Search

This paper presents new perspectives on the influence of new technologies in scholarly communication. Different from other papers on the future of scholarly communication, it combines 2 pillars of Open Science: Future of Scholarly Communication and Research Integrity (Open Science EU, 2020). The authors performed a study in 2021, together with researchers from UCL, Cambridge University, Czech Technical University of Prague and a private company that specialises in introducing new technologies to libraries and research organisations. The study (148 organisations) unveiled a concerning picture, especially in regards to the presence of trackers and persuasive algorithms on scholarly communication and offered a glance in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotic Process Automation (RPA) in this field. At the date of our study, 60% of the web pages in our dataset (related to scholarly communication) offered no option to manage the internet cookies. Along the quantitative analysis, we conducted expert interviews, to understand the perception of those involved in the field towards such technologies Our study identified a list of essential questions for our community, as well as a list of recommendations. It is well known by now that in general, the digital content industry is heavily oriented toward building platforms that track users’ behaviour and seek to convince them to stay longer and come back sooner onto the platform. Its authors are incentivised to publish more and to become champions of dissemination or influencers. This content industry is permeable to non-human contributors (algorithms that are able to generate content and reactions), anonymity and identity fraud. It is therefore pertinent to discuss if early signs of such track and persuasion technologies are currently present in scholarly communication, which over the years tended to be influenced by the digital content industry. The general aim is to determine a broader solution for building trust and infrastructure in scholarly communication. Early observations suggest that we can use the principles of open science to offer insights into this work going forward. The amount of data that needs to be collected and the need to involve different geographies suggest that for more robust research, citizen science could represent a viable solution.&nbsp

This article presents a synthesis of the report “Drivers and Barriers of Civic Engagement in Open Science and The Role of University Libraries in The Baltics” for the project “University libraries strengthening the academia-society connection through citizen science in the Baltics” under the Erasmus+ Programme, Key Action 2: Partnerships for Cooperation. The full report is available to read in English in the project Zenodo collection. Dieser Artikel stellt eine Zusammenfassung des Berichts „ Drivers and Barriers of Civic Engagement in Open Science and The Role of University Libraries in The Baltics“ für das Projekt „University Libraries Strengthening the Academia-Society Connection Through Citizen Science in The Baltics“ im Rahmen von Erasmus+ vor Programm, Leitaktion 2: Partnerschaften für die Zusammenarbeit. Der vollständige Bericht ist in englischer Sprache in der Zenodo-Community des Projekts unter verfügbar., Project Number: 2021-1-EE01-KA220-HED-000031125 Project Acronym: LibOCS Project Title: University libraries strengthening the academia-society connection through citizen science in the Baltics This project is funded under the Erasmus+ KA2 Strategic Partnerships program.

These are the slides from the LIBER 2021 Workshop: Onboarding Citizen Science and the role of research libraries barriers and accelerators This workshop derives from the SSHOC - Social Sciences and Humanities Open Cloud work in collaboration with the LIBER Citizen Science working group. It will be building on the outcomes of the session“ Citizen Science: What it means for SSH and how can multidisciplinarity be achieved?” that took place during the conference “Realising the European Open Science Cloud: Towards a FAIR research data landscape for the social sciences, humanities and beyond.” in November 2020. Objective The overarching aim of this workshop is to raise the awareness of the challenges and opportunities in libraries’ involvement with Citizen Science in SSH. It aims to explore the extent to which research libraries can serve as a bridge between researchers and citizens. An approach based on the sharing of best practices and current research, the involvement of participants in the reflection of the respective roles and training needed, complemented by an open discussion, will shape the overall experience. One of the outputs of this workshop will be the production of actionable recommendations for research libraries and the SSHOC/SSH communities in the form of a report. This will be complemented by a proposed outline of potential awareness raising and training sessions (for librarians, researchers, and citizen scientists) that would help participants in implementing those recommendations. This workshop will be an opportunity to create further synergies between LIBER, SSHOC and initiatives represented by the speakers and the participants.

