Open scholarship (some call it open science) refers to all efforts that serve to make scientific activities, processes, and the resulting products freely accessible. Besides research activities itself, open scholarship also includes practices and circumstances before the actual act of research (e.g. mentoring, collaborations, pre-registrations, etc.) and after the actual act of research (all kinds of data and knowledge exchange). Furthermore, the term also includes scientific activities that are not directly related to research practices, such as teaching or external scientific communication (Burgelman et al. 2019).

The arguments for open scholarship practices are manifold. Primarily, it promotes equal access to research resources. Openness contributes to the replicability and reproducibility of research and research practices can be better evaluated. This leads to a reduction in scientific misconduct (Sugimoto et al. 2017). Openness makes scientific processes more efficient and reliable. Concerning societal challenges, collaborative action makes research more responsive (Burgelman et al. 2019). To summarise the arguments for open practices in the words of Tennant and colleagues: „Scholarly knowledge is a resource that, unlike many others, is infinite. If we share data, ideas, and knowledge with others, knowledge only grows. Scientific knowledge is the most sustainable resource we have.” (Tennant et al. 2020).

The quantitative (or scientometric) recording and monitoring of these practices, products, and other relevant materials can serve different purposes. On the one hand, scientometrics serves as a research method and consequently offers insights into research-relevant questions. On the other hand, scientometric indicators play a major role in the context of scientific evaluations - for example, in the performance evaluation of institutions or in job appointments.

The scientometric recording of open practices and products (open scholarship metrics) is not new, but already common practice in parts (see e.g.: open science monitor (European Commission 2019)). In my view, they have two particularly interesting potential effects. On the one hand, quantification opens up the possibility of creating visibility for open practices and products, and thus possibly also of generating appreciation. Secondly, open scholarship metrics could serve as an incentive structure, especially in the context of performance evaluations, and promote openness in science.

Open scholarship metrics are diverse and measure different practices and formats. This paper aims to systematize this diversity and present it clearly. The metrics are considered in general, but this paper has a special focus on educational research.

The discipline under consideration plays a role with regard to metrics. Among other things, this has to do with discipline-specific publication cultures and conditions in application and appointment procedures. There are metrics that make sense in the context of some disciplines and are inappropriate in others. Furthermore, the discipline is important for a systematic review, as the corresponding literature database is relevant as a basis for the population of publications to be reviewed.

Based on this, the intended presentation is oriented towards two research questions:

• To what extent are open scholarship metrics currently being discussed and/or applied?
• What implications are being discussed and/or applied concerning educational research?

Methodologically, the presentation is based on the systematic review procedure according to Newman and Gough (2020). In a first step, the research questions were developed and a theoretical introduction to the topic was provided. A systematic review involves a review of all relevant literature on a topic. For this purpose, the next step is to conduct a detailed but targeted literature search that provides as many potential publications as possible. Consequently, databases must be selected and search terms and search strategies developed. This is followed by carefully selected exclusion criteria that reduce the number of hits. For example, duplicates are removed and publications that are neither available in English nor in German are removed. Since the number of hits must be further reduced, a topic modeling procedure was applied in the following step to identify content clusters, which provide information about which publications deal primarily with the topics I am aiming for. Based on this, it can be argued which publications should be kept and which can be deleted from the data set. This is followed by two screening steps. In screening one, the titles and abstracts of the publications are assessed for their relevance. In screening two, the full texts of all publications classified as relevant are reviewed and checked again for relevance. Finally, all remaining publications are analyzed and interpreted to answer the research questions.

The result of the systematic review is a presentation of the current state of the art in research on open scholarship metrics. In the intended presentation, these will be introduced and discussed in relation to educational research.

-Burgelman, J. et.al. 2019. Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century. Front. Big Data 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043 -Sugimoto, C. et.al. 2017. Open citations: A letter from the scientific community to scholarly publishers. URL: https://www.issi-society.org/open-citations-letter/ -Tennant, J. et.al. 2020. Open Scholarship as a mechanism for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. URL: https://osf.io/8yk62 -European Commission. 2019. Study on Open Science. Monitoring Trends and Drivers. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/knowledge_publications_tools_and_data/documents/ec_rtd_open_science_monitor_final-report.pdf -Newman, M & Gough, D. 2020. Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. In: Zawacki-Richter, Olaf; Kerres, Michael; Bedenlier, Svenja; Bond, Melissa; Buntins, Katja. Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. Methodology, Perspectives and Application. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Pp: 3 – 22. URL: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1.pdf