Guest post by Miguel Xochicale, Senior Research Engineer at UCL, leading work on open-source technologies from robotics to AI tools designed to improve healthcare.

In this blog, I would like to reflect on the journey so far, the challenges and rewards of trying to build something meaningful with modest means, and to look ahead with ambition to explore how open-source AI and robotics can help shape the next generation of healthcare.

In October 2023, I was honoured to receive the UCL Open Science & Scholarship Award in the category ‘Professional Services Staff Activities’. This was in recognition of initiating a half-day workshop titled ‘Open-source software for surgical technologies’. I had the privilege of hosting seven distinguished speakers, with an audience of around twenty participants. Hence, that first workshop became the springboard for subsequent events in 2024 and 2025, each growing gradually in terms of co-organisers, speakers, activities, and participants. What started as a small gathering with limited resources and time has begun to take shape as the early foundations of a community that we would like to keep building.

The workshop has grown steadily across 2023, 2024 and 2025. 2023: A half-day workshop with 7 speakers from software engineering and academia, 25 participants, and 4 organisers. 2024: A full-day workshop featuring 10 speakers from academia and industry, 6 posters archived on zenodo, 30 participants, and 3 co-organisers. 2025: A full-day workshop with 13 speakers and 7 panellists from academia, industry and regulatory backgrounds. It included 6 posters, each with a two-page abstract, supported by 6 organisers and 2 volunteers. The event sold out, with all 52 seats filled.

The challenges of leading such workshops require careful planning well in advance, ideally starting a year beforehand. This includes checking the availability and interest of co-organisers, aligning the agenda, and building relationships with new speakers and collaborators from different institutions and industries, thinking that such relationships should extend beyond purely scientific or engineering goals, fostering an environment where people also enjoy working together. In organising such workshops, we were always careful to balance responsibilities so that no one felt overwhelmed.

However, despite these considerations, our most recent workshop was scheduled too tightly, leaving little space for meaningful conversations or questions. From this, we learnt the value of tailoring the workshop to the audience, setting clear aims for the community, and creating win–win situations for everyone involved.

We also recognised that funding and sponsorship are essential. They can help cover costs such as materials (souvenirs, t-shirts, stickers), support for guest speakers, and sponsorship for students from around the world. Just as importantly, they would allow us to be compensated for the time we dedicate to organising these events.

What started as a half-day workshop in 2023 on open-source software for surgical technologies has quickly grown into a movement. By 2024 and 2025, it had developed into full-day workshops, “Healing Through Collaboration: Open-Source Software in Surgical, Biomedical, and AI Technologies”, bringing together co-organisers, speakers, and volunteers dedicated to shaping the future of healthcare with open-source AI and robotics. Each year, the community grows, the insights deepen, and the vision becomes sharper. We are now looking for like-minded collaborators, sponsors, and co-organisers to help drive this effort forward. The momentum is here, together, we can redefine what’s possible for open-source innovation in healthcare. By pooling our skills, resources, and passion, we have the chance not just to advance technology, but to transform patient outcomes and make healthcare more open, accessible, and equitable worldwide.

Get Involved!

Help us continue building a vibrant community, by following our GitHub organisation, starring our repositories including the website for workshops, creating issues or pull requests to improve materials, or contributing to the writing of our white-paper in its GitHub repository.

We are always looking for like-minded people who share our vision of open-source software, hardware and technologies benefiting everyone, everywhere. If you are interested in driving healthcare forward with open source, please get in touch with me or join our Discord server for networking, discussions, and event updates. Recorded talks will also be available on the symposium’s YouTube channel. Many more opportunities to get involved are on the way.

Author Biography:

Miguel Xochicale specialises in medical imaging, MedTech, SurgTech, biomechanics, and clinical translation, and is currently exploring physical AI and embodied AI, with a strong focus on open, accessible innovation. Miguel aims to turn cutting-edge research into real-world solutions with lasting impact. Key areas of his work include: End-to-end real-time AI workflows for surgery; Eye movement analysis for neurological disorders; AI-assisted echocardiography; Sensor fusion combining wearables, EEG devices, and medical imaging; Generative AI for fetal ultrasound scans; Human–robot and child–robot interaction in healthcare and low-resource settings; Physical and embodied AI with multimodal data. He is committed to transforming healthcare through safe, scalable, and open AI solutions. If you are interested in collaborating, whether in research, academic-industry partnerships, or developing AI-powered healthcare software, let’s connect.

