 bring us in the loop about the most recent developments. So what I would suggest is that I'm going to please mute yourself if you're not while Marina speaking, because if more than one person has their microphone open, there's an annoying reverb. So what I would suggest is we first let Marina speak and then afterwards we do hold, we have a little Q&A session. So feel free to already during her talk, paste any questions into either a chat or into the menti.com link that I've pasted in the chat. So you just go to menti.com and you enter the code and then you can ask whatever questions you want. And once Marina's finished, we will go over them one by one. We will record this webinar, so we will distribute recordings afterwards as well. So enjoy and Marina, the floor is yours. Thank you Gwen and thank you very much for the introduction. I would also like to welcome all participants to this webinar. I see that there is a mix of familiar faces and by that I mean NOAADS and newcomers. As Gwen said, this webinar is about policies focusing on new developments and some tips about effective policy making. To be more precise, I will present some of the latest policy developments and try to provide some guidance on effective policy making. Then I will move on to discuss the ways in which Open Air Advance in particular can support not just the NOAADS, the National Open Access Desks, the network that we have throughout Europe, but also all other stakeholders interested in developing, adopting or aligning their Open Science and Open Access policies. And during the last part of this webinar, we will take any questions that you may have, but also we would like your feedback in terms of resources and materials that you think that Open Air Advance could develop within this particular task that could be of support to you as people who are actively involved in advancing Open Science and in the adoption of Open Access policies. So the question is why me doing this webinar and why Open Air? I think that Gwen in her introduction mentioned that within Open Air Advance, there is a specific task that focuses on policies. In fact, within Open Air Advance, we have created a number of task forces that aim to look at specific issues. So in addition to the policy task force, there is also one focusing on legal aspects and another one focusing on data management. The idea is also to find an alignment between these different task forces to support you further in this work. And the overall aim of not just the policy task force but the rest of the task forces is to enhance capacity building and competencies in relation to Open Science topics to raise awareness both within NOAADs but also at the national level. Obviously a very important part of the work we do is about knowledge exchange and the exchange of good practices and experiences. We firmly believe that we can learn from each other about things that have gone well, things that didn't go that well. Europe is a big continent with many countries. So we have a good mix of countries that are advanced in terms of Open Science and Open Access policies. Other countries that are in the process of developing policies. So we feel that there is a good mix and there is obviously no need to invent the wheel each time that either a country or a specific university or a national funder is in the process of developing a policy. So in that sense we would also like to develop a mentoring scheme to facilitate further your work having maybe NOAADs acting as mentors to a less experienced one or new NOAADs that can work together and support the work that they do at national level. Mobilizing ties with all stakeholders is also a key element of the work we do and especially mobilizing ties, creating synergies and collaboration with stakeholders at national level. And this is a key element of the work that the NOAAD network is doing as the aspiration within Open Air Advance is for NOAADs to become a true national hub in terms of open science and open access policies. So the overall aim of this Open Air Advance task force is ultimately the reinforcement and alignment of open science, open access policies within the EU. We've seen through our experience from previous projects such as Pasteur for a way that alignment is also a very important issue and it becomes all the more important if we take into consideration the fact that research is international. We have research teams collaborating and from various countries. So the more aligned these policies are, the better it is for the researchers who have to comply with them. And the second goal relates to the benchmarking of open access and open science policies with other policies around the world. So moving on, we felt that a good starting point would be to define what we mean by policy. By policies, we mean laws that are passed by parliament or national funder policies or research plans or roadmaps or any other agreements between multiple parties. These documents, whether we're talking about a law or a roadmap or an agreement, includes information about the scope of the policy and also describes the roles and the responsibilities of each party involved in the process of developing and obviously implementing a policy. And it can also include issues related to compliance, possible sanctions in the case of no compliance, issues related to the monitoring of the policy implementation, and obviously other aspects. The exact structure and content of the policy is obviously shaped by a number and a variety of factors, which can include, for example, the existence of a national infrastructure. We've seen that, for example, in a number of cases, the existence and the development of the appropriate infrastructure has more or less been the first step, followed by the adoption later on of a policy. In other cases, it has worked the other way around. Nonetheless, infrastructure is an element that can influence the whole process. Obviously, cultural aspects in the sense of how familiar or how open researchers