 Hello and welcome everyone to another open air training webinar on the horizon Europe open science requirements in practice. So before we start I will quickly go over some housekeeping notes. So this webinar will be recorded and we will make the recording publicly available shortly afterwards. If you have any questions or you would like to share any thoughts or comments you can use the Q&A section in this in this meeting. You can also use the same section to upload any questions you would like our speakers to address first. In case we fail to address all of them we will make sure to follow up in a blog post after this this webinar. You can also find the link to the presentations here in this slide and you can use the QR code to be directed to them so you can access them. And I will make sure to also quickly pop the link to the chat as well. So with this I would like to briefly introduce and give a warm welcome to our speakers for today. So first of all we have Jonathan England the training specialist of open air who will be going over the open science horizon Europe requirements and also share some tips some tools and some services that you can use to make sure that you're compliant with them. And we also have Victoria Chukala open science policy officer at the European Commission who will be talking to us about the EC is open access publishing platform open research Europe. So with this very brief introduction I would like to give the floor now to Jonathan so they can start with our presentation. Thank you. Hello and welcome everyone. Thanks Athena for the presentation. So today we're going to have the next hour we're going to go over some of the requirements but also some of the open science aspects that you need to include in the grand proposal, and then we will have half an hour for some Q&A. So the slides already online on the nodo and on the first slides you just have all the links to to the different materials that I will be mentioning during the talk. So today we just created also some quick guides on on on a platform called open Plato so you're welcome to to have a look at those. So first I want to mention what is open science in terms of the European Commission, and I want to emphasize that obviously you know about open access to publication, and about data management. So the European Commission is really strong on following the fair principles which I will mention later in in the in the talk, the principles of opening the data as openly as possible as closed as necessary I'll go back again about this. And there's an emphasis also on the information about output tools instruments that needed to validate and reuse the results and the data, as well as giving access if needed for the digital or physical results to validate the conclusions. So in terms of open access to publications. We have a few rules which are different if you knew the, the horizon 2020 a bit different. So this time around, we need to have the one of the versions on the manuscript deposited on the trusted repository. So you can know what the definition of a trusted repository is. And the biggest difference is that there's no embargo period allowed now you have to have to provide immediate open access to the publication. And also as authors you need to retain your rights, at least on the author accepted manuscript, and if possible also on the version of records. So you need to apply what is a creative commons license. Again, those are terms that I will define in a second, but this is just an overview. And obviously, don't forget to add the acronym the code of the project within and will repeat this again but the European Commission does want you to add as much information as possible about research outputs or tools instruments, anything that needs to be. Present to validate the conclusions of the publication. There are a few exceptions in the sense that you can have the open access fees so the article processing charges. Covered through the grants only if it's in a full open access journal. If it is in a hybrid journal where it's a traditional subscription model but that allows for offers to choose the the the APC routes. Those are not reimbossable so there's no restrictions in where you can publish but just restrictions about how much you can claim back in terms of the money. If you are more in the humanities and write long text formats and monographs or books, then the license can be a bit different. Okay, that's weird. I don't know what's happening with the slides but and so a few definitions about the what I mentioned before the author accepted manuscript on the version of records. You might have heard about in before what was referred to as postprint and the publishers version. Basically when you upload your when you submit your your article or your piece of work to the publisher. It is before peer review called the pre prints, then it undergoes all the peer reviewing process and becomes after all this, the final accepted version is what's called the author accepted manuscript. It is basically the same version as once the editor has done all the publisher has done all the copy editing and the type setting. It becomes a version of records so the author accepted manuscript and the version of record are the same content. It's just different layouts it's what I call the author accepted manuscript is what I call the ugly version of the if your paper it's basically not not copy edited. The thing that I want to emphasize to to to emphasize also is this self archiving which you don't always have to pay for open access, especially considering that the European Commission doesn't reimburse if it's in a hybrid journal. You should always try and if possible go to the free routes which is by self archiving, but you still need to follow the guidelines that are set by the commission. That's really where you make it available not where you publish it. And so for this, there's, I won't go into too much details but you can ask questions during the Q&A if you want. But you have this journal check at all that allows you to to check basically whether you're the the journal you're submitting to allows for this rights retention strategy, which is basically a statement saying that the author accepted this ugly version that I mentioned before, and you can apply a Creative Commons license on to it and therefore return your rights and by by default you can upload it on a repository as wherever you want. There is another route that is also available to you and this is what Victoria will mention later but the European Commission has its own publishing platform which is called Open Research Europe, and they self archive, they archive sorry on on the trusted repository immediately so meaning you don't have to do this self archiving you just need to publish directly on it, but Victoria will go more in details about this. In terms of requirements for research data. It is also quite different from the horizon 2020. You must follow what they call the fair principle so findable accessible interoperable and reusable. You need to create a data management plan a DMP by month six, and you need to update it. And before the end of the project. And biggest difference you must deposit at least the metadata so the metadata is all those fields that are attached to your data set or file that explain what it is so what the authors is of the data. What licenses on it what language was general all this kind of information is what was called metadata. So you need to deposit at least the metadata but if possible the data itself as soon as possible after it's been produced or generated or gathered. And you must deposit again in a trusted repository and make them as open as possible following this. This motor of as open as possible as close as necessary. And just so you know, when you deposit metadata or data on the trusted repository, they automatically deposit under the CC zero license, which is what the European Commission requires. So it's, it is a requirement that if you look at the annotated grant agreements, you will see that this is one