 Hello and welcome everyone to another open air training webinar today we will focus on the horizon Europe open science requirements in in practice and we have with us today Jonathan England our training specialist and also our invited speaker speaker Victoria to call our open science policy officer at the European Commission. So, welcome. And before we start I would like to quickly go over some housekeeping notes for our webinar today. So this, this session will be recorded and we will make the recording publicly available for everyone after the end of this session. If you have any questions please make sure to post this in the Q&A section of this zoom webinar, and our panelists will address them at the end of the presentations. You can also check what other participants have asked that not both your preferred questions so this will get answered quickly. If we fail to answer all of your questions that by the end of the session that will will make sure to carry them forward and answer them in a blog post afterwards. So you can find the link to the slide deck. In this slide right here and you can also scan the QR code so you can be redirected to the presentations. With this, again a warm welcome to our speakers and I would like to pass the floor now to Jonathan to kickstart the webinar with a with their introduction. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome everyone and let me just share my screen. Okay, so hello everyone so today we're going to talk about the different requirements for Horizon Europe during and after the end of the project. We will go over some definitions also but I will also go over the ground proposal the open science elements in the ground proposal at the, at the end of the presentation. And so you will, you already have access to the slide if you follow on the bottom of your screen you will see the, the link. On this first slides basically it's all the different links to the official documentation as well as some of openness pages, Q&A from previous webinars and other guides. The first thing I want you to mention is that in terms of the European Commission, open science is more or less the same definition as you see everywhere else. And the key principles that they highlight are more or less the same open access to publications. The data management following the fair principles. If you were a grantee of Horizon 2020 you will know about this, this expression of opening data as openly as possible as close as necessary this is still valid. One thing that I will highlight that is really present now in the guidelines from the European Commission is that you need to add any information about any outputs, any tools instruments to that needed to validate or reuse the results and the data. And that you obviously need to have the, either the digital or the physical access of the results available and to validate the conclusions. So we'll first start with the publications. So if it's quite different from if you were used to Horizon 2020 there's quite a few differences. You still need to make a version of your manuscript available in open access on a trusted repository. I will go into the definition of what the trusted repository mean. But at least one of the versions of your manuscript on on a repository. The biggest difference with Horizon 2020 is now you're not allowed an embargo anymore so you need to have this, this version on a repository with immediate open access. The biggest difference also is that this version that you're put on the repository needs to be licensed under an open license a creative commons attribution license or so called CC by license. And by definition this allows you basically to retain your rights as authors, and to make it available on a repository without having to ask the publisher. As I mentioned before, information about research outputs or tools instruments to validate the results of the publication is really emphasized by the European Commission so that's something that you really want to also includes in any of the outputs that you have as more reminder also that the to never forget to add the acronym and the code of the project within the publication itself. A few specificities for Horizon Europe grounds is that publication fees are reimbossable so you can include them and you should include them in your grant proposal. But only if the venue is full open access so as you as you might know, there are some publication venues that we call hybrids open access where basically it's you have to pay for for reading some parts of the of the journal, but they give you that option to pay for open access so this hybrid model hybrid business model. You are allowed. This is important. There's no restrictions where you can publish. So you are allowed to publish wherever you want, but only open access fees are reimbossable if they're full open access so hybrid journals where you wouldn't need to find the funds for paying this article processing processing charges in a from a different in a different way. If you're in humanities or social sciences just so you know long term formats or monographs and and and similar work can be a slightly different a more restricted license. So, in case you're not familiar with the new vocabulary of how the different versions of a manuscript are called. They were before called preprint pass print and public publishers version. And now they called preprint of the accepted manuscript, which is what I call the ugly version of your manuscript basically where it's just, it's the peer reviewed version so the final version so the content is the same is just not edited by the publisher so it looks unedited basically. So this is the author accepted manuscript and you need to at least have that version on on on repository under CC by license and the version of record is the publishers version so the copy edited version of the sort of content is the same as the author accepted manuscript, but it's copy edited and this one can be under different license as the author accepted manuscript. So one thing I want to to mention link to what I just said about having different licenses for the different versions. One thing that is really important that I really want to emphasize is for you to make things available in open access you have to self archive so you need to deposit a version on a repository to make it openly available. And there are different ways of doing that so obviously you can pay for making your, your versions available in open access, but you can always try the root of the rights retention strategy so I won't go into details of this because it, it requires a bit of submission but it's basically a statement that you would put during the submission process and basically telling the publisher that you're applying a CC by license to all the author accepted manuscripts. If you have that in place then you, you're once it gets published, whatever the license is applied on the version of records, you can upload the, the author accepted manuscript on on a repository. So one or a couple of exceptions for this and Victoria will talk about this, it's the, the European Commission's publishing platform called open research Europe, and they have a specific system where they automatically upload your work on on a trusted repository for you. So you don't actually need to do to do that step but in most cases you would need to this is an exception. Okay, in terms of data, it is more or less the same as during horizon 2020 but now before it was an option now it is mandatory so you need to follow the fair principles. Again, I'm not going to go into details because this requires a bit more explanation I will go over just briefly over each letters what they stand for. But if you're not aware of what they are I would highly suggest you look more into into them, especially because now you need to write what we call a data management plan by month six and updated before the the end of the project. And you need to deposit both the metadata so that's the data basically describing all the this field describing the data so like the office name the date of deposit and all that. You need to deposit that's metadata and all the data itself as soon as possible so as soon as it's been produced generated, or after any quality checks, you will need to deposit it. Again, you need to deposit in a trusted repository, I will explain what the definition of a trusted repository is for the European Commission, and following this guidelines that I mentioned before as open as possible as closed as necessary. This means that data can be closed that's not an issue, but the metadata so those fields are describing basically your data must be deposited on a repository they must be following the fair principles and they must be deposited on the CC zero license which is similar to a public domain license. The data needs to be deposited either in a creative comments attribution license or a CC zero license. I highly recommend for different reasons I can go more details during the Q&A if you want. I highly recommend for