 To noon, many thanks for being here for the first committee call of the year for the provide service. And today we will have many topic dedicated to the presentation of the main results of the report, government state and future directions for open repositories in Europe. And for this presentation, we have a layer of rigors from University of Birmingham, and I would like to thank you for accepting our invitation to present these main results. So, and today we will have two main parts of our meeting. The first part will be dedicated to present this report. And then in second part, and briefly, we will present some updates and novelties regarding the regarding open air provide related services. And if you have some questions about provide, you can we can dedicate some time at the end also. And in first part, so we'll be presenting the report and we will have also time for for some questions. So, now I'm giving the floor to a layer of rigors and I stop share my screen. Thank you, Andrea. I think you already seen my screen right. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you for for the opportunity to participate and to present the main results of the survey of open repositories in Europe that was conducted last year. As I said, I'll try to present some of the main results. Then of course you have the report is available and you can go through it in around 15 minutes and then to save some time at the end to so we can have some questions or discussion, because I'm really sorry but I have to go in, in half an hour I have another meeting starting at three o'clock so I need to attend. As you may most of you probably will remember. The survey was the first step of joint activity to strengthen European repositories that was launched by coir lever spark Europe and open air at the beginning of 2023. And the first activity that we decided to conduct was a survey that was conducted in February and March of. Last year, and the report that was published in December as the main presents the results from from that survey. We collect 3394 valid responses we have more, more than 400, 440 responses but there are many who are not completed or just have a very few questions or were repeated. And so we considered 394 responses from 34 countries. As you may see, there is a spread of responses from most European countries and we had 10 countries where we have more than 50 responses. And for a couple a couple of questions we analyze because of the complexity we analyze those 10 countries that had more than 50, 50 responses. The majority of the respondents and the repositories, three quarters of almost 75% of repositories are based in universities. And then we had also around 40% that were based in other research units. Again, as I said at the beginning I will just show the results of some of the questions from the majority of the questions anyway but but not all of them so the on the report to find some more questions than the ones that I will end results and the ones that I will address here. So regarding the content type on repository so we found that the big variety of content types in repositories, but we need to interpret this, this slide. So we, we asked what were the three main, we identify what were the three main content types in repositories and so articles, published articles were on the three main content types of three quarters of 75% of repositories. Also, these in this situation, see 57% and all the other numbers that you see. And, and research data was, was also the was on the three most common content types in 21% of repositories. So this was just a very quick comment. We have data repositories and publication repositories reply so repositories when the more the most frequent content type was data and repositories were most content frequent the most frequent content type was publications that was the majority. On the publication repositories or where publications were the most common content type we find a great, great variety of content types, while in repositories on data repositories or repositories where data was the most frequent content type, the variety of content types or or less frequent so they were more kind of more specialized in, in data. Regarding the size of the collections, there was also a huge variety with around 20% or a little bit more than 20% are really small repository with less than 1000 items. And, but the vast majority as between 1000 and 50,000 items so around almost 60% of of repositories are on that kind of of size. And then we also have a small number of very big repositories from Europe, PMC as replied also to the survey, and they have reported 8 million items on the repository. We have done an average for both for institutional repositories and for other types of repository so domain data repository and national and for the institutional repositories the average collection size is roughly around 65,000 items, while for the other types of repositories the average collection size is close to 400,000 items. Also regarding the language there is a kind of a variety of language is while the majority of repository English is the most common most used language in several countries is that is the most used language, but in other countries we have the national languages, or the most that's the case, for instance for for for Croatia, Portugal, Poland, and Spain for for instance, and then we have the other the other English is also present as the second most common per language on those countries. We also had a question about the participation or if the repository was part of a national level service or network and we have almost 50% replies from 51 said yes and 49 said no, as you can see here, there there is big differences between countries so there is, for instance, in Spain, Portugal, Croatia, the vast majority of repositories reply that were part of a national service or network, while in other countries like for instance, Germany, or Switzerland, the was the other