 Thank you for all the implications. So before presenting open access policies in horizon 2020, I will briefly introduce open access and open science. So what is open access? Open access means online access at no charge to the user to peer reviewed scientific publication and also to research data. And this is online access and so it's open access means open access means also reuse and not only access to the data and to the publication. So why open access now? The main idea of the aim of open access is to optimize the impact of critically funded research. The Europe strategy was smart, sustainable and inclusive currently underlined the central role of knowledge and innovation in generating growth. Fuller and wider access to scientific publications and data that can help to build and produce research results, foster collaboration and avoid duplication of the thought, accelerate innovation and finally involve citizens and society. So in a few words, the expected benefits of open science are sorry to interrupt you. So open access is good for science, for the economy and also for society. Open access is integrated into a broader context which is open science. Indeed, the transition towards a data driven economy relies partly on the move towards open science. Open science is the global process of transformation and opening up science and research through ICT. The expected impact of open science are to make science more efficient, transparent, interdisciplinary and also to enable broader societal impact and innovation. Among very prominent part of open science we find open access, as say, citizen engagement, e-infrastructure, research assessment and also metrics. Now, our commissioners view. So, Commissioner Ottinger, who is a commissioner for digital economy and society and Commissioner Moudache, who is the one for research science and innovation, stated together in June this year that open science is about making sure that science serves innovation and growth. It guarantees open access to perfectly funded research results and the possibility of knowledge sharing. Open science is definitely a priority of Commissioner Moudache so, we say he has three goals, open innovation, open science and open to the world. Now, let's talk about open access policies in horizon 2020 and let's begin with open access to publication. So, what open access is not... Oh, it works now. Sorry. My fault. Open access is not an obligation to publish. It's not at all with patent here. You can see in the graph here. And it doesn't mean that the open access publication is of a lower quality. The peer review process is the same. So, in this mandate, each beneficiary must ensure open access to all peer reviewed scientific publications relating to its results. So, the beneficiary must deposit a machine-related copy of the published version of final peer review manuscript accepted for publication in a repository of the research choice and possibly open-air compliance. Suddenly, the beneficiary must ensure open access on publication or at the latest, within six or 12 months. This is called an embargo period. The beneficiary has also to ensure open access to the peer reographic metadata that identifies the deposited publication via the repository. The aim is also to deposit, at the same time, the research data needed to validate the results. They are called an alive reminder. So, there are two routes towards open access to publication. The two routes are the following. The first, open access and the green open access. Under the green open access, which is also called self-archiving, the beneficiary has to deposit their published article of the final peer review manuscript in an online repository before alongside of after its publication. In this case, they must ensure open access to the publication within a number of periods during which publishers sell subscription. Under the gold model, which is also referred as open access publishing, the beneficiary can publish immediately in open access journals. In this model, the payment of publication cost is shipped away from readers paying their subscription. The business model, most often any control is based on article processing charges, LTCs. I didn't mention in my slide, but for your information, the European Commission organized in October of this year a workshop on alternative publishing models. Indeed, new and alternative open access publishing models are now imaging that would optimize existing arrangements and put forward new ones. The outcomes of the workshop are made available online and the final report with the synthesis of all these imaging and already existing models is still in writing. So, about licensing. So, the commission and provides all tools to retain their copyright and grants adequate licenses to publishers with, for example, very creative commands and licenses. Concerning the cost for all publishing, so these costs are eligible during the grant, as is FD7. There is also a pilot for FD7 first grant open access publishing. A few words on it. So, the European Commission has launched the PILA pilot to fund open access publication for finalized FD7 project through the OpenAir project. This 24 month pilot is being developed in the context of the OpenAir 2020 project. It's a mechanism to support open access after end of grant. This pilot provides an additional instrument to make FD7 project research result open access. The pilot covers open access article processing charges for FD7 project up to two years after the end. The maximum of three peer-reviewed publication per project will be funded. Publications should be deposited into an OpenAir compliant repository. Open access monographs are eligible for the pilot. A budget of four million euros are being provided to support the pilot. The maximum of 2,000 euros per publication is provided for covering the fees. It's also important to note that the funding only applies to fully open access journal titles. This means that publication in high-grade journals are not supported