 Ieithaf, rydyn ni'n gwybod, yw ddweud allan am y cyfnodd hwn. Gofyn, hi. Mae'n Chris Banks. I'm director of library services at Imperial College London. I'm going to be chairing today's session. I'm now going to turn to Catherine to introduce herself. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Hi, everybody. My name is Professor Catherine Davies. I'm a Professor of Language Development and also Dean of Research Culture at the University of Leeds. I so we've been implementing our strategy over the last couple of years and one of our four main objectives is enabling open research. And then Rachel. Good afternoon everyone. I'm Rachel Bruce, I'm the head of open research at UK Research and Innovation. And just to give a little bit of background on UK research innovation. So UKRI, as we are called, is the UK's largest public funder of research and so that's something in the region of eight to nine billion a year depending on the size of settlement that we get. The funding and responsibility covers all disciplines and also working with other sectors. So, although primarily with the higher education research sector, we also do work with business and and other sectors which need to collaborate with research for the research innovation system. I think overall, whilst, of course, it's all very much about funding that research base and funding excellent research. Our vision is really to contribute to work in partnership to create what we would call an outstanding research innovation system. And in our strategy that's called transforming tomorrow together, that really is about ensuring there's an inclusive dynamic and sustainable and trusted system and open research is very much seen as one of the key priorities in achieving that vision. Thank you. Thanks, Rachel. Carlos. Hello, good afternoon. My name is Carlos. I am a senior data scientist working inside digital science for those of you that don't know digital science. They have tools, for example, like dimensions, which is a research database, one of the largest. And altmetric, some of you might know, which is the small doughnut one next to your paper in some in some journals and some publishers. And yes, just to give a quick background, I'm a clinician by background and a physiotherapist, and then I moved on to doing my own research at the University of Oxford. And then I decided that data was my thing and moved on to data science. And I was fascinated to see how much I was missing on my own research impact. And that's one of the things that drove me to open access and sharing and people being aware of their own impact and their own influence on other policies, on patterns, on everything. So yeah, that's pretty much me. Thank you. Thanks, Carlos. Lizzie. Good morning, everybody. My name's Lizzie Gaird. I'm head of research and innovation culture and assessment at Loughborough University. I'm also one of the vice chairs of the Coalition on advancing research assessment and the chair of the I-Norms research evaluation group. That's the international network of research managers. Thank you. And last but not least, Jim. Hi, good afternoon, everybody. So I'm Jim Grange. I'm a professor of cognitive science in the School of Psychology at Keel University. I also hold a position of institutional lead for research integrity and improvement. And I'm also the institutional lead for the UK reproducibility network, UK RN. So for those unfamiliar with the UK RN, it's a peer led consortium investigating factors that contribute to robust research. We promote training activities around open research, reproducibility, etc. And also work to disseminate best practice nationally and internationally. That's great. Thank you all very much. And we've got a lovely diverse panel in front of us today. We're going to take this in broadly in three sections, each of which will be kicked off by a pair of our panel here. So we'll have a vision, then we'll talk about aligning open research with research culture. And then finally, the role of scholarly communications. And as I say, I'll try and pick up relevant questions as we go through and interject those into our conversation. So starting off with the vision. And this one is going to be led by Rachel and Jim. But let's begin with that vision of open research. What benefits does it bring to research and researchers? What problems does it solve? So the aim of this section will be to bring our audience up to speed to ensure that we have consensus on what it is we will be discussing. Or highlighting any lack of consensus and hopefully to inspire us before we move on to any barriers. So Rachel and Jim, I will hand over to the two of you. Who would like to start? I'm happy to start Chris and Jim. So in terms of what is open research, well, one thing is it's often called open science, which actually is an issue to navigate because it's how far does open and transparent research transcend disciplines in different contexts. I think is something to consider. But simply put, I always think that open research equals good research. And really for research to be excellent, it needs to be open and transparent. And there are many reasons and rationales for that. And I suppose some of the common aspects and drivers from the policy perspective that I speak from are around open and transparent research enhances collaboration. And so, you know, research itself is a collaborative endeavor. So to be able to collaborate with others across disciplines and domains and across across across the world is incredibly important. Then there is always this aspect of efficiency. And so ensuring that the research that is undertaken is accessible in a way in which it reaches people as quickly as possible and in timely ways. And also those aspects of reducing duplication, being able to build on other work. And so it's efficient in those ways. And also just enhancing the quality of research because you're able to see