 Thank you and welcome to this webinar. Let me share my screen, correct one. So this webinar is about OpenAir's progress regarding scholarly comments. Actually, I have a question already in the beginning to you. Maybe you can answer them in the chat. I would like to know how familiar you are with OpenAir, because this would help us a little bit in what detail we need to explain some OpenAir aspects. So we want to talk today about OpenAir's perspective on scholarly comments briefly, and we want to attach three aspects, which are the OpenAir guidelines, supporting platform interoperability, the recommendations for publishing platform enhancements, so sustainable, cooperative, and non-APC publishing models, and the cost transparency and open access publishing, so actually not three but four aspects. So thank you. Gwen, who started a survey, how well do you know OpenAir? If you could provide your input, maybe Gwen, could you provide the results? Hold on. Okay, so most of you know at least a little bit about OpenAir, about 80% and roughly 20% are quite well familiar with OpenAir. So that's good. So we don't need to start from scratch and tell you the whole story. So now it's a scholarly comments. The starting point here is actually the definition by Force 11, who introduced this activity within a working group in 2016, and they held two workshops, and they come up with the concept of a scholarly comments as an agreement among researchers and other stakeholders in scholarly communication to make research open and participatory for anyone anywhere. And it also means that a scholarly comments is a set, is comprised of a set of principles, concrete guidance to practices, and actions towards inclusivity of diverse perspectives. And also very important is that a scholarly comments is owned by no one but to be realized, used and contributed to by all. So when OpenAir started, the OpenAir Advanced Project started in 2018, we had a, we had a dedicated work package towards scholarly comments. And in this work package, we focus on three aspects, the interoperability, including the OpenAir guidelines, technologies of next generation repositories, sustainability, platform, enhancements, and transparency with regard to the coasts of open access publishing. Today, we will not talk about next generation repositories. This could be done at a later point in time. So we will focus on the first and the third aspect. And now the floor, I give the floor to Andreas, who will introduce you about OpenAir guidelines and tell you what it has to do with the scholarly comments. Yes, good morning, good evening, and good afternoon, everyone, everyone and everywhere you are. The OpenAir guidelines in a nutshell, I call it, has a perspective of the researchers in the middle and the researchers output and the research environment. So the most researchers publish literature like articles in different ways and have different kinds of possibilities to publish. We, here's the publishing repositories could be thematic, institutional or journals or e-journals like this. In the research output, most researchers have a research data that could also be published in different repositories. Here are data repositories, catch all the repositories that are coming up in the last years, like Cynodo and also institutional and thematic repositories that are based on the local institution where the researcher is. And some of the researchers writing and programming research software and for this there was different repositories, software repositories, or it could be also used to catch all repository and the researchers have any other research output that could be published in a catch all repository. This is the publishing products that the researchers have and the researchers also in a special environment, in a research environment. So in the last years they're coming up some research information systems and for this in these research information systems that are that have projects and funders and organizations and so on in it. For these kinds of different aspects of the research output and the environment, OpenAir introduced for 10 years the first guidelines and we focused on the first guidelines in the landscape of the repositories. So please next slide. The landscapes of the repository types that are described before are institutional publication repositories and all the other repositories that could have the research output in there. So on this side we have the full landscape of the repositories and with this we take a look on the aspects of the research output. Please next slide. There are the articles what I say before with preprints and reports, data sets and so on and if we take a closer look into these repository types and the literature resource types, we see this click next, we see that in the institutional and thematic repository there could be have literature and could have data sets and also in the meantime software and other research products in there. The same could we have for in the Chris repositories, so Chris for current research information systems that could have also all types of the resource types before and also additionally to that the projects, fund information, organization information, personal information and so on. The other types of repositories that have specific resource types in there and we see here an overview about these types of repository. In this repository it's very important to have a good metadata quality. This metadata quality should be up to date if it should be reflected the current state of the research output and recently the changes of these research outputs. It's also it's it's to say to have a very accurate and available information in there that could, so that could the repository publish the information about the person's identifier, the persistent identifier or other identifiers that are related to this metadata and it's also to have no test records in a productive repository system and these are some quality, metadata quality aspects that are we have in mind for the next slides and with the next slides the OpenAir guidelines