGM almost works in bright galaxies like the Milky Way where we need \"only\" a factor of a few. Recent estimates suggest that the CGM is comparable in mass to the stars, or even somewhat more. These are very uncertain, as this mass is dispersed in diffuse gas over an enormous volume, and the total mass estimates often involve large extrapolations: the CGM is detected most readily nearby the central galaxy, but most of its implied mass is way far out near r200. Accepting these estimates at face value leads to the star symbols in the plot above. This makes the checksum complete provided the halo is not too massive, as happens if fv \u2248 1.4. This is what we expect for NFW halos, so it might work out if those were viable. However, there is a bigger issue.

\n

The local missing baryon problem gets progressively worse for lower mass galaxies. For 1010 M\u2609 galaxies \u2013 not all that much smaller than the Milky Way (Mb = 7 x 1010 M\u2609), the problem isn't a factor of two or three: there are ~6 baryons missing for every one that is observed. For 109 M\u2609 galaxies, the deficit is an order of magnitude. For even lower mass galaxies, the difference is so large we have to abandon the linear plot lest the interesting parts for bright galaxies get scrunched into invisibility. By the time we get to small dwarf galaxies of 106 M\u2609, the ratio of missing-to-observed baryons approaches 100:1. It is not plausible to imagine that the CGM of dwarf galaxies explains this deficit. (And yes, we've looked.)

\n

A common explanation for this variation is that low mass dark matter halos have shallower potential wells, so have a harder time holding onto their baryons. Supernova can drive material out of galaxies; these go off with the same energy regardless of the galaxy they're in so they may be more effective at blowing baryons out of lower mass systems. There is sufficient energy (IF properly% distributed) to completely unbind the baryons, so they might wind up in the IGM, defeating any hope of completing the checksum. This is the sort of argument that sounds clever but fails to address the real problem. The difficulty isn't just ridding ourselves of these meddlesome baryons, it is getting rid of exactly the right amount each and every time.

\n

As awkward as it is to realize that most of the baryons that should be in low mass halos are not in evidence, it is not difficult to imagine ways in which this might happen, like the aforementioned supernova-driven galactic winds. The more dire aspect of the problem is the fine-tuning. Galaxies of the same observed baryonic mass are always missing the same amount of baryons, whether that's a factor of 2 or 10 or 100. If the visible parts of a dwarf galaxy are only 1% of the available baryons, you'd expect a lot of scatter. Sometimes a halo of that mass might have 2% or even 3% of its baryons condense to the parts we see. That would show up in the scatter in a way it does not: galaxies of the same circular velocity (halo mass) have the same baryonic mass every time. They don't vary by factors of two (or more). So while we can build models that makes the baryon fraction just so, the fact that we can write a simple equation for it with practically zero scatter is profoundly uncomfortable.

\n

An extra bit of weirdness is that in LCDM, galaxies are built hierarchically by merging small objects into large ones. This poses a teleological problem. Consider a small halo at high redshift. If it remains alone, then it it will contain a dwarf galaxy at low redshift that has a low baryon fraction. But if it mergers into a larger system, then by the current time that larger system has to have a larger baryon fraction. In effect, a low mass halo has to know where it will end up some billions of years in the future. Will it remain alone and unmerged? Better blow out all those baryons! Will it merge into a larger system? Better hang on to the right amount of baryons. Does that system merge into a still larger object? Hope it held onto even more baryons, in exactly the right amount at every step along dozens of mergers.

\n

I can imagine all this happening in a stochastic fashion with the net result being that more massive systems wind up with a higher baryon fraction, at least on average. I cannot give credence to this process resulting in the small observed scatter. As people are always telling me, \"galaxies are complicated.\" Indeed, they should be \u2013 in LCDM. But in reality they're not! They obey simple scaling laws, laws that do not follow naturally from LCDM.

\n

The local missing baryon problem encapsulates one of the fine-tuning problems that has never been satisfactorily explained. This alone would be considered fatal for most theories. For LCDM, it is just another problem to be addressed through the eternal tweaking of models and simulations.

\n
\n

*Strictly speaking, M200 refers to all mass within r200, baryons as well as dark matter. I'm going to call it halo mass anyway, because that's what we mean, the baryons are a small fraction of the total, and because that's what everybody does in the literature. If we make some other choice for the definition of the mass of the halo, M\u0394, then the inferred baryon fraction of an objects scales by M200/M\u0394. The cosmic baryon fraction does not care what choice we make, so the implicit assumption is that one asymptotes to the cosmic fraction if one gets far enough out, irrespective of what r\u0394 we adopt. While this is a sensible assumption \u2013 individual objects must merge into the larger cosmos at some point \u2013 there is no guarantee that the universe cooperates. For example, the baryon fraction in galaxies declines with increasing radius, but that in galaxy clusters increases with radius. I've seen hints that it doesn't really settle down to the cosmic (or any particular) value. These are only hints \u2013 considerable extrapolation is involved \u2013 so we'll ignore this inconvenience and assume that the baryon fractions of individual objects do in fact converge to the cosmic value far enough out.

\n

^It makes the most sense if the underlying total mass is the observed baryonic mass.

\n

&I made a very similar fit in McGaugh et al. (2010) but didn't publish it because there was no physics in it. Since then the field has been awash in abundance matching relations that were similarly fit sans physics. There has been much ink spilled justifying it post-facto with feedback, but I have refrained from this exercise in intellectual onanism.

\n

%It is common to assume in simulations that a large fraction (50 \u2013 100%) of the energy from supernovae is returned to the surrounding gas. This process is not resolved in cosmological simulations, all the energy return happens as part of the \"subgrid\" physics, so the feedback efficiency is set, in practice, to make things work out as well as possible.

\n

Observationally, most of the SN energy finds its way out along the path of least resistance where the density of the surrounding gas is smallest (\"chimneys\"). This process couples to the surrounding gas with only a few percent efficiency.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/7qk7k-81e57","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=12398","image":"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/GalaxySchematic.png?resize=700%2C700&ssl=1","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780272000,"rid":"k01f8-d8056","summary":"Last time, we started talking about the data in the recent paper The Baryonic Mass-Halo Mass Relation of Extragalactic Systems. Here, we'll put on our dark matter hat, and use the data to make an accounting of the mass \u2013 both the dark matter and the baryons in all their various forms.","tags":["Cosmology","Dark Matter","Data Interpretation","LCDM"],"title":"The local missing baryon problem","updated_at":1780864474,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2026/06/01/the-local-missing-baryon-problem/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Sielert","given":"Deborah"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Das Blog der TIB \u2013 Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universit\u00e4tsbibliothek","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://blog.tib.eu/","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.65527","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"tib","status":null,"subfield":"1802","title":"TIB-Blog","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"TIB-Blog","blog_slug":"tib","content_html":"

\"Dear Dr Musterfrau, I came across your paper and thought your work could make a real impact if shared beyond academia.\"

\n
\"\"
Illustration: Jasmina El Bouamraoui and Karabo Poppy Moletsane, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
\n

Wer heutzutage wissenschaftlich publiziert, kennt sicherlich solche E-Mails, die zuhauf in Postf\u00e4chern von Forschenden landen. Anders als beim Predatory Publishing, wo Autor:innen mit schnellen aber qualitativ fragw\u00fcrdigen Angeboten f\u00fcr die Publikation von Artikeln angesprochen werden (mehr dazu hier), beziehen sich obige E-Mails auf Angebote im Bereich der Wissenschaftskommunikation, die sich an ein breiteres Publikum richten.

\n

Anbieter wie \"SciPod\", \"SciTube\", \"Research Outreach\" und \u00e4hnliche bieten an, Forschungsergebnisse in popul\u00e4re Formate wie Podcasts, Videos oder Infografiken zu \u00fcbertragen.

\n

Doch sind diese Dienste seri\u00f6s? Und wer soll sie bezahlen?

\n

Dieser Beitrag ordnet die kommerziellen Dienstleister:innen ein, diskutiert Alternativen und erkl\u00e4rt, warum Publikationsfonds hier meist nicht die Finanzierung \u00fcbernehmen.

