Chris Hartgerink

*This is a transcript of the interview with [Monica
Granados](https://twitter.com/monsauce?ref=libscie.org) (Season 2,
Episode 7). [Listen to the podcast on
Anchor](https://anchor.fm/open-update/episodes/Interview-Monica-Granados---Organizing-the-open-movement-e1l2sil?ref=libscie.org).
The transcript is slightly edited for readability and available under a
[CC0 Public Domain
Dedication](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode?ref=libscie.org).*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** Welcome to another episode in the
second season of the Open Update. For Liberate Science. I\'m your host,
Chris Hartgerink.

As you probably know by now, in this season we interviewed 10 guests
over the course of nine weeks about the UNESCO recommendation on open
science. If you agree or disagree with something on the podcast you\'re
always invited and encouraged to [leave a voice
message](https://anchor.fm/open-update/message?ref=libscie.org) with
your thoughts for us.

Today, we talked to Monica Granados for best practices on organizing for
open and what we can do to build capacity to make meaningful change. She
is one-third of the [PREReview
initiative](https://prereview.org/?ref=libscie.org), got her PhD from
McGill university, and at one point worked on an ice breaker boat where
she got to cuddle with baby seals.

Currently she serves on the board of directors for the Canadian Open
data society and is the Open Climate Campaign manager for Creative
Commons.

Monica, welcome to the Open Update.

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** Thank you so much. Thanks for having
me here.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** Today we\'re talking about best
practices regarding organizing for open research, especially because the
whole series is in light of the UNESCO recommendation on Open Science.
We\'re talking about this to create a nice open science climate into,
in, into the future.

And to kick us off, we ask all our interviewees what a low hanging fruit
of the UNESCO recommendation on open science is. And also what you think
is going to be a particularly difficult thing to realize.

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** Thanks for that question.

In general to start, I\'m so happy that we have this piece of policy or
this document that\'s I think going to make it a lot easier particularly
working with governments. To have a document that you can point to and
say \"Look, you signed onto this. What are you going to do about it?
What are the next steps?\"

We didn\'t have that before in open science, in the open space. It
covers a lot of really important ground and to answer your question
about what I think the low-hanging fruit is, actually the first
recommendation in the document, which is to promote a common
understanding of open science, associated benefits and challenges, as
well as diverse paths to open science.

When I first started talking to people about open science, I always was
really clear to talk about open as a spectrum. It wasn\'t binary.

It wasn\'t \"it\'s either closed or your science open.\" You can take
and choose what you think you can enable, what you think is appropriate
for the context of the work that you are doing.

I think that really speaks to that open science can really exist on a
spectrum. And that there\'s so many different pathways to open. Even
though there\'s a general definition in the recommendation about what
open science is, that you can interpret it for your specific context.
And I think that\'s the low-hanging fruit, because I think in many ways,
because this community is very rich in resources and knowledge,
motivation, energy, we have a lot of the tools already at our disposal
to be able to enable open science.

It\'s just that a lot of the times we don\'t know about it as in the
scientific community, and that\'s science that includes humanities,
social science, natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, et cetera.

I know this because part of my job when I was working for the Canadian
government was to go and talk to the scientists that worked for the
Canadian government and say, \"Hey, what are the barriers that you\'re
experiencing?\" And a lot of the times they didn\'t really have a good
understanding of what open science is.

So they didn\'t know that the solutions for the type of openness that
they wanted to participate in. Let\'s take for example open access. They
really equated that with a thing that I\'m going to have to pay
thousands of dollars for. That is one path. And that\'s one path that,
has been successful in at some institutions, with people that are
signing on to, to PlanS. But it\'s not going to work for everybody. And
that includes sometimes scientists that have a constraint on their
budget.

So they may believe in the concept of open science, but think open
science is gold open access; it\'s going to cost me \$10,000 to do. So
when I told them \"but look, there\'s another way that you can
participate in this movement that you believe in.\"

That it\'s not going to cost you because the community has built this
really great infrastructure that is still supported through investments.
Because nothing is free even in the open science space. It really
changed people to believe even more in open science and not think that
it\'s only for the sort of exclusionary group or a group that can pay.

