on my previous account, I posted conference coverage for a few meetings (with a mixed number of posts; I do not know how to list just my posts):

- #epiLipidNet https://akademienl.social/tags/epiLipidNet
- #maasosf23 https://akademienl.social/tags/maasosf23
- #srd23 https://akademienl.social/tags/srd23
- #iwomi2023 https://akademienl.social/tags/iwomi2023
- #DMCM2023 https://akademienl.social/tags/DMCM2023
- the #OpenScienceChallenge https://akademienl.social/tags/OpenScienceChallenge
- #NanoInformaTIX https://akademienl.social/tags/NanoInformaTIX
- #BioHackEU22 https://akademienl.social/tags/BioHackEU22

@HeidiSeibold, I am looking forward to reading your summary and reflection on all the #OpenScienceChallenge participation you have seen.

And a huge thanks for setting this up!

I get quite upset about these practices. Why? Because we need new, better ideas. Continuously. And when big players push out small ideas, then we do not make the progress we need to make.

If #OpenScience has as goal to celebrate the diversity, to allow everyone to participate, to give room to all great new ideas, then this power grabbing must be battled.

This is the #OpenScienceChallenge we all face in the next five years!

so, a major takeaway:

- #OpenScience must put more effort in educating people in the legal aspects of doing science. Copyright (among other laws) is an essential part of doing research, just like ethics.

This is a huge elephant in the room. Scholars (expect that have it as their main topic, of course) generally do not get educated in legal matters.

That is one huge #OpenScienceChallenge there!

a second reflection is on #OpenScienceChallenge

While many people have participated (see https://fosstodon.org/@HeidiSeibold/109699716965675268), when I search for the hashtag on two servers, I only see my own posts and an occasional post by @toothFAIRy, like this one: https://scholar.social/@toothFAIRy/109791144829355394

But that's it! Is the #hashtag thing on #Mastodon not working? Is it just this hashtag that is not (it seems to work fine for #wikidata

But it makes it hard to see responses by others :(

okay, on the 12th day, it is time to wrap-up #OpenScienceChallenge

It should have taken about a month, but it actually took me three, see https://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2023/01/doing-open-science-challenge.html

I am (t)asked: "Reflect on the #OpenScienceChallenge month: what did you take away from it?"

Well, first of all: why does everything have to be quick, quick, quick? Instead of at the pace it takes?

I realized that #OpenScience takes time. We are still waiting for adoption of things suggested 20 years ago.

This is the way. 1/

That's it for Day #11 of the #OpenScienceChallenge on Ethics and Research

I am looking forward to reading all your comments on this topic.

That's it for Day #11 of the #OpenScienceChallenge on Ethics and Research

I am looking forward to reading all your comments on this topic.

#OpenScienceChallenge Day #11: Ethics and Research

Here I am asked about ethics and research. This is not my field of research and have only rudimentary training.

In fact, after watching 'The Good Place', this is even harder.

The first question is: When do you consider research to be unethical?

There are so many angles to this. What research and research/knowledge dissemination is ill defined. How to define ethics then beyond the fluent obvious?

#OpenScienceChallenge Dau #10: Open Access

Ah, indeed, some Open Access is Open Science too. Just remember, not all. The term "Open Access" is also used for "you can look at it" which is not enough for open science. Walking around in Cannes and openly see all the open cars does not make it inclusive.

Okay, let's see what today's challenge is: 1/

#OpenScienceChallenge Day #9: Social Change

The first question is: "How is your group/team/department doing in terms of #OpenScience?"

Answer: pretty good, actually. In fact, I joined the group because of their open science work. When we returned from Sweden, I got an offer to work on Open PHACTS, and I accepted because the group worked on @wikipathways

That gets us to the second have of (my) today's #OpenScienceChallenge: communication media.

I use a multitude of communication media, partly because to learn how efficient they are. A short list of what I use(d):

- datasets
- software
- specifications
- books / book chapters
- journal articles
- blogs
- social media with threads
- podcast episode guest appearance
- interviews
- open notebooks
- database contributions (Wikidata, WikiPathways, etc)

Each have their own audiences. 9/

#OpenScienceChallenge Day #8: "Science Communication"

Today I am asked if I think about science communication when I think about open science.

Yes, absolutely! #OpenScience is about early communication, more detailed communication, early and detailed peer review. It is also about no longer excluding people from listening in the communication.

Today's task continues with a question about my audience. I have different audiences. 1/

oh, btw, here is the index of all #OpenScienceChallenge days I have done now: https://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2023/01/doing-open-science-challenge.html

#OpenScienceChallenge Day #7: "Mindsets that hold you back"

Q1: "which [mindsets] are helping you in doing good research, which are holding you back?"

Okay, the challenge is not getting easier :)

The line between mindset and rules is sometimes clear, sometimes unclear.

For example, today's challenge writes "Writing many papers is the only way to succeed in research" as "good girl" behavior and holding you back from doing good research.

Some thoughts:

The #OpenScienceChallenge asks me to think about which of the steps I would like to implement. I already do.

Next, implement one of the steps mentioned. That I can do. I have plenty of open code to play with.

Let me show an example for something I worked on in the last two weeks: VHP4Safety (https://github.com/vhp4safety)

#OpenScienceChallenge Day #6: "Open Code"

The sentiment is in today's challenge, but yeah, while legally they are different, I think open code are also open materials. To me this is important, because if we give different forms of research output different names, we start recognizing and rewarding them differently too.

Second, feeling insecure about your research output is likely not a bad thing. It helps us find ways to show us our work is awesome (or will be).

Of course, the other important reason to not upload data is if the information is privacy sensitive.

The more I think about it, the more convinced we should not try to make patient data open science.

For example, it's fine to derive knowledge from patient data. Make that open knowledge. But it's perfectly fine to not even think about Open Science when you are looking at patient data.

Okay, that completes Day #5 of the #OpenScienceChallenge

#OpenScienceChallenge Day #5: "Open Materials"

The opening decision tree node is if I ever "published research outputs openly". Yeah, home game.

Q: "Do you published materials have a DOI?"

A: Some do, others don't. I basically have two kinds of open research output (both can be any output type):

1. open notebooks
2. open publications

The latter certainly should adhere to @datacite and Software Citation practices. DOIs make that a ton easier.

I would love to be able to publish yes, make each paper better, more actionable, spend more time to validate results. Not publish each step in a large story as a journal article.

But let that step be a lab notebook, a data sets, a script, a piece software, a standard, an operating procedure, a minimal reporting template.

Let's celebrate *research*, not journals articles!

Okay, that completes, I think, my Day 4 of the #OpenScienceChallenge :) See you "tomorrow'