WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location? 

My name isMárcio Carocho, I’m a researcher at the Centro de Investigação de Montanha of the Instituto Politécnico de Bragança (IPB), working on food science and technology, and also on chemistry of natural products. My Open Science story is on the importance that Open Access publishing has had in my research career, and it spans over 10 years. Another Open Access situation I should point-out is the freely available manuscripts and other scientific outputs of the researchers in my institution, as all are deposited in our public repository (Open library –bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt). 

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes? 

As a researcher, most of my work is published in scientific journals, which nowadays, support Open Access. Still, at the beginning of my career, very few journals were or had Open Access. Thus, as most of my research is transferable to the industry, considered as applied science, there is a need to show previous research when seeking industry partners for research projects. Our Open Access publications allowedsending journal links to the industry as proof of expertise on several subjects. Sending a link was much better received by the industry or retail enterprises, than sending a pdf of previously published manuscripts. At the time, the expected outcomes were an acknowledgement from the partners of our expertise and knowledge in certain domains of science. 

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any? 

Themost valuable metric I can point out is the higher reach (number of downloads or reads) that Open Access manuscripts have when compared to subscription ones. Also, as one of the manuscripts I published was apreliminary study for a technology that was leased to a start-up company, this made non-scientific audiences very curious. Thus, having an Open Access-link to a scientific manuscript available to all types of audiences helped the overall success of the company, as well as for our research. 

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practice have? Were there any surprising developments or results? 

One surprising outcome was the fact thatseveral investors and non-scientific audiences that read the Open Access manuscripts I published related to the technology, and inquired the company and my research team about some doubts they had in the manuscript. With a subscription manuscript this would not happen, as they would never have access to the information. 

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation? 

I did not find any challenges or difficulties. The lesson to take from this is that, when developing transferable and/or applied research, Open Access is always the best option, especially if non-scientific audiences could potentially be interested in the developed research or technology. 

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

I believe that Open Science is crucial for the scientific community, as subscriptions to scientific research is becoming disperse, andin most cases not all scientists can access all subscriptions, which fosters piracy. In terms of society, opening science is always the correct option, especially to reduce illiteracy.  

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not? 

I definitely would, as this has implication for science to reach its ultimate goal, to improve society. Furthermore, Open Access helps democratize science, making it available to all, not only to elites. 

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location? 

I amJulia von Gönner,I'm working at theHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany, and at iDiv, the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). In my PhD, I developed theFLOW project, together with many partners from NGOs and my institute.  

The FLOW project started in 2021, and it has now been going on for three years. The aim of the project is to motivate and train citizen groups to explore and record the health of streams. 

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes?  

Most of the freshwater ecosystems, the rivers and streams in Europe are in a bad ecological condition, but, in fact, we lack data on small streams. The very small streams with catchment areas below 10 square kilometres, which make up a really big part of the freshwater network in Germany for example, are not officially monitored. The official freshwater monitoring framework in Europe (Water Framework Directive (WFD) only looks at the larger streams. So, with our project, we want to analyse the small streams which are not covered by the WFD and fill this data gap. We also want to motivate citizens who might live close to a stream or might have an interest in aquatic biodiversity to engage in our project, to collect data, and thereby, to advance freshwater science. We aim to create a community that is trained and that can contribute to freshwater science by collecting this evidence.  

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else?  

I studied to become a biology teacher, then, I became interested in Citizen Science. I started my PhD in which I developed and implemented the FLOW project together with my partners, which I’m now coordinating.Because citizen science is such a complex, interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary field, you need a team of differentexperts to successfully run a project. In FLOW, we worked in a team with my supervisors and colleagues from two scientific working groups, with my colleagues from the mobile labs “Umweltmobile Planaria” in Saxony, and an environmental NGO (Friends of the Earth Germany, BUND e.V.). 

 As project coordinator, I organize participant registration, training, monitoring events, data collection, data entry, and data analysis. I've also been involved in the development of our data management system and led the studies published on the FLOW project as part of my PhD thesis. 

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved?  

For the first two years, we did a scoping study, and I developed the materials and the monitoring methods in close exchange with my colleagues who were already experts in that field. We networked with different actors active in freshwater ecology, and found a lot of partners who supported us (e.g., environmental foundations and regional agencies, schools, regional groups of environmental and angling associations). Then, the second phase started in 2021 when we got funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Since then, we were able to expand the project to implement it all over Germany, working with the NGO ‘Friends of the Earth Germany’ (BUND e.V.), who have a huge volunteer network and were responsible for volunteer coordination.  

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any?  

First, we have developed training and education materials, video tutorials, a website, a web application, so a lot of instruments that will help to motivate and enable people to participate in freshwater monitoring. Until now, we have mobilised and trained over 90 groups with over 900 participants all over Germany for stream monitoring, and thereby helped to develop an important societal capacity that will help freshwater science. As a result of our monitoring activities, we have started to create a citizen science database on the ecological status of small streams in Germany. We have published two papers in Open Access format so that colleagues and different actors from science and society can use the data and results. 

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practise have? Were there any surprising developments or results? 

On a societal level, FLOW brings together different people and actors who are interested in environmental monitoring, so that they can network, and contribute their many different skills to advance freshwater science. There are several participants who reported that their groups had formed as a result of the project, so FLOW is actually a project that builds communities at the local level. We also saw in our participant survey that people really felt motivated by the fact that FLOW has developed a Germany-wide network of people who are really engaged and want to help freshwater ecosystems.  

So far we have done monitoring, and at the same time many citizen science groups now want to get active and actually implement stream restoration measures after seeing that their streams are not in a good condition. Some groups have already started to contact environmental agencies and their municipality to initiate restoration measures. But this is of course a really complex process involving a lot of different stakeholders. So, in the next project phase, we want to work on this more in detail and support the citizen science groups to actually use their data and  evidence to implement stream restoration measures.  

In addition, our participant survey showed that the training sessions and monitoring events actually increased participants’ knowledge, their skills for freshwater monitoring and motivated some of them to take collective action to protect streams. We have several expert volunteers but the majority of participants got involved in the project without ever having sampled a stream before. After the FLOW training sessions, the participants felt much more competent and much more able to assess stream health. So, training seems to be a really essential part of the project, for knowledge and skill acquisition, but also for exchange and feedback among new and experienced participants, and among citizen scientists and full-time researchers.  

We also have had some scientific impact by publishing two studies. First, one paper on FLOW data accuracy, where we compared the citizen science stream data with professional data and found that they agree quite well, so the data can actually be used to complement the official stream monitoring. As a second paper, we now also published the results of our monitoring for the last three years and received quite a lot of media attention. So, I think the FLOW project is starting to have a tangible impact. We are currently applying for funding to continue the project so that it can develop its potential long-term impact over time. 

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation?  

One of the main challenge was juggling the roles of researcher, project coordinator and community manager. For the actual work with citizen scientists, it's really important to be enthusiastic about the scientific work we’re doing together with the different community members, and to be open and take time to exchange with the participants. For many citizen scientists, the most important form of recognition is the personal exchange and discussions with researchers. 

