In this presentation, we will explore the role of Open Science in energy system research and how it can promote participatory design in social transformation processes. The ongoing climate crisis calls for an urgent and comprehensive transformation of energy systems. We need a rapid decarbonisation to achieve a completely regenerative, sustainable, and affordable energy system. Science, society, and politics play a critical role in this transformation, but how do they work together? How can scientific research become more inclusive and transdisciplinary and also improve the quality of science? In this presentation, we will explore the role of Open Science in energy system research and how it can promote participatory design in social transformation processes.

We will present the developed collaborative open-science ecosystem, in particular the Open Energy Modelling Framework (oemof), a software that optimizes sector-coupled energy systems, the Open Energy Platform (OEP), a toolbox and community database for open and FAIR data, and the Open Energy Ontology (OEO), a domain ontology for the energy system context. We will demonstrate how these open and collaboratively developed tools can be used to develop stakeholder empowerment tools and interactive web tools that can be used on the WAM platform.

We will also address important questions about scientific research, such as who we research for and who uses our tools. We will explore the opportunities and hurdles of Open Science in energy system research and show how these tools can support a participatory, global energy system transformation.

Research museums are ideal ambassadors and disseminators for the Open Science movement. They also can create visibility for transformational changes in organization by acting as a 'show room' for Open Science practices, implementations and demonstrators. In 2020 the Museum für Naturkunde (MfN) – a research museum of the Leibniz Association - was given the unique chance to transform its scientific collections, buildings and exhibitions as part of the Zukunftsplan of the MfN funded by the German Bundestag. The project Collection Discovery and Development of the Zukunftsplan aims to build an open knowledge infrastructure for nature that promotes multi- perspective thinking and action. Within the ten-year project, the scientific collection at MfN will become an open research infrastructure, fully integrated into the European open knowledge landscape as a modern information hub designed to be both physically and virtually interoperable. This talk will give an overview of the ongoing transformation process at MfN and all its aspects promoting Open Science principles. It will highlight the successful approaches, as well as challenges in applying Open Science principles on organizational level. The aim is to spark a debate on how to tackle the transformation of entire organizations in a more pragmatic and transparent way.

The Open Science movement continues to advance global research access. Around the world, researchers are gaining access to previously unavailable articles, software and data through Open Science infrastructures, FAIR data standards and access policies.

Despite these advances, Open Science infrastructures require constant scrutiny to ensure equity of access. More scrutiny is needed to examine access by marginalized research communities and address structural challenges to data use and reuse. Without this scrutiny, it is possible that existing socio-economic inequalities are unintentionally being perpetuated within the new Open Science milieu. Failure to address these inequities weakens Open Science and undermines the ideal of a Global Digital Commons.

In this talk I present some recent work looking at unequal access to Open Science resources due to socio-economic and geographical realities. The research challenges the implicit assumption within both FAIR and Open discussions that access to Open Science resources are independent of the user’s geolocation. Many researchers continue to struggle to access Open Science resources due to connectivity issues or explicit geoblocking. These challenges undermine the equity of Open Science resources, as well as limiting marginalized researchers from from Open Science discussions and adapting Open Science infrastructures to improve equity of access.

These marginalisations mirror wider political issues and infrastructural deficits, and raises serious questions about the limits of openness. Without targeted action, and given the volatile nature of politics and the slow pace of infrastructural investment, the expansion of Open Science may unintentionally reinforce current access inequities and research inequalities around the globe.

It is commonly acknowledged that disparities and inequities exist with regards to research capacity and efficiency in research output dissemination due to historical reasons, prestige and privilege, access to funding or the lack thereof. The UNESCO Open Science recommendation report and toolkit provide tangible approaches to overcome existing barriers and point towards existing best practices, tools, and services to foster global equity in a scholarly ecosystem.

Besides providing access to research literature by removing paywalls and for many unaffordable subscription plans to scholarly databases, it is crucial to design scholarly infrastructure on a local, regional and global level in such a way that it allows authority and control to data ownership and curation, provides pathways for proactive participation in global scholarly knowledge exchange through data and research article dissemination, and enables any researcher and research consortium from any part of the world to access computing capacities to run their region-specific data analyses that are becoming increasing practice for currently only few scholarly stakeholders in privileged institutions and parts of the world.

