This is a conference series for conferences held by the UiT The Arctic University of Norway. The proceedings are not peer reviewed.
Changing the Record: How Author Contribution Statements Shift from Preprint to Publication
Author contribution statements (ACS) are increasingly adopted across disciplines to promote transparency in scholarly publishing, particularly with the growing use of the CRediT taxonomy (National Information Standards Organization, 2022). These statements clarify the specific roles of each author in a research project, offering a more granular view of credit than authorship order alone. However, little is known about the stability or evolution of these statements across the research lifecycle. While prior research has investigated how manuscripts evolve from preprint to publication (e.g., Klein et al., 2019), the stability of author contribution statements across these stages remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, this poster presents the design of an exploratory meta-research study investigating how contribution statements change between the preprint and peer-reviewed publication stages. Using a paired sample of articles drawn from preprint repositories and their corresponding journal publications, we will examine the frequency and nature of changes in ACS during editorial and peer review processes. Statements will be automatically extracted using ContriBOT, a tool developed for identifying and parsing contributorship metadata from scientific texts (Nachev & Akram, 2025). We will analyze differences in the structure and content of ACS, tracking which roles are added, removed, or reformulated in the transition to publication. We anticipate that peer-reviewed versions may prompt the adoption of more structured or CRediT-compliant language, and that certain roles, such as “Funding acquisition,” may be added more frequently at this stage, reflecting evolving credit dynamics. The poster will outline the study framework, methodological approach, and planned analyses. We will also reflect on the broader implications for transparency, equitable credit attribution, and the integrity of the scholarly record. In a time of increasing scrutiny on scientific rigor, this work aims to better understand how the documentation of contributions evolves across stages of scholarly communication.
Copyright (c) 2025 Ewa Zegler-Poleska https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Systemic Research on Open Science in Europe: Insights from the SCIROS Network
The SCIROS project (Strategic Collaboration for Interdisciplinary Research on Open Science) is a direct response to pressing needs expressed by the humanities and social sciences (SSH) community, identified through surveys and interviews conducted within projects of OPERAS, European research infrastructure supporting scholarly communication in SSH (e.g., in OPERAS-P, OPERAS-PL, DIAMAS, PALOMERA). These investigations revealed a significant empirical gap in the discourse on Open Science (OS), limiting robust arguments for its usefulness and impact. SCIROS aims to fill this gap by creating an international research network to systematically study OS in SSH, fostering durable cooperation through researcher exchanges, joint publications, and international and local events. Research is structured around three pillars: Theory of Open Science (TOS): Analyses the epistemological and ethical foundations of OS in SSH. It addresses questions about the institutional and normative assumptions shaping OS advocacy, and how these influence academic freedom and knowledge production. Methods include interdisciplinary conceptual analysis and critical reflection. Practice of Open Science (POS): Explores how OS principles are enacted in SSH, with a focus on open peer review, multilingual publishing, and research assessment reform. It examines challenges and opportunities in applying FAIR and CARE principles in SSH contexts, using case studies, co-writing sprints, and stakeholder interviews. Infrastructure of Open Science (IOS): Investigates the sustainability, governance, and user engagement strategies of Open Research Infrastructures (ORIs). Drawing on recent research (Fecher et al., 2021; Mounier & Dumas Primbault, 2023), IOS conducts surveys to assess Customer & User Engagement (CUE) practices, aiming to repair gaps in research infrastructures and enhance their competitiveness and long-term sustainability. This poster presents the joint research network we are building across seven European countries – Poland, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, France, Finland and Germany, as part of the SCIROS project. It showcases our collaborative efforts to study Open Science through interdisciplinary research, researcher exchanges, and shared activities. Together, we aim to address key challenges and advance sustainable, transparent, and interconnected research infrastructures.
Copyright (c) 2025 Maciej Maryl, Gabriela Manista, Marta Świetlik, Mateusz Franczak, Tomasz Umerle, Magdalena Wnuk, Cezary Rosiński, Piotr Wciślik https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Solving the “file drawer problem”: How researchers, institutions, publishers and funders can reduce publication bias
In 1979, psychologist Robert Rosenthal proposed that “journals are filled with the 5% of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers are filled with the 95% of the studies that show nonsignificant results” (1). Despite being identified 45 years ago, the “file drawer problem” persists today. Failure to publish null and negative results has inflated reported efficacy in social sciences as well as translational and clinical medicine. This, in turn, leads to misleading or exaggerated effect sizes in meta-analyses, as well as a risk that future studies will be underpowered or based on irrelevant or insignificant findings. Why are researchers relegating their null and negative results to the file drawer? Investigators might be reluctant to submit work they think has a higher chance of being rejected. There is evidence from clinical medicine that reviewers are indeed more critical of manuscripts that report null results. Funding agencies and commercial interests can introduce bias into the types of research questions that are investigated and how these results are framed. Finally, the “publish or perish” culture endemic in academia has also been blamed for driving the preference for reporting positive or confirmatory results. Given the risk that publication bias poses to the advancement of knowledge, as well as the entrenched behaviours that drive it, what roles and responsibilities do researchers, institutions, funders and publishers have in addressing this problem? This workshop will bring experts from these fields together with participants to develop actionable recommendations for improving the dissemination of null and negative results and reducing publication bias. It aims to raise awareness of the persistent “file drawer problem” and its impact on scientific advancement, while exploring the roles and responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders and publishers in addressing publication bias. Workshop structure: The workshop will begin with short presentations from various stakeholders—researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers—on their perspectives and initiatives addressing publication bias against null and negative results. Participants will then engage in role-playing exercises, collaborative strategy development, and group presentations, culminating in a synthesis session to identify shared challenges. The workshop will conclude with a focus on actionable next steps that participants can implement in their professional contexts. Target Audience: This workshop is designed for anyone committed to improving the dissemination of null and negative results. We hope that attendees from the stakeholder groups mentioned above will participate.