An additional challenge was the data quality assurance. We invested a lot of time and resources in a  study on FLOW data quality and compared the citizen science data with the professional data to find out how accurate the data actually are. We could only publish our papers because we used standardised protocols, trained participants and could show that the data was suitable to complement scientific and regulatory monitoring. 

Then also the time frame generated some challenges: overall, it takes a lot of time to develop a citizen science project in a standardized way and to recruit citizens, earn their trust and build a network. Of course, our NGO partners and participants wanted to see and make use of the results as early as possible, but it takes some time to adhere to scientific standards, collect, analyse and publish the data. Finally, a citizen science project is a good way to experience the different ways of working and thinking of the various partners involved. It always challenged us to change perspectives and develop a common strategy that everyone could support. 

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

I had the opportunity to learn from a lot of colleagues in the German-speaking Citizen Science community. Together, we wrote the White Paper Strategy Citizen Science for Germany. On that occasion, I learned a lot about the challenges and opportunities of Citizen Science, for instance on data quality and data management, the data lifecycle, and how important it is to establish a good systematic data management and to publish Open Access to have an impact, and to be credible and transparent.  

All in all, to run successful citizen science projects, we really need this collaboration between civil society actors and scientific actors working together. For instance, as in our case, a research institute and an NGO who really has the experience and networks for professional community management.  

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this practise to others? Why or why not? 

I'm really convinced that citizen science has the potential to create scientific and societal impact.If you’re eager to contribute to transformative change and environmental protection, citizen science is a passionate field to work in. It allows you to exchange with many motivated people from different backgrounds. Nonetheless, realising the different citizen science potentials for science, participants and societal processes requires a lot of effort and resources, and it's hardly possible to implement them all at once. They're always trade-offs to negotiate, and it helps to be well organized and to have experienced partners from research and educational institutions, NGOs, and citizen initiatives on board.  

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location?  

I’m Thomas Kaarsted and I am the director of theCitizen Science Knowledge Center at theUniversity of Southern Denmark(SDU), and the deputy library director at the SDU Library. 

In 2021, we established the Citizen Science Knowledge Center. The CS Knowledge Center offers researchers a number of services, from co-designing Citizen Science projects with them, to onboarding other units at SDU and ensuring they get funding. We typically do all the practical project management, recruitment, events, the app building for data collection, the platforms, and the data management for the researchers.  

At the Knowledge Center we work with both internal and external partners, from Odense University Hospital, other universities and really hundreds of societal partners of all kinds. At SDU we have around 100 researchers interested in Citizen Science, and we are trying to bridge them with the more than 200 partners that we are currently working with. We have a staff of eight that works part-time with Citizen Science, and we have employees or project managers in specific projects that work full time on some projects. 

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes?  

In 2016 we had some renovations and reorganisations at SDU which led to that the Faculty of Health Sciences beginning a move into the main campus. This presented an opportunity for internal collaboration between the faculties. This was when we started collaborating internally on Citizen Science. We did a few pilots and workshops and it turned out they were quite successful.  In 2016, the League of European Research Universities did awhite paper on Citizen Science recommending that a point of contact for Citizen Science within research organisations could grow the field. We read that and really took it to heart, and since then the SDU library has been this one point of contact.  

The Knowledge Center is based in the library and that is by design, because the faculties were a bit mindful that if it were placed at e.g. health science or the engineering faculty, they might be more inclined use it. We believed the library personnel were skilled to facilitate this dialogue.  

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else?  

As the director of the Citizen Science Knowledge Center, I oversee the overall operations and ensure the successful implementation of Citizen Science projects. I also facilitate communication and collaboration between researchers, students, and societal partners. 

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved?  

The Knowledge Center was implemented through the collaborative efforts of various stakeholders, including the SDU library staff, researchers from different faculties, and external partners. The key actors involved were the library personnel, who were skilled in facilitating dialogue and managing projects, and the researchers who were engaged in Citizen Science initiatives. 

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any?  

In general, we do not have specific targets at the Knowledge Center, but we absolutely need to be relevant for the people who participate; we have a general rule that says, “if it's not motivating, engaging and producing research results, we shouldn't do it.” 

We are working with many different projects; therefore, it is challenging to compare them in measurement and to find a metric that would fit for all. We can measure SDU outcome in research articles, from peer reviewed, conferences, papers, abstracts and proceedings, and we are quite successful in doing that. We also have good numbers regarding the reach of our projects, and often one or two of our projects a year are present in mass media. We cannot measure, though, how tangible results can make a difference from the citizens who participate. We could argue that societal impact is that they know more about science, they learn about Citizen Science, they feel motivated, but we are lacking a framework for communicating this to the public and to grants foundations, who might be wondering what we can do for them and, and even more important, what can we do for the citizens we claim to be representing. 

While a lot of Citizen Science projects are extremely successful in making a concrete outcome for individual citizen groups, as a general rule, in my view, the Citizen Science community could initiate a deliberation on a Citizen Science framework with some parameters to identify activities that can have an impact on the participants. In the end, it’s not only about scientific impact but also societal impact. 

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation?  

First of all, it’s really important, in my perspective, that research organisations team up internally. Otherwise, very good researchers will be doing a lot of ad hoc projects, and you will not get the capacity building and knowledge sharing liwithin the organization.  

That said, last year we worked with around 220 external partners, including public schools, kindergartens, high school students from at least 25 different high schools, NGOs, grant foundations, external media partners, companies, clubs, associations, and individual citizens. 

A main challenge is weighing every single partner's contribution every single time, which adds complexity. We have gotten better at our job because we ensure stakeholder analysis and carefully plan the community-building process. 

When presenting our work, we always get the question of “how do we get started?” There is no one size fits all in Citizen Science. In some institutions it is a director’s choice to work with Citizen Science, but in many cases, it is a bottom-up approach. My advice would be to investigate what is already going on at your university, try to do some internal advocacy and do some pilots around Citizen Science. Researchers often wants to explore more Citizen Science, but they lack resources and time. For this reason, professional facilitation around Citizen Science is extremely important.  

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research?  

Citizen Science was previously perceived mainly as natural science, such as bees and birds, and water quality. While this is important, we facilitate Citizen Science within all five faculties at our university, including social sciences and humanities, focusing on qualitative research and cross-disciplinary collaboration. 

For example, we have been doing a project called "Find a Lake" for several years, evolving into a broader project on science communication within schools and associations. We investigate the motivation of participating citizens, demonstrating that Citizen Science can be a vehicle for cross-disciplinary research. Citizen Science at SDU is about facilitating a dialogue with the public.  

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not?  

