 So, yes, just to make it clear to everyone, this is my name is fan cat and I'm the training officer open air. And so open air is a not for profit and we're doing this really just to help the research community. The speakers that you'll be hearing from our Johnson England and Julia Malek were there and they're also from open air. Like my colleagues indeed. Johnson, he said they are the horizon Europe policies requirements for open air for open access and DMPs, which is the first topic that they will be speaking about Julia will then move on to open research Europe and some tools that you can use. And then finally Jonathan will go back to horizon Europe grant proposals. So, hopefully what you'll learn about through the course of this session is mandatory and recommended open science requirements in horizon Europe compliance with the horizon Europe open access to publications mandate. Managing and sharing research data in horizon Europe projects, delivering data management plans and reporting publications and data sets in horizon Europe and open air tools and services to support horizon Europe projects. And we're mainly aiming this project coordinators researchers research managers like librarians and data stewards but indeed if you don't fall fall into that then I'm sure this will be of interest to you as well. So without further ado, I am going to pass on to Jonathan. Please take over. Hello everyone. Sorry, I'm sick so hopefully everything will will be all right. And thank you very much for joining us. So as I said, I'll first be talking about the requirements in horizons Europe, not proposal during the project and after the project. So, in so the slides already online you actually have at the bottom of the of the page the, the URL link to on the note up. And this slide is just a list of the all the different documents that you might need during the, in terms of open science for for your projects. So, I'm not going to go into details about what open science is but in terms of the European Commission, obviously there's a lot of emphasis on open access to publications on data management. But there is a new dimension with horizon Europe, which is a bit different that if you knew about the as 2020 projects. There's an emphasis on adding information about other types of output outputs tools instruments to validate the results of the data. So, first of all, I'm going to talk about publications, and then I'll talk about data management. So, this is quite similar to a 2020 with a very important distinction is so you still have to deposit all your, you need to make available in open access all your publications. And then you need to deposit them on a repository and they need to be immediately available in open access. So, you're not allowed to have what we call an embargo period on your on your open access anymore. There's also a strong emphasis on licensing this time, which has to be that I will go back on to what CC by is a bit later. I know that at least the your your manuscript needs to be one of the versions of your manuscript needs to be under a CC by license, meaning that you as an author of retaining your rights. So just a few words on the different versions of of your manuscript. When you submit your your paper to your journal or to a platform it gets peer reviewed, and the final version of the of your paper becomes what we call the author accepted manuscript, which is what I call the ugly version basically of your paper because it's the same content as the very final version but it's just not copy edited by the by the journal that version which is the prettier version is the version of records. So in terms of open access, whether it's the author accepted manuscript or the version of record it doesn't matter. One of them needs to be available in open access. On the papers on the manuscript you also need, as I said, just before you need to include information about all those other research outputs or tools to validate the the conclusions, and also done some sometimes people forget and that's really important. So that is the acronym or the code of the project. The difference in terms of a 2020. If you know also about, if you're funded by a funded as part of coalition s that's on planets. It's a bit different. It's less restrictive than planets. If you don't know what I'm talking about it. It just, it doesn't matter. So in terms of the European Commission, you are allowed to claim the open access fees that you pay for publishing in a full open access venue. And if you're using a non full open access. So usually we call those hybrid journals where it's a traditional journal that give you the option to publish in open access, meaning that some of the papers are enclosed access you need to pay membership to be able to read them and others are in open access. Those are not reimbossable. If you can still publish in those. But if you do want to pay for open access, then you would have to find the funds somewhere else, you can't use the the horizon Europe grants for that. So one thing that I want to really emphasize is, as I said with the different versions that the author accepted management is really the minimum and as soon as you deposit on on a repository. You are compliant and you make it available in open access. You are compliant with the European Commission's requirements. You do not need to publish and pay open access fees to make it available in open access. You can check a journals eligibility with the journal checker tool on the decision tree there that you can see there's some I'm not going to go into details about what's the rights retention strategy, but just so you know it's a way to make sure that at least your author accepted manuscript so the ugly version of your manuscript gets a CC by license and as soon as you get a CC by license you're allowed basically to deposit whether you want to make it open access. So there might be two different licenses one for the author accepted manuscript and one for the version of record. I will, well, Julia will go back on to that the other research Europe which is the European Commission's own publishing platform, just so you know this is done automatically this archiving so if you go that route you have even less work to do. But it's not mandatory. In terms of research data. It's very similar to what was before with 20. You still need to follow what we call the fair principles of findable accessible interoperable and reusable. I will go very briefly about the random but it's something that needs a bit more explanation so if you don't know at all what it is, I would recommend having a look at other guides so so you get a bit more familiarized with it. In terms of the requirements you need to create a data management plan by month six of the beginning of the project and you because it's a living document you need to update it mid project, at least once during the project and at the end of the project. You need to deposit any data and metadata some metadata is any information that is attached to your data so for instance if you have a music file. The author, the title, the year of publication and all this, all this data that is attached