Copyright (c) 2025 Agata Morka, Stephanie Jurburg, Rebecca Kirk, Jan-Ole Hesselberg https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Who Edits Reality? The Politics and Pragmatics of Scholarly Infrastructure
(Watch the RECORDING.) This paper argues that digital scholarly infrastructures, such as bibliographic databases and text corpora, are not neutral representations of reality but constructed models shaped by pragmatic, methodological choices. This is particularly critical in the "closing world" of proprietary platforms like Scopus and Web of Science, which present biased commercial products as objective scholarly tools. Through a critical discussion, this paper unpacks how unexamined decisions regarding operationalisation, standardisation, representativeness, and balance can distort our understanding of a scholarly field. In contrast, the paper highlights collaborative, open data ecosystems that leverage standardisation and interoperability. Ultimately, we argue that fostering a multiplicity of open, auditable models is essential to challenge the monolithic power of commercial actors, democratize research, and achieve genuine data sovereignty.
Copyright (c) 2025 Maciej Maryl https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The little smart squirrel or the push for artificial intelligence in Lithuanian book publishing
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used in the global publishing industry for tasks ranging from editing and translation to metadata generation and marketing. However, the adoption of such tools is uneven across regions, particularly in small-language markets like Lithuania, where legal uncertainty and cultural attitudes shape implementation strategies. Aim and Research Question: This study aims to investigate how Lithuanian book publishers perceive and evaluate the use of AI tools, especially in relation to copyright, authorship, and legal–ethical considerations. The central research question is: What are publishers’ attitudes toward their application in content creation? Methods: The research employs a qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with nine Lithuanian publishers from various sectors (fiction, nonfiction, academic, children’s). Thematic analysis followed Naeem et al.’s (2023) six-step framework, supported by abductive reasoning and anchored in Winston’s Innovation Diffusion Model. Key Findings: Five interconnected conceptual themes were identified: (1) Operational Advantage – AI is valued as a time-saving, supportive tool; (2) Regulatory Ambiguity – legal uncertainty suppresses broader adoption; (3) Authenticity Risk Perception – fear that AI compromises creative and literary quality; (4) Cultural Trust Deficit – scepticism from staff, authors, and readers; (5) Responsible Diffusion Pathways – publishers call for phased implementation, disclosure norms, and clear internal policies.
Copyright (c) 2025 Vincas Grigas, Arūnas Gudinavičius https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The positivity trap: is a bias against null results in research literature holding back science?
(Watch the RECORDING.) In this presentation, we will discuss the findings of one of the largest global surveys of the perceptions, experiences and behaviours regarding the sharing of null results, which was recently carried out by Springer Nature. 1 Null results (also known as negative results or inconclusive findings) are an important part of scientific literature, preventing the duplication of unnecessary research and increasing transparency and reproducibility in research. Nevertheless, there can be a perception of obstacles to publishing null results, through bias towards sharing or publishing research that does not present a positive outcome or lack of clarity around where and how they can be published. These factors and others may play a part in the reported decline of null results being published.2 This presentation will cover the benefits to research from wider sharing of null results and the current state of null result publishing before presenting the survey’s findings including perceptions of null results across disciplines and their impact on research and career progression. We will also look at what steps can be taken to increase this overlooked area of research dissemination by various involved stakeholders, including researchers, funders and publishers.
Copyright (c) 2025 Samuel Winthrop https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
CARE & FAIR: Opposing or Aligning Concerns?
(Watch the RECORDING.) The CARE principles aim to empower Indigenous peoples by promoting their active participation in the governance of Indigenous data, ensuring Indigenous responsibility, and aligning the purpose of data governance with their values and priorities. In contrast, the FAIR principles, widely adopted across various disciplines, provide a framework to enhance data stewardship and facilitate data sharing. This paper seeks to advance the ongoing discussion on the governance of stories collected by the Norwegian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Broderstad & Josefsen 2024). In our previous work, we applied the CARE framework to explore research ethics and the future governance of the Norwegian TRC material. The collected TRC interviews raise critical questions about ownership, access, and governance of the data. Building on this foundation, we now aim to explore how the TRC interview material can serve as a valuable resource for research while simultaneously ensuring Indigenous participation in its governance and promoting Indigenous responsibility for the collected data. By integrating the CARE and FAIR principles, we argue that safeguarding Sámi agency in the reuse of this material is essential. Such an approach would help prevent the data from being detached from the interpretive context in which it was originally collected, ensuring that its use remains ethically grounded and culturally appropriate.
Copyright (c) 2025 Else Grete Broderstad https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
URGE: The easiest way to create a great ReadMe file for your dataset
(Watch the RECORDING.) “Reproducibility is the cornerstone of science” [1] – and FAIR is a cornerstone in reproducibility, we might add. The aim of FAIR research data and research data management is maximizing the reuse of data [2]. Achieving this goal hinges on the clear and detailed documentation of both the data and its metadata to ensure datasets are easily understandable and reusable by researchers and end-users alike. It also requires an open scientific infrastructure, available for the global research community [3]. A ReadMe plays a key role in this process by providing essential context and instructions for users. This becomes even more important since many archival platforms have limited space for detailed metadata and documentation. Despite its significance, creating a ReadMe remains a challenge for researchers uploading datasets, research data curators and certainly for end-users attempting to interpret them. This difficulty stems from the reliance on traditional text-based ReadMe templates, which typically include structured questions with guidance provided in parentheses. Researchers must manually fill in the relevant fields, remove unnecessary text and help instructions, and format the file into a user-friendly document. Consequently, fully describing and curating a ReadMe file demands significant time and effort. Moreover, traditional ReadMe files are designed solely for human readability, making them unsuitable for big data applications and AI technologies. These limitations highlight the URGEnt need for improved tools and approaches to streamline the ReadMe file creation process. To tackle these challenges, we developed URGE (Universal Readme GEnerator), an innovative tool that not only overcomes the shortcomings of traditional templates but also redefines the process of creating ReadMe. Designed with user-friendliness in mind, URGE enables the production of detailed, comprehensive ReadMe files that adhere to FAIR principles. It saves time by automatically importing most dataset information from sources such as draft datasets from Dataverse, USN Research Data Archive, Sikt DMP, or previously stored ReadMe files. Users can then supplement this data with additional details using customized text boxes and then generate a complete and well-structured ReadMe file. URGE can also upload the generated file directly to the archive servers, eliminating the need for manual downloads. When necessary, an anonymized version can be prepared for double-blind peer-reviewed publications. Additionally, URGE can produce machine-readable JSON ReadMe files, making datasets more compatible with artificial intelligence and automated processes that positions it as a forward-thinking solution for modern research data management. In our view, URGE will not only improve and simplify the process of creating a ReadMe file, but also serves as a driving force in the development of the ReadMe file, making it a definitive “must have” document in complying with the FAIR principles and best practice in Open Science.