 

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

Share this post on Bluesky

Back at the end of April, UCL hosted its first-ever Replication Games thanks to a grant from the Research Culture Seed Fund awarded to Kirsty Wallis, Head of Research Liaison at UCL Library Services, and Sandy Schumann, Lecturer in Security and Crime Science and local network lead for the UK Reproducibility Network. The event was facilitated by Derek Mikola from the Institute for Replication (I4R).

Three teams worked together to try to reproduce the analysis and results of a published paper – all in one day. They used only the information provided by the authors’ descriptions of the methodology and analytical approach, as well as public datasets and, to the extent that this was available, code. The groups consisted of a mix of researchers at different career levels and from altogether nine different disciplines.

The day kicked off early with an introduction by Derek, who got everyone set up in their groups, well provisioned with coffee and snacks. The groups had already been working together in the lead up to the event itself, selecting a paper from a list compiled by the I4R and familiarising themselves with the materials the authors had shared. Throughout the day, the teams encountered several challenges. Some discovered that packages that were used to run the analysis were no longer supported, meaning, ultimately, that the core analysis could not be conducted. Others identified questionable procedures to re-code variables, which meant that once variables were treated appropriately, results were not reproduced. Only one of the teams came to the conclusion that the published findings were largely reproducible.

Overall, the replication games were a roaring success. Participants were able to connect with researchers from other disciplines and gain hands-on experience in the workflow of reproducing published work. They also reported that they developed a better understanding of how to present their own work in a manner such that it is detailed enough to be reproduced.

All teams will document their analyses in reports that will be published by I4R soon, so watch this space and we will share the final product!

Share this post on Bluesky

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

At the Creativity in Research and Engagement session during the 2025 Open Science and Scholarship Festival, we invited participants to ask a simple question: what if we looked at research and engagement through the lens of creativity?

Together, we explored how creative approaches can unlock new possibilities across research, public engagement, and community participation. Through talks, discussions, and hands-on activities, we discussed visual thinking, storytelling, and participatory methods – tools that help us rethink how we work and connect with others.

Why creativity?

Whether it’s communicating complex science through visual storytelling, turning data into art, or reimagining who gets to ask the research questions in the first place, creative approaches help break down barriers and make research more inclusive and impactful.

Sketchnoting

We began by learning a new skill – sketchnoting – a quick, visual way of capturing ideas with shapes, symbols, diagrams, and keywords rather than full sentences. It’s not about being artistic; it’s about clarity and connection. As we reminded participants “Anyone can draw!”

Throughout the session, it became clear that creativity isn’t about perfection – it’s about connection, experimentation, and finding new ways to involve and inspire others in our work.

Three UCL speakers then shared how they’ve used creative methods in their research and engagement work.

Angharad Green – Turning genomic data into art

Angharad Green, Senior Research Data Steward at UCL’s Advanced Research Computing Centre, shared her work on the evolution of Streptococcus pneumoniae (the bacteria behind pneumonia and meningitis) using genomic data and experimental evolution.

What made her talk stand out was the way she visualised complex data. Using vibrant Muller plots to track changes in bacterial populations over time, she transformed dense genomic information into something accessible and visually compelling. She also ensured the visuals were accessible to people with colour blindness.

The images were so impactful that they earned a place on the cover of Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. Angharad’s work is a powerful example of how creative design can not only improve research communication and uncover patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed, but also proves that data can double as art and that science can be both rigorous and imaginative.

“As I looked at the Muller plots,” she said, “I started to see other changes I hadn’t noticed – how one mutation would trigger another.”

Katharine Round – Ghost Town and the art of the undirected lens

Katharine Round, a filmmaker and Lecturer in Ethnographic and Documentary Film in UCL’s Department of Anthropology presented Ghost Town, set in the tsunami-struck city of Kamaishi, Japan. Local taxi drivers reported picking up passengers who then vanished – ghosts, perhaps, or expressions of unresolved grief.