\n

Warum Wissenschaftskommunikation oft delegiert wird

\n

Die Erwartung, dass Forschung in die Gesellschaft wirkt, w\u00e4chst stetig. In politischen Debatten wird betont, das Vertrauen der Bev\u00f6lkerung in die Wissenschaft zu st\u00e4rken. Daher gelten wissenschaftskommunikative T\u00e4tigkeiten als wichtiger Aspekt des Wissenschaftstransfers, um die L\u00fccke zwischen \u00d6ffentlichkeit und Wissenschaft zu schlie\u00dfen.

\n

F\u00f6rdergeber:innen legen zunehmend Wert auf Transfer-Aktivit\u00e4ten und die Dissemination von Forschungsergebnissen zu relevanten Zielgruppen. Personen- und institutionenbezogene Evaluationskriterien ber\u00fccksichtigen immer h\u00e4ufiger auch \u00f6ffentliche Sichtbarkeit und Transfer.

\n

Um Wissenschaft f\u00fcr Nicht-Expert:innen zug\u00e4nglich zu machen, braucht es vielf\u00e4ltige Publikationsformen (Elliot 2022). Dem stehen jedoch die Rahmenbedingungen der meisten Forschenden gegen\u00fcber: Ihnen fehlen oft Kompetenzen, Zeit oder Ressourcen. Hinzu kommt der sogenannte \"Sagan-Effekt\", der von einer aktiven Beteiligung abhalten kann.

\n

SciPod & Co.: nicht '\"predatory\", aber mit Vorsicht zu behandeln

\n

Der Bedarf an Wissenstransfer hat einen Markt f\u00fcr Dienstleister:innen geschaffen, die Forschungsergebnisse aufbereiten und vermarkten. Typische Angebote sind Kurzvideos, Podcasts, Animationen oder Artikel, die f\u00fcr das Publikum meist frei lizenziert und kostenfrei zug\u00e4nglich sind. F\u00fcr die Auftraggebenden liegen die Preise f\u00fcr ein Produkt zwischen 1.000 und 4.000 Pfund; oft werden zus\u00e4tzliche Reichweitenversprechen f\u00fcr Social Media oder Newsletter gemacht bzw. k\u00f6nnen sie \u00fcber entsprechende Pakete dazu gebucht werden.

\n

Ihre Kund:innen erreichen die Unternehmen unter anderem \u00fcber ausgiebige Kaltakquise mit den anfangs dargestellten E-Mails. Vor dem Hintergrund der Sensibilisierung vieler Forschender zum Thema \"Predatory Journals\" ruft dies verst\u00e4ndlicherweise erst einmal Skepsis hervor. Unserer Einsch\u00e4tzung nach ist zwar keiner der uns bekannten Dienstleister eindeutig als \"predatory\" einzustufen, manche Gesch\u00e4ftspraktiken k\u00f6nnen dennoch unseri\u00f6s scheinen. Die Diskussionen diesbez\u00fcglich unter Forschenden sind kontrovers. Wer trotzdem entsprechende Angebote nutzen will, sollte dies wohl\u00fcberlegt tun.

\n

Was Studien und Communities sagen

\n

Auf Plattformen wie ResearchGate oder Reddit wird das Thema diskutiert. Ein Diskussionsteilnehmer berichtet beispielsweise davon, dass die Kommunikation mit dem Editor so langwierig gewesen sei, dass er es am Ende lieber selber gemacht h\u00e4tte. Andere werden stutzig, weil Informationen \u00fcber die H\u00f6he der Kosten erst sp\u00e4t im Kommunikationsprozess mit den Anbieter:innen transparent gemacht wurden oder Angaben \u00fcber Lizenzen inkonsistent sind. Neben aggressivem Marketing werden den Anbieter:innen zum Teil undurchsichtige Geb\u00fchrenregelungen, \u00fcbertriebene Reichweitenversprechen oder Qualit\u00e4tsprobleme attestiert. Demgegen\u00fcber stehen aber auch zahlreiche Stimmen, die von positiven Erfahrungen und \u00e4u\u00dferst zufriedenstellenden Ergebnissen berichten.

\n

Eine Studie von Hamid R. Jamali (2025) befragte 104 Forschende, die Dienste wie researchoutreach.org oder researchfutures.com nutzten. Zwar war die (allgemeine) Zufriedenheit mit der Darstellung der Ergebnisse hoch, doch gaben 67 Prozent an, dass die Publikation keine nennenswerten Auswirkungen hatte. Jamali empfiehlt daher, vorab klare Ziele und Zielgruppen f\u00fcr die Ver\u00f6ffentlichung zu definieren.

\n

Soll ich das Angebot annehmen? Wenn ja, wie?

\n

Wie bei allen Publikationsangeboten empfehlen wir eine sorgf\u00e4ltige Pr\u00fcfung solcher Angebote hinsichtlich Finanzierung, Lizenzierung, Reichweitenversprechen und Kosten-Nutzen-Abw\u00e4gung.

\n\n

Nutzung interner und externer Alternativen

\n

Als erste Anlaufstelle sollten Sie die Presse- oder \u00d6ffentlichkeitsarbeit Ihrer Einrichtung kontaktieren. Oft bieten Hochschulen, Bibliotheken oder Fachgesellschaften eigene Formate an. Ein Beispiel ist die Podcast-Liste des Fachportals f\u00fcr internationale und interdisziplin\u00e4re Rechtsforschung: FID intRecht. Das BorgNetzwerks versucht mit dem WissKom Wiki aktuell eine Wikibase-basierte Online-Bibliothek f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Podcasts und Videos aufzubauen. Die TIB bietet mit dem AV-Portal und dem ConRec Service M\u00f6glichkeiten Forschungsergebnisse visuell aufzubereiten bzw. online zur Verf\u00fcgung zu stellen.

\n

Wo solche Angebote fehlen, lohnt es sich, deren Entwicklung aktiv anzuregen. Die Finanzierungsl\u00fccke versuchen derzeit nur wenige Initiativen zu f\u00fcllen, wie etwa der HRA-F\u00f6rderfonds der Hamburg Research Academy.

\n
\"\"
Illustration: Jonas Hauss, CC BY 4.0, Open Science-/ Open Access-Grafikpaket
\n

Fazit: Vorzug nicht-kommerzielle Alternativen

\n

Kommerzielle Anbieter sind zwar divers, verfolgen aber prim\u00e4r Gewinnziele, die nicht immer mit den Werten der Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft (Transparenz, Offenheit) \u00fcbereinstimmen. Insgesamt raten wir dazu, den Fokus auf nicht-kommerzielle Alternativen der Wissenschaftskommunikation zu legen, dies kann die Arbeit in und mit Wikipedia, \u00f6ffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten oder community-getragenen Podcasts und Blogs bedeuten. In allen F\u00e4llen sind nicht nur die Publikationen selbst frei zug\u00e4nglich, sondern auch kostenfrei f\u00fcr Autor:innen, mit zum Teil besseren Reichweiten als bei kommerziellen Anbietern.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.65527/kanaf-14236","guid":"https://blog.tib.eu/?p=32423","image":"https://blog.tib.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Waage_Wissen_Geld_Jonas-Hauss-scaled.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780272000,"rid":"c8t9z-nr126","summary":"\" Dear Dr Musterfrau, I came across your paper and thought your work could make a real impact if shared beyond academia.\" Wer heutzutage wissenschaftlich publiziert, kennt sicherlich solche E-Mails, die zuhauf in Postf\u00e4chern von Forschenden landen.","tags":["FORSCHUNG & PROJEKTE","WISSENSCHAFTLICHES ARBEITEN","Forschung","Forschungsergebnisse","Lizenz:CC-BY-4.0-INT"],"title":"Wissenschaftskommunikation outsourcen: kommerzielle Anbieter, Fallstricke und bessere Alternativen","updated_at":1780864473,"url":"https://blog.tib.eu/2026/06/01/wissenschaftskommunikation-outsourcen-kommerzielle-anbieter-fallstricke-und-bessere-alternativen/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

