Can the reward system learn to love open science? Part 2: Véronique de Herde

As we discovered in our last episode, episode 8, open science is driving new, more transparent and collaborative ways of working and sharing, which aim to help everyone access, participate in and benefit from scientific endeavour. The movement has been gaining momentum over the past decade and the COVID-19 crisis has only accelerated its growth, with nations, institutions, and publishers openly sharing data and studies on an unprecedented scale.

In this episode, Stephane Berghmans speaks with early career researcher Véronique de Herde, whose passion for open science was sparked by her volunteer role with Eurodoc - the European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. She shares her belief that open science could trigger a radical transformation of our research culture. 

SHOW NOTES:

About Véronique De Herde
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vdeherde/
Ph.D. candidate in agronomy at UClouvain - Belgium, Véronique De Herde holds a master degree in contemporary history and a master degree in bioengineering. Her interdisciplinary Ph.D. studies the transition pathways in the dairy sector of the Walloon region. Before starting her Ph.D., she has had several professional experiences in Belgium, Germany and France. Véronique acted over the last two years as Secretariat Coordinator for Eurodoc, the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. She also trained as one of Eurodoc’s Open Science Ambassadors and acted as a contact for plan S. Dedicated pianist and writer, she appreciates long walks in poetic landscapes.
See her research website: https://sytra.be/fr/membre/veronique-de-herde/ 

Véronique was also a panelist in the recent webinar: "Open Science and the reward system: how can they be aligned".

We would like to hear from you.

We would like to get your input on Research 2030, find out what drew you in to listen and what topics you would like us to cover. Click on the link about to take our short, and anonymous survey! Or, you can always send us an email at: Research2030@elsevier.com

Transcript

Giacomo Mancini

Hello, I’m Giacomo Mancini. Welcome to Research 2030 – an Elsevier podcast series in which guests from academia and beyond join us in exploring, debating and challenging the changing research landscape. And welcome to Part 2 in our series of episodes devoted to open science entitled: Can the reward system learn to love open science? 

As we discovered in episode one, open science is driving new, more transparent and collaborative ways of working and sharing, which aim to help everyone access, participate in and benefit from scientific endeavour. The movement has been gaining momentum over the past decade and the COVID-19 crisis has only accelerated its growth, with nations, institutions and publishers openly sharing data and studies on an unprecedented scale.

But change is never all smooth sailing and the rise of open science brings challenges in its wake. For example, the existing researcher reward system still heavily favors citation metrics, with little recognition of researchers’ activities beyond the publication of papers. 

 Happily, we have Stephane Berghmans, Elsevier Vice President of Academic and Research Relations EU, on hand to help us navigate this complex topic. As you may recall, in the previous episode, he spoke with Jean-Claude Burgelman, part-time Professor of open science policy at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the European Commission’s former open access envoy, who highlighted the pressing need for new open science metrics. In this episode, Stephane is joined by early career researcher Veronique de Herde, whose passion for open science was sparked by her volunteer role with Eurodoc - the European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. She shares her belief that open science could trigger a radical transformation of our research culture.  

Stephane 

Today we are here to speak about open science and we'll be talking with a young researcher who has a very interesting and diverse academic background already. Veronique de Herd first got a masters in contemporary history from the Université Libre de Bruxelles, so in Brussels, in Belgium, she then went on to get another master. But this time in bioengineering at the Université catholique de Louvain. Today, Veronique is a, a FRIA FNRS scholar, as I used to be a long time ago, actually. And she's finishing her PhD at the earth and life Institute, uh, from the agronomy faculty at the same university. Veronique, uh, welcome. And thank you. Could you maybe begin by telling us a little bit about yourself and the role you have had with, uh, Eurodoc and looking back at your involvement in discussions on open science. Could you also tell us what were the factors that led you to get involved into the topic of open science? When did it all start for you? Were there any particular light bulb moments that helped you decide this was an important topic for you and for early career researchers in general?

