If it had been up to Elco van Burg, Professor of Organisational Theory at the School of Business and Economics, and Jacco Ossenbruggen, Professor of Human-Centric Data Science, Open Science would already have been further incorporated as a criterion for career development in VU Amsterdam’s new Recognition & Rewards policy. Van Burg: ‘It’s included as a general topic, but we were just too late to specify it in more detail.’ Ossenbruggen: ‘Hopefully in five years’ time!’
Nevertheless, they are very pleased with the Open Science Guidelines drawn up by their inter-faculty working group, which clearly set out areas for development in Open Science for both individual researchers and managerial staff. Ossenbruggen: ‘You can simply copy and paste the bullet points straight into job profiles and vacancies. With this approach, Open Science is a lot less of a vague concept.’
Common ground
The document is the result of a series of discussions held by the nine members of the working group over the past year, as they sought common ground to better recognise and reward Open Science. ‘It was great to see from one another the different solutions that exist for the same problem,’ says Ossenbruggen. Van Burg: ‘Everyone looked around their own faculty to see what was already happening, which led to some interesting discussions. These ranged from procedures drawn up by the Social Sciences to the question of whether you can include an Open Science chapter in your thesis – which, as it turns out, is permitted. This is already happening at the Faculty of Science. That’s how you learn from one another.’
Ossenbruggen: ‘I was surprised by how much the themes overlapped; there’s widespread interest in Open Science. For example, discussions I’ve had in the past with people in the humanities on this subject could sometimes be rather difficult. As soon as I used the word “methodology”, they’d think I was a daft scientist who didn’t understand what they were doing. Those days are over. There’s a PhD student in history who’s trying to make all attributions of paintings reproducible.’
In this example, Ossenbruggen is referring to a transparent and reproducible method for assessing which artist created a work, based on clear criteria and an understanding of how these are applied. This includes being open about any uncertainties and explaining how another researcher might use the same data to reach a different conclusion. ‘There is a real need for Open Science in the context of fair data and making R scripts reproducible. That used to be something that only happened in our department, but now it’s happening everywhere.’
Two roles: Role Model and Facilitator
In the Open Science Guidelines, development criteria have been formulated for the new career paths in education, research and impact across three Open Science themes, which are discussed during reflection and assessment interviews. These are open methodology, citizen science and educational resources. The backbone of the Guide rests on two pillars, linked to two roles: the Role Model and the Facilitator. A role model strives to take a pioneering role in the field of Open Science at VU Amsterdam within their own practice, whilst the facilitator involves team members in Open Science processes. Van Burg: ‘Ultimately, you have a set of eight times three areas for development per role. We don’t expect everyone to tackle everything, but we do expect you to use these points as inspiration.
Some faculties are already well advanced, so there isn’t much room for development there; for others, however, there is still a great deal that can be done. Ultimately, it’s something you need to discuss with your line manager. Recognition and appreciation for your efforts are reflected in your profile. Citizen science, for example, could be your chosen focus area for impact.’
‘It’s not just a bureaucratic hurdle,’ emphasises Ossenbruggen, illustrating this with an experience from his own practice. ‘If a PhD student has successfully published an article, but the software isn’t quite up to scratch according to Open Science principles, as a supervisor you have to have the courage to say: let’s pause here for a moment. First, we’ll make sure all the software is in order and the data is available; only then will we move on to the next article. In practice, that’s often difficult. The thesis has to be finished; the next article has to be finished. You need to realise together that Open Science is also in the interests of your career. It’s not just the supervisor who considers it important. It’s valued throughout the entire academic culture, and that will also help your career.’
What was your approach to highlighting a topic like Open Science in such a way that fellow researchers would be keen to get started with it?
A smile spreads across both their faces: ‘That’s a good question!’
Jacco Ossenbruggen: ‘I think it varies from faculty to faculty and from department to department. Some people are already very keen to work according to Open Science principles because they consider it important. Perhaps they still feel they aren’t sufficiently appreciated. They can work out for themselves how to make its importance clear to their managers. At the same time, there are still groups where the whole idea behind Open Science needs more attention. Where more awareness and training are needed. Why it’s important not just to VU Amsterdam, but to the scientific community as a whole.’
Van Burg: ‘I do think there is still plenty of discussion to be had at team and individual level. About whether you’re given enough time for it, or whether the possibilities are being taken into account. The Recognition & Rewards programme has produced an outstanding policy. If work processes aren’t linked to that, it can be perceived as a straitjacket. I think our guidelines set out in a clear and accessible way how you can get started with the Open Science component and receive support for it.’
We need people who are already working on this and who might be willing to go the extra mile to make progress. Don’t forget: many people are already doing a great deal. We have omitted a large proportion of the basic agreements from the guidelines because they are self-evident. In the past, we have had many discussions about open publishing, and we have really come a long way with that. Perhaps as far as 99 per cent.’
Not legally demanding
The Guidelines focus primarily on methodology, opening up and using data, and the opportunities within education. Education, for example, is sensitive to intellectual property; even if you want to share as much as you can in terms of materials, you can’t simply give away everything. ‘And you want to prevent companies from running off with it. We’ve tried to touch on those kinds of issues in the development section, so that you don’t go into it completely naively. But it’s not overly complicated either, with 3,000 steps and a decision tree. It needs to remain stimulating and inspiring, not a legally complex document,’ emphasises Van Burg.
In Ossenbruggen’s experience, it took ‘a while’ before policymakers realised that open data and methodology are a different ball game from open publishing. Emphasising that he regards this realisation as a very positive development, he explains: ‘You want people to have the time, infrastructure and skills to do it. That’s not just a financial or political issue; it’s also a question of whether people have the expertise and whether there is support for it. If you decide to make your work publicly available, it takes effort and money.’
What personally drives you to promote Open Science working practices?
Ossenbruggen: ‘I find it incredibly interesting to explore Open Science in the context of closed data. A lot of research isn’t conducted because the data isn’t available. During the Covid pandemic, we had all sorts of questions about which measures did and did not work. That research was not conducted because the data structure was not available. It motivates me enormously to ensure that an infrastructure is in place that will enable us to perform reliable research using confidential and sensitive data in the future.’
Van Burg: ‘For me, there’s a rather fundamental point: science is at the service of society. This can be achieved through various channels: education and research, and our products. Our activities must be as closely linked as possible to the public purpose we are pursuing. At the same time, it’s also about the reputation of science. Is everything produced here conducted properly? I believe transparency is one of the ways to show how we work and that we have nothing to hide. These two elements mean that, for me, Open Science isn’t a matter for debate but a way of working. We’re looking at how far we can take it and how we can get everyone on board.’