to your music file is what we call metadata. In order to produce it or generate it you need to deposit at least the metadata so that people can find your, your data online, they might not have access to it. Because finding me depositing doesn't mean that you make it open access, but at least it's fine. You will see quite often that the metadata for data repositories needs to be on the CC0. When it is a trusted repository most of the time it is they do share in metadata in CC0 so you don't need to think too much about that. And again, as I mentioned in my first slide is you need to add some legal information about other research outputs tools instruments. So depositing your data making it findable for others to to find. It doesn't mean that you need to open it. So there are some, but you need to always justify it, especially in the data management plan you need to justify why you will not be opening the data. So there could be commercially valuable data, especially if you're working with a commercial company also alongside. There might be some privacy issues or security issues are linked to the EU. So as long as you justify why you're not opening the data or not why you're not opening the data immediately, then that usually is accepted by the European Commission. Okay, so I'm going to give you an overview of a few elements that I mentioned before, and that might not be obvious trust when I talk about trusted repositories so remember that when I was talking about Publish depositing your publication and your data in a trusted repository. There are some rules linked to that. So, there's some technical elements which you don't need to know. Basically, if you're looking for publications, you would be looking on the website open door for data, more with three data. And if you don't find any subject specific. So in your field of research, one that is closer. You would, you can always deposit on another we see this generic open access repository for publications data presentations and that that's where for instance this presentation is uploaded on. I want to emphasize also that there's a big element of what the sequel endorsed by the international research community. The repository follows all the different elements that make it a trusted repository. It is really important to favor those repositories that are trusted by your peers in your field of research, because this is when other people that do similar deposit so it makes more sense to deposit there rather than the mother. But again if you don't have a repository in your field and obviously you would, you can always deposit on the mother. Creative Commons is a type of open license, so it is still a license so it's still a legal framework. So you're still protected your work is still protected on the international law and but it makes it explicit what others can or cannot do with your work. So most of the time, your publications, at least the author accepted manuscript will be on the CC by license, meaning that people can do whatever they want with your with your work as long as they cite you. So it's not created for different reasons which I won't go into details today but it's usually CC zero which is like a public domain license. There are some reasons behind this but it's still accepted by the EC that you deposit on the CC by. If what the data management plan is, it's a formal living documents, meaning that it's not something that you write at the beginning of your project and then just never touch. It's something that you will keep updating if there are some new developments, if there are people added to the project, if you decided that a repository is not the best anymore. All those different reasons would lead to an update of the of the DMP. What it does it basically tells the founder that you know what you're doing. Basically, you're going to applying basically what you're going to your data management strategy during the project after the project in terms of sharing and in terms of archiving the issue with a DMP is that there's no absolute right answer. It's really detailing why you decided of why you took this decision of using this specific tool of another one. So as long as you're very clear, specific and detailed project offices tend to be okay with it as long as you explain why and you justify. And as I said before your data needs to be as open as possible as close as necessary, which is the third principle and linked to the third principles. So meaning that if you can make it open, then great, but you don't have to, but you would need to justify why. So for principles, there's a lot of things that we can say in terms of a DMP and for the sake of your understanding what it is. And for each of that I'm going to give one specific example that you need to bear in mind. So in terms of findable you want to add what we call a persistent identifier. You might have an orchid ID, which is your persistent identifier, your unique identifier for you as a researcher. And usually repositories give a DIY which is a unique URL basically. So most repositories will give you that DIY and we should be using that because if the URL behind it ever changes, that DIY will never change. You will always forward to the latest version of the data. In terms of accessible, you need to deposit on a trusted repository because there are some automated ways of making the data open. So there's a if it's a closed data, it's still or restricted, you can still make it available in an automated way. Putting your data, putting a statement for instance saying that the data will be made available if you send an email to the author is not accessible because what happens to the author if they pass away, you know, if you know, nothing, you don't have access to the data. So that's why we want to deposit them on a repository. Interoperable, we want to have standardized file formats. So the basic example is, instead of having the proprietary Excel and XLSX file format, we would recommend changing it to a CSV file format. And reusable meaning that other people will understand what all the variables are, what's when it, when everything was, the data was created, how it was created them or that so it's well documented, which is similar to read me files. And you include also all that extra information that is needed to really comprehend the data. There are some specific cases, which became really relevant with the COVID-19 crisis. In the European Commission can ask you to, if they trigger a public emergency. They might ask you to make available in open access immediately any publication or any research output basically, as soon as possible so you will need to deposit immediately as soon as you get your data you will need to deposit it on another for instance and make it open. Which is what happened a lot of the time during the in 2020 and 2021. This is important and monitoring. The European Commission will. You will have a project officer attached to your project, and they will be monitoring all these elements, those requirements for the for your project. They will also be looking at your DMP and asking for updates. If you are already this stage when you're on the EC partisan