Veronique 

Thank you, Stephane. And thank you for hosting me on, on this podcast. I started volunteering at Eurodoc two years ago, and over the last year I followed a training that was organized by Eurodoc on open science, uh, and the training encompassed all aspects of open science from open data to open peer review. Um, uh, actually, um, through my engagement with Eurodoc, I became more and more aware of, um, how, uh, open science practices had the potential to, uh, completely, um, reshape the way, uh, research was, um, done, but also how, uh, we, um, as researchers communicated, not only with our peers, but also with society, and that open science, um, meant, um, reclaiming, uh, the place of research in society in a way. That's what, what I found particularly interesting about open science, uh, and what, what became the, in my, my, my core motivation for pursuing, uh, advocacy, on that topic specifically.

Stephane 

So that's interesting because you're using the words reshape, reclaiming, and I'm sure we will not settle on the definition of open science today, but could you at least tell us, and for the benefit of the listeners, what a open science means to you actually?

Veronique 

Well, for me, open science, it's basically a philosophy. Um, it's, uh, the idea to move from, , uh, of doing research, doing science that are, uh, very, um, closed in a way that you will barely communicate, uh, about, uh, your research workflow, uh, towards other researchers and, um, let alone to towards society. So it's the philosophy that, um, if you are more open about your whole research workflow towards your peer and towards society, there is potential for, um, not only better practices, but also, new pathways of discovery.

Stephane 

So new pathways to discovery, and of course that's for the whole of research, but looking at open science today and based on your own experience as a young researcher, but also from the many interactions with, er, other young researchers, what would you say are the important open science themes for early career researchers specifically, and, and, and for the early career researchers, again, what would you say are the drivers and barriers to open science?

Veronique 

Well, typically, uh, as early career researchers, uh, we explore a topic during, during our PhD and we produce an enormous amount of material. Uh, we sometimes take the risk of being innovative in terms of methodology and, and it's, it's something that you can do during a PhD, for example and the end result of that, well, basically in, in the, in the present way of evaluating, uh, and, and valorizing science, the end result of that is scientific articles, but there is a whole aspect of your research workflow, um, that remains in the shadows. And it's basically a waste of resources that, that part of, uh, your research as early career researchers,  is of no use for anyone. So that's the potential of open science. That's that early career researchers can be valorized for the contribution that they do to science and to scientists. And not only on the base of the results that they produce, uh, I mean, not the resource, but the, the, the communication that is done about, about their work. Um, I think there was a second aspect in your question.

Stephane 

On one side, you know, it was talking about the drivers, but also the barriers. Uh, so I th I think that, you know, you're describing here now, one of the drivers, do you see some barriers or why early career researchers would not want to go into open science and practice open science?

Veronique 

Well, basically because, because a lot of aspects of open science, for example, open data, is not at all valorized. It's not a requirement. Uh, and, and basically early career researchers do not get credit for making the databases they created, accessible to others or tagging their databases with accurate meta data so that other researchers could use them. And, of course that's a barrier because, uh, everyone has a limited amount of time. Of course everyone dedicates, uh, his or her time to what matters in terms of evaluation in terms of being able to apply for other positions. And, um, there are many aspects of, uh, the workflow that do not apply for this, for example. 

Many early career researchers probably, um, go deep into a topic, and that would make sense to communicate toward society about what they have, uh, achieved, uh, in terms of results. But again, that is not taken into account in the evaluation of the early career researchers, and also when they have to apply for, uh, further positions, uh, it's not taken into account. I think definitely there is a barrier to adopting open science practices that lies there, same about we could go over open access as well. There is always this tension between, uh, yeah, I have to publish in certain journals to get a high impact factor, uh, to, uh, because it matters for a future applications, but, um, are these journals open access or not? Yeah, when people have to dedicate time to things , or, or, um, energy to things that are not evaluated or, uh, valued, um, well then it's not strategic for them. And many aspects open science, uh, do not, uh, answer to that, that notion that you have to be strategic with what you're doing.

Stephane 

So you're talking about strategy, you used the word valorized, and of course you use the word evaluation. And I think we all agree that doctoral candidates and junior researchers should be duly recognized and respected for the essential role that they play. And that you described. So, you know, can you elaborate on how you think early career researchers feel about the way their performance is currently evaluated?