This presentation will provide an overview of opportunities and challenges with an increasing uptake of Open Science practices to foster global research equity by possibly creating new challenges to the research community, which – if addressed early on, can be mitigated along the way.

Wim Hugo², Ricarda Braukmann², Jorik van Kemenade¹
Organisation(s): 1: SURF; 2: DANS

Open Access datasets typically come with creative commons licences that specify the conditions for reuse. For sensitive data, however, access conditions are often strict and much less standardised. More often than not the conditions under which access is granted are unclear to the researcher. Work conducted in the context of the Dutch Open Data Infrastructure for Social Science and Economic Innovations (ODISSEI) aims to address this challenge.

In this workshop, we want to discuss how existing access procedures and licences associated with sensitivity datasets could be harmonised. We propose an extension of the existing creative commons licences with new licences that summarise the conditions often applied to the reuse of sensitive data. These include, for instance, the verification of the user, their intent, and requirements around the use of secure analysis environments.

We would like to discuss our initial work and evaluate how well the proposed licences would fit with existing use cases and procedures applied to sensitive data within the Open Science community.

The workshop starts with a welcome and short introduction of the ODISSEI infrastructure and project in which the work is situated. We would then like to collect use cases from the community that showcase which procedures for access to sensitive data are currently in place and what challenges participants encounter.

Consecutively, we continue with the presentation of our proposal for managed access licences that we expect could cover some of the identified use cases. After the presentation, we will give the opportunity to discuss and exchange with the audience coming back to the use cases collected in the earlier part of the workshop.

Our workshop aims to break open the discussion on how access procedures for sensitive data can be harmonised providing protection for sensitive data, but following the principles of Open Science.

Antica Culina¹, Maria Cruz², Matthew Grainger³, Tin Klanjscek¹, Shinichi Nakagawa⁴, Marija Purgar¹
Organisation(s): 1: Ruđer Bošković Institute; 2: Dutch Research Council; 3: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 4: UNSW Sidney

This workshop aims to address the issue of research waste and explore how open science approaches can help reduce it. Research waste refers to studies that have limited or no informative value. It has so far been estimated for only two broad research fields; in medicine, 85% of research is wasted, while in ecology 82-89% of research is wasted. This leads to a significant loss of valuable information and also of invested funds with an estimated US$170 billion wasted each year in medicine alone.

Research waste is a complex problem caused by suboptimal research, funding, and publishing practices, as well as the current incentive, assessment, and support systems in science. Open science offers many solutions to reduce research waste, such as preregistration, open data and code, and changes in research assessment. By participating in this workshop, attendees will have the opportunity to learn about the concept of research waste, and its components, explore different open science practices and movements and start thinking about pathways, enabled by open science, that can reduce research waste in their fields. The workshop invites all stakeholders who impact the way research is done or are impacted by conducted research, including researchers, publishers, funders, and others. The outcomes of the workshop will inform further work on reducing research waste. Join us to learn how to embrace open science principles and practices to increase the value of research.

Emma Karoune¹, Arielle Bennett¹, Esther Plomp², Malvika Sharan¹
Organisation(s): 1: The Alan Turing Institute; 2: Delft University of Technology

It is rare that successful collaborations, and open science practices, occur without an active coordination and knowledge-exchange process. This expert coordination and facilitation work in open science projects are taken on by people in either volunteer or paid positions, depending on a project’s funding, size, goals and number of organisations involved. In The Turing Way, we call these Research Infrastructure Roles.

Research Infrastructure Roles are diverse and are taken on by researchers with varied expertise and backgrounds. At the Alan Turing Institute, the Tools, Practices, and Systems programme supports teams of Research Community Managers and Research Application Managers, alongside Research Software Engineers, Data Wranglers and Ethics Advisors. Furthermore, we work closely with other experts such as Data Stewards, Librarians, and Policy Experts. These roles have emerged as critical catalysts for the adoption of open, reproducible and ethical research practices, as research methodologies continue to evolve.