Copyright (c) 2025 Dag-Even Torsoe, Ahmet Dogan, Ali Abdurhman Kelil https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The current landscape of the Open Science Initiative in the ASEAN region
(Watch the RECORDING.) The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021) has served as a global guiding framework, encouraging regional organizations, countries, and institutions to make scientific knowledge openly available, reusable, inclusive, and transparent by promoting collaborative scientific practices for the benefit of science and society. Regional blocs, such as the European Union (EU), whose member states are connected by shared regional economic integration and interests, have proactively engaged in influencing knowledge ecosystems, advancing policies on open science, and sustaining collaborative dialogues within Europe’s research and scientific communities as exemplified in the EU open science policy (European Commission, 2016) and Plan S initiative (European Science Foundation, 2018). The African Union (AU) is also increasing momentum in supporting policies on collaborative open knowledge sharing through the endorsement of free trade agreements within the African continent and its policy commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (Okafor et al., 2022). Several single-country and institutional efforts from Southeast Asia have demonstrated strong support for open-access publishing (Abidin et al., 2024; Awasthi et al., 2025; Irawan et al., 2022) and the development of open repositories (Lee-Hwa et al., 2013; Mostafa et al., 2024). However, such policy coherence, as seen in the EU and AU efforts to advance collaborative and regional-driven policy initiatives, remains underexplored in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). There is also a limited understanding of how ASEAN, as a regional bloc, supports open science in policy and practice. Thus, this presentation explores the current landscape of open science initiatives in the ASEAN region by addressing two questions: (1) How are ASEAN member states reflecting on the framework outlined in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science? and (2) What are the current regional developments, including benefits, opportunities, and challenges, in shaping ASEAN open science policy? Using an exploratory review method, this study draws on peer-reviewed literature from Web of Science and Scopus, as well as grey literature from publicly available government portals and websites to identify emerging themes and patterns. This presentation aims to map the current landscape of ASEAN open science initiatives, highlighting the benefits, opportunities, and challenges, and revealing patterns of engagement and collaboration across ASEAN member states and their connection with other global actors in open science. The overall findings contribute to informing policy development and strengthening the ASEAN open science movement.
Copyright (c) 2025 Randolf Mariano, Reysa Alenzuela, Joseph Marmol Yap https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Moving beyond closed silos: liberating workflows based on open metadata to bring about an interoperable and open not-for-profit ecosystem for open access books and chapters
(Watch the RECORDING.) Within the context of Open Science, book publishing has traditionally lagged behind in the adoption of open access, open data and corresponding practices. Not-for-profit infrastructures including the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), the OAPEN Foundation, Open Book Collective (OBC), the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), and Thoth Open Metadata have joined forces to collaboratively develop open, community-led solutions to the many barriers faced by publishers when considering the creation, discovery, distribution, archiving and financing of open access (OA) books. Our presentation will showcase a variety of innovative open metadata management, hosting, and distribution solutions tailored to tackle the problems of getting OA works into the wider book supply chain. We will show how Thoth enables publishers to create rich, fully open data in industry-standard formats, incl. ONIX (2.1, 3.0, 3.1) MARC21 & KBART for free, encouraging uptake of good metadata practice e.g. by integrating PIDs and controlled vocabularies as well as adhering to recent legislative reporting regulations. The resulting metadata is automatically released into the public domain (CC0), to facilitate easy re-use by e.g. libraries. Publishers can also either use the self-service option to export fully Crossref-compliant XML to directly register DOIs for books and chapters with Crossref themselves, or benefit from a dedicated Sponsorship route (via Thoth) and automated registration workflows that are available through the Thoth Plus service model. Building on that open data, a variety of open dissemination workflows come into view. For example, PKP offers an open source book production and title management system, Open Monograph Press (OMP), which is now being integrated with both Thoth and DOAB/OAPEN to provide robust, free and open metadata management and dissemination workflows for books and chapters. Interoperability between the collaborating infrastructures means publishers can be supported with their website and catalogue hosting needs (by Thoth), with the distribution and archiving of OA book content and metadata to a variety of channels (by Thoth and OAPEN, and including Crossref, the Internet Archive, Portico, and the Thoth Open Archiving Network (TOAN)); have their content and metadata hosted in internationally-recognised discovery solutions (including DOAB & OAPEN); access privacy-respecting usage metrics across multiple platforms (via the OPERAS Metrics service, Thoth, and COKI); and in creating and managing collective funding channels for OA books via the Opening the Future programme and the Open Book Collective – two models supporting presses to transition away from a reliance on unsustainable author-facing fees (BPCs) through collective funding, with OBC also providing a means to financially sustain open infrastructure / service providers via voluntary contributions from supporting libraries. All in all, this close collaboration between like-minded infrastructures – and with some of them (OAPEN & PKP) having existed for more than a decade – constitutes a collective, open, equitable ecosystem of interoperable not-for-profit services and platforms that are jointly active in a variety of international networks and communities, including the Copim community, OPERAS, COMET, the Knowledge Equity Network (KEN), and the Barcelona Declaration group of supporters. Doing so, this dedicated group of infrastructures exemplifies a community- and values-led not-for-profit approach to supporting open access book publishing that is understood to live by the principle of 'Scaling Small' – a concept that "puts forward the idea that scale can be nurtured through intentional collaborations between community-driven pro­jects that promote a bibliodiverse ecosystem while providing resilience through resource sharing and other kinds of collaboration" (Adema & Moore, 2021).
Copyright (c) 2025 Tobias Steiner, Juan Pablo Alperin, Joe Deville, Jordy Findanis, Rupert Gatti, Kevin Sanders, Niels Stern, Graham Stone, Zoe Wake Hyde https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Launch of UiT's diamond open access programme
On 13 April 2026, UiT launched its Institutional Programme in Support of Diamond Open Access. The library has pledged to spend at least 6% of its literature budget on Diamond Open Access (i.e. more than 4 million NOK per year). This money is available thanks to cancellation of the deal with Wiley and other measures. UiT-affiliated researchers that are involved in journal editing are invited to apply for funding. In connection with the launch, Jean-Francois Lutz, Head of Research Support at the University Library of Lorraine, shared his experiences with diamond publishing and with establishing a researcher-led publishing practice. See the RECORDING OF THE EVENT.
