View source for Instruction:0876d4da-0071-4caa-872f-68c5393a6c41

{{Instruction
|Title=Responsible Open Science: Video Lectures
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:76ef100a-e459-4942-bd1f-701f747e8906
|Instruction Goal=These video lectures can be used independently or in conjunction with the [[Guide:E525ee0d-0d7e-4ba5-b19b-89e4a5029b2f|ROSiE Responsible Open Science training materials]]. The ROSiE training materials examine a variety of topics from multiple disciplinary perspectives, including humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, health and life sciences, and citizen science. The video lectures provide a concise introduction to ethical issues in Open Science, which may be followed by engagement with training materials for further exploration of discipline-specific topics.

Each lecture is organised into multiple segments, focusing on a distinct topic. Upon completion of a segment, participants are expected to complete a quiz covering the material discussed. Additionally, certain lectures include case studies that provide an opportunity to reflect on how the concepts learned can be applied to practical ethical issues in Open Science.

Finally, if you want to get more information on a particular topic, there is a list of further reading for each lecture.


Authors: Olivier Le Gall, Rosemarie Barnabe, Emmi Jennina Kaaya, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Søren Holm, Panagiotis Kavouras, Arild Johan Jansen, Elina Koivisto, Theodora Konach,  François Jost

Multimedia Content Developers: Christlin Joy Conanan, Kristiāna Kampare, Signe Mežinska, Ivars Neiders

[https://rosie-project.eu/ ROSiE] project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under GA No 101006430.

The ROSiE video lectures <span lang="EN-US">are available under the open-source license [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ CC BY-SA 4.0]</span>
|Has Duration=8
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Method=Blended learning; Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 1.1.: Emerging, History & Justifications of Open Science (Olivier Le Gall)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall articulates the foundational principles of Open Science. The initial segment of the lecture addresses the rationale for opening science and provides a comprehensive overview of its concept. The subsequent segment delves into the core values and guiding principles underpinning Open Science. Finally, the concluding segment elucidates the anticipated social benefits derived from the implementation of Open Science.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:Bbf561cd-7369-4314-ac74-2c870373af9d|Open Science]]”

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (2021) [https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546 https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546  ]
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-378
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 1.2.: Benefits and Value of Open Science for Different Stakeholders (Rosemarie Bernabe)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Rosemarie Barnabe discusses how different stakeholders – researchers, the broader research community, and the general public – can benefit from Open Science. The lecture introduces components of Open Science and explains how these components benefit different stakeholders. 

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546 

Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review (5:632). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 

Catalano, G., Delugas, E., & Vignetti, S. (2025). Costs and Benefits of Open Science: Contributing to the Development of a Rigorous Assessment Framework. In J. Gutleber & P. Charitos (Eds.), The Economics of Big Science 2.0: Essays by Leading Scientists and Policymakers (pp. 127–135). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60931-2_10

Arza, V., & Fressoli, M. (2017). Systematizing benefits of open science practices. Information Services and Use, 37(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170861

Meskus, M., Marelli, L., & D’Agostino, G. (2017). Research Misconduct in the Age of Open Science: The Case of STAP Stem Cells. Science as Culture, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975 <div></div>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-379
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 1.3.: Main Ethical Challenges in Open Science Implementation (Rosemarie Bernabe)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Rosemarie Bernabe addresses the ethical challenges associated with implementing Open Science in practice. The lecture provides an overview through various examples of ethical and integrity issues encountered in Open Science practice. These include the risk of spreading misinformation, the emergence of new biases related to alternative metrics, among other concerns.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10046520 

UNESCO (2023). Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world. https://doi.org/10.54677/GIIC6829 

Kingsley, D. (2025, March 30). Show your working: How the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020 

Düwell, M. (2019). Open science and ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22(5), 1051-1053.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10053-3 

Lindemann, T., & Häberlein, L. (2023). Contours of a research ethics and integrity perspective on open science. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1052353. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1052353 