The presentation focuses on a prototype built to address the recommendations of the LERU 20th Advice paper on Citizen Science and Universities.

These are the slides from the LIBER 2020 Session Crowd Powered Collaborations. Session Description: Closely tied to Open Science is the Citizen Science (CS) movement. CS is a “hot topic” and extremely interesting for research libraries, which function as an important link between science and society and, consequently, have a key role in the development of CS. In 2019, LIBER launched a CS working group to foster the participation of European research libraries in these projects. In this session, Crowd Powered Collaborations, we will focus on three research papers, linked by the theme of developments in the Open Science movement and with a particular focus on Citizen Science. The first presentation by Maria Cassella and Assunta Arte will discuss the emergence of Citizen Science in Italy on the basis of the first CS project launched in Italy: Transcribing Marconi. Transcribing Marconi is a project conceived by the Library of the Research Area of the CNR of Potenza, in collaboration with two CNR research institutes. The presentation will focus on the aims of “Transcribing Marconi”, including raising awareness on CS projects among school students and citizens and connecting the project with other outreach activities held by the Library of the Research Area of CNR of Portenza, as well as the different stages of the project. The second paper will argue that research libraries with strong competencies in knowledge-brokering, data management, open science, public outreach and more, could serve as the single point of contact for citizen science initiatives. The first part of the presentation will address the opinions of researchers and research libraries on CS projects and what they want from it, based on the findings of a Danish survey. The second part will focus on different services needed in order for libraries to become an integrated part of CS activities, using findings of best practices at the University of Denmark. The conclusion will present strategic recommendations and outline leadership skills needed for libraries to be in alignment with institutional strategy. Finally, Tiberius Ignat and Dr. Bertil F. Dorch will discuss their findings in regard to their analysis of the Open Science movement. They concluded that the Open Science movement has two conflicting agendas. Firstly, libraries and librarians aim to set science free for commercial exploitation while encouraging the practice of sharing, for the public good. Secondly, the agenda of the EU Competitiveness council and larger research infrastructures. For them, the aim of this new research approach is a) accelerate the translation of new discoveries in benefits for society and b) create better evidence for EU strategies and in this way keep Europe a competitive economy. As there are increasing voices against Open Science, they argue that it becomes crucial to overcome these misalignments and deliver a single agenda. Consequently, libraries and librarians might need to reconsider the fundamental philosophy of Open Science.

This LIBER 2020 session examinedthe role libraries could play in the future. It aims for participants to get applicable takeaways by addressing: Strategy Services Single Point of Contact SDG’s – ideas how to Evaluation An important outcome is to create awareness about Citizen Science, UN SDG’s and how university and public libraries can advocate at local and national level. Arranged and facilitated by LIBER's Citizen ScienceWorking Group and EBLIDA experts, this session builds on the work and recommendations of e.g. SciStarter, the DEFF-project in Denmark, and the LIBER Open Science Roadmap in order for participants to achieve results in a collaborative setting. Participants will resort to tools made available by the EBLIDA Matrix to pursue autonomous Citizen Science projects, which are SDG-oriented (in particular, Goals 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

