key: cord-0841223-1epvaeq0
authors: Puccinelli, Eleonora; Zeppilli, Daniela; Stefanoudis, Paris; Wittische-Helou, Annaïg; Kermorgant, Marjorie; Fuchs, Sandra; Sarrazin, Jozée; Easton, Erin E.; Weber, Alexandra Anh-Thu
title: Hybrid conferences: opportunities, challenges and ways forward
date: 2022-03-23
journal: bioRxiv
DOI: 10.1101/2022.03.18.484941
sha: 7c07c1905a358c952590084ea2fe8950a954168d
doc_id: 841223
cord_uid: 1epvaeq0

Hybrid conferences are in-person events that are also accessible online. This type of meeting format was rare pre-COVID-19 but started to become more common recently given the asynchronous global progression of the pandemic and the uneven access and distribution of vaccines that led to a large proportion of participants being unable to attend international conferences in person. Here we report the organization of a middle-sized (581 participants: 159 onsite, 422 online) international hybrid conference that took place in France in September 2021. We highlight particular organizational challenges inherent to this relatively new type of meeting format. Furthermore, we surveyed both in-person and online participants to better understand their conference experience and to propose improvements based on the feedback received. Finally, we compare the advantages and disadvantages of three types of conferences (onsite-only, online-only and hybrid) and suggest that hybrid events should be favored in the future because they offer the most flexibility to participants. We conclude by proposing suggestions and ways forward to maximize accessibility and inclusivity of hybrid conferences.

Introduction 35

Scientific conferences are essential components of researchers' lives, allowing them to stay up to date 36 with the latest research trends while disseminating their work to the scientific community. These events 37 are essential for networking and developing collaborations, especially for early-career researchers 38 (ECRs; students and pre-tenure postgraduates) who use meetings as an opportunity to plan their next 39 career step (Oester et al., 2017) . Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting travel bans and 40 restrictions, many in-person meetings since March 2020 were canceled, rescheduled, or changed to an 41 online format, allowing scientists to present their research and interact with members of their respective 42 communities virtually (Stefanoudis et al., 2021) . 43 Online-only meetings have a number of advantages, for instance: (i) enhanced accessibility by allowing 44 attendance during periods of fieldwork or teaching (Bartlett et al., 2021) , (ii) reduced carbon footprint 45 (Burtscher et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2021) , and (iii) lower participation costs with potentially reduced 46 registration fees and no travel and accommodation costs. These advantages have greatly improved 47 inclusivity for researchers and students from developing countries and with limited financial means 48 (Chou and Camerlink, 2021; Wu et al., 2022) and were the reasons why a large online international 49 conference on photonics was held just before the COVID-19 pandemic (Reshef et al., 2020) . Thanks 50 to these advantages, many online conferences showed higher registration rates compared to previous 51 in-person meetings (e.g., Castelvecchi, 2020; Stefanoudis et al., 2021) . Online conferences, however, 52 have a number of drawbacks, including: (i) fewer interactions among participants, especially if 53

presentations are pre-recorded (Roos et al., 2020) ; (ii) increased fatigue after hours on screen (Bennett 54 et al., 2021); (iii) fewer possibilities for spontaneous discussions and meetings (Roos et al., 2020) ; and 55 (iv) technical issues during live talks resulting in schedule delays (Archibald et al., 2019) . 56 Hybrid meetings, which have in-person attendance with a possibility to attend online, represent a 57 promising solution that could address some of the shortcomings inherent of in-person or online-only 58 meeting formats. There have been calls for adopting a hybrid format after all COVID-19 travel 59

restrictions have been lifted (Joo, 2021) , and there seems to be an interest amongst the scientific 60 community for that format (Stefanoudis et al., 2021) . However, due to the novelty of the hybrid format, 61

conference organizers have to be creative to organize a successful event in which both in-person and 62 online attendees are satisfied. So far, studies on hybrid meetings are scarce and focus on organizational 63 and logistical aspects without accounting for the participant experience (Fulcher et al., 2020; Weiniger 64 and Matot, 2021). 65

Here, we present information on the logistics of a recent international meeting, the 16 th Deep-Sea 67