data to always use the CC zero license. There are some reasons behind this from a building knowledge point of view, and it is, it avoids some of those issues that can come with more close to licenses. And something that I mentioned before and the European Commission does insist that is new to Horizon Europe is the detailed information about research outputs instruments to validate the data. There are obviously some valid justifications that exist to not opening your data. And I want to emphasize that European Commission is very clear that, for instance, if you have commercially valuable data that you could exploit and use for and apply intellectual property and gain commercial value from it you should definitely go that route. So you should never undermine your it's it's exploitation. Obviously, data protection privacy rules apply. That's also under GDPR the general data protection regulation for the general data. And also if you have security data then obviously that you will not be sharing either. So, as I said, a few definitions about some of the elements I mentioned trusted repositories has, if you go on the official guidelines you will see this, it's kind of a copy paste of what they, they say it's a lot of technical things what I would say is basically a repository that either in your community in your research community is used by a lot of people that a lot of people tend to use by endorsed by by your community, or use an institutional repository then you should definitely go that route to check for those so you can go if you're looking for repository for publication you can look on open door and for data you can go on the three data. And if that doesn't exist in in your field that's okay you can always go for generic repository such as Zenodo that is available to everyone. Creative Commons licenses are open licenses. The one thing I want to emphasize is that they are still licenses so they are protecting your rights as authors as they're not removing all your rights as your copyrights basically they are there to tell people what they can and cannot do with your data with your publications, but they are still legally bind so if someone is reusing your work and it's on the CC by license without citing you, then you can definitely take legal actions if you if you wanted to so you are not waiving all of your your rights by by doing that CC zero is slightly different because yes in this case it's very similar to public domain where they don't even have to cite you if, even though it's a best practice obviously it's not required from a legal point of view. I mentioned the data management plan if you've never heard of that. It's a document that is written at the beginning of a project that is basically going to describe what you're going to do with the data how you're going to process it during the project, and how you're going to process it during and after the project. So, it's, for instance, data loss, this kind of things who's going to to deal with the data. If you have any privacy issues who's going to ensure that there's no data breach, or how are you going to share. Things like job box, which are commercial company or are you going to use another type of tool to share between projects from the different partners in the project. So all this kind of information is gathered in this document called the data management plan. It's a living document so you shouldn't see it as okay I write it once and then that's done. It's really as soon as you you write it and you make modifications to how you're going to process the data there's someone new. You can add it to the project, or you rise there's a better way of storing the data, then you just update the DMP. There's no the issue with writing the DMP is there's no clear right and wrong answer it's really as long as you justify why you're doing. You're using this tool rather than another or why you're using this closed file format rather than an open file format, because maybe it's used widely by your community. That's perfectly fine as long as you justify everything. So basically what I say about the MP is to prove to funders that you as researchers you know what you're doing and you're not just using the money for inefficiently. And yes, obviously you need to mention which of the data you're going to share or not following those the principle as as open as possible as closed as necessary. I mentioned the fair principles so the fair principles is finability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability. So findability is all about having what's called a person identifier so you might see on this slide for instance is a DUI. So basically this specific DUI goes to the on Zenodo and it's a slide that basically always goes to the latest version of this talk because we give this webinar three times a year. It goes to the latest one so that's, there's this question of, of versioning also that is interesting. You might have also an orchid ID. And it's all about your data being or your publication being discoverable online accessibility is basically not having on a statement saying that the data is available if you you want to by contacting the author because what happens is if something happens to that author and they can't give you access, then that data is closed forever. So it's about putting it on a repository basically interoperability is basically about creating, making sure that everyone can open your data even in 10 years time. So having preferably open file formats standardizing the way that you format your data and reusability is about having a clear license and also having a clear read me file that allows people to without contacting you know what you did how you collected it and how to interpret the data. So that's a mention about the data availability statement is something that is quite common for for funders. But as I said, link to to those fair principles, you shouldn't just say, you can refer to one of the authors if you want to have access to the data because that wouldn't be following the the fair principles so do you think about that to what you do in the DMP and where you publish your data on on a repository. So there are a few specific cases I want you to mention especially because of the COVID pandemic. All those, all the things I mentioned up to now can be overridden under public emergency from the European Commission, where basically it would change in the sense that you will need to give immediate open access to both publication and data without embargo and it's really immediate open access to really make sure that the data is available to all researchers in the world to really fasten the the process of research. One thing also that is important to know is that if you have very restrictive data you can that you can close, you still need to make it available on request by specific people so to check that the data linked to a publication is valid you might need to give access to specific experts for a limited number of times so to validate the finding the findings. So, I'm going to mention a few tools that are mostly developed actually by by open air. I forgot to mention that open as an nonprofit organization we have both the human infrastructure which is what I do as trainings and the such. And then we have a lot of technical infrastructure actually, such as the note of instance which is a repository that is free for everyone to upload them. But we always trying to improve on what exists as tools to improve your the way that research is done. So, open X Pro is a very important tool that if you don't know about can be very useful. It's, it's basically such as similar to a search engine that gather a lot of different data sets that connect them between each other. You can search for publication you can search for data organization software's grants organization so your horizon Europe grant will be listed there. You can click on it and actually have an overview of all the publications that have been published under that project or the people or the data softwares or the other research outputs are linked. Everything will be linked to that. I mentioned, open door and restore data you can also search for repositories directly on open on explore. And, and there's a lot of different statistics also that you can, can I have a look at on that. And obviously it's a search engine so you can search by different topics. Amnesia is if you're dealing with personal data it can be quite useful if you anonymize completely the data so if you anonymize completely the data. It's you don't fall under GDPR rules anymore so it's much easier to share. And so it's a tool that you can download to basically do this anonymization process on on your data. Argos is one of the tools is several other tools that you can write. Obviously your fridge use whatever you could write in a, in a Word document or use one of those different tools to write your DMP but Argos is one that is really trying to help in the process of the writing. And so it has different elements to it such as it attributes person