Monika Krause (London School of Economics & Political Sciences, United Kingdom)

The talk explores the role of models and model system in the production of scientific knowledge in the context of the institutions and inequalities of internationalised science. It discusses formal models and model systems as vehicles for findings that circulate as of relevance across geographic and cultural contexts and asks: How do researchers access these in different geographical contexts and different disciplines? What are the consequences of access and non-access for researchers and the knowledge produced?

*recorded and presented on 09.07.2025

Berna Devezer (University of Idaho, United States)

Protzko et al. describe a project in which internal tests of pilot-tested hypotheses and independent replications embraced “rigour-enhancing practices” such as confirmatory tests, large sample sizes, preregistration and methodological transparency. The authors report a high estimate of replicability, which, in their appraisal, “justifies confidence in rigour-enhancing methods to increase the replicability of new discoveries”. However, replicability was not the original outcome of interest in the project, and analyses associated with replicability were not preregistered as claimed. Instead of replicability, the originally planned study set out to examine whether the mere act of scientifically investigating a phenomenon (data collection or analysis) could cause effect sizes to decline on subsequent investigation (https://osf.io/ba8p7). This “decline effect” hypothesis, posited by one of the authors and not articulated in the published manuscript, invokes phenomena that, if found, could revise the “laws of reality”. The project did not yield support for this preregistered hypothesis; the preregistered analyses on the decline effect and the resulting null findings were largely relegated to the supplement, and the published article instead focused on replicability, with a set of non-preregistered measures and analyses, despite claims to the contrary.

*recorded and presented 25.06.2025

Amelia Acker (University of Texas at Austin, United States)

This talk examines how commercial cloud services and data integration platforms are shaping scientific knowledge infrastructure and institutional approaches to digital preservation and archival access. Drawing on findings from two collaborative research projects—a decadal analysis of data management plans from NSF funded scientists and the Palantir Files, a public interest archive documenting the firm’s data integration services—I explore how platforms are transforming traditional roles of information institutions in providing access to data. The presentation investigates three key developments: the increasing adoption of commercial cloud services (Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud) for storage in scientific data management, the rise of data integration platforms in research environments (GitHub and Figshare), and the implications for institutional autonomy in providing access to archives and publicly funded science. By examining the adoption of platform services in research data management and digital preservation, this work identifies key tensions between open access and commercial platform control. The conclusion will explore counter-archiving projects and institutional strategies that challenge platform dominance while reimagining archival access in a time of networked science.

*recorded and presented on 28.05.2025 

Martin Reinhart & Felicitas Hesselmann (RMZ, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany)

This talk explores the historical evolution of scandals related to academic integrity and their implications for the relationship between science and politics. We argue that there are three distinctive waves of scandalization since the postwar era: The first wave, starting in the 1970s, led to governance measures addressing public trust issues in science funding. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a second wave centered on research misconduct, prompting the establishment of boundary organizations such as the Office of Research Integrity. Since the 2010s, the third wave shifted focus to concerns such as Open Science and reproducibility, giving rise to a mainly intra-scientific moral entrepreneurship that unfolds not along one-time scandals anymore, but as part of a continuous crisis discourse. This current wave of reform movements is met with considerably less intra-scientific resistance than its predecessors and hence may inadvertently achieve regulatory goals surpassing previous political intentions.

*recorded and presented on 11.06.2025

Björn Hammarfelt & Gustaf Nelhans (University of Borås, Sweden)

Academic disciplines have distinctive ways of valuing research. These differences exist not only across fields but also between collegial and organisational evaluations. This presentation draws on recent empirical studies of assessment processes in Swedish academia. By analysing guidelines and peer review reports across four domains: humanities, social sciences, medicine, and natural sciences, we identify five key dimensions of publication assessment: (1) Work attribution, (2) Content quality, (3) Publication channel, (4) Impact, and (5) Volume. Our findings reveal contrasting evaluation styles at different organisational levels, which we call ‘disharmonic styles of valuation.’ Rather than focusing on the origins of these quality standards, we emphasise how they interact and coexist within academic assessments.

*recorded and presented 14.05.2025

Catalina Quiroz-Niño, Margaret Meredith (York St John University, United Kingdom), Ana María Villafuerte (Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco)

International research collaborations can base their research focus, questions and interpretations of the issue on Western assumptions of knowledge. This can delegitimise the potential contributions of some project partners, such as those located in the global South, and silence their interpretations of the issue. International projects can therefore be spaces of what Fricker calls „hermeneutical injustice“. This presentation is based on Quijano´s work on Coloniality to identify enduring patterns of power that inform and shape frames of reference, culture and knowledge production in the colonised regions of the world. The presenters argue that research collaborations should be based upon the recognition, understanding, and exchange of knowledges and interpretations of concepts and realities in multiple directions and dimensions. In this presentation we will describe and explain the approaches we adopted in a collaborative Erasmus project in our aim to promote hermeneutical justice and to recognise all participants in their capacities as knowers and knowledge creators.

*recorded and presented on 30.04.2025