 Because all of our science is already in the public domain and not shrouded in secrecy, this leaves us free to ask for help and advice along the way. We've already received invaluable contributions from members of the scientific community who probably wouldn't have heard about our project if we were conducting it in a closed fashion. In my working week, half of my time is spent looking after patients with neurological diseases, and the other half is spent trying to research them, to better understand them, to improve outcome, and ultimately to find treatments. As a clinical researcher, one of my main analytic techniques revolves around systematic reviews and meta-analysis of the available data. However, for meta-analyses of all existing data to be valid, they have to have access to all existing data. Otherwise, they're susceptible to access bias. In other words, they will only be able to derive results based on research which is accessible, and that may well not be the same as research which is inaccessible. Much medical research is funded by public funding bodies, whether derived from taxation or charities, and we owe it to the funders of research to make the research results available globally and locally. Any lack of open access, in my view, constitutes research waste. So as a student or as a researcher, when you have difficulty in accessing the article, you tend to put it aside first and say, okay, I will write down that. I have to go and look it up somewhere else or go to the library and copy it out of a book or a paperback. But then in the end, you are lazy and you just do not do it and you neglect the article. In the end, you prefer to read articles that tend to be accessible more easily in the end. Why open science? Because we are trying to shift a view of sciences just for a few scientists to sciences for anyone who can apply and provide evidence of a scientific method having been followed. Now, there isn't a single scientific method. There are several scientific methods and they're in evolution, so it's very important to keep that bit open. There's a huge issue about inequality among scholars and the question whether you are affiliated with a very powerful institution that has money or not. In particular, if you are a junior scholar, because you need to be published and you need to be able to access the work of other scholars. So if articles are not open access, then you can't access them when you are not a member of a powerful institution. And at the same time, if you want to be open access, that means to be read and there is an article processing fee for your article to become open access. That's another problem because how can you afford to pay €2,000 or €3,000 for an article to be published? And then I'm writing my article and then I'm doing all the editing and everything. Most of it I do myself and I do language editing. I pay it from my own pocket and so on and so on. The editors of the journal work for free. They organize the peer reviewers work for free and then somebody is collecting so much money. Open access is important because from my experience doing research in innovation networks in the Danish clinic industry, I can see the disconnection between what is already out there in terms of research and what are the requirements of the industry. If we increase this visibility and this access, we can see a much faster development of critical solutions in this clinic space and in general increase innovation. Hello everybody, best greetings from Alaska. For us it's really important that we have a platform where we can share and receive information and data from the global community. So we're happy to see the European Union moving into open access and having an entire platform of open access information and the whole institutions and cultures around them. Open Air is about opening up science to new possibilities. We need to make science more social, more relevant and more dynamic. As scientists, we often wonder, is my idea really new? Opening up manuscripts to public peer reviews should reduce workload for all and allow for transparency where we really need it. Scientist dynamics changes all the science. Accordingly, just like folks can go through different editions, scientific papers should have version numbers. Currently, papers stay fixed in time from the moment they're published, but there is always something to improve about. Still, papers are one thing and data is another thing. So we should keep track of data as well. We can already share it on open platforms and be rewarded when someone else uses it. So data use count should be a measure for the output of a researcher. Then again, we scientists often cling to our own data. But maybe sharing is worthwhile. It takes us further with collaborations and it makes us work faster and better and we become more responsible too. Quite simply, open science makes good sense.