objectives focus on the metadata quality aspects and also to harmonize these metadata. Please click next and also to support with the implementation of the OpenAir guidelines the repository have mainly the support for the fare principles like the findable via identifiers, persistent identifiers accessible via the OEPMH interface the reusable is mostly seen in the licenses that are provided by the repositories and so on and it's describe any other different kinds of research products that we could have with the OpenAir guidelines or in the OpenAir guidelines we are reusing existing standards like the doubling core format for the metadata exchange or the data site format but also we have some extension in the guidelines for the capillaries last but not least to facilitate these points above we add some services on the top of these metadata that we are showing a little bit later in this webinar. As I said before the OpenAir guidelines have history over the last 10 years next slide please and started with the literature guidelines for mostly focused on articles and on journal articles and reference so the after two years the next version of the guidelines was published and also introduced the guidelines for data archives repositories and so on we see the last 10 years in this in this evolution and the latest the major changes are in 2018 with the literature guidelines version 4 it's now called institution and thematic guidelines that's was a step forward that we are seeing the repository landscape that we have not only literature repositories out there it's there's also an evolution on this landscape side so it's what I showed before the resource types and the repositories are involved also so in 2020 we are updating our Chris guidelines at the moment and also we are updating the data archive guidelines to the latest data site format and take a look on the other guidelines for software and research other research products with these guidelines in the over the last 10 years we are that are fundamental for the data sources that OpenAir collected and at the moment we are collecting over from over 12,000 data sources worldwide you see here an overview and the data sources are like software heritage or github we including Microsoft academic graph we're collecting from data sites from PubMed, Zenodo and anything in any more from 12,000 data sources and the fundamental of our guidelines based on from the 10 years ago and this was a community driven the guidelines was community driven in the last 10 years and we would like to invite you to comment on the new guidelines and the implementation that experience that you have and you see here the links for the feedback documents that we have introduced to these kinds we put these also in the chat at the moment and last but not least for the guidelines here we also working on a Google cheat to have to to reflect the repository platform evolutions and the guideline evolutions over the years so to introduce to invite you also to take a look and the feedback on this document if we have something forgot in the repository platforms or versions and you know that these repository platform supports our guideline version so if you have any feedback on the guidelines and you would like to give us these in the documents you could also write an email to us to guidelines that are may I you or you find any feedback possibilities on the guidelines.io and with this I would like to hand over to Jochen and maybe we can already try to answer one question in the chat but please actually you should use the the question and answer window for questions so Frank minister asks do you collect any data from either base or core I thought I saw based on a previous webinar but I don't think either was on that previous slide. Yes we we collect metadata from core UK and you are right that this light needs to be updated and to include also core UK we started collecting from base a small subset from base a few years ago and there is no an effort to to collect from base the set of repositories especially those that are not yet present in open air this is work in progress and it's a similar challenge like to to collect from other large bigger data sources okay so moving forward the next topic but some are also related to the open air interoperability guidelines is about the publishing platform enhancements is with one of the sub tasks in this work package and the motivation here is that interoperability of course is key across publishing platforms repositories and aggregators so that they can exchange the metadata and digital objects in the proper way but in particular we wanted to know what are the current standards of institutional publishing platforms and scientific journals so we wanted to investigate especially the journals more than repositories or book platforms or criticisms and then we want to find out what are the minimal what is the minimal set of common functionalities for publishing platforms for an integrated scholarly communication framework and this book was done now almost started almost two years ago we conducted a study in November 2018 and in the study we were asking questions regarding the about the platform and journal information in general but also which metadata standards are supported what kind of interfaces APIs other interoperability aspects are considered and how well is the data source publishing platform integrated already integrated with open air services and how well are open air services received from the participants we received 21 answers from institutional platforms which cover almost 1500 journals and from 17 participants which operate stand-alone journals and the main findings are regarding the platform and journal operating aspects that they are mainly run and supported at their own institutions in terms of staff and and infrastructure support but some of them also make use of alternative funding sources by help of communities and smaller fraction also is using APCs another interesting aspect was that most of these journals are affiliated to to their own institution which shows that