Felicitas Heßelmann studied Sociology and History of Art (B.A.) at the TU Dresden and Sociology (M.A) at the University of Mannheim. During her studies she worked at the TU Dresden, at the Collaborative Research Center SFB 884 "Political Economy of Reforms" and at the Department of Criminology at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg. Felicitas Heßelmann worked at the IFQ from 2014 until the end of 2015, and has been working at the DZHW since 2016.
Dr. Felicitas Heßelmann
Research Area Research System and Science Dynamics
Researcher
- +49 30 2064177-14
- +49 30 2064177-99
- Orcid
Academic research fields
Sociological Theory, Criminology, Quantitative Methods
Projects
List of projects
Publications
List of publications
Creating Interpretative Spaces in and with Digital Infrastructures: How Editors Select Reviewers at a Biomedical Publisher.Hesselmann, F., & Hartstein, J. (2024).Creating Interpretative Spaces in and with Digital Infrastructures: How Editors Select Reviewers at a Biomedical Publisher. Science, Technology, & Human Values. Online Version, https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241257720 (Abgerufen am: 05.06.2024) (online first). https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241257720 |
Wissenschaftssoziologie. Literaturbesprechung.Hesselmann, F. (2023).Wissenschaftssoziologie. Literaturbesprechung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 75(4) (online first). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-023-00926-y |
The rise of the guest editor—Discontinuities of editorship in scholarly publishing.Knöchelmann, M., Hesselmann, F., Reinhart, M., & Schendzielorz, C. (2022).The rise of the guest editor—Discontinuities of editorship in scholarly publishing. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.748171 Abstract
Scholarly publishing lives on traditioned terminology that gives meaning to subjects such as authors, inhouse editors and external guest editors, artifacts such as articles, journals, special issues, and collected editions, or practices of acquisition, selection, and review. These subjects, artifacts, and practices ground the constitution of scholarly discourse. And yet, the meaning ascribed to each of these terms shifts, blurs, or is disguised as publishing culture shifts, which becomes manifest in new digital publishing technology, new forms of publishing management, and new forms of scholarly knowledge production. As a result, we may come to over- or underestimate changes in scholarly communication based on traditioned [...] |
Gizasks: What Is the Most Important Scientific Development of the Last 50 Years?Hesselmann, F. (30. August 2021).Gizasks: What Is the Most Important Scientific Development of the Last 50 Years [Blogbeitrag]. Abgerufen von https://gizmodo.com/what-is-the-most-important-scientific-development-of-th-1847518361 |
Bewertung in und durch digitale Infrastrukturen.Krüger, A. K., Heßelmann, F., & Hartstein, J. (2021).Bewertung in und durch digitale Infrastrukturen. In F. Meier & T. Peetz (Hrsg.), Organisation und Bewertung (S. 97-124). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31549-8_5 |
Sichtbarkeitskonstellationen im Journal Peer Review - Konsequenzen von In/Transparenz in wissenschaftlichen Bewertungsverfahren.Hesselmann, F., Schendzielorz, C., & Krüger, A. (2021).Sichtbarkeitskonstellationen im Journal Peer Review - Konsequenzen von In/Transparenz in wissenschaftlichen Bewertungsverfahren. In O. Berli, S. Nicolae, & H. Schäfer (Hrsg.), Bewertungskulturen (S. 71-92). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. |
Sichtbarkeitskonstellationen im Journal Peer Review – Konsequenzen von In/Transparenz in wissenschaftlichen Bewertungsverfahren.Heßelmann, F., Schendzielorz, C., & Krüger, A. (2021).Sichtbarkeitskonstellationen im Journal Peer Review – Konsequenzen von In/Transparenz in wissenschaftlichen Bewertungsverfahren. In O. Berli, S. Nicolae, & H. Schäfer (Hrsg.), Bewertungskulturen (S. 71-92). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. |
Rhetorical power in evaluations: tracing the construction of value-measurement links in debates on societal impact.Hesselmann, F., & Schendzielorz, C. (2021).Rhetorical power in evaluations: tracing the construction of value-measurement links in debates on societal impact. In Dahler-Larsen, P. (Hrsg.), A Research Agenda for Evaluation (S. 209-224). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. |
Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices.Hesselmann, F., Schendzielorz, C., & Sorgatz, N. (2021).Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices. Research Evaluation (online first). https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab003 |
Cycles of Invisibility: The Limits of Transparency in Dealing with Scientific Misconduct.Hesselmann, F., & Reinhart, M. (2021).Cycles of Invisibility: The Limits of Transparency in Dealing with Scientific Misconduct. Social Studies of Science, 51(3), 414-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720975201 Abstract
Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highly visible, while investigation and decision-making procedures remain mostly invisible. This corresponds to high levels of acceptance of sanctions in the scientific community, but a low acceptance of the respective authorities. Such a punitiveness in turn exacerbates confidentiality concerns, so that |
Presentations