of the requirements but just so you know you don't need to really take this into account because if you publish in the deposit on the trusted repository will automatically do it for you. There's a preference for the CC by license or CC zero license. The difference being that the city by you always have to cite the the the origin of the the data itself CC zero is basically you're putting it in the public domain. And there are reasons which I'm not going to go through today but there are some reasons why CC zero is preferable in terms of sharing data. And again, when I said before about detailed information about the research outputs in tools instruments are needed to validate validate the data. And there are some justifications that for not opening the data and the European Commission does insist a lot on this that if there's potential commercial exploitation of the result then you should definitely not share them. Immediately, you should definitely try and exploit those those results if possible. So those are one of the reasons data protection data privacy rules of sensitive and personal data obviously are also reasons why not to share the data, although you can anonymize the data and therefore make it available. So that's another way of so you might not share all the data, but you share parts of the data that is anonymized. And if there's any security rules for projects dealing with assets from the EU that would put a security risk basically. So I've mentioned quite a few keywords that I haven't really defined yet. So one of them is trusted repositories. You will see on the annotated ground agreement they are specific rules for the trusted repositories basically you, what you need to remember is to try and find in your discipline in your, in your research domain. A repository that is commonly used and endorsed by your research community. And you can do this for publication you can look on open door, which is the open directory of open access repositories. And if you're looking for trusted repositories for data, it's history data where you can find this type of repositories. And if for any reasons there you don't. There's no domain specific repository in for your field of work. Then you can upload it on to a general purpose repository such as the node, which is, you can put data presentations publications anything you want on that. As I said, the other criteria is for trusted repository we can kind of put aside, because if it's listed on those, on those lists then it would be considered as a trusted repository for the European Commission. I've also mentioned quite a few times this creative commons license so creative commons is basically a type of licensing that tells others what they can and cannot do with your data. So for instance with a creative commons attribution license, it means that they can be used even for commercial purposes, as long as they, they cite the, the, the, the authors of the original data or the original publication. It is still a legal license in the sense that if someone does not cite you you can still take legal actions against them if, if you want to if, if you need to be the creative commons zero license is a bit difference where you best practice is obviously to cite the authors but it's not required anymore and this is more for data. For different reasons. Data management plan is something also I mentioned for the day is required by month six. There is a formal living document that basically tell the European Commission that basically that you know what you're doing with within your project so it's going to say what's the, how are you going to share the data within the difference. During the projects within the different partners. It's going to say how you're going to ensure the if you're dealing with personal data how you ensure the security of the data is going to say what you're going to do after the end of the project how you're going to share it openly. If you need to put any restrictions. And it's living because you will if there are any changes or if you went for one repository and then you realize that this repository is not the best I'm going to go for a different one, then you would update the DMP and to to reflect to those those changes. The issue we we have with DMPs. Well, we more you when you're writing a DMP is that there's no absolute rights for wrong answers. You just have to be clear and detailed justify basically all the decisions that you take so as a as a small example, you might be using a for profits. You might be able to share during the project like I forgot the name now but one of those Microsoft Office for instance you might share it with this for profit. It's not the the best in terms of of openness, but you might justify it saying well everyone is using teams for instance so we are going to use this platform to make a lot easier, but then we will use a different mean of sharing it such as in order so as long as you detail why you're making those decisions then the project should should be fine with with this or they will challenge basically what you've you've decided on or make you aware of other other tools that could be better than you hadn't thought about. And you need in this DMP basically to show that you're sharing your data as openly as possible, as close as necessary, following this fair principles and I'm talking about some principles. Here's this question of findability accessibility, interoperability and reusability. So findable is basically when you have attached a person since persistent and identify a unique URL basically that's usually the the publishers for publications they give you what's called a DIY. So that's a person persistent identifier, as long as you put a lot of data with a lot of information so informing what the data is so rich metadata that's also allowing for others to find your your work. Accessibility is making sure that you deposit on my trusty repository because it doesn't necessarily needs accessible doesn't need to be open. So accessible accessibility means that it is on an automated way of accessing the the the data, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is open there's a big difference between the same principles and the openness they are two different concepts. Interoperability is basically where you're going to use file formats that are better for others to be able to reuse the biggest the the easiest example is sharing your data, your tables and the CSV file format rather than the Excel file format and reusability is basically having this kind of read me files and having a clear license so that people know what they can and cannot do with with your work. You always need to have this data availability statements. So all the articles need to have that. Even when there's no data associated with the the article and you should be added to the end of the article prior to the submission and it should be fair in the the in the principles of accessibility as I was saying, saying a statement. You can send an email to the corresponding author to have access to the data. This is not accessible in terms of the fair principles. It needs to be on the trusted repository so that people can have access to it. But again, it doesn't have necessarily to be open. It can be under embargo for let's say two years, for instance, or it can be closed completely for security reasons or for personal data reasons. Now there's a few specific cases that I want to mention the validations of findings. You always need to even if the data is restricted or closed for security reasons or other types of reasons that you justified in in the DMP. You still need to sometimes grant access to specific people for validations of the findings. It's all about transparency, but it doesn't necessarily have to be open. And in case of public emergencies that's got more concrete with the COVID-19 pandemic. And those restrictions are set can be can be changed by your European Commission and require you basically to publish your work and your data immediately without without embargo. A few useful tools. Before we