 keep going through there. I have summarised and added the feedback from people who tried out the database in the two sessions that we had. So thank you very much to everyone who engaged so thoroughly and seriously with the database. This is what we did. I could see that people were browsing the initiatives on the home page, they were trying out the search functions, gave me a lot of feedback on things that needed to be improved and I'm pleased to say that many people did go to the web form and did add their own gender initiatives. I don't know. Now I have to find out how to access them. So that was that was just wonderful. Thank you very much. I've divided, I've categorised the feedback into three separate categories. The first one is about improving the presentation and navigability of the first page that you see that is the entire database. I've tried to put these in a sensible order. I probably haven't succeeded though so let's let's go through these. What you saw in those sessions was not meant to be the first page that you will go to on the IMU website. So clearly people saw that we need a landing page which has some background information about the project perhaps a link to the project and also an explanation of the categories in the database. Marie Francoise is suggesting that we need the logos of all of the unions and supporting organisations on that landing page. So do you mean links to the database or links to what? Links to the database, links to the publication things. I mean once you'd be able to go to the home page of this project. Yes that will happen. So the suggestion is that from the project's home page there should be a link from there to the database. Yes that will happen. Someone will do that. I don't know who. There also probably needs to be contact details of someone on that database landing page on the IMU website if people spot errors or want to tell us about things that need to be updated. So I think some of the suggestions that came in might be will be things that we need to discuss at amongst the coordinating group. I've already pointed out that there is a summary field for every initiative in the database. There is a 200 word summary. It will be translated into French and English. That is not appearing in the database. It needs to be there and it needs to be straight after the name of the initiative. Also we know that the view that we see is not very pretty. It's not very easy to read. So we probably need to see fewer columns on that first view so that the display is neater and the column headings don't look so chopped up. The next one is a question for me. I'm not convinced that there is sufficient difference between effectiveness and impact to warrant having two separate categories there, particularly when we found so little evidence. So maybe we need to collapse those fields together. The information about the dimensions of good practice, the gender objective lists are given there in their full glory of the long titles. They are too long. We need to shorten those. I've already done that in a table that needs to be made shorter. Also, even though I wouldn't say that I know I could repeat to you all of those objectives or the subcategories, people who use the database will not be familiar with them. And so in the columns that say if this is category one and subcategory 1.3, I don't remember what 1.3 is. So we need either to make those numbers that appear to be clickable to take you to another page that lists them all or to do the mouse hover thing. So when you hover the mouse over, the little box pops up. I don't know how to explain that properly, so I hope our technical help can do that. Other ideas in the spreadsheet, the first field is simply called name. Some people were confused about, do I put in my name when I'm adding a new initiative? No, it should be the name of the initiative, so that needs to be changed. There was a suggestion for perhaps adding a field to say who is the owner or organizer of this initiative? If there is an organization behind it, perhaps that could be possibly added, which means going back through all 67 initiatives and looking for that again. I've been thinking throughout this week and it came up again in these sessions, although a little differently, for actually this should be in the next one. Sorry, this is about searching, but I'll talk about it now. There are some kind of headline strategies that are not easy to search for or to see in the database, and we didn't know what they were until the whole thing was finished. So could we perhaps create an additional field that allows these things to be searched for and also points or makes it obvious to people that here in this drop down menu are some strategies that are being used a lot. So it could be a workshop, a summer camp, mentoring, networking. I'm still not really clear about that, but perhaps that's something to think some more about. The next one, even though we checked all the entries recently, we need to check them again before this goes live for dead links, hacked links, incorrect naming of initiatives, checking again the categorization of gender objectives and so on. So that's more checking that needs to be done. Someone suggested adding in a map of the world that shows the geographical location of all the initiatives by country. However, if we're adding new initiatives, then there has to be some way that that is automatically updated without a human being having to do that. In the view pages, so when you go from the main page, click on view that takes you to information about each individual initiative. At the moment, all of the category headings are there, but if there is nothing entered there, then the word empty appears. That doesn't look very nice. So there's got to be a way of making that invisible, even though we can't change the information. So it's something about the way that it's displayed. So those were the suggestions around presentation and navigability. Then if we look about the search functionality, and I knew there were lots of problems there and there are