Yes. Last year we circulated a survey to research libraries in Europe, including our own library, and we identified 14 different skills that could be useful for working with Citizen Science, namely grants writing, preservation of data and protocols, writing state-of-the-art research applications, organising events and workshops, co-designing sessions and data management. The results of the survey showed that research libraries have these skills already, but only few of them are doing this. The reasons why universities or research libraries are not doing this has to do with push and pull factors and it has to do with scientific traditions. Libraries tend to be leaning back and expect that they are asked to carry out a task. On the contrary, it is assumed that those working in innovation or in EU or in other projects are proactive and seek opportunities. 

Somebody once said that “strategy is going out and doing stuff every day”, so we can't sit back and wait for people to ask us to work with Citizen Science, because then, the entities outside universities will take on the role. For this reason, I believe there is an urgent need for libraries to establish a platform to continue working and for universities to professionally facilitate this dialogue. 

Read more: 

Kaarsted, Thomas, Blake, Oliver, Nielsen, Kristian Hvidtfelt, Alving, Berit, Rasmussen, Lotte Thing, Overgaard, Anne Kathrine and Hansen, Sebrina Maj-Britt. "How European Research Libraries Can Support Citizen-Enhanced Open Science"Open Information Science, vol. 7, no. 1, 2023, pp. 20220146.https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0146  

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location?  

I am DespoinaSousoni, theProgramme Manager for Impact, Innovation, and Industry at the ELIXIR Hub, the European Research Infrastructure for Bioinformatics. ELIXIR is a distributed digital infrastructure that unites bioinformaticians from 21 countries to manage data, compute, tool, and training resources across various life sciences domains,operating under Open Science principles. Most of these resources are completely open and free, often not even requiring registration. This openness, while beneficial,poses challenges when assessing the impact of these resources.Over the years, we have developed several methods todemonstrate the impact of our resources to funders, ensuring they are well-sustained through community efforts and remain open and free. As part of this journey, we did some work during the BY-COVID project (funded by EOSC, 2021 to 2024), where wedemonstrated the value of open infectious disease data for industry innovation related to COVID-19. 

What was the context or background in which thisOpen Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes? 

TheBY-COVID project was launched in autumn 2021 as part of the European Commission’s HERA incubator plan, 'Anticipating together the threat of COVID-19 variants.' The aim was to consolidate solutions, often rapidly assembled during the COVID-19 pandemic, to support the ongoing response to COVID-19 and prepare for future infectious disease outbreaks. The project aimed to make COVID-19 data easily accessible not only to scientists in laboratories but also to medical staff in hospitals, government officials, and anyone else who could benefit from it. 

One of the key tasks was industry engagement, which aimed to explore the usage and value of COVID-19 data and affiliated resources by industry. This task also aimed to demonstrate the importance of Open Data and research infrastructures during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic for developing vaccines, medicines, and other industrial products. 

The outcome of this task was a deliverable report entitled "Industry value of Infectious disease data." This report included a desktop research analysis of patents and publications that mentioned the COVID-19 data portal or at least one of its integrated biodata resources. The analysis focused on identifying industrial affiliations and analysing these companies and the inventions. The report also included statements made by industrial representatives in interviews, highlighting the integration of open biodata resources in their R&D work and their operational flexibility during the pandemic. 

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Who were the key actors involved? 

I had a leading role in the industry-related task of the BY-COVID project, with the ELIXIR Hub managing the overall project. For the industry-related task, I collaborated closely with colleagues from Uppsala University, particularly during the initial stages of industry engagement activities, when we approached companies to extract use cases. After several unsuccessful efforts, I decided to transition to desktop research, where I brought in the expertise I had built over the years from my previous Open Science work in the European Commission and UNESCO, as well as the more recent knowledge gained from the PathOS project and ELIXIR's work on thebioinformatics case study "Innovation from Open Research Resources", through the PathOS Handbook of Indicators and the Cost-Benefit Analysis conducted by CSIL. Based on this transition, we managed to create a compelling narrative for the BY-COVID partners, demonstrating the impact of Open Data on innovation during a health crisis. 

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge?  

The transition to desktop research in this task was crucial due to the difficulties in engaging with industry representatives. Based on my experience working in Open Science over the last five years, I can easily say that the hardest Open Science topics are impact assessment and open innovation. Therefore, when I first joined ELIXIR at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic (2022) and started being involved in the BY-COVID project, I very soon saw the opportunity of building a complete story regarding the applications of Open Data in innovation in the time of a crisis, like the COVID-19 pandemic. And this is what we did in this report. 

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any? 

This study includes both quantitative and qualitative information to demonstrate the impact of COVID-19 open biodata resources on the operations of the private sector and COVID-19 related innovation. 

The quantitative information focuses on patent and publication analysis, along with further analysis of the affiliated industries. Over 1,000 patent mentions reference at least one of the COVID-19 Data Portal resources (5% of the total found in this search). It is worth mentioning that this number represents only the mentions of the resources' names, not the data included in the resource. 30% of these patents are affiliated with for-profit companies, with the majority of these companies being in the SME size and covering the pharma and biotech sectors. Additionally, we examined the number of citations of these patents, identifying the most impactful inventions, and analysed how many patents the identified companies had in this search (50% of the companies found had more than one patent in this search). These findings highlight the importance and successful integration of open resources in the industry sector. 

The COVID-19 Data Portal was mentioned in scientific articles, with 25 for-profit companies cited. The most cited article referred to the portal as a "great example of international collaboration for building infrastructure for a global approach." 

The qualitative information in this study includes interviews conducted during and beyond this project, as we know that innovation is not always documented in scientific publications or patent filings, and it depends on the company's mandates or operating procedures. Based on the work conducted by Lauer K.B. as part of her thesis (2022), interviewees agreed that Open Data resources, free and without restrictions, are crucial for enabling scientific discovery and benefiting society through job creation, tax contributions, and lifesaving medicines. Interviews were also conducted later in this project, aiming to understand the business operations of companies and research infrastructures that work with industry during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. All agreed that standardised data collection and sharing procedures are crucial for a rapid pandemic response, along with efforts to break the silos and build collaborative approaches in research. 

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practice have? Were there any surprising developments or results? 

The immediate impact of this study has been the demonstration to funders of the socio-economic benefits of the COVID-19 Data Portal and its open resources during the pandemic. This can potentially be translated to more open research infrastructures that play a crucial role in boosting innovation in academia and industry, creating a social mandate to sustain them as open and free-of-charge resources. 

In addition to the socio-economic impact, we also observed the impact on better pandemic preparedness for the future. Some interviewees mentioned the need for standards in data collection and sharing, along with the establishment of flexible guidelines for emergency procedures. These areas are now a focus in upcoming EC-funded projects. 

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation? 

Despite the success and the great outcomes of the BY-COVID project, including the COVID-19 Data Portal, an infectious disease toolkit, and more (seesuccess stories), and the continuous impact of these outcomes in pandemic preparedness (Pathogen Portal, EVORA project), the journey of the industry engagement task in the BY-COVID project was not easy and straightforward. Our initial efforts were focused around surveys and engaging through events, though the issues we identified were: 

• Industry representatives often do not see the return on investing their time in sharing experiences, or they may not have a full story to share. 
• COVID-19 research was no longer a high-level priority topic for companies, after early 2022. 
• There is not a defined methodology to assess the impact of open digital data resources in innovation. 

