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.

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.

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 brings potential dangers to scientists and ways of managing those dangers. In doing so, opportunities emerge to show the world the harm some people face, such as the murder of environmental activists and investigations of child sexual abuse, hopefully leading to positive action to counter these problems.

Yet risks can appear for scientists. Even doing basic climate change science has led to death threats. Two examples in this blog indicate how to manage dangers to scientists.

Disaster diplomacy

Disaster diplomacy research examines how and why disaster-related activities—before, during, and after a disaster—do and do not influence all forms of conflict and cooperation, ranging from open warfare to signing peace deals. So far, no example has been identified in which disaster-related activities, including a major calamity, led to entirely new and lasting conflict or cooperation. An underlying reason to favour enmity or amity is always found, with disaster-related activities being one reason among many to pursue already decided politics.

The 26 December 2004 tsunamis around the Indian Ocean devastated Sri Lanka and Aceh in Indonesia, both of which had been wracked by decades of violent conflict. On the basis of ongoing, secret negotiations which were spurred along by the post-earthquake/tsunami humanitarian effort, a peace deal was reached in Aceh and it held. Simultaneously in Sri Lanka, the disaster relief was deliberately used to continue the conflict which was eventually ended by military means. In both locations, the pre-existing desire for peace and conflict respectively produced the witnessed outcome.

This disaster diplomacy conclusion is the pattern for formal processes, such as politicians, diplomats, celebrities, businesses, non-governmental organisations, or media leading the work. It is less certain for informal approaches: individuals helping one another in times of need or travelling to ‘enemy states’ as tourists or workers—or as scientists.

Openly publishing on disaster diplomacy could influence conflict and cooperation processes by suggesting ideas which decision-makers might not have considered. Or it could spotlight negotiations which detractors seek to scuttle. If a scientist had published on the closed-door Aceh peace talks, the result might have emulated Sri Lanka. The scientist would then have endangered a country as well as themselves by being blamed for perpetuating the violence.

Imagine if South Korea’s President, seeking a back door to reconciliation with North Korea, sends to Pyongyang flood engineers and scientists who regularly update their work online. They make social gaffes, embarrassing South Korea, or are merely arrested and made scapegoats on the whim of North Korea’s leader who is fed up with the world seeing what North Korea lacks. The scientists and engineers are endangered as much as the reconciliation process.

Open Science brings disaster diplomacy opportunities by letting those involved know what has and has not worked. It can lead to situations in which scientists are placed at the peril of politics.

Figure 1: Looking across the Im Jin River into North Korea from South Korea (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Underworlds

Scientists study topics in which people are in danger, such as child soldiers, human trafficking, and political movements or sexualities that are illegal in the country being examined. The scientists can be threatened as much as the people being researched. In 2016, a PhD student based in the UK who was researching trade unions in Cairo was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.

In 2014, a PhD student based in the UK was one of a group placed on trial in London for ‘place-hacking’ or ‘urban exploring’ (urbex), in which they enter or climb disused or under-construction infrastructure. Aside from potentially trespassing, these places are often closed for safety reasons. The scientist places themselves in danger to research this subculture on-site, in action.

All these risks are manageable and they are managed. Any such research in the UK must go through a rigorous research ethics approval process alongside a detailed risk assessment. This paperwork can take months, to ensure that the dangers have been considered and mitigated, although when conducted improperly, the process itself can be detrimental to research ethics.

Many urbex proponents offer lengthy safety advice and insist that activities be conducted legally. Nor should researchers necessarily shy away from hard subject matter because a government dislikes the work.

Open Science publishing on these topics can remain ethical by ensuring anonymity and confidentiality of sources as well as not publishing when the scientist is in a place where they could be in danger. This task is not always straightforward. Anonymity and confidentiality can protect criminals. Scientists might live and work in the country of research, so they cannot escape the danger. How ethical is it for a scientist to be involved in the illegal activities they are researching?

Figure 2: The Shard in London, a desirable  place for ‘urban exploring’ when it was under construction (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Caution, care, and balance

Balance is important between publishing Open Science on topics involving dangers and not putting scientists or others at unnecessary peril while pursuing the research and publication. Awareness of the potential drawbacks of doing the research and of suitable research ethics, risk assessments, and research monitoring can instil caution and care without compromising the scientific process or Open Science.

