 As you know, we have asked you to watch the tutorials beforehand and read up on some training materials beforehand. And then we've organized this session especially for you to ask questions about either tutorials or the training materials. I noticed that with us is apart from Emily Hermanns, who will be presenting. So it's not Francoise van Doorn, but she is on a different computer. But Emily Hermanns, who is presenting, and I've seen that Sarah Jones from GCC has joined us as well. So that means that at least two experts of Openair and Foster are here to answer all of your questions. A little bit of housekeeping is, first of all, the session is being recorded. So we will send you the recording afterwards. You can ask your questions either via our Mentimeter presentation, which means that you should go to menti.com and use the code 1787158. So you can just type in your question there, but of course we'll also be looking at the chat. So you can also just type in your question in the chat box of this webinar and then we'll answer them in chronological order as they come. I'm muting you all, so please don't unmute yourself because I think we're a bit too many to allow for people to just talk at their own judging. But if you really think it's better to talk, just ping me in chat and we can unmute you so that we can have a real conversation. In any case, Emily, I would say the floor is yours. If people have questions, please start typing them in chat or in the menti.com. Okay, thank you, Grant. So this is a Q&A session and questions and answers sessions will not be presenting. So there was one question already about the new framework program of the EC. And the question was, what do we know already about it? Is there already some news about policy? At this stage it's a little early to say. The new program will start in January 2021, so that's two years ago, two years away. There has been a press release and what it say in regards to Open Access and Open Science is that it will be, Open Science will be the default option. So they will continue the way that the program has been going now. So Open Access will be the default for Open Access to publication and also for data to allow innovation and spreading of results. So we suspect that there will be a continuation of the current policy, but it's too early to say and we'll have more news in 2019 probably. If you want to keep up to date you can always subscribe to the open air newsletter. We always report on new policies. Grant, I think my screen is shared at the moment. Shall I open the Mentimeter questions? No, your screen is not shared at this point. So I hope that answered the question about the next framework program. Do you know if there are more questions? I don't see the Mentimeter at the moment. If you want to, I can share my screen for now. It's fine, but I have Mentimeter open on my screen, but maybe if people have questions they can also just ask them in chat. Mentimeter is mainly useful for asking questions in advance. So are there any questions? You're all very quiet in the chat box. Maybe it's helpful to get a sense of the audience. Most of you are supporting open access and open data. Do you get inquiries regularly from researchers about these things? I do recognise some names in the audience, but some people I don't know. It would be useful if you could share with us what your experiences are with disseminating news about policies. Claire, Austin from Environment Canada. It's good that we've got global reach, not just European reach, and they support open science. Claire, do you get any questions about Horizon 2020 policies? One thing just while people are typing in questions or comments on what they do. Just to follow on from what Emily mentioned earlier on about the next framework programme and how Horizon 2020 policies will potentially change. Gwen and I were doing some training workshops for Foster the other week, helping EC project officers on how to review data management plans. And one of the comments that was made to them in some internal training was that it's likely a DMP will be compulsory in future. So regardless of whether people are sharing data or not, they think the DMP will be needed to address the data management. And I think if that does transpire into policy, I think that would be a good step. I think the DMP can be quite useful to the project itself. Sarah, do you expect that there will be any more guidance about DMPs from the European Commission? Or will there be something that will be left to the national level? I think the EC potentially will have a bit more guidance. I think it'd be useful if they shared guidance on how they're reviewing the DMPs. That's something we've recommended in a report that OpenAir did with the Fair Data Expert Group. They have an internal framework which isn't public, but it's based on their own template, so essentially you will know what the coverage is. But I think if they explained a bit more about their internal processes and maybe gave some more discipline specific guidance, that would be useful. I know they're keen to have more discipline specific guidance, but I think they may try and collaborate with others, like the Science Europe Consortium or maybe some of the S-Frees. So it's not necessarily the Commission releasing this, but they hopefully support it being developed elsewhere. Okay, thanks. I was going to ask a question to the audience. Do you find one aspect of the EC's policy easier to deal with, like the open access side? Is that easier than the open data? Are there particular challenges that you face? Okay, so there's a question whether there are any guidelines regarding human data. I think I'm not sure, Sarah, you can go into that in detail. I do know that on Thursday we also have a webinar posted by, well, given by Ches and Jesses, who will deal with the legal and ethical aspects of sharing data and the social sciences. But Sarah, maybe you can tell, you know a bit more about that and share right now. The EC policy is quite generic. There's kind of two main sets of guidelines around the data side. There's the guidelines on fair data management in Horizon 2020. And then there's also an overarching open access and open data guide, which covers both areas. And I think because the Commission funds every type of research, it doesn't go into lots of detail on how you handle human data. But one of