Everyone from private citizens to public decision makers regularly encounters an overabundance of information, and they all, including everyone in this room, implement strategies and filters to selectively deflect incoming information. Barriers are frequently established to mitigate that deluge of information.

But in contrast, advocates of open science have recently been promoting greater access to information. As the name implies, open science initiatives emphasize unrestricted availability to the data and the information emanating from research activity.

Impediments preventing access are being removed, or they're simply not put in place in the first place when new research is being undertaken. So in short, we are seeing coping mechanisms that are established to obstruct information flow on the one hand, while on the other hand, mechanisms are being implemented to overcome obstacles to access.

Well, as matters of concern, information overload and open science are not new phenomena. Both have existed in some form, at least since the 15th century. However, as this audience will fully appreciate, the attention both are receiving currently is a reflection of the very,

very rapid growth in the volume of data and information over the last half century, and major advances in widely available technologies that facilitate production of scientific data and distribution and access to information. As we heard in the first paper this afternoon, the history of science demonstrates that

scientists and their professional associations have long been champions of access to research data and information. But the recent literature on the subject of open science illustrates numerous aspects to this subject. And we saw this slide this morning, so I won't repeat the components that are part of this structure.

Well, the organizers of – but I should say, though, that there is no coalescence around a common understanding of open science around any one of these terms. In fact, the organizers of this conference adopted the definition of open science as the movement to make scientific research data and information accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.

And a more recent systematic review of literature considered 75 studies on the subject and proposed the following definition. That is, open science is transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks.

Well, this is a quite succinct definition. It emphasizes two facets, namely collaborative knowledge development and wide availability of the results. Well, in our research, our collaborative work on questions about information production and its use in the science policy

interface in marine contexts, we have observed and documented extensive use of information in grey literature in decision-making processes. The use of grey literature illustrates collaboration in knowledge generation, and it also illustrates numerous efforts to present information in meaningful ways to diverse audiences.

We know that there are large depositories of marine data and information published as grey literature that have been generated to support the operations of governments at all jurisdictional levels, and there are certainly large volumes of this literature, and it's available openly.

Today, advances in information technologies are actually contributing to a blurring of distinctions between some forms of grey literature and the primary research literature. The publication and distribution of both now often follow similar practices, and as a consequence, we have concluded from our research that the production and use of grey literature in marine environmental science decision

-making can actually inform open science initiatives, and that's what I will try to outline here this afternoon. The results from our numerous case studies at local to global levels address two of the themes from this conference, namely the application of open science principles in promoting grey literature and also the obstacles and the challenges to open access.

So the objectives of this presentation are two, one, to illustrate how research about grey literature can provide insights for the open science movement, and also to suggest that a sharp distinction between grey and primary literature is becoming less relevant.

Okay, a little bit about our group, which I'd like to outline briefly. For almost two centuries, governments in many nations have established research bodies to conduct scientific research, whether it's internally focused within the country or externally in collaboration with other countries. And these are created for a wide variety of reasons, for economic, cultural, environmental, et cetera, and the large number

of bodies that are found around the world have produced a wide spectrum of types of research input, or output, sorry, that is largely due to the diversity of audiences that governments wish to reach. Substantial financial resources have also been committed to these resources, and one of the issues

for governments is around accountability, that is, is the information that's generated ever being used? Well, the initial research that was conducted by the Interdisciplinary Environmental Information Use and Influence Research Program that's based at Dalhousie University in Halifax was prompted by a question of

accountability, namely, were major international reports on marine pollution in the state of the oceans ever used? We actually reported on that study at this conference a number of years ago, and we were able to show that indeed those reports were widely cited. And that study led us into the sphere of the science policy

interface, and numerous case studies have come out of our work dealing with governmental bodies, national or local, international, intergovernmental organizations, and environmental, nongovernmental organizations. And our research findings have been presented in a wide variety of settings, including some papers in the Great Journal.

Our research has shown that information pathways in ocean and coastal resource management are very complex. They involve many actors, including researchers, managers, policy analysts, members of various industries, professional associations, community groups, nongovernmental organizations, politicians, and the general public, obviously a mouthful of actors.

And open grey literature offers numerous advantages and is widely deployed by all actors in the science policy interfaces in marine management and decision making. Because the flexibility of grey literature publication options responds well to the extensive variety of

information needs, and that's witnessed in the various types and formats that are commonly prevalent. Open grey literature is usually distributed without restriction by individuals and organizations, and can now be shared globally with relative ease, which is particularly beneficial to developing countries unable to afford commercial information sources.