Laine, H. (2018). Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity. Informaatiotutkimus, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.77414
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-380
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case  Study for Lecture 1.3.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-381
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 2.1.: Responsibility of Researchers for the Quality of the Collected, Processed & Stored Data (Panagiotis Kavouras)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras addresses the researcher's responsibility for the quality of data collection, processing, and storage. The first segment outlines the principles of responsibility and research quality. Subsequently, the lecture elaborates on the research cycle and highlights best practices critical to maintaining high standards in research.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

Center for Open Science. “What is open science?” https://www.cos.io/open-science 

Hofmann, B. (2022). Open Science Knowledge Production: Addressing Epistemological Challenges and Ethical Implications. Publications, 10(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030024 

Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M. K., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(Volume 73, 2022), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-479
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 2.2.: Responsible Preparation & Management of Quantitative Datasets & Metadata (Olivier Le Gall)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall discusses the responsible preparation of open datasets. The lecture covers several key topics: initially, he examines what responsible data preparation entails and its significance. Subsequently, he addresses the issue of dual use, and finally, he explores the risks posed to third parties.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10046520 

Open Research Europe, “Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines” https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/for-authors/data-guidelines/

Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., IJzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018). A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158 

Berkowitz, H., & Delacour, H. (2022). Opening Research Data: What Does It Mean for Social Sciences?. M@n@gement, 25(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.9123

Pernet, C., Svarer, C., Blair, R., Van Horn, J. D., & Poldrack, R. A. (2023). On the long-term archiving of research data. Neuroinformatics, 21(2), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-023-09621-x

Gomes, D. G., Pottier, P., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Hudgins, E. J., Foroughirad, V., Sánchez-Reyes, L. L., ... & Gaynor, K. M. (2022). Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289(1987), 20221113. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.1113
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-382
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Studies for Lecture 2.2.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-383
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 3.1.: Specifics of Informed Consent in the Context of Open Science (Emmi Jennina Kaaya)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Emmi Jennina Kaaya discusses informed consent in the context of Open Science. She first introduces the concept of informed consent, and then explains how Open Science challenges it. She also examines strategies for informing potential research participants and concludes with a summary of the key points.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647|Informed Consent]]” 

Dove, E. S., & Chen, J. (2020). Should consent for data processing be privileged in health research? A comparative legal analysis. International Data Privacy Law, 10(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz023

Dyke, S. O. M., Connor, K., Nembaware, V., Munung, N. S., Reinold, K., Kerry, G., Mbiyavanga, M., Zass, L., Moldes, M., Das, S., Davis, J. M., De Argila, J. R., Spalding, J. D., Evans, A. C., Mulder, N., & Karamchandani, J. (2023). Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem. Neuroinformatics, 21(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-022-09577-4

Fischer, C., Hirsbrunner, S. D., & Teckentrup, V. (2022). Producing open data. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8, e86384. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e86384  

Florea, M. (2023). Withdrawal of consent for processing personal data in biomedical research. International Data Privacy Law, 13(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipad008

Hallinan, D., Boehm, F., Külpmann, A., & Elson, M. (2023). Information Provision for Informed Consent Procedures in Psychological Research Under the General Data Protection Regulation: A Practical Guide. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231151944
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-388
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 3.2.: Responsible Anonymisation & Pseudonymisation (Heidi Beate Bentzen)
|Instruction Step Text=Heidi Beate Bentzen's lecture covers legal aspects of human research data, focusing on identifiability. The first part addresses personal data issues, and the second part discusses anonymous data.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:''' 

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f|Privacy in Research]]” 

Data Protection Commission: “[https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/anonymisation-pseudonymisation Anonymisation and pseudonymisation]” 

Eke, D., Aasebø, I. E., Akintoye, S., Knight, W., Karakasidis, A., Mikulan, E., ... & Zehl, L. (2021). Pseudonymisation of neuroimages and data protection: Increasing access to data while retaining scientific utility. Neuroimage: Reports, 1(4), 100053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynirp.2021.100053
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-385
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Study for Lecture 3.2.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-386
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 3.3. Tension Between Personal Data Protection & the Aim of Open Science (Heidi Beate Bentzen)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Heidi Beate Bentzen examines the conflict between personal data protection and the objectives of Open Science. Initially, she delves into the principle of data minimisation, followed by an analysis of the barriers to global data sharing.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:''' 

Dennis, S., Garrett, P., Yim, H., Hamm, J., Osth, A. F., Sreekumar, V., & Stone, B. (2019). Privacy versus open science. Behavior Research Methods, 51(4), 1839–1848. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01259-5

Phillips, M., & Knoppers, B. M. (2019). Whose Commons? Data Protection as a Legal Limit of Open Science. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47(1), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519840489

Paseri, L. (2023). Open Science and Data Protection: Engaging Scientific and Legal Contexts. Journal of Open Access to Law, 11(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.63567/1bnsyb91
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-391
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Study for Lecture 3.3.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-391
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 4.1.: Types of Potential Research Malpractices in Open Science
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Søren Holm addresses problematic research practices that vary in severity from definite research misconduct to questionable practices. The initial segment of the lecture examines malpractice related to the provision of open data. The subsequent segment focuses on the misuse of open data and discusses issues concerning open code, materials, and open publication.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:''' 

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c#Research%20misconduct|Research Misconduct]]” 

Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & Bauchner, H. (2020). Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? JAMA, 324(18), 1840–1843. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.20674
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-392
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 4.2.: Prevention of Research Malpractices in Open Science
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Søren Holm outlines various practices to prevent research malpractice in Open Science. The first section of the lecture covers methods to avoid malpractice with open data, open code, and open materials and research sites. The second section examines Open Science beyond data and across borders. Lastly, the third section explores whether improved peer review practices can address issues related to research malpractice in Open Science.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:''' 

Kingsley, D. (2025, March 30). Show your working: How the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020

Mabile, L., Shmagun, H., Erdmann, C., Cambon-Thomsen, A., Thomsen, M., & Grattarola, F. (2025). Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives: Guidance for Multiple Stakeholders in Research. Data Science Journal, 24. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2025-015
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-393
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Study for Lecture 4.2.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-394
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 5.1. Trust & Trustworthiness in Open Science (Panagiotis Kavouras)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras discusses trust and trustworthiness in Open Science. The first segment describes trust and its relevance to science and it argues that trustworthiness is a more pertinent concept in this context. Furthermore, it is  explained that transparency in research conduct is a condition of trustworthiness. The second segment examines how transparency relates to Open Science practices and how it can be viewed in the context of translational research innovation.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:''' 

Peels, R., & Bouter, L. (2023). Replication and trustworthiness. Accountability in Research, 30(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1963708

Robert K. Merton, The Normative Structure of Science (1942). (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html 

Kerasidou, A. (2017). Trust me, I’m a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9721-6
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-395
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 5.2.: Responsible and Critical Use of Open Data & the Research Results (Arild Johan Jansen)
|Instruction Step Text=Arild Johan Jansen's lecture covers the responsible use of open data. He highlights the need to assess data sources and quality, emphasises transparency in ethical data use, and addresses privacy and security requirements.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:'''

Data sharing and the future of science. (2018). Nature Communications, 9(1), 2817. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05227-z
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-396
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Studies for Lecture 5.2.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-398
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 5.3.: Ethical Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Analysing Open Data (Arild Johan Jansen)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Arild Johan Jansen addresses the ethical considerations of using artificial intelligence (AI) in research. AI is utilised in various stages of the research process, presenting several ethical challenges, including insufficient data, data bias, and others. The lecture concludes by discussing adherence to regulatory frameworks.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

Davison, R. M., Chughtai, H., Nielsen, P., Marabelli, M., Iannacci, F., van Offenbeek, M., Tarafdar, M., Trenz, M., Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., Díaz Andrade, A., & Panteli, N. (2024). The ethics of using generative AI for qualitative data analysis. Information Systems Journal, 34(5), 1433–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12504
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-396
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 6.1.: Benefits and Risks in Open Peer Review (Olivier Le Gall)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall examines open peer review, highlighting both its benefits and potential risks. The presentation starts by elucidating the rationale behind open peer review, and proceeds to discuss its benefits as well as the associated risks of opening it.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c|Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science]]”

Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., Edig, X. van, & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review (7:969). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1 

Ross-Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004 

Henriquez, T. (2023). Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. mBio, 14(5), e01948-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01948-23
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-401
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 6.2.: Open Access, Open Access Publishing, Predatory Practices (Elina Koivisto)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Elina Koivisto addresses the topics of open access, open access publishing, and predatory practices. The first segment of the lecture provides a definition of open access, showcases various types of open access, and elucidates their distinctions. The subsequent segment explores the advantages of open access as well as some negative consequences associated with publishing in general and open access publishing specifically. The concluding segment is dedicated to predatory practices; it defines these practices and offers guidance on how to avoid them.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7|Predatory publishing]]” 

Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open access publishers. https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf

COPE Council (2019). COPE Discussion Document: Predatory Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.6
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-402
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Study for Lecture 6.2.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-403
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 6.3.: Including Open Science Aspects in Assessing Researchers & Research (Elina Koivisto)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Elina Koivisto elaborates on the application of Open Science principles in the assessment of research and researchers. The initial segment delineates the concepts of research and researcher assessment, as well as the contexts and circumstances in which these assessments are conducted. The subsequent segment addresses the notion of responsible researcher assessment, highlighting its significance. The concluding segment elucidates the incorporation of Open Science principles in research and researcher assessment, detailing their practical implications.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:''' 

Hatch, A., & Curry, S. (2020). Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible. eLife, 9, e58654. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58654 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission), Cabello Valdes, C., Rentier, B., Kaunismaa, E., Metcalfe, J., Esposito, F., McAllister, D., Maas, K., Vandevelde, K., & O’Carroll, C. (2017). Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging Open Science practices: Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/75255 

Provost, L., & Xenou, Z. (2025). Reframing Research Assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework for Researcher Profiles. fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 57, Article 57. https://doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2025.693 

CoARA – Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2025, from https://coara.eu/ 

Leiden manifesto for research Metrics.  https://www.leidenmanifesto.org/

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-405
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 7.1.: Intellectual Property & Fair Competition (Theodora Konach)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Theodora Konach discusses intellectual property rights and how to use them in a responsible way within the Open Science framework. The first segment provides a brief introduction to intellectual property rights. Further, the next segment discusses principles of copyright and some other related basic concepts. The third segment outlines relevant exceptions and limitations to copyright. Finally, the fourth segment focuses on the public domain and open source as a resource of creativity and knowledge. 

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

Aligning Intellectual Property Rights with Open Science. https://allea.org/portfolio-item/aligning-intellectual-property-rights-with-open-science 

European Commission: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency, Your guide to IP and contracts – Stay ahead of the innovation game, Publications Office of the European Union, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/607724 

European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Your guide to IP in Europe, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/94924

European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, European IP Helpdesk – Copyright, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/128833 

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546

Unitary Patent. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent

Creative Commons Certificate Resources, Course Content 2021 and 2022; https://certificates.creativecommons.org/about/certificate-resources-cc-by/

WIPO, (2016), Understanding Copyright and Related Rights, (2nd ed.) Geneva, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf

European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, New Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/429252

WIPO, Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html 

The Europeana Public Domain Charter. https://pro.europeana.eu/post/the-europeana-public-domain-charter 

Statement of Principles on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives (2009). https://www.ifla.org/publications/statement-of-principles-on-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives-2009/ 

Ethics and Intangible Cultural Heritage—UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/ethics-and-ich-00866
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-480
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 7.2.: Acknowledging Contributions & Authorship in Open Science (Søren Holm)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, Søren Holm examines the appropriate methods for crediting the various contributions made by researchers and other participants in Open Science projects. The first segment concentrates on authorship and contributorship, while the second segment addresses the proper acknowledgement of contributions made by citizen scientists.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:''' 

[https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two ICMJE, Recommendations, Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.]

[https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2322557 Hosseini, M., Holcombe, A. O., Kovacs, M., Zwart, H., Katz, D. S., & Holmes, K. (2025). Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges. Accountability in Research, 32(5), 762–784]. 

[https://credit.niso.org/ CRediT]. (n.d.). CRediT.

[https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00097 Larivière, V., Pontille, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021). Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 111–128].
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-406
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Study for Lecture 7.2.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-407
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 7.3.: Open Licenses (Theodora Konach)
|Instruction Step Text=This lecture by Theodora Konach covers open licenses relevant to research and scientific work. It begins with an overview of the general principles and forms of Creative Commons licenses, examining how they can be combined and mixed. Further, the second segment of the lecture delves deeper into Creative Commons licenses, discussing topics such as the scope of the licenses, excluded works, and adaptations.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''


'''Further reading:'''

Creative Commons. [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/ Considerations for licensors and licensees.] 

Creative Commons. [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ About CC Licenses.]

Creative Commons. [https://creativecommons.org/legal-code-defined/ Legal Code Defined.]
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-411
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 8.1.: Responsibilities of Citizen Scientists (François Jost)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, François Jost discusses the responsibilities of citizen scientists. The first segment explains what citizen science is and addresses topics such as informed consent, data privacy and security, communication, and transparency. The second segment covers data accuracy and honesty, adherence to project guidance, the significance of training and education, and the role of Open Science in the democratisation of science.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

[https://www.ecsa.ngo/10-principles/ Ten Principles of Citizen Science – European Citizen Science Association] (ECSA).

[https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/extreme-citizen-science-gives-voice-marginalised-remote-communities Extreme citizen science gives a voice to the marginalised in remote communities, Horizon Magazine]. (2022, April 5) 

Elliott, K. C., & Rosenberg, J. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.155 Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1).

Balázs, B., Mooney, P., Nováková, E., Bastin, L., & Jokar Arsanjani, J. (2021). Data Quality in Citizen Science. In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, & K. Wagenknecht (Eds.), [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8 The Science of Citizen Science] (pp. 139–157). Springer International Publishing.

Rasmussen, L. M. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.207 Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1).
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-412
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Case Study for Lecture 8.1.
|Instruction Step Text=Try to answer the questions about the case.
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-413
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Lecture 8.2.: Responsibilities of Scientists Towards Citizen Scientists (François Jost)
|Instruction Step Text=In this lecture, François Jost discusses the responsibilities of professional scientists towards citizen scientists. The first segment of the lecture covers the importance of recognising citizen scientists as partners, promoting inclusivity, and providing them with training. The second segment emphasises the need for open communication and transparency, open data management, and acknowledging the contributions and application of the citizen science approach.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.''' 


'''Further reading:''' 

Ten Principles of Citizen Science – European Citizen Science Association (ECSA). https://www.ecsa.ngo/10-principles/ 

Empowering citizens through science: The role of citizen science in Europe. https://data.europa.eu/en/news-events/news/empowering-citizens-through-science-role-citizen-science-europe 

Herodotou, C., Scanlon, E., & Sharples, M. (2021). Methods of Promoting Learning and Data Quality in Citizen and Community Science. Frontiers in Climate, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.614567 

Eleta, I., Clavell, G. G., Righi, V., & Balestrini, M. (2019). The Promise of Participation and Decision-Making Power in Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.171
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-414
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}