 out what Eloy will tell us today because it's really important and over to you Eloy. Thank you Irina. Let me just share my screen. Do you see my screen already? Yes. Okay. So it's not good news as most of you will know. Last month our friend and colleague, Alberto Cabezos, has passed away and we'd like to spend some minutes before we start this panel that is about international collaboration, speaking about someone and making a tribute to someone that really worked out on that. Alberto has worked in the IROF Research Administration for many years in Latin America. He worked in the Foreign National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research, CONICIT, since the 90s, but he also worked in the National University Network, Reuna, between 92 and 2001, where he was the director of the program information officer and deputy executive director. Most recently he was the executive secretary for La Referencia and he was really instrumental and responsible for skillfully steering La Referencia into a full flesh and sustainable organization and service. And once La Referencia was working and functioning well, Alberto looked for opportunities to collaborate at the international level and became part of our community in open air. I think most of us have met Alberto for the first time at the kickoff of open air 2020 and 2015 in Athens. And although we encounter Alberto many times in the context of working, my fondest memories of Alberto are not of work, but of these outgoing, warm and sometimes peculiar personality. You always, and those that met him, you always knew when you were with Alberto. You could hear his laugh and especially, you could see his gestures, very wide and expressive. I spent personally many days and evenings with Alberto and I have particularly a very good memory of one of the first times that we met in his country in Valparaiso. He took us around Valparaiso and got us to have a very delicious caldillo de congruio that is a fish soup and then we visit Pablo's Neruda house La Sebastiana. But apparently he was very outgoing, but he was also very private and so I did not talk a lot about his personal life. So many of you will not know that Alberto was born in Santiago, Chile. He was son of an architect, Hugo, sorry, and an economist, the mother, Mabel. And Alberto has two children, Fernanda, who is a designer and Diego, who is studying engineering and he loved and cherished both. Alberto touched many in our community and I'd like to read to you some of the many messages that we received at CORE when we announced that he had passed away. From Caso from Japan received, I love his big mind and positive personalities. In my deep insight, I can still hear his special accent. All of them are my good memories. Thank you, Alberto. May your soul rest in peace. And from Michele, another message. This is one of those news I've never wanted to receive. Thanks for sharing this and let the community know. I'm really going to miss him. He was always able to make things lighter and with his great and noisy love. He was a great colleague and a friend. Alberto, we will miss you and we will raise the glass in your memory the next time that we'll be able to get together in our community at CORE. Rest in peace, Alberto. We will miss you. In reality, we already miss you. Thank you, lawyer. Now we'll start with with the panel and we'll hear perspectives from different regions and countries. So we'll start with Kesslin, share from CORE and then we'll have speakers from Korea, Bianca from La Referencia, Pierre from Carl from Canada, Omo from Africa and Judith from Europe. And I'll introduce them when it will be their turn to speak. And now over to Kesslin who probably doesn't need an introduction because she leads international alignment activities in open air and she's also CORE director. And thanks Eloy for giving us that tribute. I know that Alberto will stay alive in our hearts and in our memories. Can you share my screen? Can you see my slides okay? Yes. Okay, thanks. Thanks again and it's great to be here to discuss international alignment. CORE has been working on these activities since our inception in 2009 and with the financial support and funding through open air we've been able to increase and expand the types of activities around international alignment and so I'm going to present some of these activities to you today or certainly our strategy for advancing these activities at CORE. So very, very briefly for those of you who don't know CORE as an international association we were launched in 2009 and our offices are based in Germany and Portugal. At the moment we have over 150 members and partners from five continents around the world. And I think underpinning everything that we do really is to position repositories as a distributed globally networked infrastructure for open scholarship. So what we are really trying to do at CORE our main objective is the adoption of open scholarship and expanding and enhancing the role of repositories in that environment so that we can build value-added services on top of repositories and content and we hope that this will transform the system making it more research-centric open to innovation and also collectively managed by the scholarly community. Of course we all know that that research is global. International research is critical. We can see the map of Geant here which shows the connections of all the high-speed networks around the world to support education and research and of course these networks are there to allow researchers to collaborate from different regions in different countries. And many of our challenges that we are facing at the moment really need to be addressed at this international level. For example climate change or top of mind now COVID-19 which you know is an international problem and really needs to be addressed at the international level. And actually COVID-19 has really advanced or accelerated open science practices around the world and in terms of rapid increase rapid sharing of research outputs. But it's also important to understand and be aware that research is also very local and there are a lot of research problems that are localized and need to be should be addressed locally and maybe not of complete relevance to other countries. So we need to be able to support those local research priorities that aren't so important internationally. We need to support the use and implementation of different languages and workflows. We need to support and ensure that those organizations and countries that have less resources are able to participate in the scientific communication systems. So I think one of the things that CORE has been promoting along with international alignment is an awareness of the importance of diversity and a distributed system. So a diversity of services and platforms adopted in a very distributed manner that supports these different research priorities, languages, publication outputs and so on. And so the question we have at CORE is how we can balance these two elements? How can we balance the local with the global? And so the way that we have been trying to advance this is through encouraging and supporting the development of localized infrastructures such as repositories or repository networks that provide services for their local communities. The adoption of community governance I think has grown in importance and we are gaining a better understanding of why community governance is so important in terms of guiding the services around infrastructure so they can actually support those local needs and then nurturing communities of practices in different countries and regions. And then on the global side, how do we make sure that those local services and infrastructures are not siloed? How can they, those services and infrastructures participate in an international scientific communication system? And we've been doing that through encouraging the harmonization of metadata, through thinking about how to share data across networks, which is important for alignment, but it's also important for making sure that all data isn't contained in just one infrastructure so that there are copies of data held around in different infrastructures and services so that if one infrastructure goes down, we still have that data available. We're supporting co-designing of technologies and services across networks, knowledge sharing, and in particular, of particular importance for core is common behaviors and functionalities of repositories so that we can build value added services on top of them. So I mentioned earlier that core has 150 or so members and partners, which are university, university libraries, in some cases, governments, funders, not-for-profit organizations, but our reach goes far beyond those 150 institutions because we're engaging with repository networks. So this just gives you an overview of the networks that we're currently actively engaged with and these bridge across North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Eastern Europe, and in the Asian context as well. And our strategy around alignment really is different depending on the level of development of the repository networks in each region or in each country. So where there are very few, where there is kind of the base level of development, we really are quite active in terms of capacity building and supporting the development of basic infrastructures. At the second level where there are countries that may have repositories, but those repositories aren't together through any type of network. So they're in a kind of institutional silos. We try to encourage and support the development of national networks and then where there are regions or countries that already have very strong national or regional networks, we're trying to work at the level of data sharing across those networks. And then wrapped around all of this is the promotion of best practices for repositories and repository networks and metadata harmonization. And so I think I'll leave it there and I'm very interested and excited to hear my colleagues representing different regions to give us more information about what they're doing and how they perceive the challenges around interoperability and alignment from their context. So thank you very much. Thanks a lot, Kesslin. I don't see any burning questions and if you don't mind, we'll take questions after each panelist speaks. Now I have a great pleasure to introduce Dr. Sokwank Song, who is Director of Research Data Sharing Center, the Division of National Science and Technology Data at Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, or KISTI for short. And we in open air are very happy to collaborate with KISTI. And I think, Kesslin, you have to stop sharing and I hope you can start sharing your screen. Sokwank Song. Can you see my screen? Yes. Okay. Okay. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Good afternoon, everyone. I am Sokwank Song, who is in charge of Research Data Sharing Center in KISTI. KISTI is a Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information. To begin with, it's my pleasure to introduce KISTI's open science activities in this honorable event. Before getting to the point, I would like to briefly explain the KISTI. Actually, KISTI is the only research institute designated by Science and Technology Framework Act for establishing national science and technology infrastructure in Korea. The research part of KISTI consists of three divisions, Supercomputing Division, Data Analysis Division, and National Science and Technology Data Division, in which I belong. Let's get to the topic, to this topic. Open science had been appeared as a major agenda in OECD science minister's meeting in 2015, in Korea. Since then, KISTI has been focusing on three perspectives of open science, open access, open research data, and open collaboration. This is because OECD reported on open science in 2015 focused on those three main aspects. So, from these three perspectives, I will introduce KISTI's open science activities. At first, I'll talk about the Korean open access status. Unfortunately, the Korean government's open access policy has not been established yet, but there are three major organizations related to open science. They are KISTI, National Research Foundation, and National Library of Korea. KISTI has conducted many projects and activities, including open access repository development, sculptory national contact point, and open access Korea project from 2009 through 2013. NLF has recently focused on research on OECD policy, while National Library of Korea has been working on maintaining open access Korea project since 2014. Additionally, KISTI launched National Open Access Repository, so-called Core. It provides open access article search, repository for self-archiving, collaborative co-authoring tool, and predatory general conference lease. From the perspective of open collaboration, KISTI established a data center for data intensive research named GSDC, an online simulation and education system, so-called Edison. They promote online collaboration among researchers and students. Due to recent non-face-to-face situations, those systems are increasingly popular nowadays. Okay, one of the other things we also have, I know, ACOMS, which is an online system that's designed to enhance the efficiency and convenience of submission and review process in general publishing. Lastly, let me get into the Korean open research data policy, as well as related KISTI activities. This slide gives you the conceptual perspective on the government strategy, titled Research Data Share and Utilization Strategy, established by the Task Force team led by the Secretary of Science and ICT in 2017. There are four kinds of key themes in this strategy. They are legal system modification, human research training, infrastructure building, and research community proliferation. Among the four, KISTI takes part in both supporting legal system modification and building infrastructure for research data share and utilization. As an amendment of legal system, government added data management plan procedure to the regulation and management of national R&D projects in September 2019 last year. Due to the regulation, the data management plan has been applied to 309 pilot projects from two Korean founders since 2019, 298 projects in NRF and 11 from IITP, Institute of Information and Communication Technology, Planning, and Evaluation. In addition, 24 government-funded research institutes will apply the DMP procedure to their internal projects by the end of 2020. Unfortunately, the due act, National R&D Innovation Act, in which the DMP has been unfortunately deleted, will come to effect in January 2021. From now on, I'm going to talk about open research data platform so-called DataON. DataON has been developed by reflecting the needs of Korean researchers since 2018 and open to public in January 2020 this year. This is the concept or diagram of DataON. You can see DataON in the red dashed box and offers five main services, data preservation, cadmium surge, analysis environment statistics, and online community. To sum up, Kisti has been engaged in open science activities from these three perspectives, open access, open research data, and open collaboration. The only policy related to open science in Korea is the DMP. The several underlying regulations are applying in the number of DMP projects is increasing. However, with the recent enactment of the new act, National R&D Innovation Act, the DMP system is expected to have limitations. This is the end of my presentation. Thank you for your attention. Thank you so much. There was a question in the chat from our colleague Daniel from Vienna University about national open access, open science policies in Korea, which I think you already covered. Are you optimistic about the developments or could you expect a national policy sometime soon or it's hard to tell? Actually it's hard to tell, but we are consistently persuading the government officers to end in a parliament to set up a new regulation or act for open access or open science, but for now we need some time. Thank you. And there is also a question from our colleague Eli Dijk from Dance in the Netherlands. How many open access publications can be found in the repository and it's in the Q&A, so maybe you can you can type an answer there. And I don't see any other questions. Well, thanks a lot. There's another question in the chat, Irina. Yes, there is a question. What type of limitations will apply to the DMP in this new policy that you described? I mean the limitation is, you know, the spread of the regulations is based on the regulations enacted last year, but this year we have the U Act, National R&D Innovation Act, which does not include DMP procedure. So we were really happy when the U Act has been activated last year because, you know, the Korean researchers and institutes are trying to follow the DMP process, but for now we have no, we lose, you know, the role, the regulations. So I'm not sure whether, you know, the other government-funded research institutes, including other founders, are still following the DMP process when they, you know, manage the projects. So that's the limitation when you apply the DMP. Okay, is it okay for the answer for the question? Yes, thank you very much. And I hope we'll continue discussion in the panel mode shortly. And now it's another person who doesn't need an introduction. Bianca Maro from Ibeest in Brazil and Lera Francia in Latin America. And she was one of the very first person whom I met in the open access movement. And over to you, Bianca. And thanks a lot for all your work and for open air. It's a great pleasure to collaborate with Lera Francia. Thank you, Marina. It's a pleasure for me to be here and thank you for the invitation. Let me share my screen. Yeah, just a moment. It's okay, isn't it? Well, first of all, I'd like to say thank you for, in the name of Lera Francia, for this beautiful tribute for the Alberto Cadizas. It's a great loss for us. And I'll start presenting the latest development in open science policies and infrastructure in Latin American. Well, what means a lot of reference here? It's a network of open access repositories for science. And our mission is to give this ability to the publicity funded science production in Latin American through the cooperation and articulation of a federated network of institutional and data repositories based on regional agreements for the national open strategies. Well, now we have the participation of 10 countries of the region. And we are always looking for the growth of the network. We work based in three pillars, agreements of public goods, interoperability, alliances, and projects, guidelines, mainly open air and our application profile, information quality, scientific data and guidelines in general, mainly international guidelines. And one of the most important developments that we have are related to the technology in terms of harvests, transfers, pilots, development, and community. Open science policies in the region. We have, nowadays, in Latin American, 37 OA institutional mandates and policies, registers at a raw map. Most of them are institutional, not a national policies. It's