 I think without further ado we can start, we can start this webinar then. Nachla, up to you. Okay, thanks Gwen. Welcome everybody. My name is Nejla Rettberg, I work on OpenAir based at the University of Göttingen and I just wanted to welcome our speakers and welcome all of you for attending this Open Science Policy Creation webinar. We'll be focusing maybe mainly on open science policies but there will be some chance to ask questions about legal issues in relation to open science policies. So it won't be a webinar about legal issues independently, it'll be focusing on open science policies. So for those of you who are new to OpenAir, I want to give you a quick run through of what we do and also I just want to introduce our speakers today and our experts. We have Marina Angalaki from the National Documentation Centre in Greece who is driving this effort and this task force on open science policy creation. She has a lot of experience in creating guides on open science policies and she'll be here leading the webinar. And we also have Prodrimos Tervos from Greece and Thomas Margoni from the University of Glasgow who are here in the background to ask any legal questions. So you may have many questions during this webinar, just put them in the chat. We will record them and we will do our very best to answer all of them within the hour. So a little quickly an introduction to OpenAir I thought I'd take the liberty to, for those of you who are new, to tell you a little bit about it. We are a large infrastructure funded by the European Commission that is supporting open science, specifically scholarly communication outputs and moving it towards a more free away of doing science. So we provide a number of different services and a network of people and many different training efforts such as today to support different people such as researchers and research support staff and librarians and infrastructure providers. So we believe in gathering many different parts of scholarly communication outputs together and sharing them openly and connecting them and ultimately making them more visible and the more fair away of doing science. So to explain exactly what that is, we work in three different areas. We provide services for funders. So that's monitoring open science and their research outcomes. So the research outcomes arising from grants and from different scientific programs so that we can monitor the outputs. We've done that for the European Commission and for many different funders across Europe. We also then work on a technical level by providing a technical infrastructure which gathers together many different outputs from repositories, from publishers and content providers and making them interoperable and exchangeable and making them outputs more visible. And then ultimately with the red arrow, this is the support expertise that we offer such as today. We offer an open science help desk and many different training and RDM services for research data management and open science. So this is for research but also for institutions and anyone who's attending this webinar. So open science works in different ways in every different country of course and we operate a large network in every single country in Europe and beyond. So we have 34 countries involved and in each country we have an ambassador for OpenAir who is there on the ground to answer questions about open science and open access. Because open science works in different ways in each different country and the infrastructures are all different and the policies are different. And if we're linking them to different parts of the world as well all these infrastructures. So we're mainly based in Europe and I think some of them may well be in the webinar today. We have a very large help desk. These are all the representatives within OpenAir and they work to support open science as I said on the ground and if you're new to OpenAir do look up your representative within your country. You can go to our website and have a look for these people and they'll be there and happy to respond to any questions you have about policies or open science or open access in general. And the actual support that we do and what these open science help desks are doing are supporting policies. So we have supported the European Commission working on harmonizing its open science and open access policy and harmonizing that at a local level. So we do a lot of training and support within each different country and creating materials. In terms of infrastructure we support content providers and repository managers connecting their repositories to OpenAir and any other open outputs. So that can be publishing out any kind of publishing outputs and software. And of course we support open research data the pilot for the European Commission and beyond. So we support fair data and we create many different tools and offer legal support and compliance with the pilot as well. And last but not least but very important open access to publications. The experts are there to give you guidance and to information about licensing and copyright and compliance with any kind of open access mandates that you may have. So on our website you can take a look at the resources. We have many different guides there and all kinds of areas of difference in open science. So not just Horizon 2020 but beyond about making data fair and repositories. So take a look after this webinar to see what we have and those guides are always making new ones and we welcome any suggestions for new guides as well. And we have a help desk and we have a set of FAQs and you can see our body of webinars and workshops there and we regularly hold webinars such as these which are recorded on our website on many different topics and they're free for anyone to attend. So keep an eye out for any new ones coming up. And just a last slide on the capacity. We're building these task forces within our consortium on legal policy and RDM issues. And this webinar is coming out of the policy arm of this and I also welcome as well as our expert speakers. We also I haven't mentioned the other speakers who Marina