Frédéric Saby is curator of libraries and head of the “Bibliothèques et Appui à la Science Ouverte” (DGD BAPSO) department, which serves all students and teacher-researchers at the Université Grenoble-Alpes.

Université Grenoble-Alpes implements an open publication, data, and code policy. The Open Science Blueprint is subdivided into four challenges and 21 actions, including challenge number three “Improve support throughout the life cycle of data, code and software.” For example, UGA recommends archiving research codes in Software Heritage, in conjunction with a HAL record. Frédéric Saby discusses both organizational and strategic issues.

Key takeaways

“The role of libraries is evolving, and we need to explain to librarians that Open Science isn’t just about publications: it includes data and software.”

“Software represents an emerging topic but is perhaps not as far removed from the scope of libraries as one might think.”

“Software Heritage meets needs not met by other infrastructures.”

Organizational challenges of open science

How has the library’s role in open science evolved?

Université Grenoble Alpes libraries have been involved in Open Science for many years. A particularly revealing sign of this commitment is the change in the department’s name: four years ago, the documentation department became the Direction générale déléguée chargée des bibliothèques et de l’appui à la science ouverte, (Directorate for Libraries and Open Science)or BAPSO. This change makes a great deal of sense, as it demonstrates in a tangible way that open science is fully within the scope of university libraries. Open Science is taken into account in the functional organization of the department itself.

The department is divided into several divisions, including the Direction d’appui à la recherche et à la science ouverte (Research and Open Science Support Division) or – DARSO. This department is responsible for managing Open Science. The director of DARSO, Lucie Albaret, is also in charge of the institution-wide Open Science mission, alongside Violaine Louvet, research engineer in scientific computing and administrator of research data here at the university.

Work on publications is firmly rooted in librarians’ activities, and the number of open-access publications has steadily increased. Libraries are now working on research data and source code.

How does your institution foster Open Science, particularly for data management and software curation?

Collaboration between the libraries and Gricad, an intensive computing and data infrastructure, has played a decisive role. The university presidency appointed Albaret and Louvet, former director of Gricad from 2016 to 2022, as Open Science project managers. This dual appointment is not neutral, and allows us to benefit from complementary skills: Gricad is home to computer scientists and mathematicians, who contribute their knowledge of software engineering, while BAPSO contributes from its area of documentary expertise.

Another specific feature of the Grenoble context is the existence of a university-wide Open Science unit, to which BAPSO actively contributes. BAPSO is the university’s main contact for Open Science issues.

Behind the scenes of the open science blueprint

What actions have the libraries taken?

In the field of Open Science, our actions can be divided into three components. First, the libraries are dedicated to verifying data consistency and metadata quality in HAL software repositories. This first area of work is dedicated to moderation. Although the software is a special object, the librarians’ tasks are part of a continuum: they involve checking keywords, identifying the production context of the deposited code, working on author affiliations, etc. These tasks are currently integrated into the library’s metadata management system. At present, these tasks are included in the job descriptions of seven people, and probably more in the future, as this activity is set to expand.

The second area of work is the training of researchers and doctoral students. Librarians are involved in the Collège doctoral and Inrae seminars. The librarians also produce practical information sheets on depositing source code. These resources are available on the university website.

Finally, the third area of work is legal issues, in collaboration with the university’s research department. The head of DARSO’s thesis department has been trained in intellectual property issues.

Training and support on legal issues are essential prerequisites for software registration.

Support is a major challenge

What are users’ main needs?

Training is a fundamental need. Beyond HAL deposits, we must educate users about the broader scientific information ecosystem, including Software Heritage. We can’t assume that certain tasks, such as depositing an article in HAL, are self-evident. We need to offer support to researchers.

What does library staff need most?

This is a managerial challenge that falls squarely on library leadership. Convincing staff to participate requires strategic planning and effective communication. Staff may be reluctant to embrace the idea of developing services and skills in new areas. While the subject of publications has become familiar, the same cannot be said for software. The role of libraries is changing, and librarians too need to be made aware that Open Science is not just about publications: it includes data and software.

The deposit of source codes and the legal issues associated with opening them up are part of a university’s research strategy. And the library can support this research policy, playing an active role and even becoming a pillar of this strategy.

Legitimacy and evolution of librarians’ skills

What are the advantages of libraries working on a subject that may still be perceived as far removed from their usual activities?