interesting because the institutions are making some kind of a move off our national policies. Open science countries are delicious. Now we have Peru and Mexico policies that are related to the open access, not to the open science, but Argentina has a national policy that treats about open science. Chile is now in the public consultation about their national policies. In Brazil, we have a draft legislation on open access in open science. We have in the region a symmetry inside each country and amongst Latin American countries with some international collaborations and funding. Latin American does not have a common found for R&D. It's very important to say we are not like Europe that has open projects like open air. We don't have funds. We have to work with our national funds. And the funds comes mainly from each country and not always in a stable way, as you know. In general terms, data repositories are still incipient in the region. In terms of infrastructure, la referencia has implemented and distributed infrastructure based on national nodes running the same software. La referencia software allows the harvesting, enrichment, and sharing of metadata of literature and data. The regional infrastructure interoperates with other regionals such open air, as you can see here how it works, la referencia. In terms of international alignment, la referencia countries are core members. It's very important to us to be a core member. And we are part of open air 2020 and open air advanced projects like distributed user statistics, open air broker, guidelines 3.0 and 4.0. And we have two most very important to us. One of them is with Zenodo. It's a kind of collaboration. And the other one is with FCT from Portugal that is the development of la referencia software. Our challenges. First is to change the way in which researchers are evaluated to include open access activities. Convince national funding agencies to link funding with the adoption condition of open and open science. To create a national legal framework on open science in all countries. Changing the culture of research managers of institutions and researchers in favor of open science. Obtain national, regional, and international funding to support open science activities. We have challenges also with build a common infrastructure for large data storage and interoperability since Latin America does not have common found services. We have also to create a stronger national infrastructure with a proper technical human resources. Increase metadata quality and interoperability. Consolidate a collaborative software development network. And the asymmetry requires setting priorities and working at regional and international levels. Well, I think that it's a general view about the region. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Bianca. Very good. I don't see any questions. No. So maybe we can move on with our next speaker who is Pierre Lausau from Carl, Canadian Association of Research Libraries. And thanks a lot, Pierre, for joining us so early and apologies that it's really hard to host meetings in reasonable time for everyone. If you expect people joining from all over the world. Well, thanks, Serena. No problem. So let me share. Yeah, Bianca will stop sharing. I'm trying. I'm trying. Sorry. And I think I can do it. Is it okay? Yes, thank you. I just passed the presentation mode. And OpenAir is very happy to collaborate with Carl. So over to you, Pierre. Okay. So you see my PowerPoint? Yes. Well, thanks, Serena. So my name is Pierre Lausau. I'm a scholarly communication librarian at Université Laval in Quebec City. And I also working with Carl on the OpenAir project, which I will talk about in my presentation. So basically, we are talking about OpenAir and Canadian repositories and the integrating Canadian repositories into global services. First of all, what things that inspired us in participating in such an initiative like OpenAir Advance is a statement co-op made in 2018, which means position repositories as a foundation for a distributed global network infrastructure for scholarly communication on top of which layer of value added services would be deployed. So this kind of vision, that statement that Carl made, co-op made, cannot be achieved without coordination and cooperation among institution at the national level. And that's what we were trying to do here. So a little bit of context about Canadian repositories. There's many content repositories in Canada, scientific literature repositories, but also research data repositories, I would say, nearly 80 repositories, which are using a variety of software, mainly DSpace, but also Dataverse, E-Prints, B-Press, Common, Islandora. There's very heterogeneous content development policies. The most common content you can find in Canadian repositories are dissertations and thesis, but also one characteristic of our network is we work in silos. Even if technology we use open access protocols like API, like OAPMH, all our repositories work in silos in Canada. Basically, if you remember Kathleen's presentation earlier, we are at level two in the core level. So we have value added repositories in Canada. We have three, mainly based on the type of content. We have further, the Federated Research Data Repository, which aggregate research data across dataverse instance in the country. We have also a program from Library and Archives Canada named Test Canada or Thesis Canada, which is harvesting electronic thesis and dissertations. And there's also ERUD, which is a platform for Canadian journals in humanities and social sciences, but which is also aggregating content from repositories across the country. So Canadian repositories are part of the Open Air Advance project, more precisely as the pilot, which is designed as the pilot, the aggregator as a service, which means basically three things. Connecting Canadian repositories to the Open Air Platform to make metadata and full text aggregations to enrich and enhance metadata based on automated inference, sorry, like data mining on full text to find information about founders and link publication to founders. But there's also a deliverable, which will be a national portal for Canadian content. So how do we proceed to participate in the Open Air Advance? There was a specific group created by the Canadian Association of Research Library, called the Open Repositories Mocking Group, which has a specific task group for Open Air Participations. But there's also two other groups that are still working now, the Mapping the Repository Landscape in Canada, which is working on identifying the various repositories across the country and try to find opportunities for cooperation and coordination. And there's also the Community Building and Engagement group, which is, which link the Open Repository Working Group activities with the Canadian community in scholarly communications. The foreseeing's benefits for Canada participation in Open Air was to support a greater visibility and tracking of open access content in Canada. Right now, it's very difficult to have an idea of, at a national level, on what kind of open access content is available across the country. Also, these initiatives will leverage, add value, and threaten the existing repository landscape in Canada, we hope. And we also, by participating at infrastructure like Open Air, reduce our institutional dependencies on external players that do not have values aligned with openness and the public interest. Those were benefits for basically the library community and the repository managers across Canada. But there's also a very important component in the project, which aim at Canadian founders. So, the first benefits is to enable the three Canadian major founders to track open access articles more comprehensively and to improve researcher compliance with their open access policies. How do we process concretely in Canada to make this happen? So, the first thing we try to get is to obtain the major founder commitment to the project. And this, we work hard for many months at the start of it. We have a letter on an agreement for those three founders and they're looking at what we are doing. On a more technical aspect, what we try to connect the repositories, we conducted a pilot project with three components. The first one was for D-Space with the most widely used software across Canada. So, we decided to fund for D-Space 5 and 6 the code for compliance in Open Air. D-Space 7 is working on compliance, but 5 and 6, which were the more used version across Canada, were not compliant with the guidelines version 4. So, it was financed as a pilot. We are now trying to implement this code and work with it. There's also for institutions that were not using D-Space, we work with three of them. One was using E-Prints and two other custom systems. So, the idea is to work on compliance and give some feedback on what was challenging when implementing those guidelines for other Canadian institutions that will try to be compliant later. And the third one is we work with the aggregator further, which I presented as a value added services in Canada. So, it's aggregating all research data across the country. So, they were working to be compliant and to push research data to the Open Air platform. Sorry. This year, we also work on a COVID project to accelerate either harvesting of COVID content to the Open Air platform. So, this make us build a Canadian aggregator for all repositories across Canada, which we call Canada Research, which is hosted by McMaster University. So, basically, it's getting the most content available across the country regarding the