Biology Symposium (16DSBS), a 5-day, medium-sized (581 attendees) hybrid conference that took 68 place in Brest (France) in September 2021. We then compare the hybrid format to the in-person and 69 online meeting formats in terms of costs and widening access. Finally, we report the participants' 70 experience using an online questionnaire to identify what worked well and less so. Based Organizing a hybrid conference entails the usual logistics required for an in-person-only and an online-121 only conference, but there is additional work for the LOC that is inherent to the hybrid format. 122

More communication, flexibility and file handling: Clear communication with participants is essential 123 and common to all conferences but the hybrid format adds complexity due to several types of 124 participation. For instance, any registration change (e.g., onsite to online, or vice-versa) has to be 125 followed by updates in internal databases, mailing lists and the program. Communication efforts also 126 increase because customized instructions have to be provided to online and onsite participants and 127

presenters. Furthermore, a considerable amount of work has to be done ahead of the conference to 128 receive and organize all presentation files (e.g., pre-recorded talks and posters). 129

More complexity to design the program: The hybrid format typically implies a larger participation, 130 compared to in-person conferences, which can result in more requests for talks and thus competition 131 for the available time slots. Ideally, the talk schedule should be organized according to the time zone 132 of the online speakers. However, this consideration is not always compatible with the scientific sessions 133 and venue hours of operation. To avoid organizing a two-tier conference with onsite participants 134 getting much more interactions than online participants, the LOC should organize online-only events 135 beyond talks and posters to enhance interactions among online participants and between onsite and 136 online participants. 137

More support personnel: The above-mentioned tasks require increased administration pre-conference 138 workload for the LOC. Furthermore, during the conference, additional chair and co-chair persons are 139 needed to facilitate question-and-answer sessions from the onsite and online audience (passing on 140 microphones; checking the chat box). To increase inclusivity, chairs can be online participants, 141 however, an onsite co-chair would also be needed. Finally, members of the LOC are also required to 142 moderate online-only events and respond to the requests of online attendees. 143

The Deep-Sea Biology Symposium is an international in-person conference organized every three 145 years by the Deep-Sea Biology Society (DSBS) and a LOC. For reasons related to the global COVID-146 19 pandemic, the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (Ifremer) was asked to replace 147 the planned LOC for the 16th Deep-Sea Biology Symposium (16DSBS) approximately a year before 148 the event took place. The symposium was held 12-17 September 2021 in Brest, France, at the Aquarium 149

Océanopolis. The conference consisted of two parallel sessions divided into two rooms: a room which 150 had built-in cameras suitable for broadcasting managed by the personnel venue and a second room in 151 which an external company was hired to organize the live broadcasting. This company also set up the 152 streaming website on which all live and on-demand talks could be watched up to two weeks post-153

conference. The team of the conference venue was formed by two people in the control room and one 154 sound engineer; while the external company consisted of a crew of five people: two people in the 155 control room, one sound engineer and two cameramen. 156 157

In terms of scientific content, the 16DSBS contained 214 contributed talks (64% acceptance rate) and 158

170 posters over five days ( Fig. 1 ; File S1). To enhance their visibility, poster presenters were asked 159

to provide a 2-min video pitch of their poster, in addition to a PDF and/or a printed version of their 160

poster, depending on their attendance type. In addition, in order to maximize the participation of online 161 attendees, we organized a total of 11 online-only events across different time zones. These were: an 162 early career researcher/student mixer; five zoom lunches with keynote speakers of the day; a round 163 table on decolonizing deep-sea science; a 3-hour poster session; an online Gala dinner with social 164 activities, and the annual general meeting of the Deep-Sea Biology Society. The conference was 165 attended by 581 participants, with approximately three quarters of them attending online ( Fig.  166 1). Finally, both onsite and online participants could present either talks or posters (the talk selection 167 process did not take attendance type into account); live or pre-recorded for online participants. 