Therefore, we managed to extract some stories from industrial representatives regarding the usage and benefits of Open Data in their COVID-19 related work, and the combination of quantitative and qualitative evidence was the best way to demonstrate the high integration of open biodata resources in the R&D sector of companies. 

A useful insight that I have kept from this work is that not all companies are willing to mention the usage of open resources in their openly available methodological description, as it might cause replication and procedural questioning. This was an important point to understand the limitations of the information when collecting desktop data and when engaging with companies throughout the project. Therefore, my lessons learned from this work is to ensure a clear communication of the underestimation of the collected numbers due to the limitations of the used methodologies, and the need for positive referencing of the companies that mention the usage of open resources in their methodology. 

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

When a digital resource is completely open, it typically does not require user identification. However,this makes it challenging to track who is accessing the data and how it is being used. Additionally, quantifying the value of Open Data in innovation is difficult, as academic research often takes many years before it reaches its full potential or becomes an invention and is produced at an industrial scale. These aspects of Open Science present challenges in assessing the return on value for publicly funded infrastructures and create a continuous race to find impact stories and supplementary data to demonstrate their usage in products and services. This study is an attempt to show how we could start building some good practices and stories tackling these challenges. 

In addition, this work demonstrates the importance of collaborative efforts across domains to build a common infrastructure that benefits scientists in academia and industry, as well as medical staff in hospitals, government officials, and citizens. These topics are very hard to measure the impact of, but they are essential for the success of Open Science. 

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not? 

Definitely. It is essential to establish mechanisms to continuously monitor the usage of Open Science resources in innovation, and this study highlights that. Implementing good practices is the only way to keep up with the value of Open Data in innovation and address new challenges collectively. This study demonstrates the impact of open resources on company development and in the creation of products and services with high social value. 

Additionally, it is important to ensure positive visibility for companies that are willing to acknowledge the usage of open resources. Better understanding the industrial contributions to research and society can further encourage the adoption of Open Science practices in the private sector. 

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location?  

I'm AlexanderRefsum Jensenius, a professor of music technology at the University of Oslo, and right nowI'm directing an interdisciplinary centre called RITMO Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Rhythm, Time, and Motion,which is a collaboration between departments of musicology,psychology and informatics. It is a highly interdisciplinary centre where we have people from arts and humanities, social science, psychology, neuroscience, computer science, and robotics. The interdisciplinary aspect is crucial to understand the variety of projectswe're doing; some of these are more humanities oriented, while others are more focused on neuroscience or technology. In general, though, we try to work on projects that are in between. By doing that, webenefit from the diverse perspectives and knowledge that different disciplines offer, but we also face challenges, such as data complexity. 

Photo Credit: Annica Thomsson

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else? 

I personally prefer to call it Open Research rather than Open Science because I'm working in between art and science, and because I notice that many people on the arts and humanities side feel alienated when we call it Open Science.  

I've been doing Open Science and Open Research throughout my entire career and I'm trying to work as openly as possible everywhere.The music technology community worldwide is a very open community and has been like this since I started doing research in the early 2000s. There has been a culture of sharing code, audio files and video from the beginning. Then, I've been trying to push this culture also into the other fields that I'm working on, where this practice is not as common.  I'm trying to do all my work openly, for instancelast year I personally collected data for a project on human standstill, including my own breathing, respiration, and motion patterns. I published this data online daily and maintained a public diary to share my experiences. Now, I’m writing a book that covers all these aspects. Then,of course, I am also trying to promote this approach for my PhD students and postdocs, my own research group, and also within my centre.  

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any? 

Artists, musicians and game developers can and want to use our material, the issue, though, is that sometimes, if we want to openly share the multitrack files of some musician, we might face resistance of the musician or the label based on privacy and/or copyright issues. As a result, we may have to distort the sound and end up sharing a low-quality output that cannot really be used for anything meaningful afterwards.  

Anyhow, we do not have metrics to measure this outcome. Sometimes, though, it’s possible to track downloads through system logs, such as on GitHub orOpen Science Framework (OSF), but it's not very easy to do it. Funders often want to quantify usage of our material so I talk to my team about the importance of having a tracking system. However, I also think it's important for the researchers to enjoy their work, focus on their research and do not spend too much time on reporting and tracking. 

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practice have? Were there any surprising developments or results? 

Regarding unexpected impacts, I’ve encountered a few interesting examples. For instance, for a project I'm working on, I've been collecting a lot of ventilation noise recordings, and they are interesting for ventilation experts, who analyse different types of systems and how they sound, but also for creative people in the game industry, who want to create ventilation sound for games. In addition, I developed a video analysis system mainly used for dancers to study their movement on stage, and which turned out to be used in medical application to study the movement patterns of preterm infants, to predict whether they risk developing cerebral palsy.  

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation? 

We have faced several issues related to openness, particularly regarding privacy and copyrights. 

Privacy is more problematic in psychology and neuroscience, where all the studies are on people and with people. At RITMO, we mainly work with adults and healthy people, but we have some projects with minors and patients, and those are tricky from both legal and ethical perspectives. Also, in traditional humanities-oriented research, where there's a lot of interviews, handling the privacy issues becomes very complex, because for those interviews, you can try to anonymize them as much as possible, but it's very difficult to make them completely anonymous. In addition, if you're dealing with psychological data, even if they typically contain data of groups, we're often doing a lot of personal scoring, and those are tricky to publish openly. I've been trying to figure out how we can collect and aggregate data in such ways that it's possible to share it, but it's difficult to do that while keeping the data useful. When it comes to sharing these things, many people just give up because it is so difficult, but my intention is to try to share at least what we can.  

Copyright as well represents a big issue when dealing with music because a lot of the music we're dealing with is copyrighted in one way or another. There is also a combination of different types of copyright holders; sometimes people hold the copyright themselves, but in most cases professional musicians are under a label or affiliated with a rights organization handling the copyright. Also, they may have changed the label or organization during the career, which makes it more complicated. Then, of course, it's also varying from country to country.I wish we had been able to get an exemption from copyrights when it comes to research, because without that copyright impacts the research questions that we pose and that we can answer. A solution could be some kind of collective agreement like they have, for example, at the Norwegian National Broadcasting Company. That's something that could have been implemented at a national or even European level. I am not saying that musicians and composers shouldn’t get paid, so there would need to be some money in there to support freelance work. At the same time, I think we need to work towards new business models that promotesharing material, and, ultimately show this can benefit also the creative industry.  

