 So, good morning, everyone. We are a bit late, so I think we should start the panel. And I'm very pleased to host this panel, to share with you some of the thoughts we should all together start making, or we have already start making in terms of organizing the European scientific information space, as we said, which has a challenge, which has also a global challenge in front of us, which is linking publication and data. So, this is the topic, the main topic of this panel, but I think you will hear a lot of things that are related with this because it's a very complicated, complex domain. It leads a lot of work from policy, legal, infrastructure aspects to approach it. So, I'm very pleased to be here with Karl Christian Boer, member of the cabinet of vice president Nili Cruz, responsible for the digital agenda in the European Commission. Professor Jan Reinhardt, director of the Max Planck Institute for biophysical chemistry and member of the DFG senate. Dr. Frederick Friend, honorary director of scholarly communication at UCL, and an advisor of the commission on things related with open access infrastructures. My colleague Daniel Spichtinger, working at the research director general, in the same topics of open access to scientific information. We have been working quite a lot together on this subject. Professor Ioannis Ioannidis from the University of Athens coordinator of open air, that you know well from yesterday's presentations. Professor Norbert Losau hosting us here today, director of the Goettingen University and recently nominated vice president of the Goettingen University. And professor Enrique Alonso Garcia from the Consejo de Estado of the Spanish government. He will join us now. So, I think we should not wait long for the first introduction that we have planned by Karl Christian Boer. And it's really a pleasure for me to introduce him today, this morning, because as you know the European Commission is an institution with multiple roles, policymaker, legislator, funder and so on, you know this. And our methods of work are relatively complex. So there is a lot of energy and time put in preparing the policies, preparing impact assessments, communications recommendations. And I and Daniel are witness of the really key role that Karl plays in shortening distances between different services in the commission and helping really reaching the agreement not only within the commission as such, the different services, but also in the European context with other institutions at European level and in the member states. So we have witnessed really this important role of facilitating our collective efforts in the commission. So we have asked Karl to share a little bit his thoughts about these new challenges of the data infrastructure and the data policies. So we have adopted, the commission has adopted the recommendation and communication package recently. So I will not say much more except to invite Karl to take the floor. So thanks, Karl, for the very kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very happy to be here this morning, even though I apparently ate something wrong yesterday and therefore don't feel very well. So let me excuse the one or other slur in my talking, it may happen. Last time in Germany, when I spoke about this topic, I was supposed to speak in German, which was much more difficult for me given this international debate in the vocabulary. So now I'm trying to give you a little bit of an overview of how these things fit together as a European matter of public policy. Sitting where I'm sitting, that is an important element to bring up when bringing other people in to this policy and explaining why this is something that Europe should be concerned about, why this is something that Brussels should be concerned about and how we make it happen. It's not yet there, this presentation, it will be there probably tomorrow. My hotel broadband was so slow that it didn't work out. You can have fun with this presentation afterwards if you like, I put it under Creative Commons license. That's me. Why am I talking here? First of all, to give you the context, Europe, when we say open access in Europe, what does it mean? We have Europe in the terms of Brussels, the European institutions that work together, the parliament and the council. We also have the Member States as Member States. We made a recommendation to what they should do in our view. This is not obligatory, but the aim is to bring everybody around to the table to discuss and maybe agree on common ways of doing things. This is really the aim. All of these institutions are involved and of course right now legislative debates are still ongoing in the parliament and the council, also covering or addressing open access. Of course I'm coming from the European Commission, but I'm still speaking in a personal capacity. I need to stress that because obviously I cannot speak for the College of Commissioners, which is this stern body. You saw Ms. Gagan Quinn speaking yesterday. She's the science commissioner. This file is treated by us, as Carla has already mentioned, as a joint effort between the science directorate and the connect directorate, which is, if you would want to put it in one word, concerned with ICT. Of course we are talking mainly infrastructures here. Open air is an infrastructure. That's why both sides are involved and Ms. Gagan Quinn has, for example, Mr. Schmichtinger working for her and some other good people with whom we have really good cooperation on this file. I'm working for Nelly Cruz, who is the vice president for the Digital Agenda and I'm advising her on a number of topics, including this one. Why is Nelly involved? She is responsible for the Digital Agenda policy program for Europe in the area of ICT and telecom regulation networks. All of the elements