COVID-19 and pushing it to Open Air. So, this is something that happened quickly this year and it make us articulate the strategy for participation of Canadian institutions across two options. The first one is the one we were working from the start, which is a repository is adopting the Open Air guideline individually. And the second one was the institution is participating to Open Air across using the Canada Research aggregator. So, those two strategies are pushed forward for the next, for the short term, for participation in the platform. The challenge we faced, the first one was implementing the Open Air guidelines. It revealed itself more difficult than we thought initially because there's no software that was compliant with the guidelines as a turnkey feature. So, you need to develop things. And also, if you compare the guidelines with other platforms like BASE, Search Engine for Repositories, or even the program we used to add with Bibliotech and Archive Canada for electronic tests, it's more complicated. There are more metadata. It's more complex model to participate with. The other challenge was to get the founders on board. We worked out for several months to get them following what we were doing, explaining what will be the portal for compliance monitoring. So, it's a constant effort in coordinating activities. And especially, it's very difficult to coordinate activities among multiple stakeholders. The Canadians call come community that needs to know what Open Air is, needs to be convinced that it's a good project to participate in. The three major Canadian founders that we were also stakeholders and, of course, Open Air, which is an international organization that most of us know more and more. So, in those kind of initiatives, coordination efforts must remain constant. I will end with a few questions regarding this distributed and global network infrastructure. Our idea is that we need to clearly define what are the role of the different layers that is participating to this infrastructure. The institutional layer, the national layer, if any, and the international one. And especially, what we need to define is what we call a value-added services, a value-added services at the institutional level, but also at the national level if an aggregator, let's say in Canada, was to be built and maintained in the long run. And also, we need to find entities that can assume, ensure the coordination, the cooperation between the layers on the long term. Basically, this is where we had. I must say that all this question of coordination, cooperation is in the library area, something that we think we're doing well. That's true. We have a lot of initiatives that works correctly. If I take two examples from Canada, we have for research data, the national layer for the national aggregator for data sets, further. But we have also, more recently, the ORCID CA consortia that is working for the implementation of ORCID for Canadian researchers across the country and which is now organized with a national institution that is supervising the implementation across universities. So, regarding a project like Open Air and content from repositories, those kind of models need to be reflected, built so that what we're doing now as a working group can be sustained in the future. Thanks. Thanks a lot, Pierre. And your last slide was especially useful. Thanks a lot. I hope we can touch upon those open questions in the discussion part as well. Thank you. Now, I have a pleasure to invite Omo Aya, who is Chief Strategy Officer at WACREN. And WACREN stands for Western Central African Research and Education Network. And we've been collaborating with Omo on African activities. And over to you, Omo Nal. Thank you, Irina. Thank you all for having me. I'll just get my slides up. So, I thought, you know, listening to everyone, especially the last, that's the end of it, especially the last slides, I would talk about the initiative Irina just mentioned. It's called LibSense. To be honest, it's been birthed in international alignment from the start. So, it's a, the intent is to build a community for open science in the African regions through library and rank collaboration. So, I work for WACREN. WACREN is a Western Central African Research Network. Africa has three regional networks, one in Western Central Africa that I work in, one in Southern East Africa, and one in that is responsible for the Northern parts of Africa and some parts of the Middle East. So, the three regional ranks have been working in a Pan-African project for the last 11 or odd years called Africa Connect. And Africa Connect project has seen three iterations and we're now, right now, implementing Africa Connect 3. So, LibSense was birthed out of some understanding that came out in the second iteration that we needed closer ties between the library and the, and the end ranks that we, that were our members because we had these projects, some couple of them in collaboration with the European Commission which was intended to drive infrastructure deployment and development in the regions. But we realized that, you know, the information management capabilities of our librarians were not aligned with the level of development that we needed. So, in different forms, the community came together in this, in LibSense and started to identify some reasons to work to develop Africa in these areas to provide technical support through the end ranks, support the cultural change that was required for that level of scholarly communication, build capacity and services. So, like I said, we're birthed out of international alignment. We have the top layer of that slide is the regional ranks, including the Pan-African, the European network that's all participating in Africa Connect 3. And we had other partners, these are the co-partners. So, we had the University of Schelfing in the UK helping to sort of establish a research agenda. We had CORE and Eiffel, so Kathleen and Irina were there from the start trying to focus what we did around open access repositories and as well as the Japanese colleagues from the National Institute of Informatics and OpenAir. We had a very tiny task. That's exactly how I met Kathleen, a tiny task in OpenAir Advanced where OpenAir was looking at an aggregator, the possibility of an aggregator for Africa. So, today through the regional research networks and their national networks that are members, we sort of represent the entire open science community in Africa. So, I thought I would spend my time basically describing how we see this. So, within LibSense we work from the three working groups which will sort of affect most of our activities. There's one that looks at open science policies, governance, and leadership. There's another one that's driven by the rents and the librarians that looks at infrastructure for publishing and repositories. And there's a capacity building, there's a humongous thing for capacity building. So, there's another one that looks at the communities of practice and training. And this is training across the board. So, training for the library-oriented colleagues, training within the IT aspects. So, in terms of alignment, I think the best thing to do for the colleagues on the call would be to discuss a statement that's been prepared by the LibSense working group on open science policies and governance that was submitted as part of the UNESCO Global Consultation. So, because it's sort of the ideas and the principles that we have about how we develop our region and how we align with internationally as enshrined in it. So, and the document, there's a link, I'll put a link to the website at the end and the documents out there but I'll just discuss it in the next slides. Because the document has two parts, two main parts. One part expresses the values and principles that are there to us. And another part that discusses the actions that we're interested in taking to sort of make this come to reality. So, the key areas of this principle. So, one, we want to address the inequality that exists, support equity, diversity and social justice without sort of, you know, stressing it. We all know where Africa sits in terms of global participation. And so, that's some of those issues we want to address. Because we also think that, you know, it is not possible to do this in its entirety without owning, not just the ideas that we put forward but the infrastructure that supports it. One of the principles would be is to have open infrastructure that is led by the African community and operated by them. Africa is also a very diverse environment, you know, where there's loads of indigenous and traditional knowledge that needs to be on that. So, that's another principle that we want to sort of put forward in the, that we have put forward in the statement to UNESCO. So, I just want to sort of stress, you know, the intent, you know, in some of this without over-labouring it. So, for the intent in terms of addressing inequality, we want to be able to sort of get the community to define local, some of the L.S. speakers had mentioned that local policies that are best suited for their own needs and environment that might be on a very granular institutional level, or it might be at the national level, or as you know, on the level I tend to work with, I work in on the regional level. But at each level, it's contextual, it is best suited for the needs of the community that governs. This is more about the general idea and the idea of, you know, moving the focus to sustainable, sustainable and scalable way to transform scholarly publishing in Africa. So, we, the evidence is clear for us. We know