identifies which means that you can publish it also and it's discoverable also when I explore. It has different versions, and it has a different way of establishing the DMP which is a bit different from other DMP tools. So, do you have a look at it, and, and see if it suits your needs. And if you have any questions there's a community call for any questions that you may have linked to that. So I want to mentioned a couple of things about the reporting and monitoring obviously this is more towards the midterm and at the end of the projects, but there's a couple of things I want you to to highlight in this. So yes, basically as you know the monitoring is done by project offices and reviewers, and they'll be looking in terms of open science at different elements. So in terms of the continuous reporting you will have the tabs of publications where you will list all your publications. And just so you know there is actually a wizard that allows you to to discover any publication that might be relevant to you that might be from your project so you can just import them automatically you don't need to write everything down. So here's just for information for reference for the slides for you in the future. Data sets is for for the data is again it has this with it that will discover issue deposit on Zenodo for instance it will discover it. And there's two types are a bit similar but different which is result and other results so the results part focused on the content of the results so any discoveries and theories product services methods whereas the other results is about reporting about any software that were created workflows protocols prototypes that were created as part of the project. Now, as I mentioned before open research Europe is the publishing platform for the European Commission and I'll let we really delighted to have someone from the European Commission to to present so I'll let Victoria take over and present that. Hi Jonathan many thanks for for this let me share my screen and thank you for the very detailed presentation that you gave on. Yes. Do you see my screen. Not yet. Not yet. Okay that's probably because I'm not sharing. That's why. So now that I will share you will be able to see it. Yes. Yes. Okay. Let's see how I can hide this. Yeah, I think that's fine. Okay, you don't see something in the center. Okay, great, great. No, it's fine. It's very fine. Okay, thank you. So very glad to be here. Thank you for inviting me and having the opportunity to speak to so many of you on open research. Gladly heard being that presentation we gave Jonathan Bravo. Thank you to open air for for doing this work is very essential that potential proposers and of course stuff that also support them in this effort or whether you have grants beneficiaries know about these things. So what is open research Europe, it is a publishing platform a peer review publishing platform. As you will see it's not, it's not a repository. It is for you for our beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, including also your atom and cost actions. And it's an optional service of course it's offered to you as a possibility to publish and have your research reviews at no cost to you during and after the end of your projects for up to five years. Publishing is original research that means that it, it should not be have been reviewed somewhere else like so it's the first time it's submitted for review and it must be funded at least stemming from a horizon, from a horizon project. The current or has has finished. I should also have to say in advance that as of mid 2024 we're opening it up to all framework programs of the European Commission, besides Horizon Europe, which however of course do not produce as much publications as many publications. It is a very innovative model we know of other other platforms like that supported also by funders like the Gates Foundation the welcome trust platform. This one is for, for all areas of research. It offers an innovative publishing model which is an open peer review after publication so first, your publication takes place as they will show later subsequent to extensive publication checks, and then an open review takes place whereby the reviewer names and the reviews are open. And of course license under CC by licenses so all articles and the reviews on the platform are licensed. It carries only articles and reviews not underpinning materials but as I will show later you are supposed to provide ideally open access for example to data is under the principle as open as possible as closed as necessary. It has very high scientific standards disciplinary standards and not everything goes for all disciplines right there's humanities there's engineering there's also two different disciplines that have their own guidelines. It's very subsequent to overall that follow the overall policies of the platform, and these are vetted by our scientific advisory board of about 30 people who are renowned researchers. The process itself is very, very transparent and supports transparency and reproducibility and research really as I will show you in detail later. So it launched it's it's a baby still it's in cradle it's only has a life of two years and a little bit more, and now has about four for 10 publications 410 415 publications in all fields. I will show you that it is organized according to the fields and community gateways and collections with the latter being more specialized homes for specific research communities that are interested in publishing their work there. There can be projects or that can be a specific research topic that gathers the interest of a community and they want their own space. This place is inside the platform are managed by collection or gateway advisor of advisors of which there you see there are a lot of them, and they're curated spaces essentially and people can subscribe to RSS feeds for new publications in their specific collections or gateways, for example that you're interested in. It's indexed in the many indexers and I will show you later on, most recently in the PubMed. It does not have a general impact factor and will not seek one on the one hand because it's a platform and on the other hand because it does support our policy that we should be moving towards more qualitative metrics and article based metrics, which contribute the impact scientific or other to to work to scientific work to an article, for example, rather than the venue that that is published. And you may know a lot of you know that there is a big wave towards this direction policy wave across Europe, and that includes many funders that are in many of your countries and it is something to watch in the future. So we've done open we implement open research Europe procurement and currently it's operated by 4000 research, which is a publisher and publishing service provider. And it's actually a model that they had developed this procurement has helped actually bring transparency and bring the prices of the services down. For example, an article, the article fees are at 800 euros, for example, as compared to two other publishers, you know, who are charged charge a lot more. It's of course very quickly in line with our policy and our program strategy. And Jonathan showed earlier open science is very important it's in the legal documents of horizon Europe and this is an example of how you operationalize open science practices by offering you this platform. Of course the other thing that that it does is that it helps you comply with contractual obligations and as Jonathan explained earlier, while we endorse and we support very much open access publishing. This is not the actual requirement and the requirement is open access to your author manuscript or the final manuscript through a repository and and or actually deposits directly to the notice so by also publishing in open access in this particular platform, you don't have anything else and and your, your, your requirements will be complied with automatically because your manuscript or your final, your final publication we will be available in Zanotto. We also want to support nonprofit open access publishing which is, you know, a type of publishing that exists you, many of you know that your institutions already have or your countries, publishing initiatives which are, which take place good and usually operated by the institutions. This is one type of initiative, which actually also supports transparency as well as cost efficiency in publishing, as well as the empowerment of institutions to manage their own output. It is a long term commitment by the commission it belongs into the European research area policy. And currently I want to inform you that we will of course we continue its funding right. As a service, we will continue throughout the framework program and beyond. We are discussing with national funders in the member states because there's a lot of interest to collectively support or financially as of 2026. And actually to make it a collectively governed platform. It's not going to be an