concerned with ICT. What is the Digital Agenda? It's a policy program, 100 actions designed to remove unnecessary barriers that prevent the advantages of the digital development from accruing to all of us in our various roles as citizens, as students, as patients, as teachers and as researchers, one the least. One of the elements, one pillar of this strategy concerns the question of R&D. DG Connect is responsible for the implementation of ICT research at the European level in FP7. This will continue in Horizon 2020, the next framework program. That's why this is an important pillar of our policy. Insufficient R&D, what do we do about this? Well, we try to find some more money, but we also try to make things more effective, more efficient, incorporating, doing more with less or at least with the same kind of amounts. The fifth pillar of the Digital Agenda, research innovation, the main target is to keep the growth of investment in this field going beyond 2014. You may know that the European budget is now debated in Brussels as we speak. The heads of state and government are in Brussels right now discussing these things. And Vice President Cruz and all our teams are, of course, very active in arguing that this is an area in which we should invest precisely because we are in a crisis today because we need to care about the future as well. It doesn't help you if you save money and thereby kill your future opportunities. And the main actions in this pillar are the increase of the money, as I mentioned, and the pooling of the resources. That's an important point, I'll give you one example. Our commissioner spoke in Munich yesterday to the nano electronics industry, so the chip makers. And in that field, Europe, the public in Europe is paying, investing a lot of money, not less than some other parts of the world that are often described as being far ahead and Europe is being described as having lost. The problem in Europe is that in many cases in the United States actions are not coordinated. So you have this pile of money, but then you fragment the use of it. Member states are only concerned about the companies that are in their territory, not really thinking about Europe as a whole, being able to having all the value chain in that industry that is necessary and our commissioner is very much committed to changing that, to addressing this problem because that's what Europe is about. Maybe she doesn't succeed, but this is what the whole logic of the common market is in the digital area. Now we are all waiting for the budget, I mentioned it, just to give you an amount of the size. One trillion euros are requested, proposed, and the debate is going on right now. There are different parts of the debate. Some say we will have a compromise this week, others are more pessimistic. We will see. It is clear that many members are pushing for a lower amount here where to cut. Roughly a third of this money is foreseen for agriculture support, subventions in the field of agriculture. This has been the case for a long time. The amounts are shrinking, but it is still almost 30% today of the EU budget and one can have a debate and we think we should have a debate if there are cuts where should we cut and where shouldn't we cut. Horizon 2020, I mentioned it, the next framework program for research, now the President of the European Council has proposed around 75 billion. Overall he proposed a number of cuts, so we will see how this plays out. Obviously the commission will want to have the best 80 billion in this field. Three parts of Horizon 2020, most important probably from an infrastructure perspective for you is the excellence pillar in which we have foreseen 4 billion euros for ICT, which covers both the infrastructure budgets which I think are at the basis of some of the projects that you are involved in including OpenAir and some other areas. Obviously there is also a strong link of the open access policy to this aim of addressing societal challenges and to really investing the money where it has the most impact because that's the whole rationale of doing open access to speed up these things. July 2012 we adopted a communication recommendation. Communication is a policy document in which the commission sets out is thinking about a certain topic. In this case it set out the thinking about how it will implement open access under Horizon 2020. So for all the research publications and data stemming from the 80 billion or with less we will see that are going to be invested. Plus the recommendation to member states which is very much in line with the communication. So basically saying we are going to do this and we should also be going to do the same thing. The goals, the high level goals are threefold. We want all member states to have open access policies in place, real policies in place by 2014. By 2016 we want 60% of all research, publicly research, publicly funded research publications in Europe to be available in open access. I had lots of debates about this number already. I can tell you some people say you will never get there. Why are you so timid with this goal? Maybe we have hit a little bit the middle there because today you know the figure most cited is around 20% 2016 is just four years off so it will not be an easy goal until then. So therefore we think it's an ambitious target in fact to reach because it presupposes that the member states are indeed putting open access policies in place and not only politically but also institutions. In many member states including Germany you have various levels of independence of decision making ranges for institutions themselves that can decide and all of that of course in the end needs to come together to reach such a target. And obviously for Horizon 2020 for a seven year period we are aiming at having 100% open