will also introduce who have contributed usually as policy guides and also to the legal task force. So that's a very quick overview of what I do. Thank you for giving me the chance. I'm going to hand you over now to Marina who will share her screen who will walk you through many different areas of creating open science policies and some concrete examples and some other speakers as well will be showcasing their policies. Thank you, Nadjila and welcome everybody. I will just share my screen. Is that okay? Yes. Please Marina. Yes. Okay. So I will start with a short introduction about the structure of the presentation. First of all, this webinar gives us the opportunity to present and disseminate to a wider audience the work that we have done over the past year and a half in terms of supporting stakeholders wishing to adopt or update their open access policies taking into consideration developments that have taken place primarily at EU level but also at the national context. And we will do so by presenting the materials we have developed in open air such as the toolkit for policy makers and the templates for open science policies for research funding and research performing organizations along with the checklist and also highlighting the elements that need to be taken into consideration. Secondly, we will present examples of policies that have been adopted over the past year or so by our project members. The idea behind this is to inspire participants but also stress the extent at which those key elements that we will discuss have been taken into consideration the elements that have been identified by the open air team as important. So here we had the support and the help of our NOADS, the network of open access desks. We will present examples from Turkey. Then Militsev Kusic, the NOAD from Serbia will present the Serbian open science policy that has been recently adopted. And also we will have a presentation from Eli Dijk from the Netherlands also presenting the open science platform. Finally, we will also have the opportunity with the help of our legal experts, Prodromos and Thomas, to discuss some legal aspects that are related to the adoption of open science policies. So as Natila mentioned, OPENIR is a project that places particular focus on the infrastructure side. Nonetheless, we feel that infrastructure and policies are mutually reinforcing elements and therefore we have placed particular focus on supporting the design and the implementation of open science policies throughout Europe. As a result of this decision, OPENIR has created a dedicated task force on policies. Recently this task force has been merged with the one focusing on legal issues. Initially we had two distinct task forces, one focusing on policy issues and one on legal issues. But as we identified common aims, we decided to merge these task forces. In relation to the policy aspect, the task force has produced a toolkit for policymakers that describes the work that we've done over the past year and a half, stressing also the role of the network of national open access desks in this process. For OPENIR, NOADs are expected to have a key role in the promotion of policies in their countries. So for all of you attending this webinar, we would like to highlight that for, it's not just ask the members of the policy and legal task force, but also the NOADs that have any depth knowledge and understanding of open science policies and they can also provide support. More importantly, this toolkit comprises the policy templates for research performing organizations and research funding organizations. During this first year, we decided to focus our work on the templates and checklists. This is something that was pointed out by the NOADs of region south and region east. In both cases, they were in the process of developing policies and they had requested further support in this effort. By contrast, NOADs in region west were more interested in issues around the monitoring of policies and this is something that we will focus our work later on. The exchange of experiences and best practices is also an issue that has been highlighted by our NOAD network as important and thus we feel that this webinar is an attempt to contribute towards reaching this goal. The templates for research performing and research funding organizations are available on the NOAD as testing items. These are meant to act as guides for your work in terms of adopting and developing open science policies. Obviously, as it was mentioned in the introduction to this webinar, there is no one-size-fits-all approach in terms of open science policies. These obviously need to take into consideration factors like the existence of national infrastructure, also cultural aspects and then we also need to take into consideration the actions that we have policies of various types, ranging from hard ones, mandating different things or softer ones. Obviously, the language used is important and policy can either mandate or simply call or encourage different stakeholders to do different things and also it is important to understand the body adopting the policy, whether we are talking about the rector or the library, so it is important to also know who is adopting this policy. Nonetheless, and despite these differences in terms of the types of policies, we have identified a number of elements that are important in developing an open science and an open access policy, in the sense that they have an impact on the policy's effectiveness. For example, it is important for the policy to clearly define the rights, the roles and the responsibility of which party involved or to put it more simply to state who does what. It's not just the obligations of the researcher, for example, other units, for example, within a university or departments may be involved in this process, so it is important for the policy to clearly state who is doing what. Also, elements related to what needs to be deposited, for example, what types of publications or research data, where, when, in terms of data, whether there is the opt-out option and under what circumstances and whether