Katharine explored memory, myth, and trauma using a unique method: fixed cameras installed inside taxis, with no filmmaker present. This “abandoned camera” approach created a space that felt intimate and undirected, like a moving confessional booth, allowing deeply personal stories to surface.

By simply asking, “Has anything happened to you since the tsunami that you’ve never spoken about?” the project uncovered raw, unstructured truths, stories that traditional interviews might never reach.

Katharine’s work reminds us that storytelling can be an evocative form of research. By using creative, non-linear methods, she uncovered stories that traditional data collection approaches might have missed. Sometimes, the most powerful insights come when the researcher steps back, listens, and lets the story unfold on its own.

Joseph Cook – Co-creation and creativity in Citizen Science

Joseph Cook leads the UCL Citizen Science Academy at the UCL Institute for Global Prosperity.

He shared how the Academy trains and supports community members to become co-researchers in community projects that matter to them, often co-designed with local councils on topics like health, prosperity, and wellbeing.

Joseph shared a range of inspiring creative work:

• Zines made by young citizen scientists in Tower Hamlets, including a research rap and reflections on life in the care system.
• A silk scarf by Aysha Ahmed, filled with symbols of home and belonging drawn from displaced communities in Camden.
• A tea towel capturing community recipes and food memories from Regent’s Park Estate, part of a project on culture and cohesion.
• Creative exhibitions such as The Architecture of Pharmacies, exploring healthcare spaces through the lens of lived experience.

Instead of asking communities to answer predefined questions, the Academy invites people to ask their own, reframing participants as experts in their own lives.

Joseph was joined by Mohammed Rahman, a citizen scientist and care leaver, awarded a UCL Citizen Science Certificate through the Academy’s ActEarly ‘Citizen Science with Care Leavers’ programme. Through his zine and audio documentary, Mohammed shared personal insights on wellbeing, support and independence showing how storytelling deepens understanding and drives change.

From thinking to making

After the talks, participants reflected and got creative. They explored evaluation methods like the “4Ls” (Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed For) and discussed embedding co-design throughout projects, including evaluation, and why it’s vital to  involve communities from the start.

Participants made badges, sketchnoted their reflections, and took on a “Zine in 15 Minutes” challenge, contributing to a collective zine on creativity and community.

Final reflections

Creativity isn’t an add-on – it’s essential. It helps us ask better questions, involve more people, and communicate in ways that resonate. Methods like sketchnoting, visual metaphors, zine-making, and creative media open research and engagement to a wider range of voices and experiences.

Creative work doesn’t need to be academic papers – it can be a rap, a tea towel, or a short film. Creativity sparks insight, supports co-creation, and builds meaningful connection.

Whether through drawing, storytelling, or simply asking different questions, we must continue making space for creativity – in our projects and institutions.

Find out more

• Sketchnoting for Citizen Science – European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) webinar (YouTube)
• Award-winning journal cover featuring Angharad’s visuals. Questions? Contact: Angharad.green@ucl.ac.uk
• Discover the UCL Citizen Science Academy projects
• Explore citizen scientist zines on Issuu.
• For more on Ghost Town or updates, contact Katharine Round: k.round@ucl.ac.uk

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!

As we conclude International Open Access Week, we have been inspired by a wealth of discussions and events across UCL! This week, we have explored balancing collaboration and commercialisation, highlighted the work of Citizen Science initiatives, discussed the role of open access textbooks in education, and addressed key copyright challenges in the age of AI to ensure free and open access to knowledge.

Today, we are excited to introduce the UCL Statement of Principles of Authorship. This new document, shaped through a co-creation workshop and community consultation, provides guidance on equitable authorship practices and aims to foster more inclusive and transparent research collaboration across UCL.

---

The team at the UCL Office for Open Science & Scholarship is pleased to launch the UCL Statement of Principles of Authorship. These principles have been built up from a co-creation workshop and developed in consultation with our academic community and are now available for wider use, linked from our website.

