Guest post by Dr Christiana McMahon, Research Data Support Officer

Since launching in June 2019, the UCL Research Data Repository has now received over 1million views from over 190 countries and territories across the world! Plus, we have published over 1000 items and facilitated over 800,000 downloads!

This is a huge milestone and demonstrates how far reaching the Research Data Repository has become.

To date, the:

• most viewed record is:

Heenan, Thomas; Jnawali, Anmol; Kok, Matt; Tranter, Thomas; Tan, Chun; Dimitrijevic,  Alexander; et al. (2020). Lithium-ion Battery INR18650 MJ1 Data: 400 Electrochemical Cycles (EIL-015). University College London. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.5522/04/12159462.v1

• most downloaded record is:

Steinmetz, Nicholas A; Zatka-Haas, Peter; Carandini, Matteo; Harris, Kenneth (2019). Distributed coding of choice, action, and engagement across the mouse brain. University College London. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.5522/04/9970907.v1

• most cited record is:

Pérez-García, Fernando; Rodionov, Roman; Alim-Marvasti, Ali; Sparks, Rachel; Duncan, John; Ourselin, Sebastien (2020). EPISURG: a dataset of postoperative magnetic resonance images (MRI) for quantitative analysis of resection neurosurgery for refractory epilepsy. University College London. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.5522/04/9996158.v1

What is the UCL Research Data Repository?

From the Research Publications Service for published manuscripts and theses, to MediaCentral for all things media, UCL staff and students can access different places to store their research outputs – and the UCL Research Data Repository is a perfect place for research data, posters, presentations, software, workflows, data management plans, figures and models.

Key features:

• Available to all current staff and research students
• Supports almost all file types
• All published items can have a full data citation including a DOI (unique persistent identifier)
• Items can be embargoed where necessary
• Helps provide access and data sharing
• Preserves and curates outputs for 10+ years
• Facilitates discovery of research outputs
• Helps researchers to meet UCL / funders’ requirements for FAIR data

More information about the service can be found on our website.

Access our user guide.

Why use the Research Data Repository?

With communities across UCL being actively encouraged to engage with the FAIR principles, it was important to give staff and research students even greater means to do so. The FAIR principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, refer to a set of attributes research outputs should have to enable secondary researchers to find, understand, repurpose and reuse these without major technical barriers​. Subsequently, there are many advantages to having FAIR research outputs including:

• Greater accessibility of research outputs
• Enhanced transparency of the research process
• Greater potential to replicate studies and verify findings
• Enhanced potential for greater citation and collaboration
• Encourages members of the public to become involved in research projects and become citizen scientists
• Maximises research potential of existing research resources by reusing and repurposing them

Hence, we developed and launched the Research Data Repository to support staff and research students wanting to further engage with the FAIR principles here at UCL.

Collaboration is key

The Research Data Management team in Library Services and the Research Data Stewardship team from the Centre for Advanced Research Computing, collaborate to provide both administrative and technical support – helping users to upload, publish and archive their research outputs.

You can reach us using researchdatarepository@ucl.ac.uk or join us at one of our online or in-person drop-in sessions.

What does the future hold?

Over the past year, the Research Data Repository team participated in a series of workshops as part of the FAIR-IMPACT Coordination and Support Action  funded by the European Union. This work was led by Dr Socrates Varakliotis and supported by Dr Christiana McMahon, Kirsty Wallis, Dr James Wilson and Daniel Delargy.

The aims of these workshops were to:

• firstly, enhance the trustworthiness of the repository; and
• secondly, to enhance the semantic metadata (documentation) made publicly available online

During the first project, we conducted a thorough self-assessment of the information we provide about the repository service with a view to highlighting how we demonstrate trustworthiness. Consequently, we made a series of improvements to our documentation including the publishing of a new, more accessible website.

Over the course of the second project, we focused on improving the standardised metadata we make available to search engines indexing repository information globally. In this project, we were able to demonstrate how having validated metadata is important to supporting the trustworthiness of repository services.

The next step is to further explore how the repository’s trustworthiness may be enhanced even further to formally meet international standards and expectations.

Final thoughts

Having over 1million views truly is a fantastic achievement and testament to the hard work and dedication of those working behind the scenes to provide this brilliant service, and the wonderful users across UCL who have published with us.

Next stop, 2million views – and until then…

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 Bluesky, and join our mailing list to be part of the conversation!

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.

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.

Registrations are now open for UCL’s first Replication Games, organised by the Office for Open Science & Scholarship and UCL’s UKRN local network chapter. The event will be run by the Institute for Replication (I4R), and it is supported by a Research Culture Seed Grant.