that it is for this to be sustainable and long-term. It's got to be driven by the community. It cannot be, it cannot be commercial. It's got to be, it's got to provide equal opportunity for all kinds of researchers in Africa. We have, we then, we have a number of universities, not so many of them, who have adequate resources to participate in the global landscape as it's skewed today. But that's what that does. It sort of deprives a huge number who don't have the same resources to engage at the, as it is described by other territories. For instance, you know, simply if we have to, if universities have to pay to publish, then those that don't have money do not participate. And we see African repositories, open African repositories, repositories playing very big role in this. I mentioned about, talked about the models. Again, even though they're open repositories, we're also seeing increasingly offers by commercial entities presenting structures that are very attractive to institutions that don't have any resources at all. So what Lipsense is doing is sort of advancing this idea by strengthening the community, because it's for the long term, so students of African scholarly publishing, we need to have models and infrastructures that we can control and drive. And that's the only way we can guarantee a transition to open access that is, that allows the global NAF and the global south exchange knowledge in a more equitable manner. Now, these are the principles, you know, so I mentioned about the infrastructures. That's the underlying, this is, we hope that the regional research networks will provide the backbone for that kind of infrastructure. We've had a number of activities with like-minded organizations. We, the core, some of the core principles are like, you know, we're looking at that as the horizon. We're taking the baby steps towards that, but it's primarily we're looking at using open infrastructures as much as possible, making sure that the commercial imperative does not cloud the ultimate goal. We recognize that we would need all kinds of partners, some who might be, who might be commercial entities, but the governance of this infrastructure and the ownership would ultimately have to reside in the hands of the African community and governed by a structure that is not for profit, that allows the everybody to participate. One other, I'd mentioned the diversity that we have in Africa and that's on different levels. It's on the language level. There are a number of broadly spoken languages in Africa, but there are so many other indigenous languages and cultural artifacts that need to be curated. So that is one of the driving principles in open science agenda that I just mentioned. So in terms of actions, so these are the principles that I, you know, so this is on the website. I hope you would have time to look at it, and in terms of in terms of the actions we are taking. So we have within the construct of the African Connect 3 project, setting sort of foundational activities, and with those we want to drive partnerships across the continent and in other regions, partnerships with editors and publishers and libraries, all the major stakeholders, but the underlying sort of structure of these partnerships is equity. You know, we see a number of partnerships that do not actually favor the African community today. So this livesense is working thankfully with partners who have shared aspirations to redress that. And through these measures, open access to African research, the existing repositories already, we are building some more. We are looking at models that allow us bootstrap research from within institutions that don't have the technical capacity. So and all of this is towards developing a sustainable model for African research and making it more visible in the global landscape. Same thing, and this is all the way actually. So when I listen to, I just listened to the Canadian colleagues, I've listened to Korean colleagues, by the way, I'm speaking for Africa. So that's a tough, that's just need to be more than speaking for a country because of the extent there are 55 countries in Africa. So you can imagine, even I don't know exactly how how this exists in all the countries, but for most of the countries that I work with, we are seeing that a reliance on external models that don't sort of favor African research. So when, you know, you know, talking about even aligning reward systems with models that are European or American presumes that the researchers have the same sort of access to infrastructure. So that disadvantage is African research from the get go. So some of what we're doing is working with the policy makers, the associations of university vice chancellors to start to alert them to the need to sort of tailor their evaluation practices, the reward systems that to support the researchers and open access and open science. And that's the way they sort of develop African research. So it's to the career system that sort of looks at researchers now and requires publication in high impact factor journals limits the availability of African research. Now, typically, the university management would be looking to match global standards. But this lip sense is deepening the understanding of the need to sort of look at alignment from a different perspective. Same multilingualism diversity. I thought I would end the slide with just sort of pointing at what is foundational elements. I know I mentioned what we're going to we're using in Africa Connect 3 to sort of drive this agenda. We've had numerous meetings and webinars. It's all on the wiki, but within the Africa Connect 3 project, which is a primary funder at this time, we have sort of developed, you know, we're developing community requirements from different surveys. We have looked at the skills profiles that we need for African librarians to perform their roles in this new dispensation. And we're going to be taking all of that, you know, to stimulate the development of policy briefs and guidelines. And we're doing that with the African Union and the Association of African Universities. And the idea is to develop guidelines for open access repositories and journals, like we described, that meet the principles that we have outlined in the statement to UNESCO. As part of that, as part of also bootstrapping the usage of repositories on journal platforms in Africa, the Africa Connect 3 project is committed to establishing what we've called lighthouse demonstrators. These will be fully functional repository platforms and journal platforms that allow those that don't like universities and researchers in Africa that don't have resources within their immediate environment to have a catch also. If you thought about something, the sort of role that Zanodo is fulfilling within the broader community, this would be the same sort of platform. And we have within Africa Connect 3 as well, we've looked at some of the projects that have, you know, that I think Open has also been involved in ARC project with federated identity and sort of seeing the need to bring that forefront in all the work we're doing with LibSense. Aside from that, it's human capacity development right all through the way. And that's like, you know, a large part of what we do. So I think I'll stop there. The link to the Wiki is on the slide. And I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Omo. There is a question from Ben Cutt about trustworthiness, but maybe that's a question that we can take to every panelist of the unit's presentation. I will turn off my camera because my network is not that super at the moment. If you don't mind a sec, you did, sir, because there is also a question from Cynthia to Omo. So maybe we can take that one. So, Omo, it's in a Q&A here. Second question. It's important that universities that welcomed African students inform them about the development of the African infrastructures in order that they integrate them in their school re-knowledge. Thank you for all this information. Okay, that's more like a comment. Thank you, Cynthia. Then over to you, Judith. And Judith is our colleague from Davidson University and National Library in Hungary. And she coordinates open science activities in her university, but also on the national level. And she is a member of EOSC Skills and Training Working Group. And your video is frozen, Judith. I hope you are still with us. Yes, I'm here. Okay, I will try to share my presentation. Can you see it? Not yet. Yeah, maybe stop your video if your connection is... Yeah, I stopped my video. That's the best. Yeah, your slides are coming. Okay. Yeah, thanks. So just a quick overview of what we've been doing in Hungary. Currently, there is no integrated open science or fair data policy in Hungary. But we have some parts that are building the main policy at the final end, I hope. Hungary has undertaken the European 2020 strategy. And we have a policy on depositing and opening of the PhD dissertations in Hungary. There are open access mandates from the National Research Development and Innovation Office funded research. There is a national... There is a mandate on DMPs from 2019 from the same funder. Actually, in Hungary, we have... The main funder is National Research and Innovation Office. So we are working together with them to have... To formulate some kind of an open science policy. Open science... The Ministry of Innovation and Technology is responsible for making such a policy. And at the moment, there are higher education institutional policies all across the country. These policies encourage researchers to deposit all the research outputs at the