In the field of publications, the question no longer arises, and the library is seen as the natural player in these issues. Software is an emerging subject, but perhaps not as far removed from the library’s field of action as one might think. BAPSO’s three areas of action mobilize existing skills. The software is treated as a documentary object: librarians know how to process different types of documents and have regularly upgraded their skills. Librarians have been involved in training for over ten years. Although source code differs from books, it too requires documentary processing. However, it should be pointed out that in the case of software, more than for other types of documents, the target audience is more restricted. But the dynamic remains the same, as seen from the questions raised about intellectual property. From the outset of the Open Science master plan, the libraries were recognized as the primary point of contact for other university departments.

Complementing library services

If you were to talk to another library director, how would you describe Software Heritage’s contribution to his or her department?

Software Heritage meets needs not met by other infrastructures. This logic of complementarity is comparable to the partnership between BAPSO and Gricad. Some institutions choose to develop their own tools, but delegating expertise is a better option. In the early days of the library management system (LMS), some university IT departments chose to develop local solutions rather than rely on specialized service providers. The problem is similar to source code.

Librarians and their software stories: Monocle

Saby recounts that in the 1960s, Marc Chauveinc, then-Director of Libraries at Grenoble University, developed an LMS called Monocle. The library’s software archives offer a glimpse into the past, potentially illuminating the evolution of software development at the school. This historical record could shed light on the subject for new generations of IT specialists, marking the beginning of a new software narrative.

Further reading

The university’s commitment to Open Science:

How to  promote the HAL software repository

Since 2018, a collaboration between the CCSD, Inria, and Software Heritage has enabled software deposits in HAL to be transferred to Software Heritage. Numerous resources on software deposit are available:

• Resources for end users:
  • http://doc.hal.science/deposer/deposer-le-code-source/#
  • https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD2VqrZz2-u3bOWtoCoBIh5Flt6iYXsq3&feature=shared  
• Resources for librarians: https://inria.hal.science/hal-01876705
• Document for research team leaders: http://doc.hal.science/essentiels/#le-depot-de-logiciels-software-deposit

The post Collaborative Open Science at Université Grenoble Alpes appeared first on Software Heritage.

Sorbonne Paris North University is committed to promoting Open Science in its research departments. To achieve this goal, the university relies on the expertise of its Service Commun de la Documentation (SCD). Karim Boualem, head of research support, explains the actions taken to support researchers in this evolution. The institutional charter on Open Science includes a commitment to Software Heritage.

Université Sorbonne Paris Nord is a multidisciplinary university (humanities and social sciences, engineering school, law faculty, medical faculty, etc.) with 1,200 research teachers, 550 doctoral students, and 29 research departments (Inserm, CNRS). The university is also a member of the Condorcet campus, which brings together several institutions.

Inside the roadmap

To what extent were the decision-makers aware of software archiving?

The decision-making bodies (“Research” vice-chair and “Research” committee) were already aware of its importance thanks to the presence of an important laboratory, the Paris Nord Computer Science Laboratory (LIPN) in our university. Jaime Arias (LIPN member and Software Heritage ambassador) played a central role by introducing Software Heritage into our new version of the Open Science Charter.

What was the role of the library in the charter constitution?

The library has a leading role in Open Science and scientific publishing issues. The university library’s strategic focus on Open Science was confirmed by the adoption of the Open Science Charter by its governing bodies. Software Heritage is perfectly integrated into this ecosystem, as exemplified by the interoperability between HAL and Software Heritage. It was natural that the library should play an important role in promoting Software Heritage.

Library projects around the software

What services would you like to offer your patrons?

Training, awareness raising, toolkits, developing the network of ambassadors, etc.

Regarding software, what are the top priorities for patrons?

Outside our computer science laboratory, the FAIR principles in the field of software are not yet fully understood by our scientific community.

What are the needs that you consider as priorities for library staff who will/are involved in implementing these services for the software?

There’s a need for training and, above all, collaboration with the scientific community. The link between the university library and our computer lab is essential and needs to be developed further.

Libraries can be key players 

What are the strengths of libraries in addressing emerging areas like software preservation?

Libraries have gained legitimacy in structuring the institutions’  Open Science policies. The unique experience of the academic libraries in indexing is a major asset.

If you were to speak with another library manager, how would you describe the contribution of Software Heritage to their service?