2019-11 Script Open Science Seachange What do we mean when we talk about Open Science. I have one short answer to that: [CLICK] Open Science means a seachange in research! I will support my answer with 6 perspectives and a set of conclusions. I try to leave 5 minutes for questions. Please feel invited! Here is the agenda of my presentation. We will cover the context, definitions, examples of OS across sectors, the matter of sustainability, some fresh perspectives (The Gestalt and The Hazards) and we will look into the deep roots of the Open Science transformation. First to start: the context and the definitions --- Meet Prof. Steve Mann from Toronto. He coining the term Open Science, back in 1998. In one of his articles about Surveillance, Sousveillance, and Metaveillance, Prof. Mann says: [CLICK] “Science is a human endeavour in which we attempt to go wherever the truth may lead us, in pursuit of new discoveries“. The term OpenScience was coined by him to emphasize this need for truth and open disclosure … „and if surveillance cannot deliver on that promise, we need to look at other veillances!“ – he said and came up with the idea of Open Science. Among others, Steve Mann has been recognized as “the father of wearable computing” and “the father of wearable augmented reality. --- Are you familiar with the Reproducibility Crisis? Nature published a study in 2016 showing that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. These are the figures of surveying over 1,500 researchers. --- What is the cause of this crisis? More than 60% of respondents said that the pressure to publish and the selective reporting are the most important factors. If we look closer, we see that these 2 reasons are further confirmed by [CLICK] 2 other reasons which are closely related to them: row data being unavailable and the insufficient peer review. I share the opinion of some academics that all these factors are intensified by common forces: competition for grants and positions, and a growing burden of bureaucracy for researchers. For many, this was the main reason to open science. It is very IMPORTANT to have in mind this CONTEXT! ---- Open Science Definition? it seems we can never run out of many! Here is just a hand of them which I could grab in minute of desk research. No matter we speak about The European Open Science Monitor, FOSTER Taxonomy, OSPP ambitions, Centre for Open Science wheel or Open Science Mushroom, everybody claims a definition. But it shouldn't bother us! Since ”Science” doesn’t have a universal definition, why should we try to have one for Open Science? So, let’s celebrate the diversity! [CLICK] I favour a definition, but that doesn’t mean I exclude the others. --- Let‘s examine now how public research is doing in this landscape. ---- How are we doing in Europe? ----- Here is Europe‘s top-down approach. In 2014, The European Commission ordered public consultations for reforming science. Right in the introduction of their background document the Commission stated: “The impact of these trends* (digital technologies, globalisation of research, societal demands for science) is already visible and it addresses some of the most burning issues of science, such as the slowness of the publication process, the increasing criticism of the existing peer review system, and the challenge of reproducing research results due to the lack of available data“ These issues are still burning today. ---- Open Science long existed in Europe, before 2014. However, I find relevant to bring up to you the chronology of the Open Science Policy Platform (OSPP from now on), a high-level expert group that informs EC, European Council and national organisations. It started in 2014 with a public consultation In 2015: The Competitiveness Council welcomed the development of an Open Science Agenda 2016, the launch of Open Science Policy Platform (OSPP) by Commissioner Moedas and chaired by Dr. Eva Mendez from Madrid. In 2018: OSPP releases their set of guidelines - Integrated Advice of the OSPP - and it receives a new mandate ------ And here it comes one of my favourite definition of Open Science: For OSPP, Open Science is scholarly research that is collaborative, transparent and reproducible and whose outputs are publicly available. [CLICK] …. and I stop here. I don‘t like the rest which suggest that EU is embarking on the Open Science journey to win a competition against the rest of the world. ----- What OSPP did? They released in 2018 a set of recommendations for what they identified as ”The 8 ambitions for Open Science”. They put these ambitions in the context of some stakeholders, displayed here on the bottom. ----- Let me zoom-in: these are the 8 ambitions that European Commission set for a cultural and structural change to Open Science. Each of these ambitions could also be understood as a Strategic Direction for delivering Open Science. The European Commission is now sending a clear message to all research communities. [CLICK] Press the Open button! Join us in this journey! …and discover a new world of research. ------ But Europe is moving also bottom-up in its transformation to Open Science. Here is the example of UK’s first fully Open Access Press: UCL Press. Through their press, they reached over 2.5 million book and journal downloads since launch in June 2015 Compare this figure with the conventional sales of monographs which reach 300 copies.– for the most successful titles! ------ I can continue the European examples of Open Science with TU Delft Data Stewards Champions, Leiden‘s GoFAIR Initiative or the Hungarian EISZ Consortium that negotiated contracts with publishers which now cover over 80% of their needs! Open Knowledge Maps re-designs the knowledge discovery service. DOAJ is well known to you. The UK Reproducibility Network tackles the reproducibility crisis. ------ Let’s see now how our colleagues are doing over the Atlantic. One big difference is that USA doesn’t have a federal top-down approach. ------ Therefore, on US front I will start with the Center for Open Science which I appreciate very much. Their definition of Open Science goes straightforward: Show your work! Share your work! Advance Science! Their approach is strongly related to the Reproducibility Crises and they believe that the Open Science vision is achievable because •openness, integrity, and reproducibility are shared values, •the technological capacity is available, •and sustainable business models that promote openness exist already. [CLICK] The Open Science Framework is a collection of tools that they develop to enable Open Science through all scientific phases, which they represent in this wheel. ------- The same as Europe, USA is working on multiple fronts of Open Science, almost all of them bottom-up, independent of the federal bodies. Here is just a small number of other Open Science initiatives in USA: 1.SciStarter and Arizona State University are accelerating Citizen Science 2.University of California is taking a leading position and inspires the other US universities how to negotiate with publishers 3.University of Harvard through their Office for Scholarly Communication is inspiring the world how to reform the contracts that authors sign with publishers. ------ Open Science at The Neuro (the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital) deserves a separate