And I think that\'s, to me, the low hanging fruit: Talking about open
science as a spectrum and that there are many tools in existence right
now that are low cost options for you to participate in something that
you believe in.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** It reminds me of what Dr. Bergmann,
Christina Bergmann, shared on Twitter a few times: That open science is
like a buffet. You get to go and see and pick what you like. And you
don\'t put everything on your plate because then it gets too much, very
quickly.

I want to dig in a bit more about this information barrier that you
mentioned, because during this series, we also raised the potential of
information overload.

On the one hand, you say barriers to getting the information. On the
other hand, there\'s also people who say there\'s so much information,
we don\'t even know what to do with it anymore.

Do you think that by opening up more, we\'re actually gonna have more
difficulty also to make that information available?

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** I think it can be. And I think it can
be, if we being the open movement, aren\'t explicit about coordinating
our initiatives. So you can take, for example, there\'s a great uptake
in pre-print. In the absence of the pandemic, there was already an
uptick in the adoption of preprints across different scientific
disciplines.

But with the pandemic we saw from Bianca Kramer\'s work, just like the
number of pre-prints that were being uploaded to different archives,
biorxiv, medrxiv servers  --- your preprint servers. And as a
consequence, there was a lot of growth in infrastructure or tools around
preprints.

One of them is the work that I do at PREReview, which is doing reviews
of pre-print. Doing community reviews open to anyone much earlier in the
publication process. And what we saw when we had events around, what
could we build around preprints, we saw that there are a lot of
different communities that are doing this work, and it just feels
sometimes that every couple of months, there\'s a new initiative around
that.

I often wonder, how do we coordinate these efforts? Because we
continually in this space try to reinvent. You know, tools, hardware,
software to make it easier for a scientist to share their information.
We don\'t spend a lot of time in doing the landscape analysis to look at
\"is this really a tool that I need to develop?\"

Is this really a tool that I need funding for in order to solve a
problem? Is there someone else who\'s already working on that?

And I think that can be, if you take a step back and you\'re the
scientist, that can be overwhelming. If you\'re like \"I want to engage
in preprints. I want to engage in review of preprints. Where do I turn
to?\"

So I do think that could potentially be an issue and that\'s something
that as a community, we really need to think hard about. What are our
goals? What are our resources? And like, how can we put those things
together to create a roadmap, to get to that outcome that we want.

When you go to the cheese store and there\'s just too many cheeses,
which cheese should I try? Sometimes you just walk out of the cheese
store, empty handed because it\'s too many things to pick from.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** I really liked that you use the word
coordination. What are things that are top of mind for the work you\'re
doing now at a Creative Commons with regards to open climate? Because
that\'s that\'s a really nice coordination issue right there.
potentially.

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** I think that the success of PREReview
at its core has been community.

I say that every time I talk to somebody about a new initiative that
they\'re thinking about community, because I think a lot of times in
this space I have heard it from people building infrastructure, they say
\"build it and they will come.\"

That is simply not true. That is simply not true.

And you\'ll see there\'s a gravesite full of failed projects because at
the core community wasn\'t there. We know that in order for the project
to be successful, it\'s that we have to have people who interact with
this project in a way that they feel ownership for it, that they feel
that it\'s something that they want to be a part of that they\'ve
contributed to, but they also have other like-minded people there.

And that it\'s a safe place for them to interact. Another aspect of that
is thinking about, what do the people who are interacting with your
platform, with your tool what do they need? Going and talking to them,
doing user experience, sprints and surveys and interviews, asking
questions about \"what different innovations and tools and features do
you want to have this site so that you feel a part of this?\" That you
feel like you can find community in this space?

And so one of the innovations that we have for example, at PREreview, is
we have the ability for you to provide a review with your name or with a
pseudonym. That is because we\'ve heard from our community. There\'s a
large representation of early career researchers. Those that are often
not included in the peer review process. And they have said, \"I\'m
worried about putting my name here and reviewing a paper. And giving a
constructive, but maybe, negative review of a paper and there being
repercussions.\"

So when I\'m thinking about what we\'re going to do for this open
climate campaign at Creative Commons is, thinking about those
communities and thinking about what is our, if our ultimate goal is to
increase the openness of climate and biodiversity research, both in
terms of publications and data and software and hardware, thinking about
those specific communities. So not thinking about it as as a whole, but
going and talking to those communities, asking questions about what are
your barriers and what are the things that we can do to enable that, to
enable you to participate in the open process and open science in your
individual community.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** That leads me to the question we
have this sentence, \"build it, and they will come.\" How do you feel
about \"putting people in the room and they will organize?\"

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** I was actually having a conversation
with a colleague at Creative Commons about this, and we were lamenting
the absence of this organizing and is it just that we need to put
everybody in a room and then there\'ll be some organization?