the researcher is required to develop a data management plan and the extent at which there is support by the library or any other unit within the university. It's also important for the policy to provide information about a potential reviewer, the policy, and also if there is information regarding mechanism for monitoring and compliance. Sometimes this is also linked to the assessment and evaluation procedures within an organization. Training and awareness is also an important aspect, and here again a policy becomes more effective when it has information about who provides this training, how often to who the training is targeting, for example, whether this is just for researchers or also for librarians or other stakeholders in an institution. We have also developed a checklist both for research performing and research funding organizations. This is a guide allowing institutions to assess the readiness in adopting an open science policy. Again, it covers the main elements that should be taken into account when designing a policy, and here there is an attempt to align the principles and other developments at EU level. The checklist is basically structured around 14 statements, and for each one of them there are three possible answers. It's not a question of right and wrong, it's rather a way of showing the degree of readiness. So in that sense if you choose more the first response then this indicates a higher degree of readiness. Once again this has nothing to do with being right or wrong. Just as an example in terms of the rewards and incentives an institution is more ready when for example open science is integrated as a formal criterion in research assessment and evaluation procedures. This element is more weak if the policy simply encourages its members to adopt open science practices but these are not embedded as a criterion during research and assessment evaluation procedures. The policy becomes even weaker to incentivize or reward researchers engaged in open access practices. Again when it comes to training a policy becomes more effective when it provides training on a regular basis not just for researchers but also for other members such as for example librarians and when the policy also takes into consideration that this training should be tailored to disciplinary differences or to researchers at different stages of their careers. The policy becomes then weaker if courses are for example provided but not on a regular basis or these are of limited scope. A policy is even weaker when there's simply guidance by an institution on training courses offered by other projects or initiatives such as OpenAir or Foster or RDA but it's not provided by the institution per se. I think that we will have the opportunity to discuss these elements further through more practical examples. The first one is the case of Turkey and Tubitak which is the main funder research funder in Turkey who has recently adopted an open science policy that includes both publications and research data. This is an important initiative as the number of researchers affected by this policy is approximately 25,000 so you can understand the impact of the adoption of such a policy. Before its actual adoption Tubitak conducted a couple of surveys on research data management and open access awareness and satisfaction and has also held trainings on the management of research data to raise further awareness about open science and research data management. These two initiatives include the service and the trainings are important elements in the process especially for countries where researchers are not that familiar with open science as it helps to raise further awareness about open science and what a policy might actually involve. During also the preparation process and before the adoption the Turkish NOAAD had a key role in the process as they translated the templates into Turkish and had several consultations with Tubitak personnel on the model for the open science policy to be adopted. So this is also something that has further helped the process of adopting the policy. On your left hand side you can see the members of the Tubitak open science committee and there you can also see at the bottom Goldikin Gordal who is the NOAAD from Turkey. As I mentioned the policy covers both publication and research data that have been produced by researchers who received full or partial funding by Tubitak. The funder requires researchers to deposit in Tubitak repository a copy of the accepted version of their peer-reviewed articles who are completely or partially funded by Tubitak. The green road is being proposed and for Gold open access this is recommended. Tubitak requires that the researchers open the full text of their publication as soon or no later than six months for publications in life sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics and no later than 12 months for publications in social sciences and humanities. Something which is aligned with the horizon framework. The funder also recommends the creation of a research data management plan. Again there is in terms of research data there is the possibility of opt-out so therefore we can say that the approach of Tubitak is very much aligned with the commission's motto as open as possible as closed as necessary. Tubitak will also prepare templates and guides for the development of data management plans. Obviously if these were already available by the time of the adoption of the policy this would have been better. Nevertheless it is good that it is mentioned that this will be the responsibility of the funder. It is also important with the evaluation as the funder will take into account whether the researcher has complied with this policy when requesting further support when the researcher will request further funding. There is also a monitoring and review procedure and in terms of the open science policy Tubitak encourages the cooperation with other stakeholders to promote open science. Given the fact that Tubitak has a central role as a funder in the country it is I think quite obvious that it is an important step in promoting open