talk about the open research Europe. Open Air Explorer is a platform that's, so I've put a lot of text here, but it's for reference, if you want to have a read afterwards. Open Air Explorer is basically a platform that links data sets and publications. People together and so it creates this this Connections and so you can search for data set use can search for paper and then see that there are specific people involved with specific data sets are attached to publications. You can also use it to find a trusted repository in your fields. And so it has a lot of potential in in terms of finding the right tools are for you. Amnesia is an anonymization tool that you can use to anonymize the data, which is good so that you can share at least one version of the data, not the Not the so you don't disclose any personal data. And August is one of the tools that you can use to help you with the process of writing a data management plan. So there are many different tools for that and we're just only citing one today, but you can obviously use whichever you want. The good thing is that it has some. It is already indexed for instance in Open Air Explorer, which is what's the European Commission uses to to check that since you're you did publish your you did make your work. Your publication available in the open access and you did share the data so it can have a lot. It can be really useful in that in that regard. And there are some community calls that you can join it really every month. So in terms of the So now up to now was the requirements and now I'm going to mention what's the the reporting and the monitoring that you have to do in the participants portal. So in the the partisan portal is different aspects that you need to to look at that the project officer will look at in terms of open sites only I'm not. I'm not talking about the other KPIs I'm only talking about the open science elements of open access to publications and data. So there's the tab publications that automatically you can add just by citing the DIY and it will automatically import all the metadata so you don't need to fill in it yourself so that's really useful and that is this. All this information comes also it's the same kind of data that comes from when you do a search on Open Air Explorer. So here's just for reference what's all of them. For future reference is when you're actually doing the reporting. In terms of data set there's also another. Another tab for that. And again, if you fill in the the DIY or any other type of identify that the trusted repository that you deposited in has then it will automatically import all the metadata for for you so you don't have to fill in, you know, fill in the author when was it published and that that will automatically be done for for you. It's also true that times which are important for the open science. Monitoring is the results and the other results at half. So the results. It's a it's a I find it's slightly confusing because the distinction is can be a bit confusing when you're not doing this every day. The results tab focus on the content of the results or any discovery series product services methods so how you're basically doing the research. And the other result is for reporting about other type of that are not publications that are not data sets of software workflows protocols prototypes or this type of data that is not publications and not data sets. And on this now I'd like to invite Victoria to share about open research Europe. Thank you Jonathan this was very detailed and knowledgeable. I also tried to answer as many questions as I could in the meantime, and I will share my screen now. Happy to be here I'm Victoria to color from the European Commission, and I will talk to you about a service that we have for researchers, free or charge for our grantees to publish the research and get it peer reviewed. And let me hide this. Sorry. Yes. So, hopefully you can see all my screen now. So I work in the research and innovation in the unit that works on open science and has this policy. So, sorry. What is open research Europe open research Europe is a publishing platform, it is not a repository so it is let's say a mega journal. If this is in easier terms for you it's you submit an article and it is peer reviewed there. It is for horizon 2020 horizon Europe grantees and actually as of now I should edit the slides. It's about all grantees as of now all grantees of European Commission framework programs are eligible publications so as you know they're beyond horizon Europe there are other framework programs. For any it's about 30 of them you can see them in the funding and tenders portal so all articles research, you know, that have to do with research are eligible to be published now in, or it is an optional service of course it has no cost to you to publish an open access of course, and you meet automatically you comply with your horizon Europe open access. Requirements as Jonathan said earlier, the requirement in horizon Europe is that wherever you publish we need open access through a trusted repository immediately at the same time as publication. And or it will do that because it will send your publications to a trusted repositories and no doubt in specific, which is operated by CERN. It is a very innovative publishing model also that's initiated by us and you may know that other funders support platforms for their grantees such as the welcome trust the Gates Foundation their Irish health board, among others. And that's innovative in itself but also the publishing model which is open peer review after publication, as we call it a post publication peer review model so first you publish you submit your article and then the review takes place and I will show you in detail the process. All articles and reviews are open access under CC by license. The platform is very high scientific publishing standards and policies. They're steered and supervised by scientific advisory board. And, of course, they're quite actually they're rigorous, including asking for underlying data availability and open access to research data if that is possible. The methods used etc. I will show you the details on that as well so it's quite a rigorous platform. It offers also a transparent services in terms of the tutorial process but also supports research that is transparent and reproducible actually. And that also I will show you with the process it implements. Everyone's welcome to publish in all disciplines so actually it's not close today we have 500 articles on the platform. More than 300 of them are peer reviewed and 900 open peer reviews on it. And as content grows we are gradually developing basically community gateways and collections like in specific fields right. So we are gradually helping research communities find their way and their home in order. So if you are interested if you have projects that produce a lot of publications. If you're looking for a new let's say you could call it journal I mean you need to comply with the policies of the platform. But you make your research available together in a place in a collection let's say for example that is a field specific we invite you to contact us. The platform is indexed in many important indexers. It does not have a general impact factor and we do not want it to have one. Because we do support the more specific article level metrics that actually are telling about the impact significance and the rich scientific and social of an article. As opposed to assessing excellence by by the proxy of journal impact factor. This is a very transparent also process it's operated by F 1000 research for us who is a publisher and technology provider. Subsequent to public procurements for us it's in line with our policies supports us in operationalizing open science practices such as open access publishing early sharing of research via pre prints. And aligns with our priorities so it's very much shows you know that we can walk the talk. It also supports not profit open access publishing and transparent publishing and cost efficiency actually