lots more suggestions that people had. The list of countries is not an alphabetical order. I have no idea why it's like that, but it makes it impossible to search. They have to be in alphabetical order. At the moment, it's not possible to have a single search for more than one country. You can only search for one country at a time. So it would be nice to be able to have a more sophisticated search there. Another search category you can search by discipline, but because everything has just been transferred from the spreadsheet to the database, including the column headings, it just says M, mathematics, S, science. So those need to be spelled out in full in the drop down menu when you're searching. And again, it would be nice if it was possible to search for combinations of those things rather than one category at a time. Also, because the spreadsheet was constructed in a way that classified what was in the initiatives that are in the spreadsheet, the only disciplines that appear there are the ones that are in the database now. But if people want to add new entries that highlight different disciplines or want to be specific scientific disciplines, then I think it would be good to change that categorization so that we actually put in different scientific disciplines now. So even though some of them will be empty in the database, if people want to add new disciplines, they will have something to select. There were some questions around, well, what does technology mean? And I told people that in Ireland, the country where I work now, when you talk about technology subjects in secondary school, that doesn't mean digital technology. It means woodwork and metalwork, which I would never have thought of as being technology. So there are other ways of thinking about digital technology such as informatics, computer science. So maybe we need an explanation there that technology covers all of those things because people were asking me questions about what is technology? Does it include computer science? The target level category is very messy because we just imported text from the websites that we found. So there's a very long list of target level categories that are all overlap, well, many of them overlap with each other. That is not helpful. It's ridiculous to try to search on that. So someone needs to go back and clean up and compress those categories and come up with something that gives a small number of mutually exclusive categories that can be searched on. And of course, that means that all the entries in the database then need to be gone through again, all 67 of them, and recoded. At the moment, there is not a search function for the gender objective, the dimension of good practice. And I think there needs to be one there, but only for the top level categories. So there are seven of them. Seven is reasonable to search on and we need the shorter names for those. Someone made a very good suggestion that if you're searching the database for a combination of categories, say mathematics initiatives in a particular country, and you find there are none in the database, then would it be possible to have a message coming up saying, would you like to submit an initiative that has this combination of categories? Which I thought was a very interesting way of inviting people to add things. So this is the last category, the last section about feedback. And it's around adding and verifying entries. The web form in which people can fill in for an initiative uses the asterisk, the star, to indicate which a mandatory feels. That's a fairly common thing to do, but there's no message on the form saying that if there's a star there, it's a mandatory field that you must fill in. At the moment, also there is no way of checking whether a proposed new entry is already in the database. It's not possible easily to search the database for that. So somehow we need to work out a way to make sure that if someone's trying to enter something that might already be there, that we stop that from happening so that no one's wasting time. Another thing which someone found out, which I had also found out on the opening page, if you click on add data to the web form and then click on either results or submission, what you end up with is like a list version of the entire database that has a whole lot of administrative information that looks like it should not be visible to users. It looks like it should only be visible to the administrator, who at the moment I think is me. So I need to let the technician know about that. And someone entered a whole lot, entered something, a new initiative clicked on submit and what happens then is a message comes back confirming submission and inviting the user to click here to check the entries that they've submitted. But the link doesn't work because the URL is incorrect and the bit that's missing, taking you back to the IMU website, it's actually the CWM page and the CWM part is missing from that address. So that's an error that needs to be fixed. I think this is the last one. So the other thing, of course, after people who've submitted a proposed new initiative, how long is it going to take for this submission to be checked, to be reviewed, for a decision to be made and then that decision needs to be communicated back to the person who proposed it. That's really important to close that feedback loop. And if it's decided that it's not going to go on the database, we need to have some reasons to communicate to people about that. And then finally, someone made a good suggestion, this is probably a navigability thing as well, after you submit a new initiative and you get that message saying congratulations, you've submitted it, it would be nice to have a button that says back to the home page so you can get back to the database without having to do complicated navigating to get back there. So that's covered all the written feedback that people gave me and everything that I could write down from the conversations that I was having with people. But if there's anything that I've missed, please email me or write