How to connect academics around the globe by organizing an asynchronous virtual unconference

Abstract

Many conferences and in-person meetings have transitioned to virtual platforms in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we share strategies and lessons learned from organizing an international virtual unconventional conference, or ‘unconference’. The event focused on how early career researchers can advocate for systemic improvements in scientific publishing and research culture. The virtual unconference had three main components: (1) a virtual networking event, (2) asynchronous virtual brainstorming, and (3) a virtual open space, where participants could join or lead in-depth discussions. The unconference format was participant-driven and encouraged dialogue and collaboration between 54 attendees from 20 countries on six continents. Virtual brainstorming allowed participants to contribute to discussions at times that were convenient for them. Activity was consistently high throughout the 48 hours of virtual brainstorming and continued into the next day. The results of these discussions are collaboratively summarized in a paper entitled Empowering Early Career Researchers to Improve Science, co-authored by the unconference participants. We hope that this method report will help others to organize asynchronous virtual unconferences, while also providing new strategies for participant-driven activities that could be integrated into conventional virtual conferences.

Integration of virtual platforms for enhanced conference experience: Data-based evidence from the Society of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies 2021 conference

“…Virtual conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic devised different ways to incorporate networking in order to create some semblance of in-person conferences ( Veldhuizen et al, 2020 ; Bhargava et al, 2021 ; Zaver et al, 2021 ; Kim et al, 2022 ). There were conferences that described similar functions to the SIPS Conference virtual platform including private chat functions and chat feature during sessions ( Holman et al, 2021 ; Ruiz-Barrera et al, 2021 ). Other conferences were unable to incorporate poster sessions due to the limitations in their virtual platform ( Bosslet et al, 2020 ; Ostler et al, 2021 ).…”

“…However, this survey was completed by only 11% of the attendees and did not show the full extent of locations attendees were from. Other conferences that provided a post-conference survey had varying attendee response rates ranging from 16 to 89.7% ( Veldhuizen et al, 2020 ; Chan et al, 2021 ; Holman et al, 2021 ; Karabacak et al, 2021 ; Nelson et al, 2021 ; Stamelou et al, 2021 ; Wang et al, 2021 ; Kim et al, 2022 ; Vinchenzo et al, 2022 ). This difference could be due to the time lag between the end of the SIPS conference and time the survey was delivered (80 days after the conference).…”