• Complements and extends existing open science services, such as HAL and ORCID.
• Meets the requirements of the French national roadmap for source and software codes (Open Science Plan).

Join the next “Open Science Talks” webinar December 12, 2024

The post Sorbonne Paris North: Archiving code, advancing Open Science appeared first on Software Heritage.

The stereotype of libraries as quiet, outdated places, often symbolized by a scolding action figure (a tribute to Nancy Pearl), persists in popular culture. However, librarians’ daily work focuses on shaping the future. That’s why in 2018, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) highlighted the increased need for collaboration to ensure efficient and equitable access to software: “Ensuring equitable and efficient access to software and software-dependent materials will increasingly require collaboration and resource sharing.” This collaboration can involve library support for open science infrastructures.

Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres is a member of the Executive Board of the League of European Research Libraries (LIBER) and sits on the Board of SPARC Europe. In particular, Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres contributed to the Unesco recommendation on Open Science and its toolbox, on behalf of LIBER. Her publications supporting Open Science infrastructures are available on ORCID.

Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres.

Key takeaways
“When it comes to open science, research infrastructures, and the open dissemination of research results, universities have every interest in being represented by their libraries. As trusted third parties, libraries are widely identified internationally as ‘engaged and trusted hubs,’ as LIBER puts it.”

“Preserving and providing long-term access to source code is an extension of libraries’ traditional missions: it’s about making knowledge available for the benefit of all. We need to provide access to both research results and the methods used to produce them.”

“Librarians and specialists in scientific and technical information need to take action on software and code to raise awareness of these issues […].”

Generally speaking, why should libraries support research infrastructures?

Academic and research libraries can provide two types of support: the first is financial support, to contribute directly to the maintenance, health, and sustainability of the infrastructure. Libraries can also provide support by getting involved in governance bodies. The aim is to make the voice of higher education and public research institutions heard through the discourse of libraries, known for their reliability, reflexive feedback, and organizational stability.
Libraries’ participation in governance bodies adds value to their institutions. When it comes to Open Science, research infrastructures, and the open dissemination of research results, universities have every interest in being represented by their libraries. As trusted third parties, libraries are widely identified internationally as ‘engaged and trusted hubs,’ as LIBER puts it. One of the challenges for libraries is to be identified as key players. This means relaying their institution’s strategy and participating in its development.

What criteria should organizations consider when selecting infrastructures to support?

It’s important to ensure that the funded structure meets national, European, and international quality criteria. Following the University of Paris Nanterre’s example, we can utilize the National Fund for Open Science’s criteria and the selection processes of Scoss and IOI. The challenge is to ensure that the structure to be financed is aligned with the university’s strategy: while the use of standards and other technical criteria guaranteeing good interoperability with other systems are essential points, it is also essential to take an interest in the values and principles defended by the infrastructures.
How can libraries support research software through infrastructure like Software Heritage?

Preserving and providing access to source code is a natural extension of libraries’ traditional role: to make knowledge available for the benefit of all. We need to provide access to research results and the information that went into producing them. This content must be readable, in the original sense of the word. This is a first step, but some libraries go further, linking the question to the field of data management.

A 2023 UNESCO report (Open Science Outlook 1) identifies a lack of a standardized framework and uneven understanding of open science themes as obstacles to resource development. If we focus on software in research, where do we stand in libraries in France and abroad?

In Europe, situations vary widely from one country to another. However, we can see that research support services, including those outside libraries, are becoming aware of the need to extend the Open Science policy to all components of academic knowledge. This first stage of awareness has been reached. In Europe, the EOSC is building a framework conducive to a homogeneous, standardized approach for example through the EVERSE project from 2024 to 2027.
Finally, Unesco plays a fundamental role at the international level, in particular with the Open Science Monitoring Initiative (OSMI) which is being set up, and with countries and regions of the world where open science is still an emerging issue.

What are the strengths of libraries when it comes to working on a subject that may still be perceived as far removed from their usual activities?

It’s in librarians’ best interest to promote their key missions to show their richness and diversity: a library is more than just reading rooms and printed books. More broadly, libraries aim to document, describe, and provide access to this documentation. Libraries are resource providers, service platforms, and living spaces: as far as code and software are concerned, they play above all the fundamental role of access services and information centers.
To develop this aspect of libraries and make it more visible, I think it’s important to open up discussions within institutions, between libraries, research departments, and political teams, to define a strategy and implement actions around these emerging themes. This initial step will enable the production, dissemination, and promotion of institutional open science resources and strategies.