what works, what doesn't work positive and negative results. And then building on that is the whole idea around integrity. And as part of that, there is obviously the issue of reproducibility and verification of results, which again, you know, that has a different lens depending on different disciplines. So ensuring that findings are, I suppose you can see the trajectory and the evidence base of research findings, including data and methods, etc. And then I think overall in terms of what we are all, I think, as a research community aspiring to is ensuring that we're enhancing knowledge to improve society and also achieve economic benefits. And so overall, open and transparent research is really a way of undertaking research to achieve those aims that we have collectively. I think there's issues to reflect on so often because it's quite challenging to reach open and transparent research. And as I said, it means different things in different contexts. Sometimes there's a focus on open access to publications or open outputs. And so, for example, open research data and increasingly now we are, I think, seeing a recognition of open research or open science actually being much more about a participation in the whole process. And something which is much more inclusive and equitable in terms of participation of all. And that, again, is an interesting point to reflect on. So really what are the boundaries in terms of open research. And I suppose one definition to think of is the UNESCO open science recommendation and they say open science is a set of principles and practices that aim to make scientific research from all fields accessible to everyone for the benefits of science scientists and society as a whole. Open science is about making sure not only scientific knowledge is accessible, but also that the production of that knowledge itself is inclusive, equitable and sustainable. And in terms of the sorts of benefits, I think we can all reflect on, of course, the pandemic is the example that everybody now brings. I think there's probably quite a lot of analysis there to see how things worked in the pandemic. But what we did see was a whole set of actors and they're represented here on this panel, and I'm sure in the audience today, publishers, researchers, research organisations and funders pivoting the research that they, their role within the research process to encourage openness. And of course we saw an increase in preprints and we saw reduced times from submission to publication. And indeed it was absolutely essential in tracking the virus and being able to respond. But there's lots of lessons to learn. So I will draw it there. And that's, that's my piece for now. Thank you, Rachel. And I think in doing so you've actually, I think, answered the question that Masoud has in the chat. Now I'll turn to Jim, for your perspective. That's great. I can, I can truncate my entire three minutes to just say I agree entirely with with what's just been said. So full endorsement with everything that's just been said. But in particular about not calling it open science, I think that's been a barrier to engaging colleagues from different disciplines, from long science disciplines. So at Keel it's, it's, it's my mission just to keep encouraging people to talk about open research rather than open science. Because I think open research is more easily understood in science-based disciplines. It's much easier to see how one can engage with open research practices beyond just open access publishing in science-based quantitative disciplines. And part of the challenge I face is when I speak to colleagues from, for example, humanities to try and understand and communicate with them how open research applies to their disciplines. So I think that's part of how I would define open research. I think all too often when I speak to colleagues about open research who don't know a great deal about it, they think I'm talking just about the end result of the research, which is of course the open access publication. So we encourage our researchers to think about open research across the entire lifespan of their research project right from its inception. So open scholarship around hypothesis formation or research question formation, literature reviewing, etc. All the way through to hosting their data on publicly accessible repositories. And of course still the open access publication at the end. So open research is important, I feel, because research works via verification. And this was mentioned in the previous segment. If you can have a favourite motto, my favourite motto is the Royal Society's Nullius and Verba. Take nobody's word for it. So I've even got it framed just there in my office. So it embodies healthy skepticism in the research corpus. And open research just accelerates the ability to independently verify and therefore accelerate the scientific process overall. I think open research has myriad benefits. And when I talk to people about open research, I like to communicate. So there are a set of benefits that open research has for the research ecosystem itself, what's good for research. But there are also selfish reasons to engage in open research as well. So it's good for the research of themselves. So for the research ecosystem, obviously maximises the dissemination of reliable research increases public trust in research. So it's just fully transparent. Members of the public are able to access all elements of our research. It allows others to build upon our work and as was mentioned, it accelerates the scientific process. But it's important to highlight the selfish benefits. So it's not an increased trust in overall research, but also in the individual researchers work as well. And I think that's really important. Research has shown it increases exposure to individuals. Research enhances their citation, which is the academic currency, but also promotes collaboration. And I think