Systematic literature reviews in educational research have become a popular research method. A key point hereby is the choice of bibliographic databases to reach a maximum probability of finding all potentially relevant literature that deals with the research question analyzed in a systematic literature review. Guidelines and handbooks on review recommend proper databases and information sources for education, along with specific search strategies. However, in many disciplines, among them educational research, there is a lack of evidence on the relevance of databases that need to be considered to find relevant literature and lessen the risk of missing relevant publications. Educational research is an interdisciplinary field and has no core database. Instead, the field is covered by multiple disciplinary and multidisciplinary information sources that have either a national or international focus. In this article, we discuss the relevance of seven databases in systematic literature reviews in education, based on results of an empirical data analysis of three recently published reviews. To evaluate the relevance of a database, the relevant literature of those reviews served as the gold standard. Results indicate that discipline-specific databases outperform international multidisciplinary sources, and a combination of discipline-specific international and national sources is most efficient in finding a high proportion of relevant literature. The article discusses the relevance of the databases in relation to their coverage of relevant literature, while considering practical implications for researchers performing a systematic literature search. We, thus, present evidence for proper database choices for educational and discipline-related systematic literature reviews.

Aspects of open science and scholarly practices are often discussed with a focus on research and research dissemination processes. There is currently less discussion on open science and its influence on learning and teaching in higher education, and reversely. This paper discusses open science in relation to educational practices and resources and reports on a study to investigate current educational practices from the perspective of open science. We argue that offering students opportunities via open educational practices raises their awareness of future open science goals and teaches them the skills needed to reach those goals. We present online survey results from 210 participants with teaching responsibility at higher education institutions in Germany. While some of them try to establish more open learning and teaching settings, most respondents apply rather traditional ways of learning and teaching. 60% do not use open educational resources – many have not even heard of them – nor do they make their courses open for an online audience. Participants’ priority lies in resource accuracy and quality and we still see a gap between the benefit of open practices and their practicability and applicability. The paper contributes to the general discussion of open practices in higher education by looking at open science practices and their adaptation to the learning and teaching environment. It formulates recommendations for improvements of open practice support and infrastructure.

Open informational ecosystems play a crucial role in fostering open educational resources (OER) and allow new opportunities to share and collaborate in the learning and teaching environment. Such ecosystems containing interoperable infrastructures and open interfaces aim at fulfilling user needs and fostering practices related to the concept of OER and the five user rights (5 R’s). To fully embrace this role, those ecosystems need to be designed carefully.In this paper, we discuss implications for open informational ecosystems to fully comprise the concept of OER and related user needs. We carried out literature reviews to analyse recent aspects of the 5 R’s in relation to user behaviour and infrastructures. We will introduce the results from these reviews and illustrate upcoming questions and challenges for the design of an ecosystem respecting the 5 R’s conceptual ideas. With our recommendations, we aim at contributing to a better understanding of the concept of OER to improve ecosystem development and implement useful and user-friendly functions.

With regard to open science developments, scientometrics might play an important role. Scientometrics enable displays of changes in research practices and possibly measurements of the impact of open science initiatives. Conversely, metrics influence researchers’ practices and might be applied to achieve a widespread adoption of open science practices. This chapter discusses open science initiatives and goals, the establishment of policies and influences on researchers’ practices. With regard to these developments, metrics will be discussed as an evaluation tool for open practices on the one hand, and as an incentive to foster open science on the other. The last part of the chapter refers to the openness of metric analyses.

This mapping review addresses scientometric indicators that quantify open scholarship. The goal is to determine what open scholarship metrics are currently being applied and which are discussed (e.g., in policy papers). The paper contributes to a better understanding of how open scholarship is quantitatively recorded in research assessment and where gaps can be identified. The review is based on a search in four databases, each with 22 queries. Out of 3,385 hits, we coded 248 documents chosen according to the research questions. The review discusses the open scholarship metrics of the documents as well as the topics addressed in the publications, the disciplines the publications come from, and the journals in which they were published. The results indicate that research and teaching practices are unequally represented regarding open scholarship metrics. Open research material is a central and exhausted topic in publications. Open teaching practices, on the other hand, play a role in the discussion and strategy papers of the review, but open teaching material is not recorded using concrete scientometric indicators. Here, we see a research gap and discuss the potential for further research and investigation.

The purpose of this panel is to look back on seven years of research on folksonomies and tagging systems and to summarize its main contributions as well as to try forecasting the evolution folksonomies will make in the future. Research findings which show the advantages and drawbacks of folksonomies and tagging systems in various scenarios and which may reduce the reluctance of the professional side will be presented. Additionally, the panellists and audience will discuss the new breed of “folksonomies” formed by hashtags, geo‐tags, system‐tags etc. in order to find the best definitions for folksonomies and folksonomy‐like structures.