To spread awareness on Open Science and to learn from each other, formats of exchange are paramount. This refers to exchange within one academic institution and to players within consortia of institutions that collaborate closely, such as the academic alliances formed by the European Universities Initiative (EUI) (European Commission, n.d.). In fact, we could argue that exchange is of particular importance in cross-national consortia due to the wide range of Open Science-related backgrounds, practices and expectations that go with such a multicultural set-up. This entails a wider range of discrepancies and thus a higher need for exchange. At the same time, it suggests a more ample set of opportunities for growth for everyone involved. Along these lines, the importance of geographical and linguistic diversity in the approach to open research-related information was highlighted in the recent Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information (2024). Open Science-related practices have lasting and decisive impacts on the role of academic librarianship as “in the context of open science, academic libraries are beginning to redefine or expand their role, reinventing themselves by expanding their traditional information services as well as their educational and mediation functions (Tang & Hu, 2019)” (Liu & Liu, 2023). This evolution aligns with the earlier insights of Paul Ayris and Tiberius Ignat (2018) who explored how libraries can actively engage with and provide leadership in the Open Science movement. Consequently, exchanges on Open Science inherently involve exchanges on (innovative) librarianship.

In view of all that, the Open Science-related activities of the European Reform University Alliance (ERUA), which was founded in the context of the EUI, involved three Open Science Live Meet-Ups (https://erua-eui.eu/). These took place in the context of project Re:ERUA (“Re:” stands for research), which ran from October 2021 until September 2024 and aimed at developing ERUA’s research trajectory (European Commission, 2024). In its first funding phase, ERUA involved five universities: New Bulgarian University (Bulgaria), Roskilde University (Denmark), University of the Aegean (Greece), University of Konstanz (Germany) and University of Paris 8 (France). To develop the alliance’s research trajectory jointly, Re:ERUA consisted of thematic work packages which involved specialists from the five universities. One of these work packages was dedicated to developing joint synergetic Open Science-related measures, such as exchange formats like the live meet-ups. These meet-ups were designed to give all ERUA members interested in Open Science, not just Open Science professionals, the opportunity to meet in the flesh to exchange perspectives on as well as approaches to Open Science to learn from each other. Along these lines, the live meet-ups were crucial for sharing the individual alliance members’ perspectives on and involvements in Open Science. Apart from that, it was important for Open Science-related professionals as well as other Open Science enthusiasts within ERUA to exchange perspectives and to learn from each other. In this regard, the live meet-ups complemented the monthly virtual Open Science Meet-ups, which were started in ERUA (Heber, 2023; Open Science Meet-Ups, n.d.) and are now offered by the alliance European University for Well-Being (EUniWell). In contrast to the virtual meet-ups, we wanted the live meet-ups to seize the opportunities of on-site meetings, offering interactions and exchange that is hard to digitize. To attract a wide range of academic players, the live meet-ups were organised in synergy with the alliance’s annual summits. Table 1 provides an overview of the three instalments.

As a format, the ERUA live meet-ups tie in with a whole sphere of (cross-national) Open Science-related exchange formats in Europe and beyond. All three sessions were organised by Maximilian Heber (University of Konstanz) and Dr Goran Sekulovski (University of Paris 8 when the meet-ups were organised, now National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee)). In this paper, we want to share and reflect on our experiences drafting, planning and performing these intercultural spheres of exchange, hoping that our methodologies, approaches and experiences prove helpful for those interested in setting up similar formats or those who may already be performing similar meet-ups. We believe that the exchange of best practices for implementing joint actions, through the live meet-ups, has helped foster Open Science in ERUA. The live meet-ups provided a valuable platform for sharing experiences and fostering a community of practice within ERUA that supports the effective adoption of Open Science principles across institutions and disciplines. We reckon they have not only promoted innovation but also helped advance exchange diverse initiatives, thereby amplifying the impact of Open Science to the benefit of the alliance’s members and the consortium as a whole.

In our experience, most people profit from interactive formats more than from the lecture-like presentation-and-questions sessions that still seem to define most academic conferences. In a similar vein, we could not envision a lecture-like format to provide the multilateral exchange for which we strove. Beyond that, lectures seemed to us the format most easily transferable to a digital setting like the virtual meet-ups. In fact, they do not even require a synchronous setting, but can easily be recorded and watched at any time. It thus seemed to us a waste of time and opportunities to dedicate the meet-ups to lectures or mere presentations. Instead, we quickly decided to go for interactive sessions to actively involve those interested in Open Science.

Along these lines, especially in the first meet-up’s planning stages, we tried to come up with suitable topics relevant and inclusive enough for the wide range of academic players present at a conference as multi-facetted as the annual summit of an academic alliance without rendering the topics too basic for Open Science professionals. At the same time, we thought of the meet-ups as a forum to draw the alliance’s attention to topics that might otherwise not be as prominent, like everyone’s relation to Open Science. We thus first came up with The Open Science Community – Perspectives, Approaches and Outlook. This topic seemed like a good way to find out how everyone in the room was (or was not) involved in Open Science, what that entailed for their work and where they could go from here. In a similar fashion, the final meet-up’s topic (Social) Developments related to Open Science in ERUA and Future Perspectives seemed suitable to close the Re:ERUA project by discussing what we had achieved in Open Science, how that may or may not have catered to the alliance’s needs and where we could go from there. The summits’ diverse range of participants suggested the second meet-up’s topic, Reaching the Researchers. As there is no single strategy for reaching Open Science-related awareness among researchers, we experience Open Science professionals across the world oftentimes having a hard time reaching academics with their offerings. Moreover, active participation in Open Science entails for a researcher dedicating time to a topic which is usually beyond their normal research. This dual challenge emphasizes the need for tailored communication approaches to inform researchers about the benefits and practices of Open Science, factoring in their workloads and commitments. Catering to this need, we were hoping to get to know perspectives from researchers on how best to reach out to them. To the same end, we also addressed students as future researchers and non-Open Science-related academic support staff as players unlikely to visit Open Science-related discussions outside the summit, who might be involved in outreach-related activities. Involving all of these target groups, we pursued exchanging experiences on how to get in touch with researchers. This experience seemed particularly significant for us, considering the limited number of studies available on how to effectively engage researchers. By addressing the specific needs and preferences of researchers, institutions can better facilitate the adoption of Open Science principles and practices, ultimately enriching the research landscape.