that was a really nice nicely put by our previous speaker about how it really does just foster collaboration across disciplines and also across borders. Thank you. And just to sort of pick up on your point about, you know, what's good for research and the fact that research builds. A number of years ago, some art wall put talked a lot about how research builds on research. And there's almost like an evolving scholarly record rather than what we do at the moment, is which is atomising the scholarly record into many, many different, you know, different outlets and venues. I just wonder whether you've got any thoughts on the benefits and the disadvantages of those two approaches. I don't have any personal experience with that, but I see how it can certainly, and I think both of those different approaches have their role in the overall process. I think just the overall enhanced transparency of all elements of the research pipeline just affords unforeseen possibilities that wouldn't have been possible if everything was just kept behind paywall. One thing I didn't mention as well, I think maybe related to this, is that open research allows to break down those paywalls and it means that academics aren't gatekeepers of knowledge. And I think that's really important that it's just that open sharing of knowledge for its own sake that really fosters interdisciplinary work as well. Lizzy. Thank you. Yeah, fascinating introductions. I do agree that open research is good for research generally speaking, but I think I'd perhaps challenge a little bit the fact that your statement around it being good for the research, necessarily, or at least it's certainly not easy for researchers to engage with open research practice. And I do think we need to acknowledge that because it's another layer of quite challenging expectations. The whole world of open research is extremely complicated. I work in this space and I struggle to keep up to date with all the different options that you have for engaging openly. This is work and we do need to allow researchers the time and the capacity to learn new approaches, to engage with new approaches, to deliver on these new approaches. We saw a piece recently from somebody who had pre-registered their study and as a result they couldn't publish some quite interesting serendipitous findings because they'd pre-registered and they were going through the process quite rigidly. And that was a challenge to them. They felt that I've got to stick with this process now and with it and I can see the benefits of it. But there are also challenges to researchers and I do think we need to acknowledge that in order to make space for it in our research environment. Yes, I've certainly heard researchers talk about the fact that if not thought of right up front the very business of making data for instance, preparing data to be open and to be usable in that open form has been quite a challenge. I don't know if any of the panel have got experience of thinking about that whole area of if we are going to be open then we need to make the time and the space in order for that openness to be meaningful and relevant. Yes, sorry, I have a bit of experience in that conducting my own research and I completely agree that it needs to be thought about in the beginning. Even at the funding stage like when applying for grants and being part of the whole corpus of the funding required because to be honest the more senior you get the more you probably need to be on top of this and the less time you have to do it. So, if it doesn't, by the time you get published or by the time your paper gets accepted, 6, 12, sometimes more months since you've finished the project, you already need deep into 10 other. You're applying for new grants, you're hiring new people and you have a new PhD student, etc. Yeah, you really don't. Well, there's not one of the priorities. So I think it's the culture needs to start from, well, from postdoc or even that PhD level or even before. That's cool. So like these open access initiatives get on board from the beginning in the beginning of the projects and it's always on the mind that should be the default. That's what I'm trying to say. So Jim is encouraging. I don't know how slow science fits in with publish or perish Rachel. In fact, I was about to talk about slow science. So there we go. But I think one of the things I just say in response to Carlos's view there, which I think is. I completely agree with we, you know, it really is something that you've got to think of up front, but just here as the representative from the funder, I think, you know, funders need to think about the models and the way in which they are investing into the research base to enable that to happen as well. And I just want to acknowledge that point that, you know, that is is is clearly something in that to take some of those pressures off from the researcher and to really, you know, support an environment where let's call it slow science or slow research, good research can be undertaken. I think is, you know, an issue that we really need to think of carefully and take seriously. Thank you Catherine. Jim, that was a really useful kind of focus to come back to the burden actually on on the researcher, and I'll be pretty straight up about that. I think we can't be responsible to promote this message that, you know, you get open research for free, something like that. It takes work, it takes time, it takes resource, and it is one of the one of the barriers that I see in my colleagues at the University of Leeds in in kind of pivoting to these open ways of working as business as usual, particularly there's one case that comes to mind from a qualitative research team. And they had said, well, you know, I can either deliver work package three, or I can transcribe all my materials and anonymize them, you know, gathering the right shape for sharing. Which one will it be? And I think