access to publications. You will have discussed this yesterday and I know that my colleague was here yesterday also the commissioner gave a video message. I don't need to go into the details just the high level elements that everybody is always looking at when talking about this. Obviously there is much more in this communication the recommendation, for example the topic of preservation also the infrastructure topic is covered. What we have planned for Horizon 2020 is to accept both green and gold open access for the researchers to comply with the open access mandate that we are working to put into Horizon 2020. That means for us it is fine if researchers do self deposit we accept in that for that case embargo periods from 6 months in 12 months for humanities and social sciences in line with various other bodies that have the same embargo periods put forward in their policies and we are also providing reimbursement of author publication charges for gold open access publishing as eligible costs in the projects and we are working moreover on a way to make sure that in the future if your research and your project is over you can still tap into some of the support even after the last payment to a project has been made. This is today a problem because there is no hook for you to come and ask for the money we are having very intense discussion with our lawyers to make this possible and I am very confident that we will do it. I am sure this has been discussed a few times we are putting forward a pilot in our addiction every time I am asked to explain this pilot means everything where it makes sense this is not like the open access pilot today this is not about 5% of the budget or 10% this is about the real thing without a hard obligation because we know that when it comes to data in several areas it has also varying concerns when it comes to the different subjects we believe that we are not yet there and we do not have something mandatory but we are working to make it practical even today we have sometimes projects where the people come and say I want to do open access to data but I am in this consortium it is not foreseen can you help me can we get the coordinator to do something about the very complicated in the future even in the pilot if you get these things into the consortium agreement we have the policy in place we need to implement it we are working on that there is an internal action plan to put in place all the elements of the communication my colleagues in both DGs are very much in cooperation in setting this out and making it happen and one important element of course going forward is the infrastructure supporting all this in particular for me this is the main concern about data because if we start doing data you cannot simply leave people out there on their own and say now it is in our contract and you make sure that you put it in the right place not the least because we don't want them to go into different directions and in the end maybe we lose again this kind of data that is being deposited there similar to open air I believe that we will have to provide a default setting something that you can fall back to if there is no other evident way where you have subject specific repositories for data and other infrastructures that have already been created that is of course fine we don't want to reinvent the wheel here this is about the logic of linking up such infrastructures I don't need to explain that one here we are informed informed by various expert input that we have received over the last few years notably these two reports that I suggest everybody to read who hasn't yet done so you will see many of the elements that inform our work now to setting out a roadmap for the infrastructure investments in the next few years so we are planning what to do what to call for in terms of projects in 2014-15 and subsequently to get closer to this overall aim of making the data the infrastructure making it transparent, linked up interoperable and also sustainable infrastructure the digital European research area is an important element in that as well on the same day as the communication recommendation the commission has adopted communication on the era as it is called we have been very much involved in that as well again with the colleagues of digital research to make sure that the infrastructure aspects are covered there as well we have this tag digital era for that and this is also part of the roadmap that is right now being worked on once this is online you will have a number of pointers here because our commissioner for those many of you will know that already but she has been very active in the last few years starting I think really with the main open air event in Ghent in December almost exactly two years ago she has been very outspoken on this topic on a number of occasions I put some links here you find the others by following through those documents just to see that this is really a high level policy priority for commissioner Cruz it is also one for commissioner as you heard yesterday commission is really aligned behind this goal and it's pushing to make it happen and with that I would leave the introduction and thank you very much for your attention Thank you Carl for this setting the scene it puts us in the right stage to go for a round table and address some issues but you notice that there was a slide from Carl saying that now it's the infrastructure stupid but I will not take it personally but what I would really like the panel to trigger a discussion and involve the audience at a certain point is to have a little bit what they think these challenges we have ahead concerning the opportunities and barriers for this scientific data space in Europe that is open and the pro science attitude in that how they see the role of individual