attention! In 1934, Dr. Wilder Penfield had the unique vision to advance medicine through patient-centred science. Today, The Neuro continues to lead scientific innovation as the first academic instituteto develop and adopt Open Science. I only have a few minutes to talk with you today, but if you want to see how an entire academic institution and a hospital is acting completely on an Open Science landscape, please go and visit that link, turn the notifications off on your computer, have something to drink for 2 hours and study! ------- But is Open Science an apanage for public institutions? Definitely NO. Let’s an example! -------- Open Science is for all: public, private, non-for profit or for-profit research! Structural Genomics Consortium is a Public-Private Partnership that was created as a collaboration between academia, public funders and industry - nine big pharma companies! They use Open Science methods to enable consistent data and accelerate reliable discoveries! Why these institutions started this collaboration? Because all the results, all the tools and molecules developed by SGC are made available for free to anyone willing to work on them. For academics this means new, robust research. Pharma companies benefit because they get the chance to take these new molecules and turn them into successful drugs. Clinicians and patients are motivated by the collaboration as it brings hope for new medicines. I have many more example of Open Science existing in private institution. If you are interested, please engage with me! ------ GESTALT Back in Europe, in 2014. Background Document, ”Science 2.0” The paper has another important statement which deserves a closer attention. I quote: [CLICK] Science 2.0’ is a holistic approach, therefore, is much more than only one of its features (such as Open Access) and represents a paradigm shift in the modus operandi of research and science, impacting the entire scientific process. ------ Now let’s pay a closer attention to the OSPP elements! None of the European ambitions for Open Science are explicitly referring to open methods, or to open outputs. For publishing, the ambition is formulated as “Future of Scholarly Communication”. Research Data? The corresponding ambition is FAIR Data, and not Open Research Data. Why? I don’t know the reason, but for me is clear that the definition is looking to Open Science as a whole, not through individual elements. We will most probably have Open Science delivered through a number of elements that are not fully open science on their own. ----- As an early element of Open Science, Scholarly communication gave to the world the concept of Open Access. Let’s take a closer look to Future of Scholarly Communication, year 2020 This image shows a recent metaphor to Open Access. Artists performing a show, apparently opened to the public. Is it fully open for all? Do you see this guy here? He doesn’t seem to have the same access to the show as many others. His access is blocked, because of his location (behind a pillar). Further on, much better access seems to have those that sit in the first lines of the crowd while certain difficulties to enjoy the show seem to have those sitting far in the back. Their location is not optimal for fully enjoying the show. [CLICK] Why I present this metaphor? You should know that policymakers are now informally discussing about restricting ability to view open-access journal articles in nations that have not responded with policies to remove paywalls. Our immediate future could be More Open Science, but not necessarily a Complete Open Science. The Gestalt of Open Science means achieving Open Science even when not all elements are compliant to a Complete Open Science ideology. ------ Another example for understanding the Gestalt of Open Science stays in the Open Research Data Pilot. [CLICK] The Commission was running a flexible pilot under Horizon 2020 called the Open Research Data Pilot (ORD pilot). Here is the requirement of this pilot. I quote: [CLICK] Participating in the Pilot does not necessarily mean opening up all your research data. Rather, the pilot follows the principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary" and focuses on encouraging sound data management as an essential part of research best practice. Again: The Gestalt of Open Science means achieving Open Science even when not all elements are compliant to a Complete Open Science ideology. ------- So, what Gestalt means? An organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts The Gestalt of Open Science that I want to introduce to you is based on the principles of grouping from Psychology and it means that Open Science is a new research system that is more than the sum of its parts. Even if its parts, in their individuality could mean “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”, the whole (The Open Science) means, in the end, a system that is collaborative, transparent and reproducible and whose outputs are publicly available. [CLICK] The Gestalt of Open Science is the meta-principle that applies to all definitions of Open Science, no matter if we speak about spinning wheels or mushrooms. ------- Any responsible person who is promoting Open Science should recognize that we have a spaghetti of Open Science. It is delicious, healthy, but hard to tackle. That said, it is time to look into the hazards of Open Science. ----- Like everything else, Open Science is not protected against hazards. These could be, in my view: •Its own Failure. If we fail now, we will not have another shot in a foreseen future. •To become an exclusive movement of public research that continues to enlarge the disconnection with Society. •To associate ”Open” with ”Ignore”, especially when it comes to resources that are needed implement it. •To build blocks of ’net beneficiaries’ that rarely move to ’contributors’ side. All these hazards are amplified if research organizations want to deliver Open Science as a fashionable set of tools, instead of a cultural change. ------ Maybe it’s good to say what IS NOT Open Science! [CLICK] Firstly, it is not a sugarcoat for Open Access. Open Science hasn’t been invented to make a nice, sweet coat for Open Access. Open Access is only 1 element, in my opinion perfectly equal in importance with all the other elements of Open Science. [CLICK] Open Science is neither a snake oil. It doesn’t promise a cure to all problems in research! It only proposes a new set of methods, as an evolution from current good practices and – possible – as a way to restrict research biases. ------- SUSTAINABILITY This slide, should probably say everything: Being sustainable is an act of responsibility! It‘s not a trend, it‘s not an option, it‘s not a model. It‘s a must! Keep this in mind for the moment: Sustainability means Responsibility! ========= Never discount this understanding! It‘s a direct relation between these 2 concepts: •If you are sustainable, you can take responsibilities. •If you are not sustainable, you can‘t take responsibilities, you cannot offer your services to hold responsibilities. •The more sustainable you are, the more responsibilities you can take •The less sustainable you are, the fewer responsibilities you take. •If you are not sustainable but you go toward that stage, you still can‘t take responsibilities, but you go toward that position We