portal and just going to mention this because you will have all those slides so it's, I'm adding a lot more information on the slides just for future reference. If it's not relevant for you right now you can just skip that. Three main tabs in terms of urban science which is the publications and the data sets and the other results. So, on the EC partisan portal you will have at the bottom of the your your page or the publications are listed in with your project and you will have all this suggests suggested publications from open air so open air is a lot of things it's, you know we do have this also in technical infrastructure that links a lot of research objects between each other. So that's why you will see those suggested publications. If it is the case, then you would click on it, and you might not be able to see really well on on the slides, but they will ask you if a version of your manuscript was put in open access. And then it will ask specifically for the PID of your that was given by the publisher. And then it will ask for PID sorry is the person identifier so the DIY given by the publisher, and then the DIY where the where you deposited where you archived your, your work. The publisher version of record friends. In terms of data set. It's the same thing. It will also ask you the same type of questions you will have also this suggested data sets because of the links. So that's why it's really important to add the acronym in your publications. Results and other results is for all those other elements that I was talking about in my first slide, which is everything that is linked to your project. And now we'll go to. I'll give the floor to Julia to talk about the European Commission's publishing platform. I need to share the screen or do you want to go. So I have too many bars here. See, okay here. Okay. Thanks, Jonathan. Okay. So open research Europe is a publishing platform so it's like a journal but it's a modern way to see the journal because everything now is digitalized. In any case you have as a researcher so you have all the credit that you usually have for when you publish in classical journal. So open research Europe is a publishing platform and not an archive. This is has to be clarified as there was many difficulties to understand that this point. So what does it mean. This is a diamond open access publishing platform for horizon 2020 horizon Europe beneficiaries and also those were from were funded from your own. It was launched in March 2021. It's a high quality reliable efficient transparent platform in which all the process are open and transparent. There is no cost for the authors or the readers because all the cost are covered by the European Commission. It's very nice because you can also see the peer review comments. And what is the difference between the preprint version and the second or the third version, as long as the article is fully accepted. It's also provide an immediate publication, but the interesting part of open research Europe is that you have a preprint check. You can publish several research outputs and since there was a question about this we will go. We will explain this further. There is also a new way to show the metrics that are for the article in particular it's more on the type of download and how many download that they are. Everything is indexed in Google scholar and on Scopus. And now I will explain a little bit more the way of the way of publishing. So you submit the article. There is a preprint version that will be available since the beginning. And it's coming after a check in any case from the editorial team from F1000 who is offering the help with the platform. And then there will be an open peer review in which the reviewers are invited either by suggestion from the author or the author can choose who you would like to review your article. And after the peer reviewing, you can recent the update version, and everything will be again published both in the platform and also archived in Zenodo. Sorry, it doesn't work. So Jonathan explained before how the preprint process is working. So you have a draft as a mission of peer reviewing. And then a revision again. So the preprint is an article that has not yet passed the peer review. Once it's accept, you have the final publication. The article that are accepted in open research Europe can be different. The case studies can be research articles, brief report, but we can also have a new possibility like a data note which is an explanation of the data sets that you are producing a method articles which can link the methods and can help the usability of the data and to redo your same work and maybe expand in other context. An open letter software tool articles on explanation of the software that you are producing a review article, a case report. These are classic register report in which you are explaining the article that you are the research that you are registering clinical practice articles study protocol systematic review and also say for social science and humanities and so it covers different types of study for different subjects. So the preplication checks as I said before is an important key point of publishing in open research Europe because there is an in house editorial team that will help you to revise the text and meet the guidelines to check any kind of plagiarism check data availability and that everything is conform to high quality publication. The open peer review is another nice key point, and you can also subscribe to be a reviewer. It's, it's very interesting because it's an opportunity for expand your networking. The open peer review can be cited. It's an opportunity for collaboration and also to empower to lead the process. What is seen is that everything is less biased. And there is a very improved on the quality of the peer review. The probable status you can find in any, in any articles, you will see this tick point as approved. The question mark if there are any reservation or the X mark if it's not approved. So this is how it will look in the final publication. If it's a waiting for peer review if there are reports and everything is written close to the title. And again in the example, you will be able to access to see how many version there are, and if everything is approved. So how to submit the submission process is very easy and simple. As you can see here in the GIF, you can write the article type, the title, the information on the keywords, write an abstract that can be easy to understand also for now, a scientific public. And also you can give the credit taxonomy. So the right role that each authors have contributed in the article. If you want to know more about open research Europe you can scan here the QR code and get subscribed to the newsletter. I would, I would like to give you an overview also the open air service that will support you during the horizon Europe project. And also connected with the open research Europe platform. So, as I said before, there is also the possibility to publish other notes. That you can in different stage of your research work, you can still publish and collect the report and articles that are peer reviewed and that