the things that do stress with their open by default policy is that that's meaning that you should be as open as possible. So where there are sensitivities around the data or a need to share under restrictions or through data sharing agreements, that's completely permissible. That's not an issue. It just needs to be outlined in the DMP, what the plan is. In terms of handling human data, I think the more comprehensive guidelines come from actual data services. So I know in the UK, the UK data service, the UKDA, they have a lot of really comprehensive guidelines on negotiating consent and anonymizing data and using different types of services like secure data services. So their guidelines would be a lot more specific than the ECs, which is probably a better kind of call if you're looking for more practical advice. You can paste a link to that website in the chat. Okay, Sarah said there was another message, but I'm not sure if you've seen it because it was sent in private to organisers. It's by Erin Fennerty and she says the following. Our team is researching... Oh, maybe Emily, if you're okay, I will just copy the question into the chat so that everybody can read it. Okay. Erin, sorry. Yeah, so I think it's related to the question, previous question as well. So it says our team is researching young mental health and I think there are concerns that sharing data, that sharing of this information is too sensitive in nature to have full open access to research data. Yes, ours are keen to comply with open data, but do you have any advice for sharing of sensitive information or what the policy is regarding data concerning minors? Our team is researching youth mental health and I think there are concerns. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So again, I think the thing that I would stress is that the EC's policy, although it's open by default, that means that you make data open wherever you can. So it doesn't mean that everything has to be open. It might be that within your project, there are certain data sets or certain elements of data that you can make openly available and then others where, you know, there's a risk of disclosure or there's sensitivities because you're working with minors or potentially you haven't got consent to share that data. So I think the key thing where you're working with, you know, more complex or challenging data sets in terms of sharing, is first off to see what consent you can get. So to ask whether the participants will allow you to share the data, to reuse it in other studies, obviously to anonymize the data if you are going to be sharing it. And if anonymizing the data would, you know, essentially strip away too much of the valuable information that would allow you to reuse it and to make the data meaningful, then maybe you have much more restrictive sharing. So you have data sharing agreements that either constrain who can use the data or for what purpose. Now that's not open data sharing, but it's still sharing in some form and that's better than no sharing at all. And I think the other thing that for the EC's policy, because they talk about open data, but they're also really now emphasizing fair data. I think it's really valuable to make sure there's metadata online, even if the data themselves can't be accessible to all, there should still be a metadata record. So people know about the research you've done and they know there's some data there and potentially they have to get in touch with the investigators and agree to a data sharing agreement to be able to reuse it, but there's still a big value in knowing that that data exists. So yeah, I think the main thing I'd stress about the data policy is that it's a scale. It doesn't mean that everything has to be open. There's different shades of gray and it's for every project to apply that policy as applicable for their data. Okay, thank you very much Sarah. I'm just sharing my screen just to show you that we will have later this week, we will have some other webinars related to both research data, management in general and fair data and also legal and ethical considerations for sharing research data. So if you're more interested in this topic, I would suggest that you also attend these webinars and definitely watch the tutorials and read the training materials. In the meantime there are some questions from the Mentimeter. So the first one is a bit of a philosophical one. So do you think the EC is actually making a difference in open access and open science? Yes, I think if I speak from my experience, I work at the university in library. I can say that policy definitely has an impact on awareness. So as you know, libraries are most often the ones paying for subscriptions and things like that. So that means that the cost of publishing is often a little bit hidden from researchers. And now it's a whole movement of open access and also definitely open data. Researchers are more and more aware of how the system works and why it's important that science needs to be open. And I think the EC has made a lot of progress possible for the open science movement in terms of awareness and in terms of trying to be a force that moves forward in the sense it's no longer just the libraries or just a small group of open science advocates who are behind this policy. More and more national policies, more and more university policies adapt to the open science policies of the EC and I think in that way the EC is actually making a difference in open science. I don't know if you want to supplement Quinn or... Well, I think first of all the budget is quite significant. So the EC is I think worldwide one of the greatest funders. I'm not sure about the exact amount of it but I think Horizon 2020 was over 80 billion euros. So in any case this is... I mean the mandate is quite like a strong one in regarding the number, the sheer number of projects and publication. It's actually influences. So I do think that they make a difference and on a more philosophical level I think the type of policy that the EC has been establishing for quite a while especially in the beginning days was where it's a focus on depositing in a repository and making it open as soon as possible. I think this was the fact that the EC adopted this type of mandate has inspired a lot of local funders and institutions to do the same. I see that somebody in the chat also said that they believe