by the pilot. The pilot started its operation on June 1 of this year. So it's therefore too early for a statistically significant analysis. And recently, a letter has been sent to the eligible project to inform them of the pilot. So we are waiting for the request. Now, let's talk about open access to research data. So this pilot is a novelty in Horizon 2020. It aims to improve and maximize access to and reuse of research data generated by projects. The quick key questions are the following. Which areas are covered? What data is covered? What are the requirements? And what about data management? First of all, the areas. So in the latest work program, participating in the open access data pilot are the following two pages on it. So future and emerging technology, research infrastructure, leadership in an open and easy industrial technology, ICT, nanotechnology, advanced materials, advanced manufacturing and processing biotechnology, societal challenges, security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and water research and the bioeconomy. And also climate action, environment, the social efficiency and raw materials, developing a changing world, inclusive, innovative and reflective societies, and a society that is different for society and prospecting activities. Project in other areas. Which means areas that are not covered by the scope of the pilot are encouraged to participate in the pilot on a voluntary basis. Project made of the art of the pilot on open access data in 2020 in the series of cases at the submission stage. First, if the project will not generate or collect any data, you cannot opt. Second reason, if there is a conflict with the obligation to protect results. In our world, if the result can reasonably be expected to be commercially or industrially exploited. Another reason is confidentiality, another one is security, another one is the rules concerning the projection of personal data. And finally, is the achievement of the action's main objective will be jeopardized by making specific parts of the original data openly accessible. This has to be explained in the data management plan. It has to be noted that the participation in the pilot is not part of the project evaluation. This means that proposal will not be evaluated more favorably because they are part of the pilot and will not be penalized for being out of the pilot. Another important thing is that all thing out during the project is also possible. We will need a contract amendment for this and an explanation in the data management plan. First important thing, being in the pilot does not mean opening all data. The process of the pilot is on encouraging good elements of research test practice. The pilot applies to two types of data. First, the data needed to validate the results presented in scientific documentation. The underlying data. It also applies to other data as specified in the data management plan. Beneficial is participating in the pilot. We will deposit this data in a workshop data repository of their choice and also, they will take measures to make it possible to access mine, exploit, re-produce and disseminate free of charge. And they also have to provide information about tools and instruments at the disposal of the beneficiaries and necessarily for validating the results. Where possible provide the tools and instruments and cell, IG software code, algorithm, analysis protocols, etc. The approach is following as open as possible and as closed as necessary. The data management plan, the EMTs are mandatory for all projects participating in the pilot and is optional for the authors. The EMTs are not part of the proposal evaluation. They have to be generated within the first six months of the project. It's possible to update them since the EMTs are expected to mature during the project. The purpose of the EMTs is to support the data management life cycle for all data collected, processed or generated by the project. The EMTs question are the following and you can also see the easy template in the NX1 of our guideline everything is explained. In a few words you have four main questions. The first one what data will be collected, generated what standards will be used, how will metadata be generated, what data will be exploited, what data will be shared, opened and how will the data be curated and preserved. The EMTs are tools to determine what datasets can or cannot be opened. So which tool for this data management plan. We recommend to use the DNV online which is developed by DCC in the UK. This has created DNV based on the EC template. In the midterm view should we have the EC DNV tool? I have no answer for the moment. It's under discussion and it's very complicated to implement due to an internal constraint. So for the moment, we recommend to use DNV. So what about the cost for data management? So these costs are eligible as part of the LIZON 2020 research grant. There is no extra money assigned to them. It has the article 6.2 D3 of the unnotated new day grant agreement which refers to costs of other goods and services which include dissemination costs, IE, notably costs related to data maintenance of storage. So it's not written data management but it's under this section under this code. And there is no amount of money on this. As we discussed the first course of LIZON 2020 and on the basis of the third signed grant agreement, you can see that 34.6% opt out of the project. In other words it means that 65.4% of projects in the firm areas participate in the pilot. Concerning the pilot that are not covered by the pilot, quite 12% opt in in the pilot. So we have to be aware that 100% participation is not feasible or even desirable given that not all projects generate data. So why the opt out? The opt out the major reason is IPR protection Participating in the pilot is a chance to co-shape policy. Opening up research data is a new frontier after opening up scientific publication. It's an ambitious yet there is a pragmatic design of the pilot to