it's much cheaper than paying exorbitant article processing charges that's quite clear. This is a long term commitment by us and actually we're currently in discussions with the numerous national funders on how to turn open research Europe as of 2026 in a platform that is eligible for all to publish of course all who meet the publishing and scientific requirements of the platform without charges to them because a number of a large number of funders will support it so this school quite an interesting development we're looking for. We're looking forward to to getting there. So, or is here to stay is basically what I want to say. We think it's a it's very the benefits are are clear for researchers I mean they do immediate open access, and they comply of course with the open access requirements, they get article level metrics different types of. There's open data that supports their reproducibility and reuse of the data and of course the reproducibility and verifiability of the conclusions of your publications. The peer review is rigorous and it's open and it's transparent. And of course all of these policies and practices are supported by our international advisory board. It's optional for you and there's no fee for you and there's no administrative burden for you you told me to think again on whether you comply with the open access requirement. Here's the model in more details so you have an article to submit you submit it and after it goes actually through quite a thorough. Check point then it's published so the pre publication has to do with the language the eligibility the authorship plagiarism, but also very specific things that to do with, you know methodology of the paper, whether your data is available. If possible again we say we understand that it's not always possible but in principle it should be. Whether it has years of course to the policies and guidelines of the platform, etc. So it's quite extensive it's not a simple print we call it a publication precisely because it's been through this very extensive checks. So then it receives a do I it has and the layout, you know, it's laid out it's not just a simple word file of course it and it's in different format HTML PDF, etc. And then there's an invitation to five potential reviewers were checked by by F 1000 and I will show you a bit about that as well, who are invited to review the author suggests them but of course. F 1000 checks their appropriateness and also suggests as well so it's a collaborative sessions led by the author but it is a collaborative sort of process. So once two ticks or twice approved or once approved with reservation and at least once approved sorry twice approved with reservation once approved that is considered to have passed peer review. Of course a new version may need to be uploaded if significant changes are requested as you already know. And this, of course, versioning is very clear to see in the platform, and then it's sent to all these different indexers and to Zanotto for for the repository requirement. Again, we think that also this open peer review aside from the open publication is a win win situation and you can have these slides to study later on. I mean it's a very transparent it enhances open and transparent scholarly dialogue and you know the input we have is that researchers like very much appreciate this transparent process and open peer review and they also get credit for the review which can of course be cited because it has a DIY. And again, very strong reproducibility. You know, features in or open data making your data open in principle is actually quite a strong measure towards their productivity and transparency of research. Another point to make here is that, aside from research articles there's a whole slew of other types of article that the platform supports that actually support you or enable you to publish throughout the research process which is quite important. In fact, about 50% of the articles are of those other types on the platform so to get familiar with the platform you don't necessarily need to send your best research article. So we understand that if you evaluate it on the basis of journal impact factor which is actually, we think not the appropriate way to be evaluating nonetheless, mostly people are these days still we're trying to change this, you may try sending other types of article to start and get familiarized with the platform and how it works such as a method article or a brief report or a software tour article, the software tour articles actually are quite popular. And this way it also helps the open access of course to these other types of research outputs by, by making them open access along such a type of article that submitted to the platform. This is how a publication looks like. You see that you cannot miss the status. This is a revised publication. You can see the approval status of the peer review and then you can check the peer review of both versions actually here. So the person revised the article and then it was reviewed again and you see that the reviewer approved the second version. You can see that the researchers can put in their orchid ID. And sorry that you can see that this article is included in three different gateways, as well as of course various types of metrics on the article. The peer review process just to say that the reviewers are suggested by article authors but they are of course need to be vetted by the editorial team that they meet the criteria that they're experts that they don't have a conflict of interest, or they may the editorial team may suggest additional potential reviewers. They are asked to qualitative and quantitative actually checklist questions to answer checklist as well as qualitative reviews for a guided process that they must follow. Then that's different for different domains. And there's also a reviewer code code of conduct that needs to be followed. All these of course is checked by the editorial teams and once everything is okay then it's published. You can see here an example of a peer review report you can see that the name of the reviewer is visible and their review is visible. It is also can can be cited it has a DOI can be cited. And so, and you can see also their, their final outcome it's approved with reservations so they have a question mark. You see here that the author has responded extensively to, to the review, and probably there was a second version that was uploaded addressing what the author the reviewer asked for. Sorry, apologies for this slide again. And here you can see all sorts of different metrics that appear here with alt metric indicators here. How many times the articles mentioned in the news in blogs and Twitter, etc, assessing social impact of the article. Helping research communities find a home in or so there are various levels of collections. The one that's probably researchers are most interested in are the collections these are very domain specific research specific collections. Always an advisor, let's say an editor a curator of these collections, and you can subscribe basically to these collections so that you get information when there is a new article that's published there so these are for specialized communities. I mentioned earlier and if you need a home for for publications in order of your community you're very welcome to contact the editors, and then there's higher level gateways as we call them here for civil engineering or for arts. There are some by framework program or specifically, for example for Maurice could love scary actions or ERC actions, etc, which are okay they're interesting but not so much for for researchers really follow us online there's a very vibrant Twitter, following of open research Europe. There are also a number of I should have said and I should have included here videos in the DG RTD YouTube channel on aura there is more than 10 videos which are quite short and they're quite interesting address various things how you can submit research data open data, etc, as well as a newsletter and you can scan this a QR code if you