something down during the conference so that we don't miss things because I really appreciate the time that you've taken to give feedback on the database. Are there any questions that people would like to ask? Things that I didn't think when I was with you in the room. So for this one, for the new initiative submitted, there is a field for adding an email address and like so maybe there should be two fields, one for adding an email address for information about the initiative and another one for the submitter to know that you know like what you submitted is which may be different email addresses. And the other thing, so when I was deciding what to add, it was quite difficult to decide because like a lot of the initiatives that I know of do not have official web pages. So if there is a way to like rather like add a document or a report in the case that the initiative is no longer live, but like you know that's that's more complicated, but maybe you know it could be worth doing it. Would you be able to email that to me? Thank you. Yeah, as I told you of lunch, one thing I didn't know where it was was all related to sexual harassment and violence and how to handle that. It was under a career developing career development or something like that which I don't know. I found a little bit by chance. And then all of what is policy that it could be inside a huge document with a bunch of things and suddenly there is a bullet related to something that is meant to alleviate the career progression or help women something, but it's within some regulation or something. So how to, and you were thinking that maybe the initiatives could be divided in a certain way for that? Yeah, the two things come to mind there. Firstly perhaps in this one here, the field of type of initiative strategy, we could have in the drop-down menu something around dealing with sexual harassment. It could be there so that you can search on it more easily. The other question I know that came up in our conversation was should the database only have initiatives in it that are specific to STEM and science and mathematics or should there be more generic initiatives which are relevant and I can't answer that question. That's something that we need to discuss I think. So I don't know. Yeah, so there was something at some point we thought that maybe our database could be part of the SAGA database and finally there was a question also of scheduling that made it impossible and but now we've seen from Anatea presentation that SAGA database does seem to be online now so I think we should make some kind of link or because in a way they are twinned and we use their terminology and so on so I think that should be made more visible but that's a suggestion. Should I send you email please because I don't bring anything to write it. That would be great, thanks. Any other comment? Okay, so thank you Marilyn. So I think we can ask Christian also if he can come and present what happened during his session. Which one do you prefer? This one or this one? I didn't make a presentation but I've still got some notes. Should I put them up on the beamer as well? Okay, so the first question that we had because I called Helena in the break between our two sessions was where we could use some more input from all of you and your specific fields because we don't really know how you would define a research network in your field. For example in computer science there are these proceedings or conferences and if you publish in the proceedings then you can be considered part of the computer science community but for example as Helena told me this is not the case in math or astronomy for example so if we want to take a look how well you are fit into your research community then we would need to know how we would actually know what this research community is or how you define this research community in your field and then we could take the graphs that we have already created and put it into this network and see how it looks how well you are connected within your own field and then as a next idea we already or that was actually the starting idea for the whole thing is we wanted we were interested in the evolution of the authorship networks over time because the research question we got was or the hypothesis that we got was that women stop networking at a certain seniority level and they just keep their network at the constant size and that that was one of the questions we would like to answer if this differs from men and women so if men for example network all over their career or if they would stop as well how how we can see a difference because we saw or we can see that in the 70s we only did for the 70s that men had larger collaboration networks than women in the mean so then that would be the next question do men always have this larger collaboration network or is this equalizing out or even out now that time has passed and we could aim for the creation of graphs where we don't look at one specific author but a couple of authors so that we can say they form a research group and can take a look how well this research group fits into their field we had the idea of adding more measures for example if we can get the math general yeah yeah I think you hopefully know the word that I wanted to use and if we can add these data for example we would be able or we would it would be possible for us to see the supervisor supervised a relationship and this would be especially interesting for example in cases where the high profile supervisor was accused of sexual harassment and then we could take a look at his network if that this instance was only once or if like he did or had women in his network for the last 30 years and maybe we only know it now because now someone stood up and said something about it or if you and if you was possibly misusing his position all time before so this could be an interesting question and we could also use the collaboration graphs to compute these distances between authors like in math it's called the air dis number or in physics there's the Einstein number