The library teams at LSE and the Francis Crick institute and the UCL Office for Open Science & Scholarship are proud to announce the first collaborative Open Science & Scholarship Festival in London. 

The festival will be taking place from 2-6 of June and will include a mixture of in person and hybrid events across all three institutions as well as a range of sessions purely held online. We have an exciting programme in development for you, including:

• Open Research in the Age of Populism
  Political shifts around the world, from the Trump administration in the US to Meloni’s government in Italy, are making it more important than ever to have reliable research freely available. However, these governments are also making it more risky to be a researcher openly sharing the results of research in many countries and disciplines. Alongside the political censorship of research in some countries there are also changes to research funding, research being misrepresented and used to spread misinformation online, and concerns about the stability of open research infrastructure which is funded by the state. In these circumstances we will consider the value of open knowledge, the responsibilities of individual researchers and institutions to be open and how you can protect yourself when making your research openly available?
• How open is possible, how closed is necessary? Navigating data sharing whilst working with personal data
  In the interests of transparency and research integrity, researchers are encouraged to open up more of their research process, including sharing data. However, for researchers working with personal data, including interview and medical data, there are important considerations for sharing. This event will bring together researchers from a range of disciplines to share their experiences and strategies for open research when working with personal data.
  The panel will discuss if and how this type of data can be made openly available, the balance between the work involved to anonymise data and benefits to research and society for making it available, and consider the legal frameworks researchers are working within in the UK.
• Authorship in the era of AI 
  With the rapid growth of AI tools over the past three years, there has been a corresponding rise in the number of academics and students using them in their own writing. While it is generally agreed that we still expect people to be the “authors” of their work, deciding how to interpret that is often a nuanced and subjective decision by the writer. This panel discussion will look at how we think about “authorship” for AI-assisted writing – what are these tools used for in different contexts? Where might readers and publishers draw their own lines as to what is still someone’s own work? And how might we see this develop over time?
• Creativity in research and engagement
  A session of making, sharing and storytelling. Speakers from across UCL share how they use creative methods to enrich their research, engage with people, and share their learning. Join us to discuss these methods, the benefits of creativity, and try creating a visual output based on your own work.   
  
• Professionalising data, software, and infrastructure support to transform open science
  Workshop in development where researchers and research technology professionals can come together to discuss challenges and opportunities to support research. This session will focus on skills and training needed in creating a culture of Open Science.
• Open Methods with Protocols.io
  Join the Francis Crick Institute and Protocols.io to talk about making your lab protocols and article methods sections open access. Improve replicability, re-use and gain credit for all those hours you spent at the bench. The session is open to all and will involve discussions of the value of open protocols alongside hands on training on how to use the protocols.io platform.
• Should reproducibility be the aim for open qualitative research? Researchers’ perspectives
  Reproducibility has been touted among quantitative researchers as a necessary step to make studies rigorous. To determine reproducibility, whether the same analyses of the same data produce the same results, the raw data and code must be accessible to other researchers. Qualitative researchers have also begun to consider making their data open too. However, where the analyses of these data do not involve quantification and statistical analysis, it is difficult to see how such analysis processes could be reproducible. Furthermore, for researchers in fields where cultural knowledge plays a key role in the analysis of qualitative data, openness of such data may invite misrepresentation by re-use of the data by researchers unfamiliar with the cultural and social context in which it was produced.  This event asks whether reproducibility should be the aim for open qualitative data, and if not, why should researchers make their qualitative data open and what are the other methods used to establish rigour and integrity in research? 

We are also developing sessions about:

• The Big Deal for Diamond Journals
• A networking coffee morning
• Openness and Engagement with Special Collections and Archives

More information will be shared and booking will be available as soon as we can, so watch this space and follow us on BlueSky and LinkedIn for updates!

Guest post by Ilan Kelman, Professor of Disasters and Health, building on his captivating presentation in Session 2 of the UCL Open Science Conference 2024.

Open Science reveals scientific disagreements to the public, with advantages and disadvantages. Opportunities emerge to demonstrate the scientific process and techniques for sifting through diverging ideas and evidence. Conversely, disagreements can become personal, obscuring science, scientific methods, and understandable disagreements due to unknowns, uncertainties, and personality clashes. Volcanology and climate change illustrate.