would like to subscribe to news from aura. And I think this was the last slide I exceeded a little bit my time and I apologize. No worries. Thank you very much, Victoria. So, the last parts that will cover today before the Q&A is the grand proposal so the open science part in horizon Europe grant proposals. And so there's two different. Two different elements one is on the application form where you have to list five publications, data set softwares or goods or services, and in part be of the project proposals where you have under the excellence methodology and the impact and under the quality and efficiency of the implementation, you have to mention open science practices. So, in terms of publication, it's one thing that is really important to know is that all that the publication use you site needs to be openly available in open access. So, the your publication will only be evaluated positively or only evaluated if they are openly available. Your publications, the impact factor will not is irrelevant. It will not be considered in the grand proposal. You need to. It will only be evaluated qualitatively. And in the current proposal, you can also give some insights to where you're hoping to publish, including if you're looking at publishing in full open access journal or on open research Europe. Which, as Victor said, is not mandatory, but is is an always an option you can go for. In terms of data, your data that you list needs to be on the trusted repository and needs to have a person to persistent identify identify sorry, like a DIY. And they should be a fair so all the data that you data said that you mentioned in the grand proposal basically needs to follow the same rules that I mentioned before in the requirements at the end during the project and after the project. So an official data management plan is not required in the grand proposal but they do ask you to provide some answers to very similar things to DMP so it's kind of what I call a mini DMP where you have to to tell what kind of data you're going to produce where you're going to hoping to to to make it available and all this kind of which licenses you want to apply. So it is kind of a small DMP without being it's officially one. And you need to have a distinct distinct web package on in the project management that must include the DMP as a deliverable. There are other aspects that are eligible in the budget and I would highly recommend really looking into it because if you are it. Weirdly enough, if you are asking for more money, but there are things that are related to open science, the people who will be evaluating your, your, your grants proposal will have an idea that you are really looking into making your, your project as openly as, as openly as possible. So anything that is relating to engagement of citizens like citizen science and participation in crowd sourcing activities, any data creation costs so you can hire someone a data curator for your for your for your project. If you know that in advance you have you're going to have a lot of data that's in your, maybe not specializing this kind of data creation activities then definitely consider hiring someone and adding this kind of costs within the grant proposal. As I mentioned during the, the first parts of the talk, any article processing charges can be included, but only for full open access journal, not hybrid journals. You can obviously publish in the hybrid journals, but you cannot claim the the the APCs for those. So, if I need to give you one tip is be as specific as possible, like in the DMP, you want to be proving to the people reviewing your proposal that you know what you're doing that you are going to publish your work as openly as possible that you're going to make your work or your data set softwares and other types of research that you're going to be as open as transparent as possible. And this idea of, don't let the project officer dig for the information don't let the the grant proposal reviewers search for the information because they want and and that could lower your, your score basically one thing I noticed a lot also that people in the proposal or even in the DMP will start explaining what open access is what fair data is you don't need to do that. The people that are reviewing or the project officer they already know that so focus currently on what you will be doing during the project. So the ERC and the miraculously fellowship is slightly different. I won't go into too much details, but they are very similar, basically to what the horizon Europe is is doing. There's no in the ERC there's no explicit evaluation or two of open science practices but including them will will only have a positive impact. You won't be scored negatively for it, but if you do include them, you will be scored better. There is no specific work package in the ERC. But you do have to to issue a DMP for the Marie Curie you do need to have in the excellence criteria there is this element of open science that is is present. Also, you need to have specific training activities and carry development plan that are present in the proposal to show that the person getting the the the grants will undergo training in specific aspect of open science and innovation. There is a set so obviously what we talked about is mostly publication and dataset but there is also open science is an umbrella term there's a lot of other different aspects into into account. And they are what we called open science recommended practices that will not lower your score if you don't have them but if you do they will be positive. So, as I said they won't be any impact on the score. But the mandatory open science practices will lower your score if you don't, if you don't include them. So here is just for reference the different types of mandatory and recommended practices. I'm just going to go over a couple of those recommended practices to give you an idea of what they could be. So in some fields it can be interesting to do what we call the pre registration and where basically you're going to publish in advance the plan for the specific research study. Including anything that is related to the research question the hypothesis that you will be doing. And this allows you to have basically exclusivity on this because you will have a person identify issued to you so people can already start mentioning this specific plan. Preprint is a bit the same thing the same concept but making your work available before peer reviewing on the preprint repository and as you can see there's a lot different preprint repositories now available. The first one was archive and now there's a lot of different ones for different field of research. And again that gives you exclusivity on research because you can start already be cited on this on this aspect on that paper even before it has undergone peer review. Public engagement through for instance citizen science is something that is becoming more and more important for the European Commission. And so I would suggest if you can to think about how you could include the public in your in your grant proposal in in your research in general and in your proposal. So citizen science. And just to finish before we go to the Q&A and I already saw this quite a few dozen questions. When you're whether you're at the design phase away with or if you already have a horizon Europe grants or it if you haven't done so already design an open science strategy for your project so lay down everything that you need to do in terms of lay down everything that you could do in terms of maybe recommended open science practices and really have a plan of how you're going to implement those. This will help you when you need to write your DMP which you know it's by month six so don't wait months five to start writing it because it does take a lot of time. You can start from the beginning of the project. And if you in the grant proposal you will have already kind of done a mini DMP so that will help you in the process and be as specific as possible really explain everything so the reasoning behind