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 brings risks and opportunities when considering dangers to the public from conducting and publishing science. Opportunities mean detailing societal problems and responses to them, which could galvanise positive action to make society safer. Examples are the effectiveness of anti-bullying techniques, health impacts from various paints, and companies selling cars they knew were dangerous.

Risks emerge if pursuing or publicising research might change or create dangers to the public. Highlighting how pickpockets or street scams operate help the public protect themselves, yet could lead the perpetrators to changing their operations, making them harder to detect. Emphasising casualties from cycling could lead to more driving, increasing the health consequences from air pollution and vehicle crashes.

The latter might be avoided by comparing cycling’s health benefits and risks, including with respect to air pollution and crashes. Meanwhile, understanding pickpocketing awareness and prevention should contribute to reducing this crime over the long-term, if people learn from the science and take action.

In other words, context and presentation matter for risks and opportunities from Open Science regarding dangers to the public. Sometimes, though, the context is that science can be applied nefariously.

Explosives research

Airplane security is a major concern for travellers, with most governments implementing stringent measures at airports and in the air. Legitimate research questions for public safety relate to smuggling firearms through airport security and the bomb resistance of different aircraft.

Fiction frequently speculates, including in movies. A Fish Called Wanda showed a loaded gun getting past airport security screening while Non-Stop portrayed a bomb placed aboard a commercial flight.

Desk analyses could and should discuss these scenes’ dramatism and level of realism, just as the movies are analysed in other ways. Scientists could and should work with governments, security organisations, airport authorities, and airline companies to understand threats to aviation and countering them.

Open Science could compromise the gains from this collaboration. It could reveal the bomb type required to breach an airport’s fuselage or the key ways to get a weapon on board. The satirical news service, The Onion, lampooned the presumption of publicising how to get past airport security.

Endangering activists

The public can endanger themselves by seeking Open Science. I ran a research project examining corporate social responsibility for Arctic petroleum with examples in Norway and Russia. In one Russian site, locals showed our researcher decaying oil and gas infrastructure, including leaks. These local activists were assured of confidentiality and anonymity, which is a moral imperative as well as a legal requirement.

Not all of them supported this lack of identification. They preferred entirely Open Science, hoping that researchers outside of Russia would have the credibility and influence to generate action for making their community and environment safer and healthier. They were well aware of the possible consequences of them being identified (or of publicising enough information to make them identifiable). They were willing to take these risks, hoping for gain.

We were not permitted to accede to their requests. We certainly published on and publicised our work, using as much Open Science as we could without violating our research ethics approval, as both an ethical and legal duty. We remain inspired and concerned that the activists, seeking to save their own lives, could pursue citizen science which, if entirely open as some of them would prefer, could place them in danger.

Caution, care, and balance

Open Science sometimes brings potential dangers to the public. Being aware of and cautious about these problems means being able to prevent them. Then, a balance can be achieved between needing Open Science and not worsening or creating dangers.

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 brings risks and opportunities regarding privacy. Making methods, data, analyses, disagreements, and conclusions entirely publicly available demonstrates the scientific process, including its messiness and uncertainties. Showing how much we do not know and how we aim to fill in gaps excites and encourages people about science and scientific careers. It also holds scientists accountable, since any mistakes can be identified and corrected, which is always an essential part of science.

Given these advantages, Open Science offers so much to researchers and to those outside research. It helps to make science accessible to anyone, notably for application, while supporting exchange with those inspired by the work.

People’s right to privacy, as an ethical and legal mandate, must still be maintained. If a situation might worsen by Open Science not respecting privacy, irrespective of it being legal, then care is required to respect those who would want or might deserve privacy. Anonymity and confidentiality are part of research ethics precisely to achieve a balance. Irrespective, Open Science might inadvertently reveal information sources or it could be feasible to identify research participants who would prefer not to be exposed. Being aware of possible pitfalls assists in preventing them.

Disaster decisions

Some research could be seen as violating privacy. Disaster researchers seek to understand who dies in disasters, how, and why, in order to improve safety for everyone and to save lives. The work can examine death certificates and pictures of dead bodies. Publicising all this material could violate the privacy and dignity of those who perished and could augment the grief of those left behind.