at the moment, given the pressures on researchers and the expectations that are written into into grants and some of the way that the calls are shaped actually, they see that work package three is is actually more worthwhile expenditure of time. So I think we need to be really honest actually around devising our projects to incorporate these open research practices properly resourced. Thank you, Catherine. I think that probably leads us on quite nicely to our next section, which is aligning open research and research culture. So what needs to change within research culture to achieve the vision of their current research practices that are in hibyting a wider rollout of open research. And if so, who has the levels control to change those practices and are they motivated to do so. And who is the most influential stakeholder funders institutions publishers, academics themselves and their societies. And of course, these constituencies overlap with each other causing potential tensions. So I'm going to turn to Catherine and Lizzie now and say if you could make one change to encourage greater openness, what would that be and who wants to go first Lizzie is going to go first. Lizzie on mute, you're on mute. Sorry. Yeah, I shared my screen but I forgot to unmute. Hopefully you can hear me now. Yes, so a few thoughts from me on all of those, those important questions about pursuing an open research culture. Oops, seem to progress my slides there we go. And the first point I suppose observation that I'd like to make is, you know, is it an open research culture, or an open research culture that we want because they are to quite different things. And, you know, when we first started zoning in on research culture as an area of interest, as a sector, you know, the focus was exclusively really on people, rather than on standards. So open meant open leadership, open to participation by everyone are not really open practices open research practices. So it was only recently very recently that we started to see open research practices formally embraced as a pillar of research culture. So the VTI research culture framework, which you can see here, views open research as ensuring value rather than quality or inclusion. So I think whilst it's right entirely right to my mind that open research is seen as a cultural issue. I think how we define open research in this new context is going to be something that we probably need to negotiate. And I think that negotiation is going to be challenging, not least because to truly deliver on open research and many other research culture challenges, I should say. You know, we're going to have to do so globally research is global. Of course, we only really have a local jurisdiction, and we can't ignore the fact that we're working in an extremely challenging geopolitical environment right now. Open research speaks to inclusion and collaboration and sharing in the pursuit of knowledge, but there's not a lot of inclusion and collaboration and sharing going on in our world right now. And the world's largest producer of research, China is increasingly publishing without international co-authors and has one of the lowest proportions of open access outputs of any research producing nation in the world. And in the UK, of course, this open research discourse is very much held in tension with the geopolitically motivated trusted research discourse. So trusted research warns researchers to be careful who they collaborate with and what they share whilst open research encourages researchers to collaborate openly and share freely. So these global tensions are real and are something that we're going to have to negotiate and carefully navigate if we really want to deliver on an open research culture. And my final thought is about this kind of open research culture incentivisation problem. I've already seen comments about this in the chat from Jim because every white paper that you'll read about engendering an open research culture will say that to do so we must fix the incentives problem. And by this they usually mean offering some kind of points or prizes for those engaging in open research practices as some kind of counter to the citation prizes that they're currently receiving for publishing in high impact factor journals. But leaving aside Tally Arconi's legitimate challenge to us that no, it's not the incentives, it's you. I think the bigger issue here is that open research, like all research culture matters, is a hygiene factor. Bad practice really should be disincentivised through required compliance with standards, just like ethics or health and safety standards, rather than the expected practice being incentivised through gold stars. I've often said that researchers are over evaluated, often in very unhelpful ways, and adding open to an already broken thing just leaves us with an open broken thing. So a few thoughts from me, I'll hand over to Cat. Thanks Lizzie, thank you. Okay so yeah a few thoughts to follow that. I think about what needs to change within research culture to achieve the vision that we've outlined at the top of this session. I'm going to come really back to basics here and think about fundamentals. I think we've all heard this before, we really need to be working with a broader conception of open research. Open science, open research, brilliant, that is a win. But I think still we'll recognise that amongst our communities. Open access tip done. And actually the more damaging implication of that is people who are engaging in brilliant open research practices like co-production, like participatory research, like public engagement are not being recognised for what they do. I don't know how we get there, but I think we do need, as a sector, to work together in kind of just dealing with this PR problem around open research. It's much broader than people think still. And there's been some great attempts at that. I really like