why you're going for a specific repository why you're going for a specific tool that might be appropriate tree but is used widely in your in your field, justify every decision that you that you make. And yes, keep track of the issues there's no right or wrong answer this things always go wrongly at one point in the in the project, but that's okay just keep track of the issues and discuss the solutions. And so yes that's the just because this is recorded just for reference the next webinar so we organize this webinar three times a year. And the next one will be on the 19th of March at 3pm CET. And on this, thank you very much, and we now have half an hour for 35 minutes for some questions. And let's have a look. I need to summarize a few things that I saw that I thought were important that were asked so a couple of times one about the impact journal impact factor of war. Yeah, starting with or just to clean that. Yes, the journal does not or it does not have a journal impact factor and I guess I mentioned that we do understand that a lot of you may need this for your, for your, you know, advancement. And as I said again maybe you can consider to try or to sending other types of articles first before trying a research paper, although if you're not up for tenure and you're a tenure professor then I don't see why that should prevent you then then we want you to to come up from and try or and try this new way of publishing with open post publication peer review. Yeah, I think this probably is the most important question on on or also funding you funding is required at least one author part of the work needs to be funded by Horizon Europe or any other framework program. And that's about it. There were a few questions I think about licenses and licenses of data and that was quite interesting I mean the minimum licensing requirement of Horizon for articles is CC by and all articles must have CC by longer format publications they actually articles in collected, you know, in editors volumes these are considered journal articles they're self sufficient publications that should in short format they should be CC by license monographs on the other hand, there were a little bit more tolerant that both the industry and the researchers for different reasons may want more restrictive licenses so and CND licenses are allowed there. And then for data for research data. Research data that is open needs to have a CC by license or a zero license zero licenses obviously much easier for those disciplines that mix and match various types of data and large amounts of data, it's kind of more difficult to do that if there is a CC by license. And that is why there's the option for CC zero license as well. And the same for for metadata needs to be in CC zero license. And then in those very few cases of research data that is closed and nobody should know about. Then, then I mean even the metadata can be hidden but that does not concern most of the horizon cases so. So if you're DMP I think other a lot of other questions and maybe Jonathan knows better to answer this on the DMP and fairness and all of that we understand that researchers not all researchers are well versed on that. That's why I mean there are quite a few resources suggested by the program guide as well and open air has lots more to offer. But already the template of the proposal shows you what the requirements are for fair that should be already answered at proposal stage but there are critical elements in the in a DMP. So, yeah, I don't know Jonathan if you want to add, and there are numerous other questions and when you make them open, I mean, we have fair and open openness is not part of fairness data needs to be fair. Ideally needs to be open, unless there are these exceptions that don't have talked about. And so you can make all of your data open or some of it open or so there is flexibility on that and all of this needs to be explained in your DMP and the project officer will assess this along with reviewers that will review your projects. And I will let you speak now I think I tried to summarize a little bit some of the things that I saw recurring there. Yeah, I think the thing to remember is this is a one hour one hour and a half webinar so obviously we can't go into details of what the fair principles are of how to write a proper DMP. The, the, the recommendations that we gave of being detailed and all that obviously you need to look a bit more into what really goes into DMP. So you need to look at the different resources to really know how to write properly a DMP. And if it's the first time you hear about the fair principles, I would highly recommend you do one of those short courses or if, or guides to to get a bit more familiar with what the fair principles are. Because at first, I know it can be a bit confusing. It's, it's a lot of things that that is being asked of you because that's not, you know, your specialty is not to write the MPs and know about the fair principles. But it doesn't make sense once it's applied to your, your, your project so obviously this is just another view of what you need to do but you do need to dig a bit more into into all that. In terms of there was a question about using amnesia for anonymization and also another question about anonymization. They were saying Zenodo treats pseudonymized data as personal data, which should not be uploaded to this repository. Does it mean the researcher should opt for restricted access, but deposit data in for instance institutional archive to store data long term. So the, the short answer is that you should only share the data that you are allowed to share. So even if it's in closed access, you would still need to put the metadata even if you don't put basically any data linked to to on Zenodo, you should still deposit the metadata so people know that the data exists. If you manage to anonymize and I know there's this concept that data can never truly be anonymized and I think that's a whole field of research in itself. Tools like amnesia do help you to analyze the data but there might be some cases when you have very little data points or if you're the people that have very specific type of criteria that by just looking at the data you could be able to how it's in this specific country that is really small and it's this specific person that has that is the only person to have this disease then obviously that would not be anonymized because you could be able to tell the parts of the people. At the person that is, is the data is referring to, but in most cases I would argue that amnesia is able to anonymize the data and you can have a look more at the tool itself to have a look. But this is something that you might want to discuss with the GDPR person which is the, I forgot the name, the data protection. Thank you. Yes, the DPO, the data protection officer. And also the chief information security officer that you should have usually in research institutes. They will be also able to help you in deciding what you should be doing or not should not be doing in terms of your data so do seek out the specialist are in your institutions and if they're not then seek out other specialists or other researchers that deal with the same type of the data that you and that you do and would see what they have they have them. As you indicate what CC zero has a preference about CC by for data. So the main reason why we prefer CC zero in data is what's called the issue of attribution stacking so where you're going to have data set a that refers that is referred by data set B, but it's a merge of data sets. A and C. And so you need to cite data set a, all the people from data set a and also all the people from data set B, but then data set D is referring data set C so you would need to refer to attribute all the people from the first three data sets. You can see where this is going at the end if you're having a project that is based on other data sets that is based on other data set then there's a lot of attribution to to be doing so it's to make sure that it's openly. It's as reusable