Sometimes, research hones in on problematic actions for improving without blaming, whereas society more widely might seek to judge. A handful of studies has examined the blood alcohol level of drivers who died while driving through floodwater, which should never be attempted even when sober (Figure 1). In many cases, the driver was above the legal limit for blood alcohol level. Rather than embarrassing the deceased by naming-and-shaming, it would help everyone to use the data as an impetus to tackle simultaneously the separate and unacceptable decisions to drive drunk, to drive drugged, and to drive through floodwater.

Yet storytelling can be a powerful communication technique to encourage positive behavioural change. If identifying details are used, then it must involve the individuals’ or their kin’s full and informed consent. Even with this consent, it might not be necessary to provide the full details, as a more generic narrative can remain emotional and effective. Opportunities for improving disaster decisions emerge in consensual sharing, so that it avoids violating privacy—while also being careful regarding the real need to publish the specifics of any particular story.

Figure 1: Researching the dangerous behaviour of people driving through floodwater, with the number plate blurred to protect privacy (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Small sample populations

Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity for interviewees can be a struggle where interviewees have comparatively unique experiences or positions and so are easily identifiable. Governments in jurisdictions with smaller populations might employ only a handful of people in the entire country who know about a certain topic. Stating that an interviewee is “A national government worker in Eswatini specialising in international environmental treaties” or “A megacity mayor” could narrow it down to a few people or to one person.

A similar situation arises with groups comprising a small number of people from whom to select interviewees, such as “vehicle business owners in Kiruna, Sweden”, “International NGO CEOs”, or specific elites. Even with thousands of possible interviewees, for instance “university chiefs” or “Olympic athletes”, quotations from the interview or locational details might make it easy to narrow down and single out a specific interviewee.

Interviewee identification can become even simpler when basic data on interviewees, such as sex and age range, are provided, as is standard in research papers. Providing interview data in a public repository is sometimes expected, with the possibility of full transcripts, so that others can examine and use those data. The way someone expresses themselves might make them straightforward to pinpoint within a small group of potential interviewees.

Again, risks and opportunities regarding privacy focus on consent and on necessity of listing details. Everyone including any public figure has some level of a right to privacy (Figure 2). Where consent is not given to waive confidentiality or anonymity, then the research process—including reviewing and publishing academic papers—needs to accept that not all interviewee details or data can or should be shared. With consent, care is still required to ensure that identifying individuals or permitting them to be discovered really adds to the positive impacts from the research.

Figure 2: Ralph Nader, an American politician and activist, still has a right to privacy when not speaking in public (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Caution, care, and balance

With caution and care, always seeking a balance with respect to privacy, any difficulties emerging from Open Science can be prevented. Of especial importance is not sacrificing many of the immense and much-needed gains from Open Science.

As we continue celebrating International Open Access Week, it’s inspiring to see how open access is shaping research and collaboration across UCL! Earlier this week, we explored the balance between collaboration and commercialisation, and highlighted the important work of Citizen Science initiatives.

Midway through the week, Dhara Snowden, Textbook Programme Manager at UCL Press, shares her insights below on the growing significance of open access textbooks and their role in the broader landscape of open access publishing.

---

UCL Press is the UK’s first, and largest, fully open access university press. We have been publishing books and journals for almost ten years, covering a wide range of subjects and formats. In 2021, the press launched a new programme focusing on open access (OA) textbooks. I joined at that time, and over the past three years, I’ve been responsible for managing our progress in this area. As part of this year’s International Open Access Week, I wanted to share some of our thinking and planning around this activity and offer some musings about OA textbook publishing in general and what the future holds.

What are Open Access Textbooks?

Firstly, it’s useful to clarify what we mean by “textbooks.” Through conversations with academics across faculties, I’ve realised this term can mean different things depending on the context and level of study. In the broadest sense, a textbook is a resource that supports the delivery of a course or module. Textbooks can provide a wide-view survey of a field or subject, to be “adopted” as the main guide for study, or they can be part of a reading list that includes chapters from various sources, like journal articles.

Although textbooks were traditionally published in print, there has been increasing demand for digital versions of commercial textbooks, which can be purchased by individuals and licenced to institutions for use for multiple users.

Open access publishing, meanwhile, involves making scholarly content freely available online, removing subscription or purchase barriers. In the context of textbooks, this means students and educators can access high-quality educational resources without significant costs. OA textbooks are typically published under a Creative Commons (CC) licence, which allows for redistribution, adaptation, and modification, promoting a collaborative and inclusive educational environment.

