The four  projects developed during the week had different themes. One of the groups developed a project on the WikiData platform for structuring clinical trial data, translating a systematic review by the Cochrane group on ketamine and depression into the WikiData format. In the process, they faced philosophical questions about the scientific knowledge and ontology of the representation of data in an accessible way by programs, fundamental in times of big data production in the biological sciences.

         Another group focused on the difficulties that distance learning students face in engaging in scientific initiation. Proposed a prototype of  platform to facilitate the engagement in remote scientific projects. In the proposal, mobile apps and a website would intermediate with an advisor, so that students can test hypotheses with their data and at the same time contribute to the collection of data for a larger project, in the model of citizen science.

         A third group collaborated with the  Litter Institute  in the analysis of gender bias at different stages of the selection process of their research notices. In addition, they explored the relationship between the success of submitted proposals and different quantitative measures of content - most common words, semantic distance between proposals, topics covered - in order to characterize the selection criteria that are effectively used in the Institute's selection process .

        Based on a question about the metrics normally used to evaluate articles and scientists, the last group sought to create a new scientometric index that reflects transparency and rigor. Using the PEDro platform, which contains evaluations of clinical trials in physical therapy, the group analyzed articles from several researchers, drawing conclusions about what a "good science index" should measure and about the feasibility of obtaining the necessary data on a large scale.