there is a good collaboration at their institution for instance between the researchers and the library and so they have their the infrastructure at at home so to say there is an awareness of adoption of acknowledged quality standards the platform and journals are usually registered in international indexes registries or directories like TOAJ for instance and the capital of these platforms also offer additional services like DUI minting or user statistics or editorial services of course or the support of cetacean styles and export for different bibliographic databases on the level of interoperability and metadata standards the findings are that most of the platforms used OJS followed by some using dspace but also Drupal WordPress and small number developed their own custom solutions more and more standards and identifiers are used like ORCID and DUI of course by help of plugins but also the encoding of the articles using the chat's XML format the metadata description on the article level varies on different degrees of detail this is also what we see in our daily aggregation activities in open air and of course this is an aspect which depends which metadata format is used is it doubling core or is it a more granular format like chats for instance most of the platforms and journals using OIPMH to expose the metadata but there are also some limitations and opportunities for improvement like to expose content licensing and project and funding information in the machine readable format and then the third section was about the integration with and evaluation of open air services the result of this survey was that only a limited number of platforms and journals is already registered for content provision and open air but this can have different reasons the one reason is that we are now almost two years later and also many of the journal articles are collected via citation databases now like crossref or via duaj so it could be that platform or journal owners and editors are not really aware that their platform or journal is integrated already in open air so this could indicate that open air should provide more transparency make it easier to let content providers identify if their data source is in open air already registered or not also the participants have a rather low level of awareness regarding concrete open air services and of course most of interest to them are the is the aggregation environment is a validation service which is now visible to some extent to to the content providers by help of the provide dashboard content discovery and visibility is now provided or made available via the explorer open air explorer portal usage and access statistics is provided via the provide dashboard but also via the sushi light API and there is also now a dedicated web page usage counts dot open air dot u but also of interest is a possibility to to link funding and project information with publications and the feature of data application um the recommendations and and main results of the survey are the that on the level of metadata quality standards and semantic interoperability the recommendation here is to make use of knowledge representation languages of course this can be on a very basic level doubling core could also be data site format mods or jets and if possible also to make use of link data representations um we also recommend whenever possible to make use of pids for different kinds of entities so not only for the publication but also for the project for the funder for organizations for authors and to provide references from the publication to other entities like from from the paper to the data set or the paper to the project and to make use of machine readable information for copyright and license information on the level of interoperability um the recommendation is to support common and established APIs like OAPMH but also open search the search and retrieval by url siu and a rather lightweight format like sign posting and of course when we are talking about scholarly comments and open science principles it also means to make use of open file formats with regard to long-term preservation of course it should if possible pdf a but also epa format xml like describing the article and jets xml or formats for open office formats regarding long-term preservation um it the recommendation is to make sure that the publishing platforms provide long-term commitment for to make sure that the resources are also available and resolved in the future um to make content preservation and to follow archiving policies and very important is also to create at least one copy of digital objects and metadata at a remote place and to care about automated backup processes the results and recommendations have been published in a deliverable which um was published one year ago in 2019 and is available on zinodo now coming to the third aspect what open air and our work package considers on on a scholarly comments it's about sustainable cooperative non-apc publishing models and the leading question here was how to sustain not-for-profit and non-apc based cooperative publishing models with the goal of a universal unrestricted and immediate open access the the task team followed the following approaches at first we wanted to learn more about the the current publishing landscape and existing non-apc initiatives and who wanted to identify best practice examples and to this aim um we we had a call and invited um a couple of stakeholders um to to make a spot analysis and this was done in early 2019 and the results were have been discussed at a workshop at Bielefeld University in February 2019 during the workshop on sustainable non-apc publishing models the result of the workshop was to come up with a set of recommendations to funders policymakers and the publishing community which i will explain in the next slides um but there was also some follow-up activities like in May this year where we had a joint webinar with the Latin American initiative amelica and with colleagues from Canada from the Canadian research knowledge network and from their initiative