institutional repositories. And there is a mandate to deposit all the bibliographic data into the main Hungarian bibliographic repository. And they are welcome to deposit all of their... Like the full text of their work and actually data as well. From 2014, there is a mandate for opening of the PhD thesis. And I'm sorry, I don't want to repeat myself. Okay. The infrastructure looks like in Hungary. We have 42 repositories. These are all institutional repositories mostly. These are all registered in open door. Now, at the moment, there is a big need from higher education institutions on institutional data repositories. So they are establishing... More and more higher education institutions are establishing institutional data repositories. And they are establishing open journal system platforms as well. These are what forms that... Some of these Hungarian infrastructures are already onboarded to IOSC. The latestly onboarded repositories is one Open Biomaps. And there is a repository for publication. Open Biomaps is a thematical service. In Hungary, if we are talking about support and landscape within the open science and infrastructure context, the University of Debrecen, University of National Library is the opener nod since 10 years. And we have established a lot of... We have established a good relationship with the funders and policymakers to aligning with having a good open science policy. We have an IOSC governance board member and we have members in IOSC working groups from Hungary to all... We have... We delegated people there to have like a wider view on how we will be able to establish Hungarian open science policy and infrastructure policy within the framework of IOSC. We're involved in the National Initiatives for Open Science in Europe. This is a 5B project of IOSC. This project helps to establish the national open science initiatives and policies within the southeast region of Europe. Two institutions represent Hungary, KIFU, with the infrastructure part and the University of Debrecen with the training and dissemination part of open science. We have a KONOS delegate, this... And Gyöngi Korácsson, she is the opener nod as well. So, in this case, she is able to establish... She is able to start the... She is able to talk with policymakers and other representatives within the country about open science and how to integrate infrastructures in the Hungarian research life cycle. HRDA was established as well in Hungary. This is the Hungarian Research Data Alliance. We have a... We have a chair there. His name is András Holm. If a Hungarian researcher, policymaker, or any kind of stakeholder has an interest in open science across Europe or open science policies within the country, they can use the Open Science.HU platform, which has been coordinated by our university. We are members... We are active members in Core, Libre, Dart Europe, and we are coordinating the Hungarian consortium... HUNAR consortium. This is Hungarian Open Repository Consortium. All of the higher education institutes, whom has repositories, are members of this consortium, and we can establish institutional policies and have... We are able to find good solutions to questions from each other's institution. With this consortium, we are making training. For the last year, we started training the trainers. And this year, we start on open science question on the change of the scholarly communication. And this year, the target audience is mostly PhD students. We are training PhD students on research data management on all aspects of scholarly communication and how open science could align with their needs. And we have... We have to start training our researchers to align with the funder's policies on research data management plans. We are just about to start these trainings. COVID-19 had a big delay on this. We were about to start it in March. Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to ask questions. Thanks a lot, Judith. So now I welcome all the panelists back. And we have two questions. One of them was from one card from Digital Curation Centre in the UK, our colleague, who addressed this issue of trustworthiness of repositories. So I'll read again this question and I'll welcome all panelists to answer it if you'd like. Maybe some of this has already been discussed, but open question. What steps are being taken to ensure repository trustworthiness, especially when scaling towards global levels through cross-repository infrastructure and services? Anyone would like to comment from your experiences? Maybe a clear question about clarification. So is trustworthiness being defined as technical capacity for the repository or is trustworthiness assessment of the value of the content, quality of the content? So just if you could clarify that, then I'd be happy to. Yeah, just made one content. Penalist, Sylphian, unmute yourself one content. You should be able to speak. Clarify that. Hi everyone. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I'm talking about in terms of core trust seal, those sort of metrics that are used, essentially. But whereas that might be aimed at individual repositories, now you're talking about joining up different repositories across borders, etc. And how would you ensure that that trustworthiness is maintained? Yeah, I mean, I think one of the challenges with like, for example, the core trust seal is that it's too high of a bar for many of the repositories. So actually recently core did a consultation. We looked at all of the different assessment frameworks for repositories. And we did a community consultation with repository managers from different regions to create a best practices framework. So that really works at the repository level. But I think in terms of cross repository exchange or cross network exchange of data, maybe we're not quite at the level yet where we at the maturity level yet where we have started to think about that. But it's certainly something as we evolve and expand those kind of relationships that we should start thinking about. Thanks. Anyone else would like to answer the question? Okay, so maybe we can take Belana's question. Belana is our colleague from University of Belgrade. Will the UNESCO Open Science recommendations scheduled for the end of 2021 next year will help your regions to boost open science and what level policy implementation or something else? Well, I think that's mainly in the political way. I think that the governments are always regarding this kind of actions, this kind of movement. And I think that it's very important to build political legislations, for example. And I'm not sure about implementation because I think that we need to think about the infrastructures that each country have to build this own infrastructure. But I think that's very, very important in a political level. Thanks a lot, Bianca. Any other questions or comments? No, I was just going to add to Bianca's. To say yes, I do agree that it will be largely on the policy level. But when I look at it from the perspective of the research networks that we hope that will support this in terms of infrastructure, they're also connected to the mindset of government in terms of their funding. So if at this political level, there's much more reception of the idea of open access, especially as we've articulated it in the open science Africa statement, then the governments become more aware that at a national level, there is some infrastructure required. And because the frameworks of NRENs already exist, then the NRENs might see more funding for implementation. So on that basis, there might be additional spin-offs beyond the policy level. Thank you. And when we were drafting those recommendations, we had discussions, should we specifically say invest in open infrastructures, because we didn't have that kind of wording from the beginning. And then we agreed that it would be important to keep it to make it really action-driven. I see a question from Lara to you. It's an open questions you did. And I'll also read it to you. You said that you have offered training for PhD students. So my question is, do you have this training for open science policy for national level in this moment? Actually, this is not training for open science policy. It's training for how to use open science infrastructure, how to align with fair principles, how to align with the funder policies, and talking about 21st century scholarly communication. Thanks. Is this an answer to the question for Lara? I guess yes. So I have one discussion topic that I'd like to put to all of the panelists, because I think one of the real challenges is around funding these kind of services. So I think the repositories are more or less okay because they're attached to the institution and they can receive institutional funding. But as we start to create these value added services, then we need to develop funding models that will work to support those services. And so I'd just like to know, especially because we're thinking of non-commercial models and the value of having non-commercial models and thinking about this as research infrastructure, how are you guys thinking, you people who represent national or regional services, how are you thinking about financial sustainability in the coming years? It's a fantastic question. It's a very good question. I would love to have a response for that question. But I think that it's very important to work with international collaborations and participate to international projects, because as I said, we have our national budgets and it's very complicated to think how to maintain or even to create regional infrastructures or