I'm advocating for open science in my institution. Guide me: 1) Join or form open science working groups

Prompt
I'm advocating for open science in my institution. Guide me: 1) Join or form open science working groups
ClaudeAnthropic
I'm advocating for open science in my institution. Guide me: 1) Join or form open science working groups

Joining or Forming Open Science Working Groups

Great choice! Working groups are powerful vehicles for institutional change. Here's your strategic guide:

1. Assess What Already Exists

Before starting something new:

  • Check with your library, research office, or graduate school

  • Search institutional websites for groups focused on:

  • Open access/open data

  • Research integrity/reproducibility

  • Research data management

  • FAIR principles

  • Look for related groups: early career researchers, research methods, specific disciplines

  • Check if there's a local OpenCon, ReproducibiliTea, or similar chapter


Benefits of joining existing groups:
  • Established connections to administration

  • Existing momentum and credibility

  • Access to resources already secured

  • Learn from past efforts


2. If Joining an Existing Group

How to find them:

  • Ask your librarian (they often coordinate these)

  • Contact your research office

  • Post on institutional forums/Slack channels

  • Check professional networks in your field


How to engage effectively:
  • Attend 2-3 meetings before proposing major initiatives

  • Identify gaps you can fill with your skills/perspective

  • Volunteer for specific tasks rather than critiquing generally

  • Build relationships with key members individually


3. If Forming a New Group

A. Build Your Core Team (3-7 people)

Recruit strategically across:

  • Career stages: Mix faculty, postdocs, grad students, staff

  • Departments: STEM, social sciences, humanities

  • Roles: Researchers, librarians, IT staff, research administrators

  • Motivations: True believers + pragmatic allies


Where to find co-founders:
  • People who've attended open science talks

  • Authors of preprints from your institution

  • Those who share code/data already

  • Your institution's data librarian

  • Members of methods/stats groups


B. Define Your Scope and Goals

Start focused, then expand:

Initial goals might include:

  • Educational workshops (1-2 per semester)

  • Creating institutional resources (templates, guides)

  • Building community and sharing practices

  • Advocating for specific policy changes


Questions to answer:
  • Who is your primary audience? (ECRs? All researchers? Administrators?)

  • What aspects of open science? (Open access? Data sharing? Both? More?)

  • Will you be advocacy-focused or community-focused?

  • Disciplinary scope (all fields vs. specific domains)


C. Structure Your Group

Governance:

  • Rotating facilitator vs. permanent chair

  • Decision-making process (consensus? Voting?)

  • Terms of participation (anyone can join? Membership criteria?)


Meeting cadence:
  • Monthly meetings work well initially

  • Mix business meetings with journal clubs or skill-shares

  • Consider hybrid format for accessibility


Useful roles to distribute:
  • Facilitator/chair

  • Communications (social media, newsletter)

  • Event organizer

  • Liaison to administration

  • Liaison to library

  • Funding/grants coordinator


D. Secure Institutional Legitimacy

Critical early steps:

  • Find a faculty champion (if you're not faculty)

  • Someone with tenure or significant standing

  • Willing to lend their name and attend meetings

  • Get library partnership

  • Librarians are natural allies

  • They have rooms, sometimes funding, always expertise

  • May provide administrative support

  • Inform (don't ask permission from) relevant offices:

  • Research office

  • Dean of research/graduate school

  • Position as supportive of institutional goals

  • Create official presence:

  • Institutional email list

  • Web page (even if hosted by library)

  • Listed in institutional directories


E. Launch Activities

First 6 months - Build momentum:

Month 1-2: Foundation

  • Establish meeting schedule

  • Create communication channels (Slack, email list, Twitter)

  • Develop simple website or webpage

  • Draft mission statement together


Month 2-4: Visibility
  • Host introductory workshop ("Introduction to Open Science")

  • Create noise: posters, emails, social media

  • Interview local open science practitioners for blog/newsletter

  • Start coffee meetups or journal club


**Month 4-
{DateTime.UtcNow:HH:mm}
GrokxAI
I'm advocating for open science in my institution. Guide me: 1) Join or form open science working groups

1) Joining or Forming Open Science Working Groups

Advocating for open science is a great initiative—working groups can amplify your efforts by building community and driving institutional change. Here's a step-by-step guide tailored to academic or research institutions.

Assess the Landscape


  • Research Existing Groups: Start by checking if your institution already has relevant groups. Look for committees on data sharing, open access publishing, reproducible research, or citizen science. Resources like your university's faculty senate, research office, or library website often list them. If none exist, note gaps (e.g., focus on open data vs. open methods).

  • Identify Allies: Talk to colleagues in your department, librarians, IT staff, or researchers who've published open-access work. Use tools like ORCID or institutional directories to find advocates. Attend seminars or conferences on open science (e.g., via Open Science Framework or COAR events) to network.


Joining an Existing Group


  • How to Approach: Email the group lead (found via institutional contacts) with a concise introduction: State your interest in open science, mention your role/institution, and offer specific contributions (e.g., "I'd like to help organize workshops on data sharing"). If no formal process, request an invite to a meeting.

  • Active Participation: Once in, volunteer for low-commitment tasks like drafting policy recommendations or sharing resources. This builds credibility—aim to contribute to agendas that align with your advocacy, such as integrating open practices into grant guidelines.

  • Benefits: Joining leverages existing momentum; for example, groups like the Open Science Community Groningen show how local chapters advance institutional policies.


Forming a New Group


  • Build a Core Team: Recruit 3-5 committed people from diverse areas (e.g., faculty, students, admins) via informal chats or emails. Host a casual kickoff meeting (virtual via Zoom) to discuss goals, like promoting FAIR data principles or open peer review.

  • Formalize It: Define a charter: Objectives (e.g., "Advocate for 50% open-access outputs by 2025"), meeting frequency (monthly), and roles. Seek institutional recognition—pitch to department heads or deans with evidence of open science's benefits (e.g., increased citations, per PLOS studies).

  • Sustain Momentum: Use free tools like Slack/Discord for communication, GitHub for collaborative docs, and platforms like Zenodo for sharing outputs. Apply for small grants (e.g., from cOAlition S or institutional innovation funds) to fund events.

  • Potential Challenges & Tips: Resistance to change is common; counter it with data (e.g., UNESCO's 2021 Open Science Recommendation). Start small—pilot a "Open Science Month" with webinars to gain buy-in.


Next Steps for Advocacy


Track progress with metrics like group membership growth or policy adoptions. Connect with global networks like the Open Science Policy Platform (EU) or FORCE11 for templates and inspiration. If your institution is hesitant, frame it around funding advantages (e.g., aligning with NIH or ERC open mandates).

This approach can turn your advocacy into tangible action—feel free to share more details about your institution for tailored advice! If you have questions on other aspects of open science advocacy, let me know.

{DateTime.UtcNow:HH:mm}

💡 Try this comparison yourself:Compare AI models side-by-side on SNEOS

Analysis

This comparison demonstrates the different approaches each AI model takes when responding to the same prompt. Here are the key differences observed:

Response Characteristics

Claude: Provides a detailed response with 37 sentences.

Grok: Provides a direct response with 46 sentences.

Key Takeaways

  • Each model brings unique strengths to this type of query
  • Response styles vary significantly between models
  • Consider your specific use case when choosing between these models

Try This Comparison Yourself

Want to test these models with your own prompts? Visit SNEOS.com to compare AI responses side-by-side in real-time.

This comparison was generated using the SNEOS AI Comparison ToolPublished: October 15, 2025 | Models: Claude, Grok