Due to the ERUA summits attracting not only – in fact, not even mainly – Open Science professionals, we decided to start the first and the third live meet-ups with a general introduction to the principles of Open Science, factoring in some space for questions. We did so to make sure that all participants had at least a basic understanding of what, to us as organisers, the term involved so they could connect our standpoints on Open Science with their pre-knowledge. In the second meet-up, we offered only a very short introduction to the general idea behind Open Science, both because of time constraints and as we assumed that the topic Reaching the researchers would work out fine without a copious introduction to Open Science due to its rather generalist scope. As the third meet-up looked back to the Re:ERUA project’s Open Science-related developments, we decided to present the project’s main Open Science deliverables besides an introduction to Open Science to sum up what we had covered as a basis for the subsequent panel discussion. Both of these topical introductions as well as the scarcity of one in the second meet-up worked out fine and ran smoothly without any problems.

In our experience, besides activating participants with regards to a topic, it is helpful to energise them in a playful and entertaining fashion so everyone is attentive and eager. Ideally, such a warm-up involves physical movement as such is often appreciated by participants after sitting for longer periods or to avoid the post-lunch slump. Along these lines, we decided to do a position line as the first meet-up’s warm-up, which means that people get up and position themselves on an imaginary line, depending on how they respond to a question. To that end and based on the question How involved are you in Open Science?, we asked them to position themselves in the continuum between the polar opposites very active and not active at all between two different sides of the room. On this basis, we asked some participants to elaborate on why they had positioned themselves where they were standing, hoping to gradually provide both participants and organisers with an overview on the group’s composition. In a similar fashion, we started the second and the third meet-up with surveys, asking participants to get up if a question applied to them (see Figure 1). To make sure that people could not only limber up, but also ease up, we did a couple of playful questions before asking about Open Science-related matters or the groups’ composition. Both types of warm-ups worked out very well. We would thus generally recommend them to everyone looking for suitable warm-ups, always bearing in mind whether or not their target group is likely to have any potential physical disabilities that may impede their mobility.

Thinking of suitable warm-ups was comparatively easy. Planning interactive main parts proved more challenging as we did not know who and how many people would join and what connections, if any, they would have to Open Science. This meant that it was rather difficult for us to predict where they would be standing in terms of Open Science. It was thus rather hard to base our activities on predictable common ground.

As the first meet-up was, among other things, about the Open Science communities’ needs, we felt it was important to provide contact points to which the participants could reach out for information or assistance. We did so to make sure they knew they were part of a community with plenty of support-related offerings so nobody felt alone with the matters they were dealing with. We provided them with links to three central information portals on Open Science as well as the information that most academic institutions have a local contact point that provides Open Science-related consultations upon request. Besides that, we informed them about the monthly virtual Meet-Ups as a low-threshold sphere of exchange on all Open Science-related topics, asking at the same time whether they had topics they wanted to discuss there.

In a similar fashion, we wrapped up the second meet-up with some information on the Open Science offerings we had developed over the course of the first Re:ERUA year. As the rather generalist nature of Reaching the Researchers did not entail any urgent need for general Open Science-related content, we decided to do without additional contact points like information portals. Instead, we decided to hand the closing remark to the participants via the so-called flashlight method, which means that everyone briefly talks about their main takeaway or takeaways from the session. This served as a means of reflection for all participants and showed us how the workshop had resonated with our participants. Doing so, as organisers we realised that everyone had profited in some way from the session, despite the fuzziness of our main task’s questions.

As far as the final meet-up is concerned, we had not planned any specific conclusion, assuming – and rightfully so – that the panel discussion would end organically. Besides, as we had already presented our Open Science-related offerings and activities in the beginning, there was not much subject-related to add.

Looking back on all three live meet-ups, especially the last one, where our methodology worked out completely, we felt we had made a good decision pursuing interactive sessions. In light of the rewarding and validating experiences provided by the three live meet-ups, we strongly encourage trying out interactive formats in conference-like environments to the benefit of all participants. While this approach may initially seem counterintuitive, particularly given the traditional presentation-and-questions format familiar to many academic players, it offers significant potential to foster deeper engagement and collaboration. In fact, there is a range of related offerings in the Open Science community like barcamps and staff weeks that we would like to refer to as additional means of inspiration for everyone who would like to perform similar formats (Schneider et al., 2021a, 2021b). By adopting these interactive approaches, we not only enhance the conversation within our community but also foster a more vibrant and inclusive landscape for Open Science dialogue in ERUA. As ERUA’s first funding phase and the Re:ERUA project have both come to a close, it is hard to say to what extent the contacts established and the scope discussed during the live meet-ups will picked up again in the second phase of ERUA. This ties in with the second ERUA phase’s smaller emphasis on Open Science and the fact that the alliance’s so-far lead in Open Science, the University of Konstanz, has left the alliance, handing the field of Open Science over to the remaining as well as some new ERUA members.