expensive business as it shows and there's a lot of interest so watch out there. I think it's there, you're going to hear a lot more of it in the future, as most likely collective, collectively supported initiative for 2026 where also there will be no eligibility criteria for researchers right now. We will hold our grant and the paper needs to be a result of that grant. But in the future, we plan to make it even more equitable. Now it's equitable in the sense that it's very transparent, and researchers don't need to pay but in the future, it will be even more equitable because we're planning for it to have no eligibility such eligibility criteria. When you meet the minimum guidelines policies and requirements of the platform, then you can publish there. So for us, it's a very, it's a very efficient impactful and non nonsense stress free model for our beneficiaries. As you see offers rigorous open peer review it's rapid and transparent. It is supported by a scientific international board that oversees policies and guidelines and important decision. And then helps your research be more impactful through immediate open access article level metrics, as well as of course open data for reproducibility and reuse. Plus of course you have no fees and there is no administrative burden to you you comply automatically. As well as is of course I will reiterate again it's optional we will never ever make you publish there. We encourage you but we don't make you to go through the project of the model I'm sorry what I said earlier is this in a graphic way and author submits an article, which is published and the underpinning data is the post in a trusted repository. However, before this publication stage, you have the pre publication checks which actually it's a stage of its own and we plan to to edit this, this graphic design. Look at how extensive those checks are so this is not a plain preprint right it is actually a publication, albeit not peer review at this stage. So through plagiarism checks through eligibility criteria, ethical approvals are requested when these are necessary. The editors the in house editors check to see if the policies are adhered to and the guidelines are adhered to. If it's written language that you know that is understandable and your arguments are clearly understood. The data is available in principle in default openly. And again, if there are specific reasons and these are explained in Horizon Europe and analytically the annotated grant agreement. Of course they can be closed but in principle they have to be open and are the methods solid so once all of this has taken place, then it can be published and sent to peer review. The author led process the author gives five reviewer names. The editorial team checks them and sees that they are appropriate and of course that there's no conflict of interest right. And the reviewer writing equality that they've been review and also answering specific questions. And these are also have to do with the specific areas right not everything is the same for all areas and fields of of science. It can be approved approved with reservation or not approved. The article can be revised the revisions of course are required, and new versions sent over, and then once it has either pass through to case or one okay and to approve the reservation. It is considered as having past peer review and can be sent is sent to all this, or some depending if they're disciplinary index into all those indexers so you see that there's couples there is PubMed inspect for open Alex era plus for SSH dimensions top factor and do a J which are horizontal actually indexers, three axis and of course Google scholar and of course it's sent to Zenodo. And work is now also done with national repositories for example to start with Hulk in France to be able to send also to to such repositories the relevant research. And of course, the papers are the data is the papers are very well marked like you cannot miss, and I will show you examples of papers, whether a paper is peer reviewed not peer reviewed past or not past, and with do is for versions, right, and do is of course also for the peer reviews. It's important I mean this model is very transparent and supports reproducibility and transparency of research open data is very, very important for this platform so editors help you to prepare your data for sharing there's a lot of guidelines also to select a repository to add a data availability statement in your article, and then link your data sets to your article that's quite, quite an important part and step of the process that we pay a lot of attention to. I have to say that most of the articles in this platform have their research data open. It's an exception that they don't. There's a number of different articles many different article types actually that are supported which is great. About 50% of the articles on the platform are research articles, but the remainder are all different kinds, which actually help you publish in the duration of your research and of your of your project. As you see here we can have review articles or study protocols method articles brief reports, and you can see how this correlate to the various stages of your research software articles actually quite. are emerging as a quite popular article in the platform itself. So you see that there are also there's possibility to publish beyond the traditional review and research article, and I encourage you to take this this opportunity. Okay, how does the publication look like you see here a data note which is clearly marked as a data note which has been revised. And here you see that this is the second version that has passed through peer review with two approvals and one approval with reservations so it is considered. This is a reviewed article, and you see here the open peer review and the approval status, you can of course read the reviews, you see the name, the names of the reviewers. You also see the views and the downloads and the citation of this article thus far. There are various gateways here. This one does not belong in a collection in particular does not belong to a targeted research community. You can side download and export the article so there's a lot of functionalities in here. This on the peer review process is super super rigorous as I said to you reviewers need to meet criteria that suggested by authors but of course the editorial team has to okay this. And we actually find a lot of interest of authors of researchers to review, and the reason of course is because it's the review is open and they receive credit for that that's another positive thing of course. As I said there's an extensive list of questions there is a reviewer code of contacts to be followed so it's quite, quite rigorous, quite rigorous. And they're checked of course at the end by the editorial team. You can see here the report and you can see the author response to this report. They're two times and approved with reservation of course authors are invited to respond once the serious doubts or serious issues are raised by by the reviewer. It can be cited you see here and of course they are they have their DIYs and CC by licenses. A win win situation here we also think as well because research with open peer review reviews can be cited immediately. The research scholarly dialogue is open and transparent. The authors are empowered actually to read to lead the open review process and improve the quality of course of their publications and as well as the quality of the review. It reduces the possibility of bias right everything is out in the open so whoever has any doubts or reservations or is against what has been said can say so, as well as increasing opportunities for collaboration. And importantly here giving credit for recognition to your work as a reviewer, as well as develop your career core viewing we has this very nice opportunity that is given in the platform to core review. For example, let's say a professor with their postdoc doing a review together, where the postdoc gets the credit of course I usually this is shadow work that takes place. And of course all these reviews having identifiers as I said so I highly recommend that you, you, you try it and you, you, you review become a reviewer for or. You see that we have a lot of metric indicators and you can see here on news outlets blogs, tweets, etc. So there's various ways by which impact is is mentioned here, social and other impact. And finally very quickly that it does publish in all different areas but it doesn't you should not think of the materials as dumped right in there. We make sure that it can be searched in different ways, like humanities and natural sciences other sciences and more detailed with gateways and collections. There are ways that probably don't interest you as much and I will see actually about improving the front page and the search and discovery possibilities in the future in ways that that are beneficial for researchers. Here you see the gateways the community gateways which I mentioned