have the quality and the standards for being easily cited but also for giving a scientific impact on the research that you're doing during the time. There are four steps to publish in open data that are very easy, which are prepare select and add your data statements in your articles and then link everything together in your article. Here are my tips and tricks for data management. First plan your data. There was a question in the chat about the new template in Argos, you will find Argos is a data management plan tool, which is machine actionable and anytime you would like you can update and add a new data sets so it's very handy. It's also available for the deliverable of the six months that is mandatory, but also you can start writing your DMP before the proposal. There is a short version that we present in our community call in September. If you need assistance, feel free to email me and to email Argos for any kind of support that you need. The data management plan is contains information about your research and the document, the documentation of research data sets. That was explained before by Jonathan. Another interesting tool that we have in open air is Amnesia. It helps you to anonymize the data. And it's basically you can download the software. And you can check what are the sensitive data that you would like to anonymize or to protect for this issue. Then we have increased the, we have here what to do and what to don't do for sharing your data sets. And after this, you can download the presentation and go in the depth to these two and not to. And you can also find these guidelines in open research Europe for authors data guidelines. Then, as it was said before, also for data sets, you can deposit your data sets by using either the, either you can search for data repository in the retreat data. Or you can ask to the librarians of your Institute for helping and guide you to their service that are already present in the cities, or search as Jonathan was mentioned before, something that is more discipline specific which will help you to be cited. And to have a much more recognition on the work that is similar to you to your process and they can increase again your collaboration and the career in the case you are in the early stage of the career. Also, you can find other repository in explore where is written deposit explore is another open air service for searching discovery. You can add that availability statement in your article in open research Europe, for instance, in that kind of article which is called data notes, and is a statement that should be out to the end of the article before the submission. The DMP if it's published on Zenodo or in another repository, and you can provide the toy in the data availability statement of your article. Then you can make links and contextualize your data in explore. Explore is an open air services in which at the top that is link, you can find the resources and you can also proceed in linking different entities and summarize and finish. If you are part of an horizon project that you can also link all the data and the articles and the metadata to your to your project. So when we are speaking about the research product, we are speaking about any kind of things that is related to the research project that can be articles, data sets can be presentation can be posters, anything that you can link to the repository even software. That you can add in the repositories, even get up in explore you can link. Your software where you are publishing in the archives, you can link anything from a get ups, you can link also to your own kit. So everything should be together. And whenever you are going to Sigma to report in the documents and everything should be already there. If it's not, again, you can go back to explore and make sure that the link is there. And now I will give the floor back to Jonathan. Sorry, I had lost myself. I couldn't find the tab in. And thank you, Julia. Let me just share again. And I don't know who's scribbling on the screen but so sorry. It's no way to. Sorry. It's weird. I thought they would be way to present from a different side. So now I'm going to talk about the open science part in grand proposals. Yeah, if you've already written. Or looked at the grand proposal in horizon for horizon Europe. And it is one of the pillar of the European Commission so they do emphasize a lot. So here for reference you have the different parts of where specifically they ask for something linked to to open science. So in terms of publication. So I'm not going to go into details. I'm just going to give you tips for, for, for writing because obviously each proposal will be very different. Some elements are common to everyone. In terms of your publication they need so any publication but you know site needs to be in open access and we mean open access without embargo so it needs to be on a repository in open access. Obviously, we're in, we're, you know, research evaluation, a lot of funders a lot of research organizations are trying to move past the impact factor and the European Commission being one of them so they do not evaluate on quantitative metrics they do. It's really the qualitative aspect of the publication that you will mention that will factor in. You can also give insights into where you're helping to publish or whether you want to be using the open research Europe but you know bear in mind that that's not mandatory it's there for you if you want to. But you are still allowed to publish wherever you want, or if you're looking into publishing in a full open access journal. In terms of data it's a similar aspect that any data that you cite needs to be fair so it doesn't necessarily mean to be open because you could give specific limited access to the reviewers during that time period. But they still need to be fair so you know having the documentation having the UI, having all these elements that make them fair. The EC also ask you for something that I find is very similar to to the MP so they said it's not required but they asked you kind of the same questions. So even though you're not writing a dmp you have to ask yourself those questions as if you were writing a dmp from the beginning it's like a mini dmp so you still need to ask all those questions I was that link to to a dmp you still need to. To ask yourself those questions and to to be specific basically and and outline what you're going to do during the project and after the project. One specificity also is that it needs to be a dedicated work package on project management that includes a dmp as a deliverable. So, in the things that are eligible under the budget that you ask you can ask to do in the grant, and I would highly recommend adding because asking more money for open science elements is actually a plus because you're going. You're proving that you've thought about things for instance if you any data creation costs if you need to pay if you get really big data so you need to get a specific storage space for dedicated storage space for that. That is well created. Then you're showing also that you've put some thoughts about what's happening during the project and