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

If you go just a few years back, people were very sceptical about Open Research. Now, people are still a bit sceptical, but they do it because it is required by funders and institutions. Things are definitely improving, but this is a long-term change, it takes time, and it's good that people at least try to do it.  The general trend is that you see more openness everywhere, but there are still many challenges when moving from policy making to real-life research. In addition, in many cases people don't really know exactly what tools or systems to use, how to format their files, and so on.To address this, I wrote a paper titled “Best versus Good Enough Practices for Open Music Research,” which explores the specific challenges empirical music researchers face when adopting Open Research practices. I believe we need to start with low-hanging fruits and then gradually move towards best practices. 

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not? 

I would certainly encourage everyone to do it. It's amazing that the politicians are brave enough to actually jump into this despite they met a lot of resistance from researchers, but I still think it's the right thing to do. The big challenge now is to get the infrastructure in place; ZENODO is a good example of infrastructure that helps the researchers, but it doesn't have the same kind of tools that you have in OSF. So, we are lacking a good European based system. Additionally, of course, the research assessment process remains complicated, and we’ve been advocating for improvements in various ways. 

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location? 

My name is Filip Harabiš, and I’m a freshwater ecologist and my favorite group are dragonflies. About seven to eight years ago, I found myself frustrated with the limitations of nature conservation in aquatic ecosystems in the Czech Republic. There are powerful stakeholders, like fishpond owners, who are often unreceptive to scientific input. It felt like running into a wall.

At the same time, global concern was growing around the decline of pollinators. Unlike freshwater ecosystems, this was a space where we saw a realistic opportunity to make a visible impact - even without institutional power behind us. So we launched the initiative “Praha kvete” (Prague Blooms), focused on educating and activating children and the general public around biodiversity loss in urban environments, especially regarding pollinators.

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes? 

Initially, our main goal was to raise awareness and shift public opinion. We realised that while many people sense that “something is happening” in nature, they don’t have a tangible reference point. For example, older generations still remember having to clean their car windshields full of insects after a summer drive, something that rarely happens today. That decline is real and measurable.

We began by offering guides on how to plant small wildflower meadows in urban areas and even tried establishing them ourselves. But we quickly learned that maintaining these spaces without local commitment was unsustainable. So we shifted our focus to education - working with groups that showed genuine interest. Over time, we started collaborating with a wide variety of actors: schools, community centres, the National Agriculture Museum in Prague, and even institutions like hospitals and banks, which control green spaces and can implement biodiversity-supportive measures.

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else? 

I initiated and coordinate the project, and my role has evolved over time. While I started as a scientist looking for more effective conservation pathways, I found myself increasingly involved in public communication, science education, and now also technological development. I actively work with schools, local institutions, and partners to co-create content and monitor progress, and I’m also leading efforts to develop new digital tools to support our scientific goals.

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved? 

We’ve collaborated closely with the Prague City Hall, Environmental Protection Department, which has provided both support and funding. Their engagement gave us access to grants and credibility within the municipal ecosystem. A key partner from the beginning has also been the National Agriculture Museum in Prague, which offers space and visibility for our outreach events.

Over the years, we’ve built a network of schools, museums, and community institutions willing to experiment with biodiversity-friendly urban management. Most recently, we’ve begun working with utility companies like Pražské vodovody a kanalizace (the Prague water utility), which manage large and often underused green areas, such as water reservoirs, where we can install experimental biodiversity support measures.

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any? 

Unfortunately, we have struggled to gather consistent, quantifiable data through traditional citizen science approaches. We originally hoped schools and other partners would help us track pollinator visits or biodiversity changes, but follow-through proved difficult. Educators often see our programme as a one-time activity rather than an ongoing commitment.

This challenge led us to explore alternative methods. We are now developing an automated insect counter using image recognition powered by AI. This tool (currently in prototyping) will be used as both an educational tool (in school robotics lessons) and a genuine data-collection device. If successful, it will allow us to generate real-time biodiversity data from various urban locations across Prague without relying on constant human observation.

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practice have? Were there any surprising developments or results?

The most surprising development has been our growing engagement with large corporations. Initially, we envisioned a grassroots, community-oriented project. But our public visibility and credibility have led to unexpected collaborations—sometimes even with multinational companies like Mondelez.

In some cases, we’ve had to intervene to prevent well-meaning but ecologically harmful initiatives - like distributing invasive flower seeds purchased from hobby markets. In other cases, we’ve helped develop innovative biodiversity-friendly strategies in solar parks, transforming improperly maintained areas into habitats for pollinators. These partnerships were never part of our original vision, but they’re now a powerful extension of our impact.

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation? 

The biggest challenge is maintaining engagement over time. Czech society tends to prefer short-term, one-off events over long-term involvement. While we attract interest with educational sessions or public installations, transforming that into lasting commitment has proven difficult.

Another lesson is that to be truly “open,” a project must not only share information but also constantly communicate - often using the same media tactics as commercial entities. Competing for public attention means being as engaging and visible as entertainment content, which can be exhausting and requires skills outside traditional academic training.

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

Absolutely. This experience confirmed for me that scientific knowledge without application has limited value. Traditional publishing reaches only a small academic audience, whereas engagement with schools, media, and public institutions can translate knowledge into real-world change.

It also changed my own trajectory. I now place much greater emphasis on the practical applicability of my research and actively look for ways to turn scientific findings into policy or urban design recommendations.

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not? 

Yes, without hesitation. Especially for anyone in applied sciences or working at the intersection of science and society, openness is essential - not just in data sharing, but in tools, processes, and communication.

Thanks to open hardware and shared coding resources, we’re now building our own biodiversity sensors for a fraction of the price of commercial solutions. Communities across Europe are generously sharing blueprints and software, making complex research infrastructure accessible even to non-programmers.

That said, Open Science is not without risks. Some actors benefit from our openness without reciprocating, which can create power imbalances. But overall, the value of collaboration, creativity, and knowledge sharing far outweighs these drawbacks. The potential for accelerated progress and real impact is enormous.

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location? 

Pilar and Laura are the Spanish National Open Access Desks (NOADs).

Pilar Rico-Castro holds a PhD in Science and Technology Public Policies and a master's degree in Political Science. She has extensive expertise in science and technology policy, including policy design, evaluation, and foresight. Pilar has worked at the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) since 2006, where she became Head of Unit in 2008. She is currently the Head of the Open Science Unit at FECYT.

Laura Valeria Bonora holds a master's degree in Applied Statistics and serves as a Technical Analyst in the Open Science Unit at FECYT. For the past seven years, she has worked on promoting Open Science as the technical lead for RECOLECTA, the national aggregator of scientific repositories in Spain.

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes? 

The National Strategy for Open Science (ENCA) 2023-2027 was developed in response to national and European commitments to Open Science, especially following the reform of the Spanish Science Act (Act 17/2022). The goal was to establish a robust, coordinated national policy aligned with EOSC and global Open Science standards. A key expected outcome is:

• Ensure the existence of sufficiently robust and well-articulated interoperable digital infrastructures to absorb the impact of the implementation of a national Open Science policy and facilitate its integration into the international ecosystem, as well as its integration, where appropriate, into the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC).
• Promote the proper management of research data generated by the national R&D&I system through FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to increase its localization, accessibility, interoperability and reusability.
• Implement open and free access by default to scientific publications and results funded directly or indirectly with public funds for the entire population.
• Establish new research evaluation mechanisms and an incentives and recognition system aimed at promoting Open Science practices, as well as training all personnel (researchers, managers, funders, evaluators) to align their professional performance with the principles of Open Science.