In August 2023, the OOSS Team posted a discussion about the challenges of equity in authorship and the co-production workshop held during that year’s Open Science & Scholarship Conference. We outlined some preliminary considerations that led to the workshop, summarised the discussion and emerging themes, including the need to more widely acknowledge contributions to research outputs, the power dynamics involved in authorship decisions, and ways to make academic language and terminology accessible for contributors outside the academic ‘bubble’.

The outcomes of the workshop were then used as the basis for developing the new Statement of Principles of Authorship. This document provides general advice, recommendations and requirements for authors, designed to complement the UCL Code of Conduct for Research and align with existing published frameworks, such as the Technicians Commitment or CRediT. The document outlines four core principles and a variety of applications for their use across the broad range of subject areas and output types that are produced across the institution. It also proposes standards for affiliations and equitable representation of contributors.

While it is true that academic publishing is a complex and changing environment, these principles are intended as a touchstone for discussions around authorship rather than explicit expectations or policy. They can guide decision making, help understand how affiliations should be presented for best consistency and traceability in the long term, and empower people to request inclusion or make plans to include citizen scientists or other types of collaborators to their work.

We look forward to hearing the many ways that these principles can be used by the community!

For a full overview of our #OAWeek 2024 posts, visit our blog series page. To learn more about the Principles of Authorship and stay updated on open science initiatives across UCL, sign up for our mailing list.

 

Post by Kirsty Wallis, OOSS Coordinator/ Harry Ortiz Venegas, OOSS Support Officer

Those of us that actively support Open Science initiatives often recognise that there is a way to go and in some places there are big changes that may need to be made in order to succeed. Being UCL, a research-intensive university, we recognise and embrace the role of higher education institutions within this transformation and commit to facilitating the necessary dialogues inside the academic field, our student and staff body, and the wider community.

The Office for Open Science & Scholarship (OOSS) team, part of the Library, Culture, Collections and Open Science (LCCOS) department, is one of the crucial actors inside our institution in embracing Open Science values and promoting and advocating for these complex transitions to happen.

We propose that one of the changes that needs to happen is around the concept of authorship and what it means to all of the actors involved in research. We recognise that there are already a number of changes happening in this area, with initiatives like CRedIT, and rights retention for authors, but we wanted to look at it from a different angle. In the OOSS, we focus very heavily on the diversity and inclusiveness of our support services and the research we have at UCL, and so we work hard to allow the participation of diverse stakeholders in the design of open, accessible and inclusive research practices.

Resonating with the UCL Open Science Conference 2023 theme ‘Open Science and the Case for Social Justice’, the team proposed facilitating a workshop at the end of the day to discuss some of the long-standing issues concerning credit and authorship in research practice.

As the invitation to the final activity from the conference said, ‘Often, participants in research projects do not get credit for their significant contributions in the process, but what role should they have? People involved in a research project can hold a plethora of roles, from community leaders, patients, and citizen scientists outside the academy, to academics, research assistants, technicians, librarians, data stewards and coders within. How can we promote fairer practices and encompass all of these roles in our research outputs?’

With a clear idea in mind, it was necessary to design a participatory workshop that included researchers, but also the less-heard voices and collaborators who do not often figure in academic reports. In this session, two outstanding teams from UCL joined the adventure, the Co-Production Collective, a diverse and growing community of people from various backgrounds who come together to learn, connect, and champion co-production for lasting change. Providing consultancy, delivering training and presentations, and participating in the design and implementation of research projects, all with community members involved. And The Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), part of The Bartlett, UCL Faculty for the Built Environment. Focused on redesigning prosperity for the 21st century, changing how we conceive and run our economies, and reworking our relationship with the planet. IGP’s vision is to build a prosperous, sustainable, global future, underpinned by the principles of fairness and justice, and allied to a realistic, long-term vision of humanity’s place in the world. As they both state on their web pages.

All teams circulated the invitation with their networks to ensure participation from a range of people, not only from academic backgrounds. Ending up in a hybrid event with around 60 participants. To promote the discussion, the workshop team prepared the ground with the case study ‘Co-Producing Prosperity Research in Informal Settlements in Tanzania’, an IGP project. Raising questions around how crucial it is to acknowledge all the contributions to knowledge production and language barriers in current publishing models. Followed by lived experience cases presented in first person by three members of the Co-Production Collective. Involving diverse perspectives, engagement levels, and roles in research projects.