Copyright (c) 2026 Jean-François Lutz, Per Pippin Aspaas, Johan W.H. Jacobsen, Johanne Raade https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Learning and acting together: how an Open Education network’s collaborative journey gives voice to librarians as agents of change
(Watch the RECORDING.) The European Network of Open Education Librarians (ENOEL), led by SPARC Europe, provides a collaborative model for advancing Open Education through decentralised, peer-led action. Established in 2018, ENOEL has grown into a hierarchy-free community of librarians from 31 European countries who support one another in making Open Education accessible and its resources reusable. Members engage at multiple levels—within institutions, across borders, and at the grassroots level—often without formal institutional or governmental backing. This collective effort demonstrates the value of voluntary participation, inclusivity, and adaptability in sustaining engagement and fostering agency. ENOEL’s activities include initiating working groups, co-creating multilingual outputs, and organising capacity-building events. A key example is the ENOEL Toolkit, now available in 22 languages, which provides adaptable resources for advocating and implementing Open Educational Resources (OER). Training initiatives cover topics ranging from OER basics to operationalising the UNESCO OER Recommendation. These outputs reflect the network’s emphasis on reuser-focused, scalable solutions tailored to diverse contexts. The presentation shares lessons learned through ENOEL’s work and highlights strategies to enable community resilience and growth. These include flexible participation models (e.g., from silent learning to skills sharing), practices preventing burnout, and approaches to maintaining inclusivity across a geographically and culturally diverse membership. By examining ENOEL’s structure, leadership, and outputs, the session illustrates how librarians, as agents of change, can collectively shape effective and sustainable Open Education practices. Participants will gain insight into frameworks for decentralised collaboration, inclusive engagement, and alignment with international policy, with a focus on practical tools that can be reused and adapted in other contexts.
Copyright (c) 2025 Paola Corti https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Making diamond OA journals visible: How CRAFT-OA empowers open infrastructure
(Watch the RECORDING.) Diamond Open Access journals are a vital part of scholarly communication but they often lack the technical capacity to meet visibility standards set by major aggregators, indexes, and funders. With limited staff and budgets, many editorial teams face systemic barriers to interoperability, discoverability, and compliance with open science policies. The EU-funded CRAFT-OA project aims to address this by strengthening the most widely used open-source journal software in the Diamond ecosystem: Open Journal Systems (OJS). Our team at Masaryk University Press contributes to CRAFT-OA as both developers and end users—drawing on over a decade of experience running the MUNI Journals platform (https://journals.muni.cz/), which now supports 48 Diamond OA journals across disciplines and offers full editorial support, integration with global databases, stable hosting, and custom development. This practical environment has proven invaluable for testing new tools and co-designing improvements with real-world users. We are now helping develop and pilot the following OJS innovations within CRAFT-OA: OJS Core Enhancements (GDPR compliance features; Multilingual metadata improvements; Metadata quality tools) and OJS Diamond Plugins (OpenAIRE Graph Connector; EOSC Interoperability Toolkit; OpenAIRE Broker Plugin; Discoverability Companion plugin; JATS/TEI Interoperability plugins). All tools are developed according to FAIR principles, aiming to make Diamond journals not only free to read and publish in, but also visible, reusable, and robustly networked in the open science ecosystem. Our role ensures these developments are both technically sound and practical for real editors, based on continuous feedback from the MUNI Journals community. By aligning open infrastructure with the daily realities of under-resourced journals, we aim to repair a critical gap: the technical invisibility of high-quality, community-led scholarly publishing. The result is a more equitable, sustainable, and interconnected research infrastructure—one that recognizes the full value of Diamond OA.
Copyright (c) 2025 Martina Dvořáková, Radek Gomola https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Opening peer review in Algerian universities: Survey of The Faculty at The Institute of Library Science and Documentation – University AbulKacem SaadAllah- University of Algiers II
(Watch the RECORDING.) Peer review has been a cornerstone of science since the first academic journals back in the mid-17th century. The amount of knowledge produced in those early days did not warrant a strict implementation as what was to be published surpassed journal capacity to absorb. Fast forward some three centuries later, the situation changed wholly and (thanks to the successive information overloads), space to publish shrunk drastically and there was to be a filter both quantitative and qualitative to choose what to publish. Having been described as “the linchpin about which the whole business is pivoted “ (Ziman 1966), peer review has been subject to endless critics and has yielded an abundant literature. From sexist, biased, unreliable to prone to manipulation and countless other “accusations”, peer review has been at the centre of a myriad of cases where science and good behaviour did not go hand in hand. The main reason for the situation was (and still is in most cases) the secrecy in which the process is done. Shielded from accountancy, the expert could act as he (or she) pleases and come out unscathed. With the Internet and its proclivity to openness, the idea of opening the process became a reality and was seen as a remedy, an antidote to the previously stated ills. Numerous sites (such as Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, F. 1000, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Biology Direct, etc …) used different approaches opening the process with mixed result. In this presentation, we will conduct a survey at The Institute of Library Science and Archive - University of Algiers II to see what does the faculty knows, thinks and how it approaches the process. In an Institute specializing wholly in Library Science and its adjunct fields, it would be interesting to see what does its faculty know and think of the process. This will be done by a questionnaire that will explore different aspects of a process that is not only new but also mysterious for many. The different experiments having been all launched and tested in The Global North, our presentation will try to analyze what researchers from a Global South country know and understand in a new (and revolutionary) process that thrives to open itself but also open new horizons to researchers in need to participate, be known, be seen by the whole community worldwide and not be confined to a role of being judged versus a role of being a judge in a world that is trying to be as inclusive as possible.