Ponencia presentada en las 5ª Jornadas de Análisis de la Red de Bibliotecas y Archivos del CSIC (Bibliotecas y Archivos del CSIC por la Ciencia Abierta: presente y futuro), celebradas en Madrid los días 28 y 29 de noviembre de 2019.-- Eje 1: Ciencia Abierta: concepto, elementos y estrategias.

Open Science represents a potential revolution in the way that research is undertaken, disseminated and curated. The paper will look at the main elements of the Open Science workflow – conceptualization, data gathering, analysis, publication, review – and the characteristics of that workflow – citizen science, open code, open access, pre-prints, alternative reputation systems, science blogs, open annotation, open data, open lab books/workflows, data-intensive approaches. Having established the baseline for Open Science approaches, the paper will look at the impact of open science in 4 areas of activity, identify the current role of the Library in each and the potential the Library has to contribute to this agenda going forward. The four areas which the paper will address are open access and new publishing models, research data management, the European Open Science cloud and citizen science. In the area of open access, libraries have customarily engaged in the payment of APCs (article processing charges) and in establishing open access repositories. The paper will look at activity in one of the most active UK open access teams at UCL and then examine future publishing models. In particular, it will show universities might themselves subvert the current monograph model by offering publishing services from university libraries. In research data management, the outputs and outcomes of the EU-funded LEARN project will be analysed. These will dwell on research data management policy, best practice case studies, executive briefings and the findings of a survey looking at the level of preparation for RDM in research organisations across the globe. The paper will look particularly at the future role for libraries in the research data space, which the LEARN project is identifying, and suggest that research data management in the context of open science re-defines the role of the Library in research support and the research workflow. The European open science cloud (EOSC) has the potential to put Europe at the forefront of open science developments. As a member of the high level EOSC Expert Group, the principal speaker will analyse the main drivers behind the recommendations for the development of the cloud and the future role for libraries in sustaining this revolutionary development. Citizen science is part of citizen engagement in science and research. We observe a growing interest of citizens to contribute to a better society. In conjunction with newly-available technologies, a world of opportunities opens for research institutions. The paper will map existing experiences and recommendations from research intensive organizations and we will then present a blueprint for the roles of the library in this landscape with Guidelines for best practice. The paper will conclude by analysing the challenges which open science presents. Rooted in the research workflow, the paper will identify the impact which open science is having on libraries and identify future roles that they can adopt in their institutions, both to support and also to help lead open science implementation.