If you were to talk to another library director, how would you describe Software Heritage’s contribution to their department?

One must assume that working on software should be seen as something obvious, if you want to avoid limiting thoughts. We have a number of success stories and, I hope, indicators of the adoption of software and code-related topics in libraries. Librarians and specialists in scientific and technical information need to take action on software and code to raise awareness of these issues, make these developments understandable to teams to facilitate their mobilization on these issues, and enhance the value of the actions taken by the documentary structure on these issues in the eyes of all. It’s an approach that can be described as inclusive.
Peer exchanges play a major role in the circulation of ideas and influence. We share the same professional references and the same culture. Having librarians as ambassadors for Software Heritage is certainly a strategy worth considering for spreading the word about Software Heritage in the world of academia, knowledge, and research.
From a personal viewpoint, I’d say that the library, which is in charge of supporting infrastructures that foster open science at the University of Paris Nanterre, values Software Heritage’s open approach through the support we’re giving it on behalf of the university from 2025 onwards. The subjects on which Software Heritage is working are in line with those of the most advanced libraries on open science issues. In France, the Ateliers de la donnée (data workshops) focus on the link between software and data, and libraries are very active and regularly lead the way in this field.
To conclude, I think it’s essential to question the practices and tools used by doctoral students. Inviting them to talk about the codes and software they create, modify, and use in the course of their work is certainly a first step towards moving forward together on this subject: young researchers and librarians are often the initiators of dialogue on emerging subjects.

Going further

Support for open science infrastructures at the University of Paris Nanterre:
https://science-ouverte.parisnanterre.fr/strategie-science-ouverte/soutien-aux-infrastructures-de-la-science-ouverte

“Supporting and taking strategic participation in open science infrastructures at the University of Paris Nanterre” https://zenodo.org/records/8398184

Open Science Infrastructure Support from the University of Paris Nanterre (UPN):  https://zenodo.org/records/8134805

University of Paris Nanterre Open science strategy: https://zenodo.org/records/7115904

The University of Paris Nanterre academic libraries website:
https://bu.parisnanterre.fr/le-service-commun-de-la-documentation-scd

Open science infrastructures: https://hal.parisnanterre.fr/hal-04142253

“Sustainable and collaborative development of research support services at the university library of Paris Nanterre (France):” https://zenodo.org/records/10559949

Unesco recommendation on open science: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949_fre

Unesco’s Open Science tools and resources: https://zenodo.org/communities/unesco-science/

The post How libraries shape the future of research infrastructure appeared first on Software Heritage.

Imagine the Tower of Babel, but instead of chaos and confusion, it stands as a symbol of collaboration and understanding. This seemingly paradoxical image perfectly encapsulates the mission of the Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche (Liber).

The association brings together over 400 national, specialized, and university libraries from 40 countries. In July 2022, Julien Roche became president of Liber, after four years as vice-president. A library curator, Roche is the first French professional to hold this position. He serves as Director of the University Libraries and Learning Center, and Administrator of Research Data, Algorithms, and Codes (ADAC) at the University of Lille. Roche provides insights into Liber’s key initiatives and the evolutions that librarians are experiencing today.

Key takeaways:

“Source code and software are collections like any other, which need to be preserved, made accessible, and shared over the long term with ‘readers’ the world over. A real librarian’s job!”

“If new and emerging initiatives need singular skills and motivated pioneers, libraries inscribe their action on another, more perennial time scale, thus going beyond the question of individuals to anchor practice in an institutional operation.

“Librarians are the professionals best placed to take up the subject of codes and software from the angle of reporting, dissemination, preservation and curation.”

What are the priorities of your mandate at Liber?

First, Liber’s scope of action isn’t limited to research libraries: it extends to public libraries with a research dimension, and national libraries. Liber members come from the countries of the Council of Europe. France and Germany provide the largest contingents of members.