Veronique 

Well, I think first that, um, many early career researchers aren't even aware that they are in a given system, they understand that they have to publish, uh, and the, they put that as their end goal. Uh, but that's systemic. I mean, if the system valorized the fact that they produced quality data sets, for example, they would understand that, uh, it would matter to put energy in there, but the system doesn't do that. so that's first thing. Um, the second aspect is that, uh, even if you are aware that, so to speak, the system may be, could valorize other things than just, uh, publications. Uh, it doesn't mean that you are in a position of power as to, uh, go against that, uh, because you, you, you basically, depend upon what, uh, everyone requires from you, um, and you are in no position to challenge that as early career researcher.

Stephane 

So that's interesting because, so what you're saying is that early career researchers are either not aware of the system in which they are in, or if they are aware of the system, they have no power over it. So do you think that in that context you just described do they, like many other stakeholders expect, or even are they calling for a reform of the reward system in research, or are they completely, uh, you know, unaware of that potential?

Veronique 

I think many early career researchers understand and feel it's, it's more than about understanding. It's really feeling that the system they are in is really competitive and not especially fair in the sense that you can create extraordinary datasets and go deep into research question and really do science, but because you explore erm a certain field that might not, um, coalesce or end up in a super quality article doesn't mean that you are a bad scientist, it just means that maybe the topic or the way you approached it made it difficult to read, or just, it might just not be the fashionable topic of the time, for example. So I think many, many early career researchers understand that the system is harsh on, on, on researchers, and they feel that they, they, they know that, um, they are in some sort of competitive minds mindsets.

It doesn't mean on the other hand that they have the choice to do something else. 

Stephane 

You know, when I interviewed Jean-Claude Burgelman earlier, what he was saying is that he supports change the reward and incentive system for researchers. And he said that responsibility for effecting that change lies with the science scientific community. And if that's this case, and based on what you just said about the role, you know, early career researchers play, I suppose those younger researchers might want to drive this change as they will be the ones the most impacted in the future. So I wondered whether you have any suggestion on how this could happen. If it were you, what would you do to make it happen? This reform of the, uh, the reward system?

Veronique 

Well, the first step is awareness. Uh, there is a lack of awareness, and I think I would even tend to say that, uh, senior researchers are even less aware of the system they're in than early career researchers. So the first step is really raise awareness about, you know, the system is, as it is. It, it, it, it valorizes excellence in a certain way. That's, that's all good, but there is a way to change the system and keep it as excellent as possible. Uh, and actually, I think open science can achieve that. It would be a more a collaborative system, uh, and it doesn't mean per se that a more collaborative environment would be less efficient in terms of productivity or, uh, in terms of, um, excellence.

I think it's, it's a more general mindset that we think that, uh, competition, uh, allows people to, uh, achieve excellence, but I am not sure we are right about this. I really think that, collaboration because there is more exchange of the resources created in science, might bring more excellence and, uh, it would be a, uh, also a fairer system because then, uh, the contribution of everyone would be more recognized. So I think there is, there are two aspects here. Um, there is a question of awareness, uh, and there is also a question of understanding the deeper philosophical backgrounds in which the present system is rooted. The present system is rooted in, in, in, in competition basically. 

Stephane 

So what elements of researchers life should then be included in this new, uh, reward system, if it's not, uh, the articles that they publish?

Veronique 

Well, I already spoke about data, uh, but there is also, uh, the services that we, grants, uh, the community. For example, when we review, uh, research of others, when we discuss the research of others, and now it's, it's something that researchers do for free. Most of that activity is closed of course now there is the open, uh, peer review system that is expanding, but the norm remains that it is closed. But, um, for example, if that, uh, can be valorized, it also means that researchers will do it with another mindset, because then they will consider, uh, reviewing the research of others in the spirit of collaboration, because what they will bring to that research will be visible. Also the same when researchers go on to communicate to society, uh, at present, it's not valorized at all. 

So we don't know exactly, but that researcher say that the outreach that they did was not seen favorably because it was considered as a waste of time or as militancy or as advocacy. And that it was not a place for researchers. If you give a place to that in the evaluation, then it also means that researchers can really if you were integrating evaluation, the quality of the data sets, you create the quality of the, um, the input that you give to others, other researchers, for example, through peer review and the quality of, um, the communication that you give back to society. And, we all know how crucial it is now that, uh, researchers talk to society and that, it doesn't remain something between ourselves.