and different communities are to open science and open access, how familiar they are with related processes. These are just a few examples of factors that can influence the process. Obviously, there are other ones, such as, for example, the existence of a working group or any other informal, let's say, group that can take the lead in pushing forward for the adoption of a policy. Up until now, in the case of open access and open science policies, on the one hand, we have what can be described as a European policy, which is the Horizon 2020 policy in relation to open access to publications and research data. We also have national policies. For example, Cyprus has a national policy. Obviously, many other countries in the EU also have adopted national policies. We can also have institutional policies, and by that, we mean policies adopted by universities or research centers. The University of Minio Policy is an example. Or such policies can be adopted by research funding organizations. UKRI is an example. So the policies, as I said, can have multiple forms. Turning to the more recent developments, I think that the announcement of Plan S is a development that has given us further motivation and incentive to discuss further about open access policies. And I think it was also a big motivation in terms of our decision to run this webinar. According to the announcement by 2020, scientific publications that result from research funding by public grants provided by participating national and European research councils and funding bodies must be published in compliant open access journals or compliant open access platforms. The Plan S actually shows the commitment of a number of research funding organizations, both European and by that, I mean the ERC, and national funding bodies to implement this goal by January 2020. And to do so by taking a number of measures to reach this target. In a sense, it's a commitment that reaffirms the previous decision and commitment taken by the EU and the member states and expressed in the 2016 council conclusions that I'm sure all of you know. And this Plan S is articulated around the number of 10 principles. Among them, it is stated that funders will monitor compliance and sanction non-compliance. They state that the hybrid model is not compliant with the principles described within the Plan S. That authors should retain copyright of publication with no restrictions and also that funders should establish criteria to be provided by the journals. In the meantime, since this announcement in early September, a number of other research funding organizations have also joined. So this is clearly an important development that is expected to impact on funders' roles and also publishing models. So this has clearly triggered very interesting discussions and further developments are definitely expected. The other important development, we had the chance to talk about it also during a webinar that we did in early July for the open-air nodes, is revised the 2018 revised recommendation. It's a revision of the 2012 recommendation. And the commission reports that shows the recent developments in EU member states, where the report shows a clear positive impact on the policy development at the national level resulting from the 2012 recommendation. We see that the majority of countries have a positive stance and believe that it would be valuable to move from soft policies to harder options, even though they feel that this should be done more through collaboration than legislation. And in terms of barriers, countries highlighted the lack of alignment as an important barrier in the fragmentation of national policies. Issues related around monitoring in sufficient monitoring and in sufficient funded and complicated arrangements for a gold open access. And the fact that sometimes there are no clear responsibilities regarding implementation and monitoring. In terms of the collaboration and alignment aspect, I should point out that these are areas where open-air advance and the task force in particular will focus on by enhancing collaboration within member states between the different stakeholders involved and also between member states to facilitate also alignment. And I will come back also to that later in terms of the responsibilities in terms of implementation and monitoring. We feel that also we can have a positive impact in that aspect through our policy templates that are in the process of being revised. And we feel that there the rights, roles and responsibilities of each party are more clearly articulated. After all, as I showed in the very beginning, a policy document, an efficient policy document should highlight in a clear way the roles and the responsibilities of each party involved. Again, as for the key messages of the report on the progress of the member states following the 2012 recommendation, we see that in terms of publication, more than half of the countries have are in the process of implementing open access policies. Universities are more advanced compared to research centers. And universities also have a strong role in supporting open access by organizing awareness-raising activities, other events such as conferences or workshops, and a number of them having set websites that are dedicated specifically to open access. In terms of the research data, the report showed that further coordination is necessary for aligning policies and practices. And at the same time, it seems that even where policies for research data have not yet been adopted, data management plans are nonetheless an important element of national strategies and policies. And also that fair principles are also considered. Moving to rewards and skills, most works seems to have been done at institutional level, which means that further work appears to be necessary at the national level. And also, half of the countries have already infrastructure and to support the transition to open access. And what is, I think, more important is the fact that these