This article provides an overview of national bibliographic databases that include data on research output within social sciences and humanities (SSH) in Europe. We focus on the comprehensiveness of the database content. Compared to the data from commercial databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, data from national bibliographic databases (e.g. Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the SSH (VABB-SHW) in Belgium, Current Research Information System in Norway (CRISTIN)) are more comprehensive and may, therefore, be better fit for bibliometric analyses. Acknowledging this, several countries within Europe maintain national bibliographic databases; detailed and comparative information about their content, however, has been limited. In autumn 2016, we launched a survey to acquire an overview of national bibliographic databases for SSH in Europe and Israel. Surveying 41 countries (responses received from 39 countries), we identified 21 national bibliographic databases for SSH. Further, we acquired a more detailed description of 13 databases, with a focus on their comprehensiveness. Findings indicate that even though the content of national bibliographic databases is diverse, it is possible to delineate a subset that is similar across databases. At the same time, it is apparent that differences in national bibliographic databases are often bound to differences in country-specific arrangements. Considering this, we highlight implications to bibliometric analyses based on data from national bibliographic databases and outline several aspects that may be taken into account in the development of existing national bibliographic databases for SSH or the design of new ones.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to present an overview of the two open source (OS) integrated library systems (ILS) – Koha and ABCD (ISIS family), to compare their “next‐generation library catalog” functionalities, and to give comparison of other important features available through ILS modules.Design/methodology/approach: Two open source ILSs, Koha and ABCD, were compared in‐depth according to their functionalities and characteristics. A checklist was created for each module: acquisition, cataloging, serials, patron management and circulation, reports and statistics, and administration. For an online catalog module, a separate checklist with “new generation catalog” characteristics was created. The authors also defined an additional set of criteria which could influence the decision process and selection of appropriate ILS like funding, metadata schema, preferred ILS functionalities, provided support, and the role of the IT department, and computer and network infrastructure in the library.Findings: Evaluation of ILSs reveals that Koha has more functionalities than ABCD, especially those connected with the “next generation library catalog”. If a library is using UNIMARC or MARC21 format for bibliographic description and has a good IT support, Koha is an open source ILS with a wide community which has to be considered for implementation. ABCD has great metasearch possibilities and is worth considering by libraries using other or no metadata schemas or without IT support.Research limitations/implications: The research was limited to two research libraries and their praxis and experiences. Further analysis can include other open source ILSs.Practical implications: This study can help libraries preparing to migrate to open source ILS to choose an appropriate one.Originality/value: This is the first comprehensive study conducted on Koha and ABCD comparing all modules in detail.

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists’ engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists’ attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists’ attitudes and their open science practices.

We approach the problem of "predatory" journals and publishers from the perspective of small scientific communities and small journals that may sometimes be perceived as "predatory". Among other characteristics of "predatory" journals two most relevant are their business model and the quality of the editorial work. We analysed 444 Croatian open access (OA) journals in the Hrčak (portal of Croatian scientific journals) digital journal repository for the presence of article processing charges as a business model and the transparency of editorial policies. The majority of journals do not charge authors or require submission or article processing charges, which clearly distinguishes them from "predatory" journals. Almost all Hrčak OA journals have publicly available information on editorial boards, including full names and affiliations, and detailed contact information for the editorial office at the Hrčak website. The journal names are unique and cannot be easily confused with another journal or intend to mislead about the journal's origin. While most journals provide information on peer review process, many do not provide guidelines for reviewers or other editorial and publication ethics standards. In order to clearly differentiate themselves from predatory journals, it is not enough for journals from small research communities to operate on non-commercial bases, but also to have transparent editorial policies.