 We get started. Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. I'm Cliff Lynch and I welcome you to the last project briefing on the first day of the CNI fall 2020 virtual meeting. And we have quite a interesting presentation to close out our first day. I want to remind you that there are no sessions tomorrow in honor of US Veterans Day by the way, but we will be back on Thursday and Friday. A couple of quick mechanical things. There is a chat box and please feel free to use that for ongoing comments. You're also welcome to use it to introduce yourself. There is a Q&A tool on the bottom of your screen and we'll use that to collect up questions. After our presentations are complete, Diane Goldenberg Hart will beam in and she will moderate a Q&A session based on those questions. There is also closed captioning available, which you can turn on if you'd like, and I note that this session is being recorded and we will subsequently make it available. I think that's all I really need to say in terms of mechanics. We have two great presenters with us today. Astrid Verhusen, who is the executive director of LIBER. For those of you who aren't familiar with LIBER, it is a, it is an association of European research libraries. She is joined by her colleague from OCLC, Tisha VanderWoof, who is a senior program officer at the Research Libraries Partnership at OCLC. I'm here today to report on the findings of a quite extensive series of conversations that they have hosted throughout the fall. I was fortunate enough to be at both the launch, which in part was based on some earlier research that the OCLC RLP had done. And also at the summary session they held last week, so I've had a bit of a preview of some of this. I think you'll find it quite interesting. Really, I guess the short version is that they looked at open science and what it means to libraries in terms of everything from skills to programmatic things to relationships. And without further ado, I'm going to let Astrid take it from here and fill us in on this, this effort they've gone through this fall. So thank you for joining us and welcome over to you. Thank you so much Cliff and we very much appreciate the opportunity to present here at the CNI fall meeting. Next slide. As Cliff just explained this session is organized jointly by Libar and OCLC. So Libar is indeed the European Association of Research Libraries, and is comprised of 450 National University and other research libraries. The OCLC Research Library Partnership is a transnational network of more than 130 research libraries. So next slide. This session runs up a series of intensive discussions in small groups that were held in October. The discussions built up upon the Libar Open Science Roadmap, and we encouraged participants to create a vision of an ideal future state of the open science ecosystem, and how to get there. The discussions were organized around the seven focus areas, which are described in detail in the Libar Open Science Roadmap. So they go from scholarly publishing fair data to citizen science. Next slide. Our aim was to offer a forum to engage both our networks and to offer an opportunity to exchange ideas across the Atlantic. Our aim was also to identify key research questions that Libar in cooperation with OCLC can address to advance the role of research libraries in an emerging open science landscape. Next slide. Thank you for your participation, and we got positive feedback from the attendees. Since this session today gives a summary of a much longer presentation, we will not be able to go into detail in all discussions but the summary of each discussion has been shared via blog post on hanging together the block of OCLC research and the Libar website. So we structured the discussions around three main questions and we will present the outcomes accordingly. So the first question was what what does an ideal future looks like. What are the main challenges to get there, and how can libraries and other communities take collective actions. In the first part of each session, the participants were allowed to fantasize about an ideal future. What if there were no obstacles at all, and you can shape the future yourself participants were allowed to just imagine the most fun part of the series. Next slide. Our participants that were very unanimous and led to a very cheerful image. People look happy. All research and science are open. There are no more locks, and everyone can access everything. On the right side, you see that everybody is working together, citizens, students, companies, researchers, they all work hand in hand to make research and society better. Next slide to summarize the discussions about an ideal future. We fantasize that culture has changed all research processes are open transparent and inclusive infrastructure services and data are interoperable and accessible. Librarians have all necessary skills. There are new metrics and rewards in place, and libraries cooperate with almost everyone. So, in the future described by our participants culture has changed. Openness is central, and will be the focus of everyone. Open science, the language of open science is adapted by everyone. Students and researchers will understand what open science means in practice for them. And last but not least, new types of incentives and for research will be in place. Next slide. Again, in an ideal future it was not hard to imagine that all infrastructures services and data are interoperable and accessible. There are robust infrastructures for storing sharing processing and preserving data infrastructures are globally interconnected and perfectly integrated software data and metadata are easily available to both humans and machines, and are fair. Next slide. In an ideal future librarians would would have all necessary skills, and they will not only have soft skills to be able to walk in the shoes of researchers, but will also have hard skills to support researchers and know the basics of software programming tools and