Everybody, let's welcome Abigail.
Hi.
Talking about storytelling.
Storytelling.
Welcome.
Yeah.
And thank you all so much.
Welcome to our talk.
And it is such an honor to be here.
So thank you so much to all the organizers.
Everything that's going on.
This is where I stand.
Thank you.
It's been great.
And you might notice someone's missing from up here.
And is here in spirit actually sounds like he died.
He's very much alive.
And he's here virtually in Matrix answering questions.
So actually during this talk, if you want to ask questions while I'm speaking, you can type it in Matrix.
And Arvin will answer it.
Then at the end, I'll actually open the Matrix and see what questions happened.
Answer, read out his response.
So he's here.
He's presenting with me.
I hope it wasn't too much false advertising with him as a co presenter.
But he's here.
So we miss you, Arvin.
So to kick us off, I spent years working on software that really transformed an entire field of research.
Seattle against the researchers is the worm that's crawling around behind me.
Thousands of them were using worm base.
And they used this to study, yeah, it's a central data repository for a Seattle against research.
And people would regularly tell me that their work wouldn't exist without worm base.
But when it came time for academic recognition,
it was not there.
The impact of the software was undeniable.
But the system didn't really see that or recognize it.
And I've heard the story again and again for researchers.
I'm sure it's a common story that many of you have heard.
And that's, there's this big disconnect between the impact of the open source software that powers research and the system that's doing recognition.
So worm base does publish papers every release, but it would be such a big lift.
And compared to the number of people that were using it, very few are actually citing it.
So because of problems like this, that's exactly why initiatives like the journal of open source software exist.
Arvin founded this, my lovely virtual presenter.
And really the core idea is to make software papers as easy as possible to write.
So if you have a repository that has a readme, it's really well documented.
It shouldn't take more than an hour to put together submission.
And then once it's there, the reviews, it all happens on GitHub.
So it's really made for developers to make it easy to publish papers.
So you're not going through the whole formatting process or this rigorous review stuff for journals that often don't accept software papers.
So this is a nice easy way to get your paper published.
And then the primary purpose of a jazz paper is to enable citation credit to be given to authors of research software.
And we do have dead cats in the room when the editor is so if you have jazz questions, feel free to ask Dan.
Or in matrix, Arvin will also answer those.
And I was one of the founding editors for jazz.
And the big reason I came back into jazz classes because it's, I just loved how it worked.
It works like an open source project.
So the reviews, use GitHub notification to invite reviewers.
It all happens in the open.
It's all volunteer contributions from the editors and the reviewers.
It's a nice way to work openly and a problem that affects this entire community.
There's a lot of chat ops also.
It's a very open source.
So the code is MIT license.
So you can see that on the open journals repo or going GitHub.
The papers themselves are CC by license with the author retains the copyright.
And over the past eight years there's been about 3000 papers published.
So it's a lot of stories.
And today I am talking primarily about jazz cast.
This wasn't experiment for both Arvin and myself.
So yeah, thousands of papers, thousands of authors each one is a story waiting to be told.
So you publish a podcast.
You can get it in multiple versions.
We have video versions, audio versions on your favorite podcast app.
And just a recap season one.
We had 20 episodes.
And here we focused mainly on the paper.
So we'd ask authors questions about the software that they wrote.
Background of the author is why they wrote the software where they knew to open source.
Which challenges they face, why they decided to publish in jazz.
How that experience was and how people can get involved on their software.
Because most of these were really looking at contributors.
Really looking to build a community of contributors on their software.
And as you're preparing this Arvin actually asked me, was it hard to find guests?
It was actually really easy.
There's so many great papers in jazz.
We had above a 50% guest invitation acceptance rate.
I actually don't know if that's normal for podcasts.
It was great for me.
So every month I would just look at the papers that were published over the past month
and then invite a handful of them.
And that was enough to keep going with the podcast.
And yeah, there's a great set of stories here.
And it was a great time.
So what did we learn from this experiment with storytelling?
And first lesson is that jazz cast really helped authors get recognition.
So most of the authors said that having an episode really helped their career.