Volcanology

During 1976, a volcano rumbled on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe which is part of France. Volcanologists travelled there to assess the situation leading to public spats between those who were convinced that a catastrophic eruption was likely and those who were unconcerned, indicating that plenty of time would be available for evacuating people if dangers worsened. The authorities decided to evacuate more than 73,000 people, permitting them to return home more than three months later when the volcano quieted down without having had a major eruption.

Aside from the evacuation’s cost and the possible cost of a major eruption without an evacuation, volcanologists debated for years afterwards how everyone could have dealt better with the science, the disagreements, and the publicity. Open Science could support all scientific viewpoints being publicly available as well as how this science could be and is used for decision making, including navigating disagreements. It might mean that those who shout loudest are heard most, plus media can sell their wares by amplifying the most melodramatic and doomerist voices—a pattern also seen with climate change.

Insults and personality clashes can mask legitimate scientific disagreements. For Guadeloupe, in one commentary responding to intertwined scientific differences and personal attacks, the volcanologist unhelpfully suggests their colleagues’ lack of ‘emotional stability’ as part of numerous, well-evidenced scientific points. In a warning prescient for the next example, this scientist indicates difficulties if Open Science means conferring credibility to ‘scientists who have specialized in another field that has little or no bearing on [the topic under discussion], and would-be scientists with no qualification in any scientific field whatever’.

Figure 1: Chile’s Osorno volcano (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Climate change, tropical cyclones, and anthropologists

Tropical cyclones are the collective term for hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones. The current scientific consensus (which can change) is that due to human-caused climate change, tropical cyclone frequency is decreasing while intensity is increasing. On occasion, anthropologists have stated categorically that tropical cyclone numbers are going up due to human-caused climate change.

I responded to a few of these statements with the current scientific consensus, including foundational papers. This response annoyed the anthropologists even though they have never conducted research on this topic. I offered to discuss the papers I mentioned, an offer not accepted.

There is a clear scientific disagreement between climate change scientists and some anthropologists regarding projected tropical cyclone trends under human-caused climate change. If these anthropologists publish their unevidenced viewpoint as Open Science, it offers fodder to the industries undermining climate change science and preventing action on human-caused climate change. They can point to scientists disputing the consensus of climate change science and then foment further uncertainty and scepticism about climate change projections.

One challenge is avoiding censorship of, or shutting down scientific discussions with, the anthropologists who do not accept climate change science’s conclusions. It is a tricky balance between permitting Open Science across disciplines, including to connect disciplines, and not fostering or promoting scientific misinformation.

Figure 2: Presenting tropical cyclone observations (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Caution, care, and balance

Balance is important between having scientific discussions in the open and avoiding scientists levelling personal attacks at each other or spreading incorrect science, both of which harm all science. Some journals use an open peer review process in which the submitted article, the reviews, the response to the reviews, all subsequent reviews and responses, and the editorial decision are freely available online. A drawback is that submitted manuscripts are cited as being credible, including those declined for publication. Some journals identify authors and reviewers to each other, which can reduce snide remarks while increasing possibilities for retribution against negative reviews.

Even publicly calling out bullying does not necessarily diminish bullying. Last year, after I privately raised concerns about personal attacks against me on an anthropology email list due to a climate change posting I made, I was called “unwell” and “unhinged” in private emails which were forwarded to me. When I examined the anthropology organisation’s policies on bullying and silencing, I found them lacking. I publicised my results. The leaders not only removed me from the email list against the email list’s own policies, but they also refused to communicate with me. That is, these anthropologists (who are meant to be experts in inter-cultural communication) bullied and silenced me because I called out bullying and silencing.

Awareness of the opportunities and perils of Open Science for navigating scientific disagreements can indicate balanced pathways for focusing on science rather than on personalities. Irrespective, caution and care can struggle to overcome entirely the fact that scientists are human beings with personalities, some of whom are ardently opposed to caution, care, and disagreeing well.