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else? 

The Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) is a public institution that depends on the Ministry for Science and Innovation and Universities. We contribute to design and implement the National and the European Open Access and Open Science policies for them.

We contribute as in-house Open Science experts in the writing process of legal, strategic and planification official documents such as (1) the reform of the National legal framework affecting Open Access and Open Science; (2) the Spanish Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (EECTI); (3) the State Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation (PEICTI); (4) the National Strategy for Open Science (ENCA).

Also, we provide specific Open Science services to our national research community: First, we manage the national harvester for Open Access repositories RECOLECTA. Second, we manage the Open Science National funding call "María de Guzmán" (3M euro) that offers funding for Open Access repositories, CRIS systems, and Diamond journals' institutional publishing platforms. Third, we provide training services to our national community through regular workshops, seminars, and conferences, both face-to-face and online, for researchers, support staff, librarians, repository managers, and public decision-makers.

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved? 

The practice was implemented through close collaboration between FECYT, the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, the national funding agencies, the national research assessment agency and other public research stakeholders. It involved designing policy frameworks, launching national funding instruments, and developing interoperable digital infrastructures aligned with EOSC and OpenAIRE standards. Key actors included repository managers, IT experts, librarians, policy makers, and researchers, supported by FECYT’s technical and strategic guidance.

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any? 

The National Open Science Strategy (ENCA) for 2023-2027 includes all the commitments relating to Open Science adopted by different public agents in the system, included in the reform of the Science, Technology and Innovation Act, approved in September 2022, Act 17/2022; the Spanish Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy 2021-2023: and the State Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2021-2022; in addition to reviewing the international and national context in terms of Open Science.

One of the specific objectives of the ENCA is: Ensure the existence of sufficiently robust and well-articulated interoperable digital infrastructures to absorb the impact of the implementation of a national Open Science policy and facilitate its integration into the international ecosystem, as well as its integration, where appropriate, into the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC).

The strategic axes on which the ENCA is structured are as follows:

In AXIS A (Digital infrastructures for Open Science) we address specific aspects related to EOSC:

Digital infrastructures for Open Science are the platforms and services for generating, depositing, storing, and long-term preservation of research outputs (scientific articles, research data, methodologies, code, protocols, software, etc.). Some of these infrastructures include data spaces defined in the European Data Strategy, institutional, regional, and thematic repositories for open access to scientific publications and research data, institutional research management systems, and publishing platforms provided by public institutions responsible for editing, reproducing, and disseminating scientific journals, books, and other publications. All initiatives proposed in this Strategy will be supported by platforms and technological resources developed with open-source software, enabling the achievement of European digital sovereignty, and facilitating the use of specific licenses for content distribution and reuse. Expected outcome: Availability of interoperable and fully operational digital infrastructures with sufficient capacity to implement national, European, and international policies on Open Science, including integration into the international ecosystem and, where appropriate, the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC).

Each of the action axes defined in the ENCA 2023-2027 will be translated into specific action measures, establishing how they will be carried out and the expected timeframe for their implementation (short, medium, or long term).

Most specific: in AXIS A (Digital infrastructures for Open Science), action 4:

A4. Interoperability of all Open Science digital infrastructures to guarantee their sustainability and facilitate the integration of data and services into the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC).

HOW:An Interoperability Plan for Open Science digital infrastructures will be developed in coordination with the guidelines of EOSC and OpenAIRE, the repository certification services of RECOLECTA, the Normalised Curriculum Vitae (CVN), and the journal evaluation services of FECYT.

TIMEFRAME:Medium-term

INDICATORS:

To measure the impact of A4 interoperability, it is important to combine technical indicators, such as system integration, standards adoption, and metadata harmonisation, economic support to the repositories community, stakeholder engagement, and repository connectivity.

Example:

Analyse the compliance of repositories with EOSC and OpenAIRE requirements, measured by the percentage of certified repositories through RECOLECTA. RECOLECTA has a metadata validation system and a NEW repository evaluation module. This new initiative allows repositories to assess their policies, metadata quality, interoperability, logs/statistics, and visibility through an evaluation questionnaire and a peer review process. In 2024, we launched the pilot test, and this year, we plan to roll out the first official edition.

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation? 

One of the main challenges was establishing methodological consensus around how to measure interoperability and impact. Technical difficulties included harmonising metadata standards, integrating heterogeneous systems, and coordinating multiple institutions with varying levels of readiness. Key lessons include the importance of early stakeholder engagement, clear guidance, and sustained funding mechanisms to ensure long-term infrastructure viability.

 How do you perceive this practice's influence on the broader scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

This practice has significantly contributed to embedding Open Science principles in Spain’s research system, influencing both policy and infrastructure. It promotes transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research outputs. Personally, it has reinforced our belief in the need for public institutions to act as enablers, not only in setting policy but also in providing the tools and support needed for researchers and institutions to implement it effectively.

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not? 

Yes, absolutely. Coordinating a national Open Science strategy backed by interoperable infrastructures and supported by technical services (such as RECOLECTA and targeted funding) creates a strong foundation for sustainable Open Science implementation. It also fosters alignment with international frameworks like EOSC.

More specifically, we provide specific Open Science services to our national research community: First, we manage the national harvester for Open Access repositories RECOLECTA. Second, we manage the Open Science National funding call "María de Guzmán" (3M euro) that offers funding for Open Access repositories, CRIS systems, and Diamond journals' institutional publishing platforms. Third, we provide training services to our national community through regular workshops, seminars, and conferences, both face-to-face and online, for researchers, support staff, librarians, repository managers, and public decision-makers.

The Spanish experience demonstrates that a public, collaborative, and service-oriented approach can drive meaningful change in how research is conducted and shared.

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location? 

Hello, I’m Natalia Mishyna, a legal researcher at the SAGE Laboratory at the University of Strasbourg and a professor of constitutional law from Ukraine.

My Open Science journey began in 2023 when I started my Marie Skłodowska-Curie MSCA4Ukraine fellowship. In Ukraine, awareness of Open Access in general, and of how it helps to share research results, raise awareness, facilitate dissemination and build networks and visibility, is practically absent, so most of the information was new to me. I studied it to meet the requirements of my fellowship.

Open Science has become a field of interest to me as a researcher, due to the opportunities it provides.

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes? 

My research aimed to explore how the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can be implemented more effectively by local and regional authorities, particularly in crisis settings — not only in Ukraine, but across all Council of Europe member states.

The context was local self-government in Ukraine under martial law, its potential for rebuilding Ukraine after the war, and the need to rebuild democratic institutions.