A conference website with all pre-conference information was hosted on servers of Ifremer (Table 1) . 174

A dedicated email address was created including relevant mailing lists to address different participants 175 (e.g., all attendees; onsite only-attendees; online-only attendees; all presenters (talks & posters)). 176

Online attendees were offered the choice to (i) present live and answer questions live (ii) send a pre-177

recorded talk but answer questions live, or (iii) send a pre-recorded talk and not be present for questions 178 (e.g., if time zones were incompatible). Online presenters were asked to send a pre-recorded version of their presentation to be used as a backup. We aimed to obtain a maximum of live talks, and we thus 180 adjusted the talk schedule according to the time zone of online speakers. However, it was not always 181 possible due to each talk being scheduled within its relevant scientific session of which there were 26. 182

At the time when the 16DSBS was organized, there was no single online platform available to host all 184 online content of a hybrid conference. Furthermore, outsourcing the development of such a platform 185 was out of financial reach for the society-based 16DSBS. Hence, a streaming channel including (i) live 186 talks, (ii) chat box for live questions from the online audience, and (iiii) on-demand talks was developed 187 by the external company hired for the live filming and broadcasting (https://16dsbs.attwm.fr). For other 188 online content (e.g., access to online posters; online-only events; etc), we relied on free platforms or 189 platforms whose costs were covered by the hosting institution Ifremer and the Deep-Sea Biology 190

Society. Overall, this resulted in a large number of different platforms (Table 1) . 191

192 For the hybrid 16DSBS, the total budget was slightly lower than an estimated budget for a same-sized 198 onsite-only conference (Fig. 2) . Details of the different budgets are provided in File S2. We refer to Compared to this estimated budget, the 16DSBS catering and food service fees were reduced and 204 audio-visual costs were higher. Specifically, a significant part of the 16DSBS budget was dedicated to 205 the hire of a professional company (5 people) that (i) organized the filming of in-person talks for one 206 session, (ii) organized the live broadcasting, (iii) ran pre-tests with online speakers, (iv) set up the 207 streaming website for live talks and on which recorded talks were available on demand for two weeks 208 after the conference, and (v) uploaded the recorded talks at the end of each day. This service could not 209 have been accomplished by the LOC itself. To minimize registration fees for attendees, the LOC 210 decided to use other platforms for the other events and presentations (Table 1) ; however, this cost-211 saving measure increased the complexity of navigating among platforms for online participants. 212

Another relevant cost is represented by hiring dedicated staff member(s) for the organization of the 213 conference. In our case, two people were specifically hired for one year to organize the event, however 214 this cost was supported by Ifremer, and thus did not affect the final budget. 215

While the hybrid 16DSBS and the estimated onsite-only conference budgets are similar, the estimated 216 budget of an online-only conference of a similar size is considerably reduced (Fig. 2) . Indeed, expenses 217

for virtual conferences exclude most in-person conference costs except for administration and 218 registration and website platforms. Nevertheless, as for hybrid conferences, additional costs are 219 incurred for virtual platforms to host the conference and cloud storage costs to make presentations 220 available for a designated time ( Society (DSBS) (Fig. 2d) . Financial support from sponsors and the DSBS was provided either as direct 236 payment to the LOC (25%) or in the form of travel/registration grants to attendees (33%). 237

The 16DSBS registration fees for online-only attendance were lower than onsite-only, and rates for 238 student/researcher from developed and developing countries were not differentiated (Table 2) . 239

Registration costs for online attendance and the holding of an in-person event raised a debate within 240 the deep-sea community for a few months prior to the event. Notably, critics reported (i) the 241 inaccessibility for some prospective attendees to afford such costs and (ii) the inability for many to 242 participate onsite due to travel restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. While the LOC 243

acknowledges that it may have lacked transparency during the organizational phase, it uses the present 244 article to provide some clarity and perspective. First, it should be noted that overall budgets for online-245

only and hybrid conferences are very different ( Fig. 2A-C) , which is inevitably transferred to 246 registration costs to some extent. Second, the 16DSBS online registration costs are within or below the 247 range of other hybrid conferences held in 2021 and 2022 (Table 2) . And third, about a quarter of 248 attendees (mainly ECRs and researchers from developing countries) were supported by 249 travel/registration grants (Fig. 2E) . 250 3. Participants' perspective 259