Copyright (c) 2025 Samir Hachani https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Diamond Open Access – DIAMAS and the EDCH
(Watch the RECORDING.) The EC-funded DIAMAS Project has done much to develop a more sustainable social, technical, and organisational infrastructure for Diamond OA publishing across Europe—creating a foundation that will endure well into the future. We will share how DIAMAS built a vibrant international Diamond community and developed tools and services that address concrete challenges through strategic co-creation and stakeholder consultation. We will also discuss how the project assumed responsibility for sustaining these efforts longer term through the European Diamond Capacity Hub (EDCH). This session will take you on our 3-year journey of community engagement, culminating in the EDCH: a new hub for the Diamond OA ecosystem in Europe. We’ll show how we convened over 4,000 experts across 60+ DIAMAS-organised events—including hackathons, surveys, webinars & workshops—delivered in multiple languages and regions. By leveraging existing networks and nurturing new ones, DIAMAS helped catalyse the growth of national and regional Diamond Capacity Centres across Europe. Strategic communication with stakeholders—from funders and institutional publishing service providers to policymakers and learned societies—was central to making progress with Diamond OA in Europe. Recommendations and services were designed to be both ambitious and realistic, grounded in a deep understanding of the needs of institutional publishers. Key outcomes—such as the DIAMAS recommendations, the DOAS quality standard, sustainability services, the EDCH registry, and the EDCH forum—have been enriched through broad-based community input and collaboration. The EDCH now carries forward the legacy of DIAMAS. It is a collective initiative aimed at strengthening the European Diamond OA ecosystem by supporting institutional, national, and disciplinary Capacity Centres, along with Diamond OA publishers, service providers, and tech providers. It provides tailored support, training, and networking opportunities for Diamond OA journal editors. Fostering a collaborative community through its registry and forum, the EDCH provides best practices, quality assurance frameworks, and tools that enhance editorial management. This approach reinforces integrity and transparency in scholarly publishing and stimulates a sense of belonging among editors—encouraging peer exchange and mutual support. The transition to Diamond OA is a significant challenge, but one that can be achieved when built by, with, and for the community it serves. We hope this presentation will inspire others to design capacity-building publishing projects with people at the centre from the outset to help meet longer-term goals and OA change management challenges.
Copyright (c) 2025 Vanessa Proudman, Anna Hughes https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Meeting the challenges of reproducibility and transparency in analyses of cohort and registry data with open-source software: examples from the PsychGen Centre for Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health
Modern day research -- particularly among the Scandinavian countries -- increasingly relies on data from a combination of large cohort studies and nationwide registry sources. These data are extremely valuable, with vast potential for analysis. Researchers can investigate new questions, revisit old ones using innovative methods, and seek to replicate or extend existing findings, and more. This cumulative reuse maximises the return on public investment and on the active, voluntary contributions of cohort participants. However, to fully realise this potential, researchers must have not only access to the data, but also tools and practices that facilitate efficient, robust, and transparent preparation and usage of it. Here, we present and describe two examples of such tools. The phenotools R package is an open source software package designed to facilitate efficient and reproducible use of data from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort study sample (MoBa). The regtools R package is also an open source software designed to facilitate transparent and reproducible diagnostic trend and prevalence analysis. It utilises data from the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) with stratification according to linked demographic data using microdata from other Norwegian health and administrative registers, including information like income and education. The motivation for developing these packages will be presented alongside an overview of their contribution to facilitating replicable and transparent science, illustrated with real-life use cases and examples. As developers and researchers, we reflect on the process of creating these tools for use by our scientific peers and outline our understanding of how open source software can be a flexible solution to many of the reproducibility and transparency challenges currently facing research.
Copyright (c) 2025 Alejandra Martinez Sanchez, Laurie Hannigan https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Diamond Discovery Hub: Where Community-Owned Research Shines
“Diamond Open Access (OA) refers to an equitable model of scholarly publication that charges no fees to authors or readers and in which the content-related elements of publication are owned and controlled by the scholarly communities.” (European Diamond Capacity Hub) Our poster presents the Diamond Discovery Hub (DDH), an online platform service developed by the CRAFT-OA (Creating a Robust Accessible Federated Technology for Open Access) project that contributes to the visibility and recognition of Diamond Open Access publications and the community behind them. The DDH verifies and publicly lists European Diamond Open Access journals and enables data uptake into other indexes and aggregators. Although developed specifically for the European research community, documentation on the platform’s technical infrastructure will be available to global Diamond OA stakeholders who want to build a similar service in their regions. The DDH addresses two conference topics: It is part of a solution for "Repairing gaps in the research infrastructure," and it supports scholar "Agency," highlighting and giving visibility to community-owned and driven research. Standardizing terminology leads to trust in the research community: When a journal is labeled as “Diamond Open Access”, it means more than being cost-free for authors and readers. To be included in the Diamond Discovery Hub, six community-determined Diamond Open Access criteria (Armengou et. Al. 2024) are considered. This standardized Diamond OA verification process and public display of Diamond OA journals will create more trust around the term “Diamond,” both within and beyond the Diamond community, ensuring that as the Diamond Open Access publishing model grows it continues to embrace the core values of the community, including autonomy, freedom, care, collegiality, collaboration, equality, diversity, inclusion, integrity, ethics, openness, and transparency. Visibility leads to discoverability and recognition: When a journal is listed in the Diamond Discovery Hub (DDH), the technology within the DDH allows other aggregators (such as DOAJ, disciplinary indexes, and the EOSC) to import the journal data. This is an important feature that helps smaller, Institutional Publishing Services ensure the same recognition and acknowledgement (for their authors, publications, and publication channels) as commercial OA publishers, who are often more technically and organizationally adept. Because Diamond OA publications tend to be more linguistically diverse, the DDH also helps improve the availability of multilingual scientific knowledge in European languages, which is crucial for reaching decision-makers, professionals, and the general public.
Copyright (c) 2025 Kelly Achenbach, Hanna Varachkina, Margo Bargheer, Janne Pölönen, Tabea Klaus, Yin Chen https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The European Rights Retention Community of Practice: Building institutional capacity for Rights Retention across Europe.