The facilitators divided the in-person assistants around circular tables and the online people into break-out rooms to discuss ‘What challenges and opportunities need to be addressed to create equitable conditions in relation to authorship?’.

Each table were asked to summarise their conversations, sharing some of their ideas at the end of the session. People from the conference committee took notes to share with the OOSS team and report the workshop’s principal outcomes. These outcomes will be folded into the wider work being undertaken at UCL currently around preparing a statement on authorship for our community.

There were a number of themes that came out of the discussions and what was the most interesting for the facilitators was the extent of the consensus on many of the core points.

There was widespread agreement that all contributors to research should be acknowledged, and that they should be credited in any publications they take an active part in. There was also agreement that decisions about roles in the project and its outputs should be discussed and agreed at the outset of the project, with non-academic participants such as technicians, librarians, citizen scientists and other types of participants being given enough information to make an informed decision about what role they would like to take in publications and if that takes place, if and how they would like to be credited.

As we described at the outset of this post, we realise that this is not easy to unpick and the real value in these discussions will come from the challenges identified and opportunities we can pursue. It is easy to see the benefits that creating more equitable conditions in authorship can provide, allowing knowledge to be more granular and diversifying the opinions that can be represented, but the workshop also allowed us to dig into some real practical issues, some of which are presented below.

One major theme that emerged was in relation to research culture and the institutional inertia with regards to publishing. The lingering ‘publish or perish’ attitude in some subject areas leads to a very rapid turnaround on papers, and a perceived unwillingness to dilute credit with other names, especially in subject areas where positionality in the author list has value. There were also issues raised around the power dynamics associated with authorship and where control lies over this process, with the people who wrote the article, or the PI/research team leader who has ultimate control.

Another theme was more practical in nature and was related to systems and affiliations. In many cases it is very difficult to include an unaffiliated author, both in some publisher systems and even in some metadata schema. Also being able to give access to institutional systems and tools is also often associated with an affiliated email address. Lastly, in many cases, it is assumed all authors of a paper are able to take equal responsibility for it (CReDiT is changing this, by allowing people to be associated with the role they played, but it is early days), but in the case of a controversial topic, an unaffiliated author may be at risk as they are unable to access the support that the university will provide for its community, such as access to legal support or a press office.

The final significant theme was around language, style and terminology. Some groups pointed out that some of the understanding inherent to academia has very little meaning outside of the bubble of the university, and while external team members associated with a project will be trained to work to the integrity and ethical standards of the project, they may not be able to commit to the academic language, theoretical structures or terminology required to be involved in publications.

The good news is that all of these themes (and a lot of the other points we weren’t able to cover here) can be turned into opportunities. The first theme around research culture I think we are already addressing by starting this conversation and committing to including these findings in UCL statements and associated guidance on authorship. We will be consulting widely among the academic community and beyond throughout the process and hopefully this will allow us to challenge some of the issues raised about power dynamics and point out where people can and should be opening up their author lists to new individuals.

Another opportunity that came up in the sessions was around other types of publication. The discussion was framed around the traditional article/book, but the point was raised that there are a wide range of outputs that can come out of a project that can acknowledge different individuals, from the technical such as data, software or code, to presentations and posters, giving new individuals the chance to represent the research they have done in a new environment, and even media such as videos or exhibitions. There are definitely opportunities outside the traditional and this needs to be reflected and tied into the wider Open Science movement where we are shifting the focus onto new forms of output. It is also important that in this, space is given to the participants and citizen scientists to express what would be the most effective way of communicating the research results back to the community they effect.

This is just a very short summary of what was an intense and very nuanced conversation across around ten separate breakout groups and we were immensely grateful to the whole community for engaging with the workshop and being so open and honest about their experiences to allow us such insight to take forward into our explorations of authorship in the OOSS. The Co-Production Collective shared some interesting reflections about the workshop discussions on their webpage, exposing how participants contributing from the live-experience field are commonly left out in credits, authorship and contribution acknowledgements.