Comparisons with previous deep-sea-biology-themed meetings indicate a marked increase in 261 participation, 49% against an in-person meeting in the USA (15DSBS), 343% against an in-person 262 meeting in Colombia (ISDSC7, which had a narrower scientific focus on deep corals), and 65% against 263 an online meeting (eDSBS, Table 3 ). The proportion of ECRs also increased (55% of all participants) 264 in comparison to in-person meetings (25-36%) but decreased to the online-only meeting (65%) that 265 prioritized ECR presentations (Stefanoudis et al., 2021) (Table 3) . This enhanced ECR participation 266 also translated into more presentations delivered by ECRs (57%) compared to 23% (15DSBS), 42% 267 (ISDSC7), and 79% (ECR-focused eDSBS). 268 269

Furthermore, the proportion of participants from low and middle-income countries represented at the 270 hybrid 16DSBS was 11%, which was lower than the eDSBS (14%) and ISDSC7 (40%), but higher 271 than the 15DSBS (7%). It should however be noted that in terms of total low-and middle-income 272 participants, the 16DSBS was the second highest following the ISDSC7 in Colombia (Table 3) . 273 Overall, there is poor representation of low-and middle-income researchers in the field of deep-sea 274 biology (Costa et al., 2020) , and although the hybrid format can aid participation of those researchers, 275

holding an in-person meeting or the in-person aspect of a hybrid meeting in a low-to middle-income 276 nation can be much more effective in widening participation. 277 278 Q&A, and accessing of live and recorded presentations) deemed as sufficient and easy-to-use (57-74%, 295 Q21,23,30-31). However, a sizable proportion found that the number of platforms used was too high 296 (38%, Q32) and suggestions for future usage of fewer and more all-encompassing platforms were made 297 (See Supporting information). Moreover, most agreed with the number of talks allocated per day and 298 the overall duration of the conference (75%, Q35) and did not support a future third parallel session to 299 accommodate more talks (66%, Q41). 300

The majority of participants regarded live talks as an integral part of the conference (79%, Q11) as it 301 enhances interactions (60%, Q36). The option of pre-recorded talks to cater for those with technical 302 issues or time zones differences was considered essential (84%, Q12). The on-demand feature was 303 overwhelmingly well-received (92%, Q13) with most indicating they viewed content post-conference 304 (79%, Q14). However, opinion was split on if the 2-week post-conference availability of that feature 305 was adequate (Q15), with some suggestions to increase the duration to a month or more in the future 306 (See Supporting information). Q&A sessions with presenters, either live (69%, Q47) or online (70%, Q48). 314

In terms of networking more than two thirds indicated that they were able to connect with other 316 researchers (70%, Q70), although the number of questions they received compared with past in-person 317 or online meetings was less for 48% and 54% of onsite and online participants, respectively (Q72-73). 318

The latter finding is interesting, and is probably best explained by the fact that the majority of online 319 (54%) and onsite (69%) participants did not interact with the other group of participants (Q74-75), with 320 only 44% of all participants engaging with both groups (Q71), thus limiting the number of potential 321 interactions per participant. 322

Several online social events were organized to enhance the online conference experience, most of 323 which were generally well-liked, including the early-career focused scientific illustration workshop 324 (64%, Q58), the lunch-time social gatherings events with the respective keynote speaker of the day, 325 (80%, Q59), and the online Gala activities (88%, Q67). However, comments indicated participation in 326 these events was limited by time-zone conflicts and from onsite attendees, with only 22% of onsite 327 attendees indicating that they participated in several online social events (Q62). 328

The vast majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the conference was an enjoyable 330 experience (88%, Q2), inclusive (72%, Q3) and of high scientific quality (72%, Q4). Online and onsite 331 attendees experienced the event slightly differently, with the former finding it more difficult to 332 concentrate (39% vs. 22%, Q5-6) and dedicate time (53% vs. 18%, Q7-8) for this meeting compared 333

to past in-person meetings. Time zone conflicts and work duties (teaching, lab work) were some of the 334 reasons evoked by online participants. There were mixed feelings about the amount of registration fees 335 (Q9), although approximately half agreed that awards from the Deep-Sea Biology Society were 336 sufficient to cover registration and attendance fees for those in need (52% agreed vs. 10% disagreed, 337 Q10). 338

