Together for Open Science

In conversation with Dr Anna Maria Hoefler about the ZBW’s Open Science Retreat

Open and comprehensible science is an ideal that can only be worked towards through collaborative efforts. This means scientists together with science communicators, data stewards, librarians, publishers, editors and science policy stakeholders. For this reason, the ZBW launched the international Open Science Retreat in 2021.

Since the first kick-off retreat, the ZBW has now organised seven networking forums. The eighth retreat is already planned for March 2025 and will focus on the topic of “Artificial Intelligence and Open Science”.

The Open Science Retreat is an intensive, two-day format focussing on exchange, which is limited to 30 participants and enjoys great popularity. One of the driving forces behind the retreat is Dr Anna Maria Hoefler, Coordinator for Science Policy Activities at the ZBW, who we are delighted to welcome to Open Science magazine today.

What was the original motivation for initiating the Open Science Retreat and what goals is the ZBW pursuing with this format?

AMH: As we know, Open Science encompasses different dimensions and the implementation of open practices can be quite complex. It is also necessary to involve various interest groups when it comes to developing framework conditions and implementation paths for more openness. This gave rise to the idea of creating a format that makes this possible.

How are the topics for the various sessions of the Open Science Retreat selected, and what role does the Open Science community play in this?

AMH: We decided on the topics for the first retreats internally at the ZBW. We derived the topics that seemed particularly relevant from our respective areas of work in the open science context. Because it was and is very important to us to orientate ourselves towards the needs and interests of the participants, we then surveyed the retreat community. The results of this survey were used to prioritise the subsequent retreat topics. The event in March 2025 with the topic “Artificial Intelligence and Open Science” is the first in a long time that has not resulted from the survey, but simply from the fact that the topic was a natural choice.

What significance does international networking have for the promotion of Open Science, and how does the retreat contribute to this in concrete terms?

AMH: The international focus of the retreats gives the topics a completely different depth. Two aspects are worth mentioning here: Firstly, the internationality of the participants was important to us from the outset in order to learn how certain topics are addressed and handled in different countries. Secondly, each topic is introduced at the retreat by several short keynote speeches by experts who present approaches and solutions from the perspective of their respective interest group. These keynote speeches are a great input for the intensive discussions that follow.

The topics of the previous retreats are diverse. Which key topics have emerged as particularly relevant from the discussions?

AMH: My impression is that the topics, i.e. the different open science dimensions, cannot be considered independently of each other and that activities or adjustments to the framework conditions are needed in many areas of the science system. Just as an example: We recently had an Open Science retreat on the topic of “Reproducible Research and Open Science”. For it to become “normal” for research to be reproducible or replicable, we need (1) the necessary skills, i.e. how do I as a scientist have to prepare my research results; (2) processes for organising reproducibility checks and awarding corresponding “certificates”; (3) incentives for researchers and specific guidelines from research funders and publishers. However, the evaluation system in science must also reflect this. In addition, a corresponding “critical mass” of scientists who are committed to reproducibility is probably also needed.

How do you assess the role of the private sector in the context of Open Science, and what challenges and opportunities do you see in collaboration with commercial players?

AMH: That’s an exciting question – in the truest sense of the word! We’ve had two retreats in the past that dealt with this. One on the role of the private sector in Open Science in general and one specifically with the rather provocative title “The agility of commercial infrastructures versus the sluggishness of institutional infrastructures”. In my experience, the following topics keep coming up in this context: (1) sustainability, i.e. long-term funding beyond a project-based initiative, (2) the approach, i.e. community approach vs. business model approach and (3) data and technology sovereignty.

What are the most important findings from the retreats so far, particularly with regard to the topics of “crisis management” and “research assessment reform”?

AMH: I think that the most important thing is to move from discussion to action and to work towards changing the framework conditions or to contribute to the development of competences and skills or concrete solutions. With regard to the reform of research assessment, for example, there are specific initiatives such as CoARA, the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. In this context, I found it very positive that the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, the Signatories and the CoARA Working Groups have triggered movement at many levels in the science system, including outside CoARA. As one participant at our last retreat put it: “…for change to happen things need to happen at scale”.

What strategies does the Open Science Retreat pursue to promote broad international participation and a constructive exchange between different stakeholders?

AMH: We now have several years of experience with this event format. Over the years, the following elements have proven to be very effective: Firstly, the selection process: Participation in the retreat is preceded by a selection process, i.e. people apply with a brief motivation as to why they want to take part in the retreat on the respective topic and what they would like to contribute to the discussion. Secondly, diversity: we select the participants on the basis of the applications and take care to include people from different continents, countries and interest groups. In addition, keynote speeches have proved very successful: The short keynote speeches at the beginning of the first day of the retreat – usually three speeches of 10-15 minutes each – have proven to be a very valuable introduction to the respective topic. The quality of the discussions benefits greatly from this. And speaking of discussion: Finally, the intensive discussion in alternating small groups based on suggested key questions is of great importance. If, as at the last retreat, all three speakers also take part in the in-depth discussions on the second day of the retreat, the added value is at its greatest.

How has the retreat developed since the first kick-off in October 2021, and what are the plans for the future?

AMH: The format has been concretised and consolidated over the years in terms of the process and the individual elements of the Open Science Retreat. I think we can hold on to that. And the event has actually become established – there are always significantly more applications than people we can actually accommodate. However, we deliberately want to keep the format small in order to give participants the opportunity to actively participate. What I would like to consider together with the organisation team is how we can identify and select future topics with the community at short notice. Thank you very much for the interview!

The interview was conducted on 23 September 2024 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.

to Open Science Magazine