after the project and so you're asking for more money but you're showing that you know what you're you're doing so. It is one of those elements that can be. It is not. It is also showing that you're you thought about open science. Obviously you can ask for open access fees and anything that is engaging citizens. So citizen science. This is also more and more prevalent in. In with Horizon Europe. So, as I said before, when talking about the DMP but it's the same kind of rules for project proposals is to be as specific as possible don't project officer will not dig for the information at the old, not even project officer sorry this is the mistake but the review is one big for the information so you have to really late there for for them. So, as long as you're specific about your choices, then you're more credible in terms of your, your proposal. One thing that I see a lot or so that's valid, not only doing proposals but also in the MPs. I see a lot of researchers explaining what open access is and what their data and so it's nice because you get 12 pages of this explanation but all of this is useless because the people that are reviewing. Obviously now what open access open scientists so you don't need to do that focus really on your actual project. And I want to mention the ERC and the mercury funding. They are slightly different, especially for the RC that has no explicit evaluation on open science criteria. But it will never be a negative, it will always only be a positive things to add to it. It does, however, require you to have a DMP as a deliverable. It's very similar to the, the other horizon Europe funding, but there's an element also on training activities carry development plans as key transferable skills. So you use open science and not just for the project but how are you going to use open science for building up to that individual that is getting that mercury funding. So there's an added layer to that in the proposal. So I'm going to go through the open science recommended practices so just so you know, and open access to publications. So open access to publication research data management and mandatory, but they see does also recommend a lot of other open science practices. So if you're going through them and if you see something that is relevant to your project definitely highlighted because it's something that will impact positively so it will never be impacting negatively if you don't do them but it will definitely add to your to your proposal if you're if you're doing them. Preprints such as pre registration, which is basically where you're depositing your, well, if you're, yes, you're depositing your study plan in advance before doing the, the study itself. Preprints which is similar to open research what opens research Europe does where you deposit and make it available your manuscript immediately, even before peer reviewing. And any type of public engagement and citizen science will be highly valued. So just to finish on all this. I know it's a lot of elements, especially if you're just discovering this. And don't worry there's a lot of different elements are linked to open science. And what I want to really emphasize is that you should really design an open science strategy, whether it's from the beginning is like learning the fair principles you know that could be your first element of the strategy to understand where you're going in terms of those open science requirements. So really include where publication and data will be depositing and who is responsible for it because that's a lot. An issue all the time is that it's not explicit who's doing what and then especially if you have projects are with different research organization other just assume that the others are going to take care of it so always be explicit and really keep track of all the issues you're getting and you can always discuss it with the project officer. Or with other people that are linked to open science like open areas. Okay, so that's it for the presentation parts. And now we'll just answer any question that you may have I think there's already quite a few. Yeah, we've been trying to keep on top of the questions here in the chat window but there's plenty more Jonathan I think that can be covered as well. I think maybe one of the questions that seem to have most interest was about licensing and basically, I think that is. Well, there was one comment indeed that said that researchers don't know how to apply licenses and the actual process and doing that. And also about CC zero CC BY. Okay, those are the most open ones but it seems to be that there's some experience amongst the audience here that they seem more restrictive licenses being used in their research communities. I don't think these are being done in a justified manner. Maybe you can comment on this. Yeah, so licenses is, I would say difficult topic, especially for researchers, even me for instance I have no legal background I had to learn a lot of things linked to licensing and open licenses in general. And because of that lack of knowledge people tend to use more restrictive licenses. I mentioned that there are some reasons why we use CC zero for data so maybe I can just give you an explanation of this really briefly but For publication CC BY is fine because it's kind of the same as we already do we cite other researchers for their publication. For data there's a lot of each elements that is restrictive so for instance in the Creative Commons, you have the non commercial, you have the non derivatives meaning you're not allowed to modify the data. In terms of the share like in terms of the non commercial there's a lot of issues because the from a legal point of view what is considered commercial is very loose. And so they are things that just a stupid example you're giving a talk to to a conference and you're using data from someone else. You're being paid for it, even a minor fee that would be considered as a commercial action for instance and so you will not be allowed to use that data. So that's why for instance we try and avoid non commercial because it has a lot of implications linked to it. Non derivative means that you can't change the data tools meaning that from a point of view of researchers trying to build on someone's else work it's useless because you're not allowed to modify it. And share like is kind of like what I call a virus type of creative commons where you're forcing the other, the, the other researchers to share in exactly the same license so if you had CC by share like the others would have to share with the same license. The issue with that is that you might be merging different data sets that have different licenses and that means that if there's one that has CC by share like, it can be a real problem for for sharing that that data. That's why we always tend to favor CC zero. Thanks Jonathan and again, Anna. I think he started this conversation. They've just written another comment saying the justification I often hear from researchers is that their research is publicly funded. So they don't want to commercial entities to profit from it. If it is publicly funded, then it should be commercially reusable