And in our recent book about the different dimensions of information used in integrated coastal and ocean management, we highlighted the significant roles that information published in grey literature fulfills in current ocean management practices.

Okay, well, how does grey literature then serve as a model? And let me try to outline in a few minutes some ways that it does. So first of all, let me refer to the usability of information. In 2002, a group of researchers in the United States published a report that identified three key features of information that ensures its usability, namely, salience or relevance, credibility, and legitimacy.

Well, grey literature that's used in many marine management decision making processes is used because it does display these three characteristics. We have found that governmental organizations at all levels rely heavily on using their own publications and decision making.

And this phenomena has been observed in a number of contexts, but I'll refer to just three organizations at the moment very briefly. The Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is our national department on that subject. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, which is a regional fisheries body, a management body that deals

with the Northwest Atlantic and numerous countries around the world are member states or member bodies. And the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which we heard about earlier today, based in Rome. Well, both our national department and that regional fisheries body have well-defined processes for producing, communicating, and using information.

Scientific information is produced by the scientists within this decision making process and it is the primary source of advice. The publications, which are typically grey literature, are produced by these organizations and

they're preferred in this policy making context because they're presented in a timely fashion and they are relevant because the information is in direct response to fisheries management questions. The questions are posed, the researchers conduct the studies, and they produce the reports to help in the decision making process. They go through rigorous peer review, which is internal, which increases and emphasizes the credibility,

and the decision making processes often involve many stakeholders, including the fishing industry, NGOs, academics, etc., which reinforces the legitimacy of the grey information. So the usability of information in grey literature can inform open access or open science, sorry.

The second is peer review. We heard about this earlier. It's widely used. It's an essential quality control mechanism. Peer review methods have been evolving over the past half century and although none is proven to be entirely foolproof and some are contested,

peer review practices are now accepted as indispensable in publishing credible research results. Well, the credibility of many research reports released as grey literature depends in large measure on the application of peer review. For example, for over 50 years, the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection,

which is a UN-based body that is a leading international scientific advisory body, has been publishing significant reports about the conditions of the oceans. This organization has published over 100 major technical reports. Each of these are drafted in working groups.

For example, number 64 was the result of six years of work by a 13-member working group. It was drafted and subjected to extensive review by both external reviewers and detailed page-by-page consideration by the working group members in an annual session.

For example, another report, number 70, lists over 90 individuals who have various roles in its preparation. So, I would say, or we would say, the extensive and rigorous review that is undertaken of grey literature to produce quality reports can also inform open science. A third point is designed for various audiences. In part because

grey literature is not constrained in particular styles, formats or communication channels, the literature has considerable flexibility for development and aimed at particular audiences. And organizations typically will work very hard at ensuring that the information is generated to deliver to various audiences.

I could give you several examples, but I'll only give you one here today in the interest of time. I'll refer to the State of Nova Scotia's COASTS report. This was a government-generated report that was released in two languages, print and digital formats,

and it was also released in a 245-page technical report, a 21-page summary and six four-page fact sheets. This was a deliberate decision to provide accessible and credible information to professional and lay audiences. So, by designing information products for different stakeholders whose capability in understanding scientific information varies,

creators of grey literature can be successful in achieving transparency and accessibility to both professional and amateur audiences, which are key elements of open science. Another point is systematic reports for public policy context. Well, there are many of these.

The major synthesis reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are probably the most widely known, but the IPCC reports are only one of many such publications published each year and that are freely accessible.

So, from our studies, we have State of the Environment reports, there are fisheries scientific reports that are used in decision-making, there are reports by advisory committees, there are reports that are generated by environmental NGOs, and there are environmental assessments and impact assessments that are all used to inform decision-making.

So, the rigorous and the transparent methods by which these reports are prepared and distributed could inform open science initiatives. The next point, boundary objects. Environmental non-governmental organizations often operate between governments and many stakeholder groups.

These ENGOs produce reports and documents which are synthesized and translated from the scientific research to inform and engage stakeholders and governments. The ENGOs function as boundary organizations and their grey literature serves as boundary objects.

So, this activity, that is the production of these objects, could serve as an example for open science programs that wish to promote transparency and produce information that is understandable, to use that definition referred to earlier, by all levels of an inquiring society. Another is open access to data.