Despre subiectul pe care urmează să îl abordăm s-a scris mult înliteratura de specialitate atât la nivel internațional, cât și în România. Aducemîn discuţie, o dată în plus, această temă atât de populară deoarece rolul său determinant în societatea actuală, accelerat parcă în ultimii zece ani deprogresele tehnologice dar și de cerințele crescute venite din partea mediului universitar, ne obligă să îi cercetăm amănunțit toate fațetele.

CSI-COP deliverable D2.1 is a public research report realised from the exhaustive literature review conducted for Task 2.1 by the involved partners in the research phase of the EU Horizon2020 science with and for society (SwafS) project Citizen scientists investigating cookies and app GDPR compliance (CSI-COP). With the report produced from the next T2.2 research task, deliverable D2.2 (due M06), D2.1 will lead to the development of CSI-COP project’s framework for best practices in inclusive citizen science recruitment and engagement. D2.1 focused on CSI-COP’s research questions: 1. Whether citizen scientists developed scientific skills and competences? 2. If participation acted as a motivator leading to informal and formal science education of young people and adults? 3. Whether participation countered perceived anti-intellectual attitudes in society? 4. Whether participation raised the scientific literacy of European citizens? 5. Whether participation promotes social inclusion and employability? 6. Best tools for citizen science reporting and interaction with researchers? 7. Best platform for managing citizen science’s data collection? 8. What are the existing types of platforms used by citizen scientists and their experiences with them? 9. Challenges in the management of collected data? 10. Online support - requirements and experiences of citizen scientists? Summary of findings are: A. Participation in citizen science projects provides further learning opportunities for inquiring minds, with the activities extending the learning experience. As an informal learning experience, citizen science is notable for involving many of the procedures of formal science, including gathering data, testing hypotheses, and modeling outcomes. Through engagement with professional scientists, citizen scientists gain valuable access to opportunity to learn and to generate new knowledge. B. Volunteers participate in citizen science projects for many reasons, such as a willingness and a desire to contribute to science, learn science, and for fun. Studies showed that volunteers' motivation to participate included a number of factors such as values, altruism and concern for others, understanding, social, career, ego protective, escape from negative feelings, ego enhancement, personal growth and self-esteem. CSI-COP referred to various sources of information: journal articles, webpages, official reports, books, book chapters, professional blogs, conference proceedings, doctoral theses, and other sources of reliable information. The vast majority of the sources are journal articles (just under 56%). Citizen science activity is well communicated through webpages and blogs (aggregate number of CSI- COP D2.1 source, 23.48%). Figure 1 illustrates a map of the spread of these sources. A massive concentration of citizen science activities exist in USA, Germany, UK, Australia and a few other countries. CSI-COP D2.1 full report of ‘citizen science best practices’, with detailed answers to the project’s research questions, please download from: 1. CSI-COP website ‘Project Results’ page here: https://csi-cop.eu/projects/ 2. Pure portal, Coventry University from here: https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/projects/cs- research-report-public-report-on-current-methods-in-cs-engagem