earlier, they're still broad categories, but here the biggest category that we have are the collections, which are rather specialized areas. And also you could think of them within the order. And I think this is my final slide there is a very active Twitter account that we urge you to follow, and as well as scan to register to receive the newsletter of or and of course to explore the very clear instructions frequently asked questions and about online. I have run over my time here and I apologize for this. No worries. Thank you. And we handle the questions is as Jonathan would like so. Yes. So, before we go. So if you have any, I say there's already quite a few questions but as a reminder if you have any questions for Victoria about open research Europe or any other parts of the talk please put them in the Q&A. And not the chat, but the Q&A. And yes, so just to finish before the Q&A. I want to mention a few elements about the grand proposal writing, because now there are some specific parts where you need to mention open science. So there's some mentions in the application form and also in the project proposal parts. And so here on this slide is just for reference also to to for reminder of where where those are. And so, yes, so in part a for instance they they mentioned that you need to list five publications or data set software is good services that are relevant. So there's a few pieces about those publications that you that you cite. So in terms of publication, as well as with the data will mention in a second, there needs to be all the publication that you cite and that are relevant for the grand proposal need to be in open access available in open access they don't need to be published you don't need to have paid for open access, but they need to be on the repository in open access. So, obviously, if it's under the old format they might be an embargo, you can cite those the paper if the embargo is over basically and it is available on the repository in open access. As Victor mentioned, the European Commission does not look into the impact factor anymore. It's really the, the publications that you saw will only be evaluated by by was experts from a qualitative point of view on how relevant they are for the grand proposal. So, I know there's a discrepancy between for instance the institutions of how there's some institution still highly value impact factor to how they judge you as researchers. But unfortunately, the, or fortunately, the European Commission is has moved from from that from a, so from a pure from the point of view in the grand proposals this will the impact factor will never be taken into account. That's a strict guidelines for those reviewing the grand proposals. And it's also highly suggested to give insights into where you're hoping to publish whether it's open research Europe it's suggested but it's it's not mandatory because as I mentioned before you can publish wherever you want. But if you're looking at publishing in a full open access journal so that can give you some increase your score on the grand proposal. It is quite similar to the requirements part of during the proposal proposal where any data that you listen needs to follow the fair principles and they need to be deposited on repository they need to have person that identifies such as a UI. And so they really need to the quality of the data deposited need to be high basically needs to follow those those fair principles. While an official DMP data management plan is not required at this stage. They do ask you questions are very similar so it's, I kind of call it a mini DMP because you do still have to add the grand proposal stage think about what type of data you're going to produce, where you store them and what how you're going to share it what licenses you're going who's going to take responsibility of of creating managing all the office data so it's it's not a proper DMP but you still need to give some information about this data management. And one of the new elements for Horizon Europe is there's a distinct web package for project management and specific DMP as a deliverable. And I want to emphasize that not only other aspects of link to open science are eligible on the budget, but I would actually highly recommend looking into those other types of open science practices like engagements of citizens, citizen science and crowdsourcing activities. Things are submitted to you don't have to do everything yourself you can have include data creation costs if you need to deposit on store sorry on have a storage space that you need to pay for during the project, or if you need the data stewards during the project. I would actually, it's, I know you're asking for more money from that but it is actually really highly viewed so I would highly recommend really including if you can does this cost because it also shows to the to the funder that you have really put into how you're going to manage your your your project and that you're not going to try and do on the go that you really thought okay I'm going to collect a lot of data so I need the data stewards. I would also include those human costs in in my grand proposal so it shows that you know what you're doing. And obviously don't forget about those open access fees if you're going to publish in full open access journals that usually have a PCs attached to them. So, one of the things that is linked to what I said before about the MPs that there's no right or wrong answer. It's my writing tip is to be as specific as possible so it's a bit like when you write a paper and you want to be as specific as possible and then when it's peer reviewed they might ask you for more information so don't let the force the project officer basically to dig for information. So lay everything out. Even if things you're not you're unsure about just say it's better to be transparent and say, I'm still unsure about how we're going to manage this part of the project. That's, that's, in theory, fine, as long as you're transparent about it, it means that you've considered the fact that you're still unsure about how that's going to be managed. It's a big mistake that I see why it's not a mistake that one thing that I see a lot in the MPs or grant proposal is people start explaining what open access are fair principles open sign. You don't need to do that people that are reading your grant proposal or your DMP know what they what they are so no need to explain what they are. So there's a couple of special cases that I'm not going to go into details but I'm leaving it for for reference. ERC and Marie Curie have slightly different open science requirements. So for instance with ERC there's no explicit evaluation of open science practices, but they will increase your score if you do address them so it's a slightly different in that sense but addressing open science practices is always a bonus in those grants. And for the Marie Curie actions, there is a big part of, of open science in the, in the excellence criteria part. So really emphasis on including training activities and carry development plan that includes open science practices during the, during the project. So those are also things to take into consideration when writing the grants. I mentioned, mostly in this talk up to now, what are the mandatory open science practices publication data. But you probably know that there's many more I mean open sciences and umbrella time it has many more different aspects to it. So in terms of the evaluation of grant proposals you will never be as called negatively for not addressing those optional open science practices, they can only increase your score. Not addressing the publication the fair data that yes well, you will be penalized for for not addressing them, but all the other types of opens. Open science practices can only increase your score not lower it. There is a list on on the template proposal but it has everything because open science is an umbrella term. It's not exhaustive list. So here's just for reference, some of the different aspects that are considered as open science recommend the open science practices. So one of them for instance is pre registration where you're going to publish basically your, the protocol of, of your, of your study before actually doing the, the study. It gives you also the person to identify meaning that you can also get authorship from from that. So it's, it's a practice that is one more common and is one of those recommended practice. Preprint so basically open research Europe works on this on this concept. Well, they might not call it preprint but they basically publish directly your, your, the non peer reviewed article and then it gets peer reviewed. You can also do that archive is a good example it's been going on for for decade, but there's many more now preprint servers and sharing your, your, your work before peer review is also one of those recommended practices. Public engagement citizen science. As I said before, do try and include those because there's a real emphasis from the European Commission of