infrastructures also meet quality standards, such as open air compliance or the fair principles, which is also a very significant element to have into consideration. In terms of finally collaboration and transparency, half of the countries monitor the development and growth of open access to publication. This does not seem to be the case for research data. Negotiations for big deals is also an important element. And again, we've seen over the past year so important developments taking place at national level. We've seen the disciplines that have taken place with big publishers and the initiatives taken from stakeholders and consortia at national level. And also, report highlighted this need to develop further alternative metrics and also in a more harmonized way across the EU. As we've done, especially for Noah, as we've recently done this, we've done another webinar focusing on policies, we thought that it would be more interesting to focus on just a few developments and not just state everything, feeling that by now most of you are well aware of policy developments taking place at the EU level. So the next thing is about the design of these open science policies and what open air can do to support you in your work. As I mentioned before, a key part of our work focused on over the past months within the task force to revise policy templates that have been developed by other projects, such as, for example, Pasteur For Away. We did that because we felt that there were important developments that had taken place since these templates had been developed. For example, the Pasteur and the Madoanet templates, which focused mainly on open access to publications. So we wanted to ensure that the templates we produced also take into consideration both open access to research data but also make reference to open science aspects, such as, for example, citizen science or open peer review. So our work focused on producing new templates, both for research funding and research performing organizations. We created fact sheets for both RPOs and FPOs in an attempt to show what our work in open air advance is in relation to open science and open access policies and how they could benefit from this work that we're doing and also how especially the NOAAD network can help all the interested stakeholders. And we also developed checklists, again, for RPOs and RFOs. These can help both newcomers in the sense that it's through the questions that are included in each checklist. A funder or an institution, if they have not yet developed a policy, they can have an idea of the different elements that this policy should include. For those who might already have a policy, I think it's a good way to check whether all the elements are there and whether there's something more that could be done. For the templates and the checklist, I should also note the fact that it was not just about updating and revising existing materials that were already available. It was also a request from our NOAAD network, and especially from NOAADs and from coming from countries that are in the process of developing policies and thought that such dates could be very useful to them. In terms of the national policy, it's something that we're still working on. We thought that maybe it would be more useful to create something of a set of principles. The templates, the fact sheets and the checklists are already ready, and I think that very soon they will be available through the revamped open-air portal. It's a bit of a shame in terms of the timing as we felt that we would be able to show you these new materials on the new portal during this webinar, but we hope that you will be able to access them in a short while, so apologies for this. And finally, in terms of tips about developing and promoting in an effective way the policymaking process, as we've said before, it's very important for you, whether you are a NOAAD or any other stakeholder within a country interested in open-access policymaking to identify the key stakeholders in your country, whether this is a ministry to get in touch with your national point of reference funding organizations, also universities, and identify who these stakeholders with a key role in the process are, and get in touch with them and explore the possibility of maybe setting up a working group if there is not one already existing. As we mentioned before, collaboration is a key element in the policymaking process. So the more stakeholders you have on board, I think this can make the case for the adoption of an open-access policy much stronger. And obviously talking also with your research community and the different research communities as each discipline has different needs and sees different benefits and also has different questions arising. A further thing is to identify the key issues to work on. Is that the adoption of policies if you do not have one until now? Or is it more about aligning existing policies or maybe just moving from having principles on data management to the actual adoption of a policy or discussing elements related to open science such as citizen science, for example? As I said, the open-air-related materials, especially for those who are in the process of developing and adopting policies will be soon available from the open-air portal. And we feel that this could provide a strong support to the work that you are doing. If you are not a NOAAD, please know that open-air NOAADs are here for you to help you in your work. Also, they can transfer to us as a task force. Any issues that you would like us to work on? And whether this is materials that you would like to see us develop or whether you feel that we could organize an event or a training session. So that's it from my side. Thank you very much. And I really look forward to hearing you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Marina, for this very interesting presentation. Like I said before we started, we have recorded this presentation. And together with the slides, we will make this