And I actually think that might not be true based on the conversation
that we had. That is because they brought up this really great point
that the incentives are not necessarily there for us to collaborate. So
you may put everybody in the room together. Great. We come up with a
great road roadmap for how we\'re going to do that.

Then we have somebody come in and say \"okay, now all of you are going
to compete for the same amount of money to do the thing.\" I think that
there is no incentive and, or potentially even no funding for, having
that catalyst or that nucleators, that\'s going to bring people
together.

And I think maybe I would say that would work if we also threw in a
nucleator and that we funded that nucleator to be able to actually build
a roadmap that people then coalesce around.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** I\'m not a native speaker. Could you
expand a tiny bit more on nucleator?

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** So I\'m not a physicist, but it\'s my
understanding that it\'s, throwing in a particle, almost like a magnet
that it\'s going to allow other people to be attracted to that.

Thinking about it as particles in a room, they\'re just going to bounce
around each other and you need something to bring them together. With
the caveat that I am a trained ecologist and I could be explaining it
rather incorrectly.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** If we have a physicist listening
please feel free to leave us a voice message. If Monica, has it right or
has it wrong. It sounds perfectly logical to me. In that sense.

You talked about how we can get people in the room create a roadmap and
then they have to compete. So it\'s this context in of competition that
actually prevents us from being successful in that way. Those are
limiting factors.

What are some of the encouraging factors that you\'ve seen for within
your space working on these things?

Funding is a specific thing where you say, okay, that\'s been limiting,
but have there been other cases where you went \"oh wow, this has really
helped us leap forward instead of just making a step\"?

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** I\'m thinking of a couple of
different instances. One in where we\'ve had  PREreview, where we\'ve
had duties to collaborate with people on a grant. So where we identify
an issue and say PREreview has this skillset, but we don\'t have the
developer skillset. So we\'re going to bring somebody into co-write that
grant with us.

It\'s happened with the open research funders group. They also had this
great idea to reevaluate the way that we are doing grant proposals with
a much bigger emphasis on equity. And they approached PREReview and said
\"We know you have this set of skills and we\'re going to bring you in
for that.\" I like seeing that, when that does happen in that space,
what they did was went out and looked for who has that experience.

And so we\'re not the experts necessarily on on equity, but we do have
experience in running a mentorship program in a training program on
thinking about equity and bias diversity inclusion in the peer review
process. So that was our set of skills that was brought into this grant.

That has helped our group a lot when we\'ve been able to. And so joined
forces. I know, like the Power Rangers or Captain Planet, we\'ve got
with our powers combined. We  can summon captain planet.

<figure class="kg-card kg-image-card">
<img src="https://libscie.org/content/images/2022/07/captain-planet.gif"
class="kg-image" loading="lazy" width="480" height="360" />
</figure>

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** I like when that happens, as opposed
to just the reinvention of the evaluation of pre-prints in a new
platform. What we\'ve tried to do explicitly is that every time we we
see an initiative like that, come up, going and reaching out and saying,
\"Hey, we\'re doing the same thing, could we work together?\"

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** How do you see the potential for
organizing and coordinating across these movements and the sustainable
development goals? To not just have one captain planet, but have
multiple captain planets all over the planet.

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** Yeah. Yeah. Different captain planets
that are, tackling each of the sustainable developments.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** Does that fit within the lore of
captain planet? I don\'t know whether that works.

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** I think there\'s only one captain
planet, but there could be sequels. There could be a multiverse also of
captain planets that we don\'t know about. But I really like this
question because it is actually something we\'ve been thinking about at
Creative Commons.

At the onset we were drawing parallels between the open climate campaign
and what we saw with COVID-19. We said here is a huge problem that is
really threatening humanity challenging humanity and things changed at a
rate that we had never seen before when it comes to the dissemination of
the data and information around COVID-19. There was collaborations that
we had never seen before.

