31 May 2025
Fabiha Askari, Research, Engagement and EDI Assistant, Lancaster University
Reflection:
When I initially joined the world of academic libraries, I was overwhelmed by the number of acronyms that are used and, at first, ‘UKSG’ was simply one of many amongst these. However, after learning more about UKSG and hearing about the ways in which my colleagues at Lancaster University are involved, I became more curious about the aims and activities of this organisation. As I had only been working in an academic library for just over a year, I was not sure whether I would have the relevant experience or knowledge to make the most out of attending the conference, however, I was encouraged by my line manager to apply for a sponsored place to gain more insight into UKSG and the library world, in general. My interest developed even further after attending the UKSG Forum in December 2023 where I had the opportunity to learn more about topics which deeply interested me, including the new and old challenges we face as a community in the digital age.
I was very excited once I found out that I would be attending the conference, however, admittedly, I also felt quite uncertain about what to expect. However, the easy-to-follow YouTube videos, emails and detailed, up-to-date website and app made this process a lot easier. I really appreciated how these sources of information allowed me to have a think about which sessions I was interested in attending, as well as gaining an insight into all the things that were on offer at the conference and, more broadly, in Glasgow too.
The informal reception on Sunday evening was a lovely way to meet new people and reconnect with colleagues across institutions that I do not regularly get the chance to meet. Whilst I felt quite shy at first, the relaxed atmosphere and friendliness of all the organisers and attendees made me feel at ease almost immediately after arriving at the venue. I was especially delighted to meet a fellow sponsorship winner and learn more about their role at their institution, which is very different to my own. This made me gain a better understanding of how diverse the roles of all the attendees were and made me look forward to meeting more people and learning about their different careers.
A highlight of my time at the conference was the first plenary session which included talks from Inke Näthke, Daniel Hook and Ivan Oransky. Näthke’s talk acted as a crucial reminder of the real-life impact of research, the importance of research integrity and the detrimental consequences of misusing scientific research for the research community both historically and in the present day. Moreover, a lesson that was repeatedly reflected across the conference was that of the importance of lexicology, and this became notable to me from this very first talk. When speaking about how to deal with breaches of research integrity, Näthke mentioned how the UKRIO reporting procedure treats the whistleblower as an ‘initiator’ instead of labelling them as a ‘complainer’. Whilst, on the surface, it may not seem like there is much of a distinction between those two terms, I felt that this intentional reframing was crucial in creating a sustainable and positive research culture which leads to any criticism being seen as constructive rather than as a cause to become defensive or offended.
Similarly, Hook’s session put trust at the heart of research, and as a History and Politics graduate, I found his reference to the social contract, trusting infrastructure and the human psyche especially interesting. Hook spoke about the challenges with current peer review formats which I had never considered before, but upon reflection, I felt surprised that I had not. This included the very simple but crucial point about reproducibility being a critical element for good research (perhaps especially in STEM subjects) but there also being an unfair expectation of understanding data from someone you may have never met.
I really appreciated the sequence of these three sessions as the third session felt like the logical concluding session. In this final session, Oransky spoke on ‘Retraction Watch’ which includes a blog and crucial database that allows readers and researchers to know which work has been retracted. Before going into the session, I had some very basic knowledge about retraction but had never expected to learn what I did during the session – especially in terms of the extent of malicious practice taking place within academia and how it can be paralleled to ‘organised crime’! I was shocked to learn about research paper mills and the range of reasons for retraction, including fake peer reviews. However, considering what I had already become aware of in my own work as part of the Open Research team at Lancaster University’s library, I could understand why there was a rise in such practices in the context of an increasingly competitive and pressurised culture within academia which can be seen to be promoting quantity over quality of research.
It was also interesting to hear more about the process of retraction, which appears to be rigorous but slow, and the continuation of the issue of retracted papers being cited. Once again, this made me reflect upon the work happening within my own institution, especially that relating to ‘Citation Justice’ and questioning the effectiveness of using citation metrics as a means of assessing impact. Moreover, I appreciated that Hook mentioned including undergraduates in talks regarding research integrity as I believe that the importance of good practices should be embedded from the very beginning of one’s academic journey.
Despite feeling much more comfortable, I was still quite nervous to attend the supper and quiz as I did not know anyone else who was attending. However, I had an incredibly memorable evening and learnt just how competitive I can be in quizzes! The quiz was a great networking opportunity, and I was delighted to get to know my fellow team members who belonged to institutions across the UK and internationally too. We came third overall which led quite a few of us to wish that we had come last instead, as the team which came last place got UKSG-engraved wooden spoons!
Another highlight was Siobhan Haime’s ‘Demystifying AI’ breakout session. AI has increasingly become a topic of interest in academia, the workplace and at home. I chose to attend this talk as I was interested in the applications of AI within the library world, but also as I was quite curious about the topic but did not really know where to start learning more about it. I really valued how well Haime simplified complex ideas in a way that was easy to follow for even someone like me who had no real prior knowledge of the topic! Similarly, Haime’s final message at the end of her breakout session: ‘resist the urge to be impressed’ was something that has stuck with me since the conference. I have repeatedly found myself become quickly impressed by digital innovations and their positive potential, yet equally intimidated by what I now realise is often just an ostentatious facade that these innovations exist behind. However, after Haime’s session, I now feel more comfortable exploring AI more and understanding its usages in my personal and professional life further.
The Gala Reception at the Glasgow Science Centre was a brilliant way to end the second full day of the conference and I think people outside of this sector would be surprised at how much chaos librarians can cause at a museum! Alongside some colleagues, I made several trips around the two floors we had access to and had a fantastic time exploring the different interactive exhibitions available.
Overall, I had a wonderful time at the UKSG conference and felt spoilt for choice by the variety within the programme. In hindsight, I wish I attended one of the new workshops that were available at this year’s conference as I believe this would have enriched my experience further and I am certain that if I get the opportunity to attend another UKSG conference in the future, I would ensure to attend at least one of these. The conference was expertly organised and the ethos was truly brilliant. I was made to feel welcome and that I belonged, with there being no evident hierarchies notable. Meeting new people and learning about everyone’s individual career journeys and challenges also encouraged me further along in the arduous process of overcoming my personal struggles with imposter syndrome. Moreover, I really enjoyed the food and appreciated the dedicated tea and comfort breaks spread across all the days of the conference. I was also left with much *food* for thought after the conference, and have been reflecting more on the sessions that I attended and how they are applicable within my own work. This especially includes the sessions I attended relating to EDI, such as the one relating to Author Identity Metadata, which led me to contemplate further about reader needs, considering the ‘publisher perspective’ and the ethical and legal challenges surrounding that topic.