coalition publica and we also had a virtual meeting with the global UA 2020 initiative and we hope that we continue this this kind of liaising with other initiatives um because only together we we can achieve um division of of a global cooperate cooperative and non-apc um publishing model i said in the beginning um that one of the big issues of scholarly comments is includes um um inclusivity to consider different ways and different perspectives and this can also be seen in two approaches one that has its roots by by funders in Europe the plan s from coalition s um but also another initiative especially in latin america with with amelica while plan s is more on the on regulating commercial agreements when apcs are involved the aim of amelica was and is on building infrastructure from and for academic institutions which are owned by the scholarly community and the aim is to get the take back control of the scientific publication system by academic institutions um so what do we understand by um under sustainability first of all we consider that there are different dimensions which influence the success of of open access um this is the timely um publication process which must be fast reliable and stable and quality insured but also concerns um reliable services and last but not least um business sustainable business models and model of of either funding or revenues um so that such publication initiatives can operate on the level of the service providers this means um there must be sufficient revenues to cover um the operating costs of the publication process it also means that um they need to implement or adapt um current um requirements for instance from uh funders like plan s or like the open access mandate of of the european commission and horizon 2020 and horizon europe um but they also must ensure that their platforms are following up-to-date technical um web standards and then we have user expect expectations which are which rely on affordable and reliable services um that should not be isolated from their daily um research practice but rather should integrate whenever possible in in their research process and for all and in general um it requires a stable and scalable and reliable market for high quality publications and the distribution of these publications the following slides um i will compare um some limiting factors and suggested solutions from different stakeholder perspectives and starting with the perspective of authors and some of these factors and solutions among these stakeholders um are different but but they also um some of them which are common so from the perspective of authors there is a limiting factor the lack of perception due to the lack of reputation of the publication initiative so if i start or i'm i'm running a non-apc publication initiative um one of the first problems is um how to make it known to the um to the researchers as potential authors then there is often a misunderstanding regarding what open access means and also um how the open access publication process can ensure um quality assurance processes and um limiting factor um especially for new initiatives is also that um the business model might not be known or not um made transparent but suggested solutions on the other side are um to make use of um widely recognized initiatives like 2aj or way 2020 or escores um which are in a position to assess such publication initiatives um with regard to the issues of misunderstanding of course um there is a need of information campaigns to conduct workshops um to provide fora and so that people and initiatives can can network and also share um their knowledge and um with regard to the transparency issue of course the funding and financing flows must be made transparent from the perspective of the non-apc publishing initiatives um limiting factors can be the lack of established often established branding um the limited financial stability um again the issue if the business model is not transparent and if the initiative is not yet well established on the market an idea to solve the problem some of the problems is to organize cooperatively as a kind of meta publisher uh our joint venture um for smaller publishers uh regarding the business model and ideas to follow this subscribe to open model and also to liaise with uh incorporate for instance with libraries which uh hopefully can provide support in terms of stuff and infrastructures and uh because there are several uh publication initiatives out there it's important to um highlight the unique selling points of of the of the initiative sometimes it can be important to have expert guidance um to to make the initiative discoverable in search engines um it's important also um across these initiatives to communicate best practices and successful business models um but also with regard to the limited resources and limited finances it's important to share the resources and pooling um for instance with regard to the infrastructure but also um with regard to a pool of peer reviewers now from the perspective of research institutions um so for instance for a library the limiting factor is that um even if the open access transformation um is ongoing it can be that the acquisition strategy at the library is still mainly based on the subscription model and not supporting open access publications um another issue is the central allocation of funds especially at universities so um um for libraries um there is uh not sufficient room to decide uh to spend um the money for um different activities but also there is often still often um an issue with regard to the research evaluation um which follows um for instance the journal impact factor and is therefore not um quite well um suited to evaluate the institution or the researchers and um there can be limited opportunities to support collaborative publishing initiatives so um important here especially for instance with regard to the research evaluation is to develop novel and alternative impact metrics and indicators for research evaluation and also to consider non-apc publishing as an alternative or new field of activity