Panelists:
Barbara Sanchez Solis, Head of Center for Research Data Management, TU Wien
Michael Strassnig, Deputy Managing Director of Vienna Science and Technology Fund GmbH (WWTF) & Programme Manager, founding member of the Platform Registerforschung
Petra Schaper Rinkel, Professor of Science and Technology Studies of Digital Transformation, Director Idea Lab - The Interdisciplinary Digital Lab of the University of Graz
Ronald Maier, Vice-Rector for Digitalisation and Knowledge Transfer, University of Vienna
hosted by:
Katja Mayer, Research Platform Governance of Digital Practices, University of Vienna
Žiga Škorjanc, Department of Innovation and Digitalisation in Law, University of Vienna
in cooperation with the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research
***
With advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and their inherent capability for autonomous learning and the creation of synthetic content, there arises a distinct need for systematic and transparent methodologies of knowledge production. Open Science and Open Research Data stand out as avenues that prioritise transparency in knowledge dissemination and interpretation. Open Science, rooted in principles of thorough methodologies, accountability, and reproducibility, seeks to reevaluate and refine traditional research practices. The values of inclusivity, equity, and shared knowledge underpin this approach, thus, the principles of Open Science have the potential to contribute to better law-making, particularly in the digital sphere.
However, Open Science, while offering a range of advantages to the academic community and beyond, simultaneously introduces a range of legal challenges. A primary consideration is the reconciliation of transparency and accessibility with the protection of intellectual property and adherence to established copyright laws, especially within the academic sector's competitive dynamics. Beyond these primary legal concerns are more nuanced issues pertaining to data protection, competition dynamics, contractual stipulations, and governance of infrastructures. As global discussions around digital rights and new data legislative frameworks evolve, opportunities emerge to draw from existing experiences and develop nuanced, effective solutions, as also indicated by the ERA Policy Agenda. The public round table at the conference Young Digital Law 2023: Bias in Lawmaking in Vienna gathered stakeholders to dissect and discuss these legal and practical complexities associated with Open Science. In response to the findings of the 2021 study titled "Open Access in Transition", commissioned by the BMBWF, the roundtable delved deeper into the nuanced practicalities encountered at the confluence of various legal domains associated with the implementation of Open Science. This discourse serves as an imperative juncture, intertwining legal studies, science and technology policy, and research organisation. The perspectives and insights gleaned from stakeholders actively engaged in open science are instrumental in refining our comprehension and guiding the strategies we adopt.
In her opening statement, Petra Schaper Rinkel commenced by expressing concerns over the bureaucratic burden perceived in open science. Furthermore, she highlighted the necessity for implementing property rights at a constitutional level when dealing with open data, cautioning against the potential relinquishing of proprietary research data on expansive commercial platforms. Schaper Rinkel strongly advocated for a discussion on data ownership in academic research to further the progression of science as a common good.
Ronald Maier emphasised that the core of science lies in the pursuit of truth. He elaborated on the University of Vienna's advantageous position in offering digital research infrastructures and also being part of inter-university efforts to collaborate and share these infrastructures. Maier spotlighted the important role of data stewards and data curation for long term preservation and sound informed consent procedures. He underscored the importance of ensuring data access isn't monopolised by large corporations and highlighted the inherent legal challenges in data management, copyright issues concerning open data, and advocated for open science as an essential medium for credible research that is both excellent and relevant.
Barbara Sanchez Solis provided insights into the Center for Research Data Management at the TU Wien, stating that while foundational groundwork has been laid for legal awareness, there remains scope for refinement. She demystified research data management, emphasising the many benefits of data management plans for researchers even though they come with some effort. Sanchez Solis pointed out that while funders mandate open data and research plans, research data management shouldn't be conflated with open and F.A.I.R. data, however effective data management is the basis for it. She also noted a lack of training in legal and ethical challenges in science in general in academic curricula.