science policy in Turkey. I think that the only weak point could be related to the fact that maybe further emphasis could have been placed on raising further awareness and training following the adoption of the policy. Nonetheless this is something obviously that since the NOAAD is in close contact with Tubitak that could be further discussed and where the NOAAD from Turkey could also have a central role in terms of raising awareness and supporting any training activities targeting researchers who have received funding from Tubitak. The Ismir Institute of Technology where the NOAAD from Turkey is based has also approved its open science policy a couple of months ago. This is the first open science policy in Turkey including both publication and research data and it is expected to act as a best practice example for other universities in Turkey wishing to revise or adopt open science policies. Now we can move on to the example of Serbia and the open science platform with the help of our colleague Milica. I can use your slides and I will ask you to change slides because I can't do this with your presentation. Is it okay? Yes. Please go to the second slide. The open science platform in Serbia is basically a funder platform but having in mind the status of the funder, the main national funder, it is actually a national platform that applies to all research conducted in Serbia. There was a lot of work regarding this policy and it took many many years of activities by our NOAAD in Serbia which I am actually just supporting the process but Miliana was the main person in this who initiated this. Many negotiations and this process started sometime in 2012. There were a number of working groups until 2017 when an official working group was established and this group included members of the ministry responsible for science representatives of universities, representatives of the national council for science and librarians so we wanted to obtain as wide consensus as possible before adopting the policy and to involve all the stakeholders in the process in order to make this policy as feasible as possible. So those discussions were very very there were some high quality inputs in those discussions and they actually shaped the policy. The initial draft used for the policy was the toolkit produced during the Paster for Open Access project and I can say that this type of approach using toolkits with all the explanations which actually are useful when devising the policy because everything is already there and what the working group or the stakeholders making the policy should do is just to adjust what is provided in the toolkit to their local context and our local context was quite complicated at the moment when the policy was devised. Just to say that the last project cycle started in 2011 has been extended in multiple locations and it actually should have been finished some four or five years ago and that is because our funding system, the system for funding science Serbia is being changed. So new legislation is being devised many discussions are still ongoing and this also affected the process of adopting the policy so that is why some things could not be determined in the policy but were left for some laws and by-laws and some other occasions to be discussed because we didn't know crucial information at the moment when the policy was devised. Also those new laws for example the most important is the new draft law of open science and we expect the new law to be adopted within month or two. It explicitly mentions open science and it actually covers in a number of articles it covers the issues related to open science even funding also in the action plan that will be valid until 2020 open science is mentioned in university policies and strategies so this is the process I am just talking about the main obstacle in the process along with the situation is underdeveloped repository infrastructure until last year we didn't have more than five repositories in Serbia functional repositories and over the last year we managed to establish a dozen so the infrastructure is being developed now so some of the issues couldn't be covered in the policy because we didn't know the answers related to the infrastructure and as I said we may expect that some of the issues will be mentioned later in some other documents and you will see later I put it all in a table Marina please next slide so you can read our policy, the English version and we also registered the policy with a roadmap so you can see it there as well this is actually an umbrella policy and it provides a framework for institutional policies so institutions are expected to determine some of institutional policies and one of such issues is for example training and responsibilities for depositing, for checking the deposits and such things and they are already covered, there are a dozen institutional policies in the moment and those issues are covered in institutional policies the policy, the national policy covers both publications and research data but the mandates are different open access mandate for publications, green open access mandate and open access to research data is merely recommended so it's not mandated yet but we expect this to come with further registration once we know the type of funding and all the details related to the new project cycle we also try to put open peer review in the policy and this was discussed during the meetings of the working group and this is something that actually has to do with some cultural context and this was not accepted so we didn't put it there we meant to include a clause saying that open peer review is encouraged but it couldn't pass so it didn't appear in the final version of the policy and the policy is very short it is one and a half pages it has two annexes specifying some very important issues related to the development of infrastructure, for example it was very important for us to specify technical standards for repositories and interoperability standards and they are completely in line with all the open air recommendations licenses as well and also we have an annex