We are delighted to be able to finally launch the full programme for the Open Science & Scholarship Festival 2025 in collaboration with LSE and the Francis Crick Institute.

The festival will run from the 2-6th of June and includes and exciting array of sessions including creative workshops, informal networking, case studies, online and in person panel discussions and technology demonstrations.

Download the full programme or keep scrolling for all the booking links below!

Monday 2 June

Open Methods with Protocols.io

In person – Francis Crick Institute
9.15am-12noon

This workshop at the Open Science & Scholarship Festival 2025 will introduce you to the benefits of publishing your methods and protocols as a separate & open access output. The workshop is open to all, but may be of particular interest to scientific lab researchers and staff: PGRs, Postdoc, Research Assistants, Technicians etc.

The session will include:

• General principles of Open Methods: Who, What, When, Why?
• An introduction to Protocols.io as a way of publishing your methods and protocols
• A workshop with Protocols.io where you can try out the system and get immediate answers to your questions from the experts.

Register your place

Creativity in research and engagement – In Person

In person – UCL East campus
2-4pm

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.

Register your place

Tuesday 3 June

Co-producing research with Special Collections: Prejudice and Power case study

Online only
10-11.30am

Join UCL Special Collections for a session exploring co-creation as a tool to engage with rare book and archive collections.
This session will focus on the practitioner experience of collaborating with communities using rare collections. The core example will be the recent Prejudice in Power project, that consisted
of a range of co-creation, community and academic initiatives that focussed on our holdings to respond to the university’s historic role in promoting eugenics. We will also discuss wider co-creation activity in UCL Special Collections, the lessons we have learnt and how we are embedding them into future practice.

Register your place

Scaling up Diamond Open Access Journals

Online only
2-3.30pm

Diamond open access (OA) is championed as a more open, equitable and inclusive, community-driven journal publishing model, especially when compared against other commercially owned, author pay and subscription models. Additionally, demand for not-for-profit open access journal publishing is rapidly growing amongst academics and funders, however, there is an acute lack of capacity and funding for journals to sustainably meet this demand. There are many barriers to solving these complex challenges, but one new initiative called the Open Journals Collective aims to disrupt the current landscape by offering a more equitable, sustainable and alternative solution to the traditional and established payment structures.

During the session we will hear from the conveners of the collective to learn more about why and how it came to light, what it offers and why it is needed. We will hear about the experiences of a library / institution with various OA journal models including their interactions with commercial publishers, as well as perspectives from a journal Editor who, alongside the journal board, resigned from a subscription journal and successfully launched a new and competing diamond open access journal.

Speakers:

• Caroline Edwards, Executive Director, Open Library of Humanities and Senior Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature, Birkbeck, University of London, UK.
• Chris Banks, Consultant, Community Trust Co-Chair, Honorary Fellow, & Retired Library Director.
• Arash Abizadeh, R.B. Angus Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, McGill University, Canada, and Associate Editor of Free & Equal: A Journal of Ethics and Public Affairs.
• Ian Caswell, Journals Manager, UCL Press

Register your place

Wednesday 4 June

Should reproducibility be the aim for open qualitative research? Researchers’ perspectives

Hybrid: LSE campus and Online
10-11am

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?

Co-Chairs:

• Dr Matteo Galizzi, Associate Professor of Behavioural Science, Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, LSE
• Dr Sandy Schumann, Lecturer in Security and Crime Science, Dept of Security and Crime Science, University College London

Panel:

• Kirsty Wallis, Head of Research Liaison, Office for Open Science and Scholarship; and PhD Student, University College London
• Dr Annayah Prosser, Assistant Professor, Centre for Business, Organisations and Society (CBOS), University of Bath

• Dr Madeleine Pownall, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, University of Leeds

• Dr Matthew Hanchard, Research Fellow, School of Sociological Studies, Politics and International Relations, University of Sheffield

Register your place

How open is possible, how closed is necessary? Navigating data sharing whilst working with personal data

Hybrid: UCL Bloomsbury and Online
1 – 2pm

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.

Chair:

Dr Douglas Gray, Head of Human Research Governance, the Francis Crick Institute

Panel:

• Dr Stella Tsoli, Research Officer, LSE Health Inequalities Lab
• Professor Gabriella Vigliocco, Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, UCL

Register your place

Thursday 5 June

Open Research in the Age of Populism

Online only
4-5pm

Political shifts around the world, from the Trump administration in the US to Orban’s government in Hungary, 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?