Making these findings available to policymakers and researchers both in and outside Ukraine was made easier by using Open Access.

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else? 

I was a direct participant. I published my MSCA-funded research via Open Access channels and managed its visibility through academic platforms and professional networks.

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved? 

Open Access publication was a requirement of the funding body (the European Commission via the MSCA). I therefore ensured that my peer-reviewed articles were published in Open Access journals with the appropriate licences and were indexed in major databases such as Web of Science and Scopus. They were also made accessible through platforms such as ResearchGate and Google Scholar.

I also participated in academic conferences and workshops where sharing preliminary findings and research outputs with open audiences was encouraged. The main actors involved were the University of Strasbourg (my host institution for the MSCA project at the SAGE Laboratory) and the journals or platforms that ensured open accessibility.

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any? 

Yes, before Open Access, my academic articles were hardly ever cited. However, two articles that I published in 2023 received over 20 citations each within a year, compared to a total of 41 citations for similar work published previously over a period of five years. This demonstrated a significant increase in visibility and engagement.

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practice have? Were there any surprising developments or results?

One surprising outcome was an invitation to work as an expert for the Council of Europe, based on my Open Access research. I was invited to support the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe in their efforts to promote human rights under martial law in Ukraine.

I was also invited to contribute to another Council of Europe project, which was more practical in nature — the HELP programme.

Based on this assignment, in September 2024 I presented my findings on local governance and human rights implementation to the Group of Independent Experts of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in Strasbourg. This gave me the opportunity to disseminate my findings, inspired me with further research ideas and, moreover, helped me connect with scholars from other Council of Europe member states. For example, I met Professor Annegret Eppler, a German expert affiliated with the Faculty of Law at the University of Public Administration in Kehl. Since our meeting, we have organised several events on problems relating to local self-government. I did not expect my publications to have such a strong impact at the policy level.

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation? 

One of the challenges I faced was learning how to promote Open Access content effectively. Initially, I had no strategy to increase visibility and underestimated the importance of having a strong digital presence. The lesson I learned is that Open Access alone isn’t enough — you also need to actively share and communicate your work to reach the right audiences.

I'm also very grateful for the opportunity to pay for open access publication using project funds. For example, I wouldn't have been able to afford the cost of publishing my chapter on local self-government in the forthcoming Springer book on sustainable development.

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

Open Science completely changed the way I think about research. I now view academic work as part of a broader system connecting scholars, institutions and society. Open Science facilitates collaboration and enables your research to contribute where it’s needed, including in policymaking and social recovery.

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not? 

Yes, I would recommend it, and I actually recommend it whenever I teach my Master's and PhD students. From my experience, Open Access is one of the most effective ways to ensure your work is seen, shared and referenced beyond academic circles. It enables your research to reach policymakers, civil society and professionals, who often don't have access to subscription-only journals. Open Science opens the door to real-world collaboration and visibility, and for legal researchers like me, it's a way of helping to shape changes in the society.

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location? 

I am Eugenio H. Otal. I hold a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Chemistry and a Ph.D. in Physics, and I have a stubborn passion for electronics and prototyping. I am an assistant professor at Shinshu University in Nagano, Japan.

This story began in 2019, when I visited Japan and pitched a simple idea: build a portable, open-source fluoride sensor for water quality. The road from idea to tool was anything but straight. I chose one sensing chemistry, then replaced it with another. I built the electronics, tore them down, and rebuilt them. I moved from quick breadboards to cleaner PCBs, redesigned the enclosure for real-world use, and wrote the scripts more times than I care to admit. I even learned enough mobile development to make the device speak to a phone. Some of this journey appears in manuscripts; much more lives in the hundreds of prototypes I retired along the way to a sturdier, easier-to-use design.

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes? 

Across parts of Africa, including sections of the west coast and especially along the East African Rift, fluoride in drinking water is a geogenic problem. It originates from local rocks and volcanic or geothermal systems, so concentrations can change sharply over short distances. In some communities, one well can exceed the WHO guideline of 1.5 mg/L while a nearby spring is safe, making the situation highly inhomogeneous and impossible to judge without testing. Excess fluoride in drinking water causes fluorosis. In children, long-term exposure during tooth development leads to dental fluorosis, seen as enamel mottling and discoloration. With higher or prolonged exposure, people can develop skeletal fluorosis, characterized by bone and joint pain, stiffness, reduced mobility, and in severe cases disabling deformities. It is rarely fatal, but it clearly reduces quality of life and forces households to spend time and money on care and treatment.

At the same time, population growth is outpacing water infrastructure in rapidly urbanizing and peri-urban areas, leaving many people without safely managed drinking water while systems struggle to catch up.

My goal is to provide an intermediate, Open Source tool that helps communities distinguish safe from unsafe sources now by testing each source and sharing results, while longer-term solutions (piped supply, centralized treatment) are planned and built. This is exactly what my Open Science Arduino fluoride detector is for: to put a simple, replicable test in the hands of rural populations where hotspots and safe points can coexist within walking distance, and to make results openly available to guide households, NGOs, and policymakers. As WHO stresses, modelling cannot substitute for actual water-quality testing; source-by-source checks are essential.

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else?

I was on the front line of the project. That sounds glamorous, but in practice it meant acting as both translator and air-traffic controller between electronic engineers, industrial designers, and firmware and app developers. Getting function and form to meet is hard work.

Day-to-day, I wrote short design briefs, set non-negotiable requirements, and mapped user flows. Tradeoffs were constant. For example, a beautiful curved shell can block the USB-C port. I iterated in fast loops: breadboard, PCB rev A, 3D print, feedback, rev B. I kept a decision log so we could explain every change. When a stylish idea fought a reliability rule, reliability won. When form could improve function (better grip, faster vial loading), I took it.

In short, merging functionality and appearance is not a slogan. It is a disciplined process of setting sharp constraints, testing ruthlessly, and communicating across disciplines until the device that looks right is also the device that works right. That is the work I led on the front line.

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved?

It is not rocket science. Every journal allows Open Access supplementary information. That is where we should place the sample-holder design, circuit diagrams, wiring maps, script code, calibration scripts, and raw data. GitHub exists to host long code, track versions, and manage issues. We talk about Open Science, but it is only truly "open" when others can reproduce it. A glossy PDF without clear details is not Open Science; it is marketing.

I am critical of a common pattern across science: papers that describe a synthesis, a characterization, or an analysis but omit the details needed for reproduction. Methods skip exact reagents and catalog numbers, instrument models and firmware revisions, calibration procedures, data-cleaning rules, and the full code that generated each figure. Without these elements, a skilled reader cannot rerun the analysis, rebuild the apparatus, or diagnose discrepancies. Pretty plots are not science; methods that let others independently reproduce the result are. If a diligent reader cannot replicate the work from the paper and its supplements alone, it is not Open Science. And there is a sad truth: too often the bibliography is treated as decoration, not as a roadmap to replication.

