EORC: 2025 Programme

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

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).

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.

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.  

Abstract

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.

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. 

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. 

Abstract

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.

Abstract

We present the preliminary findings of a scoping study on the actions a researcher can take to overcome common barriers to sharing interview transcripts. 

In preparing our own transcripts for deposit, we struggled to identify guidance addressing the practical issues we were facing at a detailed enough level to be helpful to us. As we searched through  the extensive literature on the subject, we reasoned that it may be beneficial for other researchers to have access to the results of this exercise. 

We therefore began a formal scoping review, focusing specifically on the practical steps that researchers can take towards opening their transcripts. From the extracted concerns, we constructed eight themes: confidentiality, consent, misappropriation of data, context, copyright,IRB approval, researcher distress and time and money. We have presented the preliminary findings in the form of a table based ‘tool’, organised via these themes, which we used to develop our own data management plan. This talk will give an overview of this tool, with the hope that it will save time for people who, like us, are new to the practice of open qualitative data.

Abstract

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.

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.

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.