Several roles are only recently established and may exist in other forms and under other job titles. Therefore, it is challenging to establish standard practices, build frameworks for supporting collaborative relationships, and capture the impact these roles bring across different institutions and research fields. The Open Science conference 2023 provides an opportunity for a structured conversation about Research Infrastructure Roles, improving awareness and building connections with communities supporting such roles.

This session will facilitate discussion, inviting attendees to share their experiences and perspectives (1) from working in research infrastructure, (2) importance of creating dedicated roles for implementing open research practices, and (3) how we can work towards a culture that provides better opportunities for individuals who take the non-traditional academic route. Notes from the session will feed back into the evolving chapter on Research Infrastructures Roles in the Turing Way Guide to Collaboration and referenced in related projects led by the TPS/Turing Way teams.

Julien Colomb¹, Moritz Maxeiner³, Robert Mies²
Organisation(s): 1: HU Berlin; 2: TU Berlin; 3: FU Berlin

Research hardware represents a physical artifact and may incorporate mechanical, electrical, and even software components. It is an inherent part of research, together with research data and research software. However, while the latter have been recognized as research outputs by funders and institutions (leading to for example to the creation of novel career paths in academia), research hardware has been mostly overlooked in discussions about open science so far. There is also no specific publication pathway or specific repositories for hardware documentation. During the last year, the Open.Make project collected stories about the researcher perspective on hardware publication. They combined this knowledge with the work of the FAIR for research hardware RDA interest group and experience in hardware engineering to propose a hardware publication system.

In this workshop, we want to discuss this proposition with professionals in scholarly communication, institutions and political influencers. We want to discuss a roadmap for the creation of a research hardware publication ecosystem, which would be a first step into the recognition of research hardware as an independent research ouptut. After a general introduction, we will split in four breakout rooms to discuss (1) the technical aspects of a publication platform, (2) the evaluation process (peer review), (3) the sustainability and commercial aspect, and (4) the development of incentives and recognition for the hardware engineers and makers. See https://www.openmake.de/blog/2023/05/11/2023-05-11-workshop-at-the-open-science-conference/ for more information.

Kim Ferguson, Maaike Verburg
Organisation(s): DANS-KNAW

To better support the wider sharing and reuse of research data, many organisations and research groups are developing strategies to foster a FAIR data culture - i.e., one where data are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. Though FAIR data need not always be open, Open Data that is FAIR is better suited to be reused, reproduced, and accessed. To facilitate innovations in FAIR data culture, education and training are an important first step towards applying principles and practices to data that is created throughout the research cycle. In this workshop, participants will gain hands-on experience with developing training exercises that will facilitate increased awareness and application of the FAIR principles in the context that is personally relevant to them

The workshop will focus specifically on the FAIR-Aware tool (https://fairaware.dans.knaw.nl/), an online self-assessment tool. Created in the FAIRsFAIR project and now further developed in the FAIR-IMPACT project, FAIR-Aware is a versatile and flexible tool to use in education and training. Participants will get to know the tool and develop training based on it that is relevant to their own context. Participants will be encouraged to work collaboratively and interact with each other as well as the trainers via text, voice, shared documents and polling inputs - no break-out rooms here. At the end of this workshop, participants will have a better understanding of designing training on the FAIR-Aware Tool as well as access to a rich list of materials to reuse. This workshop is tailored to trainers, educators, and data professionals. Researchers and data stewards are also welcome to see a more in-depth use of the FAIR-Aware tool. If additional accommodations are needed, participants are encouraged to get in touch in advance. All materials will be publicly available and shared shortly before the workshop.

Jo Havemann
Organisation(s): Access 2 Perspectives

Global equity in scholarly participation is the opportunity for researchers from around the world to be able to consume and share research output based on Open Science, FAIR and CARE principles. Since research capacity varies drastically within and across world regions, local conditions such as available funding, research infrastructure, or internet connectivity should not interfere with the potential of academic success. Imbalances in the accessibility and availability of research resources prevent or enable research effectiveness, provided that a certain number of resources and capacity is present. Effectiveness means societal impact, as a result of research findings and being able to make research output available to other stakeholders (industry, the general public, other researchers, etc.)