national, sometimes national infrastructures. And we have to think about international funds because some regions have problems with funds and collaboration projects and collaborations. I don't know. I think that it's mainly a kind of thing that we have to think together. All worlds have to think together. If we want to create a global infrastructure, we have to think in a global funding as well. It's my position. So Bianca's living the reality and doesn't really know. So I'm wondering what I can add to this. But in truth, I think there is a case to be made for cooperatives. I'm thinking purely from the African point of view where our requirements might not be as extensive at the moment as some other regions. So if we're focusing on community effort and able to get the buy-in from the countries, then we might be able to leverage technologies that give us shared infrastructure that we can build local services on. So that's right now, because of the level we are at, I cannot define that any clearer. But that is the ethos of the rent, how we've used the economies of scale and the community we built around networking to vastly reduce prices for internet penetration as a sort of model we're also looking at. So if we start to think that if you take that paradigm with connectivity into the other areas and are able to sort of create similar constructs, then you might be able to share the costs and then it will become, and if you have, especially if you have government goodwill and the willingness to leverage frameworks that allow them contribute to an outcome, then it is possible that, you know, at least on a, we can start to build the steps of the scaffold. Thanks a lot. Just to add on this, because I agree that there's funds, that money that can be injected in the infrastructure, but my feeling as a librarian and as the community that is governed by openness values and things like this, I think that we need to invest more human time in this, because usually we're just working for our own institutions, for our own local needs and investing times to be part of a national or international structure or infrastructure, you need to, there's some cultural change in organization on this. And for me, there's something similar in what we're trying to build with repositories and with the open source movement and the way we are using it in institutions, usually we use it, but we are not giving back what we are using. So when we try to build infrastructure based on openness and on such kind of public goods or value like this, I believe that we need to engage not only funds, but also people that are aware of those values and can work, yes, for their institutions, but have time to contribute to a larger scale at the national level or international level to build this kind of infrastructure. If you stay glued in your institution only, then you can talk about openness and international sharing, but you will stay in your institutions with, and I believe that if any people in a librarian, let's say in a library, can contribute an amount of time, of its professional time to give back to this infrastructure, not sure this infrastructure and the, be it technological, be it code being contributed or being just training or other kind of services you can share, I believe that's something we can find rather than having only organizations specifically dedicated to this infrastructure. I'm not sure, I'm not sure I'm expressing myself clearly here. It's clear, I think. I agree with you. And we also have a comment from Pedro Príncipe from Miné University that he fully agrees with you, Pierre. Okay, so and that's something maybe, as I put in my presentation in Canada, we are on the verge of asking us all those questions about silos and how to bypass the institutional level to go national and to go international. And I think it's a debate we will need to have in our country on what, how do we engage in such large scale global services? I know there's another question waiting, but just to follow on this, because I think, you know, if we look at the amount of money that's going to subscriptions, there's so much money there, there's billions of dollars every year, and some of that money could be transferred over, but that's challenging. But then again, what worries me about that is that it will continue on the inequalities that already exist, because there's a lot of money in Europe and North America, which will end up being transferred to the services in Europe and North America. And then there's less money in, in like Eastern Europe and African Latin America. So how can we, as we try to transfer funding towards open science services, as well, how can we make sure that there's more equity in the way those funds are distributed and that we can ensure that the infrastructure in developing countries is, is as good as the infrastructure in, in developed countries? Maybe nobody has the answer to that. Well, I think we already have the answer. A lot of rense is an answer because that's an infrastructure from the global source, which is, which is an excellent infrastructure, which we don't really have in Europe and North America. So there are already examples. And I guess, like in some cases, it would be about budgets and funding. In other cases, it would be about collaborations like Omo mentioned, where non non financial transactions would happen, where institutions would commit to maintaining certain services. And to me, that's part of regional discussions or national discussions and solutions. Because like even what, what happens in Hungary is different from what, what is going on in Germany. Because Europe is also diverse. And Natalie is writing, transfer knowledge, technical know how, well, it's a question from whom to whom we'll be transferring. There's one Natalia, there's one question I think at the top from Natalia in the question and answer. Shall I read it? Yes, please. Okay. It is well understood that policy is crucial, but is there something specific we can do perhaps together to speed up the process? There are so many areas that we can target to achieve small steps. For example, we worked on the guidelines. What else and could we prioritize? I mean, I think from my perspective, we have been in a way launching these activities without not sometimes not with having a kind of a global view of the landscape. So I do think we could have further discussions following this panel about how we can continue to work close, more closely on some specific issues together. I think that would be really beneficial. We know that the open air project is ending soon, so it may be under the auspices of core or another organization, but I think it's important to continue to try to collaborate. Yeah, open air is also a legal entity now and a lawy ninger, chair, open science policies, standing committee that is also looking into those issues. I think for me a big push would be if we could offer robust services on research assessment and evaluation and using this distributed network of repositories and office services to funders. And if we could use the money that I use now to pay all those bibliometric databases that are not really doing what they are supposed to do for us. But I don't know how quickly we can do that. And Guldkin is writing push to funders. There's a note here by Eloy in the chat I'll just read it out because he seems to not be able to write in the Q&A because he's a panelist. There's a big need but also a big challenge is on creating or sustaining community consortial infrastructures at different levels, national, regional and global. That could also address the less resourced institutions or countries to have access to updated infrastructure and services. If I can speak. Yeah. Okay, sorry. Because I could not write on the Q&A. My point is that I also think Pierre really raised or nailed down the issue very well. The question is, I think there is a big challenge when we, for instance on core, when we speak about the global knowledge comments, we want that comments to be inclusive. But to be inclusive, the kind of same level of of technology infrastructure and service must be real global. And in some countries or regions, that too is really a challenge because institutions, their repositories, they have no personnel, they have no resources, they have old machines and things like that. And I think the solution for that is really to create a consortial interest that can be again with funding from founders, from the money that we divert from subscriptions, etc. That can help at national, regional and even at global level to support, to have that kind of safety net that everyone can really participate on these global comments. Otherwise, we will be in trouble. Luckily, for instance, in Portugal, I really think we are very fortunate because we have already created 12 years ago that level of infrastructure with, for instance, with repository hosting services, with journal hosting services that allow each individual institution to have up-to-date access to infrastructures, even those that are small or don't have the human resources or the machines to do it. So, and I think that's really a model. Of course, it's not the Portuguese model that need to be replicated, but I think we need some kind of, of that solutions to address the problem. I completely agree with Eloy and also with Natalia. We need that transfer of the knowledge the technical knowledge. We need the spread of this advances of technical knowledge all around the woods, all the regions. And I agree also with Goudkheim. We need to push the funders. It's a reality. And the idea of a consortium sounds to me a good