Launched in December 2024 by SPARC Europe under the Knowledge Rights 21-funded Retain Project, the European Rights Retention Community of Practice (CoP) addresses critical gaps in implementing Rights Retention (RR) strategies and policies across European institutions. Despite RR being an important legal tool to enable open sharing of research, widespread adoption faces systemic barriers: copyright regulation, publisher resistance, common misunderstandings among researchers, or a lack of institutional policies. The European Rights Retention Community of Practice (CoP) fosters collaboration, shares best practices, and strengthens collective advocacy efforts across borders. By creating a trusted space for knowledge exchange, the CoP is helping institutions transition from isolated advocacy to a coordinated European approach. This poster highlights the CoP’s collaborative efforts to identify and address legal, institutional, and cultural barriers to Rights Retention, supporting a more coordinated and empowered transition to Open Science across Europe, including: Legal and policy challenges: Differences in national copyright laws, institutional Intellectual Property and Open Access/Open Science policies, and employment contracts complicate RR implementation. The CoP facilitates knowledge exchange on legal frameworks, risk assessments, and policy harmonisation. Publisher resistance: Some publishers actively oppose RR, requiring institutions to negotiate individually. The CoP enables members to share negotiation strategies and experiences. This knowledge exchange strengthens individual institutional positions when engaging with publishers, creating shared tools to overcome common barriers. Researcher engagement: Many researchers fear journal rejection or see little value in retaining rights. The CoP supports shared advocacy strategies to better communicate the benefits of RR and simplify compliance. Bringing together librarians, legal experts, research support professionals, Open Access advocates, institutional policymakers, non-profit institutional publishers, and researchers, the CoP pools expertise to navigate complex legal landscapes, engage constructively with publishers, and accelerate the move toward equitable Open Access. This poster invites participants to engage with the CoP’s work, explore its resources, and join a growing network committed to strengthening researchers’ rights across Europe.
Copyright (c) 2025 Clara Riera Quintero, Iva Melinščak Zlodi, Ignasi Labastida i Juan, Vanessa Proudman https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Ask a robot - adding AI search to a repository
(Watch the RECORDING.) This presentation demonstrates practical implementation of AI-powered search in academic repositories, moving beyond the "put an AI in it" hype to examine real capabilities and limitations. Using public data from Project Gutenberg, I'll showcase how Large Language Models (LLMs) enable semantic search that surpasses traditional keyword matching and manual tagging by understanding thematic relationships between texts. The session includes live demonstrations (pre-recorded) comparing abstract-based versus full-content similarity search, and entertaining examples of AI agents exceeding their intended scope when faced with inappropriate queries. These concrete examples from a working system illustrate both the promise and pitfalls of AI integration. As repository developers increasingly receive requests for AI-enhanced features, this talk provides practical context for evaluating these tools. I'll share a documented, reproducible path for experimentation, addressing both technical implementation and broader concerns including environmental impact and the democratisation of AI development—critical considerations for Open Science in an increasingly closed technological landscape. The presentation concludes by examining how AI chatbots are reshaping human-computer interaction and what this means for maintaining accessible, user-centered scientific information systems in an era of changing user expectations. Disclaimer: my A.I. wrote this.
Copyright (c) 2025 Steve Eardley https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
(Watch the RECORDING.) Methods are one of the most reusable outputs that researchers create and detailed methods are essential for reproducibility, reuse of methods and responsible data reuse. Despite this, open methods have received comparatively little attention compared to other outputs, like open data, open code and open access publications. This talk explores actions that researchers, research institutions and departments, funders, and publishers and editors can take to enhance the quality of methods reporting in preprints and published papers. The talk will highlight some key recommendations for each of these stakeholder groups from the European Commission PRO-MaP (Promoting Reusable and Open Methods and Protocols) Science for Policy report. Coordinated action across stakeholders is essential to change research culture and practice. We’ll also explore opportunities to enhance methods reporting and other open science practices by shifting incentives for graduate students. The TREASURE program at the University of Coimbra rewards students for implementing reproducible, reusable and open research practices, including methods sharing, in their thesis research.
Copyright (c) 2025 Tracey Weissgerber https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
(Watch the RECORDING.) The dissemination of scientific knowledge has long been a driving force behind technological and societal progress, and remains central to the vision of open science. However, shifts in the geopolitical landscape are reshaping the narrative around the role of science. Rapid technological advancements have placed science and innovation at the heart of global competition, raising concerns about the sharing of critical technologies and sensitive knowledge. At the same time, science itself is increasingly being questioned. The inherent uncertainty in scientific findings is sometimes misused to dismiss even well-established results. Misinformation and disinformation undermine society’s ability to make evidence-based decisions and may also affect the reliability of outputs from large language models. These challenges are compounded by the rise of paper mills and a peer review system under pressure from the growing volume of publications. Together, these trends risk deepening the divide between science and society. In this context, key questions arise: How can science—and open science in particular—respond to these global developments? How can researchers navigate environments where governments may seek to restrict the sharing of knowledge or limit the scope of scientific inquiry? And how can open science help safeguard scientific integrity and contribute to sustainable development in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape?
Copyright (c) 2025 Kenneth Ruud https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Approaches for data management, collaboration and co-ownership in sámi engineering science
(Watch the VIDEO.) The Sámi Parliament suggests the extension of the verdde tradition as a guiding strategy for collaboration within Sámi communities and between Sámi communities and non-Sámi institutions. An important mission for researchers and engineers within academia is to explore what this means for engineering science from a Sámi perspective. This impacts the models for technological research and the management of data within this research. While CARE and SODA principles outline generic guidelines for research ethics, they lack specifics regarding technological research. The development of drone technology in reindeer husbandry is one example of engineering research that requires a multitude of data, which carries associated risks if managed improperly. Large-scale industrial and infrastructure projects in the Arctic, as well as tourism-based businesses, could benefit from such data but simultaneously pose an existential threat to reindeer husbandry. It has been shown that Sámi communities are skeptical of scientific research in general and do not necessarily trust institutions handling sensitive data. This skepticism can, in part, be attributed to the historical mistreatment of Indigenous people by majority-society institutions, including academia. We believe that collaboration based on mutual dependence and mutual benefit, in line with the verdde tradition, could serve as a key building block for research collaboration as well as data management. Our proposal is a dual data-governance model: The local reindeer herding district -the siida, retains ownership of raw data. Universities act as verdde partners, assisting with processing, analysis, and archiving, but under conditions agreed upon by the herders themselves. Any open-access publication would use preprocessed data that the community approves. The approach can be adapted to different contexts.