researchers and their organizations the role of infrastructures of course and also the stakeholders including publishers, libraries service providers technology developers and so on so a bit covering all these and let's try to have a sort of collective brainstorming and start this learning process for the coming years so I would invite dr. Frederick friend to start with this short statement and then I will go around the table and then we will open to the audience for you to come into the discussion so Fred Thank you I picked up on the subtitle of this session making the vision my reality because for more than 10 years open access to publicly funded research publications and data that's been a vision now we have the opportunity to make the vision a reality in the policies for horizon 2020 we have the political framework within which research institutions, authors repository managers and publishers can work to realize the vision we can no longer hide behind the lack of political impetus for open access we can no longer hide behind the lack of an operational infrastructure for open access in every aspect of this open access infrastructure there are still areas to be developed particularly in the area of scientific data which we've not really tackled but the essential political and operational infrastructure is in place and there is the political will to make it work and to produce the benefits we all look for so what more needs to be done by those of us who attend this conference and by the organizations we represent much of what I suggest may appear boring administration but it is at this detailed level that the success or failure of the policies will now be determined firstly from the commission we need clear and firm guidelines for researchers funded under horizon 2020 about what they need to do in order to fulfill their open access obligation the guidelines should require the publisher to deposit a version of their article and its associated data in a repository from which it can be harvested as soon as the article is ready for publication if the publisher requires a short embargo the article need not be released for public access until the embargo period has expired but this should not delay the deposit in a repository we already lost too many open access articles through authors delay in making deposits secondly we need all open access repositories to be open air compliant so that the content can be harvested and reused the number of complied repositories is still too low and while the open air team have helped by introducing plugins for different systems more direct help needs to be provided for those repositories facing an additional workload to become open air compliant the solution has to be a partnership between local repositories and the open air team thirdly we need an easy to administer mechanism for those authors who choose to publish in open access journals we need to make provision for authors wishing to publish in open access journals which do not charge an author publication charge and also we need to make provision for an easy payment mechanism for authors wishing to publish in those journals requiring the payment of an APC as with repository deposit so with the funding of author publication charges uncertainty and the lack of clear guidelines have deterred authors from taking those options which will be additional to deposit in an open access repository if we can make all of this happen and there is no reason why we should not the vision will become an everyday reality now the open access vision is only the first vision a second vision which we have yet to address is the vision of the effect of universal open access upon human society this second vision did appear in the Budapest open access initiative but to date we have been so busy achieving widespread open access that we have not even developed the objectives for a vision to achieve the benefits from open access in my mind it is a vision which enables humankind to conserve this planet's natural resources upon which our life depends and also to level some of the inequalities in access to those resources every morning I walk with my dog through the woods and fields conserved 130 years ago by prime minister Benjamin Disraeli and his wife their conservation of natural resources sat alongside a commitment to the industrial revolution we know about their managed conservation of woods and fields through the books and manuscripts they have left behind in the ones and the zeros of the electronic databases compiled by today's researchers there will be the seeds of policies for the conservation and sharing of the natural resources of the future maybe this will be thought of as a political vision but the vision is rooted in the contribution the research undertaken in our universities can make to the well-being of humankind through open access and beyond open access those are my thoughts for us to discuss Thank you Fred this was very inspiring and for logistical reasons I would ask my colleague Daniel to also share with us a few of his thoughts because he may have to live bit early for the train so Daniel the floor is yours so thanks very much Carlos for having me here on this panel and also of course to the organizers maybe a few remarks complimentary to what we heard before from Carl but also yesterday from the side of DG research I think this is open access as we heard also in the opening speech of the commissioner a very important aspect in the horizon 2020 but also going beyond that of something else that Carl mentioned the European research area so abbreviation which basically is in a nutshell a single market for researchers addressing various aspects research and mobility but also addressing the circulation of knowledge in Europe and republished on the 17th of July the new