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any?

Although this tool targets rural Africa, where many households live on about USD 1 per day, they typically do not have access to a 3D printer or even a basic laboratory. The path to scale is not altruism but a lean, local business model.

The real solution sits with small private groups and regional companies that want to improve their communities while earning a fair, transparent return. By keeping the design open and the bill of materials low, micro-entrepreneurs can assemble units locally, sell them through clinics, pharmacies, and schools, and fund training, maintenance, and spare parts.

The addressable market is large, on the order of 170 million people, so even a few cents of profit per device, amplified by volume and low-cost consumables, can sustain the ecosystem. The point is to align incentives: let impact and revenue reinforce each other, create local jobs, and keep prices within reach of households that need safer water now.

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practice have? Were there any surprising developments or results?

From head-to-head tests and teardown comparisons, I found that my device is simpler to operate (no battery, phone readout), packs more functions (guided calibration, data logging, GPS tagging, offline queue), and is roughly 20x cheaper to build than comparable commercial kits. Many incumbents serve small, captive niches: they ship closed boxes, tie users to proprietary consumables, and optimize for service contracts, not broad access. With stable margins and a predictable customer list, they have little incentive to redesign for cost, let alone reach new users at the edge of the network.

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation?

Here is the not-so-secret truth: there is a canyon between idea and implementation. Companies look at a low-cost, open hardware water tool and cannot wedge it into their verticals, so they pass. Demo days often reward fashion over function; I once lost to a 3D printer for cookies. Apparently 170 million people without safe water cannot compete with warm pastries for breakfast in Manhattan. Then comes the startup paradox: deliver world-class science and a flawless business plan on day one, playing both CTO and CEO while incumbents have whole departments.

As my father says, experience is the brush life gives you when you start going bald. So keep going: learn to write the plan, run the numbers, watch the tutorials, find local partners, document results, and move forward. The cookies can wait; people need water.

How do you perceive this practice’s influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research?

I met with local governments. A few are willing; that is enough.

I trust reason and audit every decision. I keep a ledger of facts; what does not balance is cut. Each morning I allow one irrational indulgence: hope. Not the idle kind, the active kind—a wager that effort can bend outcomes. I meet the day, pick up the plan, and move the next stone. The results judge me; I welcome the verdict.

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not?

Yes, challenge is necessary. In every aspect of life, find a challenge.

Choose a worthy challenge, shoulder it, and face chaos voluntarily. Stand up straight, tell the truth, and put your house in order, one room, one habit, one promise at a time. Aim at the highest good you can name, and march toward it even when you are afraid. You will still suffer, that is the aim of challenge; you will be the one who turns challenge into strength and drags order from the abyss.

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.

WithinPathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science(Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens)has made a positive or negative impact.Ourultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!

Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location? 

I am Floor Keersmaekers, the coordinator of the Citizen Science Contact Point(CSCP) at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium. We launched the center in 2022 to promote and support civil science participation at the university. The CSCP is part of Research Outreach & Communication (ROC), a department within the Vice-Rectorate of Research. We support the research community at VUB in all things citizen science: through 1-to-1 consultations and project support, training, tools and resources, networking opportunities.

What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes? 

The VUB has a long tradition of society-oriented research. When Caroline Pauwels became rector, the VUB started to profile itself even more strongly as an open, engaged, and city-oriented university. Combined with the growing societal attention for citizen science and the expertise we had built up within our cell by collaborating on projects such asEye for Diabetes andBugs 2 the Rescue, this ensured that citizen science occupied an important place in the university's research policy plan. Our Research Council followed the recommendation inLERU’s 2016 paper to ‘createa single and visible point of contact for citizen science within the institution, to advise and support scientists and ensure liaison with national and regional citizen science associations.' 

Another important catalyst was our participation inthe EUTOPIA-TRAIN project (2021-2023). With VUB, we are part ofthe EUTOPIA alliance of European universities. In TRAIN’s Open Science work package, we were responsible for the tasks, milestones and deliverables related to citizen science.   

What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else? 

I had the pleasure of preparing for the launch of the CSCP, supported by experts from inside and outside our university, and together with a small team at ROC. Since the launch I try to make sure that we reach all our operational and strategic goals according to the timeline we set ourselves in advance. 

How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved? 

As the launch of the CSCP was one of the KPI’s in VUB’s research policy plans, we had the support of the Research Council and our Vice Rector from the start. One of our citizen science experts,Carina Veeckman, conducted desk research for us into existing initiatives evolving around the support of citizen science in an academic context. We wanted to learn from inspiring examples and good practices. Additionally, a survey conducted in the EUTOPIA TRAIN project allowed for us to gain insight into our researchers’ interests and needs. Last but not least, we held three co-creation workshops involving management and supporting staff from VUB's Research and TechTransfer departments, members of our research community, and members ofECOOM andScivil. These workshops helped us to set quality criteria for citizen science at our university, lay the foundations for future collaborations (workflows) and determine the CSCP’s main tasks and activities usingthe BESPOC model as a reference. 

Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any? 

The Citizen Science Contact Point was actively involved in the Research Council's 2022 call for citizen science projects and currently supervises and supports the awarded projects. Our university invested 1.2 million euros in this call! We also developed EUTOPIA TRAIN'sCitizen Science Starter Kit and will continue to promote and share the kit through several internal and external channels and workshops. We launched ourcommunity of practice and providedpeer learning sessions three times per semester, about every six weeks. The outcomes of these ‘Citizen Science Clinics’ are gathered inthis mural (click ‘View as a visitor’ twice to enter). Through active follow-up of citizen science projects at VUB, we aim to uphold theVUB quality critera for citizen science. We also developeda researchers training in citizen science as part of ROC’s training program, and hosted two webinars together with UNICA: ‘How to engage citizens in your research?’ and ‘Successful strategies in applying for citizen science funding’. 

What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practice have? Were there any surprising developments or results? 

We hadn’t immediately expected the Citizen Science Starter Kit to be such a success, but it appeared to fill a gap, addressing the need for a guide specifically for researchers, containing tools (templates and checklists) that lend themselves to immediate application. 

What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation? 

It takes time to get your message ‘out there’, to reach your target audience and find out how to best support them, and to draw them in. A lot of factors are in play: communication, but also funding mechanisms and academic recognition. 

How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research? 

Not our CSCP as such, but European projects such asINCENTIVE andTIME4CS have shown that there is great momentum for embedding citizen science in universities and research-performing organizations in a structural and sustainable way. For example, the Open Science program of the Dutch government will soon be openinga funding call covering 2 million euros for launching citizen science hubs in universities. 

Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this Open Science practice to others? Why or why not? 

Yes, absolutely. Support will always be needed, and a SPOC can centralize this support and help to embed it in the vision of and future plans for the entire institution. 

Stay tuned with PathOS updates

Sign up for our newsletter!

Follow us on LinkedIn & Twitter!

Do you want to share your own OS story? Join us and share your story here.