for research libraries last but not least the perspective of funders and decision makers the limiting factor identified limiting factors are um concerns regarding the quality of open access publication journals um the issue that many projects uh which start publication initiatives have only a short term funding um and that there is a high effort required to evaluate publication initiatives um due to their huge number but also to due to the variety and diversity of publication channels um there are also again a few suggested solutions um as already said an assessment of initiatives by help of established and trusted initiatives like TUAJ or A2020 is one of uh is one of opportunity but also again to develop novel and alternative impact metrics for research evaluation and in general to run these publication initiatives by by the scholarly community as a summary and results we can say that the um the research funding agencies should recognize and support funding for cooperative non-apc based publication initiatives and that the problem of short term this long term funding uh must be uh must be solved um trusted bodies um could help in to improve the quality control of the publication process and in general there uh must be a strength strengthening of cooperation, partnership and community um as a really there's still an open issue of these task activity and this is to provide the practice guidelines for collaborative and non-apc publishing this is something that cannot be done only by open air but needs to be done by all interested um initiatives on on a global level and this was one of the reasons open air tried to liaise with with other initiatives aiming for for similar goals the results are manifested in as a deliverable uh which was published um early this year on the you know we'll have a look at the potential question um that's a question may I ask if the brokering service is operational or still in development the broker service is operational um one of the mostly asked questions or frequently asked questions is um how can repository managers receive um the notifications this is still an open issue so one way this works is if the repository manager logs into the provide dashboard and in the dashboard you can see the notifications of the brokering service another opportunity is to receive notifications by email but there should be also an automated way um not to notify the repository manager but the repository service and this is still working in progress and hopefully it will be solved in in a few months may I add something to the broker the broker uh was presented in the provide community dash community call um in february this year so you could go to this website for the provide community calls and check the day of february so there are recordings and also slides regarding the broker and notice that we are running um out of time a little bit so let's continue with the last part which andreas presents uh cross transparency in open access publishing and uh was the benefits of of mere research graph uh so as we heard several ways uh there are existing several ways for financing open access um publishing today and uh we see this shifting the coast to the author's sites and institution sites of our funders uh like um with article processing charges or upcoming book processing charges monograph graphy and um here is uh the point that's um these uh shifting should be transparent and um so recording so please click here um and um transparency is here an important uh indicator to estimate also the coast for these open access publishing um in the last years there are um some initiatives created to monitor um apcs and one what I'd like to mention here is uh please go back it's uh one from uh uk uh as a disc apc monitor um and um there's another one in sweden um for called apc uh open apc sweden and uh there's um the last initiatives that I would like to mention here that are also in our work package is the open apc that you see here in the slide and small overview about the apcs what as I said is not only the apcs are interesting to for transparent recording and reporting it's also the bpcs and um the open apc project follows also the uh transform of agreements the open apc project uh publish their data set on github and it's open it's uh could be um couldn't get from from github and you can um try some analysis and we try some analysis with the open air graph and the open air graph a short introduction here is uh the um based on the metadata we are collecting via um the guidelines are presenting the graph uh inclusive city duplication and so on and these information are open also to all via apis or via dump the dump is uh on synodo and um we try the first analysis about the coverage between the open apc data sets that we found on github and the open the research graph and the first analysis we tried in march 2019 and found in coverage um of uh 91 percent around um you see here uh the distribution of the apc in march that we found in the open air research graph um and the most is in uh round about 2000 euro year with more than 30 thousand 35 thousand um articles we try this over the year and in march 2020 we found 98 percent in from the open a apc data set in the uh open air graph and here is uh the main average apc around also around 2000 and we have more than 40 thousand articles there we do a lot of more uh analysis and um um there we check the average of apcs from the mean apcs from the um from a single funder and we see that um it's um the first one is back on trust and um the european commission is with around 2000 euros um in the middle field of the average so um in the next slide we do this same for um the march 2020 and we see a shifting we have more records that we found in open air and in open air uh we have the uh project and funder relations and um we see that the one of the welcome trust is the first one and the second is in 2020 the italian ministry of education university and research uh was a mean apc over um 2000 around about 2500 euros depends on the time um the last slide uh was to give an overview about