During the last two weeks of January 2021, LIBER, the Association of European Research Libraries, and Scientific Knowledge Services organised a series of five workshops on the interaction between research libraries, researchers, and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). These workshops were aimed at discussing the role of the libraries in connecting researchers to Open Science and the EOSC, and at analysing how their services developed to support researchers can be integrated into the EOSC. Thisworkshop was held on 20 January 2021, between 14:30 - 16:15 CET on Zoom. The event was the second in a series of five workshopswith the aim of answering the following questions: 1. What is the value of EOSC for researchers and research libraries, based on the goals/work of the EOSC? 2. What is the input needed from these stakeholders towards the EOSC? 3. How can these stakeholder groups be actively involved in EOSC activities and what do they need to get involved? 4. What feedback mechanism could be built to continuously inform EOSC, in its quest to remain an agile infrastructure? This 2nd workshop focused on the Eastern European landscape. The target audience were researchers and research library staff.The participation was 34 people from 31 institutes from 12 countrieswith the following distribution: Austria (1), Croatia (2), Czech Republic (2), Hungary (1), Italy (1), Lithuania (2), Netherlands (3), Poland (7), Republic of Moldova (1), Romania (8), Slovenia (4), UK (2). The gender distributionof the 34 attendees was: 22 female (65%) and 12 male (35%).

During the last two weeks of January 2021, LIBER, the Association of European Research Libraries, and Scientific Knowledge Services organised a series of five workshops on the interaction between research libraries, researchers, and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). These workshops were aimed at discussing the role of the libraries in connecting researchers to Open Science and the EOSC, and at analysing how their services developed to support researchers can be integrated into the EOSC. On the 25th of January the fourth workshop of the series was held virtually. This fourth workshop was dedicated to multidisciplinary universities. Beside presenters, moderator and organisers there were around 30 participants from a dozen of European countries, mainly north western. The workshop began with an introductory presentation from the moderator, Bertil Dorch, Library Director at the University Library of Southern Denmark, who set up the main goal of the workshop: to discuss on the Interaction Between Research Libraries, Researchers, and the EOSC. The event was organised in three parts: - The first one dedicated to listening to three panelists that presented different experiences. - The second one focused on the actual discussion in three different virtual rooms. - The third one aimed at exchanging the results of the separate discussions in a plenary room.

During the last two weeks of January 2021, LIBER, the Association of European Research Libraries, and Scientific Knowledge Services organised a series of five workshops on the interaction between research libraries, researchers, and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). These workshops were aimed at discussing the role of the libraries in connecting researchers to Open Science and the EOSC, and at analysing how their services developed to support researchers can be integrated into the EOSC. This 3rd workshop focused on universities and research organisations from Northern Europe. The target audience was research libraries and researchers. The following questions were addressed: 1) What is the value of the EOSC for researchers and research libraries, based on the goals/work of the EOSC? 2) What is the input needed from these stakeholders toward the EOSC? 3) How can these stakeholder groups become actively involved in EOSC activities and what do they need to get involved? 4) What feedback mechanism could be built to continuously inform the EOSC, in its quest to remain an agile infrastructure? Excluding the speakers and organiser staff 34 people registered to the event from 34 institutes from 16 countries with the following distribution: Sweden (9), Bulgaria (1), Germany (2), Netherlands (3), UK (3), Chile (1), Romania (5), Norway (1), France (2), Denmark (2), Ireland (1), Scotland (1), Croatia (1), Finland (1), Italy (1), Moldova (1). The gender distribution of the 34 attendees was: 12 female (63%), 6 male (32%) and 1 unknown (5% - did not provide a real person name on Zoom)., For more details, please read also: - RESEARCH LIBRARIES, RESEARCHERS & THE EOSC - Final Report - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Central-Eastern European Landscape - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Multidisciplinary Universities - RESEARCH LIBRARIES, RESEARCHERS & THE EOSC: HOW DO THEY INTERACT? Southern European Landscape - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Technical Universities