There was investments that we had never seen before, because we
identified that we needed to do something about this threat. And when
you turn your attention to, another great issue in the world, It is
climate change. And so why couldn\'t we apply the actions that we saw
with COVID-19 to climate change with which potentially could have even,
larger, longer impacts on the human population?

At Creative Commons, we\'re thinking about what is that role of open in
helping us tackle those challenges?We saw the role of open for COVID-19
and we\'re going to do that with climate change as well. Why can\'t we
take that model and look at other sustainable development goals? We know
that open has the power to find solutions to help us have the innovation
and to help us, unlock some of the solutions that we already, that
already exist

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** With that we come to the end of our
interview. I want to give you the space to share some of your thoughts
about the UNESCO recommendation, about organizing, coordinating --
pretty much anything you want. The floor is yours.

**[Monica Granados:]{.underline}** I just want to take the opportunity
to thank you again for having me on here.

I\'m very grateful that we have this document, the UNESCO recommendation
on open science. I think that will is there. I think the passion is
there, in this community. And I think the next thing we need to do is to
coordinate a little bit more effectively.

The recommendation can be something that can help us in that respect and
can help us, make connections in all the disciplines, institutions,
non-governmental organizations, and different types of organizations
that we need to connect with in order to make open science the default.

And so that\'s some of the work that I\'ll be the doing have the
pleasure of doing it at Creative Commons on our open climate campaign.
And you folks can keep up-to-date with what\'s going on with the
campaign, by going to
[openclimatecampaign.org](https://openclimatecampaign.org/?ref=libscie.org)
and we\'ll be doing events and talks throughout the campaign, in the
service of opening up climate change and biodiversity research.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You just listened to our original interview with Monica Granados here on
the second season of the Open Update.

You probably have a lot of thoughts swirling in your head right now. And
what is it? What came to mind? What resonated? What did you disagree
with? I would love to hear from you.

For now, have a good rest of your day. Take it easy. Don\'t stress
yourself out too much. Don\'t let the world stress you out either.
There\'s always something happening

Next week, we\'ll be back with our interview with Meng Liu and Shilaan
Alzahawi from the FORRT project, where we\'ll talk about the future of
research work and the changes already underway.

This is a transcript of the interview with Monica Granados (Season 2, Episode 7). Listen to the podcast on Anchor. The transcript is slightly edited for readability and available under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication.


 Chris Hartgerink:

Welcome to another episode in the second season of the Open Update. For Liberate Science. I'm your host, Chris Hartgerink.

Interview transcript - Monica Granados (Open Update)

This is a transcript of the interview with Tamarinde Have (Season 2, Episode 5). Listen to the podcast on Anchor. The transcript is slightly edited for readability and available under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication.


 Chris Hartgerink:

Welcome to the second season of the Open Update. For Liberate Science, I'm your host, Chris Hartgerink.

Interview transcript - Tamarinde Haven (Open Update)

*This is a transcript of the interview with Iryna Kuchma (Season 2,
Episode 3). Listen to [the podcast on
Anchor](https://anchor.fm/open-update/episodes/Interview-Iryna-Kuchma---Undesired-limits-of-open-e1jlpn9?ref=libscie.org).
The transcript is slightly edited for readability and available under a
[CC0 Public Domain
Dedication](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode?ref=libscie.org).*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Chris Hartgerink]{.underline}**[:]{.underline} Welcome to the second
season of the Open Update for Liberate Science. I\'m your host, Chris
Hartgerink. And this season, we interviewed 10 guests over nine weeks
about the UNESCO recommendation on open science. We talk about what it
means to them, their work and the future of research so that we too can
better understand what it means to us, our work and our future in
research.

What new ways of being lie in store for us in the next few years, or
maybe even decades. And there\'s a lot to agree or disagree with in this
series. And I encourage you to leave voice messages with your thoughts,
because I would love to hear from you what you think. So share them like
you would with a friend, find how in the show notes, and don\'t be shy.
Don\'t be a stranger.

We also have something to give away which we\'ll do by lottery of all
incoming voice messages during this season. Be sure to include a way to
reach you when you leave your message.

But moving on to today\'s podcast. Today, we talk to Iryna Kuchma about
the undesired boundaries of openness due to, for example, restrictions
in biblio diversity and geopolitical developments.

