 I'm Pablo Castro, I work for Lever in The Hague in the Netherlands at the Connect Like music, the Royal Library of the Midlands. I'm coordinating the implementation of this European Commission open-air acti-7 post ground open access pilot. I only have 18 minutes and there's quite a lot of stuff, so I will rather quickly go through all my slides. If there's any questions or comments, please feel free to comment up to me afterwards or to drop me an email. My email address will be provided at the end of my slides. So first, since I've been told we are project coordinators and NCPs, besides not in the room, I will very briefly go through what this funding initiative, this new funding initiative is about and what the requirements are for applying for funding. So this so-called FD7 post ground open access pilot is a new Gold Open Access funding initiative from the Commission launched earlier this year that will provide funding to fund open access publishing codes. So the APCs are to progress as in charges for articles or BPCs with process in charges for weeks or already finished FD7 projects. We have two years, the project was launched as mentioned earlier at the end of May this year, officially it's the first of May though, so we will run until the 30th of April 2017 unless we spend all the money before. We have a 4 million euro budget as Caroline mentioned earlier. It doesn't look like this funding is going to be spent in two years time at the moment. Caroline already went to most of the requirements for collecting funding. I will briefly mention there here, the slides will go online I presume afterwards. So I won't go through all of them, mainly that. So the main ones are it's maximum three publications to be funded per finished FD7 project. We have 8000 last projects to fund here. For articles, hybrid journals will not be eligible for funding. So for articles to collect funding from this FD7 post grant open access pilot, then you need to be publishing fully open access journals. I'll show a few of the most popular ones at the moment later. And then as Martin read on the slides, there is a funding captioning place for this funding initiative. Maximum in 2000 euros funding for a research article or equivalence. It can be a book chapter or a contribution to a conference proceedings. And maximum 6000 euros for a memorandum. So that's a book, an edited volume or a memorandum. An important thing to mention, and this is mainly for not, but it's a fact for everyone, is there is a two year eligibility time window for projects. So it means to ensure that publications arising from finished FD7 projects are still linked to the project activity. The eligibility means that the project must have finished no longer than two years ago, since from the moment we received the funding request. We're applying these requirements rather loosely at the beginning, but there will be an update in the eligibility time window at the end of this year. But the moment any project finished later than the 1st of January 2017 is eligible for funding. But from January 1st to the next year the time window will be updated and all projects finished in 2017 will cease to be eligible. So please don't keep that in mind when advertising the initiative to new projects, because this is very relevant. There is a system that has been set up by OpenAir in order to automatically collect funding requests and process them. So getting the invoices, getting the payments done. There is a screenshot here. It basically means collecting information from the submitter on the institution. He or she is affiliated with the project, the publication and the accounting details. I won't stop much here. You can see there has been a communication, many of you I presume must have received it earlier this week, on our first funded requests. Since the project started there are more than six months now into the project. It was last Friday, last Thursday. We collected a hundredth approved funding requests from Israel actually. And you have a graph there showing the increase in the number of approved funding requests. We're collecting a lot of them, not just the approved ones. Lots of funding requests for hybrid journals are eligible. Lots of funding requests for previously published papers which are not eligible. It's important as well. We see we're reporting every two months for this more or less. So the next report is due at the end of November. The figures are off at the end of November. The previous one was early October with figures at the end of September. And the number of approved funding requests is systematically doubling so far in every reporting period we have. There has been a very relevant dissemination effort which has been contested at the number of funding requests we have collected. It's mainly the letter that has been sent out early October from DGNX from Brussels to every single project coordinator out there. Caroline has already mentioned this as well. And I'm sure some of you in the room may have collected it. It was a one-hanger from DGNX telling researchers from project coordinators across Europe and beyond that their publications might be eligible for funding. This very briefly goes through the results of the initiatives so far. This is the statistic, the distribution by countries where the funding requests are from for the 104 granted ones we had out of yesterday which is exactly double the number we had at the end of September. So the last reporting was that with 52 we have now exactly 104 which is double in month and a half. It's very good. The project is taking off nicely at the moment. If you see, I hope you can see it, it's not to play the figures on the slide but there are some countries where this initiative is taking up quite strongly. One is Spain, the other one is the UK. It's interesting because there is a discussion internally in this project on whether the initiative would be more successful in countries where there is already some infrastructure existing around the Golden Axis like really supporting the researchers in order to tell them what journals they can collect funding for, helping them with the living voices, etc. This is the case for the UK or the Netherlands or Germany, some Scandinavian countries, Austria. Most of the countries in Europe don't have this. The Golden Axis is not a Christmas model. However, the first country on this list is Spain where this model is actually not implemented as of now. So it's interesting that these countries where there is no Golden Axis infrastructure or supports