by others as possible, without having to make this huge list of offers but obviously the best practice is always to to site is just legal aspect let's say to be able to reuse the data without having this issue of attribution stacking. And then there was a question for making metadata reproducible would also including our studio scripts, for example, or just the metadata and read me fast. Yes, definitely they are studio scripts is definitely is one of those other research outputs that you can mention because it's it falls into the category of those other research outputs that are used to justify the data. So, if I wanted to check that's your, you did run your analysis correctly. Then, if I already have the R script, I can run it myself and see okay they did everything correctly so this falls also under the category of this type of with me files and it's just making the, the reviewing process easier for for everyone so yes definitely include those. And there's a distinction between results and other results still apply if the primary product is working on his software, we did not need to move to results then I honestly don't know. I don't know if Victor has an idea on this, but I would ask the project officer directly actually for this kind of a bit more specific. I would argue that no because they're a bit different from the definition they would still fall under other results. But they could still be considered as a data set in in a certain way, if, depending on what kind of software you're you're building. But I would ask directly the project officer, I think that's the best option for for this type of project specific issues. I don't know how to report them. Yeah, I would agree. And it's publishing at or available only for easy ground holders and partners teams also for researchers without easy funding. Part of the project needs part of the paper at least, or let's say, yeah part of the paper needs to have been funded so the results. So what you're writing in the paper at least needs to the research or part of the research behind the paper needs to be have been funded by by the commission so by one of the framework programs that may mean in practice since you have a lot of researchers often collaborating that one of the authors has any C grant, which is relevant on the topic and part of the resulting work which is published has been funded by it so not everyone, but partly at least to have been funded yes. And it also includes, I have to say maybe just to clarify cascade funding, for example, cost actions or like other funding that, you know, that we may give to member states and then they also add funding and and and yeah so join undertakings and all these things are included so. Next. I'm also looking at the. I'm just going to repeat some of the question and answer that you answer Victoria just for. Yes, if people didn't read them. So should the DMP be published in repository as well. So if you want or I can just get ready. Yes. It can if you would like that'll be good it's not a requirement that you mean if it's an open deliverable and we recommend I think that they're open but there might be reasons if the data is closed that it also is close so in that case no but if you want to put in their repository all the better right so yeah. And, and our goes for instance this tool to write for the MPs allows you to decide whether you want it to be open or closed and it will publish it to choose an order also so that's another added value of using tools, such as Argos. And the deadline to publish the data in the repository hapless precisely should they be defined. Do you want me to read the answer or should I. Sure, go ahead. Um, yes, so you should. So Victoria was saying you should define this in your DMP should be reasonable. It is not as demanding immediately as a publication of an article. But unless there's a good reason you should not keep your data locked up and closed data should generally be in a repository when they're on the pin and article at article publication. Are there any experiences with feedback on the DMP on my part of an explicitly asking for feedback when submitting the DMP I did not hear anything back. I think it really depends on the on the project officer. That's very. I've had people to project officer really be on the back of the researchers for for this kind of things and others that just didn't hear back so that really depends that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do a good job for your DMP because it's not just for the funder that you know to prove that you're doing things right but it's also for you to make sure that you didn't miss something about data availability or you know. The way do I store this personal data is my the security of my of my institution enough or should I contract a different tool so all this is still useful for for you. How hard are the US criteria in the overall assessment of a grant proposal can one be excluded even if the scientific content part is very good. Yeah, that's an interesting question excluded snow but of course I mean you will be assessed so you'll be assessed on how you say that you will implement the mandatory open science requirements. So in that sense I mean you're you're I mean you need to pass the past mark which is 10 I think but but the thing is how how many other proposals are there if they do better and open science is always who else is applying and how good they're doing so they are assessed if you're whether they're disregarded they're not and they can also as Jonathan explained earlier earn you extra points if you decide to apply some of the recommended practices and weave them very well into your proposal and methodology then that could obviously earn you grades but it's very clear that grades are cut if you're not addressing sufficiently the mandatory open science requirements and this may bring you in a disadvantage position vis-à-vis other proposals that may end up getting the money then even because of that of course. A question about licensing can basically what are long tanks format and can chapters in an edited book. They are not eligible because they are considered as articles. So and someone was mentioning how can the the license of the book be different from the chapters it can be it's so you might see on some website for instance that they will say the website is under CC by license except for exceptions like images for instance he will have a clear license. It's the kind of the same concept you can have copyrighted a book for instance and have some chapters that on the CC by license because the offers decided to have have it like like this. So it's not incompatible to have different license within the same book. But chapters in an edited book and not considered as long text format. Basically, if you're not in the humanities, it's rare when you would have a long text format it's more in the humanities where a single author or a couple of authors are writing an entire book about a subject. One thing we learned in FP7 in 2020 is that in line with fair can mean anything and nothing what is the horizon your minimal expectation. The minimal expectation is required in the proposal actually I mean it's. I mean, you need to explain how they will be findable accessible interoperable and reusable, and their specific. I mean tells you what you need to answer to basically so it's not very vague I mean the legal texts in the grant agreement that is what defines the policy is of course general but that should be your measure I mean it's quite a clear instruction there what should be answered. And it's fixed a trusted repository where can I generally check this so as I mentioned during the talk, open door for publications and research data. But yes fixture is considered a trusted repository you will find it on history data. So that is a repository you can go for who checks the validity of justifications for not disclosing research data that would be the project officer. Can the DMP be a subject for revision and impact money release yes definitely it's as I wasn't saying the