And I love this quote from one of the guests.
It increased the promotion of our open source code by providing a different channel.
Two conferences or papers.
One other person mentioned that it was part of their annual review.
So it was really nice, like people wanted this kind of recognition on a podcast.
So that was great. And it was a bit of a surprise to us seeing this survey result.
On the next one, I guess really appreciated this opportunity to discuss their research and have this platform.
So I like this quote from one of the guests.
And it was fun idea.
I absolutely found the projects featured very interesting.
And the people very much like minded.
I felt that many projects share the heroes journey.
Perhaps being all together can foster more collaboration.
Or spark new ideas with jazz cast as the neighbor for such spark.
So there's this a theme that we saw with the episodes.
It can be quite lonely writing software in this research space.
Oftentimes you feel like you're doing this alone or in a bit of an island.
So could we be more of that glue and bring these people together?
People really wanted that.
And they liked the experience of having a platform to share their research.
So this question is a little bit different than what we're talking about.
But they had a great experience going on there.
They wanted to come on.
They wanted to talk about their research.
And then here podcasting is a learning curve.
I learned a lot going through this.
So first, the great conversation takes prep.
We would share the questions with authors beforehand.
And they really appreciated that.
So they knew what to expect.
But I will say we started asking the same questions for every paper.
It's just got like a little bit stale for us as hosts.
We're asking the same questions again and again.
So we're trying to find that balance between how much prep to have,
while still having an engaging conversation.
We just don't hear the same answers as the same questions every single time.
Spending ten, five to ten minutes just chatting beforehand is really great.
Most of these people is the first time they're on a podcast.
So when they join, I'd make sure that the recording wasn't on.
And I'd explicitly say, hey, we're not recording right now.
So we just get to chat, get to know them, build some report.
And people really enjoyed that so that they didn't feel like jumping straight
into being recorded.
They have to be on right away.
And yes, some authors were more comfortable explaining the work
than others.
So the prep was really helpful with that.
For the next one, editing, shapes experience.
I didn't think it was a lot of hard work I learned.
I don't know if anyone else here.
I know the third one's about time.
But the sensor recording on Zoom and then later removed to squad cast.
Which is another platform for recording.
There was always a little bit of a leg.
And it was difficult to just release the conversation as is.
So you had to do a little bit of editing.
And I tracked a streamline that editing as much as I could.
But it still took me multiple days to get one episode out.
And related to that.
So yeah, podcasting makes takes more time than you think.
We started this podcast when I was on parental leave.
This was my fun like parental leave project.
I'm in Canada.
So you get a year.
So I had time to the baby.
But a lot of this time you're recording while the baby was napping.
So it's a little bit suspenseful.
Like is the baby going to wake up before we finish recording?
I don't know.
Usually she kept slept sleeping.
And my husband was there to help.
But it was, yeah, it was quite time constrained.
And now that I'm back on work, we're even more time constrained.
And editing an episode, I found, because I would do it while she was sleeping,
would take like three days.
Even if I had, like, AI do a first pass.
It was still quite a lot of work.
But the part, oh, I forgot to mention it with the editing piece.
The shorts did really, really well.
So we'd normally have a couple hundred listeners, two to three,
between all of our different platforms.
But our shorts would get, like, sometimes thousands of views
that would drive people to that episode.
So I think a learning there was really, like, maybe just make sure
it's, you don't have to edit the whole conversation.
But we'll see.
And we did streamline what we did quite a bit over time.
So things like making sure we had links for recording ready,
getting an intake form that would just automate a lot of things.
But, yeah, we learned a lot there.
So I really love this quote.
It was, yeah, this is my favorite quote from one of our previous guests.
They said there were notice by management, the annual review.
There are notice by international collaborators.
So imagine if every researcher had access to platforms that amplify
their work like this.
Help them gain recognition, form your collaborations,
further their career.
So for this next part, we'll season two.
We're really thinking about how can we iterate on this work
so that we can keep doing this.
We can keep giving this platform to people.
So what's next?
We're just cast season two.
So first up, I'll loosen the format.