The creation and uptake of OA textbooks has seen a sharp increase in recent years, particularly in the US and UK, with non-profit-funded publishers like OpenStax, collaboratively funded projects like CORE Econ, and platforms like Pressbooks. The Open Textbook Library, supported by Open Education Network, currently indexes 1,542 published open textbooks.

Why do we create them?

The UCL Press textbook programme was set up in direct response to issues around pricing for institutional access to essential e-textbooks, which were exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. The current ecosystem presents an unstable and unsustainable financial model for institutional libraries, as well documented by the eBooks SOS campaign, which calls attention to the lack of regulation in pricing by commercial publishers.

An article published by Insights in 2022, ‘Perspectives on e-books and digital textbooks and the way ahead’, claims that ‘combined spending on book across nationally negotiated library purchasing frameworks increased from £55M in 2019/20 to £73M in 202/21, with e-textbook provision increasing by 281% to £25.1M during that time’.

In addition to concerns about affordability and sustained access, the Insights article outlines that post-pandemic, “shifts in teaching practice are accelerating demand for features that enhance blended learning”, with more flexibility and adaptability in resources being required, which isn’t being delivered by traditional academic publishing.

UCL Press’s aims to disrupt the current academic publishing ecosystem, offering authors and readers an alternative to the commercial model. This connects the theme for OA Week 2024, which calls for community over commercialisation. Bringing publishing back to the hands of academy, we can provide sustainable and high-quality textbooks to facilitate hybrid teaching and remove barriers to access for our content thereby reaching the widest possible audience and increasing chances to impact in scholarly communities.

How do we create them?

The UCL Press textbook programme commissions and publishes textbooks for undergraduate and postgraduate students across a wide range of subjects and topics. Every new proposal (and final manuscript) undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure high-quality and relevant content.

Our approach is to collaborate with lecturers to create resources that provide high-quality guidance for students. Taking a personal and flexible approach to each project, we avoid rigid templates or a one-size-fits-all mentality, tailoring our textbooks to the needs of students and subject matter.

To date, we’ve published two textbooks. The first, An Introduction to Waste Management and Circular Economy, came out in December 2023. This textbook supports a module taught at UCL but also has global relevance for courses in environmental engineering, resource efficiency, bioenergy, and waste-to-energy technologies.

More recently, we published  Methods and Methodologies in Heritage Studies, an edited collection exploring the disciplinary debates, intellectual legacies, and practical innovations that shape contemporary understandings of heritage value.

 

 

Together, these two titles have been downloaded over 12,000 times in 152 countries and territories. Our forthcoming titles include, A Guide to Performing Systematic Reviews of Health and Disease and Fundamentals of Dark Matter, both due to publish early next year.

What are the benefits of writing or using OA textbooks? Where’s the value?

There are many benefits to writing and using OA textbooks and the European Network of Open Education Librarians have created a toolkit to encourage use of OA materials and Open Educational Resources (OER). Some key points are listed below.

• Reaching a Global Audience: downloads and views from readers across the globe, particularly the Global South.
• Cost-Effectiveness: One of the most significant advantages of OA textbooks is their cost-saving potential for both library and student. OA resources can alleviate this burden, allow to redistribution of saved funds and make education more accessible for all.
• Adaptability: open licences enable reuse, modification and adaptation, enabling educators to make the content work best for teaching.
• Showcase Teaching Excellence: OA textbooks can help platform new approaches or area of study, and celebrate examples of teaching excellence.
• Encourage lifelong learning: Provide students with resources they can use and reference after their studies and into their careers.
• Accessibility and Inclusivity: Open access textbooks are available to anyone with an internet connection, supporting diverse learners, including those in remote or under-resourced areas, and those outside academic institutions(e. professionals and policy makers)
• Up-to-Date Content: Traditional textbooks can quickly become outdated. OA textbooks can be updated and revised more readily, ensuring that students have access to the most current information.
• Enhanced Collaboration: Open resources encourage collaboration among educators, fostering a community of shared knowledge and innovation.

To measure impact, we use both qualitative and quantitative measures. Our Statistics dashboard shows the readership and reach of our books, including a map of access. In addition, we are collecting testimonials and feedback from academics and students and engaging with the societal impact of our books (as discussed in a recent article in The Scholarly Kitchen). We interrogate our user analytics to understand which communities are interacting with our content and how they are using it in their own work.