era communication where under the heading circulation of knowledge you have things like knowledge transfer digital era but also open access so what means the era basically is of course including our own funding program horizon 2020 but moving beyond that and interacting with the member states and also interacting with the stakeholder organizations 5 of which have signed a memorandum of understanding on july 17 actually 4 and 1 statement where they also commit themselves to promoting open access in the membership so that's basically a complimentary policy to the digital agenda where are we now basically this was something that was mentioned in your presentation in passing but I find it's really quite an encouraging sign that already in FP7 where we had a pilot on open access to publications we see that 40% of FP7 publications are in open access mode and I consider this really encouraging also given the target figures that Jukar presented I think from the side of the commission in horizon 2020 we have open access as the default option open access to publications we should be able to reach these targets of 60% in 2016 and maybe not 100% but 99.9% you will never have 100% compliance in 2020 so I think this is for me the vision but it's a vision that's I would say quite realistic with two caveats firstly we know that the legislative process for horizon 2020 isn't finished yet so it will depend in the end what sort of text the council and the parliament will agree on you have seen our proposals so our proposals are really to have open access to publications as the default option and to experiment with open access to data in form of a pilot so this is I would say the first challenge this is a very near term challenge to actually have this in the final text then I might say maybe a challenge for the intermediate future is in the implementation this maybe also a little bit for open air because if you have then this provision about full open access I think it will mean more work for open air also because you will simply have more publications more questions also from researchers which brings me to a second challenge I think all of us in the room are aware of what open access is and how it works I'm not quite sure that in the wider scientific community we have achieved this level of understanding so people here open access and they have a sort of idea and it's not always the idea that we have in our understanding of open access so keeping up the good work that open air does and then complimenting it with further initiatives for awareness raising is I think something that's very needed and I might just remind you for those of you who don't know for proposals in the last one for FP7 in the science and society work program we will be funding two coordination and support actions one in helping the member states to network and coordinate the open access activities and the second one to train and do awareness raising with the scientific community with the funders that are open the deadline is in January just a short promotion here in case this is someone who wants to apply so you can find all information on the participant portal with that I think I have outlined some complimentary aspects to what has already been said I have to leave around 12.30, 12.45 but until then I'm also happy to take questions after the presentations excellent, thank you Daniel for this complimentary information actually quite important because the recommendation will require this coordination with the member states so it's important for you to know this so I would like now to invite Professor Heinehard with his experience in managing a research institute but also as an advisor to some of very new initiatives in publishing in new ways of publishing so Professor Heinehard please well thank you very much first of all I would like to inform you that I'm standing in for the presence of the German research foundation the DFG who sent his greetings to the meeting but couldn't attend and I would like to emphasize that the DFG is the major funding organization for competitive funding in Germany is fully behind the open access movement they have actually signed the so-called Berlin Declaration and they have actually various funding schemes under which they invite projects supporting not only open access in publication but also data management new strategies in data management data storage, data availability and there is actually a new call which we will actually be deciding in a week from now whether this is going to be launched and it looks all pretty positive so in that sense there is full support from our German major funding organization having said this I should also say that I'm sitting here as an active scientist and to give you perhaps a flavor of the fact that things are not so simple as I sometimes sound when I'm listening to all these presentations here is that by myself even though I'm really favoring the goal of open access making scientific information publicly available as soon as possible the last 50 publications my group has published only one was published in a true open access journal which means open access in a point that it is open accessible for everyone on day one after publication all the other ones were published in subscription based journals which do have obviously embargo periods and we try to comply with so much as we can but after all you see that in my field by medicine we still are dominated by traditional journals now let me emphasize it's always nice as I heard this morning to do some publisher basher from Elsevier in particular is an easy elephant to beat but there is another group of journals which in my field is quite prominent in which I have the feeling is almost forgotten by the open access movement and these are journals edited by non-profit scientific