EORC: 2025 Programme

On the 4th of June we are coming together to ask the question, "What's stopping us?" We are asking what barriers we face, the challenges slowing progress, and searching for strategies to overcome them. Find out about our speakers and read their abstracts below.

(9:30) Welcome & Registration

The venue will be open for registrations from 9:30 and tea, coffee, and soft drinks will be available. Proceedings will begin at 9:55 with a welcome talk.

(10:00) Session One: Communities and Collaborations

Dr. Judith Fathallah (she/her)

Research Lead, Open Book Collective; Research Fellow, Coventry University; Senior Research Associate, Lancaster University

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0202-5749

Kevin Sanders (he/him)

Open Access Engagement Lead, Open Book Collective 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1217-0149

Abstract

The Open Book Collective (OBC) brings together libraries and small-to-medium OA scholarly books publishers from across the world via a unique consortial funding model to enable the publication of OA books with no fee. Judith Fathallah is the Research Lead for the OBC and an academic author who decided in 2023 to publish her third monograph Open Access with a small, scholar-led, innovative press whose director is an expert in the field of media studies. In the first part of this talk Judith explains how she came to this decision, leaving behind the cachet of traditional publishing names, and why she would urge other academics to do the same. Academics cannot be asked to bear all of the risk of transition to a sustainable open access landscape for scholarly books – but, as we stand to benefit from this transition as educators, readers, authors and human beings, she contends that even precariously employed scholars such as myself we must bear some. Open Book Collective Managing Director Joe Deville then  briefly introduces the Open Book Collective's funding model, and the range of small-to-medium scholarly publishers who are currently members of the OBC. We encourage authors, librarians and educators to explore these high quality publishers as options to work with and support. The OBC supports presses to move away from inequitable, unsustainable Book Processing Charges, towards an OA fairer, more inclusive and more diverse landscape for OA books. The options are available to us: now the time has come for authors and scholars to take up a more active role as key stakeholders in this change. See www.openbookcollective.org and www.openbookcollective.pubpub.org


Professor Ailsa Niven (she/her)

Personal chair of Psychology of Physical Activity, Moray House School of Education and Sport, ISPEHSUniversity of Edinburgh

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4118-7460

 

Abstract

Changing open research behaviour is hard! Drawing from behavioural science provides an approach that is evidence-based to guide efforts to change behaviour. Specifically, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW; Michie et al., 2014) was developed to support the design and implementation of behaviour change interventions, and has been applied to a wide range of behaviours. Central to the BCW, is the COM-B model, which outlines how Behaviour is influenced by three broad factors: Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation. The first step in implementing the BCW, is to use the COM-B model to undertake a ‘behavioural diagnosis’ of the target behaviour. By doing this behavioural diagnosis, the prominent influences on behaviour can be identified and strategically targeted for change. Researchers in health psychology have advocated for the use of the BCW to inform interventions to support increased engagement in open research behaviour (Norris & O’Connor, 2019).

 
The Directorate of Research Engagement and Impact at (removed name to anonymise) are aiming to support researchers to engage in open research practices, in line with the University Open Research Roadmap, and emerging REF PCE guidance. In this talk, we will outline how we have used behavioural science to inform this approach through data collection and analysis to identify priority areas for focus and implementation.
 

Zuzanna Zagrodzka (she/her)

PhD Student, University of Sheffield

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8640-414X

Abstract

Understanding how different demographics and professional groups support or engage with open science, as well as identifying those less involved, can help institutions, organisations, and policymakers create tailored recommendations, training resources, and support to increase engagement across these groups in open science practices. This can also help to normalise the collaborative and open process of knowledge mobilisation.

In this study, we surveyed ecological and evolutionary professionals to evaluate the influence of familiarity, attitudes, and factors such as experience and gender on engagement with open science. To achieve this, we conducted an online survey targeting a diverse group of stakeholders, including knowledge creators (working within research institutions), knowledge mobilisers within academia (e.g., journals, repositories, learned societies), and those outside academia (e.g., governments, industry, and charity organisations).

Our study revealed that familiarity with open science increases with years of experience but remains consistently high across professional groups. Participants identified positive aspects of open science, such as increased visibility, trust, collaboration, satisfaction, and efficiency. However, they also highlighted concerns, including financial and time costs, as well as a lack of personal or organisational rewards. Notably, while familiarity with open science grows with experience, researchers (knowledge creators) tend to perceive open science less positively as their experience increases.