A particular challenge of my term of office is to consider the plurality of countries represented within Liber, and hence their diversity: not all countries benefit from the same resources, nor are they at the same stage of progress in terms of libraries, documentation or open science. My role is to ensure that all members can find their place in a European approach that is, if not integrated, at least articulated. This is reflected in the composition of Liber’s Board of Directors, which brings together large and small institutions. One of the challenges of this term of office is also to “digest” our 2023-2027 strategy, which is based on three main pillars: engaged and trusted hubs, state-of-the-art services, and advancing open science. Beyond this strategy, Liber has greatly expanded its portfolio of activities in recent years, notably through the programming of events: some fifteen years ago, the annual congress brought together around 200 people. Today, this figure has more than doubled. Liber also offers master classes, a mid-year event (winter event), two-year seminars for managers aspiring to become library directors, “days” for directors, and webinars in collaboration with various players such as LA Referencia and UNESCO.

Finally, Liber’s reputation is strong and leads us to regularly work with other players in Europe, for example through devices such as the EOSC (European Open Science Cloud) or the ORE (Open Research Europe) platform, and beyond.

What are the strengths of libraries in advancing the role of software in the academic ecosystem ?

In France, it’s undoubtedly open science, and in particular the second National Plan for Open Science (PNSO2), which brought software into the mainstream, expanding its reach beyond the traditional communities of computer scientists and other technical disciplines…This is how the subject was spotted by the libraries, which are still relatively unaware of it, unlike research data, which is currently the focus of much of our attention.

The advantages of libraries are the same as for other emerging topics in research support and open science. First and foremost, libraries take a long-term view of open science issues, “institutionalizing” them. While new and emerging initiatives often rely on singular skills and motivated pioneers, libraries operate on a more enduring timescale. They anchor practices within institutional operations, transcending individual efforts. And this is what codes and software need today: after a mainly militant phase, expansion and sustainability require the sustained mobilization of key players in open science, including libraries.

What’s more, software and data have a certain kinship. Indeed, software has long been mistakenly confused by non-specialists with data. And yet, libraries are positioned as key data support services. Information professionals are involved at many levels: some are administrators of data, algorithms and codes, others coordinate data workshops, but all higher education and research documentation structures host research support services. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, librarians have a strong culture in the creation and curation of metadata and identifiers. And these are precisely the issues currently being addressed in the field of codes and software. Librarians are the professionals best placed to tackle the subject of codes and software from the angle of reporting, dissemination, preservation and curation. It’s from this angle that we can now interest the entire library community in code. In this respect, Software Heritage’s work with the CCSD and HAL is very welcome, as it’s the librarians who are the driving force behind HAL today.

Given their traditional role, librarians often face questions about their relevance in the context of software services for researchers. How can they effectively position themselves in this field?

Legitimacy is an afterthought; it cannot be decreed. You have to demonstrate your usefulness. In the early days of open access, libraries were not seen as pivotal services, whereas today they are. This legitimacy is currently being built up in the field of data. For example, the “Ateliers de la donnée” integrates or relies heavily on documentary services. Librarians are also in a good position to support the appropriation by researchers at the multidisciplinary data warehouse Recherche Data Gouv.

Software and code are more recent concerns for research decision-makers. In France, we had to wait for PNSO 2, and the subject remains largely unexplored. Software is not yet fully taken on board at the institutional level. In Lille, the digital master plan and the work on identifiers are currently being written. Work has also been carried out to establish the principles of governance for data, algorithms and research codes, which are currently being validated. In addition to my investment as ADAC in steering this work, libraries are very much involved in the actions undertaken. One of the axes of the plan is dedicated to source codes and software. The subject is therefore tending to be institutionally identified, and the players involved are starting to take it on board.

In the software sector, libraries are not necessarily destined to systematically become the departments responsible for these issues, but even in this configuration, they have a major role to play given their ability to institutionalize the subjects they take up. At the University of Lille, for example, an ADAC operational unit has been set up, drawing heavily on the skills of the libraries and our LORD Data Workshop. The Lille scheme is certainly not universal, but it’s virtuous and relevant in the sense that it brings together all the players, here around the libraries, who are now seizing the subject, as was the case for data a few years ago.

Raising awareness of software calls for a different approach to that adopted for data, insofar as while virtually everyone involved in research is aware of producing data, the same cannot be said of software. At present, specialists such as computer scientists are the most mobilized, but awareness is low if we move away from the most informed circles. Software is still too much assimilated to a disciplinary issue, a subject limited to IT researchers. Software forges are little known to non-developers, and software engineering tools are not well identified. And yet, one of the strengths of librarians is their ability to understand, and help others to understand, the issues surrounding code and the role of associated tools in other disciplines, that use code without knowing it. This is undoubtedly another reason to mobilize libraries on this subject.