organizations in my field these journals are actually the dominant, the leading ones the high quality journals which are edited by for instance in those societies and I'm speaking here in particular for the European Molecular Biology Organization that is editing for high profile journals now these journals are subscription based and we are struggling in EMBO to see how we can make the transit to open access financially viable now two of the four journals are open access and they obviously lose money and they lose money because the editing process of a selective journal that is selective means that they have a high rejection quality are really very quality oriented are so high that the author processing charges no one would pay them to even cover the cost I mean the one open access journal in Molecular Systems Biology which has an imperfector of something like 1314 by now they barely break even they have an author processing charge of about 4000 euro the other journals if they would be converted to open access the author processing charges would need to be even higher so this is problem number one problem number two is that obviously these societies make money on these subscription based journals but this money is being invested directly back into this is supporting science for instance at EMBO they support the EMBO Young Investigator program it is a program which is very important for the European scientific community this income would be lost if one converts to open access just to make ends even and obviously there may be solutions for these problems so there may be alternative funding sources but in general let's say point I would like to make in this context is if sources for instance too directly again fund these activities of these societies by governmental funds public funds in one way or another that would make these societies again being directly dependent on the funders they would lose lots of their independence and this is a problem which I haven't really seen a good solution for yet I'm not excluding that there may be solutions but in all the discussions also in particular as governmental officials is not really being considered and this is why I make this point thank you thank you very much for this contribution professor Yan I think we left time to go back to it I would like to invite now Professor Alonso Garcia from the Consejo de Estado is to share a bit of his thoughts as well thank you Carlos very briefly since discussion of the floor is very important I would like just simply to emphasize two or three bullet points first of all it is true and not because I took it personally it is infrastructure what we are talking about mostly it is true that the open air open science, open access, open source world has been there trying because there was a problem of bottleneck which needed to be open but the question now is that the ITC technologies communication information technologies have developed lately in the last ten years to just an extent that the potential that they have shown us that there is there is so immense and they are also telling that that anything, everything can be done could be in the middle of China and then just receive to your mobile phone exactly life the best of a person who is having surgical operation and having the guy who is there in China no cut here or cut there or do this or do that and that is perfectly feasible they tell us that can be done which has surprised everybody now that has shifted into a different mode which is what we need for the future is most of much any longer even for the economy, great infrastructures who know the environmental impact they produce how they move the economy how they might simply turn resources or lead us to stalemates move from there maybe to green infrastructures try to make sure that landscapes and minimum services of nature are provided because if not where we live it is going to disappear and why is that Fred can do this now the question is ok, for all that we need and we can have knowledge infrastructures curiously, no I think we don't need the vision we simply need to revisit the past to know that the vision is already there the first time when I was working with my colleague Americans in the National Academy of Science what the hell is a knowledge infrastructure how do we make them different from green infrastructures from green infrastructures very easy he told me go to 20th century Paris and to Göttingen and to see how knowledge suddenly was served and allowed later for the scientific revolution of the 19th century for literally the growth of knowledge science which made humanity move from the Neolithic to present world we can of course complain how the present world is and there are many reasons why we should but the potentiality of humanity really is a very very recent thing now the question is how do we do that and those were the issues we are talking among many things about the opener of scientific publications that are sharing et cetera but the problem is also at the bottom the data itself it is possible that thinking by the scientists what happens with them could other scientists benefit from that effort that includes both the total output and the original data that there are besides the conceptualization that the creation by the scientists does second it is an infrastructure it is not a network it should be neutral it should be absolutely neutral it should be making sure through ITC technologies that anything that is there somebody who has something to incorporate that to humanity actually what happens is that scientists if they don't change the opener are going to be simply turned over overwhelmed by citizens themselves that's already happening they no longer read science they read whatever is there in Google so the question is that's already there how