Delft's, is it a picnic or is it a buffet? I think it's the open sciences like a buffet. Take what benefits you now and come back for more when you're ready, when it's needed. The VTI definition actually of open research is always really helpful to me as well, that list. It's a bit more conservative, I would say, but it does list out open access, open data, transparency, public engagement, integrity, ethics, these kinds of things. So, you know, we've got these models, but I don't know what there's still some barrier, I think, to really getting everyone on board with that. In preparing for this talk, I must acknowledge actually my wonderful colleagues in the library at Leeds, notably Sally Dalton, who really informed my thinking about this. And she reminded me that, you know, it's information, it's training, it's advocacy at the right time that's really going to help benefit researchers. And that goes back to my earlier comments actually about birds and on researchers. And it's also backed up with some survey data that we previously, that we quite recently took from our communities about what would help you to engage in more open research. And I was expecting more incentives, these kinds of things. Actually, let me get the percentages up for you, some proper data here. So, only a third, yeah, 33% of respondents said that more positive incentives would help. So, that was quite counterintuitive to me. 49% said more information and training, actually. So, this clearly a sign here that people are feeling under-equipped to engage in these practices. More time was a close second. That was 39%. I think that's very familiar to all of us. And of course, links back to the slow science comments that we talked about earlier. And, I suppose, well related to that broader conception of open research, I think disciplinary differences are really, really important here. I know our library teams have been working, I know UKRN have got some brilliant materials on different types of open research practices within the disciplines. But again, that will really help, I think, the recognition that open research comes in many different flavours and generic guidance can only really go so far. So, on the question of inhibiting factors preventing this wider rollout of open research, I think it's such a huge thing, but I've got to mention it. It's the hyper competition, right? And I see that as the root cause of a lot of the barriers to open research. I've been thinking quite a lot recently about open grants. And I've not heard a lot of discussion actually about sharing grant applications. So I saw a few colleagues asked around on Twitter, you know, what are the practices around open grants? Because I see a lot of reluctance actually in my institution and others to share grants even when they're finished. Colleagues have said yes, they will share on request. But of course, there's confidential information in there and I think there's a fear of plagiarism or, you know, scooping going on. So I know some universities are developing some guidelines around how to share grants responsibly and safely. You know, personal contacts of mine just as their kind of final grant mop-up once they've kind of submitted their final research, final report, they'll deposit that original grant application in an institutional repository. So those kinds of practices, I think, well, no, I won't say they're easy wins because it is more complex than that. But it's something that can be done quite quickly once people feel ready to do that. On terms of kind of levels of control, so who holds the car keys here? I think about that kind of broadening of the conception of open research. I think the institutions are really key here. I think our research culture strategy, the fact that we have an open research group in our committee structures, I think that's enabled a lot more visibility, a lot more kind of taking seriously of these kinds of practices. So I think institutions have a really key role to play here. And yeah, on incentives, I mean, this is a really counter-intuitive thing for me. I really was expecting our colleagues to say, yes, we need that as a criteria for promotion. We need to be asking people about open research practices at interview. You know, I would love to see that as part of our kind of battery of tools here. But actually it seems those incentives are not really what's driving researchers. I'd really welcome discussion of that because I'm still kind of puzzling with that little bit. So if people have got any comments as well as questions on the incentives piece or anything else I've said, I'll pause there. Thank you, Kat. I'm going back to something you said earlier about the disciplinary differences and in particular for the humanities. Is there still that sense that the humanities feel that they've had the open science model foisted on them? Do you think that that is still the case? And if it is, what can we do about that? How can we move that on? Yeah, I do think that's quite pervasive. But I do think we're moving in the right direction with this broader conception. You know, it's a big loss, right? If people just interpret open research as depositing data because after that we've lost them. They just see it as not relevant to them and that they're not recognised in that. So yeah. So one thing that we are through UKRN actually implementing at Leeds is so within each school. So many, many schools within the university each has a director of research. We're including in their remit championing and advocating for open research and that work will be facilitated by a central open research advisor. So, you know, really kind of building it into existing structures as a way to signpost and support researchers. They will know where to go for that kind of those questions either at the very beginning of research or later on in terms of someone with a bit more expertise and guidance within their discipline