Chair:
Jason Mckenzie Alexander, Professor of Philosophy at LSE and author of The Open Society as an Enemy

Panel:

• Martin Eve is Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing at Birkbeck, University of London and Technical Lead of Knowledge Commons at MESH Research, Michigan State University, and co-founder of the non-profit open access journals publisher, Open Library of the Humanities.
• Frances Pinter is a Visiting Fellow at LSE and has had an impressive career in publishing latterly focused on open access publishing.
• Sara Rouhi has a long career in publishing and is a co-founder of the Declaration to Defend Research Against US Government Censorship 

Register your place

Friday 6 June

Authorship in the era of AI

Online only

2-4pm 

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?

Panel:

• Ayanna Prevatt-Goldstein – Head of the Academic Communications Centre at UCL
• Rachel Safer – Executive Publisher for Ethics & Integrity at OUP and a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics
• Dhara Snowden – Head of the textbooks program at UCL Press

Register your place

Special event

UCL Press 10^th Anniversary Celebration

Online only
Tuesday 10^th June, 5-6.15pm

In the 10 years since UCL Press launched as the UK’s first fully open access university press, the open access landscape has changed considerably, with other new OA presses launching, the development of numerous OA initiatives supporting monographs, new funder mandates and a demonstrable shift in the perception of OA from a niche activity to a mainstream one. Impressive download figures demonstrate the global reach of OA books, with benefits for institutions, authors, policy makers and the wider public. This panel celebrates the progress with OA monographs during the last 10 years as well as considering the challenges to come. Featuring key actors in university press publishing, open access, libraries and funding, the panel will discuss how to drive the growth in OA monographs further, as well as addressing the financial crisis in the sector that is affecting universities’ funding priorities and the humanities and social sciences in particular, the backbone of monograph publishing.

Chair

Dr Paul Ayris, Pro-Vice-Provost, LCCOS, UCL, and CEO of UCL Press

Panellists

• Anthony Cond, President of the Association of University Presses and Chief Executive of Liverpool University Press
• Prof Margot Finn, Chair in Modern British History, UCL, and former President of the Royal Historical Society
• Dr Rupert Gatti, a Director of Open Book Publishers, Thoth Open Metadata and the Open Book Collective, actively engaged in the COPIM/OBF initiative and Fellow in Economics, Trinity College Cambridge
• Benjamin Meunier, University Librarian, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and lead for Open Books Hong Kong
• Stephanie Smith, Deputy Director of Policy, Russell Group of Universities
• Niamh Tumelty, Director of LSE Library and Managing Director of LSE Press

Register your place

Guest post by Sheetal Saujani, Citizen Science Coordinator in the Office for Open Science & Scholarship

Citizen science is a powerful and evolving way to conduct research, bringing together researchers and the public to advance knowledge and create real-world impact. At UCL, we’re committed to supporting ethical, inclusive, and high-quality citizen science.

To support this growing area of research, we are pleased to introduce the Principles for Citizen Science at UCL, a framework designed to guide best practices and meaningful collaboration across UCL and beyond.

Where did the Principles come from?

Our journey began with a simple question: What does citizen science look like across UCL?

We mapped existing projects across UCL and found many departments already involved in citizen science, even if they didn’t call it that. Conversations with project leads helped us to identify great practices, what support is needed and how to help more people get involved in citizen science. These conversations, in conjunction with UCL’s Citizen Science Working Group, helped shape UCL’s broad definition of citizen science (encompassing a diverse range of activities and practices) and informed the development of the Principles, a shared foundation for project leads, researchers, and citizen scientists working together.

Rooted in UCL’s inclusive approach to citizen science, the Principles are also informed by the ECSA (European Citizen Science Association) Ten Principles of Citizen Science, adapted to reflect UCL’s research culture and values.

What do the Principles cover?

The Principles for Citizen Science at UCL provide practical guidance primarily for anyone designing or participating in a citizen science project. They focus on key areas such as:

• Citizen scientists – Ensuring meaningful participation and recognition of contributions.
• Communication – Promoting open, clear and respectful dialogue between everyone.
• Data quality and ethics – Ensuring robust, responsible approaches to data collection, analysis, and sharing.
• Inclusivity and accessibility – Creating opportunities for everyone to get involved, regardless of background or experience.

Why do they matter?

Citizen science at UCL is more than a research method; it’s a way to connect knowledge with communities and expand the impact of our work.

The Principles aim to:

• Help project leads and citizen scientists work more effectively together.
• Support ethical and responsible research practices.
• Encourage wider participation and access.
• Increase the visibility and influence of citizen science across different disciplines.

By embedding these principles into projects, we can ensure that citizen-led research contributes to both academic excellence and societal benefit at UCL and beyond.