Research institutions with limited access to resources cannot be effective in their research. However, embracing Open Science practices (publishing green OA via preprint servers, choosing affordable journals or those that provide diamond OA, as well as Open Peer Review) can compensate for the lack of resources and therefore provide effectiveness for research even in resource-poor settings, if combined with an uptake of investments and capacity building in resource poor research settings. This workshop provides a space for knowledge and experience sharing about effective measures to take in enabling global research equity across the research workflow and through scholarly publishing pathways, guided by the Open Science principles. We will address questions around data ownership, ethical aspects in research planning and implementation that lead to multiple possible pathways to disseminate the knowledge gained in an equitable and beneficial manner for all contributing parties involved.

Participants will identify and discuss existing barriers as well as tangible approaches to take for equitable participation in research practices in a given research context while ensuring knowledge exchange also on a global level.

We aim for a balanced regional and stakeholder representation amongst the participants and will publish the workshop report in a standardized repository for dissemination in relevant fora.

Maria Cruz¹, Maaike de Jong², Carlos Martinez-Ortiz²
Organisation(s): 1: NWO; 2: Netherlands eScience Center

Software plays an increasingly important role in research and has become a key output of many research projects. Several aspects of its development, maintenance and curation need to be planned for. A software management plan is a document that describes how a specific software project will be developed, maintained and curated. Software management plans help to implement best practices during software development and ensure that software is accessible and reusable in the short and long term.

This workshop will address how software management plans contribute to open science and to the overall quality of research. Participants will learn how a software management plan can be beneficial to their research – in particular, how it stimulates good coding practices and the accessibility and reusability of research software; contributes to the reproducibility of research results; stimulates collaborative work on open-source software; and improves the long-term sustainability of research software. Based on the Practical Guide to Software Management Plans, participants will classify their own software (or examples of software provided by the organizers) and will get familiar with the elements of a software management plan. The workshop is targeted at researchers, research support staff, research software engineers, librarians, policy makers, and anyone with an interest in open research software.

Leonhard Volz^1,2,3, David Joachim Grüning^2,4,5, Anne Sophie Giacobello^1,3, Maximilian Frank^2,6, Nitya Shah^1,3
Organisation(s): 1: Student Initiative for Open Science, NL; 2: Open Science AG, PsyFaKo e.V., DE; 3: University of Amsterdam, NL; 4: University of Heidelberg, DE; 5: GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, DE; 6: Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, DE

Education is crucial within Open Science (OS) in at least two major ways. On the one hand, a central pillar of OS is Open Education, summarising efforts to ease access to educational resources. On the other hand, the application of OS requires knowledge and skills that need to be acquired. For OSC2023, we want to provide an informed student perspective on education in OS. From experience as members in active student-communities for OS, we suggest revising the existing content of teaching at universities by addressing three major aspects: (a) explicitly including OS content in academic education, (b) anchoring didactical aims more in OS principles, and (c) using OS tools (or resources) in diverse and rewarding ways.

This session is guided by the idea that everyone brings their unique background and perspectives into the (digital) room and structured thought exchange will open up new avenues to promote teaching of and with OS and Open Education. In that spirit, everyone with a role in teaching is welcome. Concretely, we will start with an input presentation that will introduce principles of Open Education and present a diverse collection of existing concepts that can inspire and reinforce concrete thinking about possibilities for one’s own action. The latter parts of the workshop will comprise guided discussion rounds and feedback / reflection forums that aim to develop ideas further and give valuable input, consider the feasibility of plans, and encourage subsequent engagement.

Our goal for the workshop outcomes is twofold. At the end of the sessions, we aim at having composed a wide collection of ideas on adapting education according to OS principles. Further, we want to arrive at concrete actions that each participant can implement in their own teaching-related activities.

New academic practices discussed under the term Open Science are receiving increasing attention. However, after more than two decades of experimentation with new forms of openness in science, broadly effective anchoring in scientific practice remains pending (Mendez et al., 2020). This leads to the overarching question of how it can be explained that the new possibilities of digital technologies combined with the stringently presented and generally comprehensible science policy rationale for Open Science have so far only hesitantly translated into changed scientific practices on a broad scale.