In his opening statement, Michael Strassnig delved into the intersections of AI, authorship, and legality. He stressed that the notion of authorship and the attached legal norms vary significantly across regions, such as between the US and Europe. Strassnig cited a prominent publisher's standpoint on AI, highlighting the publisher's stance against AI's recognition as authors. He posed critical questions about future implications of AI-driven authorship, especially in the context of legal scholarship. Strassnig further dissected the aspect of transparency, referencing its frequent citation in regulations like the GDPR and AI Act. He questioned the institutional preparedness to handle such transparency mandates. Lastly, he underscored the burgeoning concern of public knowledge privatisation. This is not merely manifest in commercial research infrastructures or research information systems but is also evident in contemporary AI methodologies, which frequently train on data amassed from a plethora of public sources.
***
Discussion: Institutional Autonomy and Open Science: Legal Implications and Infrastructure Needs
The discussion following the initial statements focused on the autonomy of research institutions in the realm of open science and their interaction with existing legislative frameworks. Žiga Škorjanc posed an initial inquiry regarding institutions' preference between adhering to existing legislation or creating autonomous guidelines. Sanchez Solis posited that universities exert considerable discretion in shaping the extent of internal openness. Notably, with regard to data, there arise intricate queries. For instance, when does data attain a level worthy of copyright protection, akin to the German concept of "Werkhöhe"?
Strassnig responded with concerns about institutionalising the necessary infrastructure to bolster open science, emphasising the intertwined relationship between infrastructure and adequate funding. He argued for a judicious allocation of funds for data management, coupled with clear criteria for data retention and removal. Moreover, a pertinent inquiry remains: To what extent should we allocate resources towards data management such that it yields genuine benefits, rather than pursuing it as a mere formality?
Maier provided an observation on the reluctance of research institutions to impose burdensome obligations that could detract from core research activities. Citing AI products like ChatGPT as examples, he alluded to the complexities of ascertaining data origins and navigating potential third-party rights. He warned of the potential pitfalls of entangling researchers in too many bureaucratic procedures—procedures which not only impose more stringent standards than those faced by commercial entities but also demand a range of legal services, many of which remain inaccessible to the research community.
Schaper-Rinkel advocated for an expansive public open data infrastructure, suggesting the potential of harnessing technologies controlled by tech conglomerates for open data initiatives. She emphasised the significance of intertwining legal frameworks with pragmatic solutions for data infrastructure and championed public ownership as a means to democratise data access, thereby broadening the discourse to encompass broader societal ramifications.
***
Audience Inquiries on Open Science Practices
Knowledge Transfer Modalities: In response to an inquiry about general knowledge transfer, Maier identified three potential trajectories that deviate from the open science model: university-originated spin-offs, research partnerships in which collaborating firms retain intellectual property (IP) rights, and prospective alliances focusing on research findings. In alternative contexts, collaborative strategies are viewed as more desirable. Nevertheless, in every scenario, there should be contemplation of integrating at least some elements of open science.
Data Management & Stakeholder Engagement: A subsequent inquiry delved into the strategies for engaging diverse stakeholders in data management. Sanchez Solis elucidated that many universities maintain local instances of data repositories. Internal infrastructure significantly streamlines the process of imparting data management to researchers, equipped with tools to ensure compliance with legal stipulations for open science, such as prominence, licensing, and documentation.
Publishing Houses & Open Access: Another question revolved around the “big deal” subscription with publishers, as they are expensive and it is not always clear how they are used in the end. In addressing the role and response of publishing houses to open access, Strassnig emphasised the commercial dynamics always at play, hinting at potential monopolistic tendencies. He envisages publishers morphing into providers (Maier: “big integrators”) for the whole scientific workflow, harvesting all the knowledge, not only published results. Schaper-Rinkel accentuated this concerning perspective: the potential for publishers to amass more data about research and researchers than even the research institutions or governments themselves.