So let\'s get to it. Iryna brings decades of experience working on
openness, and she\'s worked on fostering the practical implementation of
open science throughout Europe. And beyond. She\'s also been part of the
call to action to increase the diversity in scholarly communication. And
she\'s currently open access manager at the electronic information for
libraries organization.

And before that she was at Creative Commons Ukraine.

So welcome Iryna to the Open Update.

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** Thanks a lot Chris. It\'s  great to be
here.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** Today, we\'re talking a bit about
the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. There\'s a lot to talk about
and specifically these undesired boundaries of knowledge and openness. I
want to start off as we do with all our interview guests: what do you
think is a low hanging fruit from this? And what do you think is going
to be a difficult thing to realize in the next few years?

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** Great question. Because I work with
universities and academic libraries, I would say introducing
institutional open science policies because there is an area of action
on developing an enabling policy environment for open science. And I
think that\'s what\'s already going on in universities and with a little
bit of effort or that could be intensified. One of the projects I\'ve
been working on now is to develop a checklist what university managers,
university administrators need to do to implement UNESCO recommendation
on open science. And I hope that checklist will be useful for them. And
then also invest in human resources training, education, digital
literacy, and capacity building for Open Science, because that\'s what
many universities are doing on already. And again with a little bit of
effort these kind of trainings could be strengthened and run on a larger
scale. So policies and capacity building, I would say.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** It\'s very interesting that you
mentioned the capacity building. I spoke to Sam Moore in one of our
interviews and he also specifically talked about capacity building. So I
see a common thread there. And for our listeners, could you maybe share
a bit about what kind of items on these checklists they could expect?

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** The checklist is based on the text of
the recommendation, but it makes it a little bit more actionable. So for
example, it says implement an open science policy, make sure that your
institutional workflows and strategies are aligned, et cetera. So it
basically cuts the text of recommendation a bit and it removes some
parts, which might not be targeting universities, but targeting
governments for example, or publishers. And it\'s really like a
checklist where they could put a check mark when it\'s done, but we
haven\'t tested it yet. We will have a meeting with university
administrators from Western central African countries later this month
\[May\] where we go in to test it and see.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** And what are your hopes for the this
test? Like, are you testing whether it\'s clear, whether people
understand it, whether people would want to enact it?

[**Iryna Kuchma:**]{.underline} Well, it\'s like a conversation starter
to me because it outlines areas of actions that universities need to
take. And it helps identify where universities are now, because perhaps
they could already check some of the boxes. And then also plan further
steps and identify priorities. That\'s about policies about research
assessment, or capacity building.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** Do I understand correctly that the
people you\'re testing this checklist with, it is for the willing? And
how do you see this happening maybe with universities that say \"ah, we
don\'t really care about this. We don\'t want to do this.\" Do you feel
like it also speaks to them or is it really more towards, as they would
often say in English preaching to the choir and giving them the tools to
do it.

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** It\'s also in a way bringing the
 willing because the UNESCO recommendation is a beautiful tool adopted
by all the governments involved in UNESCO and an international framework
on Open Science. There are also national pushes to implement those
recommendations.

So it creates a framework, it provides tools. And if there is a
community in a country that could provide support to those who might not
be willing to do this immediately or might be struggling how exactly to
do that, that\'s great. But of course I understand that there might be
some countries or areas where open science hasn\'t developed yet, and
there is no community. But I guess starting small is always good and if
we start with those who are interested and willing.

We didn\'t talk about harder things to implement, which are the national
policies. I think if  universities introduce their usual policies in an
aligned way that creates some pressure for the governments and also
shows the need to the governments that national open science policy
should be adopted. And maybe then those national open science policies
could provide a framework for unwilling institutions because
institutions would need to align with the national frameworks.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** That\'s interesting and also what I
have noticed personally is that, with the recommendation, it feels a bit
like the tide is shifting. You\'re going to have parties who are a bit
later, but I agree that these implementations at institutional and the
national level are going to be very interesting to follow.

And the work you mentioned, how would people be able to follow that?

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** The western central African meeting is
planned in collaboration with UNESCO, which was in the LIBSENSE
community, a community of practice in open science in Africa. It
includes research communication networks and librarians.