likely the the whole point of publicly funded research is that commercial entities because we have to understand that we think about commercial entities as some time a bit evil, you know, a lot of things happen thanks also to commercial entities that have the money and the time to dedicate specifically to that and so advanced progress on that in a different way that researchers do. So, if it is publicly funded under European Commission does say that quite clearly with with what they're asking in terms of requirements. It should actually be reusable commercially. Definitely. Thanks Jonathan. I hope that satisfies most of the answers there. I just want to point out we're at the top of the hour, but we're going to continue here because we do have quite a few questions that maybe we really would like to get through. So feel free to stay on but I understand if anyone needs to leave now. Thank you. Just going back to the top of the threads here the chat window. There was a question about the DMP templates for Horizon Europe. Now, I must admit I couldn't find an actual template for Horizon Europe specifically but I know there was one from Horizon 2020. Jonathan, maybe you want to comment on that. Sorry, my computer is overheating. I can unmute myself. Yes, so on the very first slide that I put in the, if you go to the, to the window and then with the presentation, the very first slide has all those different links and one of them is the Horizon Europe templates. And then that if you use August or even other type of the MP software is like the MP online is used a lot or they also have the templates so you could just use that. Thank you. And just scrolling down. Julia, another Julia asked, could you articulate more on the other research outputs issue. What should be reported in that section and how should it be addressed. The research outputs is anything that is, it's a difficult question to answer, because it will really really depend on your, that's why I left on your project. So it's anything that you think might be relevant to other researchers to validate your data or compare your data. For instance, the one thing that comes in mind is if you're using a very specific type of equipment, you might want to add that if you're using a specific software you might add that. It's very, very broad. And that's something that unfortunately it's difficult for me to give you a clear answer because it's it's Yeah, it's more for the research side. So the researchers in me will will explain will give you some example. For instance, the reason, one of the reasons why from the researchers we want more having open science in place was that there was this crisis of the reproducibility. So what to, when we are speaking about the research product we are trying to make a context on the research that is present in the articles, because just the contents of the article, even if usually they give you an overview. They also have to be summarized and made for for the context of the article itself. But then if you want to reproduce, you may need the protocols. You may need the software that the person is using for processing the data. So you maybe would like to understand how is made the data sets. What were the outlier of the data that were not that were discarded for which kind of reason or figures that didn't make sense to the researchers but they make sense to you. And the instrument that you're using or, I don't know, for instance, if I use the microscope or the antibody, the type of light, the measurement that I'm taking. These are kind of information that help other researchers to reproduce what was done, and maybe to increase the collaboration worldwide to make the data much more valuable. So I hope that this may answer to your question. Also, it doesn't have to be, I think one thing that the European Commission also emphasize it doesn't have to link to be linked to any publication. So there could be some data that you've got that you is not relevant enough to be done in a publication, but might still be relevant for the researchers. And so it's sharing that data that could be useful for others. It doesn't have to be linked to publication anymore. Thank you both. I'm just going to backtrack slightly and open the floor to photos. I think this is on the previous subject. I want to unmute. Yeah, it's because I had muted everyone. Sorry. Okay. You can hear me now. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Thank you first and foremost for the explanations. It makes a lot of sense so far. I think what and I'm not sure if I understood Julius response completely. My problem is with the with the with the second part, which is about the physical. Yeah, new materials, antibodies reagents and samples. So I understand the whole reproducibility aspect in terms of how you produce a measurement with an instrument for example and how to document the whole process with contextual information and make that available. But I am not sure what to do with the physical aspect and when it comes to samples because the area we I support for example is not a technology, and they produce some sort of, you know, actual material in the end, but, and when I see this definition within the other research that makes it makes it very confusing for me in terms of I am not sure what's the framework here in terms of how to document what to document and whether we need to how do I manage the physical properties of the samples I don't understand how is that a DMP relevant concept because all of these results of course all these let's say they produce a new, a new sort of a material or you know a lighter material whatever it is that they are trying to do. And that's part of other deliverables probably within the project anyway, and all of this of course is commercially exploitable in the end it's not just that this is something to be made available so I'm not sure I understand that part that second part of the other research is in terms of output, thank you. Okay, so basically in the DMP. Well, okay. In the DMP depends in which stage you are, if you are on the level of the proposal, what you can add is that all the information about the data sets will be uploaded and you explain which repository, and this is at the level of the proposal. And then you are actually working on the six months DMP. And then if you want to date in the future, then what you can do is deposit your data sets in any repository that makes sense to you. And as I showed before, either for any kind of data bank, any kind of repository, and then you make an explanation and you report back in the DMP. So what you are actually doing is a sort of link, basically. So you have a data sets with the metadata in which you are explaining. This is the protocol, for instance, if you want to publish the protocol or if it's a protocol that you are using, you just put the citation in the link. Then the data sets that you have, the instruments that you just put in the explanation, like in the description of the data sets, and then you upload the data sets. Actually, this is better to do already in the node or in the other repository. Or as I showed before, there is this possibility