crucially. Thank you. And Rachel's just posted a really good example of benefits of openness in the humanities. I mean, again, going back to one of your points where you said, you know, open access done tick. Of course, the horrific fact is that the recent review of transformative agreements and of open access has shown us that for the big commercial publishers, the earliest that they will move is 70 plus years. So we're not we're genuinely not seeing that that move towards openness from the publisher side, which is, I think deeply depressing for many of us. I'm going to open up now for if anybody else wants to have any, any more comments or have that have their say on what one thing would they do as any of our panel members Rachel. This isn't the one thing I do, but just in response, Chris, to your point, and obviously the study you're talking about was focused on the transitional and hybrid model. But I would just like to say that there are publishers that are changing. And we do need to look at, you know, plus OASPA that there are real movements that. And I think, and this is where it comes back to this incentives issue. One, and that's any one of them, but in the open access case, people need to feel confident enough and have enough options to publish in other more open and transparent places. But there are, there is development within the publishing sector on that, and it's obviously perhaps not holistic. And the issue, I think that the study you talk about is really about a segment in the publishing industry. I just wanted to mention that. It is also the largest segment where where most of the reading and also most of the publishing goes on by absolutely acknowledge that there are some shining examples out there of publishers who are actually moving in this area. So no questions in the in the chat at the moment. So maybe at this point, I'll move on to our final section, which is the role of scholarly communications. And indeed, Catherine's talked to, talked a little bit to do that to that. But where do publishers and research libraries sit in this new culture? They're mediators of the content, but can they have more activist roles? They can persuade and advocate for new, more open models of research and research communications. But they can also follow and support changing research practices. So where does that balance lie? And is there a danger that they're seen as policy enforcers rather than as innovative partners? So Carlos, I'm going to turn to you first before turning to myself. Sounds great. Thank you very much. Some very challenging questions here. I'm going to try and give my view as like getting my research ahead again. So, yeah, I think publishers and research libraries have been pivotal in safeguarding and disseminating knowledge. Now as we are moving towards more open, transparent and accessible research, some roles are being redefined in the industry. So the question for me now is how we can adapt and lead in promoting an open research culture. So at the moment, I think we're between, like you mentioned Chris, standard crossroads between this traditional gatekeeping and the active advocacy of open research. I believe publishers and libraries are uniquely positioned to not only mediate the content, but also to drive this shift towards open access and the open data sharing and transparency. For example, since I've joined digital science and started using dimensions and altmetric to measure, for example, my own impact on my research, it was possible to see how impactful and to analyze and create some code metrics to analyze the impact of open access research in terms of like overall users and engagement as a whole. And I think this evidence, it's quite powerful and it demonstrates the powerful role that both publishers and libraries can play as a catalyst for this change. And using data, I'm a very advocate for using the power of data, well because now there's loads of data everywhere, now with AI and everything. But I'm very strong on doing data-driven decisions, in this case to illustrate the tangible benefits of open research. So I think this balance between acting as a policy enforcer and or innovative partner is delicate. There's the pressing need to shift the perception from gatekeepers to facilitators of knowledge dissemination. But this requires not only adherence to like usual open access policies, but also a kind of commitment, if you say so, to leveraging data for monitoring and promoting the success of these initiatives that move towards open research. I think this is likely to be a powerful way not only to demonstrate the return on investment in open research, but also to use like it was been discussed as incentive for researchers for institutions and funding bodies, etc. By providing hard data on increased collaborations, on increased attention, on public engagement or for example, like I said, I'm a clinician by background. For me, impact for me more than publishing in like in a good high impact factor journal for me is my research being translated into a local hospital policy. Did I change clinical practice in my research? That's one of the things that was staggering when I've moved from research to research on research inside digital science to see like I actually made some of my research was using policy and clinical guidelines. I had no idea. So I think this is the kind of data that libraries and publishers can use to and can use as an incentive for them and institutions and even at the research level to show like the impact and engagement with their own research, especially inside open access. So, yeah, so for me, I imagine a future where the success of research is not measured just by the traditional metrics, but like how accessible it is, how diverse, for example, given for me in getting back to the clinic clinical case. It's really important for me if you're publishing on a rare disease. For example, a new