Open Access and academic reward systems: Škorjanc delved into the tension between promoting open access research and its possible ramifications on one's academic trajectory. Strassnig underscored the significance of metadata produced during the publication process, positing it could rival the inherent value of the research content. Maier concurred, suggesting that greater availability of data pertaining to, and originating from, a researcher could enhance their visibility and consequently bolster their academic standing.
The Evolution of Academic Publishing: A narrative about the resignation of an editorial board of a highly prestigious journal and the long tradition of open access movements in Latin America prefaced the query on the feasibility of reimagining academic open access publishing. Strassnig postulated that the current fee-based publishing system, rooted in the quest for reputation via prestigious journals, might persist. Ronald Maier, however, speculated on the evolving business models of publishers, potentially hinting at their unsustainability. He posited that increasing data accessibility could herald the entry of unconventional players in the publishing domain, potentially redefining peer review mechanisms. Sanchez Solis mentioned an EU initiative, "COARA" aiming to reform researcher assessments. Schaper-Rinkel highlighted the dichotomy between university management's preference for established, albeit costly, publisher contracts and the challenges faced by nascent open access initiatives due to these contractual obligations. Katja Mayer referred to the “diamond open access” publishing model as a more sustainable public model. Diamond Open Access is a publication model where neither authors nor readers incur fees. These journals, community-driven and academically led, cater to diverse, small-scale, multilingual scholarly groups, epitomising bibliodiversity.
IP Rights and University-Publisher Dynamics: A subsequent, somewhat freeform discussion revolved around the tensions between publishers, universities, and researchers' legal uncertainties, such as secondary publication rights, embargo durations, and exploitation rights, among others. Ronald Maier highlighted the societal basis of universities, underscoring their status as public knowledge institutions. While not driven by commercial objectives, they can still foster initiatives like startups. Sanchez Solis argued that universities justifiably exert control over the exploitation rights of the research they support.
In wrapping up the discussion the topic of open science was linked to the “third mission” of universities. The "third mission" refers to the deliberate application and transfer of academic knowledge to address societal challenges, encompassing technology and innovation partnerships with both public and private entities. Maier reminded attendees of the overarching societal objective that drives many researchers, highlighting the necessity for acknowledging and rewarding those who extend their work beyond purely academic confines. Schaper-Rinkel reiterated the urgent requirement for robust public infrastructure that facilitates open data access, pointing to the current reliance on large commercial platforms. Strassnig revisited an earlier contention, emphasising that challenges related to open access should not merely be thrust upon individual researchers but warrant attention and intervention at the political echelon. Sanchez Solis articulated a crucial need in the realm of digital service implementation: specialised legal expertise. She asserted the complexity of legal intersections in this domain, suggesting the potential role of "data lawyers" who would comprehensively navigate these intricate waters.
Finally, Katja Mayer summarised the expansive terrain covered during the session. She remarked on the multifaceted legal dimensions enveloping open science as "multi-domain knowledge." Throughout the discussion, the recurring themes ranged from evolving reward systems and fears of excessive bureaucratisation to concerns surrounding AI's potential misuse. She also spotlighted the repeated calls for the establishment of a solid public infrastructure with sustainable resources and governance, with specific mentions of data stewardship and long-term storage. The dialogue explored the multifaceted challenges anticipated to shape the future of open science, underscoring the necessity of an ethical and secure foundation for open research. Attendees highlighted the significance of comprehensive legal frameworks to grant researchers distinct legal guidance and to concurrently nurture public confidence in scientific outcomes. Additionally, the discussions acknowledged digital technology's dual role as an enabler and determinant in the sphere of Open Science. In conclusion, we trust that the discourse nurtured understanding and endorsement of Open Science within the legal academic sphere. It aimed to steer the community amidst the nuanced legal intricacies of digital research approaches, with the aspiration of establishing a foundation for a more transparent, inclusive, accessible, and legally consistent open science framework.