The April 24th conference resonated among members of their collective to take take a step forward, telling, one of them commented that “it made me pluck up the courage to ask to be an author on a project I set up and did the initial work on, and the professor received it really well and said well done for getting in touch and rightfully asking as these things can be daunting and missed…”

 

 

Thank you so much to everyone that joined our recent conference, whether on campus or online – we had a wonderful time and we hope you did too! We will be posting a report of the workshop portion of the conference soon, as well as some pictures and some responses to your questions that we didn’t get to on the day, but we thought that the recordings should take precedence!

Session 1

View the recording on UCL Media Central

Session 2

View the recording on UCL Media Central

Session 3

View the recording on UCL Media Central

There are only a few days now until this year’s UCL Open Science Conference and I hope you are looking forward to it as much as we are!

We have closed the ticket sales, placed the food order and started counting the chairs to make sure that we have enough for everyone that is coming to join us in person. We have also been briefing the committee and preparing to welcome our online audience to our first fully hybrid event!

As you get ready to join us on the day, there are a few things you can do:

• Download a copy of the programme!
  We will have QR codes available on the day but we are actively trying to keep the carbon footprint of the conference down so we will only have the session overview available on the day. This longer version of the programme outlines all of our talks and introduces all of our speakers.
• Familiarise yourself with the conference code of conduct
  The organisational committee of the UCL Open Science Conference are committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and inclusive experience for participants. Participants, including organisers, speakers, volunteers, and attendees are expected to abide by the Code of Conduct which can be found on p12 of the programme for this event.
• Join our new mailing list!
  Find out about events, receive our newsletter right into your inbox, and most importantly, get notified when we upload the recordings from the conference!
• Get ready to tell us what you think!
  As with everything we do, we are always keen to grow and improve and while we know that everyone is constantly asking for feedback and for you to fill out forms, but it really does help us improve the work that we do. We will have this link available on the day, but here it is along with everything else you will need, for your bookmarking convenience!

We are very much looking forward to meeting you all on the day, see you there!

We are pleased to announce that the annual UCL Open Science Conference is now Open for booking!

This year we are going fully hybrid and invite you to join us for free 10am – 4.00pm on 24th April, either on campus in Bloomsbury or online for a day-long conference with the theme: Open Science and the Case for Social Justice.  

Book your tickets now! Ticket sales have now closed

We are also going to use the theme to end the day with a facilitated citizen science workshop on the theme of authorship.  

Indicative programme  

Morning sessions: 

1. Open Leaders – this session will highlight some of the state of the art in Open Science & Scholarship in the form of two keynotes that look at distinctly different large-scale projects that are led by communities, followed by a discussion on the topic of the future of Open Science.
   
2. Sustainable futures – Openness comes with challenges. It’s one thing to share publications, code, and potentially very large datasets freely, but there are still costs associated with this sharing, and those costs grow over time. This session will consider these challenges from multiple angles, looking at who should bear these costs and how, with regards to equitability.  

Afternoon sessions: 

1. Challenges of equity in Open Science – Open Science and Scholarship are new ways of looking at the world. This session sets the scene by looking at the issue of Equality in Open Science practice. Topics such as gender, language, authorship, and geographical differences will be covered in this session, which is designed to introduce these overarching themes and set the scene for the workshop. 
2. Co-production workshop – Often, participants in research projects do not get credit for their significant contributions in the process, from community leaders, patients, and citizen scientists; to academics, research assistants, technicians, or coders. But how to promote fairer practices? Join us in this interactive workshop, ‘Challenges of Equity in Authorship’, and have your say in setting the baseline for future developments and better practices towards authorship justice and beyond! 

We’re getting excited again for the upcoming Open Access Week!

We have our usual range of blog posts lined up for you to enjoy, including an exciting roundup of the last year, our latest newsletter and a post on this year’s OA Week theme – Open for Climate Justice.

If that wasn’t enough, we have an online event for our ERC academics and a brand-new resource being released, so watch this space!

Featured event: Open Access for Horizon & ERC Researchers

Are you a UCL researcher whose publications acknowledge EU grants? Then you need to know about the new Horizon Europe and ERC open access requirements.

Register now for our online Open Access Week Horizon Briefing, on Monday 24 October, 13:00-13:50.