Value in this context is calculated not only in terms of cost-saving on commercial provision, but also in the added value student experience. This includes showcasing teaching excellence to encourage enrolment in a particular course or providing a teaching and learning resources for a module that are underrepresented in commercial provision (i.e. those with smaller cohorts/interdisciplinary topics/less mainstream perspectives).

What does the future hold?

The future of open access textbook publishing in the UK looks promising, with increasing institutional support and growing awareness among educators. As the demand for affordable and accessible educational resources continues to rise, the potential for OA textbooks to reshape higher education is significant.

Open access textbook publishing represents a vital shift in the academic landscape, providing a sustainable, equitable, and collaborative approach to education. As more institutions and publishers embrace this model, we hope to create a future where quality educational resources are accessible to all, empowering students and educators alike.

Significant sea change in the status quo requires a long-term outlook, and significant investment and commitment. If educators, students, and policymakers continue to discover and advocate for the adoption of open access resources within institutions, there is potential to foster an educational environment that fully supports and values accessibility, collaboration, and innovation.

UCL Press will continue to develop its programme of OA textbooks and to keep up to date with our publications, please do sign up to our mailing list or take a look at our website.

Last month, we hosted our 4th UCL Open Science Conference! This year, we focused inward to showcase the innovative and collaborative work of our UCL researchers in our first UCL community-centered conference. We were excited to present a strong lineup of speakers, projects, and posters dedicated to advancing open science and scholarship. The conference was a great success, with nearly 80 registrants and an engaged online audience.

If you missed any sessions or want to revisit the presentations, you can find highlights, recordings, and posters from the event below.

Session 1 – Celebrating Our Open Researchers

The conference began with a celebration of the inaugural winners of the Open Science & Scholarship Awards, recognizing researchers who have significantly contributed to open science. This session also opened nominations for next year’s awards.

Access the full recording of the session 1 on MediaCentral.

Session 2: Policies and Practice

Katherine Welch introduced an innovative approach to policy development through collaborative mosaic-making. Ilan Kelman discussed the ethical limits of open science. He reminded us of the challenges and considerations when opening up research and data to the public. David Perez Suarez introduced the concept of an Open Source Programme Office (OSPO) at UCL and, with Sam Ahern, showcased the Centre of Advanced Research Computing’s unique approach to creating and sharing open educational resources.

Access the full recording of the session 2 on MediaCentral.

Session 3: Enabling Open Science and Scholarship at UCL

This session introduced new and updated services and systems at UCL designed to support open science and scholarship. Highlights included UCL Profiles, Open Science Case Studies, the UCL Press Open Textbooks Project, UCL Citizen Science Academy, and the Open@UCL Newsletter.

Access the full recording of the session 3 on MediaCentral.

Session 4: Research Projects and Collaborations

This session featured presentations on cutting-edge research projects and collaborations transforming scholarly communication and advancing scientific integrity. Klaus Abels discussed the journey of flipping a subscription journal to diamond open-access. Banaz Jalil and Michael Heinrich presented the ConPhyMP guidelines for chemical analysis of medicinal plant extracts, improving healthcare research. Francisco Duran explored social and cultural barriers to data sharing and the role of identity and epistemic virtues in creating transparent and equitable research environments.

Access the full recording of the session 4 on Media Central.

Posters and Networking:

We also hosted a Poster Session and Networking event where attendees explored a variety of posters showcasing ongoing research across UCL’s disciplines, accompanied by drinks and snacks. This interactive session provided a platform for researchers to present their work, exchange ideas, and foster collaborations within and beyond the UCL community.

Participants engaged directly with presenters, learning about research findings and discussing potential synergies for future projects. Themes covered by the posters included innovative approaches to public engagement by UCL’s Institute of Global Prosperity and Citizen Science Academy, as well as discussions on the balance between open access and data security in the digital age.

Explore all the posters presented at the UCL Open Science Conference 2024 on the UCL Research Data Repository. This collection is under construction and will continue to grow.

Reminder for Attendees – Feedback

For those who attended, please take a minute to complete our feedback form. Your input is very important to improve future conferences. We would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions.

A Huge Thank You!