Use the Principles as a living framework

UCL’s Principles for Citizen Science aren’t just a checklist, they’re a flexible guide in the principles of co-creation, quality and inclusivity to use throughout your project journey. Use them to shape a project from idea to delivery and return to them often as your work evolves.

Explore and reach out to us!

We encourage all UCL researchers, project leads, staff, students, and citizen scientists to explore and adopt the Principles for Citizen Science at UCL in their work. Whether you’re starting a new project or refining an existing one, the Principles are here to support you.

If you’d like to learn more or discuss how these Principles can support your work, reach out to us as we would love to hear from you!

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.

Many scientists accept a duty of ensuring that their science is used to help society. When we are publicly funded, we feel that we owe it to the public to offer Open Science for contributing to policy and action.

Some scientists take it a step further. Rather than merely making their science available for others to use, they interpret it for themselves to seek specific policies and actions. Open Science becomes a conduit for the scientist to become an activist. Positives and negatives emerge, as shown by the science of urban exploration and of climate change.

Urban exploration

‘Urban exploration’ (urbex), ‘place-hacking’, and ‘recreational trespass’ refer to people accessing infrastructure which is off-limits to the public, such as closed train stations, incomplete buildings, and utility systems. As per the third name, it sometimes involves trespassing and it is frequently dangerous, since sites are typically closed off for safety and security reasons.

Urbex research does not need to involve the infrastructure directly, perhaps through reviewing existing material or interviewing off-site. It can, though, involve participating in accessing the off-limits sites for documenting experiences through autoethnography or participant-observer. As such, the urbex researcher could be breaking the law. In 2014, one researcher was granted a conditional discharge, 20 months after being arrested for involvement in urbex while researching it.

Open Science for urbex research has its supporters and detractors. Those stating the importance of the work and publicising it point to the excitement of learning about and documenting a city’s undercurrents, creative viewing and interacting with urban environments, the act of bringing sequestered spaces to the public while challenging authoritarianism, the need to identify security lapses, and making friends. Many insist on full safety measures, even while trespassing.

Detractors explain that private property is private and that significant dangers exist. People have died. Rescues and body recoveries put others at risk. Urbex science might be legitimate, particularly to promote academic freedom, but it should neither be glorified nor encourage foolhardiness.

This situation is not two mutually exclusive sides. Rather, different people prefer different balances. Urbex Open Science as activism can be safe, legal, and fun—also as a social or solo hobby. Thrill-seekers for social media influence and income would be among the most troublesome and the least scientific.

Figure 1: Unfinished and abandoned buildings are subjects of ‘urbex’ research (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Climate everything?

Humanity is changing the Earth’s climate rapidly and substantively with major, deleterious impacts on society. Open Science on climate change has been instrumental in popularising why human-caused climate change is happening, its implications, how we could avert it, and actions to tackle its negative impacts.

Less clear is the penchant for some scientists to use Open Science to try to become self-appointed influencers and activists beyond their expertise. They can make grandiose public pronouncements on climate change science well outside their own work, even contradicting their colleagues’ published research. An example is an ocean physicist lamenting the UK missing its commitments on climate change’s Paris Agreement, despite the agreement being unable to meet its own targets, and then expressing concerns about “climate refugees” which legally cannot exist.

A meme distributed by some scientists states that cats kill more birds than wind turbines, yet no one tries to restrict cats! Aside from petitions and studies about restricting cats, the meme never explains how cats killing birds justifies wind turbines killing birds, particularly when kill-avoiding strategies exist. When a scientist’s social media postings are easily countered, it undermines efforts to suggest that scientists ought to be listened to regarding climate change.

Meanwhile, many scientists believe they can galvanise action by referring to “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” rather than to “climate change”. From the beginnings of this crisis/emergency framing, political concerns were raised about the phrasing. Now, evidence is available of the crisis/emergency wording leading to negative impacts for action.

In fact, scientist activism aiming to “climat-ify” everything leads to non-sensical phrasing. From “global weirding” to “climate chaos”, activist terminology can reveal a lack of understanding of the basics of climate science—such as climate, by definition, being mathematically chaotic. A more recent one is “climate obstruction”. When I asked how we could obstruct the climate since the climate always exists, I never received an answer.

Figure 2: James Hansen, climate scientist and activist (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Duty for accuracy and ethics

Scientists have a duty for accuracy and ethics, which Open Science should be used for. Fulfilling this duty contributes to credibility and clarity, rather than using Open Science to promote either subversive or populist material, simply for the sake of activism, without first checking its underlying science and the implications of publicising it. When applied appropriately, Open Science can and should support accurate and ethical activism.