data science. And of course, with all these skills in place like the library is the place to go for data services. Next slide. An important aspect that was mentioned in all discussions is cooperation. In the future research libraries will work together with just about everyone. The researchers will be central, but all stakeholders will work together instead of competing. There will be research collaborations across different institutions and different research areas. Next slide. A perfect future is waiting for us, but what are the main challenges we are facing trying to get them. With the polling system we use during the sessions we identified a top five of challenges and obstacles. And here they are. Well culture needs to be changed. There are now inadequate rewards and incentives. There's a lack of researcher awareness and a full involvement, and there's a lack of skills relating to open science. And last but not least, there's no agreement on standards in and interoperability. So to go into this a little bit more deep on a culture change. Open science requires change at many levels, but three themes were predominant. First is the need for change in attitudes. The attitudes of both librarians and researchers is holding us back from making progress. Librarians tends to be risk avoiding and in waiting mode, and senior researchers and senior administrators, if they don't embrace open science, it becomes very difficult to move forward. The dominant team was lack of collaboration. There is still too little connection between libraries and researchers. Finally, it was clear to all of us that it's also about an even bigger cultural change, not just embracing open science principles, but practicing openness more generally, more widely in science in government in society, and in each day to day life. These inadequate rewards and incentives came up repeatedly as a major roadblock. Researchers lack sufficient incentives to take open science seriously. The old metrics and reward system is still in place, and it does not reward open science activities. Many of these activities don't directly result in in publications. Mentally, it was thought that the competitive nature of the metrics contributes to making competition more important than ethics. Next slide. The lack of researchers involvement in open science is directly related to the current reward and incentives. This lack of involvement was felt as a major barrier, and it could take different forms. Lack of awareness and knowledge, what's open science means in practice. Lack of involvement also happens when top-down initiatives fail to involve researchers in co-creating and co-designing the open science environment. There's a big gap between open science advocacy and the day-to-day research. For researchers, open science in practice means yet another thing we need to do. The fourth obstacle is the lack of skills. On this slide, you see two citations from a conversation discussing what the most important skills are that librarians lack. So connecting to researchers is one of the most important skill librarians have to learn. Get out there, go to the researchers, don't stay behind your bookcase. If we stay in our library, nothing will happen. Another participant said, I agree. I think also that researchers want to walk, want to talk with people who understand what they do. Not every librarian needs to be an excellent programmer or data scientist, but to be a good person to speak with to make connections, they need to know at least the basics of these hard skills. So, librarians are not all skilled to connect to researchers or other stakeholders, and this was felt as an important gap. Last, another main obstacle that surfaced at the top was the lack of standards and interoperability. The open science infrastructure is still a network of old and new technologies, and there's no agreement around which standards to back, and different stakeholders are developing different solutions. Persistent identifiers are crucial, but often they aren't supported by information systems. There are no open metadata, which are essential. So participants felt that all these issues contribute to a suboptimal environment, one that is not seamlessly connected and not user friendly. And this in turn adds to researchers frustrations with doing open science. So talking about problems is always easier than coming up with good solutions. But we made sure we had enough time for discussing the third question. And for this, I will hand over to Titia. Thank you. Yes, so this part of the conversation. The third question tackling the third question was a bit more difficult. It was also more arduous. It was hard to formulate collective action strategies and to go beyond anecdotal examples. The need to work outside the library was clear, but frustration about how difficult this was kept creeping up. Conversations exposed some degree of uneasiness and uncertainty about the role of the library in moving open science forward. It was clear that culture change was necessary. Culture change was mentioned as an obstacle alongside the other four obstacles, but it really encompasses them all. And something else was clear. The same message across all seven sessions. The library cannot do it alone. As one of our participants said, open science must be a collective effort, not just not just libraries. Culture change requires closer discussions and collaboration with others who are also stakeholders in open science. We have to partner with the research office, for example, we need to collaborate with researchers that was being said again and again. So interestingly, most of our discussions were focusing on the issue of collaboration with stakeholders. The many examples given of collaboration show a large diversity of stakeholders. They can be categorized as stakeholders to work with above the institution and below the institution above the institution to start with stakeholders operate at different levels. So you can have stakeholders at the