How can we change the perceptions of the different actors with whom academic libraries need to work when it comes to software?

It’s up to each university and each autonomous national research organization to determine the optimal organization for its needs. Within universities, there are certainly virgin territories for libraries to occupy. By “virgin,” I mean not taken care of in a reasoned way at the institutional level. This is the case, I think, when it comes to algorithms, codes, and software. We need to be proactive in raising awareness among decision-makers. It’s a question of identifying unmet needs and demonstrating how the library if it decides to take them on, can contribute to meeting them.

Library services benefit from substantial budgetary and human resources, enabling them to develop their service offering in line with staff movements, funding opportunities, and changes in the training offered to professionals. In the fast-changing world of higher education and research, the challenge is to continually reorganize library missions, and therefore librarians’ profiles, to enable us to evolve our activity towards other sectors. In recent years, Europe’s major research libraries have repositioned their resources to focus on data. This work lies ahead for the software, for those libraries willing to take it on. This prioritization of activities is essential if we’re going to develop services sustainably, in a world where the evolution of library missions is inescapable.

Libraries face complex challenges in areas like research reproducibility and AI. How can they maintain clear and effective service offerings given the diversity of technical options?

In just a few decades, libraries have gone from offering services limited to physical collections and spaces to offering services covering a wide range of sectors. Today, the range of services on offer is broad, covering both physical and digital spaces. This is the challenge we face in university libraries: even after the COVID crisis, attendance statistics for university libraries rival those of major cultural institutions, but online services are also increasingly popular, and are absorbing a huge amount of resources: libraries must therefore continue their efforts in terms of both physical and digital services.

When a department’s spectrum of activities is extended, the question of its legitimacy in its new field of intervention always comes up for discussion at some point, and that’s a good thing. Ten years ago, libraries weren’t seen as legitimate when it comes to data or education. Today, the question arises about codes and software, or even research management support. For example, librarians are well placed to contribute to and use decision-support tools, given their expertise in data standardization, metadata, and identifier management. But decision-makers need databases that are regularly updated, clean, documented, searchable and interoperable. Presenting bibliometrics from this angle helps to make the librarian’s contribution understandable outside his or her professional circle, and thus to legitimize the role of libraries in this new field of expertise. I’m sure the same will be true of codes and software, for libraries that want to take advantage of them.

Last but not least: Librarians train and self-train extensively and regularly. In a fast-changing professional environment, this is an undeniable asset, which feeds into the regular updating of the service offering, accompanying and sometimes even anticipating the needs of the scientific community, in a relevant, forward-looking approach.

How would you explain the value of Software Heritage to other library managers?

I’d like to link this to a subject at the heart of our identity as librarians: collections. What is a documentary collection? It’s an organized body of content, built up in a reasoned, long-term manner, rooted in heritage, supported by usage, and part of a forward-looking dynamic. Software Heritage is no different with its universal software library. Source codes and software are certainly collections like any others, to be preserved, made accessible, and shared over the long term with “readers” the world over. A real librarian’s job!

Software Heritage, a dedicated software infrastructure

Similar to traditional publications, software is a critical research output. Ensuring its preservation and proper citation is essential, aligning with the core mission of research libraries and archives.

• By drawing on the range of services developed by Software Heritage, you can provide your academic community with services designed specifically for software. Preserving and referencing software source codes, which are executable knowledge, is a complex task. Software Heritage is an infrastructure managed by specialists.

• You can also support Software Heritage financially and thus contribute to the development of a unique infrastructure specifically designed for this mission. Software Heritage is fully integrated into the European open science ecosystem. By joining the Archives & Libraries Interest Group (ALIG), you can benefit from support in extending your library’s field of action.

Up next

Stay tuned for more in our series of interviews with librarians.

• Understand the role of libraries in building the software pillar of the Open Science institutional charter at Sorbonne Paris Nord University.

• Discover how librarians from Grenoble Alpes University collaborate with research software engineers and researchers, around software preservation.

• Learn how and why libraries should support open science infrastructures, with Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres from the University of Paris Nanterre.

The post Libraries: Anchoring the future of software preservation appeared first on Software Heritage.