So you're not just asking the exact same questions every time.
And maybe switching to segments rather than the same questions.
So that it still helps minimize prep because we found the regularity
helped us keep prep to minimum.
But still keep things as exciting as possible.
Next, explore collaborating.
Collaborations, bringing diverse voices and expertise.
So like when the quotes we had earlier,
could we have more of a panel come on?
Have people talk to each other there?
That might be interesting.
And even taking lessons from Joss,
can we work more like an open source project?
Can other people come on and help us with different aspects
of producing this podcast?
Since this was an experiment,
while I was on leave, a lot of it was done by myself and
the first season, but the second season,
like how can we bring others in and work a bit more openly?
And then the third one, keeping it sustainable.
So how can we keep this fun and lightweight
since I'm no longer in that leave?
And I think what we've landed on is
we won't be editing the conversation.
It'll be more of a live stream situation.
But we'll edit shorts.
I think we've got a lot of value in having shorts
just to share around.
So if any of you are considering podcasting or just any media,
long versions are okay, but the shorts,
think do really well.
So how can you help?
So you can help us shape season two.
So you do have a listener survey up here.
So even if you haven't listened to the podcast,
if you're at all interested in participating,
there's a question that asks about that
and you can put in your contact information.
So we'd love to help build season two with you
if you want to be on the podcast or maybe you really like editing,
editing?
Yeah?
That would be very helpful for me.
You can get involved with Joss.
You can sign up to be a reviewer.
There are always looking for reviewers.
They regularly have calls for new editors.
So you can pay attention to that.
Or you can publish your research software.
It takes less than an hour if you have good documentation.
Nice read me.
And finally, a support opensource and research site
software that you use.
Support maintainers, push recognition.
I know many of you in this room are already doing those things.
So I did want to make lots of time for a Q&A
so that we can get orphans waste there.
But yeah, that's all I have for this part of the talk.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
And I'll open up.
Okay, I don't think.
Oh, did my matrix go over here?
We can see if there's questions in the room.
Why isn't my browser moving to this side?
No.
Are you in presentation on here?
No, it's not.
I don't know what he did.
What if I do this?
I don't know.
It's okay.
Are there questions in the matrix?
Okay.
It's just, oh yeah, I know.
It's just a little green button.
Oh, that's what it is.
Yeah, yeah.
I know who computers were.
Yes, they are.
Okay.
We will ask questions in the room.
I do want to.
There we go.
Okay.
Now I can drag.
This over.
Okay.
Yeah.
So it's a lot of stuff.
So it's software.
Please do.
There is someone in the room typing.
All right.
It's right there.
Sorry.
Cool.
Questions in the room.
Oh, hey.
Really, really cool.
As usual.
I think.
I.
I don't publish software.
I don't.
They're not software.
And I listen to our questions.
If you're day.
Uh, to stay in OSS.
It seems like a lot of time.
We're well started.
So divided.
Because we're talking about.
We're sorry.
We're talking about.
We're trying to talk about.
Coming.
Yeah.
All right.
The idea.
So the question was.
Um, would you consider a crossover.
Episode.
Maybe between sustain OSS and the dress cast.
Uh, Phil, so you don't know.
I am the host on both of those podcasts.
So it would be super easy for me to be on both.
But I agree with you.
Sometimes we have these open source conversations in a bit of a bubble.
And these open science conversations elsewhere.
And we definitely need more collaboration.
I was like, yeah, that's definitely something we're thinking about.
Sounds like a good plan.
So it's arvin.
He's definitely here.
There's a question.
Yeah.
Okay.
So the things that you are often interviewing on topics that maybe you were new to.
Yes.
What thing?
I don't know.
How did you navigate or like, can say, learn to obviously not be an expert.
Like, interview them in a way that's, yeah.
Yeah.
So the question was, um, so we're often interviewing people in topics that we're new to.
And it feels that we're new to.
So any tips there?
I'd say I approach it with curiosity.
I think sometimes I would.
I would skim over something if I didn't understand it.
But then I think that didn't lead to, as like, deep of a conversation.