Fiona Ramage

Postdoctoral Researcher, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4855-7911

Abstract

In 2017, I began a PhD in nutritional neuroscience aiming to investigate how high-fat diets impaired cognition, using dietary and behaviour experiments in mice. During the first few months of my PhD, I was aiming to replicate the finding that high-fat diets do in fact impair some types of memory in mice, which should have been an easy task. At first, my results looked ideal, but I had performed them unblinded to dietary group, and I had an inkling this was a problem. Despite this being perceived as a waste of time, I measured and plotted blinded scores – and my ideal results vanished. When considering possible next steps, it was suggested that the best thing for my PhD would be to repeat the experiment until I successfully replicated it, and could proceed from there. This was not the approach I took. This talk will discuss how I confronted an issue in my own research, and used it to shape my future research trajectory. I will discuss my experiences learning about reproducibility in research, how I tried to use my own experience and my learnings to inform and guide other researchers, and why I ultimately transitioned into a career in meta-research, leaving behind bench research for good.  


(11:10) Break

Tea & Coffee in the conference atrium.

(11:30) Session Two: Policy and Procedures

Crispin Jordan (he/him)

Biomedical Teaching OrganisationEdinburgh Medical School: Biomedical SciencesUniversity of Edinburgh

 

Will Cawthorn (he/him)

Senior Lecturer, Centre for Cardiovascular Science; LERU Open Science Ambassador 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7832-5057 

Alex Peden (she/her)

Head of Research Cultures, University of Edinburgh

 

Abstract
Open Research improves research quality by increasing transparency and opens resources to society generally.  Universities across the UK are adapting to incorporate and encourage open research by academics.  In this talk, we describe how an Open Research theme is being incorporated in the next iteration of Research Culture Action Plan (RCAP), which reflects work with the Library Team's Open Research roadmap.  For example, the RCAP includes Open Research in Reward and Recognition for the promotion process. These initiatives dovetail with work being done by the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) through its Open Research Programme. We will then ask for audience feedback to gain cross-university and international suggestions on how to promote Open Research through the RCAP, and to identify potential barriers, which may vary across Schools and Colleges.

Varina Jones-Reid (she/her)

Press Assistant, Aberdeen University Press; Open Research Assistant, University of Aberdeen

 

Sarah Sharp

Lecturer in Scottish Literature and Associate Director of the Research Institute for Irish and Scottish Studies, University of Aberdeen

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3533-5957

Abstract

The simple answer to the question ‘What’s stopping you (publishing open access)’ for many scholars is very simple: money. The dominant open access publishing model at the present moment is one built around APCs and BPCs. This biases OA publishing in favour of established researchers capable of pulling grant funding, and it biases it in favour of the sciences, with Humanities researchers struggling the most to access publication funds. This model brings into question whether ‘open access’ is actually accessible, or even truly open. 
 
We launched Aberdeen University Press in 2022 as an open access press with the aim of supporting inclusive, fair and sustainable publishing practices . Our aspiration is to become a fully diamond open access publisher – ensuring high-quality academic research is open to all. This is not without financial challenges but through meaningful partnerships, support from the University and Scholarly Institutes that we hope to achieve our mission. We are committed to not charging mandatory fees to authors, and not basing publishing decisions on author’s access to funding.
 
Our talk will showcase how our partnerships support bibliodiversity and allows a wider range of authors to publish, including early career researchers and unaffiliated authors. We’ll do this by looking at the forthcoming issue of our Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies, a special issue titled ‘New Voices’ and featuring early career researchers in History. This issue grows out of workshops focused on mentoring new researchers through the process of preparing their work for publication. By removing the financial commitment for researchers, we have been able to include a broader range of voices and share their research openly to increase readership and reach.
 

Damon Querry

Research Information Systems Manager, University of Edinburgh

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6043-2791

Abstract

Defined by Wilkinson, M D, et al. 2016 in “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship” the FAIR data principles propose a framework to enable the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of scholarly data. But are there lessons which could be learned from this and applied to data arising from institutional research administrative processes?

Institutional data suffers from the same sorts of problems the FAIR principles were designed to overcome. In a large institution it can be difficult to know what data exists and how to locate it, difficult to access it and have it in a form which means it can interact with other data without needing a great deal of manual intervention, which leads to barriers when wanting to reuse it.