This session will set out the relevant open access policies, and explain where you can publish and what funding is available. We’ll also be joined by colleagues from F1000, to show you the Open Research Europe platform, which offers rapid publishing, open peer-review and compliance with the Horizon open access and open data policies.

Guest post by Petra Zahnhausen-Stuber, Open Access Team, UCL Library (LCCOS)

In recent years, ‘Gamification’, the use of game elements in non-gaming settings to improve user experience, has been embraced by Research Support Services at Higher Education Institutes. Research Support Games cover various topics including research data management, copyright and/or open access and address an audience ranging from early career researchers and academics to support staff.

For the organisers of the Research Support Games Days (RSGD), games can be an effective tool to communicate with scholars about often complex concepts. In its third instalment since 2019, this event promotes the use of game-based learning among Research Support Services by presenting games, online tools and platforms that could be beneficial for training purposes. Here it was also highlighted, that most of these games were designed to be played in person. However, the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 was a catalyst for developing more virtual games as a way of continuing the engagement with researchers when face-to-face training was not possible. Despite any the challenges of creating digital games, their advantage of reaching a wider audience outside the physical environment of research institutions becomes apparent in the following examples of Open Access themed online games.

The Publishing Trap (UK Copyright Literacy), this game about scholarly communication focuses on helping researchers understand the effect of different publishing models, copyright and finances on the dissemination of their research. First launched as a board game in 2017, in response to the pandemic a digital version was created in 2020. In both versions participants form up to 4 teams representing four scholars in different career scenarios and make decisions about how to best publish their research. Retaining most of the original features, the online version uses interactive PowerPoint slides and can be played via any virtual classroom software with a break-out room functionality, so that the element of team discussions from the board game is being replicated.

Similarly, in 2020, the role-playing Open Access Mystery game developed by Katrine Sundsbo uses downloadable slides. It was also designed for online platforms (i.e. Zoom) to allow for immediate verbal interaction between players who are tasked with finding the culprit responsible for a global lockdown of all research. The Open Access Escape Room, also by the same author, was originally created in 2018 as a physical game and digitally adapted in 2020 under the name The Puzzling Hunt for Open Access. Both versions follow the narrative of all research being locked away by a villain and are aimed at academic staff to gain an understanding of the concepts of Open Access. The players have to find clues and solve various Open Access themed puzzles in order to unlock research. Despite not replicating the original escape room format, where participants interact with each other in teams, the online game offers more flexibility as the mixed media-based puzzles can be completed by a single player at their own pace. Like most Research Support Games, all materials are published under a CC BY licence resulting in both versions having been played and adapted further in and outside the UK.

The single-player Open Axis: The Open Access Video Game (UCLA) was always designed for a remote learning environment intending to reach a worldwide audience of graduates and undergraduates. Created in 2020, this “choose your own adventure” can be played in a web browser, is predominantly text based but features classic 8-bit video games. The player chooses between several characters portraying scholars of various backgrounds. Following a non-linear narrative, the player’s decision impact the course of the in-game stories around themes of open access, scholarly publishing and research practices.

Choosing another approach of getting scholars interested in Open Access, the team at Robert Gordon University developed five online puzzles in 2021, including memory, crosswords and a scavenger hunt. Since puzzles can be played quicker than games, it makes them suitable for bite-sized learning during icebreakers or coffee breaks.
These games form by no means an exhaustive list and it is worth delving into the manifold resources of the Research Support Games Day Proceedings (below), where the benefits and challenges involved in taking games online are further explored.

For more information on Research Support Games Days and Gamification:

• Research Support Games Day – Notes (2019)
• Proceedings of the 2nd Research Support Games Day (RSGD #2)
• Proceedings of the 3rd Research Support Games Day (RSGD #3)
• Sebastian Deterding, Miguel Sicart, Lennart Nacke, Kenton O’Hara, and Dan Dixon. 2011. Gamification using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2425–2428. 10.1145/1979742.1979575

Adaptions of the “Open Access Escape Room”:

• Virtual Open Science Escape Room
• Escape Room sobre Acceso Abierto. Instrucciones y materiales