Moving forward, the overwhelming majority of participants indicated that they want future Society-339 sponsored meetings to be hybrid (79%, Q81), with considerably less appetite for future in-person only 340 or online-only events (11% and 21%, respectively, Q82-83). Finally, additional small online events, 341

including webinars, lectures series and journal clubs, to be held between symposia were largely favored 342 as well (79%, Q84). 343 4. How to organize a hybrid conference? 344

This paper highlights what the organization of a medium-sized hybrid international conference entailed 346 in 2021. As organizers, we report our experience and gathered feedback from both types of delegates 347

to highlight successes and possible ways of improvement. Below we highlight key relevant points that 348 should be accounted for and possible solutions to improve the organization of such events in the 349 future. 350

We summarized the pros and cons of the three types of existing meetings in Table 4 (onsite-only,  352 online-only, hybrid). Overall, we believe that hybrid meetings are better than onsite-only or online-353 only meetings for participants because they offer more flexibility to delegates. Indeed, for those who 354

can travel, they provide the much-needed in-person interactions offered by onsite meetings while 355

offering the possibility to attend online for researchers with limited financial means, other 356 commitments (e.g., work or care duties) or who do not wish to travel for environmental 357 reasons. Indeed, hybrid meetings have overall lower carbon footprints than similar-sized onsite-only 358 conferences. However, there are two main downsides to hybrid meetings: (i) they are more complex to 359 organize (see section 2.1.4), which can lead to (ii) generally more expensive meetings for online 360 participants (but see section 4.3). 361 362 online-only events beyond talks and posters to maximize interactions among online attendees. 375 We believe it is fairer that online attendees can also present their research in the way it suits 376 them best, and that they have a number of opportunities to network. Indeed, scientific 377

conferences are not only meant to present one's research, but also interact with the members of 378 their own community. However, the more options there are for online attendees, the more work 379

there is for the organizing committee, which may translate in higher registration costs for 380 everyone, especially online attendees. For each hybrid event, there is a fine balance to find 381 between offering the best experience for all types of attendees, and keeping registration costs 382 low without overwhelming the organizing committee. 383 2. Maximize inclusivity 384 We believe that the main aim behind organizing hybrid conferences is to broaden the 385 participation of scientists by offering them flexibility for the attendance type. Hence, providing 386 an inclusive conference is likely a goal of each organizing committee. While registration costs 387 of the 16DSBS were similar to or lower than those of other hybrid conferences ( with online-only events are better justified. 402

3. Simplify (online) access and communication 403 We received a recurrent negative feedback from online attendees: there were too many 404 platforms to access the conference and interact with other online attendees and their use was 405 too complicated (Table 1) . We acknowledge this issue, however, at the time when we organized the 16DSBS, there was no single platform available for this kind of event. Furthermore, the set-407 up of a dedicated platform for the purpose of this conference by an external company would 408 have increased costs. 409

In addition, efficient communication to all participants before and during the conference was 410 not optimal. A large number of emails were sent before the conference. During the conference, 411

we attempted to use Slack to communicate rapidly with all participants, however, it was mainly 412 online participants who used it, and not everyone did use it (there was some reticence from 413 first-time users). 414 We thus recommend future organizers to aim for a single platform to access live and on-demand 415 talks, posters, ask questions to speakers, and more generally interact with other online attendees 416

via chats or videoconferences, as well as to receive information from and communicate with 417 the organizing committee for potential issues. Ideally, we suggest that a combination of a 418 dedicated website for viewing and a linked mobile app for rapid communication would be the 419 best option. Nevertheless, we realize this centralization is a difficult endeavor, and hope that in 420 the future such platforms will exist or their set-up by external companies will be more 421 affordable. 422

Finally, while onsite and online participants had equal access to scientific talks, we noticed that 424

for the remaining scientific activities (e.g., poster sessions; online-only events) the two types 425 of delegates were not really interacting with each other. For instance, onsite participants 426 appeared to prefer getting some rest or interacting with onsite colleagues rather than 427 participating in online-only events. Furthermore, online participants did not have an easy way 428

to interact with onsite participants if the latter were not using Slack. 429 We realize that there is probably no way to fully overcome this issue, however, we believe that 430 organizers should aim at minimizing this problem. For instance, developing a mobile app that 431 all participants would have to download will likely make communication and networking 432 among all attendees easier (e.g., II Joint Congress on Evolutionary Biology, Montpellier, 2018). 433