Then yes, you can create a research system where researchers would be, uh, incentivized for going collaborative instead of competitive. It changes the landscape completely. And it's a bit of a paradox because now the only thing that is valorized is how we talk to other scientists, because we know that no one reads our papers except scientists. And it's a bit of a paradox because we, we, we, most of us search on public funds and it seems that it's not even a factor, whether or not what we achieve serves society back. It's like we, we serve the scientific community, but it shouldn't be a bubble that remains separate from, from societal issues, but that's more of my personal opinion.

Stephane 

But that's interesting what you're saying, because I mean, this goes well beyond open science, in a sense, uh, you know, what you're talking is a change of the research culture, actually

Veronique 

Indeed. I, I think I referred to this earlier in the interview I think that the, the basic philosophy behind open science was really that people felt and saw that the way research was conducted was in a way detrimental to, uh, I couldn't even say that the efficiency of research, uh, because everyone searches in, his or her little corner and then go on to publish as much as possible and as fast as possible, um, to beat the neighbor. And then that's it mission accomplished. Okay. That's, that's cool. But does it bring any good to anyone? I'm not so sure about that. So, yes, indeed. Um, I think open science has the potential to change the research culture completely.

But I, I know that that's, uh, it's, it's controversial at the same time because,  if you take some practices of open science, isolated, like open access, for example. You can implement open access in the system as it is, and not change anything else in the way researchers share or communicate about their data. So isolated elements of open science can be implemented in a non changing system, but I think if you, if you look, uh, at the global picture and at the, whole, uh, research, uh, open science practices, then indeed these practices can support a completely change of research culture.

Stephane 

And so sorry, but, you know, we've talked about the sociology of science here and even philosophically about those changes. Can I try to go back through to something more practical? And I was wondering if you have views on whether, this will all require extra work from researchers, because if it does, where is the incentive for researchers to comply and how does it add to the pressures they are already experiencing and that you were describing?

Veronique 

Of course, if you have produce, uh, databases that you, you can communicate or, outreach, uh, material that you create on the base of your research, it means more work than just writing scientific articles. That's true. But if these aspects enter, uh, in your evaluation process, then it's a, it's a natural incentive that you receive. And, there is also an aspect of, uh, I would say even a wellbeing that, if you have to, you can dedicate a little bit of less time to publishing. And we all know that there is this trend of, uh, I mean, I don't know the exact figures, but I think the, the number of publications increases every year and it's completely crazy because there are more and more articles published and, and people even question whether you can follow, I think, in your own field about everything that is published, if you dedicate a little bit less time to that. And on the other hand, dedicates a little bit more time to creating your database in a way that's, uh, like making your data fair.

Like we said, uh, uh, find-able, accessible, interoperable and reusable. Uh, then it also means that that's your daily life as a researchers might be richer because it creates a broader diversity of, of, of, um, activities. And, and maybe, uh, that you can also, as a person feel rewarded, if you, if you dedicate some time to create outreach material, and then that you realize that it really helped. And then you might think further, you might also think if, if you create a culture where, uh, you have these different scientific activities, so not only publishing, but all the rest, uh, and that naturally, some people might be better at some parts of these activities.

Well, if you are in a collaborative mindset, it's all right, because the researchers who are brilliant at exploring in creating databases and data sets and analyzing these data sets well, they can be brilliant at that. And you can imagine that some others are brilliant at, uh, creating, uh, super outreach material. Well, then it's fine because we are in a collaborative environment and everyone can find a place that, makes, uh, them, um, let's say valorized for what they do best.

Stephane

let's, let's take this and let's bring it to the broader global context, because if you imagine that you work at a university that is indeed changing its reward and incentive system, like you're describing, do you think that this could actually have an impact on your career opportunities? You've been saying now that, you know, it's a collaborative environment, but for example, will you still easily be able to go to another university in another country in Europe or outside of Europe where the system is not being changed, or do you think it might affect the possibility for some to move to the private sector? For example?

Veronique 

I don't think that, uh, a collaborative environment will make us less productive. Uh, you might as well even produce more because you are involved in more team projects means that your name ends up onmore projects. The fear that all resumes would be, uh, less good. I think it's, it's not, it's not grounded, but then there is the question of like, um, what you can actually do and what are your skills. Uh, and then I could imagine that some could say, yeah, but then, I might lack skills, you know, the system, but even that, I'm not sure because if you are in a more open system, you, you will actually learn a more diverse set of skills. I'm really not sure that, uh, the fear that the transition would make us less competitive as individuals is grounded.