This is also related to the question of why individual scientists and scientific communities have continued to implement Open Science practices – what drives them to do so and what tensions come into play while opening up their scientific knowledge production and dissemination? For a better understanding of scientists’ motives for engaging in Open Science practices, this talk presents the findings of an empirical study concentrating on scientists who actively anchor Open Science.

The qualitative analysis builds on 13 in-depth interviews with Open Science award winners in Germany. Based on methodological triangulation, narrative interviews in combination with visual forms of hierarchical value maps, the findings outline a holistic spectrum of open science motives. The resulting motive wheel with individual, scientific and societal benefits of Open Science offers diverse future perspectives for science on science and science policy to contribute to the path towards a further “full and fair implementation” (Frank et al., 2023) of Open Science on the basis of a deeper empirical understanding.

Authors:
Ronny Röwert
Organisation(s): Hamburg University of Technology

Academic success is commonly evaluated by the number of published articles. Yet, focusing on this single metric selects against female academics with biased gender roles both within households and within academic institution. Novel social conditions induced by the COVID19 pandemic likely exacerbated this gender-bias if female academics took on heavier loads of caregiving, domestic, service and teaching tasks. We investigate the overall pandemic effect on the gender gap in research productivity through a systematic review and meta-analysis of 130 effect sizes from 55 published articles across scientific disciplines.

We also investigate how research field, breadth of gender gap before the pandemic, and authorship position influence this effect. We found that the gender gap in research productivity within academia has overall increased by 5% according to the numbers of publications and submissions during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in social sciences and medicine, fields that were previously nearest to being gender equal, with less or no change in natural science fields. We did not detect an influence of authorship position.

Based on our results, we call attention to the fact that traditional metrics of research productivity such as numbers of publications and submissions have disproportionately worsened for women researchers. Potentially, this could feedback into grant-allocation/tenure/promotion/hiring decisions, worsening academia’s “leaky pipeline”. The script and dataset in our systematic review and meta-analysis enables monitoring of longer-term effects by incorporating new research on the topic as and when it becomes available.

Authors:
Kiran Gok Lune Lee^1,2, Hannah Dugdale¹, Adele Mennerat³, Dieter Lukas⁴, Antica Culina^5,6
Organisation(s): 1: Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 2: Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 3: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 4: Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany; 5: Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia; 6: Netherlands Institute of Ecology

Open science policies have been implemented worldwide, but there is a research gap in understanding how these policies affect researchers' knowledge production practices. In order to better understand how open science is incorporated into mode 2 of knowledge production in the basic sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology in Brazil, France, and Peru, this paper uses a qualitative research methodology. Researchers at the top institutions in each nation are asked for their ideas, perceptions, and experiences with the policies through semi-directed interviews. The interview transcriptions were analyzed using Nvivo software. The coding process employed a thematic analysis with an inductive category development approach. The research question is focused on understanding how open science policies have impacted knowledge production practices of researchers in these countries, highlighting differences and similarities across science disciplines. By addressing the existing research gap, it enhances the empirical literature on open science and adds diversity to the understanding of this subject.

Authors:
Alejandra Manco
Organisation(s): Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1

Federation of Finnish Learned Societies and IT Center for Science have published open data on monitoring the implementation of open science policies in Finnish universities and research organisations. This talk introduces the monitoring results in the context of Universities of Applied Sciences in Finland (UAS).

The monitoring revealed that Finnish UASs are committed to the Declaration of Open Science and Research and have worked to promote open science practices in national and organisational level. The monitoring was based on various indicators and survey targeted to research organisations. A five-level model to determine the degree of openness (1-5) was created based on the key indicators and the number of points given.

In overall assessments of openness 39% of UAS were on the highest level (level 5) and 39% on the level 4, only three organisations were on the level 3 and two on level 2. Besides that, organisational open science and research profile – a set of organisational degrees of openness was calculated based on open science and research indicators in four areas: culture for open scholarship, open access to scholarly publications, open access of research data and methods, and open education and open access to educational resources.