Ren\u00e9 Bekkers, 7 April 2026

\n\n\n\n

Responsible Research Practices: What You Must and What You Could

\n\n\n\n

Guidance for researchers at the School of Social Sciences, VU Amsterdam

\n\n\n\n

Duties: What You Must Do with Respect to Research Integrity

\n\n\n\n

1. Do the ethics self-check for each study, before collecting data: https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9HMDSbc1ZNVo24C

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2. Make sure before collecting data that informed consent procedures for each study involving data collection specify that collected data may be shared for research purposes, https://vunl.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/FSW-OE-ResearchOfficeFSS/ESqv_KBkeEJPnzIe4JwM7YUBVUY_etYwMWDodDm2Yq5pFQ?e=9a3rCQ 

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

3. Write a Data Management Plan for each study before collecting data, and keep it up to date while the project is running, https://dmponline.vu.nl/  

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

4. Before starting a project with external parties: write a contract specifying ownership of data and rights to publish the report.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

5. Archive the data for your completed study and create a publication package. For 'quantitative' research the package includes ethics review documents, all research materials, data files (raw and processed), the data management plan, and computer code produced in the research. For 'qualitative' research the package includes all data, the data management plan, interview and observation guides, and documentation of data collection activities.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

What you can do to support research integrity

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Discuss authorships with your colleagues when you are planning a publication and use the CRediT taxonomy at https://credit.niso.org/. Revisit the description of responsibilities during the research, and update them when you publish a preprint, and when you submit the paper to a journal.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. Pre-register your research design and hypotheses before collecting and analyzing data, https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/09/20/preregistration-why-and-how/ 
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. Execute the Data Management Plan and share data responsibly, https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/data-management-ssc
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. Declare the use of generative artificial intelligence using the GAIDeT, https://panbibliotekar.github.io/gaidet-declaration/
    5. \n\n\n\n
  5. Do a codecheck before submitting results for publication, https://codecheck.org.uk/guide/community-workflow-overview 
    6. \n\n\n\n
  6. Do a Research Transparency Check of your manuscript before you disseminate it, https://scienceverse.github.io/papercheck/ 
    7. \n\n\n\n
  7. Publish your manuscript as a preprint before submitting it to a journal https://help.osf.io/article/376-preprints-home-page 
    8. \n\n\n\n
  8. Make sure that the journal you intend to publish is not a predatory journal https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/beware-of-predatory-publishers/ 
    9. \n\n\n\n
  9. Publish your manuscript as a registered report, so that it will be accepted regardless of the empirical results: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports  
    10. \n\n\n\n
  10. Do the Erasmus University Dilemma Game, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nl.eur.dilemmagame&hl=en_US 
    11. \n
\n\n\n\n

At the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH) of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, research integrity is governed by eight policies:

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. The overarching policy is the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity adopted by the Royal Academy of Arts & Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Association of Universities (Universiteiten van Nederland, formerly VSNU), the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and other organizations; https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/publications/Netherlands%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Research%20Integrity%202018.pdf. The code of conduct is currently being revised. The new version will probably be published later in the Spring of 2026.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. The 2025 code of ethics for research in the social and behavioural sciences, adopted by the Deans of the Social Sciences (DSW): https://nethics.nl/onewebmedia/Nethics-Code-of-Ethics-digitaal.pdf;
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. The procedures for ethics review at the Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS); https://assets.vu.nl/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/c7e3795f-62b7-4b3f-9282-48859461e87e/RERC-Regulations-Feb18_tcm249-880617.pdf
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. The national guidelines for archiving research data in the behavioural and social sciences; https://zenodo.org/records/7583831. These guidelines will be superseded by a more extensive set of guidelines that will be published in the Summer of 2026.
    5. \n\n\n\n
  5. The VU Research Data and Software Management Policy: https://rdm.vu.nl/public/policies-regulations/RDSM-policy-VU-EN-v3.0.pdf
    6. \n\n\n\n
  6. The School of Social Sciences data management guidelines, available here: https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/ssc-guidelines-for-data-management
    7. \n\n\n\n
  7. For PhD candidates: the doctorate regulations ('promotiereglement') of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: https://assets.vu.nl/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/08b4502d-de82-47ca-9c4c-fd5ad70d47f0/20220901%20VU%20doctorate%20regulations.pdf
    8. \n\n\n\n
  8. For PhD candidates: the Graduate School for Social Sciences policies: see https://vu.nl/en/about-vu/faculties/faculty-of-social-sciences/more-about/the-graduate-school-of-social-sciences under 'Assessments during your PhD trajectory': the 'go/no-go product', https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/a99d5a4e-4a0e-4afc-95c8-091478b99cc1/VU-GSSS%20Go%20No%20Go%20assessment%20-%20introduction%20and%20explanations.docx, the plagiarism check, https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/e4be9bed-388e-45a9-8847-3bc085d0dec0/VU-GSSS%20Plagiarism%20check%20-%20background%20and%20procedure%20%281%29.pdf and particularly the final PhD portfolio, https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/8b1440ff-6056-4471-b697-c719e6b6d266/VU-GSSS%20Go%20No%20Go%20assessment%20-%20portfolio%20%28fill-in%20document%29.docx
    9. \n
\n\n\n\n

In your particular discipline, additional policies or codes of conduct may apply:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Throughout the cycle of empirical research, researchers and students at the Faculty of Social Sciences should act in line with the principles and guidelines expressed in the above codes of conduct and policies. The policies employ four instruments to encourage research integrity:

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Personal responsibility \u2013 your own conscience and internalized norms of good research and ethical standards.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. Transparency \u2013 the openness you give about the procedures you have followed in your research.
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. Peer review \u2013 the scrutiny of your work by others: supervisors, colleagues, critics.
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. Complaint procedures \u2013 violations of norms of good research and ethical standards may be punished by the Board of the Faculty of Social Sciences, the academic integrity committee at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and ultimately by the Netherlands office of research integrity (LOWI).
    5. \n
\n\n\n\n

Note: The Faculty of Social Sciences does not have audits of research projects.

\n\n\n\n

Step by step guide

\n\n\n\n

At https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/ssc-guidelines-for-data-management you'll find step by step guidelines for the organization of research projects.

\n\n\n\n

A. Planning your research

\n\n\n\n

When you are planning research, check whether your study requires ethics review by the FSS Research Ethics Review Board (RERC). Make sure you complete the checklist well ahead of the start of the data collection. In most cases ethics review takes less than a month, but in case the research plans raise ethics issues, you may need three months to complete the entire ethics review process.

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Do the ethics review self-check at https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9HMDSbc1ZNVo24C. Save the pdf you get. If the result is that your research does not need further review, you can start with your research. If the result is that your research needs further review, go to step 2.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. Discuss the risks with your supervisor and your department's representative on the SSC Research Ethics Review Committee (RERC), https://vu.nl/en/employee/research-support/research-ethics-review-ssc. Revise your research plan to reduce and tackle risks. Go back to step 1: complete the self-check again based on the revised plan. If the result is still that full ethics review is necessary, proceed to step 3.
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. Prepare a full ethics review. With your research team, create 1. A short description of the research questions, the societal and scientific relevance of the research, and the research design (max. 1 A4);\u00a0 2. the information for participants; 3. the consent form; 4. the research materials (manipulations, questionnaire, topic list); 5. the anonymization procedure; and 6. the data management plan. You can find examples of these materials at https://vu.nl/en/employee/research-support/ssc-templates-and-example-documents. Also look up the number of the ethics review self-check you completed (#1 above). If you have everything (i.e., six documents), go to step 4.
    4. \n\n\n\n
  4. Complete the online Ethics Review Application Form at https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9tBjPqFq6bxv2Sx and upload the required documents. Note that only research project leaders can submit an application for ethics review. If you are a PhD candidate, ask your supervisor to submit the materials.
    5. \n
\n\n\n\n

B. Data collection

\n\n\n\n

General information about research data management at the Faculty of Social Sciences is available at https://vu.nl/en/employee/social-sciences-getting-started/ssc-guidelines-for-data-management. If your project involves collection or analysis of data, write a Data Management Plan (DMP) before you start the data collection. Go to https://dmponline.vu.nl and create a new plan. DMPonline will guide you through the elements that comprise a good DMP. You can share your DMP with the faculty’s data steward Emily Barabas (e.k.barabas@vu.nl) to get feedback. Share the DMP with everyone involved in the research project. Update the data management plan when things change during the research project. Make sure to properly version the document, so changes can be tracked.