outreach towards the public. So just to finalize and to before we go into the Q&A. I would highly recommend that you design an open science strategy for your project, even if you've already started your your project or any, not even horizon Europe specific but any type of project that you do you really sit down and think about what your open science strategy is. There's nothing also that I forgot to mention here but for the DMP because it's required by month six, don't wait until the last month to start writing it takes time to get all the different access to to review or get feedback from different people so do start with the next one if possible to write the DMP. And, yes, and as I mentioned before this, even if you have an open science strategy it can change so report any changes, provide any updates from it and discuss any of the issues you've had and solution it's it's not a fixed strategy it evolves with with the project and the new projects in research in in general. And so a couple of mentioned as I said, the this webinar is organized three times a year so the next one will be on the 16th of November. If you're interested in knowing more about open science is this conference that open airs organizing and collaboration with an institution in in Spain, and so called the open science fair and that will be from the 25th to the 27th of September of this year. If you're more on the training side of training others about open science we organize twice a year this what we call this open science train the trainer bootcamp. So the application will start in September for the next iteration. Please do register if you're interested and that's more or less what I wanted to to mention. And now let's go for some questions. So let's have a look at what has been said. Maybe one thing that I can answer straightforward that will probably cover a few questions because I saw it a couple of times is why would research which is a very reasonable question to be expected. Why would researchers want to publish in order when it does not have a journal impact factor. How does this benefit their professional, you know, careers so at this moment, they would want, I think to publish to check out this very innovative publishing model for which we are getting raving reviews by by the authors and the reviewers who are have been involved in publishing in order, either as authors or as reviewers it's a very, very transparent. I mean it really is the direction to the future. However, we do acknowledge that research assessment practices and policies are not here yet there. It might be that your institution and your department does not say Bravo for your professional advancement, unless you publish somewhere with a an impact factor. That is a problem so unless gradually institutions and funders and national evaluation agencies follow a the developments for research assessment which the commission says the processes should be assessed themselves and revised rather. And there's a large number of organizations including institutions and national funders that agree to this. However, there is, this is of course a process. So this means that you are not strict to evaluate it only on where you publish or rather not mostly on where you publish or rather not at all where you publish but rather on the merit and the impact of your work. So we're moving in an assessment of broader indicators on your publications themselves rather than when these are published so where these are published, which means that the journal impact factor would not matter so we're moving in this direction as Jonathan said earlier by explicitly saying in consideration not at all and don't even bother putting your journal impact factor in papers that you submit to the European Commission because it's not considered an element of the significance of the paper right, so it is a proxy rather. So, and also, including more qualitative elements into the assessment of research of researchers, as well as of course of research institutions so, so this to this goes hand in hand with how significant publishing or how, you know, popular publishing in or will be in the future. But again, this is a process this is where we're heading to not just the Commission but also national funders and institutions, of course, until then we do understand that you may not want to send your latest hot shit today to or because you need to send it to another journal which is including your, you know, lists, etc. So we understand this. There are institutions however we're moving in this direction so so we have some research centers that we know include or in their list of, you know, publishing of journals and platforms where you can publish and be credited for your work. And in some case actually the problem is that researchers cannot publish because they don't have. They want to publish and they cannot publish because they don't have a horizon here. So, so this is, this is my reasoning so the model is very transparent. You should try it. If you have papers that maybe you know it's not your first paper that you want to give that you give to another type of journal but really the the the model itself has interesting merits of transparency that we should try. So in the last publishing, you get credit for your reviews as well I mean there's a long list of why you need to do the only reason why you don't do that is the impact factor which is a very problematic way of assessing impact and excellence nowadays that needs to change. So, this is the short answer, especially, I mean if you're tenured, I would urge you to do that there's no reason I mean if you're an advanced career researchers and not an early career researcher actually. I mean, there's no reason for you not to set an example by publishing in order and trying it out. And I think it's also important to point out that we are in a transition phase. So, exactly. Yes, unfortunately, it's difficult because some institutions are still judging on impact factor, and some does are not. And so, I understand that for researchers it can be especially early career researchers it can be difficult so we understand all your, your but unfortunately it's, you know, we need to go away from impact factor because it's your penalize as researchers from from this way of being evaluated in any way. So, there's a questions about if publication present results that are related to the project's commercialization plan. And all that are part of potential authors allowed to publish on the CC by non commercial non the route. Sorry, non derivatives or is CC by mandatory without exception for journal papers. So, I think it's important so I'm not entirely sure what the so are you. I think it's important to make a distinction because sometimes there's some confusion about the project commercialization. Wow, sorry, project commercialization plan can affect the data but not mostly the paper itself so it's important to distinguish the paper itself that should always be under CC by license at least one of the version, but that doesn't mean the data itself can be has to be under the same license so be careful when you think about commercialization to distinguish between the paper and the data that is attached to it is not because you publish about some data. The paper is only the words inside the paper it's not the actual data that you're your licensing so that someone mentions that if you publish patentable information that any license they is not patentable anymore. Definitely so that's one of the elements that is really important to bear in mind when you're dealing with patents. You never share even during a conference talk talking about it would not. There's this novelty aspects to your patents that needs to be respected. So, as soon as you mention it in on a repository on the paper or during a conference then it wouldn't be novel so the European Commission is clear about that if you want to make patents, you put you file a patent and then only you would publish. So there's there was a question. Okay, and then this question about long for long text formats. So, what are long text format so long text formats are basically books. So, there's someone mentioning book chapters articles. No, those are definitely not long term formats those would be normal formats that would be a CC by a license to on one of the licenses. Long text format is more in the humanities where they write books about a topic so a book chapter is definitely not a long term format. Is there any recommendation of the percentage of horizon Europe proposal budget that should be allocated to open access and open science. I would say, well, maybe Victor will will disagree on it but I wouldn't say there's any like percentage it's really think about what you need for your project in terms of how many publications you're going to publish where you thinking of publishing, then make the list, look at the fees that you need to pay for those for those publishers that would be your open access fees for instance, do you need storage space to store your data do you need