Authors:
Anne Kärki¹, Hanna Lahtinen², Seliina Päällysaho³
Organisation(s): 1: Satakunta University of Applied Sciences; 2: Laurea University of Applied Sciences; 3: Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences

Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) and their infrastructures are vital for accountability, reproducibility, and credibility in research. They contribute to Open Science and Open Scholarship by fostering transparency, identification, and referencing of scientific outputs. PIDs like DOIs, ORCID iDs, and ROR iDs are essential for research funders, universities, and researchers to enhance visibility, reproducibility, and attribution. The success of PIDs depends on their added values, trustworthiness, and absence of risks. A comprehensive investigation conducted in 2022 explored the requirements for a well-functioning PID infrastructure. The study focused on risk and trust, adopting a stakeholder and case study approach involving PID Authorities, Service Providers, Managers, Owners, and Users.

A literature review clarified trust definitions and trustee nature, along with risk dimensions and management strategies. Qualitative interviews with 15 international PID experts were conducted, transcribed, and coded. Findings were analyzed across technological, social, economic, and political dimensions. This contribution highlights PIDs as socio-technical systems and crucial infrastructures for Open Science. The study revealed organizational, political, and social risks, as well as substantial trust in PID infrastructures. Recommendations are provided for PID infrastructure development, and suggestions were given for academic institutions, funding organizations, libraries, and publishers to improve PIDs' permanence and reliability in line with the FAIR principles.

Authors:
Laura Rothfritz^1,6, Stephanie Palek², Pablo de Castro^3,6, Ulrich Herb^4,6, Joachim Schöpfel^5,6
Organisation(s): 1: Humboldt-University Berlin; 2: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek; 3: U Strathclyde Glasgow; 4: Saarland University; 5: University of Lille; 6: scidecode science consulting

Ensuring reproducibility is one of the main goals of open science. To achieve reproducibility of scientific results, data and analytical computer code (if used) should ideally be openly available. Thus far, efforts have mostly focused on making research data open and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), whereas code-sharing has only recently started to gain attention.

A recent review of the state of code availability in ecological journals with code-sharing policies showed that, despite the policies, code-sharing is alarmingly low, suggesting that those policies are not adhered to by most authors. This project builds on that recent review to explicitly test whether journal code-sharing policies increase code availability. For that, we compare code availability between 14 journals with (n = 346 articles) and 13 journals without code-sharing policies (n = 350 articles) for the period between 2015 and 2019. Our study aims to provide essential information to help improve code-sharing and journal code-sharing policies in ecology and other fields, with the ultimate goal of making science more reproducible in the short- and long-term.

Our findings thus far provide evidence that the implementation of a journal code-sharing policy does not result in a substantial proportion of code-sharing. However, it does appear to contribute to an overall increase in the availability of code, which is a positive outcome. When considering eligible articles published, the percentage of papers that shared their code was significantly higher in journals with a code-sharing policy (27%) compared to journals without such a policy (3%). Another noteworthy observation is the progressive increase in code-sharing within journals lacking a code-sharing policy over time. Specifically, only 1% of papers published between 2015-2016 shared their code, whereas this figure rose to 4% between 2018-2019. In sum, our results suggest that although code-sharing policies lead to an increase in code availability, the scientific community still needs to ensure that those policies are truly implemented. For that, we suggest that journals must provide better support for researchers and have a system for ensuring that policies are adhered to.

Authors:
Aya Bezine¹, Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar¹, Antica Culina², Marija Purgar²
Organisation(s): 1: Bielefeld University; 2: Ruder Boskovic Institute, Zagreb

The appropriate integration of open practices in research evaluation is deemed crucial for their acceptance and widespread adoption. In recent years, significant endeavors have been made to fundamentally reform the research assessment system, including the formation of a prominent coalition called COARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment). However, considering these advancements, it is important to ask whether the principles of Open Science are sufficiently reflected in this process. What aspects still need to be taken into account? How does this impact early-career researchers? These and other issues will be subject of the panel discussion.

Panellists:

• Lidia Borrell-Damian (Science Europe)
• Iain Hrynaszkiewicz (PLOS)
• Claudia Labisch (Leibniz Association)
• Iris Lechner (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Panel moderation: Klaus Tochtermann (ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics)