For a sustainable shift to "more Open Science", the cultural change that is needed touches on policy, requirements, incentives, community, and infrastructure.

In this session, I would like to learn about experiences and come up with new ideas how to balance sticks and carrots to better research practices, how to combine bottom-up and top-down approaches to change, how to observe a shift and monitor effects of sticks/carrots, and how to be less frustrated with the speed of change.

GitHub has been playing a huge role in open source and open science practices. The same way twitter had been useful and is not anymore, we may see an "entshitification" of the GitHub platform: It is own by microsoft (you know the company that bought Skype to let it die, so that people would by microsoft team) and content has already been illegally used for training some AI...

Is it a real threat ?

What can we do to get independent of GitHub, or at least be prepared to move communities to other platforms (GitLab, codeberg) fast?

Hello everyone, I am doing research from an educational perspective on topics related to Open Science. Questions often arise that are related to equity and access to knowledge and the production of knowledge. For example when we focus on the aspect of shared knowledge production, is a contribution from science more important than one from practice? And who then decides from open science perspektive which knowledge has relevance and may be educated in school, university or even further education? It could end in questions like: who owns the knowledge of the world and who decides in about the knowledge of the world. I would be especially interested in what you think, what role (educational) organizations play in this. And what role do terms like knowledge transfer or knowledge generation play when we look at the educational context and (edicatonal) organizations?

I would like to open my research and in this context use the barcamp to discuss with you what the role of (educational) organizations is in the context of epistemic injustice and knowledge justice. I could give a short input on the topic and then openly discuss the question with you.

I want to be honest: I sometimes (often?) don't have sufficient intrinsic motivation to do the best I could do for Open Science. Sometimes I know exactly what would make the world a better place (and the Science more Open), but if no one else arounds me does it, why should I?

At times there is so much other stuff, I don't get started on any of the great ideas on my todo list.

Instead of pitying each other and finding excuses in externalities (both is easy ;), let's be optimistic and active: how can we transform things to the better, even if that means transforming ourselves? What makes YOU believe in yourself and your ideas, and gets you up when you are down?

What strategies can you share; which stories can you tell? Can we learn something from each other? Let's connect!

Climate Justice "links the climate crisis with environmental and social justice" (Wikidata). Our global semanticClimate.org community creates and uses Open tools to discover Open resources and make them semantic - understandable by machines as well as humans. Campers can rapidly search the UN/IPCC's reports and the OpenAccess literature for 'climate justice' material. One goal is to create knowledge graphs that are searchable and strongly linked to Wikidata. Our team is hybrid, some in Berlin, but a larger number online (mainly in India). Current blog thoughts: https://semanticclimate.org/p/en/posts/

I am in the process of crafting an Open Science Policy for the Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO), an institution that specializes in interdisciplinary and historically comparative studies of the Middle East, Africa, Eurasia, South, and Southeast Asia. I am looking forward to learn from others and exchange experiences regarding the implementation of Open Science Policies and the challenges in the field of humanities.

The social medium formerly known as Twitter has been in turmoil for a while. How does this affect your communication strategies when promoting and discussing Open Science? Did you decide to hold out? Did you decide to move to another platform (which one)? What is your experience with formats that are less text-focused?

Over the last 1.5 years we have seen various legislative initiatives that aim to increase the availability of data by forcing various groups of entities (e.g., industry, hospitals, municipalities) to share their data. This happens both on the EU (e.g., Data Act, European Health Data Space Regulation) as well as on the national (German) level (e.g., Forschungsdatengesetz, Gesundheitsdatennutzungsgesetz). Are such measures really helpful for Open Science? What are the experiences in your community?

The session does *not* aim to be a detailed introduction into the mentioned legislative acts (which are assumed to be known - at least partially), but a discussion about their impact on the affected parties.

Which successes have you achieved by practicing Open Science in your career that you would not have achieved otherwise? Which success stories do you know? I would like to collect success stories that we can all share across our networks and use to illustrate benefits of OS practices.

How do you integrate Open Science in your actual research? I have a focus on Life Sciences, but some things are universal, and we can split out in different subgroups, if necessary. :)

How do you match doing Open Science and your duties in Care Work (e.g. children)? Any tips you like to share?