This lightning talk will examine some of the issues we might experience when applying FAIR data principles to institutional data, with an emphasis on research management data, who’s currently applying these principles and what we may need to do to adopt them within the University of Edinburgh.


Ali Kay (they/she)

Research Services Officer, University of Leeds

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5243-3477

Abstract

This talk investigates the effects of the REF 2021 OA policy at the University of Leeds, both analysing the data on institutional deposit patterns, and drawing on interviews conducted in summer 2021 with School and Faculty staff from across the University who were involved in administering the Open Access policy. These administrators were responsible for explaining the policy requirements to research staff, encouraging deposit and monitoring compliance rates, and in some cases depositing manuscripts on behalf of authors. As such they engaged directly with a wide range of researchers from many different disciplines, and the interviews paint a nuanced picture of the contested open access landscape. Thematic analysis of the interviews suggests that, though there were some barriers to deposit in the early days of the policy, by the end of the policy period institutional deposit had become embedded in researchers’ practice; however, this had not led to increased understanding of or enthusiasm for open access, and deposit continued to be motivated by the need for REF compliance rather than any broader benefits. Participants also related variance in researchers’ attitudes towards open access to differences of discipline, seniority, and investment in “traditional” research practices such as publishing in high impact journals. The research suggests that whilst mandates for institutional deposit can be a useful tool in increasing open access rates rapidly, other – potentially more transformative – approaches are needed to genuinely engage researchers and create lasting change. 


(12:30) Lunch & Research Cafe

The catered lunch will take place in the main atrium of the conference. If you would like to join the Academic Support Librarian Team for their informal and enlightening Research Cafe, you are welcome to take your food and drinks and join the discussion which will run throughout lunch.

(13:45) Session Three: Systems and Infrastructure

Sayeed Choudhury (he/him)

Director of Open Source Programs Office; Executive Director of Open Forum for AI, Carnegie Mellon University

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2891-0543

Abstract

Our university has launched the first academic, large-scale automated science facility in the US. This facility will include shared data, compute, protocols, AI/ML, etc. that will empower open research. By emphasizing open data, open source software, and open source AI, this automated science facility represents a major opportunity for developing and sharing open research practices. This talk will describe our university's approach and platform, along with potential opportunities and challenges related to reproducibility, defining openness for AI, and examining changes in research practice. 

 
Early examples include the benefits of audit trails or provenance with automated tools, balanced out by challenges associated with the opaqueness of AI. Additionally, there is early evidence that training of students might change as automated tools are used for tasks previously implemented by people. One of our university professors has developed an AI "co-scientist" to manage laboratory tasks. We are partnering with a researcher at another university, who is conducting an ethnographic study of how research and education practices are changing.
 
Regarding AI, our university is leading a multi-institution program focused on defining openness in AI, and outlining the various benefits and possible risks. This work builds upon the early work and initial version of the Open Source AI Definition, which was designed through a community process led by the Open Source Initiative. This concept of openness in AI has been noted in various AI forums, including the Paris AI Action Summit. 
 
This talk relates to the conference topic of how technology, including AI, is helping or hindering open research good practice, particularly as it relates to automated science, across a range of scientific disciplines and lab practices for both research and education. 

Mahesh Karnani (he/him)

Chacellor's Fellow, University of Edinburgh

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4810-4146

Abstract

Incentives to have work peer-reviewed by traditional journals are problematic for a globally inclusive research community. The process of years-long delays in sharing new results, on ultimately paywalled venues, builds walls within research communities and is very costly. Many research fields could achieve much more with less through rapid, limitless sharing. In this talk, I will discuss an operational solution to the peer-review component, Peer Community In (PCI) (https://peercommunityin.org/) which is a community of active researchers peer-reviewing and acting as editors to recommend publicly accessible preprints. This low-cost system is operated from core funding of the PCI organization, allowing cost of use to authors and readers to remain completely free. The resulting diamond open access, journal-independent, refereed, and recommended preprints can be submitted to journals along with the review reports, thus constituting a preprint-review-curate model.
 
PCI currently includes 19 subject specific platforms [https://peercommunityin.org/current-pcis/], has the support of over 200 institutions/universities, and has won several open science awards. New PCIs can be launched in fields that are not represented yet, and to give insight into this process, I will discuss our experience launching PCI Neuroscience. Our usage statistics show that the use of PCI is increasing in several fields in the sciences and humanities, demonstrating the usefulness and need for grass-roots-up communities within open research.