We\'ll of course make the checklist available before the meeting and
share it widely. We might also see how we promote it with UNESCO
support, because we came up with this idea of a checklist when we had a
webinar with the Open Access Publishing Association on how open access
publishers could implement the UNESCO recommendation on open science. We
thought, if you want to talk about practical steps, then why don\'t we
try some practical tools. We are about to release that checklist for
open access publishers. It seemed like a useful tool and hopefully
it\'ll also be useful to universities.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** In the UNESCO recommendation, they
also outline that there can be specific reasons why access to knowledge
can be restricted. They argue about national security, intellectual
property rights and a few others. And I wanted to ask you whether any of
these from your perspective are open to being overused and creating
undesired boundaries on knowledge, on openness?

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** Thanks for that question. Very important
one.

I fully understand why open-access can\'t be provided to content that is
private or when we need to respect human subjects under certain
circumstances, or when there is personal information in that content, or
when we talk about sacred and secret indigenous knowledge or rare
threatened or endangered or specious.

But when we talk about intellectual property rights that\'s a very large
reason to close up knowledge. Of course I\'m not advocating for
infringing intellectual property rights, but I\'m pointing out that
there should be really right balance between publishing and making these
available.

Especially when we talk about publications, not data, because data is
slightly different. And then applying for patents sometimes there\'s a
too strong push to protect and patent discoveries. One example is the
government of Zimbabwe that in May last year launched an initiative that
encourages state universities to deliver outstanding innovations and
then they were promised lucrative rewards from the government within
their education 50 initiative.

In the end or Zimbabwe universities filed 140 patents. I think that\'s a
huge amount of patents. I don\'t know whether all of them were of high
quality. So I think conversations about respecting and intellectual
property rights and still going for as much openness as possible are
really useful and helpful to university managements, knowledge transfer
offices. I think they\'re a little bit lost. Of course in Europe they
have better guidance, but in Africa there is still this confusion.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** I hear the point that you\'re making
that these can be legitimate reasons and we need to need to be careful
to balance those with legitimate interests. There\'s also the risk of
illegitimate interests in that sense, potentially.

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** Yeah, and then there\'s of course
cost-benefit analysis, how much time and effort and money you would
spend for patenting and how much money you would be able to make out of
that.

Maybe it\'s even economically more favorable to on an open route, and
build on collaborations.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** If people were so rational, indeed.
I really like also that you make this comparison with the legitimate,
like the sacred knowledge, for instance, these more difficult areas that
can be open to abuse, like intellectual property.

Being conscious of our time together, I do want to be sure that our
listeners get all the expertise from you, in that short time span. I
wanted to jump to the topic of, bibliodiversity and the recommendation.
Could you explain a bit to our listeners what this is, why it is
important, but also what your outlook is for that.

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** Well, I\'m optimistic and n the
recommendation it\'s under the diversity and inclusiveness principle.
Bibliodiversity is a term that was widely used in Latin America and then
there was a call in France which encouraged diversity of publication
formats, diversity of business models, with of course an emphasis on
not-for-profit community driven publishing models.

The UNESCO recommendation also encourages multi-lingualism. I think
that\'s an important area because non-English language speaking
researchers are really disadvantaged when they need to publish their
research. And when they are rewarded and promoted based on research
published in international journals, which are mostly in English
language.

It would be great if this Helsinki initiative on multilingualism in
scholarly communication, when high-quality research is really valued
regardless of the publishing language or publication channel. We sort of
see that picked up in Paris open science, European conference earlier
this year. And the Paris school on research assessment. That\'s one of
the reasons I\'m optimistic about Europe. There are also very
interesting developments in Latin America. How research in  Spanish
published in local journals could be promoted, rewarded.

We\'re also trying to have conversations south, south conversations
between Africa and Latin America, to change research assessment.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** When you talk about biblical
diversity multilingualism, it really focuses on meeting people where
they\'re at. And in a previous podcast, you also said that this openness
enables a global conversation.

How have you seen the discussions regarding the effects of the invasion
of Ukraine? On the research there on how openness is perceived amongst
your colleagues and also vice versa with the excluding of researchers
from Russia, out of the conversation more and more?

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** In Ukraine, I\'m a part of the working
group that developed a national action plan on open science. We
announced a public consultation right before the war started.
Surprisingly consultations went on and we received very useful feedback
from researchers. Now this section plan is slightly revised. It\'s still
on the governmental agenda. So open science is still a priority and in
Ukraine it is also part of open government movement.  

