| layout | title |
|---|---|
page |
Table Topic Discussions |
Table Topics are informal discussions within the community including but not limited to trainees, early career to senior researchers, so for whomever would like to be a part of these discussions.
This year, we will feature 5 table talks covering different topics of Open Science for the OHBM Open Science community.
WHEN: 12:45 (GMT+10), June 25 (Wednesday)
Featured Experts: Andrew Zalesky, Ph.D. and TBD
Brain imaging research has benefited from Open Science practices in data sharing and tools development for standardizing the complex processing steps of neuroimaging data. These collective efforts from the Open Science community have enhanced the reliability, generalizability, and ultimately clinical translatability of brain-behavior findings. However, with limited recognition and supporting resources, many teams that govern the open datasets and that maintain the open tools have struggled to provide sustainable services to the broad research community. In addition, the open science community, especially early-career researchers, has started to raise concerns regarding the incentives in the Open Science practices considering the incommensurate payoff in career development for the invested time and effort.
This issue affects the sustainability of our current Open Science community as well as the Open Science initiatives in non-Western countries. On one hand, the current Open Science community, which mainly includes early-career scientists based in North American and European countries, has struggled to maintain Open Science services while advancing their careers. On the other hand, the outreach of the Open Science initiatives in other regions, especially low-income or non-Western countries, is challenged as the incentives were not clear in different cultures and with limited resources. Questions such as “Why Open Science?” “How do I keep practicing Open Science in a way that helps my career?” “How to balance time, efforts, and resources going into a research project/paper versus into Open Science practices?” have resurfaced.
Our session will provide the audience with general hesitation in continuing to contribute to Open Science and the impact of Open Science on one’s career development, including both the benefits and challenges, and drive the discussion of those topics going forward.
WHEN: 13:00 (GMT+10), June 26 (Thursday)
Moderator: the OSSIG elect team
The Open Science SIG was formed in 2016 during a period of time when open science in neuroimaging research was experiencing substantial growth globally, propelled by international collaborations and initiatives aimed at enhancing research transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility. For example, data collection efforts such as the Human Connectome Project, launched in 2009, inspired similar efforts worldwide and early data sharing efforts such as OpenfMRI, started in 2010, facilitated global access to datasets. In recent years, policies from funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the European Research Council, and other international bodies have increasingly mandated data and resource sharing, reflecting a global shift toward open science practices. Despite these advances, much work remains in order to adopt open science practices and navigate sharing policies globally. The OS-SIG remains ever-relevant in the evolving discussion surrounding open science adoption and principles in the OHBM neuroimaging community. To this end, the OS-SIG and the Open Science Room have organized panel discussions and round table talks at the annual OHBM meeting on topics such as open access policy, incentives for open science, challenges in implementation and standardization, and governance and infrastructure to support open science.
This round table talk recognizes the necessity of community feedback and thus the timely inclusion of input from attendees of OHBM 2025 to guide future topics and events hosted by the OS-SIG. An open discussion on these matters will foster critical inquiry into the ideal form that Open Science should take and inform the future activities of the OS-SIG.
WHEN: 16:00 (GMT+10), June 26 (Thursday)
Featured Experts: TBD
Ethics surrounding open data include numerous stakeholders, from clinicians, individual researchers generating data, researchers accessing shared data, data curators, universities/institutes, governing bodies, and the individuals the data are collected from. On top of these entities, there is an additional layer of geography that brings in cultural/societal influences about what data and with whom data can be shared. The multiplicity of perspectives cannot be adequately presented in a panel, and in such a varied landscape, the egalitarian format of a round table would encourage the diversity of shared perspectives. It is important to get a diverse array of perspectives because while the contexts in which we create sharable data are different, the data serves a common purpose to help further our understanding of the human brain. It is understandable that researchers look at this complex landscape and conclude the safe ethical course of action is to keep the data local and not share it for fear of privacy/legal challenges or other potential consequences. However, not sharing data also has the ethical consequence of inhibiting scientific progress.
The technology to share data has vastly outpaced the conversation around what should be shared, with whom, and how. How can we share data that: maximizes the usefulness of that data, offers due credit to the data generators and curators, and respects the privacy and rights of those we’ve collected the data from? Large consortiums have collected vast amounts of data and are in flux on how to distribute the data to aid research. In addition to the large consortiums of data, there is a long tail of smaller datasets generated by individual labs that are just as important but do not have the resources to spend on navigating the minutia of legal/ethical barriers. Some platforms can host this long tail of data, but there is hesitation due to the aforementioned barriers. Sharing data is not an all-or-nothing choice, and even if data is shared, that does not give researchers carte blanche to run any analysis on the data.
As in many dilemmas, there is no free lunch, but in a round table discussion, there is an opportunity to navigate toward shared solutions.There will be a couple of key concepts/terms that will need to be defined to have a productive discussion: anonymized data, de-identified data, federated analysis, and a high-level awareness of governmental laws protecting data rights.
WHEN: 08:00 (GMT+10), June 27 (Friday)
Featured Experts: Thomas Yeo, Ph.D. & Elise Rowe, Ph.D.
The open science movement, driven by a collective recognition of the need for transparency and reproducibility in scientific research, has gained momentum in recent years across multiple disciplines. As neuroscience and neuroimaging research continue to evolve, it is essential to equip the next generation of researchers with the skills necessary to embrace these practices. This Round Table is especially timely, given the increasing mandates from institutions and funding agencies for open data sharing and collaborative research initiatives. Addressing this topic now offers an opportunity to guide trainees in adopting open science methodologies early in their careers, and to foster a culture of openness and collaboration that will benefit the field as a whole.
Participants are expected to gain a deeper understanding of open science principles, practical strategies for implementation, and the value of a supportive community committed to advancing neuroscience and neuroimaging through transparency and accessibility.
WHEN: 13:00 (GMT+10), June 28 (Saturday)
Feature Experts: TBD
Data governance impacts science globally and locally. Global because we want to share data internationally in a responsible manner, and local because we want to respect local laws and guidelines in every location where the data is stored/shared. These laws and protections have been developed independently across nations, but as we share data between borders we need to identify common pathways that allow the sharing of data while respecting the rights and laws of the individual and the region. The variety of procedures, processes, and frameworks researchers use to share data lends itself to round table discussions where the diversity of experiences can be shared.
Large data consortiums and platforms for individuals to deposit and share data have grown exponentially, but even with the proper technology in place, researchers experience unnecessary friction in sharing/accessing data responsibly and efficiently. Identifying these points of friction and providing concrete guidelines is paramount to promoting equitable access to data, maximizing the usefulness of the data, and ensuring responsible usage of the data. Data governance is about the responsible use of data throughout the entire data lifecycle, creating actionable workflows based on the relevant policies and frameworks. By bringing a diverse group of researchers together, we can identify the points of friction and think of frameworks to help guide decision-making for making data accessible over the data life cycle.
This table talk aim to help participants understand the importance of data governance, find points of similarity and divergence between researchers’ data-sharing strategies, and identify general decision points and guidelines for sharing data.