the data steward. I wouldn't say there is any like percentage of budgets, but you do need to take into consideration and you shouldn't. I wouldn't include it because you're asking for more money I would, I, I think that by asking more money, because you want to hire data steward for instance for managing is a good thing because as I said it would show the the fund that that you're, you really thought about the project that you know what is realistic and that you want to make this project successful. As giving a percentage. No, I don't think this Victoria I don't think this. No, I don't think there is an anecdotally there were, I think there are or there were some studies that estimated in the past, but I'm not sure that's even, you know, not relevant I think what Jonathan suggested is the best way to go about it. How about metadata, how should metadata be presented in case of using Zenodo as a repository, especially in the cases where data is going to be closed. Is it an independent file and how do you choose the correct metadata standards. Okay, so when you're, it's a bit counter intuitive. I will admit, but yes, even if your data is even if even if you're not to upload your data on Zenodo for instance let's take an example. You would still need to have the metadata it still need to be findable, you know those fair principles I mentioned it needs to be findable online doesn't need to be nicely accessible to the wider public. There might be some so I know some governments have some specific ways of accessing governmental data through where you do a registration process of why you want to have access so it's restricted the access so that is one way of making it accessible but still close. Because data still need to be present online so yes it could be technically I'm not entirely sure you can publish on Zenodo without attaching a file. So if really you didn't want to put any file yes you would just put a blank file which I know is a bit weird but again we're in a transition phase things are. It's something that the European Commission is asking for, but is kind of new compared to other funders. So there might be some changes in the future on how Zenodo works and allows you to upload just metadata that I don't know. For the correct metadata standard they are definitely some I can't remember the name of the website but they are some website that collects all the different metadata standards that that exists so you can see in your field if they are they are some. Is it mandatory to deposit the DMP together with the research data in a repository. No it's recommended by the European Commission but it's not mandatory deposits I would recommend doing it if you use August for instance it will also be deposited for you on Zenodo if you want to. But it's all about transparency so it's always better to have it available but it's not mandatory to have it open access. Does the European Commission have a plan to move the publishing and point acquisition system from the current impact factor based one to other forms of assessment so that's more for you I think. The idea is that yeah of course the commission is not going to do it itself but of course it can affect through its policies as a funder and you know collaboration with other funders and in the member states that we move away from the general impact factor towards more article based metrics and also toward that you reflect the impact scientific another of an article or a piece of work itself data whatever it be you know software. That's a diversity the diversity of outputs and contributions to research are acknowledged you know, not just publications. So we move towards also more qualitative assessment of the work published so overall this is the direction, as I said earlier, yes. If only no embargo period is required does it mean that paying APC is supported. Most scientists think that it is the case and they see paying option as the only publishing option. So yes, you can publish wherever you want, including paying APC so whether it's a hybrid journal, whether it's a full open access journal you are allowed to pay APCs. As long as one of the, so either the author accepted manuscripts, all the version of record is under a CC by license. So this means, yes, you can pay it's not the only option. As I mentioned there's the rights retention strategy which you can go what was called before, commonly as the green route where you don't pay basically but the version of record might you might sign a copyright transfer but the author accepted manuscript is under CC by license so you retain your your author's rights. The only the only difference here with the European Commission is that you can publish wherever you want you can pay for APCs but only full open access publishing platforms you can request for the to cover the the APCs so hybrid journals you will need to find the funding from maybe your department university might have some funds dedicated to to that, or from a different funder. That's up to you, but you're not restricted to where you are allowed to publish, which is slightly different from some funders that are part of coalition s, where you're not allowed to publish in hybrid journals anymore. And there's some, some exceptions, but normally you're, you're not. Can I add something here just to clarify on the on the rights retention so that's quite important. Your policy says that either you the author or the institution the beneficiary should maintain enough rights intellectual property rights to provide the open access as required which is for articles with CC by an immediate open access and whatever else is in the grant agreement that is that is required. So, so you're supposed actually to maintain enough rights and ideally not transfer your rights to the publisher. We also make a point in the annotated grant agreement to explain to you that this requirement of your grant agreement is a prior obligation to you and your institution than any publishing agreement you then come to sign with a publisher and needs to be published. So the commission is going to be quite strict on that. Looking in the future at the level of projects but also at the level of institutions to see if this is complied with and if it's systematically not complied then of course we will move to cutting money from projects that that's quite clear so and what Jonathan said earlier, not all open access journals are required funding to publish these are mostly the commercial journals which of course the commercial publishers which use this as a, as a business model and of course we know that they are prevalent for example in life sciences, but there are other publishing venues there is, for example, open research Europe which we offer to you at no cost to you. So, for example, if you have a big project or you're a big research community. We do urge you to, to, you know, to to experiment that maybe create your own collections inside inside or where you would publish all of your outputs and not at no cost to you. Basically, so this is possible so we would also urge you to look at the director of open access journals where you can find more. You know purely open access venues because as Jonathan said, I mean, the Commission will not tell you where to publish you can publish where you want, but we will tell you where to public taxpayer money will go and it will not go to venues that are hybrid in other words, you can publish both closed and open and open articles so. And also, I think I wrote in one comment that journal checker tool. You can check out. We funded this through coalition as funders and you can put in your funder in the specific journal you want to, including the Commission and horizon Europe, you want to publish in and then it will tell you if it's compliant to our policies so for us I mean anything that open access is compliant, only we will not pay for hybrid. And if you were thinking of publishing in hybrid I would. I would question you why are you publishing. Why do you want to publish in hybrid is it for the impact factor because if that's the case. The Commission doesn't care about the impact factor so do you really want to publish them because especially if you don't have the funding for that. Is it really where you want you to do you not have an alternative which is as good in terms of the community recognition because that's I think what's most important is the community recognition. Because obviously, as much as I find all amazing but if everyone in your field publishes in this open access journal. Yes, it might make sense to publish more there because everyone publishes there. But if everyone publishes in this hybrid journal because it's impact factor, then know that that wouldn't be the right decision to do that so. So for all where in the process does the 800 years cost apply if there's no offer fees for or it is that there is no for fee so that is, it doesn't concern you I was just trying that was wrong. I was just trying to explain how much costs for the commission so and each article costs to the commission 