available to you later. So if you missed anything or you want to revisit something, don't worry about it. We have one question coming in via the mentee for now, which is the one that is displayed right now. So whether open-air has any kind of impact on development of policies in Europe? But Marina, I think you already discussed this in your presentation, but I'm not sure if you want to add something. We've been supporting NOAADs in a variety of ways. So I feel that we do have an impact. Obviously, the adoption of a policy is the result of a variety of factors, but in the sense that we provide the support through training, through mentoring, advising NOAADs, and other interested stakeholders. We have also actively participated in events organized by NOAADs in their countries. And this is, let's say, a relatively new activity within open-air. So I'm sure that we'll see further impact in the coming months and the coming years. OK, thank you. Are there any other questions? Feel free to just type them in the chat or even unmute yourself temporarily. I think we're not too many people, so I think it's possible. No questions? That means that either you're very clear Marina, which I thought so as well, or people were interested at all. Can I maybe ask a question? I mean, these are the first, it's actually the second webinar that we've done focusing on policies. As I said, the first one was sort of an in-house one in the sense that it was just for the NOAAD network. But we would really be interested in organizing a webinar focusing on more specific topics. So it's something that would be of interest to you. And if yes, which topics would that be? And in the meantime, I see further questions. Good. For the templates, I think that they will be soon available. I cannot tell the exact date. It's more of an organizational thing. So I think that once they are available through the portal, we'll announce it through also the social media. And in terms of the national policies, we have the country profiles that have also been revised. And there you will be able to, for each country, to have information just about the infrastructures, but also about the policies that exist in each country. Yeah, about the channels where they will be announced. Usually, we're quite active on Twitter and on social media, like on Twitter and the Facebook group. So definitely keep an eye on that one. And in principle, this should be announced as a news item, I think, on the OpenAir portal. So just keep an eye on this. And you can make sure that we will make a lot of noise when they're there. So and I've just pasted the link in the chat to the OpenAir country pages. So where you can see for your own country. And then somebody asks, would it be possible to have a webinar on European labor policies? Which is a question that I do not really understand. Me either. Because we're talking about open science policies. So we are not talking about policies in general. So if you mean something specific, please let me open the chat. OK, so and then there's another question from Heather Loller from Warwick. So has there been a specific decision to use open science rather than open research in relation to policies? Do you have good engagement from arts and social sciences? I think that we opted for open science as like also the EU is in related documents talking about the transition from open access to open science. And engagement from arts and social science in relation to taking up open access policies. I think that obviously there is a difference between disciplines with STEM being more receptive, let's say, and more familiar with open access than, for example, the social sciences and humanities. But then again, I think there are differences also that go beyond disciplines and have to do with differences between countries where you have researchers in a particular country being more open because they are already policies at national or institutional level and researchers coming from other countries such as, for example, some countries in South Europe that are, let's say, less advanced up there. You see that the EU framework is something relatively new to them. Yeah, Marina, if I can chip in because I noticed there's another comment in the chat that says a word that's easier in languages that has a word that cognate with Wissenschaft, which is a German word for science. So what I just want to, from a general perspective, because we do a lot of training, is that we do realize that in some countries the term science has a very specific connotation with STEM. But we interpret science as really, yeah, wish and search or science in general or research in general. Also including humanities and social sciences. We do realize that sometimes this can be confusing. So I have to say that when we talk about this, we usually stress that we want it to be encompassing all forms of research or scholarship. But we do think that, in general, when it comes to policy making, the term open science policies is like the commonly accepted term right now to encompass open access policies and open data policies and other open policies that might be developed. So there's no value judgment there. But we do realize that we have to point that out regularly. Yes, that can indeed be a problem if concepts are interpreted in different ways in different countries. OK, are there any other questions? You can also just unmute yourself if you want to talk. But we're not many people anymore, so no. Well, in that case, I will close down this webinar. We will distribute the recordings at a later stage, maybe not this week, but you will receive at one point the link. And that leaves me with nothing else than to thank you, Marina, for talking to us about this. I know you've been very busy this week, so I'm very happy. I'm very glad you made the time for this. Thank you. I hope this was of interest to you. And we will be sending you the documentation related to this webinar later. So thank you very much, and talk to you later. Thank you.