Veronique 

I don't know if I am right or wrong, but I think that's, it's, it's often a fear that is put forward telling people, yeah but if we change the system, you won't be able to sell yourselves to, to, to try competitive systems where, uh, uh, people publish, uh, I don't know how many papers here. Okay. But if, if you think about a collaborative, uh, environment, potentially you could end up with more papers with more balanced effort. Maybe I'm a future utopian or naive, I don't know, but that's how I see it. I really don't think it will make us less competitive if we see that from that angle.

Stephane 

Well, many are like you, uh, in Europe. And, uh, that's how I'd like to conclude. I want to ask your view on Jean-Claude's other statement that if Europe was bold enough to introduce a new research reward system, it's likely that other countries would soon follow. So my question to you is can Europe lead this change and how do you think it is progressing on open science and the reward system compared to other parts of the world right now?

Veronique 

Well, Europe can lead this change, uh, like any, any country or, set of countries could lead the change. I think, uh, leading the change, starts with understanding that the system in which you are, is efficient in a way, but has also flaws and that these flaws bring inefficiency, uh, also in terms of wellbeing.

I think Europe has definitely a strategy in terms of open data. For example, the EOSC, project is clearly, uh, something they are trying to implement. That's certainly a good thing. I would say in terms of, um, open access, for example, um, there is a lot being done, but not enough reflected uh, upon the publishing system as a whole. Uh, and I think Europe on that aspect could learn a lot about initiatives, for example, in South Americawhere, there is a whole publishing landscape that is completely different from Europe, uh, that is publicly driven. Um, and Europe certainly has a lot to learn from what happens elsewhere. But I think also that, um, there is an issue in Europe I think many people are generally adverse and that's cultural to collective, uh, bottom up finance initiatives.

And that's, I think more, er,philosophical like, uh, that's that's, um, initiatives had to be, uh, individual and private. That's a bit how Europe, like, uh, built itself, uh, philosophically at least over the last 30 years. And so the idea that we have to think collectively about what do we want as a system that is that has not entirely percolated yet. I think in the minds of the scientists. And I would I would even say, uh, if I, dare, uh, the general population, it's really something that, that is needed now, we cannot, let other people decide for us or take the initiative for us. And, there are talk about the scientific community. It's like, it's easy, but then you can't complain that you have something that is not entirely what you wished for. So there is a discrepancy there, uh, in terms of mentality, I think, and, and for me, that's the main, uh, that's the main obstacle to really, uh, be able to take the lead on that. 

Stephane 

Wow. what are we to conclude? I mean, do we want collectively to make a choice about the system we want, or do we want to leave that to others? Unfortunately, we, we have to stop already, but thank you so much for your time and all your insight, uh, much appreciated.

Veronique 

Thank you.

 Giacomo Mancini

 It’s clear that for Veronique, many of the points raised by our previous guest, Jean-Claude Burgelman, ring true – it’s time to broaden the system we use to measure researcher success and embrace open science metrics. Only then will researchers be incentivized to pursue a more open route.

 But, for Veronique, there is another step required first – and that’s an awareness-building exercise. We need to encourage researchers to realize that they are operating in a competition-based system. Only then can we help them feel empowered to change it for one that is more collaborative, effective, and fair. A new system that celebrates diversity of skills and promotes a sense of well-being among researchers.

 If you didn’t catch Stephane’s interview with Jean-Claude, it’s available now. And don’t forget to subscribe to Research 2030 so you are notified when future episodes are released, including the next installment of our open science series. 

 Interested in learning more about how open science might develop in the coming 10 years? It was a key theme in Elsevier’s 2019 study, Research futures: drivers and scenarios for the next decade. In fact, one of those scenarios - Brave open world – anticipated the current pandemic… You can download the report from the link is also available in our show notes.

 Finally, our thanks to Veronique de Herde for joining us here on Research 2030 and to Stephane Berghmans for guest hosting this episode.  I’m Giacomo Mancini - thank you for listening.