On the point of excluding Russian researchers:  it\'s really appalling
that the rectors of Russian universities issued that ridiculous letter.
And I was comparing that with a similar situation in Sudan where we also
work.

When the  Sudan military coupe happened, university rectors were brave
enough to issue a letter condemning the coupe. When I see academics
playing along  completely false interpretation of events, I can\'t
really consider them colleagues in the scientific sense because I don\'t
see any critical reasoning.

I guess it\'s all about sanctions and that\'s the whole idea behind the
sanctions -- if someone misbehaves those people should understand that
they misbehaved. The way to show them that they misbehaved is to
introduce those sanctions. Of course, there are different nuanced
circumstances, but the reality is such that I don\'t think there is a
room for nuances in cases like that.

And then of course, I think everyone is happy to, I don\'t know --
hopefully happy to resume them when this war is over. But until this war
is gone I don\'t think we could be doing business as usual and saying
that \"science is outside politics\" because everything is political
really.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** Are there any final thoughts you
want to leave our listeners with regarding the UNESCO recommendation on
open science and anything else that we\'ve discussed today?

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** What I really like in the UNESCO
recommendation is inclusion of other types of knowledge, and
non-traditional, non scientists. Those who were traditionally
marginalized from scientific discussions and I think that\'s one of the
current challenges that I would like to address. How citizens and
community science could be really included scientific practices; how
nonscientists could be rewarded for contributing to scientific
discoveries. Because I think these boundaries between scientists and
non-scientists with Zooniverse and other projects are really growing.

We have to create a space where everyone is rewarded for the
contributions they make to scientific discoveries, and everyone really
includes local communities. Non-research, researchers, as well as
supporting research processes. I think that\'s an interesting challenge
for the coming years.

**[Chris Hartgerink:]{.underline}** Iryna, your perspectives probably
will have resonated with listeners. I thank you very much for joining
the Open Update and I look forward to following your work and the topics
that we\'ve discussed today, but also other areas where you\'re active.
So thank you again.

**[Iryna Kuchma:]{.underline}** It was a great pleasure. Thanks a lot.
We\'ll keep talking in wider circles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You just listened to another episode in the second season of the Open
Update with an original interview with Iryna Kuchma. We would love to
hear from you because it\'s not just a podcast where you listen to us,
but it\'s also a podcast where we try to listen to you.

[Leave us a voice
message](https://anchor.fm/open-update/message?ref=libscie.org). You
don\'t need to log in, you don\'t need to create an account. Plus,
you\'ll take part in our lottery for a small token of appreciation for
listening, which we\'ll detail in episode four next week, but for now,
have a good rest of your day. Take it easy.

Next week we\'ll be back with our interview with James Bridle. We will
talk about how openness can create information overload and how to
counteract it.


This is a transcript of the interview with Iryna Kuchma (Season 2, Episode 3). Listen to the podcast on Anchor. The transcript is slightly edited for readability and available under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication.


 Chris Hartgerink

: Welcome to the second season of the Open Update for Liberate Science. I'm your host, Chris Hartgerink.

Interview Iryna Kuchma (Open Update)

This is a transcript of the interview with Samuel Moore (Season 2, Episode 2). Listen to the podcast here. The transcript is slightly edited for readability and available under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication.


 Chris Hartgerink:

Welcome to the second season of the Open Update! For Liberate Science—I'm your host Chris Hartgerink.

Interview transcript - Samuel Moore (Open Update)

This is a transcript of the interview with Brian Nosek (Season 2, Episode 1). Listen to the podcast here. The transcript is slightly edited for readability and available under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication.


 Chris Hartgerink:

Welcome to the second season of the Open Update. For Liberate Science - I'm your host, Chris Hartgerink.

Interview transcript - Brian Nosek (Open Update)

Liberate Science

The Open Update is Liberate Science\'s podcast series. Currently in
it\'s third season, it has evolved from a weekly digest, to an interview
series, to a conversational podcast.

