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.

We are also developing sessions about:

• The Big Deal for Diamond Journals
• Reproducibility and Transparency
• 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.

Post by Sheetal Saujani, UCL Citizen Science Coordinator.

Are you passionate about citizen science, or curious about how to involve the public in research projects? Join us on Monday, 9 December, from 10:00-13:00 at UCL’s IAS Common Ground (Room G11, South Wing, UCL Wilkins Building) for a half-day event that will bring together the Citizen Science community at UCL to learn, share, and connect!

This event is a fantastic opportunity for UCL staff and students interested in Citizen Science —whether you’re already engaged in a project or just exploring the field. The event will feature inspiring lightning talks, two hands-on workshops, and a look into a standout citizen science initiative—the UCL Memory Workshop. You’ll gain insights into cutting-edge citizen science practices at UCL and beyond, as well as guidance on skills development, research funding, and collaborative projects.

Our agenda includes:

• Lightning talks: Discover citizen science units, resources, and support across UCL.
• Skills development workshop: Led by Prof. Muki Haklay from UCL ExCiteS, this session will build core competencies in citizen science.
• Interactive workshop: Develop compelling grant applications for citizen science and map out UCL expertise in the field.
• Citizen science project highlight: An introduction to the UCL Memory Workshop, our showcase citizen science initiative. 
• Speed networking session (optional): Meet others passionate about citizen science and grow your professional network.

This event is more than just a chance to learn: it’s designed to connect you with like-minded peers and foster collaborations across departments. Plus, with light refreshments provided, it’s the perfect way to spend a Monday morning in great company!

Please see the Eventbrite page for more information and book your place today!

Don’t miss out on the chance to grow, learn, and become part of a vibrant, diverse community. Register now and help shape the future of citizen science at UCL!

This event is for UCL staff and students only.

Get involved and join the Citizen Science MS Teams Community!

In October 2023, we launched the UCL Citizen Science community on MS Teams, and we want you to be part of it! Whether you’re a student, staff member, or researcher at UCL with a passion for or interest in citizen science, this informal network is your chance to connect and grow. Join a community where you can share knowledge and experiences, exchange ideas, advice, and stories that inspire. It’s more than just a platform—it’s a space for building networks, sparking creativity, and driving citizen science forward.

Become part of the online network today and help shape the future of citizen science!

This is the last article of our Copyright and Open Science series by Christine Daoutis, UCL Copyright Support Officer, which explored important aspects of copyright and its implications for open research and scholarship.

Image caption. Jonathasmello, CC BY 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

In this post, we conclude our Copyright and Open Science series by focusing on open education. Broadly defined, open education is “a philosophy about how people should produce, share, and build on knowledge” (source: What is open education? Opensource.com). It refers to values, practices and resources that aim to make scholarship more accessible, equitable, sustainable, transparent and collaborative.

The UNESCO definition of OERs highlights the importance of freely accessible educational materials in advancing open education practices globally. This includes the creation and reuse of OERs—materials that are either out of copyright or licensed to allow reuse. However, open education extends beyond resources to include practices such as integrating open science into teaching, sharing educational practices, and co-creating resources with learners.

OERs include a wide range of materials, such as open textbooks, open access articles, lecture handouts, images, film, slides, lecture recordings, assessment resources, software and whole courses such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). By default, all these resources are protected by copyright. If you’re planning to create open educational resources, here’s some copyright advice.

Addressing copyright in OERs

1. Know who owns what. If you are creating or collaborating on a teaching resource, it is essential to clarify who holds the copyright. This could be you, the author; your employer, if the work was created in the course of employment; or the resource could be co-owned with others, including students or sponsors. To license a resource for reuse (for example, to make it available under a Creative Commons licence), you must own the copyright to the resource and/or agree such licensing with co-owners. ♦ Copyright ownership at UCL is addressed in the UCL IP Policy.

2. Make the resources openly available and reusable. Once you are certain that the resource is yours to license, consider making it openly available, under a licence that allows reuse. Open access repositories support the discovery and access of different types of materials, including OERs. UCL has a dedicated OER repository, which accepts materials created by its staff and students.