to publish methods, data, notes, and articles in Open Research Europe. And then you just link. I was saying that in the DMP, you have just to mention that you are doing that. Not how, but it's what you're doing. I'm sorry, I understand that what I said is about the physical samples. It's still not obvious to me about the physical samples. Is that manageable within the DMP? And actually, what am I supposed to request from the researchers to report when it comes to physical samples? That's linked also to good research data management, best practices. So obviously we focus a lot on the digital objects, but if you have physical objects that has been best practices have been been done for much longer. For instance, you would have unique IDs for each objects if you have the physical objects. So for instance, that would be, you still have some metadata linked to where is the, where are the samples, where physically can you find the samples, how many are there, what's the temperature you're holding them at, or who's responsible of all that. All those elements that are linked, you would add that type of information to it. So obviously you're not going to deposit your physical objects inside a digital world, but you're informing of what exists basically. So you don't need to list all the physical objects if that's not relevant, but you would give information about as much detail about those physical objects. I understand. I think we are still talking about producing a digital documentation, a list of metadata about what we know of the physical samples. Yes. Yes. So basically, for this, this can depend on a specific type of samples. For instance, when I was working for blood samples, I also mentioned this type of samples will be frozen and defrosted and kept, and I was putting where I was keeping them. And for how long and when I had to destroy them. So any kind of object that you can describe the life. And this is just for the reporting issue. So this is part of good research data management practice. And yes, it's all about the math data. Absolutely. But I just suggest for this, just because this is taking quite a long time and there's a few other questions maybe to get through. If you want to get in touch with us. I think we'd be happy to take you through this if you would like to do that. I'm just saying a question could picture the kind of data for describing physical objects. Yes, definitely. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Thank you. So another question about DMPs. I would like to know if the DMP must be deposited in a repository with the CC license. I can't remember. What the European Commission would like is that all these DMP will be published. This is something they want. But there are not rules in place. What we can suggest actually is to publish the DMP and to publish in different version. With Argos, it's possible to automatically by clicking a button on the nodo. Otherwise, you can download the DMP and upload in an archive and make it the toy visible and link when you are reporting. And this is something that the European Commission would like to have, but it's not on the toy. But do they have a recommended license? I can remember. Is it CC buy also or? Everything should be open in theory. But it's like the other research product. So at that point also the DMP publication will be another research product. Thank you. So I'm just going through the chat of the conversations in chronological order. There may be, I think there was actually at least one other DMP question, but there's another question, which is I think more to do with open research Europe. Are associated partners obliged to publish in open access since they in brackets since they did not sign the grant agreement? Any publication which use EC money should be published open access. Yes. So it's not about who's involved, it's whether money from DC was involved. As soon as you mentioned the acronym of the funded project, you need to comply with the requirements. Okay, great. It's not mandatory to do in open research Europe. As long as it's an open access journal. Thank you. So another question. Our researchers required to submit. So this is a DMP question. Our researchers required to submit a final DMP at the end of their funded project. Yes. Yes. At what point must this be submitted, e.g. along with the final project report. Again, that's a specific detail I cannot remember. I'm sorry, I would say it's six months after the end of the project, but I am not sure it's basically as as early as possible. So as soon as you finish the project ends, you should submit an updated version. But for the timing, I'm sorry, Adam, I don't remember. I'm not even sure they mentioned a specific timeline, but it might be wrong. Yeah, but as part of good Rdm, I certainly recommend periodically updating the DMP. There's no hard and fast rules about this, but I would say once a year, it's a good idea to revisit the DMP. But as for the final version, yes, I'm not absolutely sure about the horizon Europe requirements, unfortunately. No, actually, yes, for this is right, because it's month six, 24 and 48. So, yeah, if I'm not mistaken, actually, when you're closing the report on the on the portal, the participant portal, you would need to upload the final DMP also. So when you close it, basically, you need to upload the DMP. I'm monitoring such a project, ongoing project, and it is required by the end. Thank you very much. In horizon Europe, as well as in the horizon 2020. Okay, thanks. Okay, brilliant. Just going through the chat further and does it mean that if ORI is not an archive, the articles published there won't be stored long term. Does it meet the requirements of open access them? Yeah, I don't know if you remember one of my first slides where I was saying that you always need to self archive. Except we've open research Europe is the only one where they do it automatically for you, they will deposit on Zenodo. So yes, it is long term archives on Zenodo. I'm sorry actually someone else answered that question I didn't see that thank you to Santy for also confirming that. This is, yeah, I purposely avoided trying to answer this question because I think this is a too far reaching question but how the issue of scientific quality and evaluation can be resolved with the platform, which alternative to impact factor exists. In terms of quantitative metrics. I guess, yeah. The thing is, I mean, obviously, you know, I'm specializing in open science obviously I have thoughts on the subject but in this specific context of the European Commission, it is not relevant because the European Commission will not judge on quantitative metrics it will only judge on the qualitative aspects. Just for the sake of this webinar specifically even if it's an interesting subject, I would say for Horizon Europe it's not relevant because they do not judge on quantitative metrics. Okay. Thank you swiftly on. Alicia asked, is it data note like a data paper, or is it something different. Like a data paper basically it's an explanation of the data that you are producing, and they can be peer reviewing. So you will have also the approval or anything