although the open access to research data is not mandated there is an annex dealing with research data that embodies all their principles persistent identifiers so that in case somebody an institution decides to introduce amended for research data so that they have enough recommendations and materials to know how to do this correctly Marina please next slide next we have a table and I try to make it as straight forward as possible so I think it is self explaining so to the left column we have the topics from the open air model policy in Tulkit in the middle column we have the topics discussed in the Serbian open science platform and in the right column we have comments explaining why something was defined and what we expect to be defined in some other documents so basically at the moment when the policy was devised we couldn't define for example the issue of cost related to open access to open science activities but now this issue is defined in the draft on the drive blown science where cost for open science activities are actually recognized as eligible cost and something that will be covered by the national funder also the incentives are not foreseen in the national policy but this is something that will be defined in funding contracts and such such things in Serbia are usually defined in this type of documents the open access mandate for publications is hard embargo periods are somewhat longer than in Europe 12 months for science and technology and 18 months for social sciences and humanities but there is we're having a bit unusual situation because in most cases we don't have embargo periods in practice we don't have embargo periods for social sciences and humanities because most researchers publish in local journals on the basis when we have deposits related to those areas we have zero embargo period those items are immediately available in our repositories hybrid open access is not considered ineligible so it is allowed but the issue of funding hybrid and gold open access are not defined these costs are mentioned as eligible but it is not specified who is to cover these costs and we expect this to be discussed in other documents especially in funding contracts and what is interesting machine readable creative commons licenses are mandatory both for publications and data and this is specified in the policy the next slide please so as far as open access to research data is concerned as I mentioned fair principles are explicitly mentioned and creative commons licenses as well and they are even a little bit more specified it is recommended to introduce research data management plans but the data related costs are again not mentioned also as for some other things as funding acknowledgement for example these things are not mentioned in the policy because they are already regulated and this is something that is normally defined in funding contracts so researchers know that they have to acknowledge the funding and it is said in the policy that the implementation will be monitored and the monitoring results will be used in the evaluation of projects it is not specified how and this will certainly be defined in other documents later on but we know more about the new project cycle and the reporting methods are not defined and also no sanctions are seen for non-compliance and also policy review is not mentioned at this moment when we don't know anything about the new project cycle this was difficult to be foreseen but certainly once the new project cycle begins and we know more details about the compliance with the policy this will certainly be defined at a later stage so that is practically all I also want to mention that our open science policy has a hard mandate not only for journal articles but also for all types of art books, monographs, PhD thesis actually we already have a PhD mandate which is very very efficient and for all types of research all types of publications, conference proceedings all of them have to be deposited in repositories so that's basically all so thank you very much Milica I will stop sharing my screen and give the floor to Eli Yes, I will share my screen now there it is, can you see it? Yes My name is Eli Dijk I work at the Institute of Dance, Data Archiving and Network Services and I am a member of the National Platform Open Science in the Netherlands with the focus on promoting open science and citizen science Netherlands have a long history in open science like elsewhere it started with open access to publications since 2003 all the universities have repostry with open access publications and later other research institutes followed the National Portal Narcissus Service of Dance harvest around 35 repostries with publications and 10 repostries with research data the percentage of open access publication is growing every year but not quick enough according to the Ministry of Science and Academic Institutes in the Netherlands there should be a transition to open science more than just open access to publications in 2017 a National Platform Open Science has been set up and this coalition published a National Plan Open Science the goal was to boost the transition towards an open science system in this publication the platform formulated the following ambitions full open access to publications in 2020 to make research optimal suited for reuse, recognition and reward for researchers to promote and support open science and later citizen science was added for each ambition there was a coalition of a number of participants that will make the plans to reach the goals and the sub goals you can see the members of the National Platform it's a broad coalition with the Ministry, with the Associations of Universities and the Universities of Applied Sciences the Academy the National Research Fund NWO my Institute Dance National Library etc. this slide shows the transition to open science with skills, rewards and monitoring as cross pillars an advocating open science is necessary to make the transition possible all the cross pillars are part of the themes of the National Plan let us have a closer look at the ambitions of the National Plan and