820 euros, and you know how much. Most article cause a cost in your disciplines but you don't have to pay this so so it's just was a piece of information it researchers and projects do not pay it's it's free to them and that's one of the benefits to them it does not come out of the project budget. And it's also a question of, I'm guessing transparency and it is aligned with what the studies have shown of what an actual open access fee costs, not 10,000 like some journals that charging that doesn't make sense. It does not make sense and I should say here since you mentioned it very well that where we see such charges, it's not clear that they will be accepted out because the charges over the overall horizon rule says that it needs to be necessary and reasonable. And we don't consider this to be reasonable so be aware that I mean if you present such charges they will be no likelihood be rejected by your financial officer. You're allowed to have data which are sensitive fully close and make data available and the fair conditions so it's already answered that. Before but yes definitely you can make the metadata discoverable so that's the people know that you're you've created this data and can contact you. Definitely if it's sensitive. You don't want to be disclosing it because that would be a breach of security or data privacy. So, yes, definitely that's perfectly compatible, which is the whole moto of the mission of as open as possible as close as necessary. If I understand well the old platform is a mean of publishing manuscript but it does not involve peer review. I'm not quite I think I spend a lot of time explaining the peer review model so it is, it is, it works like a drama means it's a venue where your research is peer reviewed so it is. We don't call it a journal because it's bigger it's intended to be bigger and have larger scale it publishes in all fields, they're separated within it so for it's the same you do the same thing as you join a journal let me put this way. Are there any funders globally adopting Dora. Is this something that horizon Europe will consider. I think they already signature. We are supporters of course of during and also for choir which is the coalition for the advancement of revising the assessment system basically I can't remember to know. Yes, but we are very much part of it and support it. Yes. Yeah, so just for the people who don't know Dora was, it's not the old version but there's a newer initiative called choir that the European Commission is a symmetry for instance. For the supplemental information for articles, it needs also to be deposited in a data repository usually they are tables and graphics. Yes, so you would upload everything that is linked to a publication, obviously anything that is linked to the publication would be linked to it. And also when you're depositing on the repository you can always add more information that that is required if if you feel that it because on the note of instance you can add more than just one file. For instance, if you look at this presentation I put the PDF version and also the PowerPoint version. So you can definitely add more information. And that is also what the Commission is asking you when they say to add any other information tools, softwares. So you don't need to upload it with but you can mention it in the description or links to other files. However, we do recommend that you open access it as much as possible because we also say that if someone asks to validate your research and asks access to these materials you should give them if if they're not already open access so. So, from a, from a purely technical point of view, if you were to. So if you had your publication and then other type of information that you wanted to also share but not necessarily in open access immediately, you might want to make two deposits. So one deposit where you deposit the publication that is open access. And then on Zenodo I always refers in a little because it's actually quite good in terms of core referencing you can add other links to other YouTube videos or other Zenodo uploads so you can definitely do that so it's it's up to you also to decide if you want to separate the different uploads or if you want to upload everything in one go and if everything is an open access it might be beneficial to deposit in one go. If you need to restrict it for some time. If you want to do this, as Victor said, do you put it in open access as soon as possible, then you might want to do two different uploads so that's always a possibility as long as you cross reference them basically In preparing the DMP for my project had hard time defining what counts as data in social science, particularly this can distinguishing insight from data seem hard for me as insights more often than not becomes data for the projects and I reusable. Yes, so I would highly recommend to do an actual course so there's the Cess the course that is this in mention about that. This is the issue with this webinar it's I can't go into details of what data do and research data management course specifically because I would take much too much time but if you're not if you're new to writing a DMP or if you're new to how funders are asking for you to manage your data would definitely do some of the courses that are available online to what are the best practices in terms of data management. I know that data is one of those big question especially in social sciences because social sciences, don't necessarily consider what the definition of the official definition of what research data is is not consistently the same in other fields. So just to give a short answer data is anything that is required for you to do your research so it could be a picture it could be just a word in that you are using in a in a text it can be anything really interviews. So you can have different types of data you can have the audio recording that is one type of data but the transcript is another type of data, you might not share the audio but you might share the transcripts so the, the text version. So, you might edit that to remove any personal data so that's an edited version of the transcripts. Again, that's a different type of data that you might share so when sharing data you don't need to share everything it's share that is relevant for that might be reusable by others and in your DMP, you definitely have to write all those different forms so you would definitely say, I'm recording audio, and then I transcribe it as text so we'll have an MP3 file and then I will have a TXT file and then I will have a CSV file so you really go into details of all the different steps that you go for in when managing your your data. And so we have another two minutes. Any of the questions that we didn't answer I'll, I'll do a blog post with the Q&A. Projects often have their own website we end up not being linked to any of these repositories and just contain hyperlinks to them. Is there any best practice on how to connect them do these repositories have any API to make information on the website. Other elements, the on the element of the publication you on data you always get a DUI so never share the hyperlink always share the or and usually it's a DUI for as personal identifier sometimes a handle it's, it's another type of personal identifier but always shared that's because that can change, but the hyperlink behind can change but the DUI will never change so always, even on Twitter or social media, don't share the hyperlink always share the DUI it's that's the best practice. In terms of the website of the project, then that I would say is a developer elements that you might need to consider actually during the grand proposal of. I'm not an IT expert so I can't answer that question in detail but it might be relevant to have someone who is an IT expert look at to how to make it linked to how to use the API from Zenodo for instance so the API from OpenAir Explorer because OpenAir has what's called the OpenAir graph, which is basically this. general infrastructure that's basically gathers all the data and interconnects them and that has an API so you can request information from from that and connected directly to your website but that's specific to the project that's specific to the websites. So that's more on the project side of building the website. I don't know if you, Victoria has have a best practice in that regard. Sorry, or also has an API if I'm not mistaken so you can also query that. So you can automatically create projects directly on your on the project side. So just to finish there because that's actually not a question and it's the time but amazing Q&A looking forward to typesets using the recording so thank you a lot so that's a nice way to finish the webinar. Thanks again to you, Victoria for for joining us. And again we always open for for questions for feedback and yes, I'm looking forward to a good luck with all your projects and looking forward to seeing you again if you do join us again and thanks again. Thank you very much everyone. Goodbye.