During the last two weeks of January 2021, LIBER, the Association of European Research Libraries, and Scientific Knowledge Services organised a series of five workshops on the interaction between research libraries, researchers, and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). These workshops were aimed at discussing the role of the libraries in connecting researchers to Open Science and the EOSC, and at analysing how their services developed to support researchers can be integrated into the EOSC. The workshop held on 18 January 2021 was the first in a series of five workshops with the aim of answering the following questions: 1) What is the value of EOSC for researchers and research libraries, based on the goals/work of the EOSC? 2) What is the input needed from these stakeholders toward the EOSC? 3) How can these stakeholder groups be actively involved in EOSC activities and what do they need to get involved? 4) What feedback mechanism could be built to continuously inform EOSC, in its quest to remain an agile infrastructure? This first workshop focused on the Southern European landscape. The target audience were researchers and research library staff, and the number of participants (excluding organisers, presenters, the moderator and the rapporteur) was 33 (22 female participants, 10 male participants and one participant that registered under his/her institution’s name). The participants were from 13 countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain and Turkey., For more details, please read also: - RESEARCH LIBRARIES, RESEARCHERS & THE EOSC - Final Report - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Central-Eastern European Landscape - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Multidisciplinary Universities - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Northern European Landscape - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Technical Universities

During the last two weeks of January 2021, LIBER, the Association of European Research Libraries, and Scientific Knowledge Services organised a series of five workshops on the interaction between research libraries, researchers, and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). These workshops were aimed at discussing the role of the libraries in connecting researchers to Open Science and the EOSC, and at analysing how their services developed to support researchers can be integrated into the EOSC. This project addressed the following questions: 1) What is the value of the EOSC for researchers and research libraries, based on the goals/work of the EOSC? 2) What is the input needed from these stakeholders toward the EOSC? 3) How can these stakeholder groups become actively involved in EOSC activities and what do they need to get involved? 4) What feedback mechanism could be built to continuously inform the EOSC, in its quest to remain an agile infrastructure?, For more details, please read also: - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Central-Eastern European Landscape - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Multidisciplinary Universities - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Northern European Landscape - RESEARCH LIBRARIES, RESEARCHERS & THE EOSC: HOW DO THEY INTERACT? Southern European Landscape - Research Libraries, Researchers & the EOSC: Technical Universities

During the last two weeks of January 2021, LIBER, the Association of European Research Libraries, and Scientific Knowledge Services organised a series of five workshops on the interaction between research libraries, researchers, and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). These workshops were aimed at discussing the role of the libraries in connecting researchers to Open Science and the EOSC, and at analysing how their services developed to support researchers can be integrated into the EOSC. Thisworkshop was held on 27 January 2021, between 14:30 - 16:15 CET on Zoom. The event was the fifth and last in a series of workshopswith the aim of answering the following questions: 1. What is the value of EOSC for researchers and research libraries, based on the goals/work of the EOSC? 2. What is the input needed from these stakeholders towards the EOSC? 3. How can these stakeholder groups be actively involved in EOSC activities and what do they need to get involved? 4. What feedback mechanism could be built to continuously inform EOSC, in its quest to remain an agile infrastructure? This 5th workshop focused on Technical Universities. The target audience were technical universities.The participation was 19 people from 16 institutes from 10 countrieswith the following distribution: Austria (2), Estonia (1), Italy (1), Lithuania (1), Netherlands (3), Poland (3), Romania (3), Spain (3), Sweden (1), UK (1). The gender distributionof the 19attendees was: 12 female (63%), 6 male (32%) and 1 unknown (5% - did not provide a real person name on Zoom).