do we move from one to another the fact that those infrastructures in the 20 years from now is what makes me think that it's a question of making sure that all the scientists get the notice they have on their own sort of a very important issue which is okay it's not only a question of openness it's a question also of interoperability and that's the core of the infrastructure and the transversality, the neutrality itself of what is being built what is important libraries don't have their own agenda making possible that what they have reaches somebody else or what is there which is not really theirs literally reaches its content and that's why libraries were constructed and infrastructures have shown how simply the libraries of the future are simple as that the final part that lives through that very easily we go back to 1992 when we first met in the commission near your office but a little farther I would say how do we know what biodiversity is there in Europe no clue, no idea what we have from genomes to landscape, no idea now it is mapped with mini pixels directly there through ITC technologies and everybody can literally go and see exactly what is there and that is happening worldwide in all the areas from biomedicine to humanities to all the core of knowledge so the question is we did that only in 20 years and now the world that we see the astronomers know it they are very close scientific community and it's a question perhaps and that's my final point of trying to do one thing which is work with both mentalities at the same time the reductionist mentality of the scientists we need you opener to tackle the issue of scientific literature because that's an element of the whole component of the broader picture but at the same time we need to work in the fox mentality rather instead of the reductionist the broad picture mentality of the humanities because we need principles making sure that what we set up as an infrastructure from the reductionist point of view has sense within the cold context of where we want to be of the interconnections between science and industry through march in laws which is how the Americans call this embargo rules making sure that scientists themselves get back to science society so that society can benefit from what they produce which is what open air ultimately is trying to do scientists don't reach society and that's the reason why we have pretty positive reach in society and the governance that we have because there's a gap there that probably will be brought but I think that this process is then need to continue from the reductionist approach how do we make possible with a broader vision or picture that probably is simply being aware that that exists there and being connected to processes that are happening also Thank you Enric this is now I think we turn to professor Ioannidis you know well Yanis share with us your thoughts a few bullets from me as well in the interest of time both in my presentation from yesterday but also in others this concept of the new way to publish the new form of publication in the current way that research is done is central in the past up until I don't know 20 years ago 30 years ago the main intellectual process in doing science was finally distilled in the piece of text that had some figures possibly some formulas, some theorems some other things but that was the final result of the scientific process in the past few decades not very many we have entered what some people call the fourth paradigm of doing research which has to do with data-based research and therefore next to the publications in the traditional sense the data that is produced is a scientific result the same way we can talk about impactful paper impactful a beautiful paper a beautiful theorem a clean conceptualization of some area in the same way we can use the same adjectives for data sets and they have to be have to be seem to be coming next to the traditional form of publications so when it comes to open access data sets traditional papers and other artifacts produced from the research process should be treated in similar ways I will not say the same because there are differences the readability of reuse of a paper is different from the readability of reuse of a data set in some sense it's very easy to get a data set and then run 10 algorithms on it and produce more results reading a paper and extracting from it its essence is slightly different so I'm sure our good friend the lawyers with or without fees will help us in figuring out what open access to data sets compared to traditional publications will be but it's it's a big challenge that we have to face as soon as possible open access is all about democratization other principles as well and this is very important when it comes to there are always the counter arguments oh I did this and then this country outside Europe that is commonly known that gets results and then makes products and makes money and so on are there still we have to find the right ways to offer democratization both in terms of publications and in terms of data sets and find the right benefits and support it and a couple of points regarding open air has been operating as we said based on the participatory philosophy investment exists already in the trenches in the institutions and in thematic repositories in collecting publications and open air takes all this aggregates it, analyzes it and present it as a cohesive whole and that's the approach that we have been following it's working well the network of of people in advocating at close to the researchers close to the member states in Europe and possibly elsewhere is works the same thing should happen with data participatory infrastructure is the way to go people develop infrastructures for data sets this will continue this is something that