the a special project that we picked up in the open research graph with the open apc data set and we see here um the uh timescale from march 2019 to march 2020 and um on the left side the articles the articles started around to uh 1300 and in march 2020 we have 2600 of uh articles that we found for horizon 2020 um this blue line the red line is the um the trend of the average apc um it goes from around 1800 to 2400 um and growing up is like 30 and the green line was is the uh summary of apcs that we see from uh three million to six million of um million euros that are that we found in the open apc data set so this is a small briefly introduction to the analyst analyzing of the apc data sets with the open air research graph and that's open to all and everyone can use the data sets on both sides so um uh that's from my side for the analyst of the apcs here and we are six minutes half the three says so i don't know if we have time to discuss something thank you very much at least it was the idea to have time for questions and discussion yeah you have some time if there are any questions of course i could put links from the apc side was in the chat so you can check the national initiatives and uh the open apc legislative Andreas maybe you could add are all these links in the presentation oh all links are also in the okay so in that case we if you send me the presentation i will i will add it to the webinar page so you can people can see it there okay uh i think this means that you are very clear so that's good news uh if there are any no more questions uh maybe we should close i mean one one question i still have and um this was um about our um engagement with other non-apc publication initiatives to work together and i think we we have not yet found a good solution where we can globally discuss um this aspect of how can can such smaller initiatives um be made sustainable um where can we where can the community share their experience experiences with business models um and now there are a lot of a lot of projects are running and and and the european countries for instance um but still they're beside of mailing lists for instance i think there's still a lack of of such a discussion forum for the community to to find out the best to find out and discuss best strategies to achieve the division um for cooperative publishing if any of the participants have suggestions to to this regard um you are welcome to share okay i also i don't see any raised hands or anything so i think this means we can um we can close this for those of you who don't have enough of webinars in 45 minutes we'll be starting another one a collaboration material it's another room but uh you can register if you want to join you can still register on the open open air open access pages oh so there is there is one more question um from Irina Dick Dick Tiarova um how the local publishers are not university ones and not not big global actors can endorse open science and their practices if they are being excluded from scientific communication you have any opinions on that yes um one approach is um we started at least in Germany um in in the area of of book publishers in the social sciences and humanities we partly connected with with billford university library and and the transcript publisher um they set up a forum um called enable and at least this is one one where we are these smaller book publishers um can can come together and share their experiences and ideas but still this is rather um yeah a solution on a national level and the forum itself is also in germans so it doesn't help um to discuss if if such questions should be discussed more globally and how they can endorse open science and their practices yeah i think it's it's it's more it cannot be done by by the book publishers alone of course the um the researchers as as authors must be aware of open science principles too and um together um they can follow these open science principles um yes so it's for libraries publishers and authors with a focus on the social sciences and humanities there is another question in the q and a as well johan um so the question is if any of the open air guidelines are translate do they have Arabic language content and metadata so and uh in the for the for the open air guidelines institutional and thematic repositories we have at the moment um only a translation to the Spanish Spanish language and also for portuguese language and at the moment not yet for arabic but if you like to have this or i think the question is not so much about if the open air guidelines are available in arabic language but um if we if the guidelines consider the content in these repositories which is available in arabic so um i i would say no because these these guidelines are language agnostic um there's of course uh some some differences between arabic and latin languages but um we also need to um would have similar uh challenges with korelik or japanese korean chinese languages and therefore what do we um suggest in also in the guidelines is to is to follow um would have art would have aid and coding um of information and the metadata so the guidelines support mostly uh um language fields like xml language um so there's some attributes for this um and utf art is for the technical reason in the repository in the repository so the most repository applications support utf art so i don't know utf 16 but yeah there's a follow-up question that um registration of of repositories failed um here it would be good if not yet done if you could create a ticket in the open air head desk system um or you can also write us directly under the following address from some chat it's a chat window i put the help desk please okay um then we hope that um that the webinar was was helpful and interesting to you and yeah it would be nice to to stay in contact so that have a good day and see you thank you very much Johan Andreas i'm going to close this because we need another room to ready another room for the next webinar so thank you very much everybody the recordings and slides will be made available as soon as possible