consertial level national regional or global levels, funders research funders are considered as very important and they were mentioned repeatedly, because they can force change quickly. In Europe, national level and EU level policy initiatives are strong incentives for collaborative action. Open science communities were also mentioned often, like the research data Alliance go fair, the EOS the European Open Science Cloud. And as networks for collaborating on innovation. And others were mentioned as well pit providers publishers etc. Below the institution stakeholders operate at the campus level, and all have a stake in supporting research, but not all are equally aware of open science. Different campus units. They pick depicted in this model where mentioned as relevant to work with to affect culture change, whether it was changing the metrics and reward system, or supporting citizen science, or training researchers in ethical and integrity issues. The model of campus research support stakeholders, which you see here in this slide comes from a recent OCLC research report. This report looks at the overall campus landscape to better understand the scope and opportunities of the library's role in this space. It also introduces the term social interoperability, which is considered central to promote collaboration communication and mutual understanding. The authors of this report interviewed stakeholders at 17 US universities, and what they heard was echoed during the OCLC Libre conversations. So, what we, what the, what they heard during these interviews is that other stakeholders on campus, see an important role for the library to play as a central campus unit. And because also they have expertise expertise in metadata in licensing and copyrights in fair data in predatory journals open access and more. But they also mentioned that librarians tend to lack confidence, or to overemphasize open science values. We heard this back in our OCLC Libre conversations, as you can see from these citations. So one participant for example said well maybe we are a bit brutal to them when we come with our mission and we want to skill them. That can be a bit frightening, or another participant who said, we can broker relationships. And that's underrated so there is this feeling this lack of confidence feeling. So, what are strategies and tactics for libraries for successful intra campus social interoperability. We heard to discuss several strategies and tactics and they are listed here in this circle. And again, we heard echoes of, of these strategies and tactics, tactics during the OCLC Libre conversations, for example, speak their language. They said, open science is a good example of using, of using a term that might not trigger all research communities so in the UK for example they call it not open science but on purpose they call it open research, so that the humanities scholars and social scientists don't, don't find it off putting because it otherwise it sounds too sciencey, and they think that they're not part of this movement. So these are all good examples, but ultimately, as one discussant put it, we need to be more deliberate about those conversations and cross campus collaborations. So we have them to be a bit more organic to the organization so it should be more structural and less incidental circling back to the challenges. Our discussions contributed strategies and tactics specific to each. For the researcher involvement to solutions were proposed one is to educate early career researchers, and even target undergraduates. And the second strategy was to integrate liaison librarians into research teams. Incentives and rewards. Our discussion participants felt that both top down and bottom up incentives were important, and that the library should carefully choose the right level for achieving impact. So the tactic for libraries to achieve impact is finding the right level in the organization that has influence on researchers and influence that intermediary level concerning standards and interoperability. Our discussions were very clear about the importance to adopt persistent identifiers and to practice what we preach. And ultimately, we need to make open easy, and we are currently not making it easy. So it was all about systems integration that is really necessary. And then finally skills. There was an allusion to the Renaissance librarian. There was a need for both hard and soft skills, which Astrid already mentioned with hard skills being the technical skills and soft skills being the more social, political type of skills. There was also a suggestion to develop coordinated library specializations across all disciplines, because one library could not support all specializations on its own. So here was an example of cooperation and coordination across libraries. After the seven discussion sessions on open science, we can only conclude that indeed a revolution is required, and that the library has a crucial role to play in collaboration with strategic stakeholders. And what we will do as next steps, now that the discussion series is finished is that we will finish our synthesis of the discussions, and we will publish the outcomes in Libre Quarterly. We will also develop a follow up activity, a joint Libre OCLC activity based on what we heard. We will be sharing information out in blog posts. So we encourage you to follow the OCLC research, hanging together blog and the Libre blog. And with this, I would like to open the Q&A session. Thank you. Thank you so much Titia and Astrid for that thought provoking presentation. Lots to chew on there for all of us interested in these issues and I want to take a moment also to thank our attendees for joining us and for making some time out of your day to be here. I hope that you will share any questions that you may have with us by using the Q&A box, any comments that you may have there or in chat. And while we're waiting for folks to sort of chew on what you've shared with us. I do have a question if I