infrastructure for researchers, they don't usually have Golden Axis funding either. So the initiative is very useful there. It's interesting that they got to me there. Countries on top of the list are Spain, the UK, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Denmark, Israel, Portugal. They're all, well, except for Israel, they're all kind of Western Europe. The first Central Eastern European country is Hungary there. We have the Czech Republic, we have Poland, but there is a little bit of bias in the way this initiative is taking off at the moment. So it's an invitation for the arts from Central Eastern European countries to keep pushing for the invitation of this. It takes patience, as I mentioned, the publications come up when they come up. They may or may not be sent to fully open access journals. So yeah, we're not in a hurry, but we need to be ready to collect the funding requests when they arrive. Another interesting statistic on this 100-plus first hundred requests is the distribution by publishers. Again, you can see a few publishers there on top. So mainly Nature Publishing Group, Madeleine, and Kloss are the two main ones. Then Frontiers, Copernicus, and UBI, Biomed Central. It's not surprising that most of them are fully open access publishers, but it's not only those which are collecting the funding. So MPDE and Wiley are not fully open access publishers. They have very popular fully open access journals. This is the distribution by journal, so that the most popular fully open access journals are at the moment for this 100-plus. Another request we have collected are KlossOne, are not surprised. KlossOne is completely multidisciplinary. Scientific reports, again very multidisciplinary, 11 and 10. Funded requests for each then some distance from that. We have Nature Comps, Nature Communications, again in MPD. Frontiers in microbiology, sensors, UBI, Biogio-Science's, Discussions for Pernicus, et cetera. There's a huge long tail of fully open access journals with just one publication. But we are starting to see... It's useful. I'm wondering whether it might be useful to provide the full list. I'm happy to. So the researchers will know what journals are eligible for funding when submitting their manuscripts. And it's as statistic as well for the average APC you would have paid so far, which, as you can see, is for the last reporting with it early October. So only based on 52. Funded requests. You can see a little bit of an awesome distribution there. The highest number of funded requests at the time was about between 1200 and 1300 euros. It's keeping another stable, the average APC, which is 1,350 euros at the moment. Pretty much in line with our initiatives like this one. And finally, I will mention these ADC equivalents funding mechanisms that we're starting to alert a significant amount of effort into. This is a parallel funding mechanism, an alternative one, because this is an initiative around the gold open access, and the gold doesn't mean APCs. Just, you know, it's over two thirds of the journals, you know, the DOA, again, that the directory of the open access journals are charging no ADCs to their authors. So we are looking into a way to fund these journals that charge no ADCs by implementing some kind of ADC equivalent funding mechanism that will not fund ADCs, there's no ADCs to that, but some technical improvements in their publishing workflows. The goal is to strengthen the ADC-free open access journal infrastructure across, under the open air umbrella, I'd say. There will be a workshop on December 11th in the day where a number of journal agencies for APC open access journals and APC open access journal platform managers, such as these ones are charging no ADCs, or the open air managers in the UK, whether it's in Spain, or the UK Press, also in the UK, in terms of the whole geographical scope, where we will discuss these mechanisms for providing this funding to what we're going to fund, are we going to fund journals, platforms, what the universities will look like, what kind of improvements are we going to fund, how are we going to collect accountable results for that kind of funding, and then especially, how can we make sure submissions, eligible submissions will arrive to these journals, which are often received by researchers being of lower quality. Then my last slide. We're going to collect early feedback on, from knowledge for this workshop, especially around whether or not a flat ADC equivalent journal will be offered to ADC-free open access journals across the whole scope, across the continent and beyond. If you could provide an estimation of what the ADC equivalent rates need to be for your country. So we have already collected a few answers to this survey, which is URL I have forgotten, I'm sorry to include here, but it's in the journal that you collected through the mailing list. We will provide some results later when we have a wider number of replies to this, but I want to invite you to please cancel this if possible, and thank you for your collaboration. Thank you. Time for a few questions. Very good questions. The discussion is whether any journal will find the same amount of funding for an eligible article, regardless of what country it's based in, which is a little bit tricky because it's cheaper, normally, to produce a journal in some countries than in others, but then implementing a multiple APC equivalent rate funding mechanism, it's quite difficult as well. So there is this discussion around this. I hope it provides an answer. I also just wanted to bring up the issue. If we're talking about graduate open access journals, then what is the APC equivalent? So we are turning the address of open access journals to APCs. So I'm always mentioning that we don't want to push the APC-based business model into APC-free open access journals, but we want to reinforce their technical technicians, the infrastructure as such. They're not producing XML versions of their articles. They are critically not collecting their funding information for their articles. This is really a key issue. We can't tell if they're already publishing APC-free funded articles or not because they're not, you know, singling the funding information in a single metadata element. If they collect the funding for this, they will be able to do it. Every single APC-free open access journal that we have checked with on this has said that we are not implementing an APC funding mechanism. This is not sustainable. Yeah, so this is too very personal infrastructure. Okay.