\n\n\n\n

Store the data in a secure location. The Faculty of Social Sciences recommends using Yoda, https://portal.yoda.vu.nl/.

\n\n\n\n

Pseudonymize raw data before analysis to prevent data leaks. Avoid working with the raw data to prevent data loss. Store raw data and the pseudonimyzation key file in a secure location where it cannot be lost, corrupted, or accidentally edited. This could possibly be the same place where your raw data will be archived after the project. Make sure that wherever they are stored, the raw data are accompanied by all information needed to understand the data. This includes metadata on when, where, why and by who the data was collected, and all documentation needed to understand variables, such as interviewer manuals. The faculty data steward can help in identifying what documentation or metadata to include.

\n\n\n\n

C. Analysis & write-up

\n\n\n\n

During the preparation of your research report, it is a good idea to discuss the analysis strategy and the findings with your supervisors and other colleagues. Document the code that produces the results reported. For suggestions see https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2021/04/02/how-to-organize-your-data-and-code/.

\n\n\n\n

To receive feedback on your work and improve it, you can prepare a working paper that you share with discussants and present at an internal research seminar. After internal discussion, it is a good idea to post a working paper in a public preprint repository such as SocArxiv or Zenodo and invite the academic community to review it and suggest improvements. Next, you can present your working paper at conferences. Based on the comments you received from peers, revise the working paper before submitting it to a journal, book editor, or to the funders of your research.

\n\n\n\n

D. Publication

\n\n\n\n

When you submit research reports based on the data you have collected for peer review to a journal or to book editors, also create a publication package containing pseudonymized data, analysis scripts, documentation, and metadata. Archive the publication package in a public repository. You can use Yoda for this purpose, https://portal.yoda.vu.nl/. Alternatively, you can use Dataverse https://dataverse.nl/dataverse/vuamsterdam, or Zenodo, https://zenodo.org/. You can also store data on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/ if you select an EU storage location.

\n\n\n\n

Have a DOI assigned to your data so others can cite the data you have collected. You can choose to upload data, documentation and metadata separately and have multiple publication packages refer to the same data set if this works better for your project.

\n\n\n\n

Never share privacy-sensitive raw data with the public. Such data should be stored securely. The Faculty of Social Sciences recommends using Yoda, https://portal.yoda.vu.nl/.

\n\n\n\n

E. Review

\n\n\n\n

When you are invited to review the work of others, it is a good principle to check whether the authors have made the data and the code available that they have used to produce the results they report. If not, you can request them or the editors of the journal that invites you to review to done so. With the data and code, you can verify whether the data and code produce the results and you can conduct robustness analyses.

\n\n\n\n

When you review research reports by others, do so in a constructive way. Here are some suggestions on how to review empirical research: https://osf.io/7ug4w/ and https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/scientific-criticism-and-peer-review-workshop-materials.pdf

\n\n\n\n

The guidelines for peer review of the Committee of Publication Ethics apply to all types of research: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf

\n\n\n\n

Getting advice on ethics and integrity issues

\n\n\n\n

When you are planning your research and have questions on ethical dilemmas, ask the FSS Research Ethics Review Committee (RERC) for advice. When you have questions on dilemmas during your research, ask colleagues and supervisors for advice. When you find errors in your own research after you published it, write to the journal or book editors to notify them of the error. In case of a minor problem, prepare a correction. When you no longer support the publication as a whole, ask for a retraction.

\n\n\n\n

When you have questions about the integrity of research of others, consult https://vu.nl/en/about-vu/more-about/academic-integrity. Step 1 is to talk to one of the confidential counsellors for integrity (vertrouwenspersoon integriteit). When you have good reasons to believe that others have violated norms of good science or ethical standards, you can submit a complaint to the executive board of the university, which can forward it to the Academic Integrity Committee (CWI). See the complaints procedure at https://assets.vu.nl/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/facfccb1-2b51-4f42-b32c-8bebfb29b89f/Academic%20Integrity%20Complaints%20Procedure%20Vrije%20Universiteit%20Amsterdam%20April%202022.pdf

\n\n\n\n

For issues with your supervisor, consult this guidance https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-e363dd7ce9a5/d70b3e54-13e4-44a3-a0a3-d2b5739776cb/VU-GSSS%20Procedure%20for%20PhD%20candidates%20and%20supervisors%20in%20case%20of%20an%20issue%20in%20a%20PhD%20trajectory.pdf.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/7bfss-w9262","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=3621","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1696896000,"rid":"y27sp-m1p14","summary":"Ren\u00e9 Bekkers, 7 April 2026 Responsible Research Practices: What You Must and What You Could Guidance for researchers at the School of Social Sciences, VU Amsterdam Duties: What You Must Do with Respect to Research Integrity 1. Do the ethics self-check for each study, before collecting data: https://vuamsterdam.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9HMDSbc1ZNVo24C 2. Make sure before collecting data that [\u2026]","tags":["Academic Misconduct","Data","Fraud","Open Science","Regulation"],"title":"Research Integrity Policies in Social Science Research at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam","updated_at":1780864433,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/10/10/research-integrity-policies-in-social-science-research-at-vrije-universiteit-amsterdam/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

A dashboard of transparency indicators signaling trustworthiness

\n\n\n\n

Our Research Transparency Check (Bekkers et al., 2025) rests on two pillars. The first pillar is the development of Metacheck (formerly known as Papercheck, DeBruine & Lakens, 2025), a collection of software applications that assess the transparency and methodological quality of research that we blogged about earlier (Lakens, 2025). Our approach is modular: for each defined aspect of transparency and methodological quality we develop a dedicated module and integrate it in the Metacheck package. The module assesses the presence, the level of detail and \u2013 if possible \u2013 the accuracy of information. Complete and accurate information for a large number of transparency indicators signals the trustworthiness of a research report (Jamieson et al., 2019; Nosek et al., 2024). On the dashboard a transparency indicator lights up in bright green when a research report passed a specific check. An orange light indicates that some information is provided, but more detail is needed. Metacheck gives actionable feedback, suggesting ways to provide more detailed information and correct inaccurate reporting.

\n\n\n\n

Respecting epistemic diversity

\n\n\n\n

How do we decide for which indicators we will develop a module that assesses research reports? Choosing these which indicators is not easy. This is where the second pillar comes in. It requires a series of deliberative conversations with researchers from different disciplines. In the social and behavioral sciences, there is much epistemic diversity (Leonelli, 2022). Researchers working with different data and methods in different disciplines have very different ideas about what constitutes good research. They may even disagree which aspects of research should count in the evaluation of quality. We designed Research Transparency Check to respect these differences. This means that we do not impose a set of good practices on researchers. We should not determine standards for good scientific practice. Instead, the trustworthiness of research should be evaluated with respect to \"the prevailing methodological standards in their field\" (De Ridder, 2022, p.18). Therefore we start with a series of conversation between researchers who all work with the same types of data. In the social and behavioral sciences, we see researchers regularly use different types of data, collected from seven different sources: from self-reports in surveys, from personal interviews of individuals and (focus) groups, from observations by researchers of behavior through equipment, from participant observation by researchers, from official registers, news and social media, and from synthetic data. We expect that structured conversations with researchers using the same category of data will produce consensus about a core set of indicators that should be transparent.

\n\n\n\n

The quality of surveys as an example

\n\n\n\n

Think about surveys for example. Surveys are a ubiquitous source of data in the social and behavioral sciences: researchers in almost all disciplines use them. Regardless of their discipline, survey researchers have agreed for decades that it is important to know how the sample of participants was determined, what the researchers did to take selectivity in response rates and dropout into account, and how researchers made sure that the reliability and validity of the survey questions posed to respondents was high (Deming, 1944; Groves & Lyberg, 2010). Without information about the sampling frame, the sampling method, the response rate, and the reliability and validity of measures in the questionnaire, it is impossible to evaluate the quality of data from a survey. Still, a large proportion of research reports relying on surveys published in 'top journals' in the social sciences do not provide information on these transparency indicators (Stefkovics et al., 2024).