way around the vast majority said that they were not part of the national network. And also, while we analyze the replies even for country we understand that that might be some inconsistency on the replies because we are from the same repositories or the same type of repository saying that they were part of a national service network and others say no. And that might be the case that some are parts and some are not but I've been other cases, we have we have a suspicion that there was not a common understanding of what was a national service or network where also the question about where the repository was hosted, as you can see here, around 60%, probably be more than 60% were locally hosted, but there is already also a significant number of repositories that are hosted by an external provider. And there is also variations on also a national level here. Regarding the software platform used for by the repository, as you can see here, this space represents more than 40% or also more than 40% of European repositories and other very used platforms are ePrint, Fedori, Landora, there are also other like in venue, OPPOS, and other and pure also that were indicated as being used for the repository. And there is also 80% of locally so reported locally developed the platforms that are hosting the repositories. One very important thing is that more than 60% of repositories said that they have installed add-ons or patches. So they are not running on the vanilla code of the platform, but they have installed some kind of, they've made some kind of localization or add-ons or patches. And that if you count that also 16% replied that they don't know, so probably at least some of those 16% were also patches and add-ons. So probably the percentage of repositories that have some kind of additional code on top of the base code of the platform is probably close to 70% then of 60%. We asked also when was the last time that the platform went through a major upgrade and when was the next upgrade plan and we are kind of, at least I was a little bit surprised because apparently the vast majority of repositories were upgraded kind of recently, so we have about more than 60% that were upgraded on the last three years and if we count for four years, so since 1990, it's almost 80%. And the repository is also reported that almost half of them were planning to upgrade in 2023. It's not clear if that is really happened. This may be related with this phase seven upgrade and probably because of maybe this is kind of postponed for 2024, there was already also 14% of repositories that were planning to upgrade this year or next year, but there is also, there was also a significant number of repositories that didn't have any plan for 36% for upgrades. One important, very important aspect for us is that regarding open-air guidelines compliance that only 22% of repositories reported that they are compliant with version four of open-air guidelines and we have more than 25% that said that they are not compliant with any open-air guidelines and 42% that were compliant with old versions of the open-air guidelines, so this is something that we need really to take into consideration. Regarding IDs, regarding object IDs, so resources IDs, the majority of repositories are using persistent identifiers like DOIs or Andals, so only 10% did not assign any type of persistent identifier. But the situation is different regarding authority identifiers where the percentage of repositories that are not using any type of authority identifiers is significant, it's about one quarter, so 25%. Most repositories have in place curation processes, again, only a small number, 23 of the respondents say that they have no curation processes and also a similar situation we have regarding statistics, so the majority of repositories said that they have some kind of statistical services, the majority have local repository statistics but then also and only a small fraction of around 10% or less than 10% said that they have no statistical information, they are not collecting any statistical information. Regarding preservation, policy also, the vast majority of repositories said that they have a preservation policy but again, but still the number of repositories with no preservation policies still very important also. And regarding certification, the situation is even more, the number that have no certification is even higher because only 82 of the more than 350 respondents of this question said that they have, that they went through certification. And then if we look at what they have replied because we asked what type of certification they went through, then if we look to revise then we understand that even of those 82 some have not really go any, they did not went really any type of real certification because, for instance, open air compliance is about complying with the with the guidelines is not really a certification. So, the situation here is just a small number of repositories are real and really went through a certification process. One important question that we had, and the one that was really also out to to to analyze because again we and we then understand that some people did not reply did not understand what the concept of fte's and they have not. So, and we had we had kind of, and that produce kind of outliers that we had to exclude from the analysis, but so with the clean data that we have come to with you, as you can see, the majority of repositories have up to two fte's and that's the most frequent case for institutional repositories. And, and then there is, but there is still a significant number of repositories that have up to four or up to eight fte's, but then when we asked all the time of those fte's were applied in the in the repository. And, as you can see, around half of the effort of of the staff effort is is is going to metadata and content curation, and then 27% is effort for the repository manager manager, and almost 20% is for for