OpenAIRE is a network built across countries, institutions and research communities, each with its own Open Science landscape, priorities and challenges. Keeping those perspectives connected is an important part of ensuring that the organisation continues to respond to the communities it serves. 

The Outreach, Communication and Engagement (OCE) Standing Committee helps make that connection. Working across OpenAIRE’s network, it contributes to the organisation’s communication and engagement strategy, supports members in their national positioning, identifies community needs and helps bring those perspectives into OpenAIRE’s wider direction. 

Following the contributions of outgoing Chair Elli Papadopoulou (Athena Research Center) and Co-Chair Gerda McNeil (University of Vienna), Gina Pavone (CNR) and Irina Cojocaru (IDSI) have now taken on the roles of Chair and Co-Chair. 

We spoke with Gina and Irina about what they bring from their own national contexts, what meaningful engagement should look like across OpenAIRE, and how the committee can create more opportunities for members to contribute. 

What made you want to take on these roles, and what from your own experience within OpenAIRE do you hope to bring into the committee’s next chapter? 

Irina: Since joining OpenAIRE as a NOAD in 2023, I have learned quite directly what it takes to bring a national research community into an international network step by step: building trust with national publishers, getting our national repository indexed in the OpenAIRE Graph and encouraging practices such as persistent identifier adoption. 

I know what it feels like to be a newer, smaller member trying to find your place and your voice in a large European network, and I want that perspective to genuinely shape how the committee works. Positioning is not something OpenAIRE does for its members, but something we build together with them, starting from what NOADs and national communities actually need. 

Gina: For me, it starts with a simple idea: good infrastructure must be not only technically sound, but also understandable, usable and relevant to its communities. It can be technically excellent and still fail if people do not understand why they should use it. 

My experience as the Italian NOAD has allowed me to see many of OpenAIRE’s services from both sides: how they are built and how people encounter them in practice. Together with my background in publishing, journalism and data analysis, this has taught me to ask how complex information can be made clear without oversimplifying it. I hope to bring that approach to the committee, helping connect technical work with community needs. 

OpenAIRE brings together communities working in very different contexts. What role can the OCE Standing Committee play in connecting those perspectives? 

Gina: I see the OCE Standing Committee as a space for translating across contexts. The same Open Science policy, infrastructure or practice can mean very different things in different national and institutional settings. 

The committee can help make those differences visible and ensure that OpenAIRE’s wider direction does not rely on one-size-fits-all solutions. One goal could be to build a common but flexible narrative: a clear European direction that members can adapt and communicate credibly within their own communities. 

Irina: I see it similarly as a translation layer between the national and European levels. The committee’s strategic advice should not be built in the abstract; it should be grounded in what NOADs and members are actually experiencing, whether in Zagreb, Chisinau, Lisbon or elsewhere. 

NOADs have an essential role here as national contact points, often seeing first where a community’s needs are not being met. Connecting those perspectives is therefore not a one-off exercise, but an ongoing responsibility. 

Communication and engagement can sometimes be understood simply as sharing information. What does meaningful engagement look like in practice? 

Gina: Engagement begins when communication stops being a broadcast. Information needs to move in more than one direction: not only from OpenAIRE to its members, but also between members and back into the organisation. 

That means moving beyond consultation towards co-creation and giving communities a real opportunity to shape activities and priorities. Participation also needs to take different forms. Not everyone can attend every meeting, so surveys, informal conversations, thematic groups and asynchronous contributions can help bring in a wider range of voices. 

Just as importantly, we need to close the feedback loop. If people take the time to contribute, they should be able to see what happened afterwards: what was taken forward, by whom and with what outcome. 

Irina: I agree that meaningful engagement starts where one-way information-sharing ends. For the OCE Standing Committee, this can mean using existing mechanisms more systematically: reviewing the community map and identifying gaps, assessing how connected members are to their national Open Science landscapes, or creating dedicated spaces to gather member input on specific issues. 

The important point is to build mechanisms that allow members’ experience to actually influence what OpenAIRE does rather than simply informing them once decisions have been made. 

What have your national experiences taught you about what institutions and communities need from a European network like OpenAIRE? 

Irina: My experience comes from a research community that is still less represented in international scholarly communication. It has taught me that institutions do not necessarily need more infrastructure; often, they need recognition and practical support in connecting what they already have to international standards. 

National publishers may be eager to adopt persistent identifiers, improve metadata or strengthen publishing practices, but they need guidance and a sense that they are not doing this alone. National systems become far more valuable when they are connected to standards, peers and a wider network. OpenAIRE is at its most useful when it strengthens what already exists nationally rather than expecting every member to start from the same point. 

Gina: Institutions and communities also need clear and regular information about policies, requirements, opportunities and developments in scholarly communication, because these affect both institutional strategies and people’s daily work. 

At the same time, they value practical services that keep pace with change and help solve real problems. Open Science principles matter, but they become much more useful when translated into tools and support that people can actually use. 

As you begin your roles, where would you like the committee to focus its attention? 

Gina: Given my background in journalism, especially data journalism, I see room to strengthen OpenAIRE’s relationship with the media. A practical starting point could be a dedicated media kit, together with a clearer definition of the audiences we want to reach beyond the Open Science community. 

Membership is another key priority. One possible first step could be to better understand members’ different needs rather than treating them as a single audience, while also giving more visibility to their work across the network. 

Irina: We are still at the beginning, reinvigorating the committee and identifying the areas that most need our focus. Personally, I would also like to see more attention given to NOAD-based national engagement, because I believe this is where the committee’s advice becomes concrete rather than strategic in the abstract.

What would you say to OpenAIRE members who have not been involved in the OCE Standing Committee before? 

Irina: Your national experience, however small your country or community may seem, is exactly what this committee needs. When I joined OpenAIRE from Moldova, I did not need to already be an expert on European-level strategy to contribute something valuable. I needed to know my own national landscape and be willing to share honestly its achievements, challenges and gaps. 

That ground-level perspective keeps the committee’s strategic advice connected to reality. In return, members can gain a genuine sense of belonging to an international community, as well as exposure to practices from other national contexts that they can adapt at home. 

Gina: New participants can bring concrete needs, local experience and solutions that may also work elsewhere in the network. In return, they have an opportunity to shape OpenAIRE’s priorities and help create activities that are more relevant to their own communities. 

Taking part also means joining important discussions about the future of research, exchanging ideas with colleagues across Europe, building collaborations and developing useful professional skills along the way.

If we were to speak again a year from now, what would progress look like to you? 

Gina: I would like OpenAIRE to be easier to understand, easier to approach and more visible beyond the Open Science community. I would also like members to feel that contributing their experience makes a visible difference, with broader participation from people and organisations that have so far been less involved. 

Perhaps the best sign of success would be hearing people explain, in their own words and in their own contexts, why OpenAIRE matters. 

Irina: I would hope that NOAD-based national engagement had become a normal part of how the committee works rather than something we discussed at the first meeting and then let fade. I would like to see a genuine rhythm: regular assessment of member connectivity and a community map that reflects gaps because members have told us about them, not because we guessed. 

If more members who had never engaged with the committee before felt that this was a committee worth their time, I would consider that our clearest sign of progress.