Simon Bowie (he/him)

Open Source Software Developer, Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2437-589X 

Abstract

The academic research process in the UK is hindered by the corporate software ecosystems imposed by universities. For all the advancement of open research practices, the use and distribution of open source software in academic research has been neglected in favour of the proprietary software defaults provided top-down by our institutions. Despite progress on open access publishing and open data sharing, academic researchers still use closed software like Microsoft Word for writing, Microsoft SharePoint for document management, and Microsoft Teams or Zoom for communication and conferencing. In this talk, I want to discuss the failures of proprietary software in UK Higher Education and advocate for open researchers to take back control of their research process using open source software.

In particular, I will focus on small software changes that academic researchers can make to their research practices. This will include using Zotero for reference management, using kMeet for videoconferencing, and using Zettlr for note-taking and academic writing. I will argue that these small acts lay the groundwork for larger cultural change in open research such as divesting from proprietary software platforms like Elsevier's Pure or the Ex Libris suite of academic library systems. By embedding open source software in open research practices, we can divest from expensive and unreliable corporate software and take back control of the research process.


(14:45) Break

Tea & Coffee in the conference atrium.

(15:15) Session Four: Knowledge, Skills & Training

Louise Saul (she/her)

Open Research Coordinator and Administrator, University of Southampton

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6422-0342

Nicki Clarkson

Engagement Librarian, University of Southampton

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4481-3715

Neil Jacobs

Head of UK Reproducibility Network Open Research Programme

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8050-8175

Kirsty Merrett

Research Support Librarian, University of Bristol

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5784-3602

Abstract

Librarians and research support staff play an essential role in promoting engagement with Open Research Practices at UK Higher Education Institutions (UK HEIs), through providing training and academic engagement. However, individuals in these roles may not often gain the opportunity to contextualise the content of their teaching within the wider field, or to receive recognition for their work in driving academic standards. 
 
We are going to describe the development of a pedagogical wrapper at the University of Bristol by Dr Kirsty Merrett. The aim of the wrapper is to support research enablers, such as librarians, in disseminating their areas of expertise to research support staff at other UK HEIs who are then supported to deliver the content in a form that is tailored to their institution. We will evaluate how this has been implemented via the UK Reproducibility Network’s ‘Train-the-Trainer’ programme.
 
We will also describe how this has led to career development incentives for librarians that are aligned with the UK Professional Standards Framework. The importance of retaining the specialist knowledge of research enabling individuals, by providing defined career pathways and opportunities, is acknowledged for roles such as technicians however remains undefined for research support staff such as librarians. We hope that by sharing our experiences in this, we will provide a case study to support other research enablers. 
 

Milena Dobreva (she/her)    

Senior lecturer in information behaviour, University of Strathclyde

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2579-7541 

Abstract

Bulgaria is one of the European countries with a very uneven Open and Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) landscape. On one hand, in terms of legal framework the latest national law on scientific research from May 2024  places open research at the core of scientific enquiry and policies. It is supported by the implementation plan for the national strategy for the development of scientific research from 2017 to 2030.

However, the country's national and institutional ORRI infrastructures are underdeveloped. Only 11 institutional repositories from Bulgaria are listed on ROAR (Registry of Open Access Repositories). With 52 Universities and 42 academic institutes only within the Academy of Sciences, this evidences that the majority of institutions do not have visible digital repositories. Paradoxically, the major national repository BPOS (Bulgarian Portal for Open Science) is not listed in ROAR. In January 2025, 73,759 open access (OA) publications were deposited to BPOS. There are 4292 registered users of this platform while there are some 14,000 researchers in Bulgaria. ) No repositories in Bulgaria support the deposit of research data, methodologies, or re-use tools such as Jupyter Notebooks. These data demonstrate that the majority of Bulgarian researchers are not users of the national OA infrastructure.

Furthermore, a recent study among researchers in Bulgaria found that only about a third of recently surveyed academics are familiar with the EU's goals on open access. The authors' major recommendation is to offer more OA-related training to researchers.

This paper will analyse the quadruple helix of ORRI in Bulgaria and explore the role of government, academia, businesses, and citizens. It will draw from the experiences of *** project funded by the EC where the [anonymised Scottish Unviersity] contributed to the design and delivery of a knowledge exchange (KE) programme.