The Replication Games is a one-day event that brings together researchers to collaborate on reproducing and replicating papers published in highly regarded journals. Researchers participating in the Replication Games will join a small team of 3-5 members with similar research interests. Teams verify the reproducibility of a paper using its replication package. They may conduct sensitivity analysis, employing different procedures than the original investigators.  Teams may also recode the study using the raw or intermediate data or implement novel analyses with new data. More information can be found on I4R’s Website.

Teams will be guided in all activities by Derek Mikola, an experienced facilitator from the I4R. After the event, teams are encouraged to document their work in a report that will be published on the website of the I4R. Participants are also eligible to be granted co-authorship in a meta-paper that combines a large number of replications.

This event takes place in person. Lunch and afternoon snacks are provided.

Who are we inviting to register?

Registration is on a ‘first come, first serve’ basis. We invite MRes students, doctoral students and researchers, post-docs, and faculty members at UCL to apply. Although students and scholars from all disciplines can apply, we hope to attract especially those working in the social sciences and humanities.

Participants must be confident using at least one of the following: R, Python, Stata, or Matlab.

Papers available for replication are listed on the I4R website. Prospective participants are asked to review this list to ensure that at least one paper aligns with their research interests.

How to apply?

Please complete this short form: https://forms.office.com/e/WEUUKH2BvA

Timeline and Procedure

• 15 March 25 – registrations close
• 31 March 25 – notification of outcomes and teams
• 7 April 25,  1pm – Mandatory Teams call with the I4R (online)
• 25 April 25, 9am-5pm – Replication Games (at UCL’s Bloomsbury Campus)

Please note that participants are expected to attend the full day.

Contact

If you have any questions, please contact Sandy Schumann (s.schumann@ucl.ac.uk)

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.

Here in the Office for Open Science & Scholarship we like to start every new year by taking a look back over the last and sharing our highlights with you.

In 2024 the Open Access Team facilitated the Gold open access publication of 3,963 papers. UCL Discovery continued to go from strength to strength, with over 53 million downloads. The publications repository now boasts over 185,000 open access items, including 24,900 theses, with over 15,500 uploads in the preceding twelve months.

The Research Data Management Team has had an equally productive year, publishing over 230 items in the data repository which has now exceeded 230,000 views and a similar number of downloads. They have reviewed over 30 data management plans and held classes for over 70 people, both online and in person. There are still seats available for term 2 that can be booked online.

Updates and publications

Across all of the teams that make up the Office we have published a whole host of documents and updates such as:

• New version of research data policy
• New-look RDR website
• Newly launched principles for Citizen Science
• Co-created UCL Principles of Authorship
• Open Science Case Studies

Our blog highlights

The blog has been super busy throughout the year with one of our personal highlights being the brilliant series of posts by Christine Daoutis, UCL’s Copyright Officer that looked at a range of issues around copyright in open science including a deep dive across three posts into Copyright and AI, how copyright exceptions can support your research and how copyright applies to Text and Data mining.

We also had some great events throughout the year that you can catch up on, from our annual Open Science Conference, the second annual Open Science & Scholarship Awards, and our first ever Citizen Science Community Event.

We also had a great time working with the UCL Digital Accessibility team throughout the year, they have been a great support in improving the accessibility of everything we do. We were able to highlight their work in one of our Newsletters and we also interviewed Ben Watson, Head of Digital Accessibility, who was a great sport and is an overall inspirational guy!

Upcoming in 2025

by Ray Hennessy on Unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/gdTxVSAE5sk

We have a great year ahead in 2025, we have the imminent publication of our next Operational plan, designed to push the team to bigger and better things for the office. We are hoping to get that out in the first quarter of the year, its just going through various stages of internal feedback before we can get it out there! We will be continuing to grow our newest social media channels LinkedIn and BlueSky, and if you don’t subscribe to our newsletter, now’s your chance!

We will also be challenging ourself to bigger and better things when it comes to our conference. You all know that we like to change it up and this year we are reaching out to friends and colleagues to change our conference into our first festival!

We will also be continuing the brilliant series with Ilan Kelman on the Risks and Opportunities of Open Science. We have already shared the first two parts but keep an eye out for the last three parts coming soon!

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.

Figure 1: We should research a cargo hold’s explosion resistance, but why publicise the results? (photo by Ilan Kelman).

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.

Figure 2: Trinity Tower, the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia during petroleum research (photo by Ilan Kelman).

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.