Despite some organizational challenges, we advocate to keep organizing hybrid conferences beyond 435 the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, they allow for a wider participation by giving more flexibility to 436 participants to choose an attendance type that suits their needs best. Furthermore, online-only 437 conferences cannot fully replace in-person formal and informal interactions. Although hybrid events 438 require additional work and are currently more expensive in comparison to online-only events for 439 online participants, we think that with early planning, sufficient sponsors, and technological advances, 440 hybrid events represent the most inclusive way to hold international conferences. 441

Furthermore, hybrid conferences have lower carbon footprint compared to onsite-only conferences, 442 hence they offer an interesting opportunity to combine scientific networking with environmentally-443 friendly decisions (Glausiusz, 2021) . For instance, students and researchers could decide to attend 444 conferences in-person whose locality is reachable by train, while attending online conferences taking 445 place on other continents. 446 We would like to emphasize that having an online option for a conference should not become an excuse 447 for institutions and funding sources not to fund students and researchers to attend the conference onsite 448

anymore. In-person networking is an essential part of a researcher's work to develop collaborations, 449 especially for ECRs who can find their next career step during these events. In addition, we would 450 encourage the in-person element of international hybrid meetings to take place in low-and middle-451 income nations as it enhances diverse participation or to change continents to benefit all geographies 452 equally. As hybrid conferences become more common, their organization may become more 453 straightforward. This article reports the organization of one of the first hybrid conferences, and we 454 hope that our experience will be valuable to the organizers of future hybrid events. 455

Haddock, Santiago Herrera, Raissa Hogan, Ilysa Iglesias, Rachel Jeffreys, Andrea Quattrini, Julia 528

Sigwart, and Chris Yesson. We are also grateful to Amy Baco-Taylor, Giulia La Bianca, Mackenzie 529

Gerringer and Guilherme Siqueira Toledo de Carvalho who organized the online Gala dinner and 530 activities. 531

We would like to particularly thank the 164 respondents of the 16DSBS survey who gave their time to 532 provide feedback on the conference. We believe that their opinion will be invaluable to improve future 533 hybrid meetings. We are grateful to the employees of An Tour Tan (Tom Gonzalez and his team) and 534

Océanopolis (Marie-Pierre Jacolot, Guy Bescond, Didier Harel, Laurent Dubouchet-Poncey) for 535 logistical support. Finally, we would like to thank all conference sponsors (alphabetical order): the 536 Campus Mondial de la Mer, the city of Brest, the department Finistère, the Deep-Sea Biology Society, 537

the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Ifremer, the International Seabed Authority and ISBlue. 538

File S1: 16DSBS program overview 540 The dataset analyzed for this study (16DSBS and participant replies) can be found in the supplementary 545 material File S3. 546

Using Zoom 457 Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of 458 Researchers and Participants

Ten simple rules to improve 461 academic work-life balance

Videoconference fatigue? 464 Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19

The carbon 467 footprint of large astronomy meetings

Loving the minimal FOMO": First major physics conference to go virtual 470 sees record attendance

Online conferences as an opportunity to enhance inclusiveness 472 in animal behaviour and welfare research: A case study of the ISAE 2020 virtual meeting

Global Deep-Sea Biodiversity 475 Research Trends Highlighted by Science Mapping Approach. Frontiers in Marine Science

Broadening Participation in Scientific Conferences during the 479 Era of Social Distancing

Rethinking travel in a post-pandemic world

Keep online option at conferences -it makes them more inclusive

An Illustration from the International Marine Conservation Congress. Frontiers in Marine 486 Science 4

How to 488 organize an online conference

Online conferences -Towards a 490 new (virtual) reality. Computational and Theoretical Chemistry 1189

Moving conferences online: lessons learned from an international virtual meeting

Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences 497 may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy

Craving togetherness: planning and replanning a national society 500 hybrid conference during the COVID-19 pandemic

Virtual meetings 503 promise to eliminate geographical and administrative barriers and increase accessibility, 504 diversity and inclusivity

We are grateful to all members of the 16DSBS local organizing committee (alphabetical order

We are also grateful to the following trustees of the 526

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial 507 relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. 508 No. 797326). 520