\n\n\n\n

Despite consensus about these indicators, there may still be differences in opinions about the importance of other indicators. Political scientists for instance tend to care a lot about weighting the data, for instance with respect to voter registration, or voting behavior in the previous election. Personality psychologists do not value weights as much, because there are e.g. no objective standards for the true distribution of intelligence or neuroticism in the population.

\n\n\n\n

When researchers agree on the importance of a certain indicator, there may still be disciplinary specific standards of good practice. Researchers in different disciplines value different practices for the same methodological quality indicator as good practices. For instance, standards for the number of items to compose reliable measures in surveys vary between disciplines. Surveys about intergenerational mobility in sociology typically ask just one or a few question about educational attainment (Connelly et al., 2016); measuring implicit attitudes in social psychology requires dozens of repeated measures (Nosek et al., 2010). These differences may be understandable given that researchers in different fields study different phenomena that are inherently more variable and more difficult to measure with high levels of precision in some fields than in others. Another example is the norm for p-values, which is .05 in most fields but much lower in others, such as 0.00000005 (5 x 10-8) in behavioral genetics (Benjamin et al., 2018). The point is that different fields set different standards for the same quality indicators, even when they are working with similar data sources. Thus, it is important to use field-specific norms when evaluating the methodological quality of a study.

\n\n\n\n

Toward reporting standards

\n\n\n\n

Transparency is a necessary condition to evaluate research quality (Vazire, 2017; Hardwicke & Vazire, 2023): \"transparency doesn't guarantee credibility, transparency and scrutiny together guarantee that research gets the credibility it deserves\" (Vazire, 2019). Only when research reports include information about indicators of methodological quality in sufficient detail and clear language, can the quality of the research be evaluated. In some fields, scholars, publishers, associations and funders have come together to define reporting standards. Authors who wish to publish a paper in a journal of the American Psychological Association are requested to conform to the APA Journal Article Reporting Standards. Funders and regulators in biomedicine impose reporting standards, for example CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of randomized control trials, or SPIRIT guidelines for their protocols. Automated checks such as in Metacheck should not replace peer review, but help relieve the burden on human reviewers to determine the degree of compliance with such reporting guidelines (Schulz et al., 2022).

\n\n\n\n

In other fields, however, it's almost as if anything goes. In most areas of the social sciences, journals do not impose reporting standards (Mali\u010dki, Aalbersberg, Bouter & Ter Riet, 2019). They may have rules on the cosmetics of submitted journal articles, such as on language, style, and formatting of tables and figures, which editorial assistants enforce. But the way sampling frames, sampling methods, response rates and information about the reliability and validity of study measures are typically not subject to reporting standards. That should change, if we want a more reliable and valid evaluation of research quality. It is also possible since journals can simply mandate reporting standards (Mali\u010dki & Mehmani, 2024).

\n\n\n\n

The identification of transparency indicators and the collection of examples of good and poor practices in data communities will guide researchers in the social and behavioral sciences toward precise and valid reporting standards. The field of biomedicine is ahead of the social sciences, with more than 675 reporting guidelines developed for very specific study types (Equator Network, 2025). As we develop modules to automate checks of methodological quality in research reports, we benefit from the experiences of toolmakers in biomedicine (Eckmann et al., 2025).

\n\n\n\n

A multidimensional measure of research quality

\n\n\n\n

With multiple modules assessing the methodological quality of research reports for various transparency indicators, we obtain a multidimensional and more refined measure of research quality. The modular approach helps solve a difficult problem in the Recognition and Rewards movement: the lack of consensus about valid and reliable measurement of the quality of science. In the absence of such a measurement, universities have used \"one size fits all\" metrics of the volume and prestige of science publications.  

\n\n\n\n

Universities incentivized researchers to produce as many publications in peer reviewed journals as possible, generally regarding them as proxy measurements of 'high quality' science. Furthermore, the number of citations to the work of scholars became the standard measure of scholarly 'impact'. Universities and science funders rewarded scholars who published proficiently and were cited more frequently in international peer-reviewed journals by promoting them, giving them more research time, and grants for research. Institutions ranked journals into tiers, and rewarded employees more for publishing in 'top journals' than in 'B-journals'.

\n\n\n\n

As a result, these incentives reshaped scholarly behavior. Scholars created networks of co-authors, each producing an article in turn, inviting colleagues to read along and pretend they helped produce the paper. In practice, the contributions were typically uneven, but the advantage was large: the number of co-authors on publications increased (Henriksen, 2016; Chapman et al., 2019), as did overall publication and citation counts. Scholars also sought to publish in journals that on average receive higher numbers of citations, so called 'high-impact journals'. However, both journal rank and citation counts are not correlated with higher methodological quality of research; in some cases the reverse is true, with worse science in the higher ranked journals (Brembs, Button & Munaf\u00f2, 2013; Dougherty & Horne, 2022).

\n\n\n\n

Scholars behaved according to Campbell's Law (Campbell, 1979): \"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor\", with a result in line with Goodheart's Law (Goodheart, 1975): \"when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure\" (Varela, Benedetto, & Sanchez-Santos, 2014). Over time, citations have become a less informative indicator of research quality (Brembs, Button & Munaf\u00f2, 2013; Koltun & Hafner, 2021).

\n\n\n\n

What we've learned from the hyper focus on peer reviewed journal articles is that one size doesn't fit all. It is not only misguided to evaluate the quality of research by the number of articles published or the number of citations and derivatives such as the H-index or the journal impact factor, it can lead to creation of perverse incentives and questionable research practices (Higginson & Munaf\u00f2, 2016; Smaldino & McElreath, 2016; Edwards & Roy, 2017).

\n\n\n\n

Recognition and rewards for transparent and good science

\n\n\n\n

Once the perverse effects of these incentives became clear, the resistance against quantitative output driven rewards grew. More than 3,500 organizations including the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centers (NFU), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA, 2025), promising not to measure the performance with quantitative indicators. In the effort to recognize and reward good science rather than a high volume of publications in peer reviewed journals, universities around the world \u2013 and particularly those in the Netherlands \u2013 have diversified the criteria for tenure and promotion guidelines, in line with the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (COARA, 2022).

\n\n\n\n

The problem that has remained unsolved is the measurement of research quality. In due course, Research Transparency Check may help to address this problem. For transparency indicators that data communities agree upon as relevant, we will have an automated screening tool, that provides good examples for best practices. Because the assessments can be updated with every revision, institutions can not only measure the eventual quality of a publication, but also the quality of an initial preprint, and the change from the first draft to the published version. The added value of going through peer review can also be measured, incentivizing journals to provide better value for money. Journals could use Metacheck to ensure that authors adhere to journal reporting guidelines. On their end, authors can use Metacheck before they submit their manuscript to ensure that it passes. At the same time, they are directed to the best practices in their field.

\n\n\n\n

References

\n\n\n\n

Bekkers, R., Lakens, D., DeBruine, L., Mesquida Caldenty, C. & Littel, M. (2025). Research Transparency Check. TDCC-SSH Challenge grant. Proposal: https://osf.io/cpv4d. Project: https://osf.io/z3tr9.

\n\n\n\n

Benjamin, D.J., et al., (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 6\u201310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z

\n\n\n\n

Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munaf\u00f2, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in human Neuroscience, 7, 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

\n\n\n\n

Campbell, D.T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2 (1): 67\u201390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X.

\n\n\n\n

Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., … & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1916), 20192047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047

\n\n\n\n

COARA (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. https://coara.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf

\n\n\n\n

Connelly, R., Gayle, V., & Lambert, P. S. (2016). A review of educational attainment measures for social survey research. Methodological Innovations, 9, https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799116638001

\n\n\n\n

DeBruine, L., & Lakens, D. (2025). Metacheck: Check Scientific Papers for Best Practices. R package version 0.0.0.9056, https://github.com/scienceverse/papercheck.

