has that richer connection with data, and that is something we have heard from
previous panellists as well.

Ultimately what happened is OHDSI then ended up with a great deal of open source software and they were not managing them very well, so they came to the OSPO and asked for help, and through the OSPO we provided the kind of engineering support, management support and infrastructure support that are necessary to organise the software. I agree completely that researchers should learn about the infrastructure. They should learn about the issues. Education is very important. However, I do not believe researchers should support the infrastructure or sustain it. We heard earlier from Roberto that grants should not be used for operational expenses. I could not agree more. The OSPO is therefore the unit that helps with the education, helps with raising awareness, but that ultimately supports a team like OHDSI. What I heard clearly from our researchers was that 'I do not want to be an expert in open source software, I just want to learn about it and then I want the experts to take over the maintenance and support'. In some sense therefore the OSPO is a centre of excellence, a centre of knowledge or a centre of information.

In the education realm, in this past semester of fall 2021, we conducted a course at Johns Hopkins called the Semesters of Code. This was taught by Stephen Walli, a Microsoft executive with over 40 years of experience with software engineering. He mentioned to me that while graduates from universities like Johns Hopkins have very good skills, companies have discovered that it takes anywhere from three to six months to retrain them to understand how to work in an open source project, how to work as part of a team. The idea therefore is that if we can start the educational process earlier in their undergraduate career then they will be better prepared to work at places like Microsoft. However, we also recognise the tremendous impact and value to them learning these skills regardless of whether they work for a company, become a researcher or work in a non-profit.

The open source software was the framework through which we talked about
software engineering practices. In addition to the lectures, where Stephen covered
topics that were not necessarily related to engineering, like the legal issues, the
economic issues, the history of open source, each student was assigned to a project,
a real world open source project, where individual contributors and developers from
those projects were mentors. The students worked on the projects, and they were
given direct access to a mentor who guided them through the project, who helped
them learn about the project and who then helped them work their way through their
particular assignments. We received the evaluation and feedback a few weeks ago
and I am pleased to note that the students very much enjoyed this. We actually had
one student who had to drop the course because he is graduating, and he could not fit the course into his work, but he continued to work on the project. We had another student who did not finish the work he had decided to do, but then he said, 'Can I do this independently'? and continued working with the mentor. The students therefore really enjoyed this opportunity to focus on real world projects.

One of those real world projects is called Lutece³, an open source digital services platform in the city of Paris. It has been used for many years to provide services to the citizens of Paris, and students at Johns Hopkins have worked on the code with Lutece, made contributions to that. Our OSPO took those contributions, engineered them and updated them, and contributed back to Lutece. We are using this at a community centre in West Baltimore called the St Francis Neighbourhood Center. You therefore have a software platform developed in Paris, worked on by students and software engineers at Johns Hopkins and being used in a community centre in West Baltimore. I mention this to highlight that if we had to sign a legal agreement to have Paris, Johns Hopkins and this community centre work together it would have taken a very long time. Instead, the open source licence of Lutece is the legal agreement under which we did our work.

One other point I therefore wish to make about open source, particularly as it relates to impact outside of universities, is it is a much easier way to partner. You do not have to have a grant. You do not have to have a legal agreement. You have the open source licence itself, which is the way in which you can conduct work with other partners.

I had mentioned that there are multiple universities within the United States now that are forming these kinds of OSPOs. There is a network called OSPO++ that has been created as a community and as a network of these OSPOs⁴. It is not only within the United States. We have participants from Europe and other parts of the world who are coming together to talk about how OSPOs can continue to support the kinds of activities within universities and to increase the amount of impact beyond the university itself.

Recently, OSPO++ has worked on a best practices guide through the United States National Academies of Science. The NAS, as it is called, recently had a committee look at open science and as part of its final report produced a primer on open source software. The OSPO++ brought together representatives from universities, companies and governmental and nongovernmental organisations, including the Open Forum Europe, which is a think tank that has worked closely with the European Commission, to update and create this primer on open source software⁵. An important policy recommendation that has been made by this NAS report matches a recommendation
made within the European Union to create 20 of these so-called OSPOs, both within universities and government, and have those OSPOs work together in a coordinated way. The hope is that the United States will create a network of OSPOs, Europe and other parts of the world will create OSPOs, and we can start to coordinate that activity, start to work towards more common policies, best practices and help our researchers manage their open source software.