clinical trial or a new drug or a new product for a rare disease that like those of the rare diseases advocacy group is aware that that's happening or that's been published, like reaching the audience that you'd find target as well as the funding bodies or groups that are funding that type of rare diseases research, et cetera, et cetera. And this kind of shows a bit of real world impact that open research can achieve. So yeah, I believe publishers and libraries have the tools currently have the tools and if they don't they can easily get some tools and the data they're disposable to lead discharge. And by harnessing this data to showcase the impact of open research, I think this gradually will inspire the culture and like I mentioned before where the open, where transparency and data sharing would be like the default. So yeah, I just want to finish with the question for each one of us, which is like inside our own landscape and our own data. Do we have or can we use our own data that we have at our disposal, not just to monitor, but kind of create methods and systems to advocate for a truly open research culture? Well, I'll live with this question for and just talking a bit on incentives. So yeah, I think one of the things that I wasn't aware when I joined digital science was like how my research was being consumed and used by people. So I think that can work as an incentive as well. For example, if you're a researcher, it might be important when you apply for the next grant, like if your trial has reached a certain number, has impacted a certain number of policies or it's been used or cited in the patents to create new things. So that can work, that can work as an incentive on its own. And like Catherine mentioned, hypercompetition that can be used as well basically to navigate it to well stand out by using like this kind of attention and impact data. And I think open research would be at the centre of that. Thank you, Carlos, and before turning to everybody with your question, I'll just do a sort of quick summary, although Catherine in part has already done the summary of where libraries can fit into all of this. I think one of the things that I think it's always that we wear heavily as it were is that we are often very much considered as a trusted bit of the university. We sit at the intersection between the researchers, the publishers, the students, the educators. We do provide or we aim to provide all that information, that training. We're very knowledgeable about a lot of the policy side, but also a lot of the ways in which the publishing industry works. So, you know, we kind of have our expertise in that very, very wide ranging knowledge. I think I liked your point about sort of libraries as gatekeepers. I think we've moved from libraries being about keeping people out on books into being that sort of threshold for knowledge and sort of trusted and trustworthy. I was very interested in, in Catherine, what you said about more of that training and advocacy needed. And I think one area where I've particularly seen that has been really all around where, when we've been talking about rights and copyright. And what I see is a sort of, you know, academics are so thrilled that their work is going to be published that they just sign on the bottom line without without thinking about what that means. And that bottom line often signs away all of the rights. Effectively, you're signing away your property to the publisher. So that's an area where we've been sort of trying to do some work over a large number of years, but both to raise awareness of that. And to try and put things in place to retain sufficient rights to support openness at our institutions. So I'm now going to turn to our panel just with Carlos's question. Sorry, Lizzie, go for it. Sorry, I wasn't going to address Carlos's question, but I'm just going to make an observation about this point that at library conferences, we're often discussing what role there might be for publishers in the future of scholarly communication and the research endeavour. I'm pretty sure they're not discussing the same question in reverse at their conferences. It just feels like it's, I don't necessarily think it's something that for librarians to do to identify roles for publishers any more than it's their job to find roles for librarians or research managers in the future. I do think we occupy ourselves rather too much with this question as a profession. Publishers do have talent, they have entrepreneurial aspects in ways that libraries perhaps don't and the big ones have a lot of money. So I don't think we need to worry about them adapting to new environments if they can't do it who can. But in terms of librarians and their role, I think one of the questions was around with the librarians could be seen as the police. This has always been a librarian's concern that they're seen as having to police various policies, etc. I see them more as community support officers that they are aligned with the policy, they understand the policy, they can advocate for the policy, they can explain the policy, but they're not only the policy, it's not their policy. Ultimately they are there for the benefit of the community and I just think that's such a really important role. I think the other role that librarians can increasingly play and do is in this area of research assessment reform. We've talked about incentives quite a bit today. Directing researchers away from poor indicators and being involved in the development of new qualitative approaches to research assessment is something that they're really well qualified for and do a fantastic job in. Thank you Lizzie. Any other comments from our panel or Catherine? Yeah, thanks. Yeah, something else that was passed on to me from the library team was the importance of engaging with researchers right at the beginning of the research life cycle. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be once you get to the end of a grant. You've got all this really valuable data, but your consent wording doesn't allow you to share it. Right. So, and I don't just want to put the burden on the librarians to kind of, you know, start targeting people who are just just starting to design grants. I suppose the power comes in the joining up because librarians work with every school, probably every service I would guess as well. You know, if they can work with people in charge of ethics, research integrity groups, HR, even, you know, about, can we just include a line in our standard consent forms around, you know, permission to share this data openly. I'm not sure. But yeah, I suppose one of the kind of superpowers of librarians, it's just the so pan institution, right? And they can link into different types of colleagues who can then help to embed open research practices, you know, quite organically, sort of sprinkle these seeds amongst our processes and something from the experts who are the librarians. Then I think we'll get there a lot more quickly and more effectively. Thank you, Rachel. Building on yours and Lizzie's points, I suppose. I sort of am a librarian. I'm a qualified librarian. I just haven't done much practice. But anyway, so I suppose I think that librarians are essential. In a way, it's a sort of, and also Catherine's point about the cross domain and the cross organisational touch points and everything. So I think this, you know, librarians have this role of curating the sort of standards and practice around what is an open and research knowledge base. And in that way, you know, that feeds into the training that feeds into guiding that feeds into being an intelligent customer. So it's just a slightly different spin, but I think just building on the comments that have been made. I think it's a really important role. As we can see now, as their discussions about progressing to new innovative models in publishing and across the whole life cycle, what are the aspects that it's really essential for whether or not that scholarly dissemination is via a commercial outlet or a community owned outlet. But how should that be done? And I think libraries are absolutely critical in that space because they have all of those touch points. You know, the library is the sort of knowledge base, the archive, the participation in the hub for that. And so being, you know, acting as that bridge, I think is really essential in this space. It's reminding me of the Shelby foot quote, which is a university as a library with a group of buildings around it. And it kind of still in a new way, it sort of still feels that that it is that Catherine. Did I see a hand go up? No, I didn't see a hand go up. Sorry. Jumping around. Anybody want to answer Carlos's challenge to us, which I think was can we use our data to do more advocacy? Share your share your humor, Rachel. Well, I just I just yes, indeed. And I think talking from the perspective of you carry that is our intention. And we have built, you know, that well, there's gateway to research and there's different aggregations of data. However, that is quite challenging in terms of being able to utilize, you know, data from different sources. And I suppose just really having access to the right data. I can go right back to the fact that, you know, standards, license information and all of those things are not necessarily in place. So I think it's, it's really, you know, we are seeing progress. I think actually this perhaps points to some of the work that I think we'll see launched soon around the Barcelona declaration where we're really looking at research information and how we can have more open and transparent research information. And that will enable us to be able to to use our data much more effectively. So that's my response to that point. I mean, I echo the challenge with it's often with the absence of data by the absence and the variability of it. I can't remember how many different ways I could see Imperial College London and its various departments represented in author affiliations. And I'm not completely migrating that as a start become can become a huge challenge across across the piece. Any right Lizzie. Just coming on the back of something that Rachel just shared, which I thought was really, really important. That's around the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. We do have to practice what we preach both in generating a better research culture. We do have to think in ways that are protective of good aspects of our research culture, not not destroying the my not over evaluating to the point where all everything we value about research culture is gone. But the same is true with with open research, you know, we can't use closed data to evidence our commitment to open practices. It's just counterproductive. And so the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information, which is stating that, you know, as far as possible, we should move to open data sources to do our own. Evidencing, as Carlos was suggesting, is really, really important. I think that's going to be the next big challenge for the sector. Thank you. And that plays to a comment in the chat from Alex Fendon, which access to data is not necessarily easy or free. Moreover, the technical expertise to analyze the data is also a key consideration. Most data is only available at considerable cost. So, yes, that Barcelona Declaration sounds as though it's going to be incredibly important. We do have similar conversations about metadata and the circulation of metadata and how some of those some of that is is horribly closed as well. I've got a comment from Anna Clements again doing a here here, particularly about Dora. They have signed at Sheffield, but now just how much have we actually achieved in moving away from prestige public publication? I think we could probably have a whole other hour on prestige publication.