As for licensing: we have explained in a previous post how Creative Commons licences work; and you can read more on how CC licences support OERs on the Creative Commons wiki. Licensing under the most permissive of the licences, the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY), supports the ‘five Rs’ of OERs: enabling others to “retain, revise, remix, reuse and redistribute the materials”. (David Wiley, Defining the “Open” in Open Content and Open Educational Resources, Improving Learning blog).

Image caption: sOER Frank, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

3. Address any third-party materials. If the resource contains materials you don’t own the copyright to (such as third-party content), you have a few options:

• Reuse works that are out of copyright (public domain) or openly licensed. These might include Creative Commons images and videos, open access articles, and OERs created by others. ♦ See UCL’s guidance on finding OERs and a reading list with links to many openly licensed resources.
• Get permission from the copyright owner. If the material is not openly licensed, you might consider seeking permission to reuse it. Be clear about how the resource containing the material will be shared (i.e., as an OER). Third-party materials included in an OER should be shared under their own copyright terms (e.g., their reuse may be more restricted than the rest of the resource) and this should be communicated when sharing.
• Rely on a copyright exception. In some cases, instead of getting permission you may decide to rely on a copyright exception, notably the quotation exception in UK copyright law. Using exceptions requires judgement. You’ll need to determine whether the use of the material is ‘fair dealing’: does the purpose justify the use? Does it affect the copyright owner’s market? Overall, is it “fair” to all parties involved? Be aware that copyright exceptions vary by country, which is important when making a resource globally available. The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Open Educational Resources explores these approaches further, putting forward a framework that could be applied internationally.

Putting the copyright advice to practice: examples from UCL’s copyright online tutorials.

Screenshot from UCL’s Copyright Essentials tutorial, which includes a photo by Michael Neel from Knoxville, TN, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

While creating UCL’s Copyright Essentials and Copyright and your Teaching, two online tutorials introducing copyright, the UCL Copyright support team drew on its own advice. Specifically:

• Copyright ownership and attribution were addressed. Copyright Essentials is an adaptation of an original resource, which was also openly licensed. Attribution to all original authors was included.
• Both tutorials are publicly available online, allowing anyone to access and complete them. They are also licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution licence, permitting others to adapt and redistribute the materials with appropriate attribution.
• Third-party materials mostly included openly licensed images and links to lawfully shared videos and documents. However, for some materials, we opted to rely on copyright exceptions, which involved a degree of interpretation and risk. This was highlighted in the tutorials, inviting learners to reflect on the use of exceptions.

It should be noted that using proprietary e-learning tools (like Articulate Rise) to develop the tutorials restricts reuse. While the shared resources can be accessed, they cannot be downloaded or edited. Authors wishing to adapt the resources have the option to recreate the materials under the licence terms or contact us for an editable copy. Ideally, these resources should be created with open-source tools, but there’s a trade-off between the advantages of user-friendly, accessible proprietary tools and these limitations.

For more advice on copyright and OERs please contact copyright@ucl.ac.uk.

Read more from the Copyright and Open Science Series:

• Developing a Copyright Literacy Community at UCL (UCL Copyright blog, 29 April 2024): An introduction to building a community around copyright literacy at UCL.
• Copyright Literacy Matters: Developing a Copyright Literacy Strategy at UCL (UCL Copyright blog, 14 October 2024): A deep dive into UCL’s strategy for copyright literacy across the institution.
• Keeping it Fair and Honest: How Copyright Exceptions Can Support Your Thesis, Publications, and Teaching (UCL Copyright blog, 22 February 2024): This post explores copyright exceptions, with practical examples for researchers and educators.
• Copyright and Open Science in the Age of AI: What Can We All Do to Ensure Free and Open Access to Knowledge for All? (Open@UCL blog, 24 October 2024): A discussion on the intersection of copyright, open science, and AI, focusing on access and equity.
• Copyright and AI Part 1: How Does Copyright Apply to AI-Generated Works? (Open@UCL blog, 21 June 2024): An exploration of the implications of AI in copyright law, particularly concerning AI-generated works.
• Copyright and AI Part 2: Perceived Challenges, Suggested Approaches, and the Role of Copyright Literacy (Open@UCL blog, 15 August 2024): A follow-up on the challenges AI presents to copyright, along with potential solutions and the role of copyright literacy in addressing these challenges.
• Text and Data Mining (TDM) and Your Research: Copyright Implications and New Website Guidance (Open@UCL blog, 13 May 2024): Insights into how copyright affects text and data mining (TDM) in research, including new guidance.
• How Understanding Copyright Can Help You as a Researcher (Open@UCL blog, 4 April 2024): A beginner’s guide to understanding copyright and its importance for academic research.