that is related to the open peer review and even the credit and then it's just a brief report. Thanks Julia. So, who's responsible for removing preprints which were rejected as a result of peer review. It's never removed. That's the whole point. You will get. It's up to you as a researcher or as a reader to make sure that what you're reading has been peer reviewed and usually they say it's if you're on the preprint server they will update with the final version usually or forward to the archive for instance they will forward you to the final version. So open research Europe it's really easy as Julia was showing it's really easy to show to see what's been it's not rejected because there's no rejection on open research Europe is just basically needs to be reworked. So you could see that paper has received two three negative reviews. And the other point of preprints is to accelerate knowledge sharing, but a bit like any type of papers I mean, even if paper has been peer reviewed you still have a critical eye on on what was published I mean, when I was doing my research there was some papers that, you know they had been published but. So, you always have to that's linked to doing research I would say. Yeah but I think nobody will like to have archived somewhere. The rejected work he done. I think that's the one of the risk of sharing preprints, but at the same time, it also shows the process of how would you research so he has some positive impact on avoiding mistakes that were done before, because it could be rejected for various reasons. And I still think a lot of the time it might be relevant and if it's a really really bad preprint it will be so badly referenced also badly it won't appear in such engine as much as others. So you will you will really need to dig to find it. Thanks of the open peer review is that if someone is commenting up a print. And you can directly communicate with the peer reviewed to understand how you can improve our, or what was the misunderstanding, because it's also true that sometimes the peer review are coming from people that are not expert in. What is said in the article. And having this kind of debates that are open a transparent is helping a lot, the quality of the second version of any kind of the version that will be submit. And this is something in principle beyond what is happening in open research Europe. This is like the principle of open science and open peer review. I have another practical question about, yeah, as scientists we are obsessed about about having a high impact factor for publication how these can be related to the requirements for open data publication. There are metrics that show that opening up data does actually increase visibility and impact of the original data actually and this is something that we're trying to encourage as a consequence and. I fully agree but normally, when you are submitting proposals for funding, maybe less for Europe but for regional or national level. It is a very important point to prove that the scientists involved in these proposals have already a very high impact factor because they published in very high ranked journals. So, it will be ideal that you try to handle that to do for freely, but still covering the qualitative aspect. It's, you know, the issue is, they are very interesting conversations to be had and they are a lot of working groups currently working on this kind of questions, but unfortunately, currently we're bound to more you're bound to what the current requirements are, and even if it would be or not, you could be argued in both ways, useful right now it's not considered. My point was just to help on developing new ways of seeing not to not to criticize but to improve for the best of the scientists and new money. Okay, we just have only literally four minutes left and we've got so many questions to get through and I'm so sorry that we're not going to be able to get through them all but maybe just let's take a. Well, let's package it into one question but I think they're all about open research here. One question is about publishing books, whether that's going to be possible on or what is about sensitive data. Because you can't do the sons of nodos so what's the deal here with worry. And another question also about open research Europe is, is peer review only with proposed reviewers by the author or will the platform look for reviewers as well. Seems a bit dubious, if not so there's three questions there but maybe that could see us through to the end of the session. I will try to be brief. So I will go from the end because it's the one that I'm in case I will ask again. Okay, so the first was. So the last question was about if. Usually in the platform, you cannot choose. You can indicate that the reviewer that you would like to review your article, and then you can find an easy tool in which the tool is suggesting based on the keywords that you used in the paper, who could be a person that is. Is more expert in your work and you can check and you can say yes this person yes this person no. So you actually can can choose based on the relevance. And this was the question about the peer review. Can you remember sensitive data. Sensitive data as I showed in my presentation, I would recommend to download the amnesia and work on it, because it helps you to anonymize the data and that and eliminate, let's say, or don't show what is sensitive and enable you to publish at the end. In the node or another archive the sensitive data. And if there are too many sensitive data that you can't really show you can just mention, like a description that you have collected this kind of data, and that there are the posts somewhere. And that's all. Yeah, if I can add on this is, you can always restrict access on the node because remember the principle is as open as possible as close as necessary. But you always have to at least make the metadata available so you would still need to deposit information on the node that you have that data even if you're not actually depositing the data on the node. So you can still make it findable for others but not accessible to you to others, if it's sensitive data. Thank you. And the other questions about books. Ah, yes, you can publish books. And the same. That's a quick answer. Everyone that really is the end of the session and we will collect all the chat and the questions that are there. We will somehow try to figure out a way to answer this as well. But I would like to thank Julia and Jonathan. I think that's a great session and thank you to the audience for all the wonderful conversation and all the questions. And hopefully we'll be able to somehow communicate more of these answers to these through open air website or some means anyway. We will also be sharing the slides and the recording of the session. So you will be able to revisit this. Thank you again. And we hope to see you again and this session will be repeated periodically for I don't know how long but we will be doing it again next year. And we, if you know anyone else that may want to join us on this then please do share share with them. So, thank you. And goodbye for now. Thank you very much everyone.