So being curious and like ask, like, when you're unsure, do ask questions.
I think that makes sure you understand what's going on.
And I think that really helps.
Yeah.
That really helps the conversation.
Um, oh, yeah.
And just requires the paper to be written for a generalist audience, which definitely helps.
So yeah.
I definitely agree.
So much so there.
Thanks.
There.
I really interested in the story telling.
Yeah.
Did the researchers define, like, storytelling?
How did they define storytelling?
What was their journey of what, like, food storytelling was maybe before.
So life after the process.
Right.
Yeah.
So did the researchers, like, how did the researchers define storytelling?
What was their journey with it?
I think we tried to push them towards storytelling with our standard questions, which is what got a little bit boring.
Fitting everyone in that same story.
And I think one of the quotes even said, like, everyone's had this heroes journey.
It's like, what was your approach to this?
Um, but I don't want to lose that necessarily with them.
With the season two.
So this is tricky.
Yeah.
So we pushed them towards that, because we wanted to share first origin story.
Why did you start this?
And, like, your purpose in mission with this?
And the next what struggles did you face?
Like, this is what you're trying to get to.
What stopped you?
And then we closed with, like, how can others get involved?
So other people came join.
So we're sort of going through that arc, which I thought was nice.
Um, and I think we can probably still keep, like, an arc going.
But we've probably shouldn't ask the exact same question every single time.
Yeah.
Did Arvin say what Abby said?
Thanks, Arvin.
Yeah, Dan.
Yeah.
Can you um, can you define shorts?
Oh, yeah.
So a little bit about how you chose what would be in them?
Yeah.
So um, can you define shorts?
And talk about what they're, what's, how will you decide what was in them?
I'm a little jet lagged everyone.
So sorry.
Um, so on YouTube, there's a shorts part of it.
I'm not a YouTubers.
Okay.
So there's a regular videos, but then shorts.
On YouTube at least, they have to be less than a minute long.
And we, um, I used to template that would also have the captions up.
So if we had a little clip that was less than a minute long.
So it's nice and tight.
It had captions on.
And it was like an end credit with like the episode number and title.
And just cask is where you find it.
Um, we were able to share that across platform.
So we shared in different parts of social.
And a lot of people tell me like, oh, like you popped up in my feed or I saw this.
I saw that.
We get a lot of traction that way, but they maybe didn't actually listen to the episode.
But it did create a really big funnel for people who wanted to go and listen to that episode.
How did we decide what goes in there?
Um, I was using Descript for editing.
I was thinking about doing more tooling talking about tooling.
But I wasn't sure if this audience would want to hear like which platforms are using.
But Q and A is why we have this.
Um, I'm using Descript which transcribes the video.
Um, but they also have tools where you can say like select five engaging clips that are about a minute long.
And it would auto generate some.
And then I can decide which one I wanted to pick.
Or if I didn't like it, I'd pick my own.
Um, but I would try.
I think the prompt I use is like, um, a clip where all of us were speaking.
And maybe something funny was happening.
And sometimes it was that or sometimes it's something more serious when they're talking about their research and why they're doing it.
Um, but I did find because I was sharing a lot of these clips on my personal social media.
People wanted to see me in it.
And like, when I was sharing things that were other people,
they wasn't as engaging, at least for my personal social media, which made sense.
So I tried to find something where all of us were talking.
Yeah.
Do you see a lot of difference in leadership on the video for audio?
On your track audio.
Yeah.
So do you see a lot of difference between video and audio?
And I'd say what I thought was interesting.
It depended on the episode.
Um, so some episodes would do really well on YouTube.
And others would do really well on like Apple podcast or Spotify.
So I could see the number of downloads on Spotify because we did publish it with Spotify apps.
And then I'd have to add that to what I saw in Apple podcast.
This, it's kind of difficult to find stats for this.
Um, but most of our episodes got roughly the same amount of views,
just like distributed differently between the episodes.
And I think that might be because of the person who is featured in there.
Maybe they shared one or the other link.
But I actually don't know why some of them did really well on platform and not the other.
We should welcome our next speaker.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Speaker.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.