This effort started with a co-creation phase involving local stakeholders (academics, citizens & businesses, and research managers & policy makers). This informed the design of workshops for experienced researchers and a KE programme for PhD students.    

While stand-alone training programmes have a positive role in raising awareness, it is common that the participants often do not have sufficient support to start implementing what they have learned in real life. To provide additional support to the participants, ***  designed its own pedagogical approach which combines a stage of active knowledge acquisition (an intensive winter school), a stage for experimenting with a specific ORRI instrument with the support of a mentor (a mentorship programme), and an opportunity to present this experience to the wider community (dissemination during a final conference).

In order to measure the progress of participants, *** also developed a self-assessment tool which captures the researcher’s ORRI knowledge and skills. While various institutional self-assessment tools exist, the individual one is an innovative outcome and is useful in measuring the impact of ORRI KE programmes.

References1 https://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2137242579  2 https://www.euraxess.lt/sites/default/files/policy_library/bulgaria_country_profile_rr2013_final.pdf 3 Boock, M. et al. (2020), ""Bulgarian authors’ open access awareness and preferences"", Library Management, Vol. 41 No. 2/3, pp. 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-08-2019-0059.


Tapas Kumar Mohanty (he/him)  

Informatics & Data Science Liaison Officer, NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE), KEM Hospital Research Centre Pune (India)

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6822-9411 

Simon Smith (he/him)

Research Data Support Officer, Library Research Support, University of Edinburgh

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5732-2551

Abstract

NIHR-RESPIRE, a Global Health Research Unit funded by NIHR, is committed to advancing respiratory health research in Asia. We prioritise Open Science, Data, and Methodologies to maximise research data utility securely, sharing the lessons encountered across seven LMIC partner countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). Our strategic shift from traditional data sharing to LMIC-tailored Open Science practices ensures data privacy and security. This includes refining Data Management Plans, metadata standards, and mandating FAIR Data sharing, providing methodological support, and developing Open Science Policy Guidelines. We advocate for the adoption of open science principles to maximise secure data use and value with a focus on FAIR data. We also provide aid to partners in enhancing their data-related skills, hosting regular meetings, and establishing internal data monitoring structures to bolster cross-cutting activities within RESPIRE. Through capacity building, we have enabled high-quality respiratory health research using Open Science principles, enhancing data sharing efficiency, research visibility, and ultimately respiratory health outcomes in Asia and beyond. Our experience underscores the following lessons: 

(1) Flexibility in data sharing, tailored to LMIC researchers' needs, is essential; 

(2) Training and support to enhance knowledge of methodologies and dispel misconceptions are key to successful data stewardship; 

(3) Appointing a focal person for structured anonymised data sharing and supporting the internal Data Monitoring Committee are critical. 

We recognise Open Science's potential to foster innovation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing in respiratory health research.


Dr Camilla Elphick (she/her)

Lecturer in Psychology, The Open University

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8482-0863 

Dr Lydia Devenney

Lecturer in Psychology, the Open University

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3178-7067 

Dr Sarah Laurence

Senior Lecturer in Psychology, the Open University.

Dr Ailsa Strathie

Senior lecturer in Psychology, the Open University.

Abstract

The development of an open access Open Research course and interactive decision tree for researchers across disciplinesOpen Research encourages interdisciplinary collaboration, enabling researchers from diverse fields to interact with and build upon each other’s work, providing opportunities for underrepresented groups in academia to contribute and gain recognition, and accelerating innovation and advancements in various scientific fields. As such, it is essential for addressing global challenges such as climate change, health crises, and technological advancements. However, the shift to Open Research faces challenges, including concerns about intellectual property, funding models, and the infrastructure required for data sharing. We have sought to mitigate some of the challenges of Open Research and promote its use in academia with the creation of an open access online course “Open Research for Researchers” and accompanying decision tree interactive that were developed with critical input from cross-disciplinary academics and open research advisors from the university library. The course introduces researchers from across disciplines and methodologies to three principles of open research (transparency, integrity, and accessibility) and why these are important. It also provides practical steps they can take to make their own research open, and to identify transparency, integrity, and accessibility in the research of others. The interactive decision tree allows researchers to apply open research practices to their own research, at any stage of a project.


(16:15) Drinks Reception

Join us at the end of the conference for drinks, nibbles, networking, and discussion. This will take place in the conference atrium. 

This article was published on