people have ownership of and it should not be redone and reinvented but then getting the appropriate metadata the appropriate information about these data sets and connecting it and analyzing it together with the corresponding information about publications and other artifacts that are research results we believe is the right way to go and as part of this process then trying to support the different kinds of policies that should be applied open access policies that should be applied to the various forms of data Thank you Yanis I think it's now time to conclude round table of the members of the panel with Professor Losau Norbert I have interesting challenge in presenting myself but the presidential board and the president as we have heard yesterday so I forget everything I know about open access now and I try to imagine that I am a member of the presidential board which I will only be on the first of January if I am in this position I would say well yeah open access I have heard about it it's interesting it's a library thing so let's do them so it's rather short so my comment could be rather short to you but if we want to be more constructive in a sense I think we I would try with my background and now with a new position to think about how can we improve the situation for decision makers on university level and what we have seen in the past that the recommendation from the open access working group of the European University Association simply have not been picked up definitely not in Germany I know from many open air partners that many other countries don't know about the UK actually but they simply haven't been picked up much more successful I think has been the liberal roadmap on open access I think the conclusion really is for university governing boards to be both informed and guided so they need to see concrete steps how really to implement and they want to see the implications what this has on the university on the organization and this is very often neglected because the perspective on what the implication for a university is mainly not clear now this sounds easier than it is, well you go to university governing board and inform them and I guide them it's not that easy because there are many other topics on their agenda so getting the attraction, the awareness that this is a topic it's already not an easy task but can be done and it's definitely supported by the eC recommendation communication and it's supported by organizations like DFG which is really respected I'm speaking now for Germany at German universities so from as many places accepted on a university governing board level as possible you need to bring in the information because one thing is very clear I mean it's nice to have statements and policies and everything but as we said before and as Fred started making the vision reality is a problem and the reality needs to be implemented on the local level means on the university level on the research organization level which are more distributed but still everything needs to be done there to really get the buy in and input because otherwise we will never achieve the 60% nor the 100% Yes, thank you I think we had really all the points we would like to address by all the members of the panel from different angles but this was actually the purpose and from the commission side I think we as Carl presented we think that basically for the moment we can't do more than and this goes along with all the interventions in the last one from Norbert from the top down so to say aspect it's more or less what can be done at this point in time because we have a formal mechanism which is a communication to the member states and to the parliament and this time was accompanied by well we have actually two as Daniel said also the European research area which cross reference the one on scientific information which is in our internal jargon the soft regulation so to say but it's actually an invitation for member states to take a lot of initiatives which actually goes along the lines that from the top level so to say it's really difficult to do more than that so now came actually the invitation from Carl and all the comments goes along this can really make this a reality now my only comment before opening to the audience because I would really like you to intervene with questions and also sharing your thoughts is that the bottom line is that it's not cost free process the change but our commissioner was very clear when she makes public statements Commissioner Gogan Queen as well that it's not against anything and as in the infrastructure part see it even more like that because for us we see the open access linking data as a capacity building exercise so as much as we see it in why are we trying in Europe to get the best high performance computing infrastructures available to the research in general to the research communities whatever these are in Europe because we are in a competitive world and so we have to be competitive our director Thierry van der Pyl also addressed this that ultimately open access is not an objective but a means to achieve something and Fredrik's friend also addressed this vision of the benefits so we focus on the benefits and we have a road to make and stakeholders will probably change some things on what they do today currently so this is the call for action that comes after the top down thing is done doesn't mean that we are now going to sit we have some instruments Horizon 2020 Daniel is working on the rules for implementation of the policies but there are also what happens at member state level at institutional level which is really what will make the difference so with this in mind I would like to thank the members of the panel as well and wish you a continuation of a very fruitful discussion in this conference thank you all