technical or technical support. So the last questions that we had was were about the challenges for for the for the repository. And as, and as you can see here, the more the main challenge that was identified was upgrading the software to to new versions, and also employed skill staff and underfunding and the, the, the, the, for instance, content recruitment. That probably was something that in some time ago or in other context we hear a lot of as a main problem was not ranked as one of the, of the biggest, one of the biggest problems here. And we asked what type of activities would be most most helpful to to to address the challenges. And this is also a bit of a surprise because the thing that was most that is clear that it was ranked first is it was advocacy. And, and then the other two were related with the community with the community of practice for for technical support and coordination of repository is a national or regional level. We have also significant number of replies for training and a lower number of replies for for regarding the national regional platform for hosting repositories and this is also something that is interesting. So, to conclude and to have at least five minutes for for questions and take a little bit more time to take that to I expected. The main conclusion is that collectively European repositories, they really are an important assets and the very important part of the infrastructure for for the for open science in Europe. Because they probably collectively, they, they, they, they provide access to to tens or probably hundreds of millions of research outputs of different of different types. And the majority, so about three quarters of repositories are based in universities and universities are well long sustained and well established institutions. They think they have they provide a kind of sustainability for the repositories and the current collections are being well used by by by the research community and and not only the research community. But we have identified also three main challenges. One is maintaining the, the, the, the current infrastructure, especially the, the software platform so maintaining in the update especially about dating software platforms, then applying good practices in terms of metadata preservation and and user statistics. And the third is the to to secure appropriate visibility on the scholarly ecosystem. And these challenges were related with three things that are also kind of interconnected. One is the fact of managing local software and I think the first and the third are in a way also connected. This is one of the strengths of course of repositories then the distributed nature. And the fact that they are running open source software in, in, in, in, in the report that's replies to, to local needs, but the facts that they are addressing local needs and they have the customization and that and patches is also a problem for instance for the upgrade of, of the of the software platforms. And the distributed nature of repositories makes that in some cases they might be working more than like silos, and they are replicating the same activities and having the same problems in, in different institutions, not creating or not being able to create a kind of economy of scale or trying to address some problems and challenges on on on the collective way. And of course, the third point is the staffing levels of repositories that is that is low. But also we point out some opportunities I think on the last year, the last couple of years, especially into 2023, while we were analyzing repository. There is a kind of a change of climate in Europe regarding repositories and not for profit infrastructures for scholarly communication, and probably the two main examples where the console conclusions from May, and also the most recent document from coalition as about to the call towards responsible publishing that really puts the emphasis on making the scholarly community and scholarly institutions and not for profit organizations on the driver's seat of scholarly communication and this growing interest on on this model of published review curate that that were repositories and pre print service are really at the center of the system. So, on the next couple of months, by the way, we will have the first meeting now in January. Open Air, Libre, Spark, Europe and Co are will will work together to to to develop concrete plans and actions on three main areas. So one is advocacy, highlighting the value of repositories. The second one is to propagate best practices for repositories across the repository community. And the third one on assisting with the creation and coordination of national networks. So, as I said, the report is available in in Zenodo, so you can go through it. And by the way, just to finish and stop sharing my, my screen. But if you already, if you have ideas and suggestions on how open air Spark Europe core core and Libre can really contribute to address these challenges. Then we will be very happy to hear from you. And I stop here and I have five minutes I'm sorry, five, just five minutes for questions or comments. Hello, for your presentation. So until now, we don't have any question in the chat but please feel free to have your questions in the chat or open your microphone and put your question. As we have some time for a comment on the results that have been presented. For sure, open air will share some of the upcoming developments. But these next steps that I referred so we will also try to bring you these these novelties in the provide committee calls. So we can follow up these developments. If we do not have any questions I think we can move on to second part, and a lot of many things for your presentation, it was very relevant to present these main results and then people can go to the report and get more detailed information if they want to know more. Just as we still have one minute. Let me just stress again this. So this work. These