may, something I kept thinking about as you were talking about these conversations, the period in which these conversations were taking place of course we were right in the middle of the pandemic and the impact that the current circumstances may have had on the experiences that people were sharing with you during these conversations. I know the Libre roadmap came out before that, but I'm just wondering if you might reflect a little bit on how that theme may have materialized presented itself influenced some of the conversations. Yeah, so originally we had planned to have this discussion in one meeting in Vienna in March this year at the OCLC conference. So that didn't happen because of the pandemic actually it was one of the first events that was cancelled in Europe. So then we took the opportunity of the pandemic to do the discussions more intensive and also online so we had the opportunity to have many discussions with much more participants. What we didn't do was to have the pandemic as a point of view so we really wanted to have the discussion about open science. And what I think is that the pandemic and Corona has only intensified the need for open science as I think we are all very much aware of. And the funny thing was that in the discussions Corona hardly played a role. So we were just discussing open science and also if you look at the future image of the desired future you see no Corona. Everything is open again so it was funny that the pandemic didn't really play play the role in the discussions. How interesting. I see we do have some questions and thank you for for addressing that Astrid but let me dive right into the questions from our audience members. The first question is, I wonder if there were any insights from the perspective of library science educators or others who will need to credential and prepare future individuals in the revolution. I was attending the skills session, which was all about skills and there was the first question that was asked is what are we talking about are we talking about skilling librarians or other people researchers and others on campus. And it was really the answer was very clear, everybody needs to be skilled in data science in, you know, being able to handle this very data intensive environment. And then, well as the discussion went on. It was really about librarians and their skillset that was necessary and of course, what was said repeatedly is that the current curriculum of library, library science, but also in, in all the European institutions where they teach library practices and science that these skills are not really being taught at the moment and that is a big gap. And whether you're talking about a country like in the Netherlands where there is no schooling at all for librarians and where actually you know they are hiring PhDs in literature and in history and in all kinds of different disciplines, but not in library science. Or whether you talk about France, where there is a very, very good school system for librarianship everywhere there is the same gap. It's felt as a gap that there is not enough teaching in the skills that is necessary for open science. So there's, there's a big, there's something big there that we need to address. Thank you. Thank you to ask her, did you want to weigh in. No, I think teacher covered this. Yeah. Okay, thank you and Tara thank you for that question. Another question now from Schumau Wang, who asks if the speakers can comment on what challenges there are to realizing a true global open science while we observe an increasing amount of science nationalism. Yeah. So the question is very recognizable. Also played a role in a few of the discussions we had for example we had one of the discussions about research infrastructures. The discussion focused a little bit on the European open science cloud, which is a very big project is now becoming a legal entity to provide an infrastructure for data for Europe. And already for to build that infrastructure, it's very difficult to really connect to national infrastructure so the people that attended the discussions asked to really involve national research infrastructures while developing a European open science cloud. And I think the problem is even bigger as science is not national, it's global. We have a solution for that, but we sure have recognized this issue as as being a big obstacle to really have a global open science world. Yeah, and if I can add, I think it was, it was seen as inter interoperability issue, isn't it Astrid. But I think that there is another aspect to it which we did not really touch upon very much. And that is the nationalism aspect so that certain countries might not open up their science. That's their political system, and that's always, of course, an issue, and that has to do with reciprocity. If one country opens up its research, it will expect other countries to do so as well. But of course, we have to wait and see if this is going to happen. Right. But we didn't really touch much on this, it's a very interesting subject actually. We need to have more conversations as to it. Fascinating. Thank you so much, Shuma for that question and thank you to our panelists for addressing it. I see now that we are a bit past time so I don't want to hold up our attendees anymore but I do want to thank our speakers once again for this wonderful presentation and all who have joined us today. Thank you so much. We will turn off the recording and then the public portion of this presentation but if there are attendees who would like to approach the podium as it were and stick around after we turn off the recording please feel free to do so raise your hand I can unmute you and you can chat with the presenters so one on one if you if you like. Just to remind everyone that we will not be holding sessions tomorrow we will start again on Thursday and again on Friday. Anyone observing Veterans Day we wish you a good day off and we look forward to seeing you again on Thursday. Take care everyone. Bye bye.