in my next slides I will focus on the last three the data infrastructure in the Netherlands is fragmented and there are omissions so we need to develop an agreed vision for the infrastructure to reach open science is necessary that the researchers will also be rewarded for publishing open access output and to make it possible that the data can be reused on the website of openscience.nl you can find a report with recommendations the next three ambitions I will discuss in more detail in the next slides Ali, I am really sorry to interrupt but could you make your slides full screen? I have them full screen we see them as presenting mode it does not bother me I do not know how to do it because I just proceed because I see them full screen I take this out let's see if it will be better ok then I will proceed I think maybe I stop share and share another maybe I did not share the right screen shall I do that? I call do you now see the black thing in it or not? I see it something goes wrong now you don't see something black in it yes we see you in presenting mode but it's ok Ali just continue sorry to get you off track ok to reach ambition of open access to publications in 2020 a number of action has been taken an important one is the negotiation with publishers like in many countries for example in Norway to make it possible that researchers can publish their articles as open access results of the negotiations where researchers can see how they can publish open access per publisher can be found on our national website www.openaccess.nl another point here is that it's necessary to measure how many open access publication have been published every year by collecting open access number at the universities I will come to that later and the last point is raising awareness about the possibilities of open access publishing for example an open access newsletter by the association of universities and the association at the open access website for monitoring open access publications definitions were formulated and each university collected numbers of open access publications in the categories gold, high, red and green we can see the number of open access publications in this case only the journal articles is rising from 42% to 50% in 2017 we don't have the numbers of 2018 yet as an example I show you the numbers of the technical university of Delft and you can see that's also the percentage and you can see here also the person just open access publications in 2018 and it's higher than the years before we expect this growth as all the universities one of the teams of the national platform is to promote and support open science so the website open science has been but dot and L has been developed and we decided that on this website there would be information about the national plan open sign and that we link the existing websites like the open access website where there is a lot of a lot more information that form also organized a national meeting for researchers on the open science in May 2017 and the plan is to organize a second meeting at the end of this year or next year on the website you can also find the recipe of open science speakers so research organizations can invite speakers at their conferences and at their meetings Dutch universities may create efforts to inform their academic staff about open science with web pages special new letters and the like in or around the international open access weeks all kinds activities are being organized Citizen science is a theme in the national plan that was added later what is citizen science? Citizen science is scientific research conducted by amateur scientists Citizen science has evolved over the past four decades technology and internet can be seen as one of the main drivers of the recent explosions of citizen science activities examples are the digitization of archives or to collect data on particular methods like butterfly or bird counts it is important that the same principles and standards apply to the citizen science as to the scientific research in general on the other hand it is also important that research and innovation can be more closely aligned with the needs, wishes and interests of society Citizen science can play a role in it because then more citizens are involved in science we see that citizen science is involved in four other themes of the national plan this was described in one of the notes with recommendations of the coalition involved in citizen science if you look at the goal of reaching 100% open access to publication one of the recommendation is that it is important for a growing number of non-professional readers that it will be easier to read a scientific publication for example by adding layman's summary for the use of research data it was recommended that the benefits of citizen science should be promoted and that the different disciplines should draw up guidelines and methods for collecting data by citizen science based on commitments and quality and all with the rule open if possible and protected where necessary if you want research to make citizen to make use of citizen science and it's also necessary to recognize and explicitly appreciate the efforts of researchers to do so and to have special earmarked budget available for citizen science for example to support networks and for the team supporting open science the recommendation is to develop separate guidelines for researchers regarding to deal with non-professional employees by disciplines as a platform open science we work intensely on the five teams described in the national plan to give an extra boost to the plans the steering group of the national platform decided this month that the national platform open science will be transformed into a program open science with different projects and with a timeline to 2023 the leaders of the teams have formulated plans for the next steps cost of the transition will also be considered which extra finances are necessary here you can see the different topics of the program these topics are based on the work that has been done so far citizen science is still one of the topics and the