there's a difference in open data and open science. So Claire maybe if you have some more context on your statement that will be nice to share. Yeah, I think there's been a huge shift with the EC policy when you look at the different institutions across Europe and how many local policies or national funder policies are emerging kind of following on from the EC stance and also just the investment that member states are making as well. So individual universities having local support teams I think that's really shifted over the last few years and I think it's in light of European Commission because people realise that their researchers and applicants need support. Like Gwen says they provide a significant amount of funding to research but also they fund a lot of infrastructure projects you know projects like Open Earth and that similarly makes a big difference. Hi, it's Claire here. Thank you for doing this and for welcoming people from across the pond. Yeah, I do think that the EC European Commission is making a difference. I've been reading many of the documents directives and so on that have come out especially over the last six months. So we have the EC's Open Science Policy platform recommendations, the European Open Science Cloud and then various countries have been putting forth national plans. France for example, the national plan on Open Science as part of the Open Government partnership. So these are from my perspective are very forward looking and helped our influential in moving the Open Science forward globally I believe. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much Claire. That's very useful. There is one other question in the Mentimeter unless somebody has something to add, Sarah or Emily? Nothing specifically, I think it's good that it shows the impact of Europe that people from across the pond are coming to these webinars because they see it as an influential thing to track the developments of. So it's nice to see that kind of global transition. Yeah, indeed. Another question is and this is something that I will answer very quickly and it does open air plan to support a new round of post grant APC. In short, no. And it's mainly for those of you who are not aware Open Air supported a fund that covered open access fees related to FP7 projects and that was in the previous round of a version of Open Air. So this is not something that we continue to do and the main reason for that is that actually open access fees are an eligible costs in Horizon 2020 and project writing. So you're supposed, if you submit a proposal, you're supposed to calculate the potential costs of open access fees and just include them in your proposal. So there's no real need for a separate fund covering this. And maybe I can just quickly go to the next question as well and those questions have been asked via the Mentimeter. So what if I can't afford open access fees and I just, I think this is an important question but maybe Emily, you can elaborate a little bit on what people should do if they don't have the budget to pay and if they write it into their project proposal. Yes, maybe I'll quickly share my screen. Yeah, sure. Can I just click screen? Yes. Can you see, do you see on top that you can share your screen or should I... Oh, sorry, I need to make you present. Yes, yes. Now it should work. Yeah. Okay. Yes, there you go. So can you see my screen? Oh, it doesn't go to the slide. Okay, let's quickly go over it. So as Grantsets, the initial idea is that you plan for open access costs in your in your budget. So costs for open access publishing are eligible costs. Now, of course, if you make all your publication open access through an open access journal, especially in some areas, this can be expensive. So it's a good idea to combine strategies. The open access journals, often called the gold open access, if they ask for high fees, you can also opt for a subscription-based journal. So that's still okay. You do not need to publish in an open access journal. You can choose. But you always need to self-acquire. So if you do not have the funds, you can choose for a closed subscription-based journal. But then you need to self-acquire in a repository. Most universities have repositories. Most research institutions have repositories for publications. But if you do not have a repository or cannot find a repository, there are lists with repositories. Or you can use the nodo, for example, which is the European-funded repositories for publication and data. So it is possible to make your publication open access without any costs. You should check your publisher's policy if you do that. So most journals allow this. This is a common practice, good practice. But it's possible that you can deposit your publication in a repository, but that you can only make it open after six months. This is also not a problem. So there's an exception that allows an embargo of six months for open access. And for the social science and humanities, this embargo is longer. So that's 12 months. So if you do not have the budget, I would recommend to self-acquire in a repository and also look around for journals. Because there are several open access journals for article processing fee, or that have very low open access article fees, or that have waivers or things like that. So these are the options if you do not have the fees. Emily, maybe it is worth mentioning because I think people might wonder about the implication of something like initiatives like Plan S. I don't think we can discuss this right now, because on Thursday there is a webinar with Marina Angelaki, who is going to give an update on most recent policy developments and the likely influence of initiatives like Plan S. As you notice, this is an initiative by I think 11 funders in Europe who actually are more radical than what is European commissioners proposing right now. So there will be the embargo periods, for example, but this will be abandoned if this goes through. But as it is until now quite unclear what the consequences will be, and it is definitely not applicable for Horizon 2020 publications yet. I am not sure if anybody has any maybe Sarah, you have any updates of that, but I don't think there are at this point. We are all waiting a bit to see what the practical implications will be. Yeah, I don't have specific updates on that. There is one more question. I mean, Garrett has posed a question