Well, we know that there are large quantities of data that are frequently produced, and this is certainly true in the marine environmental sciences area, by governmental and intergovernmental organizations, such as long-term monitoring programs that contain data over lengthy periods.

So, let me give you one instance. This is the Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitoring Program of an intergovernmental international organization called the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, which involves two Canadian provinces, three American states, and the federal governments of both countries. Well, the Gulfwatch program has been a flagship initiative of the council, and the data has been

released as raw data files, data reports, data summaries, and also papers published in peer-reviewed journals. So, the rigorous and transparent methods by which these reports are prepared and by which this data is prepared is another example that can inform open science,

not only the data, but also the tools to make it accessible. So, to support the use of large datasets, mapping tools, for example, such as digital coastal atlases, have become important for information dissemination. And in our analysis, at least in one case, it showed that managers found that these tools were very helpful because

they could bring various datasets together in a form that could be used in decision-making and to inform the public. So, as publicly accessible files and tools, the data and the digital atlases offer another instance of grey literature practices that model the expectations of open science.

One more. Lay public users of grey literature. Our research about information intended largely for environmental decision-making activities shows that the costs associated with the production of grey literature are usually borne by the governmental and non-governmental organizations themselves.

So, this makes the information freely available, which increases the potential for the information to be accessed by many levels of society and, therefore, encourages understanding of science and science liturgy and involvement in public decision processes. Well, these observations are based on a number of our studies, including one with a measure of the perceptions of

a coastal community about the importance and value of place for coastal management decisions and analysis of communication strategies employed by individual, that's individual communicators and non-governmental organizations in their use of social media platforms of Twitter and Instagram.

So, free access, which is common with grey literature, is a feature emphasized in open science circles and, thus, the financial models used in the production of grey literature could also be applicable in open science scenarios. Okay. Those are some of the ways that we believe that the grey literature can inform

open science, but grey literature has also got challenges that also are reflected in open science. And I'm going to be very brief because I realize our time now is getting short. So, let me identify a number in which that is the case. First is with regard to access.

Openness does not ensure awareness and it certainly does not automatically equate to usability by a wide variety of audiences. Because the grey literature is assumed to be largely accessible, often limited attention is focused on promoting awareness and that was the question that I raised with our keynote speaker this morning.

Furthermore, the massive quantity of grey literature can contribute to seeming invisibility. It can be invisible, it's right there in front of you, but you can't see it because there's so much information that is potentially there. Another factor, so that's awareness and access.

Another factor is the stigma associated in some circles about grey literature because the multiplicity of formats, the varied content can result in grey literature being deemed of limited value. Even though the information may be very rigorously peer reviewed in today's information saturated

environment, open access may be equated with uncertain quality and certain questions of reliability. And this is frustrated by misinformation, fake information, mal-information, disinformation that's currently occupying a lot of our attention.

And then is the question of production. Because this business model that's been applied in grey literature, it's not entirely free. There is definite costs that are involved and a business model is necessary. Okay, let me sum up because I'm going to get the cue from our organizer here to move off the stage and I'd like to respond to questions anyway.

So to return to the question that we posed in the title of this paper, is the production and use of grey marine literature a model for open science? Our research suggests that it does or that it is. We have observed and we've reported that the long-standing motivation to produce grey literature

and to make it accessible is similar or the same as the motivation driving open science. Proponents or creators for both aim to promote the use of information to advance research, to raise public awareness and understanding of science and to facilitate evidence-based or some circles will say evidence-informed decisions.

A second point is that the distinction between primary and grey literature as I suggested earlier is becoming less pronounced today, driven by advances in information technology and science generally. There's often an immediacy to information needs that overshadows the production processes.

If public policy and decision-making process or in public policy and decision-making processes, delays making information available can be detrimental. There are also many definitions of open science, but a key observation from our research is that the distinction between grey and primary literature is blurring.

Both emphasize strengthening open access and the important point is that critical marine research should be published in a timely manner and disseminated widely. So finally we believe we should emphasize the importance of ensuring key marine

information is published and made accessible regardless of where or the publishing method. Solving significant problems and finding solutions should be the primary focus and there are major problems particularly with the effects of climate change which we must and must address.

So it's not necessary to focus on the process of creating information and its delivery, it's getting the information into the hands of people who need to make decisions about the world in which we live. Thank you.