::: {.iframe}
::: {#app .app}
[Skip to main content](#app-content){.sc-CCtys .hlfuAH}

::: {.sc-iVDsrp .kmglZA}
::: {#app-content .styles__appChildrenContainer___[chunkhash-base64-5] role="main"}
::: {.sc-dLKNRh .hycgaL}
::: {.sc-jzrYaW .jqwQsI}
<div>

![Currently playing
episode](https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/production/podcast_uploaded_nologo400/11913372/11913372-1610538872876-9d9b06478978c.jpg){.sc-gSpvol
.iwvxhB}

</div>

::: {.sc-bqhXac .guYNKE}
::: {.sc-fGTIWD .fdnFee}
::: {.sc-edHxqe .cebtJV grid="logo"}
[[![](){.Svg-sc-ytk21e-0
.iYxpxA}]{.IconWrapper__Wrapper-sc-16usrgb-0 .hYdsxw
aria-hidden="true"}](https://anchor.fm/open-update){.Button-sc-1dqy6lx-0
.eDodKk target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
encore-id="buttonTertiary"}
:::

::: {.sc-edHxqe .JGYIe grid="title"}
## {#section .Type__TypeElement-sc-goli3j-0 .bnCeva cy="episodePlayerTitle" encore-id="type"}

::: {style="overflow:hidden"}
<div>

Burden of open research (s03e17)

</div>
:::
:::

::: {.sc-edHxqe .bxRLzv grid="byline"}
### Open Update[[By Liberate Science GmbH](https://anchor.fm/open-update/episodes/Burden-of-open-research-s03e17-e2auftu){.Link-sc-k8gsk-0 .inGDgZ target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" encore-id="textLink"}]{.sc-devZev .dOtZwb}[Oct 24, 2023]{.sc-devZev .dOtZwb} {#open-updateby-liberate-science-gmbhoct-24-2023 .Type__TypeElement-sc-goli3j-0 .bDgPev encore-id="type"}
:::

::: {.sc-edHxqe .eVXBhm grid="play"}
[[![](){.Svg-sc-ytk21e-0
.kPpCsU}]{.IconWrapper__Wrapper-sc-1hf1hjl-0 .bMBuKn
aria-hidden="true"}]{.ButtonInner-sc-14ud5tc-0 .GBxjH
.encore-bright-accent-set}[]{.ButtonFocus-sc-2hq6ey-0 .dfidPq}
:::

::: {.sc-edHxqe .kFtVpV grid="support"}
:::

::: {.sc-edHxqe .kSIuoX grid="share"}
[![](){.Svg-sc-ytk21e-0
.iYxpxA}]{.IconWrapper__Wrapper-sc-16usrgb-0 .jEDcnm
aria-hidden="true"}Share
:::

::: {.sc-edHxqe .jeOwyk grid="ellapsed"}
[00:00]{.Type__TypeElement-sc-goli3j-0 .fcYQUS encore-id="type"}
:::

::: {.sc-edHxqe .ivzVqE grid="duration"}
[23:45]{.Type__TypeElement-sc-goli3j-0 .fcYQUS encore-id="type"}
:::
:::

![]()
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::

## Season 1 (January 2021-April 2022)

52 weekly episodes digesting the open science news. In this inaugural
season, we learned more about podcast production and initiated our
audience.

During this season we exceeded 2,000 listens, a great start to our
podcasting journey!

## Season 2 (May 2022-July 2022)

Our first interview season, instigated by the UNESCO Recommendation on
Open Science. We interviewed ten guests over nine episodes:

- Prof. dr. Brian Nosek
- Dr. Samuel Moore
- Iryna Kuchma
- James Bridle
- Dr. Tamarinde Haven
- Dr. Wendy Ingram
- Dr. Monica Granados
- Meng Liu and Shilaan Alzahawi (from the FORRT Project)
- Kaitlin Thaney

## Season 3 (February 2023 - Present) {#season-3-february-2023present}

In season 3, [Dr. Sarahanne
Field](https://libscie.org/open-update-season-3/) and Chris Hartgerink
discuss how power dynamics play into the evolving landscape of open
research.

The Open Update is Liberate Science's podcast series. Currently in it's third season, it has evolved from a weekly digest, to an interview series, to a conversational podcast.

Postagens de Rogue Scholar

Interview transcript - Monica Granados (Open Update)

Interview transcript - Tamarinde Haven (Open Update)

Interview Iryna Kuchma (Open Update)

Interview transcript - Samuel Moore (Open Update)

Interview transcript - Brian Nosek (Open Update)

Open Update