in the chat box, so maybe we can deal with that one first. And that is a question, because our next policy for literature has been around for quite a while. Building on this for Horizon 2020 can draw on that experience to implement whatever policy emerges. And there is a mature repository infrastructure to accommodate I'm not sure what that means, and the pre-print route and to an evolving business model from publishers. The concern that I've encountered is that a similar infrastructure for the long-term preservation of research data is not quite there yet, at institutional or national level. For an open science policy to be effective, this infrastructure gap will have to be bridged. It's likely to emerge to help us achieve this. So I think, in summary, will there be an equally robust data repository infrastructure? Will this emerge in order to support open science policies? Yeah, I think you hit on an important point, Garrett, because like you say, there are a lot of publication repositories and actually it's, I think, handling the types of publications because it's quite a lot of it's very similar what's being deposited. I think that's a simpler task than dealing with a wide variety of different types of research data. So having a data repository is a more challenging thing to provide as a service. There are definite gaps in the infrastructure and one of the recommendations we make in the Fair Day to Expert Group report is that there has to be investment to plug the gaps in the existing infrastructure and there also has to be support put in place so that those repositories can get certifications but also that they have kind of strategic and sustainable funding from funders or via other business models so that we know that they can preserve the data in the long term. Because a lot of repositories are actually on soft money and that isn't a way to ensure that the data is available long term. I think one of my concerns in this area is the growth of kind of publisher services to handle the data management for you or to handle the data deposit and I think we maybe need a little bit more reassurances about what will happen with the data in the long term to make sure that we're not just handing over the rights to the data and being charged for that in future the way we are charged for publication access. Yeah, thanks Sarah. Garrett is also on Wednesday we have Marian Grothfeldt from Downs talking about trusted data repository so that might also be of interest for the people who want to know more about data repository Another route another field of question is that do you expect that the EU intellectual property directors will support our follow open science goals? I think this is a very interesting question because with the recent commotion about the copyright directive and general being considered as not being very open science friendly. Emily or Sarah are you comfortable talking about copyright and legal stuff isn't my expert area so I'm not fully versed in all the changes there I mean we were involved in doing a response with spark Europe to kind of pick up on some of the aspects and I think it's important that we stress the importance of data sharing but you probably know more about the specific details than I do I think it's clear that legislation is not always suitable especially when it comes to things like text and data mining and the right to read and the right to mine things like that it's not self evident yet I'm thinking about what source I should refer you to if you want to know more about that hold on I'm going to look for it so maybe if there are any other questions in the meantime we can deal with those Yes it's clear here I do have a question a question, comment I'm a research scientist so I'm very familiar with publishing in the traditional peer reviewed journals Evolving Policy Government of Canada, Environment Canada we are freer now to publish in non-traditional venues it's emptied recently to put a pre-print in one of the pre-print servers so while we support this policy the devil is in the details and when you come along to actually try and do it it's not evident and there are a number of frustrations to overcome so for example, by the way I work in a policy shop now I work in the science and technology strategies directorate so trying to do this as a prototype or nail down a detailed workflow one of the issues that I came up against was since we work for a government and a crown then there's the added complication of crown copyright I imagine that national governments who are not under a crown have similar copyright policies also but the crown does not transfer copyright so for example, if I were wanted to something on archive or bio-archive there is a clear mechanism for selecting a Creative Commons license but not a crown license unlike some of the traditional journals when an author, university professor for example submits an article then you sign, you transfer your ownership of copyright with the journal copyright form and typically there is an option for authors who actually don't own the copyright because it's owned by the crown and the traditional journals accept that so there's a gap going the non-traditional route and I couldn't solve it at the time and so I ended up putting it on GitHub and linking it to Zenodo in order to get a DOI but still the details of the crown copyright are not clear and I expect that there would be similar instances in Europe so I was wondering if anyone has any experience with that and if they found any solutions thank you thank you very much for this this is a very interesting perspective does anybody else want to share their experience or their thoughts on this? I know again I'm plugging one of our other webinars but on Thursday we have a guest webinar by OpenMinted or OpenMinded and I know they've been working a lot around text and data mining and copyright so maybe that would be worth attending and maybe Sarah or Emily we do know some other projects or sources of information I think it creates from Glasgow University they're working a lot about copyright and intellectual property and OpenScience do they have a list of resources? yeah I think they do so I know they've developed some training materials and kind of like different kind of hards and things to try and demystify some of the issues I'm not sure if they've got something specifically on the type of