the extent the scope is broad but you can opt out, you can voluntarily participate in and you can also when you are in the project decide that certain data will remain closed. So it's really a flexible pilot. There are numerous safeguards in place and the plan is to kick start the future circle. The uptake of and experiences with the pilot need to be monitored during the complete life cycle of the project from application to grant preparation, execution and final reporting. So once again, participation in these research data pilots means co-shaping role and policy and opening up research data. So here are the resources needed. So we have our guidelines which are activate also this one with the list of data repositories, the list of open access role and also the link for DCC and DMP online. Thank you. We have a few minutes for questions and I see only one in here. Good morning, I'm Michael Stryich, legal NCP in the Netherlands. You mentioned that projects can opt out. My question is can also single beneficiaries opt out. Next to the project can opt out can also single beneficiaries opt out. What do you mean by single beneficiaries? Just one beneficiary not the whole action not all beneficiaries of the construction but one beneficiary which opts out while the rest is opting in. Maybe the solution is to close the data which will be problematic for this beneficiary but I'm not sure that opting out of the project will be complicated if the other one is still in. So if the problem is linked with the data, maybe they can close this data but not opt out from the project. So the project is really effective but it has a trust between the solution but I didn't clear this kind of situation but I think it's not. Other questions? Yes, I also have questions about opting out. So if participation in the pilot on open research data from JEPA guys achievement of the main aim of the action what is meant by that? It's open because it depends on the project and on the data generated. There are so many skills that we had to think about the large possibility but we can't synthesize in the guideline or in our policy works that shows this hypothesis because there are so many projects so many data that we can't think about this situation that well we have this kind of hypothesis but in any way the project we have to explain in the data management plan to reason but for instance we have no feedback about this. It's totally different. Is there already some feedback on the financial side of financing storage and long-term preservation because I guess it's not supposed to be another way of the cost of this in the first place that we try to find solutions now and then they have to add more budget to it so it should not be a problem or not, I don't know. And we are not the first one to raise the question but in our documents we only have this article the annotated grant agreement and I'm looking for much more information but I have no idea of the cost that we generate and it's too early to have feedback on selling these codes absolutely no idea of the amount and once again I think it will depend on the project on the field, on the project, on the direction there are several factors and it's really, really difficult I have no idea about this and there is no amount so I'm sorry not to help you maybe the next time I will answer but now I'm from Open Air from the University of Athens the question that I have is you mentioned something about the data management plans and the mining what kind of information do you hope to get out of mining this is one question and the other part do you have criteria for the evaluation, have you established the criteria for the evaluation? So, what was the first question so we have the 10 dates in our in our galleries, you see an X1 and X2 and there are many questions relating to the data you have to raise for the project and concerning mining the idea as you know and it's really important for research is to enable the searcher to do test and data mining on the content so those open access policies if the game is allowed and there is this question at the moment in the commission about the curriculum on this topic and the idea for us in our recent years to enable the searcher to do this to perform this for the progress of science and so on so it's really really important for us that mining could be allowed so concerning the second question, we are not the first one so and we have not enough reporting experience to prove conclusion about GMD currently there are many questions about how to deal with the project in the city, there are many requests and for the moment we have no answer I'm sorry so there is a current discussion in the European Commission at the moment and we have many questions we reflect about the review of GMD in the mid-term of final review with experts in data management and we also reflect on the there is no evaluation of the first six months in GMD because it's the first time we do this and it's the first one but I think we pay off for the moment with GMD and they just take a look at it in the form and in the content and that's it so we reflect for a deep review but not now, maybe later in the project so it's in effect at least the discussion this is the most question why would there be a need of the ECC DMP tool I'm sorry, what? where do we stand? there is the ECC DMP tool and then there will be a bullet point the ECC might need its own DMP tool it was indicated on the slide that you see us thinking about it your question is about the ECC DMP tool why? why not? because we just raised the question internally it may be easier for the project participating to have a central DMP tool but I guess that for the moment the one developed I need to see it's really good for us it helps create the DMP with our content it's under discussion but we didn't take any decision we definitely did so we just reflect okay, thank you Caroline we are here during the break so if you have more questions you can ask her thank you again for explaining that