coalition will try to realize a national support structure for open science advocating the platform has the intention to strengthen the cooperation in the area of encouraging and supporting researches so that was my final slide thank you Ely Naxla would you would you like to say something no thanks very much for all our speakers I see people are writing questions but there's only one question in the Q&A box and we also have a couple of more questions that were submitting while they registered so I don't know how long we were scheduled for one hour we can go on for 10 to 15 more minutes if that's okay with everyone to get through the questions and also remember we have Prodromos a legal expert and we have discussions about open science policies and legal issues so I guess type the questions and Marina do you want to maybe start reading the questions okay the first one is from Jonathan England I think it is addressed to Militza when discussing the topics among the members of the working group how did you make a decision was it full consensus majority vote just informal agreement etc in our case it was full consensus for most issues so we covered only the issues where we had a full consensus that was not so difficult to achieve there were some questions where there was no consensus for example like open peer review and also there was another issue that I didn't mention because it's not important in this context for example we planned to to discourage printing so much money in Serbia is spent on printing printing journals, printing monographs more than 50% of the budget for publishing is spent on printing so we tried to discourage this in the policy and this was not accepted by quite many members of the working group so we decided not to include not to include it there because it was full consensus for most issues so is there anything else that you wish to know there is another question from Emma when an organization decides to develop an open science policy it should set up a specific working group as in the Serbian case what kind of expertise is needed thank you we had different kinds of expertise for example Bilyana and I were involved already very much in open science and policy development in issues related to education on open science and open access that was one kind of expertise so we knew which recommendations to take into account which toolkits, which topics to cover but we also included people who are policy makers decision makers within institutions for example at universities we had a vice rector in our working group we had the head of the National Science Council we had a rector or vice rector of the University of Arts and we had decision makers from the ministry we tried to include people who were already knowledgeable about open science there was no use of including people who didn't know anything about this so we tried to find such representatives among various stakeholders that knew enough about open science and were able to discuss the topic and who were ready to work because actually the working group worked just to add I think that obviously it's not necessary to set up a working group but the idea behind is before the actual adoption of the policy to involve as many people and different stakeholders as possible who will have a key role in the implementation of the policy and who have the expertise to bring into the design of the policy such as for example the legal department of the university who will have obviously the expertise in dealing with any legal issues that may arise or also people from the library who can have a key role in terms of providing the training or supporting the infrastructure and obviously it's always good to involve the researchers as they are the ones affected by the policy so it's always good to bring them in the discussion and hear what they have to say and obviously take into consideration any disciplinary differences that may exist and may have an impact on the design of the policy because obviously it's a bit different if you're a university focusing on a specific discipline or if you're an institution a big university covering different disciplines and it's easier to devise institutional policies once you have people from various branches involved in devising the national policy so once it was adopted the process of adopting it locally at institutions was quite satisfactory because the context was ready for adopting it locally and in terms of the types of rewards and incentives that have the largest impact I suppose when it's linked to evaluation and promotion promotion this is the strongest link that can exist and can have an impact so if I may move to some of the questions that were submitted during registration there was one about the support that the library can provide towards researchers I think this support can be of various types such as providing training about open access and open science something that can be done in collaboration with other organizations outside the university support in the development of data management plans also information about appropriate repositories or open access journals these are different types of support that the library can provide towards researchers and there was also a question about the types of policies for Greek universities in Greece there was recently the director's summit adopted a decision calling all universities to adopt open access policies within 2019 and they recommend a hard policy in the sense that they want this policy to mandate faculty members in relation to open access to publications and primarily it's open access to publications the the decision has a number of points that are aimed at guiding the institutions obviously they're quite vague but I think that open air through the work we've done in terms of the templates and through our Greek know-it we can support you further in developing your policy and there was also another question I think it's more for our legal experts how to adapt data policy to apply GDPR to non-sensitive scientific data for example the authors have a right for their names in DOIs for non-sensitive datasets to be