are the three areas that we have identified so advocacy, best practices and coordination of, of national repository networks. As I said, we will have the first meeting of the of this organization that the end in a couple of weeks. So if you have ideas or suggestions on actions that open air in the case of open air that we can take to advance on this, we will be really glad that we will outcome your comments and suggestions. Okay. So, thank you very much. And as I said, I'm sorry, but I really need to go to do another meeting. Bye. Okay, thank you. Bye. So now we can have some additional minutes. Let me share again my screen. Just to present some of recent news regarding open air provides and related services. So regarding the index and the statistics update. The current contents that are published in the open air portals are still referring to the update that occurred in November last year. However, the upcoming update will occur during this month. So in the coming days or weeks, the contents, most recent contents will be published. You can always follow these these two pages to follow the updates and to know the changes and updates in each version of the open air graph. So if you are waiting for some content update or from your repository, the updates will occur briefly. The second update I have is also related to the open air graph update. So this last update from November. Introduce some novelties. And we have here three of them. You can you can read more detailed information about these updates on these news items that is linked here. So in this version, the open air graph improve the affiliation extraction to have introduced the affiliation information to more publications. And these can can improve the way that the open air graph can be reused. You can also introduce the field of science for additional for 40 million publications. So, you know, whenever I've already a field of science for some publications, but in this version. Open a graph as for additional considerable number of publications, the fields of science. These accessing and session for publications in open air explore. One of the novelties is also the integration of citations from the open citations pocky dataset. Open air. In the context of open air next project that in the last year have worked with open citations, starting to include data set data sets about citations so Accessing the open a graph. You can also explore this possibility. In the in the upcoming updates of our paragraph is it's expected to have also let's say user interface to explore the citations that comes from the open citations pocky dataset. And, as always, we will we want to highlight our public roadmap in which you can follow the coming updates, you can also contribute heading comments for some features you would like to have or to improve in the provide dashboard. And also important, our help desk support. So, every time you have questions you can write to do the best of open air to this email address get open to you. Open air have a new ticket system so sending messages to this email address. Your message will be managed in ticket system and redirected to the proper person to reply to your question. We will, we want also to highlight two upcoming events that we think can be useful for you. The first is the open air coffee break on integrating integrating orchids in repositories and three systems. There will be next week on Monday. You have here the link to find the URL to register to attend this event. And also regarding the open air graph. For this service will also start running community calls. And the first committee call will be also next week in 17 of January at 11 central European time. And it's a great opportunity to follow the coming and most recent novelties regarding open a graph. This session will be managed by Palomangi, the CTO of open air so it will be a good opportunity for you to know more and also to put questions directly to Palomangi to know more or to ask, for example, for some developments of futures regarding the access to open a graph of the way that open air is managing the information in the ecosystem. So you can also find on this URL the link to register. And you can find these, these two events useful for you. And as usual, we try always to record the sessions so even if you cannot attend the sessions. We have available for you to put to see this, these events, just to finalize regarding the open and provide community calls. So we already have scheduled the committee calls for this first semester of the year. So you can already register and the schedule in your calendars that coming meetings. The main topics are not yet defined but month by month we will specify the items that will be discussed in the community calls. So feel free to register. And finally, an allied to our newsletter. And with this newsletter we are trying to disseminate the critical and also I like some novelties regarding not also provides dashboard but also some related topics about open air and also relevant subjects for the data source managers. And that's it from my side. If you want to put some questions about some things regarding the opener provides dashboards or something related with your data source registration in open air. And so we have, we have time in the meeting so you can always use our desk system but if you want to put a recent question here, you can also do. Let me check the shot. Yeah, here on the link to register in the arcade session. Thank you. We're in. If we do not have any question. We can close the session today it was a bit small this this session, but I think it was useful to see these overview of the manner results of the report that is shared with us. We can see more detailed information in the reports. And for sure in the coming committee calls we will share with you the upcoming developments regarding the next steps that alloy share with us. Okay, so we can close the meeting and see you soon. Many thanks. Bye bye.