idea. A consortium of founders sounds good to me, like an initiative that could be very interesting for our countries, our not so developed countries. Yeah, I think maybe what Eloy was referring to was more like a consortia that use a common infrastructure, but the idea of having a consortia of funders is interesting as well, as long as the funding doesn't get directed, you know, again to the to the north, to the global north, which tends to be what happens. So how do we achieve that balance or some greater equity around that. But I also agree with you, Bianca, in terms of international collaboration helps to ensure that there is a funding distributed beyond just one individual region or country. I think there is also a problem that a lot of scholarly communication activities in Africa or in Southeast Asia, or even in Europe, happen in small institutions. And usually they don't have time to do what they are supposed to do plus participate in all this advocacy activities and all the service. So one of the examples is this recent coalition as a survey on diamond open access publishing, publishing that doesn't require authors to pay any APCs. And there were very little responses from Asia and Africa. And I guess one of the reasons where that journal editors and publishers didn't didn't didn't see a need, didn't have time to engage in those discussions. But unfortunately, if you're not engaged, then your your voice is not heard. And I don't really know how to solve this problem. Again, that's that's coming from the global north. So if you don't feel that relevant to you, because that's something that's happening in the global north, that's kind of pushing transformational agreements anyway, you know, then I can understand why you might not be engaged. I don't know. I think that for us from solve, it's very important to see the changing of the old science, the structures of the old science, for example, the evaluation systems, the, for example, the impact of factor, because we are always we in the south are always following the model of the north. And so it's very important to us that this kind of structure of the science is clearly changed. And so it's it began to us less difficult to change our realities, because the rules of the game are still are the same, are still the same. And so for us, it's very difficult to say, no, I will not use the factor impact, for example, if the developed words are used, are still using it. And I think that it's very important to change some, some, some of the, these rules to, to have the impact that we are looking for. But we are waiting because we are always following the developed countries. I don't know why I think that's for us is that's the point that's one of the major points. This new policy that was adopted in China might have an interesting impact, which where they've said now that researchers must publish only five papers, I believe a year that will be counted for research assessment and three of them have to be published in local Chinese journals. So that will be interesting to see if that has an impact also on, on West sort of more Western countries in terms of rethinking. It would have though to like have a cultural change. I mean, I in scholarly communication to have like such policies, because we have the same situation. People don't really publish in Diamond Journal because they don't have like the metrics they would like to apply or their funders. Just as I want to follow up as to what Kathleen was mentioned about the Chinese policy, the Chinese policy. Currently the European University Association is discussing some kind of recommendations for assessment, career assessment. And probably this is still an ongoing discussion. So don't quote me on this, but probably one of the recommendations will be exactly to include just five, and probably we will not have five publications, but just list your five top contributions to research. And they cannot, and eventually they could not be publication, could be other types of thing, and that will be the assessment. So we don't want a full list of your papers and the impact factor of the journals that you've published, but you should present to assessment your main research contributions, be it publications or something else. So stay tuned and hopefully by early 2021 there'll be some recommendations to European universities on that direction. I noticed there's also another comment in the chat from, sorry I didn't catch your full name. So I'd be interested in particular in Bianca and Omo's response to this. I'm going to mention trust again, but in a different context. From anecdotal experience I have heard that there's a lack of trust in places such as Africa, a lack of trust in the open access movement. So I think what you're referring to is that researchers don't trust the open access journals as much as they do in terms of the traditional subscription journals. Either, can I speak again? Yes, go ahead. You can clarify your comment. I was talking about open science there, but yeah, open access to I guess, but I'm part of the schools of research data science, which we've held schools in Africa and Latin America and elsewhere. And one of the things that the students frequently observe is what do they get out of open science? Coming from low and middle income countries there is a lack of trust of what benefit do they get and that can be a big obstacle that needs to be overcome I think and helping people realize that there are benefits for them as well. Yes, there's all this talk about global north and global south, but yeah, they have justifiable reasons why they do feel sometimes that they shouldn't make their data freely available to others, that they may be scooped, the usual arguments against open science. I mean, I think the researchers in Canada are similar, so I don't think it's just an issue of developing countries, but I'd be interested to hear what almost thinks about that or Bianca. Well, I was going to sort of refer to the fact that it is more about a lack of awareness of the benefits, but then as I said, and so that's the first thing. So organizations like we have formed building capacity, part of the whole capacity is also creating frameworks that deepen the understanding of these actors. Like you said, Catherine, I don't think that's a good thing. I think it also links with Natalia's comment about the exchange of technical know-how. So the first thing we have done is looked at the other environments and it was seen that this is not peculiar to us. It might be that in our context there are different issues to contend with. We talked about the rewards came on how it favors how in a northern environment, the global enough, it can be employed to support the researcher to think more kindly about open access. What I think we need to do or what we are doing is, first of all, increasing the awareness of the benefits and then trying to drive policy support for arrangements that make that even clearer. So if you're, for instance, if you're, apart from being scoped, if you're tied to some situation where publishing in a non-open access journal or whatever repository improves your personal circumstances, then open access is not likely to be your go-to approach. But if that were turned around, and like the Chinese example that you just cited, that became the overarching understanding of what scholarly communication is, then that would change. It's about the environment and the awareness of the support the researcher and where was publishing it. So it's less lack of trust and more lack of awareness. There are already examples of the national level, Ethiopia, open access policy, ministry, introduced open access to publication requirements. It also requires data management plans and it's said that they are changing the way researchers assess and they will make sure that the open science practices are really rewarded. Those are also some examples from Africa and I added link in a chat to webinars that we will have on Friday next week with a speaker from China who will talk about their new policy and its implementation. And we'll also continue on Wednesday next week. We'll talk about community governance in open infrastructure. So thanks a lot for joining us today and spending these two hours discussing collaborations. I think we could have continued for another couple of hours. Fortunately, time is up and Natalia wrote in a comment in a question, sorry, to always previous comments. Funding may only come from the region. It's spent on the region and only to buy local organizations. The key question is whether we can build a strong international coalition consortium that can facilitate this process and strengthen these organizations to receive this funding on similar network. What almost said connectivity. This is happening now in Europe's reuse. It's getting a momentum and national countries are starting to fund open science. So any closing remarks from our panelists? Thanks again for joining us and at the time which is not the most convenient to you. Sorry about that. Just to say thanks everybody and we'll continue the conversation. Thank you all and have a nice day, afternoon, evening and join us on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday for other activities or within open air week and please make sure there is a separate registration link for every day. So tomorrow we'll talk about collaborations with repositories, journals, create systems with content providers and source day services for researchers and Friday services for research community and COVID-19 response. So thank you all. Bye. Thank you. Bye bye. Thanks. Bye.