DMP is a living document so even if it's not the project officer that comes back to you and say you shouldn't make this and this modification you yourself as soon as they are some modifications they someone a new partner I don't know I'm inventing the new partner or new person working on the project then you should definitely updates already the DMP and yes not complying with the European Commission's mandates is can have an impact. I don't know if it's in practice actually this this examples of projects that have undergone. restrictions budget restrictions I don't know if that does exist in practice we try to avoid this there have been but for other reasons too so these are yeah and. And yeah we I mean we check not only open access but there are various other requirements right to check and some have but yes this is our last resort I mean usually there is a. You know there is a recommendation or a requirement or advisement by my appeal that you know what you should do to fix the situation you know before you get there so. I'm trying to find other questions. Haven't answered. More or less. Yes, should the raw data also be published in the research data repository or analyze data along publication will be enough what does raw data mean for the European Commission. So this is more around the. It's this again it's not the right or wrong answer because you should publish all the different steps in your from the raw data to the. To the final data that you use for an integral part of your publication so even if you don't use some data in a publication you should still. publish it make it openly available if possible so if you know that the raw data could be useful to other researchers then you should definitely do that there are some cases I know that the raw data is. Completely useless then that's you know you as a researcher that decides this is not exploitable for others and also it doesn't is not needed for. For the it's better to have it. The edited. Analyze data. But I would argue that most of the time you can share the raw data you might not realize that it can be useful for others and so I would say that. I've talked with some researchers and they explained what their raw data was and I said okay yes that is a case of raw data not being useful. But in most cases it is it is exploitable by by others even if you don't realize. Because what could be nice, I have this expression when I talk about research data management is what is nice for you can be dated for others so it can definitely be exploited by others whereas for you it's just useless raw data so. I have a question of when will or and open ad join my story. I think or is already as like the Twitter version of now. It's in Twitter. So. Yeah, but there's like this. I know open it is on my story as like a duplicate of what is published on on. I am a digital immigrant in the social media so I will be entirely unhelpful. I should find out. If anyone wants to. I know we said to put in the Q&A but if anyone had the answer the question not answered, just paste it in the chat and we will just copy by seeing the chat but I don't see any other questions that we didn't cover. Okay, so we have have. I am. Yeah, I said the RS, I think maybe I should give a short answer that RS is the rights retention strategy so this has been supported very much by the coalition s group of funders, the commission supports. coalition s and and plan s. For us, I mean rights retention is something very specific we ask in the grant agreement that the author or their beneficiary their institution, maintain enough rights to provide the open access as required meaning with CC by license and all the other things that don't don't explain as a requirement so you need to maintain enough rights to do so. And we explain in the annotated grant agreement that basically effectively by signing the grant agreement you have a prior obligation a prior legal obligation to your funder the European Commission to do what you have agreed to do which is to maintain enough rights in order to provide the open access as you have agreed to do in a repository with CC by etc so you may inform we recommend that you inform your, your publisher ahead of time that you know you are either required to have enough rights. This does not actually mean make me maintain enough rights to provide the open access means basically that's, yeah that in the end that you need you need to retain some of your rights so a lot of publishers are trying to block this either, either, I mean, may charge more money for you to provide open access to your author minus script or they can even outright reject papers if they've also done that so we look at we're looking at a wave of resistance here. But this cannot, you know, this this cannot continue further I mean the funders are becoming stricter and stricter about this I mean, you need to provide the open access so you need to be able to do so and in fact, I mean the commission is looking into measures either guide guidelines or even regulatory even law measures in the future that will enable a copyright framework and the ability of researchers and institutions to manage more properly their rights in such a way that they're fit for digital that they enable open science and open access because now what researchers do is that they transfer their rights and here immediately is where the publishers block the, the open access so in general the reaction of the publishers is to try and block it so that's as far as we know in the UK also we have to say that there are some institutions that have very strict also rights retention policy and then also it has to do with the law of the different countries so for example, if I'm not mistaken, some UK institutions their right retention is that they say basically the informed the publishers that already the author accepted manuscript is licensed already by the author under a CC CC by license. In the UK it's possible to do that in Greece for example you cannot do that in Italy, I don't think you can do that either so, but you can inform in that case your publisher that you know you are required to maintain rights and you're required to provide this open access. In both cases either way publishers are not very happy in either with the UK case nor nor with with other cases where you inform them of this prior license so you may expect there some and in this case. We recommend that you find another publisher that you publish in ore or yes so if you cannot do that so we outright recommend in the aga in the annotated grant agreement that you find another publisher so and and I think the one thing that you may want to ask yourself is why am I wanting to publish with this this big publisher because the publisher tends to be the ones with the high impact factor. But as it's been mentioned the commission doesn't care about impact factor on the quality of the publication so why, why is the real reason why you're publishing in thinking of publishing with those publishers and is it really necessary to publish with those. If you exclude the impact factor in its and then you might realize that you could go for and full open access journal or even for the aura because in the end what matters is that your work is there and sightable and not necessarily on the journal has that has high impact factor. I don't know if that was what you were referring to by big publishers but it makes me in big publishers are the one with the higher impact factor and that the ones are the most unwilling to to accept the rights retention strategy. On this, I think we will close two minutes before the end. Thank you very much, Victoria for for being here. Thank you very much for everyone for your questions for your interest in this and yes, if you have any other future questions don't hesitate to to contact us. We always happy to to help. And as I said there was a type on my slide the next webinar is in March 2024 not 2023. So 19th of March 2024. Thank you again, everyone and have a nice end of the day. Thank you. Thanks for joining everyone. Goodbye. Thank you.