work that you're looking for there but we can certainly add details to create oh you've put it already in the chat, well done Gwen thank you yeah so please if anybody in the audience has some more experience please share it because I think it's sometimes this whole copyright and the copyright intellectual property tends to be a bit of a black box and we always feel it's useful to hear different experiences and also to learn about like a relative importance that is that is being given to this topic in different fields and in different countries so if you have any more experiences please just drop it in the chat I don't see any updated questions on Mentimeter I'm not sure if anybody who's still in the audience does have any other questions or any new topics that they want to broach or just any specific questions for Emily about her tutorials I think it's okay to speak as well so maybe you can just unmute yourself and talk okay if this means that there are no more questions from you in the audience I'm not sure Emily do you or Sarah do you want to add something or do you want to give something to the audience of this of this session any final words of advice I think use the support that's there so use the opener network of national open access desks you've got contacts in every country so if you do have questions around Horizon 2020 on the open access or open data side you can get support there and also through the foster project you've got training materials so I'd just encourage you to make the best use of that support and kind of if you do get complicated questions pass them off and try and get advice elsewhere if you're not sure about how to respond I don't want to take up some more space but since there seems to be a lot of silence out there I do have another question yeah so the question is with respect to DOIs and I'm wondering when one publishes in one of these non traditional venues take for example Zenodo so Zenodo issues a DOI what happens if the article then goes on to be published in a traditional journal is there some kind of linkage or tracking when you have different DOIs pointing to the same resource the same article so for example a preprint or something on Zenodo and then the final peer reviewed article in a journal well I know that at least on Zenodo you can put related DOIs so actually I don't know if we can bring up the interface share screen and show the interface but you can flag a relation so you can say that this other object has been cited in the paper or is an earlier version of the paper or I don't know if this preprint is one of those relations but there's a whole category of relationships that you can flag I think if it was the exact same object if you were depositing in two repositories I'd try not to have two DOIs to the very same thing trying to actually provide the DOI as part of a deposit if your repository at your university forced you to have a copy there as well as you'll publish a copy try to make sure you just use the same DOI if it's exactly the same object so the publisher the traditional peer reviewed journal the publisher will issue a new DOI is that correct I think it depends actually because an example of this on Zenodo you do have publishers who actually just use Zenodo as archive as well so I'm not sure if we can say like if you can have like one blanket statement for all publishers right I'm sure not if it can be of help I just brought up an article on the Zenodo blog about DOI versioning by Zenodo himself so that might be an interesting read I cannot really give any more specific answers we can get you in touch with people behind Zenodo if that's something that you want to discuss more in depth sure I'd appreciate that thank you okay any other questions so I'll put up here a link to the preprint that I was talking about and the other question is about we support the concept of open science and moving toward fair data and so on but again the devil is in the details so both from the point of view of the data provider where data have not been collected and managed actually with the concept of open science as an end goal so then when you come to after the fact want to publish your data it's not evident that these data are going to be easily usable among non-user conversely when using other people's data that have not been prepared with the idea of fair data becomes sometimes problematic so I'll put the link oh no I can't put the link because my computer just died but they're sorry about that but it is in Zenodo it's if you search for a path to big data readiness as you'll find the preprint talking about so within quotes a path to big data readiness in Zenodo was put up last week sounds very relevant to the topics here thanks could you type it in chat because I didn't possible because your computer died sorry so did you catch the full title yeah there you go okay hold on so just while Gwen pulls that up does anyone else have any final questions I'll garrus put the link in the chat to the article thank you okay so thank you very much for this pair this is very interesting anybody else who wants to chip in no well in that case I think I will close this session and I would first of all like to thank you very much for for listening in and for asking your questions I hope it was despite this not being a traditional webinar format I hope this was interesting for you please feel free to share the tutorials and training materials with whomever you think this might be of interest in your institution or elsewhere we would really like to see these broadly distributed and if you have any additional questions about this webinar about any of the others you could either go to the overview page which you found because you're here or you can also get in touch directly at webinars at openair.eu so if you have any questions that now didn't come into spring into mind but that you think of later feel free to just contact us via this and we will connect you with the speakers here or with somebody else at openair or foster who can answer your question so thank you very much thank you very much Emily thank you for making the tutorials for taking the time for taking the time and thank you very much to Sarah from DCC for being present here as well and I'm looking forward to seeing you all and more of our other webinars that we'll be hosting later this week thank you very much thanks so bye bye thank you