\n\n\n\n

Deming, E. (1944). On Errors in Surveys. American Sociological Review, 9(4): 359-369. https://doi.org/10.2307/2085979

\n\n\n\n

De Ridder, J. (2022). How to trust a scientist. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 93: 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.003

\n\n\n\n

DORA (2025). 3,488 individuals and organizations in 166 countries have signed DORA to date. https://sfdora.org/signers/?_signer_type=organisation

\n\n\n\n

Dougherty, M. R., & Horne, Z. (2022). Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. Royal Society Open Science, 9(8), 220334. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334

\n\n\n\n

Eckmann, P. et al. (2025). Use as Directed? A Comparison of Software Tools Intended to Check Rigor and Transparency of Published Work. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.17991

\n\n\n\n

Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

\n\n\n\n

Equator Network (2025). Reporting Guidelines. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/

\n\n\n\n

Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019). Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action. GigaScience, 8(6), giz053. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz053

\n\n\n\n

Goodhart, C. (1975). Problems of Monetary Management: The UK Experience. Papers in Monetary Economics. Papers in monetary economics 1975; 1; 1. – [Sydney]. – 1975, p. 1-20. Vol. 1. Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17295-5_4

\n\n\n\n

Groves, R.M. & Lyberg, L. (2010). Total Survey Error: Past, Present, And Future. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74 (5): 849\u2013879. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq065  

\n\n\n\n

Hardwicke, T. E., & Vazire, S. (2023). Transparency Is Now the Default at Psychological Science. Psychological Science, 35(7), 708-711. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231221573

\n\n\n\n

Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980\u20132013). Scientometrics 107, 455\u2013476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

\n\n\n\n

Higginson, A. D., & Munaf\u00f2, M. R. (2016). Current incentives for scientists lead to underpowered studies with erroneous conclusions. PLoS Biology, 14(11), e2000995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000995

\n\n\n\n

Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231-19236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116

\n\n\n\n

Koltun, V., & Hafner, D. (2021). The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397

\n\n\n\n

Lakens, D. (2025). Introducing Papercheck: An Automated Tool to Check for Best Practices in Scientific Articles. https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2025/06/introducing-papercheck.html

\n\n\n\n

Leonelli, S. (2022). Open science and epistemic diversity: friends or foes? Philosophy of Science, 89(5), 991-1001. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.45

\n\n\n\n

Mali\u010dki, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Bouter, L., & Ter Riet, G. (2019). Journals' instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines. PLoS One, 14(9), e0222157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222157

\n\n\n\n

Mali\u010dki, M., & Mehmani, B. (2024). Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ, 12, e17514. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514

\n\n\n\n

Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., … & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053

\n\n\n\n

Nosek, B. A., Allison, D., Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Nielsen, A. B., & Wolf, S. M. (2024, December 23). A Framework for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Research Findings. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jw6fz

\n\n\n\n

Schulz, R., Barnett, A., Bernard, R. et al. (2022). Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Research Notes, 15, 203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6

\n\n\n\n

Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

\n\n\n\n

Stefkovics, A., Eichhorst, A., Skinnion, D. & Harrison, C.H. (2024). Are We Becoming More Transparent? Survey Reporting Trends in Top Journals of Social Sciences. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 36, edae013. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae013

\n\n\n\n

Varela, D., Benedetto, G., Sanchez-Santos, J.M. (2014). Editorial statement: Lessons from Goodhart’s law for the management of the journal. European Journal of Government and Economics, 3 (2): 100\u2013103. https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2014.3.2.4299

\n\n\n\n

Vazire, S. (2017). Quality Uncertainty Erodes Trust in Science. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74

\n\n\n\n

Vazire, S. (2019). Do We Want to Be Credible or Incredible? Psychological Science website, December 23, 2019. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/do-we-want-to-be-credible-or-incredible

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/x5h3c-54450","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=4138","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1757721600,"reference":[{"id":"https://osf.io/cpv4d","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://osf.io/z3tr9","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-x","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://coara.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799116638001","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://github.com/scienceverse/papercheck","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2085979","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.003","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://sfdora.org/signers/?_signer_type=organisation","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.17991","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz053","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17295-5_4","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq065","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231221573","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000995","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253397","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2025/06/introducing-papercheck.html","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.45","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222157","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jw6fz","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae013","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2014.3.2.4299","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74","unstructured":"Unknown title"},{"id":"https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/do-we-want-to-be-credible-or-incredible","unstructured":"Unknown title"}],"rid":"x1j1b-kfh78","summary":"A dashboard of transparency indicators signaling trustworthiness Our Research Transparency Check (Bekkers et al., 2025) rests on two pillars. The first pillar is the development of Metacheck (formerly known as Papercheck, DeBruine &","tags":["Academic Journals","Academic Misconduct","Data","Incentives","Open Science"],"title":"A Modular Approach to Research Quality","updated_at":1780864431,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2025/09/13/a-modular-approach-to-research-quality/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

Why is it that higher educated individuals are more likely to engage in blood donation, charitable giving and volunteer work?

\n\n\n\n

You might think it has something to do with what you get from going to school: the knowledge gained and skills trained in education. Through education, people learn what the needs of the world are, and schools may also promote the willingness and confidence to do good for society.

\n\n\n\n

From studies co-twin control designs, comparing monozygotic twins, raised in the same families, we know that the education gradient is not due to the number of years in education or the highest level attained. Such studies found that twins who were born with the same package of genes and who grew up in the same families and societies can achieve very different levels of educational attainment. Those achieving higher levels of education are not more active in charitable giving, volunteering, and voting than their twin siblings who spent fewer years in education. These results indicate that individual experiences in education are probably not responsible for the higher level of engagement in prosocial behavior. From other studies we know that the education gradient is already present before adolescents leave school.

\n\n\n\n

This must mean that the education gradient is due to things that happened before the highest level of education is attained. The education gradient in prosocial behavior comes from the people who attain a higher level of education, not so much from spending more time in schools.

\n\n\n\n

What is it then?

\n\n\n\n

Broadly speaking, there are two groups of factors that may be responsible for most of the positive association between engagement in formal prosocial behaviors and educational attainment: the genes they are conceived with, and shared environmental conditions that siblings share with each other.

\n\n\n\n

In a new paper with Eva-Maria Merz and Ting Li, recently published in Acta Sociologica, we analyzed data from 5,967 respondents in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) to examine which characteristics of individuals and families create the association between educational attainment and engagement in prosocial behavior.

\n\n\n\n

To study the genetic variants that help children attain a higher level of education, behavioral geneticists compiled a database comparing more than a million persons. They found more than 1200 genetic variants that are robustly associated with educational attainment. This discovery was not guided by a theory explaining why certain genetic variants are associated with educational attainment. Behavioral geneticists have virtually no clue why the associations are there. Regardless, the fact remains that people with certain genetic variants do better in school.

\n\n\n\n

Place your bets now!

\n\n\n\n

Could we use this genetic information to explain why educational attainment is associated with prosocial behavior? Can giving time, money and blood be predicted by the genetic variants that people who attain a higher level of education are born with? Or is giving something people learn from their parents and in their families, regardless of their genetic makeup?

\n\n\n\n

We placed our bets on both. To check our predictions, we studied siblings from the same families with different genetic variants for educational attainment differ in their levels of giving. The primary WLS participants have been tracked since 1957. Fast forward to 2004: primary participants as well as their siblings reported their educational attainment and engagement in a wide variety of prosocial behaviors. They had also provided DNA samples, which had allowed the construction of so called polygenic scores for educational attainment, capturing 1,271 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), ~ genetic variants ~ that Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) found to be robustly associated with the number of years individuals spent in education.

\n\n\n\n

Genetic and shared environmental correlates of formal prosocial behavior

\n\n\n\n

Analyzing these data, we found that respondents with a higher genetic propensity to spend a higher number of years in education – measured by the polygenic score for educational attainment – were more likely to engage in formal prosocial behaviors such as blood donation, charitable giving and volunteer work 57 years later. We confirmed that WLS participants and their siblings with more genetic variants that are associated with educational attainment in fact give more time, money and blood.