As part of our Open Access Week celebrations, we were delighted to host the second annual Open Science & Scholarship Awards presentation. This event gave us the opportunity to gather in person, congratulate the awardees, and celebrate their achievements after announcing the winners a few weeks ago.

The event began with certificate presentations, followed by a showcase of the award-winning projects.

First, Enny van Beest and Célian Bimbard, who received an honourable mention in the Open Source Software/Analytical Tools category, shared their project UnitMatch. Designed to track neurons across extensive Neuropixel Recordings, this software accelerates the analysis of large datasets, proving a valuable resource for researchers handling high volumes of neural data.

Next, winners of the Student category, Sophie Ka Ling Lau and Divya Balain, presented Diverse Voices, a website emerging from their project on the impact of COVID-19 on East London communities. Sophie and Divya, both Master’s students from UCL’s Departments of Brain Sciences and Life Sciences, respectively, created this collaborative platform to share insights gained from their research.

In the Advocating for Open Science & Community Building category, Joseph Cook shared his work with the UCL Citizen Science Academy, housed within the Institute for Global Prosperity. The Academy empowers citizens to participate in research projects, offering a structured learning programme and a certificate that recognises their contributions and learning.

The Professional Services Staff category award went to the Understanding Disability Project, presented by Eirini-Christina Saloniki and William Lammons. This project combines lived experiences with broad representation to document perspectives of people living with disabilities across North Thames, aiming for a comprehensive view that highlights the unique challenges they face.

Finally, in the Open Publishing category, Emily Gardner discussed her work with the NCL Mutation Database. This essential resource supports Batten Disease research and therapeutic development, with Emily’s work ensuring metadata accuracy and database reliability for researchers.

In the Open-Source Software category, we also recognised Alessandro Felder and the BrainGlobe Initiative, a collaborative project focused on creating open-access tools that support neuroscientific research worldwide. Although Alessandro couldn’t attend the ceremony, we were proud to recognise this initiative’s impressive accomplishments. Founded in 2020 to advance the handling and analysis of neuroimaging data, the BrainGlobe tools have been downloaded over 2.7 million times around the world!

After the presentations, the audience had a chance to network and enjoy refreshments provided by UCL Press, the event’s generous sponsor.

We would like to extend a special thank you to our other honorable mention recipients: Beth Downe, Gabrielle Pengyu Shao, Deborah Padfield, Dr. Adam Parker, Hengrui Zhang, Mathilde Ripart, Justyna Petke, Claire Waddington, and Fan Cheng. Representing a range of departments, teams, and centres across UCL – from the Slade School of Fine Art to the Dementia Research Centre – we were thrilled to celebrate your work and dedication to advancing open science across disciplines. Thank you for being part of this event!

Our heartfelt thanks go to UCL Press for their support, the Office for Open Science & Scholarship team for organising the awards, and Sandy Schumann and Jessie Baldwin, UKRN local network leads, for managing the submission and peer review process. Special thanks go to Paul Ayris, Head of the UCL Office for Open Science & Scholarship, and David Shanks, UCL’s Institutional Lead for Reproducibility, for their continued support of these awards.

Watch this space for the next Open Science and Scholarship Awards!