## To go a step further

"There is a very important growing movement around ethics in data. The same is true of software. We sometimes talk about biases that are embedded within data, within the tools or algorithms used to process those data through software. There is absolutely an ethical component to working on software, even if it is open source, but one of the good things about open source software is it is transparent, so we have a better chance of seeing what is actually being done in terms of analysing the data."

## References

1. "Open Source Programs Office (OSPO) – Digital Research and Curation Center", Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries (blog), accessed 24 March 2022, https://drcc.library.jhu.edu/open-source-programs-office/.

2. "OHDSI – Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics", accessed 24 March 2022, https://www.ohdsi.org/.

3. "Lutece Framework - Home", accessed 24 March 2022, https://lutece.paris.fr/lutece/.

4. "OSPO++", OSPO++, accessed 24 March 2022, https://ospoplusplus.com/.

5. "Good Practices Primer - Code and Software", 3 December 2021, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T4BAW.
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>
# Open Science Awards Ceremony and Conclusions

Claire Giry
Director General for Research and Innovation, French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation

Daniel Le Berre
Université d'Artois

**Claire Giry:** Our ambition for open science is to really open up the entire research process: publications, which has been done for a little longer than the rest, data, and source codes. In this way, we want to contribute to a more cumulative, more robust and more reproducible science. Every year, we measure the results of this openness, using an Open Science Barometer to gauge how far we have come since 4 July 2018, when we launched our National Open Science Plan. We have just presented the results of this 2021 barometer, and we now estimate that 62% of the 166,000 French scholarly publications published in 2020 were open access in December 2021. That is an increase of 10 points in one year: we are very satisfied to see that the scholarly community is following the trend and that things are moving forward. Our ambition is to eventually reach 100% of publications in open access. We are gradually approaching this, but data sharing remains a challenge to ensure reproducibility of research results, reduce the effort needed to reproduce data and foster new innovations. The aim of open science is to make all results, methods, source codes and software easily accessible. This is why we will later enrich our Open Science Barometer with indicators on the openness of data and software codes.

The Paris Call, which brings us together during this two-day European conference, aims to recognise all forms of research production in order to engage research teams in active sharing, openness and collaboration practices in a sustainable way. With the second National Plan for Open Science announced in July 2021, we wanted to recognise the diversity of contributions to open science and the diversity of its forms. In this second Plan, our ministry has committed to creating and awarding three open science awards each year to reward teams, professors, researchers, but also all contributors involved in research or who support research, and who carry out exemplary work in open science. The three families of awards that we will be giving are the Open Science Award for Open Source Software, the Open Science Award for
Research Data and the Open Science Award for Thesis. The call for entries for the Open Science Research Data Award is underway, and we will grant this award by summer 2022. The first edition of the Open Science Award for Thesis will take place in 2023. We can use this conference days to honour the winners of this first edition of the Open Science Research Awards.

Free software is a pillar of open science. It dates back to the early 1980s, long before we started talking about open science, so it has a very pioneering side. Research software is a tool that participates in the research process, in the processing of data and in the creation of knowledge, but it is also in itself an object of study and a research result, so it is very complex. Through this award, we wish to distinguish open source research software that is useful to large communities, to reward teams that for years have designed this software by making it accessible to all, by documenting it so that it can be reused, by creating and animating communities of contributors to encourage more collaborative and innovative developments, and to go ever further. We are very pleased with the success of this first edition, with 129 software candidates from all fields of research. The jury underlined the very high quality of the free software candidates for this award. This is a first panorama that really shows the commitment of French research in the production of free software, the richness of this production in different fields of application, and this for about fifteen years already. The format of today's ceremony does not allow us to present the winners with their Open Science trophy, but we will do so when the context is more favourable.