\n\n\n\n

By itself, the polygenic score for educational attainment explained ~2% of the variance in formal prosocial behaviour. The association was reduced by 38% when educational attainment was added, suggesting that participants with a higher genetic propensity for educational attainment give more time, money and blood partly because they attain a higher level of education.

\n\n\n\n

At the same time, persons who achieved a higher level of education were more engaged in giving, net of their sharing a very similar package of genes at the start of their lives. We confirmed that the association was also present within families: the higher educated sibling in a family was more engaged in giving time, money, and blood.

\n\n\n\n

We also find that parental income, father's education, and family socio-economic status measured in 1958 are positively associated with prosocial behaviour measured 47 years later. When shared environmental influences are controlled by family fixed effects we find that the association between educational attainment and prosocial behaviour in formal settings is weaker by about one quarter.

\n\n\n\n

We find that educational attainment is still correlated with prosocial behaviour when a polygenic score is included, even in models including family fixed effects. This finding indicates that educational attainment is not only associated with prosocial behaviour because of genetic effects and shared family background effects on educational attainment, but also in other ways.

\n\n\n\n

What have we learned about the etiology of prosocial behavior that we did not already know?

\n\n\n\n

First, we found that the polygenic score for educational attainment was not related with informal prosocial behaviors, such as helping friends, neighbours, co-workers, and family members. This means that direct, informal helping was equally common among those who were born with many or just a few genetic variants that help them do better at school. The educational gradient in prosocial behavior only appears in forms of engagement that involve intermediary (usually non-profit) organizations.

\n\n\n\n

Second, we learned from the analyses of engagement in formal prosocial behavior that results from research designs that do not take genetic effects into account are likely to overestimate shared environmental effects of social background characteristics. By including genetic effects we understand some of the pathways of intergenerational transmission in the association between education and prosocial behaviour a bit better. It is not just growing up in a family with higher educated parents that makes children give more time, money, and blood.

\n\n\n\n

Third, to our surprise, genetic variants of those who do better on intelligence tests were hardly correlated with giving time, money, and blood. So it is not that people who attain a higher level of education are giving more because they are born with genetic variants for being smart. In fact, genetic variants associated with cognitive performance were not correlated with prosocial behavior when the polygenic score for educational attainment was included in the analysis. It is likely that non-cognitive skills and attitudes create the association between educational attainment and prosocial behavior.

\n\n\n\n

What we don’t know

\n\n\n\n

We don’t know exactly which characteristics of persons link genetic variants associated with educational attainment to prosocial behavior. We could not measure every possible pathway that may link genetic factors and rearing environments supporting educational attainment to prosocial behavior. Having an open mind, patience and persistence in life, and feeling responsibility for the future get children and adolescents through school and these qualities are also likely to create engagement in prosocial behaviors.

\n\n\n\n

Significant correlations with polygenic scores for educational attainment do not mean that ‘genetics is destiny’. Genetic differences are statistically associated with educational attainment and prosocial behavior, but that does not mean that a higher diploma and giving time, money and blood for the benefit of others is determined by our genes. Genes don’t make you do anything. The associations are not deterministic. Furthermore, the associations we found for the WLS participants may be radically different in other samples. What we don’t know is whether these results can be generalized to other populations. Therefore, it is important to replicate the analyses with respondents to other surveys, preferably in other countries.

\n\n\n\n

The article “Learning to give: both genetic and shared environmental influences are reflected in the association between educational attainment and prosocial behaviour” is published in Acta Sociologica. You can access a preprint of the article here: https://osf.io/gwp6q. A replication package including a pre-analysis plan for this study, the code producing the results, and appendices with additional results is available here: https://osf.io/db4wq.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/243k1-4vd02","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=4156","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1765065600,"rid":"yqte5-c7f10","summary":"Why is it that higher educated individuals are more likely to engage in blood donation, charitable giving and volunteer work? You might think it has something to do with what you get from going to school: the knowledge gained and skills trained in education.","tags":["Blood Donation","Data","Helping","Household Giving","Informal Giving"],"title":"What is it in formal education that creates civic engagement?","updated_at":1780864430,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2025/12/07/what-is-it-in-formal-education-that-creates-civic-engagement/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bekkers","given":"Rene"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Rene Bekkers","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c04223e6-4d3d-42ad-a718-878a8fc35d32/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"renebekkers","status":null,"subfield":"1404","title":"Rene Bekkers","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Rene Bekkers","blog_slug":"renebekkers","content_html":"

One of the students in my Social Science Literacy class asked: how can I tell if a published article is peer reviewed? The student assumed that a having gone through peer review indicates research quality.

\n\n\n\n

The student is not alone. Many people think that 'peer reviewed' means that the quality is good. Unfortunately, you cannot blindly assume that articles published in journals are reliable, even when they are published in prestigious journals such as “Nature” and “Science” or when they are written by authors from expensive universities such as Harvard. This is because the quality control that peer review is supposed to provide usually does not work properly. In recent years, more and more scientific research has been conducted into the quality of scientific research assessments. I have summarized a small part of that research on pages 20 and 21 of https://osf.io/zrgk9/files/3jsre. Among other things, the research shows that peer reviewers often fail to spot errors in statistical analyses. Many publications that appear as articles in journals are virtually identical to their draft versions, which can already be found on the internet as 'working papers' or 'preprints' before the reviewers have looked at them. This means that the quality control is not very effective. Sometimes authors even make their articles worse in order to meet the reviewers’ wishes. For example, reviewers sometimes ask authors to adjust their hypotheses to fit the results ('harking', https://detectingbadscience.wordpress.com/2024/09/29/harking-hypothesizing-after-results-are-known/). Reviewers regularly suggest that authors should cite the reviewer’s work in the revised version of the article ('coercive citation', https://detectingbadscience.wordpress.com/2024/09/27/selective-citation/). That work is not always relevant. The use of artificial intelligence makes it easier for researchers to produce articles quickly, but their quality is often inferior. I have already experienced researchers citing so-called articles of mine that do not exist: these are often hallucinations of ChatGPT or other language models.

\n\n\n\n

An article should state what the quality control process has been. Most articles do not reveal details about peer review. An example is the article below. Articles published in the journal do not mention any details about the review procedure. The journal website provides no information about how the journal reviews articles published.

\n\n\n\n
\"\"
\n\n\n\n

Greater openness can reveal the shortcomings in the quality control that science currently performs and, in the long term, reduce them. A significant minority of journals publish the dates on which published articles were submitted, accepted, and published. If there is little time between these stages, you can assume that the quality control has not been very good. This is often the case with publications from so-called 'predatory publishers', fake journals that are primarily a way of making money. They publish almost all articles that people submit, as long as they pay. The assessment is usually not strict, which you can deduce from the time it took to improve it. If an article is published within a month of submission, you can assume that there was no proper quality control. Almost all journals published by MDPI are fake. You should also be very careful with Frontiers articles, especially if they are from after 2015. More information about this can be found at https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/beware-of-predatory-publishers/.

\n\n\n\n

Some journals publish the names of the reviewers. This is becoming increasingly common, which is a good thing. At least then you know who did the review. But usually the names of the reviewers are not listed.

\n\n\n\n

A nice example of an exception to this rule is Meta-Psychology, which publishes the names of the editor, the reviewers, and the data editor, along links to data and code producing the results reported, and availability statements for data, materials, code, computational verification, and preregistrations.

\n\n\n\n
\"\"
\n\n\n\n

Some journals have data editors who check the analyses and statistics. Usually, this is not mentioned in the article, but you have to look for it on the journal’s website. In sociology, this almost never happens. Only European Sociological Review and European Societies and Sociological Science have recently started working this way.

\n\n\n\n

Very few journals also publish the peer reviews with an article, allowing you to see what the reviews were. This does not happen often. Usually, you cannot see how strict the reviews were and how the authors improved their work. This should be the case.

\n\n\n\n

Even fewer journals publish researchers’ responses to the reviews. This allows you to see how the authors have changed the article to address the reviewers’ criticisms. This would be even better, especially in combination with openness about the content of the reviews. But you will rarely encounter this combination.