removed this could make the data set anonymous and therefore incomplete I think that maybe Prodromos or Thomas are more appropriate to answer this Prodromos are you there? Yes yes I'm just trying to think what specific focus would you like us to address in terms of how we actually do the production of the policies which aspect in particular Marina? No it was just a question that was submitted during registration so I don't know if it's not very clear because I'm not sure what is the clear part of the it's looking at me what the question is Should I read it again? Yes please I'll put it on the Is it the latest one in the Q&A or it was submitted during registration so if you can read the question just to make sure I have the right one. Okay how to adapt data policy to apply GDPR to non-sensitive scientific data for example authors have a right for their names in DOIs for non-sensitive data sets to be removed this could make the data set anonymous and therefore incomplete Yeah that's a question we have dealt with in quite a few instances actually specifically about this question not with a specific reference to the DOI but in relation to the reference in the use of names of authors in catalogs we even had it at the National Documentation Center by the way so we have an opinion by even before GDPR we still applies today and we know the following thing we need to have a legal basis on which we actually perform the processing of the personal data so the big question is how do you actually have you obtain these names are these names part of the publicly available data sets that you acquire from the authors when they submit something to a repository so this is the biggest question the legal basis which we normally use are too in the context of research data in the UK and other jurisdictions we see the public interest justification or the justification of the exception being used but again this has to be appropriately balanced against any kind of measures that have been taken in order to ensure there is no unnecessary processing of the relevant data in other words we need to go back and ask the same question I asked at the beginning how did you obtain this data now another option is when you actually obtain this data to make sure that in the consent form you don't just have copyright provisions but also provisions in relation to consenting about how the title and the personal data on the title are going to be used normally if you have and the third option is to actually have a notice where you explain how it is going to be used and consider that as being within the framework of the research exception and therefore for you to be able to use it so overall you have the following options either you consent the authors when you obtain the data from them or if you have obtained the data from a public source you indicate that in the provenance of the data and you have a mechanism so that someone doesn't wish their name to appear in the data set to be able to remove it if you have these things either would work so from my experience you just have to make sure that there is such a process in place either through consenting I repeat when you obtain the data from the data subject or through notices and balancing of the data subject rights when you obtain the data from the third source I don't know if that has been clear Thank you Prodromos I don't see any additional questions Yeah so let's call it a day thanks for staying on longer, thank you very much Marina So this was our first public webinar on policies outside the network so we'd like to hold more and please write any feedback in the chat or fill in the evaluation forms that Gwen will send out that's really important because we'd like to target this further too from those institutions so spread the word and let us know how we could tailor this content more to them and any ideas for things we've missed out or Indicate specific topics Yeah we hope it was useful and that you'll use the support material that Marina and her team have created There's one more question from Jonathan England so if you have more questions about the topic how can we keep chatting about it? Publicly, I mean on the Slack channel or internally and open air that's only internally so we were thinking actually a year ago creating a list serve on policy creation would that be useful everybody? Jonathan would that be something so that we can share with everybody who wants to be part of this list of examples of policies and updates in general if the community would find that useful you could please write that in the chat because it was something we had considered and open air would be the conduit to maintain that list about open science policies okay so there is interest yeah I don't know about a public Slack for the whole world I mean you're all welcome to join our open Slack okay so there's a poll so maybe fill in the poll and let us know a forum okay so let's consider a forum or a mailing list so everyone can maybe choose something and then we have concrete feedback on how we'd I'm glad you found this useful okay so fill in this poll that somebody set up and then we can have a feeling for what the attendees would like can I think about the forum I don't know if we have it as open air there must be examples of community forums if you have any concrete suggestions that would be great so on a very practical level this webinar has been recorded and for those of you who've missed my announcement at the start so you will all receive one more email from me together with the link to the recordings which will be a YouTube clip, the slides and the evaluation forum and we would really appreciate it if you would take some time to fill in the evaluation it only takes like one minute and it's very useful for us yeah it's essential for us yeah okay so I think that's I think we call it an end then and yeah keep in touch and contact your know-ad if you haven't already if you're new to open air and I'd like to thank everyone yeah for facilitating this and to all our really good speakers today thanks a lot thank you have a good day thanks very much thank you bye