Copyright (c) 2025 Per Anton Olsen https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Monitoring Open Science: it takes a village! Sharing common Principles with the Open Science Monitoring Initiative (OSMI)
(Watch the RECORDING.) In May 2023, the G7 Science and Technology Ministers emphasized the need for a shared framework for monitoring Open Science. While Open Science policies and practices have seen growing international support, monitoring efforts remain fragmented across national and institutional levels. Various dashboards and tools - such as the French Open Science Monitor, Germany’s Open Access Monitor, the COKI Dashboard in Australia, and the Open Access Monitor in Korea… - showcase both innovative thinking and varied approaches, but lack a unified global framework. Despite multiple important guidelines, such as the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, the POSI, or the recent PathOS Indicator Handbook, no shared, global framework exists. Our proposed Principles aim to fill that gap by offering guidance that supports comparability, interoperability, and responsible reuse of monitoring indicators. To co-create and refine the first draft, an international workshop was held at UNESCO in December 2023, gathering over 50 experts from institutions, including CERN, NASA and CWTS. Following intensive collaborative drafting, a global consultation process amplified by UNESCO was a success, with an open call for participation that received contributions from more than 150 people from 40 countries across the world. This first collaborative effort was the spark for the creation of OSMI. The Principles of Open Science Monitoring are organised around three core pillars: Relevance and significance: all open science monitoring initiatives should be well-defined, relevant, and adaptable to diverse research contexts. They should support evidence-based policies and decisions, be developed through inclusive and participatory collaborative processes, and reflect the diversity of disciplines and stakeholders. Ensuring modularity, transparency, and consistency allows for reliable assessment while accommodating different needs and practices. Transparency and reproducibility: open science monitoring should, wherever possible, prioritize the use of open, transparent, and reproducible information, including metadata. It should further draw on infrastructures and methodologies that adhere to shared, agreed-upon principles and rely on publicly accessible data sources. Self-Assessment and responsible use: open science monitoring initiatives should aim for continuous improvement through regular self-assessments and alignment with these Principles of Open Science Monitoring. Importantly, open science monitoring should be used to understand and incentivise open science practices. It should not be used in isolation to evaluate individual researchers but instead as part of a multifaceted approach to assist institutions, stakeholders, academic and non-academic communities in understanding and improving their research practices. We believe that common monitoring Principles, which consider the variety of approaches on a global scale, are essential to advance our knowledge of the prevalence and impact of Open Science. This presentation will introduce OSMI and the Principles of Open Science Monitoring.
Copyright (c) 2025 Laetitia Bracco, Vanessa Proudman https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
From Publish-and-Read Deals to Diamond Open Access: How Library Budgets Can Support Non-Commercial Publishing
(Watch the RECORDING.) In Norway, nationwide Publish-and-Read (PAR) deals with the world's largest publishing houses have helped secure a high percentage of Open Access in recent years. However, the costs of these deals have also put the literature acquisition budgets of research libraries under severe strain. Early in 2025, cancellation of Norway's Wiley PAR deal, combined with 25 % cost reduction in our Elsevier PAR deal, has given some room for manoeuvre. With inspiration from trailblazing European institutions and informed by consultations with editors of scholarly journals, the library of UiT The Actic University of Norway is now launching its own Diamond Open Access Programme, financed by savings in PAR deals. Data from the national CRIS system shows that around 6 percent of the peer-reviewed articles written by researchers affiliated with a Norwegian institution were published in Diamond Open Access in the last several years. UiT now pledges to spend at least 6 percent of our literature acquisition budget on donations to Diamond publishing. Some of this money will be spent on international, non-commercial platforms and other infrastructure, but the main part will be reserved for stipends to UiT-affiliated editors of Diamond publishing outlets.
Copyright (c) 2025 Per Pippin Aspaas https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Indigenous Rights in Research: Future Needs for Involvement of Indigenous Perspectives
(Watch the RECORDING.) Over the last decades, there has been a movement towards higher degree of recognition and involvement of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives worldwide. An integral and defining part of this development is the work of scholars (and activists) from all over the Indigenous worlds claiming the necessity of decolonization/Indigenization and the recognition of Indigenous rights. Today, this struggle is not over. But change has happened. Indigenous research is a growing field. The ethics and formalities of publication and data management are addressed in ways that aim to answer to the needs of Indigenous communities. This panel takes the current situation and diversity as a starting point and looks to the future needs and challenges, and asks how can we continue working for research practices that are FAIR and include CARE? How can we learn across different Indigenous contexts and areas? The panelists represent research communities from different parts of the global north with its variety of Indigenous cultures.
Copyright (c) 2025 Torjer Andreas Olsen, Susanna Raghnild Andersdatter Siri, Christina Storm Mienna, Sheryl Ligthfoot https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Opening books collectively: Working together for a fairer future for books
Watch the VIDEO. This presentation introduces how a relatively new, non-profit initiative – the Open Book Collective (OBC) – is furthering open science in a closing world via its diamond approach to funding open access (OA) book publishers. These range from small scholar-led publishers (e.g. Open Book Publishers, African Minds) to larger university presses (e.g. LSE Press, Leuven University Press). The OBC also addresses key gaps in the research infrastructures required for OA books to flourish, by providing funding to its service provider members (OAPEN, PKP, and Thoth Open Metadata). After this introduction, the presentation reports on a recently completed research project, led jointly by the Open Book Collective and Lancaster University, which explores the barriers standing in the way of the expansion of Diamond OA collective funding models in a European context. It explores the barriers standing in the way of the expansion of Diamond OA collective funding models in six European contexts, including two in Scandinavia: Finland and Sweden. This research involved in depth interviews with library representatives and other stakeholders to understand questions such as what existing collectively funded Diamond OA initiatives libraries already support, the policies that inform their support for OA books, the criteria used to assess Diamond OA initiatives, and the particular local and institutional challenges librarians confront in supporting Diamond OA. One key aim is of this research to answer the following question: how can libraries work to sustain a more equitable, sustainable and bibliodiverse OA future? For example, the report shows markedly different roles for the relationships between libraries and consortia within national contexts. In countries where Diamond OA support is led by a national consortium, librarians can feel less able to themselves lead on supporting new collective funding models, even if they support this work. The report also looks at the variations between libraries, especially regarding how responsibility for OA funding operates. For example, in some countries, OA leads within libraries are more likely to have dedicated OA budgets that they themselves control, whereas in other countries, the relevant budget lines tend to be more controlled by subject librarians, whose understanding of Diamond OA and its importance for the scholarly system can be lower than their OA lead colleagues. There are also recommendations for Diamond OA initiatives themselves, including the need to better understand the precise variations between different national and, in some cases, regional contexts.