\n\n\n\n

Scientists are like students in a study group: they often divide the work among themselves and do not always check each other’s work. One does the statistics, another writes the article, someone else has secured funding for the research, and so on. Increasingly, articles include a division of labor in the form of a CReDIT statement. As a reader, you can then see who did what. But I sometimes wonder whether that information is reliable. I have never seen a two factor authentication for author contributions.

\n\n\n\n

In most cases, you cannot see who performed which quality control checks on a study. That is why it is best to take a critical look at it yourself.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/jmb1f-myg95","guid":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/?p=4185","image":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/psyag.png?w=1024","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1769731200,"rid":"s80q4-dcx80","summary":"One of the students in my Social Science Literacy class asked: how can I tell if a published article is peer reviewed? The student assumed that a having gone through peer review indicates research quality. The student is not alone. Many people think that 'peer reviewed' means that the quality is good.","tags":["Academic Journals","Fraud","Methodology","Open Science","Peer Review"],"title":"How can you tell if an article has been peer reviewed?","updated_at":1780864429,"url":"https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2026/01/30/how-can-you-tell-if-an-article-has-been-peer-reviewed/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"the-geneva-learning-foundation"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"7e26491f-41c6-4665-9088-5aa6643a1ba8","created":0,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Learning to make a difference","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/7e26491f-41c6-4665-9088-5aa6643a1ba8/logo","feed_format":null,"feed_url":null,"filter":null,"generator":null,"home_page_url":"https://redasadki.me/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"redasadki","status":null,"subfield":"3304","title":"Reda Sadki","updated":null,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Reda Sadki","blog_slug":"redasadki","content_html":"

Lire en fran\u00e7ais

\n\n\n\n

Dear Reader,

\n\n\n\n

You know that colleagues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda are supporting communities hit by a Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak.

\n\n\n\n

They are taking real risks to work for health.

\n\n\n\n

Here are three things you can do today to support them, each in less than three minutes.

\n\n\n\n

1\ufe0f\u20e3 Join the first Bundibugyo virus disease Teach to Reach session on Thursday, 4 June 2026.

\n\n\n\n
\n
CONFIRM YOUR PARTICIPATION
\n
\n\n\n\n

Join us in our Zoom studio, where you can speak and be heard. You can also confirm your place on LinkedIn.

\n\n\n\n

We have reorganized this session so we can listen to and learn from colleagues in Uganda and the DRC who are in the response.

\n\n\n\n

2\ufe0f\u20e3 Send this invitation to one colleague who is in this fight with you.

\n\n\n\n

Share it now on WhatsApp, X/Twitter, or Facebook. Read more on LinkedIn in English or French.

\n\n\n\n

Do not just click. Talk to your colleagues. Help them enroll.

\n\n\n\n

3\ufe0f\u20e3 Prepare. Enroll for the first peer learning certification on Bundibugyo virus disease and share your experience now.

\n\n\n\n
\n
JOIN THIS COURSE
\n
\n\n\n\n

Sharing your experience can help a colleague to save lives. When you take the course, you will be invited to share your experience. Here is the question that fits you. Read it now, then share your story inside the course.

\n\n\n\n

If you are directly involved in the Bundibugyo response

\n\n\n\n

Tell us about a time during this Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak when you faced a hard moment at work. Think of one specific day. When was it, where were you working, and what was your role? It could be a suspected case, an infection prevention decision, a safe burial, contact tracing, or a difficult talk with a family. What was happening, and who was affected? What did you do or decide in that moment? What got in your way, such as missing supplies, fear, or unclear guidance? Who else helped, and how did your community shape what you did? What happened next? What did you learn, and what would you do differently now? Share what you can, in your own words. To close, what is one tip you would give a colleague who meets the same situation at another site? Your story can help a peer who is facing this today.

\n\n\n\n

If you have responded to an Ebola outbreak in the past

\n\n\n\n

Think of one time during a past Ebola virus disease outbreak when you learned something you would carry into a Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) response today. When was it, where were you working, and what was your role? What was the situation, and who was affected? What did you do or decide, and what got in your way? Who else was involved, and how did the community shape the response? What happened next, and what did that moment teach you? Looking back, what would you do the same, and what would you change? Share as much or as little as feels right. To close, what is the one lesson from that outbreak you would most want a colleague responding to BVD right now to know, and why? Your experience can save a colleague time when it matters most.

\n\n\n\n

If your community has not yet had to respond to an Ebola outbreak

\n\n\n\n

The Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak may not have reached your work, but you may still feel concerned. Tell us about a moment when this outbreak was on your mind. When was it, and where were you? What did you feel, and what made you feel that way? What did you do with that worry, if anything, such as reading, talking to a colleague, or checking your own readiness? If you have responded to another outbreak before, you can share that too. What is the one question about BVD you most want answered right now? Share what you can, in your own words. Your honest question can help us and your peers prepare the support that colleagues like you need before the next case.

\n\n\n\n

You will find the description of this new certification below.

\n\n\n\n

Best regards,

\n\n\n\n

Reda Sadki and Charlotte Mbuh
The Geneva Learning Foundation

\n\n\n\n

PS Did you miss the Thursday session? Catch up here.

\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

\ud83d\udccb Share experience: Bundibugyo virus outbreak response in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo

\n\n\n\n

This short course gives you clear, practical guidance for working in a Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak. It also gives you a place to share what you see, learn from colleagues, and support each other during a public health emergency. You learn, you share your experience, and you connect your work to the wider response.

\n\n\n\n

If your work supports people to prepare, respond to, or recover from a Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak, this course is for you.

\n\n\n\n

\u27a1\ufe0f Learn more and enroll for this certification.

\n\n\n\n

Certification

\n\n\n\n

You earn a Certificate of Contribution from The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) that documents what you produced in the course. This certificate opens the door to our full Certificate peer learning programme for humanitarian health. Each module aligns with professional development frameworks for public health, nursing, and medicine. We encourage you to submit the certificate to your employer or your professional body.

\n\n\n\n

Why this course exists

\n\n\n\n

The course does not teach you the official guidance. Other technical trainings do that.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

What you know and what you are doing can help colleagues, help the community, and strengthen our collective response.

\n\n\n\n

Who this is for

\n\n\n\n

This course is for anyone working for health in a community affected by an outbreak.

\n\n\n\n

This may include nurses, doctors, lab staff, community health workers, burial teams, contact tracers, risk communication staff, Red Cross and Red Crescent staff, local organisations, and managers.

\n\n\n\n

You do not need a formal health title or qualification to take part.

\n\n\n\n

Three reasons to make time for this

\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. You join a network responding to the same emergency. The Primer connects you with peers who are responding to the Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak, so we can learn together.
    2. \n\n\n\n
  2. You work on what is in front of you. Each activity asks you to connect the guidance to your own site, team, patients, and community.
    3. \n\n\n\n
  3. You learn by combining experiential and technical knowledge. You write, review peer work, and receive peer feedback, so real experience becomes shared knowledge.
    4. \n
\n\n\n\n

Who developed this course?

\n\n\n\n

This course was developed by The Geneva Learning Foundation with the TGLF Scholar networks in DRC and Uganda. TGLF Scholars are health and humanitarian leaders who support and learn from each other to better serve their communities. The course draws on trusted health guidance referenced in the course, including WHO guidance on infection prevention and control, WHO and IFRC guidance on safe and dignified burial, WHO guidance on supportive care for Ebola virus disease, and WHO guidance on risk communication and community engagement.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/vhbt7-kgk43","guid":"https://redasadki.me/?p=23712","image":"https://redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/bundibugyo-english.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780444800,"rid":"xz260-3sa18","summary":"Lire en fran\u00e7ais Dear Reader, You know that colleagues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda are supporting communities hit by a Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) outbreak. They are taking real risks to work for health. Here are three things you can do today to support them, each in less than three minutes.","tags":["The Geneva Learning Foundation","Bundibugyo Virus Disease","Democratic Republic Of Congo","Ebola","Health Workers"],"title":"Alert: how do you respond to Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak?","updated_at":1780864425,"url":"https://redasadki.me/2026/06/03/alert-how-do-you-respond-to-bundibugyo-virus-disease-outbreak/","version":"v1"}],"out_of":50149,"page":1,"per_page":10,"total-results":50149}