Thank you to everyone who joined us for the UCL Open Science Conference 2024. Your participation and enthusiasm made this event a great success. We appreciate your commitment to advancing open science and scholarship across UCL and beyond, and we look forward to seeing the impact of your work in the years to come.

Please watch the sessions and share your feedback with us. Your insights are invaluable in shaping future events and supporting the open science community.

We look forward to seeing you at next year’s conference!

With less than a week until this year’s UCL Open Science Conference, anticipation is building! We are thrilled to announce that the programme for the UCL Open Science & Scholarship Conference 2024 is now ready. Scheduled for Thursday, June 20, 2024, from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm BST, both onsite at UCL and online, this year’s conference promises to be an exciting opportunity to explore how the UCL community is leading Open Science and Scholarship initiatives across the university and beyond.

Programme Outline:

1:00-1:05 pm
Welcome and Introductions
Join us as we kick off the conference with a warm welcome and set the stage for the afternoon.

1:05-1:45 pm
Session 1: Celebrating our Open Researchers
Learn about the outstanding contributions of our Open Science champions and their work recognised at the UCL Open Science & Scholarship Awards last year.

1:45-2:45 pm
Session 2: Policies and Practice
Explore discussions on policy development and ethical considerations in Open Science, including talks on collaborative policy-making and the role of Open Source Programme Offices (OSPOs).

2:45-3:15 pm
Coffee Break
Network and engage with our fellow attendees over coffee, tea, and biscuits.

3:15-4:00 pm
Session 3: Enabling Open Science and Scholarship at UCL
Check out services and initiatives that empower UCL researchers to embrace Open Science, including updates on UCL Profiles, UCL Citizen Science Academy, and Open Science Case Studies.

4:00-4:45 pm
Session 4: Research Projects and Collaborations
Discover cutting-edge research projects and collaborations across UCL, including case studies involving the transition to Open Access publishing, reproducible research using medicinal plants, and social and cultural barriers to data sharing.

4:45-5:00 pm
Summary and Close of Main Conference
Reflect on key insights from the day’s discussions and wrap up the main conference.

5:00-6:30 pm
Evening Session: Poster Viewing and Networking Event
Engage with our presenters and attendees over drinks and nibbles, while exploring posters showcasing research and discussions in Open Science and Scholarship through diverse perspectives.

For the complete programme details, please access the full document uploaded on the UCL Research Data Repository, or access the QR code.

Join us – Tickets are still available!
Whether you’re attending in person or joining us virtually, we invite you to participate in discussions that shape the future of Open Science and Scholarship at UCL. Sales will close on Monday. Secure your spot now! Register here.

Thank you!
Thank you once more to everyone who submitted their ideas to the Call for Papers and Posters. We received brilliant contributions and are grateful for our packed programme of insightful discussions and projects from our community.

We look forward to welcoming you to the UCL Open Science & Scholarship Conference 2024!

Get involved!

The UCL Office for Open Science and Scholarship invites you to contribute to the open science and scholarship movement. Stay connected for updates, events, and opportunities. Follow us on X, formerly Twitter, LinkedIn, and join our mailing list to be part of the conversation!

 

Announcement from Paul Ayris, Pro-Vice Provost, UCL Library, Culture, Collections and Open Science

How can Open Science/Open Research support career progression and development? How does the adoption of Open Science/Open Research approaches benefit individuals in the course of their career?

The UCL Open Science Office, in conjunction with colleagues across UCL, has produced a series of Case Studies showing how UCL academics can use Open Science/Open Research approaches in their plans for career development, in applications for promotion and in appraisal documents.

In this way, Open Science/Open Research practice can become part of the Research Culture that UCL is developing.

The series of Case Studies covers each of the 8 pillars of Open Science/Open Research. They can be found on a new webpage: Open Science Case Studies 4 UCL.

It is only fair that academics should be rewarded for developing their skills and adopting best practice in research and in its equitable dissemination. The Case Studies show how this can be done, and each Case Study identifies a Key Message which UCL academics can use to shape their activities.

Examples of good practice are:

• Publishing outputs as Open Access outputs
• Sharing research data which is used as the building block of academic books and papers
• Creating open source software which is then available for others to re-use and develop
• Adopting practices allied to Reproducibility and Research Integrity
• The responsible use of Bibliometrics
• Public Engagement: Citizen Science and Co-Production as mechanisms to deliver results

Contact the UCL Open Science Office for further information at openscience@ucl.ac.uk.