Copyright (c) 2025 Joe Deville https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Strategies for publishers to make scholarly metadata openly available
(Watch the VIDEO.) Research information, or scholarly metadata, is important for decision making around strategic priorities, distribution of resources, and evaluation of researchers and institutions. It is also used by funders, institutions and governments to assess the effect of policies, and by researchers and societal stakeholders to find and assess research results. The value of openly available research information is increasingly recognized, as it supports fair research assessment and makes it possible for everyone to find and assess relevant research. Publishers play an important role in this context, as they are an important source of scholarly metadata - including bibliographic metadata for the research articles, books and book chapters, and other research outputs they publish. Many publishers make important metadata, including abstracts, authors and affiliations, references and funding information available via Crossref, including persistent identifiers (ORCID, ROR and funder and grant IDs). However, for many research articles, this metadata is still only available through closed, proprietary systems, if at all. This panel brings together a number of approaches to support publishers to make metadata for the articles and other outputs they publish openly available. The panel will present and discuss these approaches, including criteria for success, potential challenges and context-specific considerations. Approaches represented on the panel vary from inclusion of open metadata in publisher negotiations, supporting under-resourced publishers, and the SCOAP3 open science mechanism that financially rewards publishers for open science practices, including open metadata. In addition, removing barriers in publisher workflows, from submission systems to metadata depositing, will be discussed. Given the diversity of publishers in the scholarly communication landscape, from large commercial publishers to scholarly societies and institutional publishers of diamond journals, challenges and solutions for the provision of open scholarly metadata will vary. The panel will invite audience perspectives on the question how publishers can make more and better metadata available as open research information.
Copyright (c) 2025 Bianca Kramer, Colleen Campbell, Dominic Mitchell, Anne Gentil-Beccot, Mike Nason https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Building a modular scholarly infrastructure like LEGO
A growing number of funders, institutions, and academics are advocating for sustainable, transparent, and trusted open scholarly infrastructures. While significant progress has been made in journal publishing, other essential research outputs, such as preprints, data, and software, still lack recognition and support, despite being integral to scholarly communication. This poster presents a modular vision for scholarly publishing infrastructure, inspired by both the distinct stages of the publishing process and the familiar LEGO brick metaphor. By developing interoperable components such as peer review systems, hosting platforms, metadata services, citation identifiers and persistent identifiers, we can create an infrastructure that is robust, user-centric, and future-ready. For non-profit university presses like TU Delft OPEN Publishing, this approach offers a strategic opportunity to reduce costs, ensure sustainability, advance open science, and strengthen collaboration with funders and institutions. Initiatives such as the NWO (Dutch Research Council) Research Infrastructure call and the Netherlands University Presses (NUP) collaboration demonstrate that many of the essential building blocks are already in place. The true innovation, therefore, is not (only) in building new tools from scratch, but also in effectively connecting the ones we already have in a modular, open, and sustainable way. This poster invites academics, publishers, funders, and infrastructure builders to co-create an interoperable scholarly ecosystem that brings all the pieces together. Note: Due to unforeseen circumstances, Frederique Belliard will not be able to come to the Munin Conference to present her poster.
Copyright (c) 2025 Frédérique Belliard, Lena Karvovskaya https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
How journal submission and hosting systems influence the level of open metadata in Crossref
(Watch the RECORDING.) The importance of open research information, including publication metadata, is widely recognised. Crossref is an important infrastructure for registering open metadata as part of DOI registration. However, the metadata of many publications in Crossref is far from complete, with many publishers making certain metadata elements openly available, but failing to do so for other metadata elements. Publishers' ability to register this metadata with Crossref depends on their capacity to capture and retain this data in their production workflows. Submission systems seem to be an important, yet largely overlooked, factor in the extent to which publishers make metadata available through Crossref. In this presentation, we present the results of a large-scale analysis investigating the correlation between the level of metadata that publishers deposit with Crossref and the submission and hosting systems that they deploy for their journals. We look at the 150 publishers with the largest amounts of publications in Crossref in recent years, and concentrate on commonly used systems, including Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, Open Journal Systems (OJS), and eJournalPress. Information on submission and hosting systems is validated through a survey sent out to the 150 publishers in scope of this analysis. We will show that some submission systems appear better suited to capturing certain metadata elements. However, there are always cases where publishers using the same system differ widely in the level of metadata they register, suggesting that technology is not the only prohibiting factor, but that other considerations, probably commercial, are at play.
Copyright (c) 2025 Bianca Kramer, Hans de Jonge, Kornelia Korzec https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Indigenous rights in, over or to research?
(Watch the RECORDING.) The question of rights in Indigenous research contains a set of conflicting principles: If the result of the research is decided by people outside of the relevant research project, we no longer have a free research, and might as well hand over the job to spindoctors. We will thus argue for free research when it comes to research results; any alternative to that will undermine the validity of the research conducted. When it comes to the choice of research topics, however, the situation is different. This is a question of pre-scientific choice, and here the researcher does not have more to say than others. Evidently, the researcher may identify topics as more or less promising, but the desicion on where to allocate resources for research is a political one, ultimately going back to who has the control over those resources. University research has a tradition of leaving such decisions to individual researchers, whereas funding agencies to an increasing degree aim at governing the choice of research topics. There are known diverging opinions both within and between Indigenous communities on how to approach language and language technology research. Some Indigenous language communities are opposed to any research on their language (by outsiders) – they welcome research but want to keep the language data for themselves – and still others prefer to publish all Indigenous text for anyone to build language models on. The discussion also depends upon the desired goals of the approach: Should languages be documented in their traditional form for archiving, or should they be standardised and thus optimised for language revitalisation? To which extent and in which way can generative AI influence negatively or positively upon language technology work? In the talk, we will present the different views and discuss the pros and cons of the different approaches.
Copyright (c) 2025 Trond Trosterud, Linda Wiechetek https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0