that tells you the relative difference between you and the other person we could take a look at the journals and the collaboration networks so for example does the editorial board mostly accept papers by people they already know or are they unbiased and where everybody has got a fairly same chance to get an article published not depending on the connection to the editorial board or to the authors to the other authors of the journal what we will definitely do is we will ask ZB math to improve their own data for example by adding a safe identification possibility to your author profile where you can choose okay I see this is my author profile and I can choose that I want to be a female male or something else maybe we would see which genders to choose and also we want to ask them if they want to use the charts we created to put or to add to their website so you can see them if you click on a journal then you get the gender and statistics right away and another thing I just came up with in the break was maybe we could also add the citation data to the collaboration networks and then we can maybe see if there's like these clusters that seem to be highly connected but they only cite themselves so they don't really work with outsiders but only keep to themselves and maybe we can see that there's these authors that are overachieving with like 100 publications a year if they seem to be citing themselves all the time to to game the scientific system because the number of publications is still regarded as a very important and then we could again look and compare if women do the same thing as men or if these are only men that are working like this and another thing would be to look at the different fields and the collaboration networks because we've already heard that in math it's usually you only have papers written by one or two or three authors whereas in I don't know astronomy or physics you have these large corporations and so maybe you can see from the collaboration graph which field it is because it's more dense or there's more nodes and edges in it and then we could also add the affiliation or nationality information to these collaboration networks and then we could see if this is different for different parts of the world for example or even if we have good data we can even go to the institution level and take a look how it looks there or we can go a step higher to the country level and take a look which countries seem to be collaborating a lot and which countries don't collaborate at all and and as the last point we've created all our code in a way that we don't have to focus on the STEM fields because with these DOI identifiers that are used nowadays we can actually get the data for everything that's published with a unique DOI and so we could actually do the evaluation for the whole scientific output and I think this could be of interest because gender equality is still in the UN and in the golds list the STGs but there's no way to measure the gender gap in a scientific community or the gender equality in the scientific community at all and maybe this would be a good starting point. Okay that's it for the most part are there any questions? Thank you so do you have any questions or comments for this session? I am confused about this DOI, the DOI thing because I thought it was linked to a single paper so how do you extract a general I mean how do you extract it for your purposes? Yeah and because there's there's a large database called Crossref where every DOI and this metadata is stored and we can just ask the database if we have a DOI then we can just ask for all the data from this DOI and if we know for example a journal we can get all the DOIs in this journal and then we can get all the articles from this journal all the article metadata for this journal for example or if we have proceedings book then the book has a DOI and the articles itself have their single DOIs and we can just look at or get them once at a time. Any other question or comments? On your very last sentence you say there's no way to measure it for the scientific community I mean that's the objective of this project is to measure it so are you referring explicitly to publications here? Yes no I mean for yeah but we are just doing it for STEM I mean we can do it for all the sciences at once. Okay so thank you I think we are ahead of time so that's perfect so maybe Pierre can come and show what happened with the session on Wikipedia. Everyone so I did not know I could do a presentation so I don't have one but I have written a report and I think I believe that will do just fine so maybe if it's a bit it may be a bit too formal but I think that's okay so the hands-on session of Wikipedia pages for women in science started this morning at 9.45 and lasted for about three hours with the coffee break in between and it was under the direction of Camelia Boban. The goal of this session was to complete the mostly empty English pages of 13 pre-selected women scientists. More generally the session aimed to familiarize the participants mostly women to Wikipedia content creating and editing. For the most part the 20 to 30 participants had never partaken to such activities some unfamiliar with computers themselves. So the first goal was therefore to set up everyone to their monitors have them create their own Wikipedia accounts as well as active activate some useful tools the so-called sandbox plus that end up being very helpful for the upcoming tasks. The second goal was to divide amongst ourselves who will work on what pages which we did. Some of us expressed their wish to do slightly different tasks such as writing the page of someone else or translating or modifying an already existing page which they did. Finally some of us became de facto helper for everyone else thus effectively working on several pages at the same time. At the end of the session we did not manage to finish the pages for all the 13 pre-selected scientists although all of these pages have been started. They will be finished and possibly integrated properly to Wikipedia after further cooperation between their original contributors I mean the writers of this morning and Camilla Bobin. In that regard I ask all the people that were there this morning to give me their username if they haven't already so that Camilla can further correct and curate their sandbox page and possibly integrate them to Wikipedia. So come to me maybe after this session and give me your username if you haven't already. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any question of something that I might have missed? Yes. I think it's great to hear this report but maybe you should have say or integrated these 13 women how they were pre-selected before. I mean personally I know the answer is because Silvina had asked to IUPAP people to suggest names but I had the impression from the initial reaction of Camilla that some of these names would maybe not be really convenient for creating a page because maybe they don't they are not famous so I don't know. So was this discussed? I mean was it part of the discussion? So it was not part of let's say the main discussion. I believe some people discussed about it. I was not part of this group of people so I don't know but maybe you were. Sorry if I cannot. Yeah I was discussing that with what's her name? Camilla. Yeah I wanted to add somebody else somebody new, a Brazilian physicist and so I asked her can I just add anybody I think it's okay and she was explaining to me and Eagle that he has to be somebody notable so she has to be connected to an organization that's known and then so what should you do because you might just add somebody and they'll delete afterwards Wikipedia will evaluate and decide to delete it. So I guess you got to do some search on internet and see if she's the person is connected to has connections and you see if their organization is on Wikipedia so that helps a lot. So you got to do a little search do some homework to see if you know if you have good chances of keeping this entry there. So yeah with that regard like you know from whoever is interested maybe I could like circulate so I'm involving the like Wikipedia creation group in in Belgium but it's like generally for women in technology and there's some guidelines and it's like a peer reviewed process so it's not like a central body of Wikipedia who decides whether the person is notable enough but there's guidelines and if you follow the guidelines there's more likelihood that actually the biography will remain but it's true that it has to be someone notable enough and so that means there has to be prizes awarded to this person and there has to be an online presence. So for example articles in magazines and newspapers and stuff like that helps. So that's how you can assure that like these names that you're selecting will have chances to remain. Just before this comment I would like to to continue on that by saying what I already said but that the work that we have been doing this morning is not over and therefore there will be a need for further cooperation between the people who wrote a page and Camelia to finish things and including making the page more likely to be integrated to Wikipedia. I think we both found it very interesting when Camelia pointed out that there's a page in English on Wikipedia called Wikipedia Notability which has a long exposition of who is likely to be acceptable. Thank you. Thank you. I was part of the group and before we left the place we submitted our user ID to Camelia. I don't know whether it's delivery to you. My question is this what determines the list we use in that place? For example the person I wrote about. I don't know her. I google her name. I got information about her and that is what I use to complete the page. So is there any criteria for selecting those people or are we free with the knowledge we acquire now to develop pages even for some people that we know. Because I remember we have selected based on the fact that you don't really know the person or you are familiar with those subjects or you you'll be paid for the exercise so I wouldn't know. I am not clear and I want to be enlightened. Thank you. So I think that Camelia wanted to help with some things like pictures for example because at the end they were taking pictures and there is an issue of copyright and she had if she took the picture she could upload it and then put it on the pages that other people had started. So basically I think it was to help put those pages alive to share your user information with her. I don't know if that. Yes so if I can add on that so I'm like you it was the first time that I created content on Wikipedia so my answer will not be complete but I think the idea is that most of the people writing pages for Wikipedia also don't necessarily know personally the individual that they are writing for or the subject that they might be writing about. The information is mostly taken from internet preferably from objective documents such as a government website of these kind of things. Now the goal of the session of this morning that regard was to familiarize you a bit with Wikipedia not ending with a full completed perfect pages already. Now I believe what you were referencing to about are you being paid or do I know the person I'm writing about? This is more to tell the Wikipedia team if you have some conflict of interest about the page that you are that you will be writing about so that they know that they have to be particularly careful on the things that you will have to write. It's more a moral question that they ask with that than category to put you into if you want. Does that answer more to your question? So do you have any comments before we close the session? No? Okay so I would like to thank everyone for participating in the session this morning and the people who gave the report this afternoon, Marilyn, Christian and Pierre and I think we're going to break now for half an hour for the coffee break. We are finally not late compared to the initial schedule and we will come back in in half an hour so it's yeah it's at five so you want to