Guest post by Michelle Harricharan, Senior Research Data Steward, in celebration of International Love Data Week 2024.

ARC Data Stewards have completed the first phase of work on the third-party datasets project, aiming to help researchers better access and manage data provided to UCL by external organisations.

The problem:

Modern research often requires access to large volumes of data generated outside of universities. These datasets, provided to UCL by third parties, are typically generated during routine service delivery or other activities and are used in research to identify patterns and make predictions. UCL research and teaching increasingly rely on access to these datasets to achieve their objectives, ranging from NHS data to large-scale commercial datasets such as those provided by ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter).

Currently, there is no centrally supported process for research groups seeking to access third-party datasets. Researchers sometimes use departmental procedures to acquire personal or university-wide licenses for third-party datasets. They then transfer, store, document, extract, and undertake actions to minimize information risk before using the data for various analyses. The process to obtain third-party data involves significant overhead, including contracts, compliance (IG), and finance. Delays in acquiring access to data can be a significant barrier to research. Some UCL research teams also provide additional support services such as sharing, managing access to, licensing, and redistributing specialist third-party datasets for other research teams. These teams increasingly take on governance and training responsibilities for these specialist datasets. Concurrently, the e-resources team in the library negotiates access to third-party datasets for UCL staff and students following established library procedures.

It has long been recognized that UCL’s processes for acquiring and managing third-party data are uncoordinated and inefficient, leading to inadvertent duplication, unnecessary expense, and underutilisation of datasets that could support transformative research across multiple projects or research groups. This was recognised in the “Data First, 2019 UCL Research Data Strategy”.

What we did:

Last year, the ARC Data Stewards team reached out to UCL professional services staff and researchers to understand the processes and challenges they faced regarding accessing and using third-party research datasets. We hoped that insights from these conversations could be used to develop more streamlined support and services for researchers and make it easier for them to find and use data already provided to UCL by third parties (where this is within licensing conditions).

During this phase of work, we spoke with 14 members of staff:

• 7 research teams that manage third-party datasets
• 7 members of professional services that support or may support the process, including contracts, data protection, legal, Information Services Division (databases), information security, research ethics and integrity, and the library.

What we’ve learned:

An important aspect of this work involved capturing the existing processes researchers use when accessing, managing, storing, sharing, and deleting third-party research data at UCL. This enabled us to understand the range of processes involved in handling this type of data and identify the various stakeholders involved—or who potentially need to be involved. In practice, we found that researchers follow similar processes to access and manage third-party research data, depending on the security of the dataset. However, as there is no central, agreed procedure to support the management of third-party datasets in the organization, different parts of the process may be implemented differently by different teams using the methods and resources available to them. We turned the challenges researchers identified in accessing and managing this type of data into requirements for a suite of services to support the delivery and management of third-party datasets at UCL.

Next steps:

 We have been working on addressing some of the common challenges researchers identified. Researchers noted that getting contracts agreed and signed off takes too long, so we reached out to the RIS Contract Services Team, who are actively working to build additional capacity into the service as part of a wider transformation programme.

Also, information about accessing and managing third-party datasets is fragmented, and researchers often don’t know where to go for help, particularly for governance and technical advice. To counter this, we are bringing relevant professional services together to agree on a process for supporting access to third-party datasets.

Finally, respondents noted that there is too much duplication of data. The costs for data are high, and it’s not easy to know what’s already available internally to reuse. In response, we are building a searchable catalogue of third-party datasets already licensed to UCL researchers and available for others to request access to reuse.

Our progress will be reported to the Research Data Working Group, which acts as a central point of contact and a forum for discussion on aspects of research data support at UCL. The group advocates for continual improvement of research data governance.

If you would like to know more about any of these strands of work, please do not hesitate to reach out (email: researchdata-support@ucl.ac.uk). We are keen to work with researchers and other professional services to solve these shared challenges and accelerate research and collaboration using third-party datasets.

Get involved!

The UCL Office for Open Science and Scholarship invites you to contribute to the open science and scholarship movement. Stay connected for updates, events, and opportunities. Follow us on X, formerly Twitter, and join our mailing list to be part of the conversation!