**Daniel Le Berre:** 129 candidates, 4 awards at the end, how to do? It was very difficult for the jury. We have 3 award categories, which can be seen as 3 dimensions, plus the jury award. We were a bit frustrated, because ideally, we would have liked to award 129, but that was not possible, so we had to find criteria. The first of these criteria is the scientific recognition, the recognition of the peers towards the scientific and technical part, because this is what is important in science. It can be measured by the citation, as it has been said throughout this day, or by the fact that these softwares are used in society. In some fields of science, sometimes only the specialists, the people who created the software, can modify it, but then many people can use it. Moreover, in some communities, there may be many more contributors than in others, which must be taken into account if we want to make comparisons. Finally, the weak point of free software is generally the documentation. This is especially true for free research software, which is a proof of concept that is made available. When it finally starts to be used, if you haven't done things right from the start, you have problems afterwards... So we had to take this aspect into consideration as well, so we created a category "Documentation associated with software". If some software
is going to be used for decades, then the documentation really has to be important, both for the users and for the developers and future developers.

It was difficult to find winners. We had such a diversity of profiles that we have winners who are the best on the dimension we were trying to study, but also remarkable software. The accessits are not given to the runners-up, but to all the remarkable software that the jury wanted to highlight.

# Open Science Awards for Open Source Research Software

## Scientific and technical category

Winner: The Coq proof assistant (https://coq.inria.fr/)

Accessit: Coriolis VLSI CAD Tools (http://coriolis.lip6.fr/)

## Community category

Winner: Scikit-learn (https://scikit-learn.org/)

Accessits: Vidjil (https://www.vidjil.org/) and WebObs (https://ipgp.github.io/webobs/)

## Category Documentation

Winner: Faust (https://faust.grame.fr/)

Accessit: OpenVIBE (http://openvibe.inria.fr/)

## Jury Prize

Winner: Gammapy (https://gammapy.org/)

Accessits: GAMA (https://gama-platform.org/) and SPPAS (http://www.sppas.org/)
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>
Table of contents

<table><tr><td><strong>Opening of the Conference</strong></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>First Inaugural Speech</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Second Inaugural Speech</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Third Inaugural Speech</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Fourth Inaugural Speech</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Fifth Inaugural Speech</td><td>27</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td><strong>Health Research Transparency</strong></td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Transparency of Health Research</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>How Psychology deals with Open Science. Principles and practices</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Publication and reporting bias: a long history towards open science</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Concluding keynote: Opening and Transforming Biomedical Research</td><td>59</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td><strong>The future of scientific publishing</strong></td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Publishing and Open Science – Where do we stand?</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>New forms of publication. Why? How? How far?</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Publishing and Latin America</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>An Action Plan for Diamond Open Access</td><td>91</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td><strong>Research Assessment – First Session</strong></td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>The Intersections between DORA, Open Scholarship and Equity</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>Open Science Needs No Martyrs, but We Must Recognize the Need for Reform</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>To What extend are Early Career Researchers the Harbingers of Change ?</td><td>113</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td><strong>Research Assessment – Second Session</strong></td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Research Assessment and Open Science in a Diverse World</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>Open Science and Research Assessment. Trends and State of Play in Europe</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>Making Room for Everyone's Talent</td><td>135</td></tr><tr><td>Open Science, Research Assessment and HSS (Humanities and Social Sciences)</td><td>141</td></tr><tr><td>Round Table – Research Assessment</td><td>147</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td><strong>The Software Pillar of Open Science</strong></td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>Building the Software Pillar of Open Science</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>The role of Infrastructure for Software in Open Science</td><td>177</td></tr><tr><td>Open Science, Publications and Code</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Policies to support Open Source and Open science</td><td>189</td></tr><tr><td>Open Science Awards Ceremony and Conclusions</td><td>195</td></tr></table>
Produced on the presses of the Ciaco printing house
in print-on-demand mode
since September 2022
in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Printer's number: 89470