 Hello, welcome everyone to another training webinar of OpenAir. Today it's the fifth version of our Horizon Europe Open Science requirements in practice webinar. And before we start, I would like to quickly go over some housekeeping notes with you. Okay, so as you might have noticed, this webinar is being recorded and we will share the recording shortly afterwards. In order to ask questions or share your thoughts or comments, you can use the Zoom Q&A section. You can also use the same section in Zoom to upvote any questions that you would like our speaker to address first. You can also find the presentations in this link or scan the QR code available in this slide. And I will make sure to also share this link with you in the chat shortly afterwards. So with this very brief note, I would like to give a warm welcome and introduce our speaker for today. So today we have with us Jonathan England, the training specialist of OpenAir, that will be guiding us through the open science requirements in Horizon Europe projects and programs, and also share some tips, guides and tools and services that you can use to make sure that you are compliant. So with this very brief introduction, I would like to give the floor now to Jonathan so they can give their presentation. Thank you all. Thanks a lot, I see you. My screen. Okay. Welcome everyone. So today, as you probably gathered, we will be talking about the Horizon Europe requirements in terms of open science. And I'll also cover some of the open science parts in the grant proposal. So the slides already on uploaded on the nodal. And you will find on the first slide basically all the different resources that I'm referring to in the in the webinar. You probably already noticed, but I'm going to give again and like the definition of open science, which is the approach based on open cooperative work and systematic sharing of knowledge and tools as early and widely as possible in the process. And this covers as you know, open access to publication to data management. And it also covers also the concept that I will refer to in the second about open access to data as open as possible as close as necessary. But also the European Commission does put in Horizon Europe, quite a lot of emphasis on sharing information about output tools, instruments, and to validate or use the results and the data. That's the digital, whether it's physical or digital data should the access to the results should be available for to validate the conclusions. So we'll first start with the publications, then I'll go over the data, and then we'll see a few more aspects of those recommended practices, but which are not required. In terms of the mandates for open access to publications, you have to deposit the peer reviewed manuscripts. So there's two different version which I'll mention in a second. And so one of those version in a trusted repository. And again, I'm going to cover what the different types of versions exist and what is a trusted repository for the European Commission. So one of the big difference with if you were funded on the H 2020 is that there's no embargo period allowed. So you have to make your work available in open access immediately upon publication, and you have to retain your rights. By applying creative commons license on one of the versions of your manuscript. And as I said, you need to add in information about research outputs to validate the conclusions. And also don't forget to add the acronym code of the project within each publication. So a few definitions. So when you first send the job to a publisher, it's what we call a pre print. Then the peer reviewing process happens. And then when the final version is is the accepted peer reviewed version is what we call the author accepted manuscripts previously was also known as postprint. And usually this is the version that you might be retaining your, your rights on. But after the publisher does all the copy editing. And then what we sort of what I call the, the, the, the pretty ugly version of your of your manuscript. So the pretty version is the version of record. And so either the accepted manuscript or the version of record are fine, as long as you put one of those in open access you are. You are. The man you're. Sorry. You are fine with the mandate. And in terms of trusted repositories. There's a whole definition that the European Commission gives. But what we want to what I want to really focus on is basically anything that in your discipline is commonly used and is always a general purpose repository or your institutional repository will be considered as a trusted repository. It's not something as like the publishers website, it wouldn't be a repository by itself. It might be available in open access on the publisher's website, but you still need to deposit on repository. So you can search for that on open explore. Then there's also other websites for publication, for instance, open door, which allows you to, to search for specific repositories. There are a few things I want to mention about the mandate around open access. And first of all, the publication fees. So usually called article processing charges or book processing charges for books are reimbossable if the, the journal, the publishing venue is in full open access. If it's a hybrid journal where you know it's subscription based journal that allows. Authors to publish in open access. And then you, you are allowed because there are no restrictions on what you publish. But the ABCs when you wouldn't be able to cover them under the grant. In terms of the license, the issue of publishing a book or monograph on text formats, you can apply a more restrictive license, but bear in mind that a chapter in an edited book is not considered as, as a long text format. So it would still be under a Creative Commons attribution license, which I will mention in, in a few seconds. One thing that I want to really insist on and is linked to the whole mandate is that you have to deposit one version of your manuscript in, in, in this trusted repository. And so that's what we call self archiving. So, irrespectively of whether it's a full open access or hybrid or wherever you publish you need to deposit it also on the trusted repository, which also means that the, the author accepted manuscript and the version of record might have different licenses applied applied to it. And for subscription based journals or hybrid journals, you don't always have to pay for open access. It's the coalition as you might have heard of it. I have issued the rights retention strategy, which is basically a statement that want you that you it's a statement that you put when you're submitting your your article to the to the publisher, and it basically assets ownership of at least the other accepted and that means that if you have author ships on that version you are compliant because you will be able to upload it on on the repository. You can check the journals eligibility. And by going on general check it will just put from the European Commission, and it will let you know if, if the journals allows you for this route. There's also another option, which is open research Europe, which is the publishing platform from the European Commission. I'll go over this a bit more into details just to to give you a bit more insight of why the European Commission created this. So the first thing I want to, to mention is that the, it is a publishing platform. It's not a repository so you go there to publish your work not to deposit it and not self archiving. And if it's open to all horizon 2020 and horizon Europe beneficiaries, and it's free for you to use it's an optional service so you don't have to use it you can, as I said before, you can publish whether you want. And you can use it so you can still publish after the end of the project. It's based on open peer review, meaning that the name of the reviewers, the, the actual content of the reviews, or the revisions, the versions of the revisions are openly available. And you first publish basically your, your work, and then the review happens. So the work is immediately available, even though it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. And because it's made by the European Commission, it has automatic compliance with the open access requirements, because it will self archive it automatically for you on Zenado. So the whole thing I said about self archiving is only that the only time where you don't need to do it is for horizon for open research Europe. So the publishing process is quite streamlined. And there is in house editorial team that does prepublication checks to ensure that all the policies and guidelines are followed. And then the publication is is deposited. It's available for those two to read. And the reviewers are invited to do the review. And then once it's passed review it is archived on on Zenado and indexed in all the different indexes. So it's multidisciplinary. There's a lot of different types of articles that you can submit depending on your fields. And there's, as I said, a lot of different prepublication checks, but the team does not review the actual content. It's only the guidelines, language, data availability, ethical approval and all this. The review process is also quite transparent. Reviews are suggested by you as authors. And then they basically go ahead and do like the normal peer reviewing process, but in an open in an open way. For an article to be approved, it needs to have at least two approved checks. And it can have up to one approved with reservations. And so basically until it is fully approved, it wouldn't be considered as a past peer review basically. And this is just an example for reference of what reports could look like. And one thing also that is interesting to mention is that they are from research communities, so collection and community gateways that is available on open research Europe. That's that could that you can basically have a look at if you're interested in all the different papers in that field. And yes, there's a newsletter you can you can subscribe to. Okay, so this was another view of the requirements for open access to publications. And now I'm going to give an overview of the requirements for research data. So, in terms of the mandate, you have to manage. And again, everything I'm going all those keywords I'm going to mention, I will explain them in in future slides. So you must manage basically all your data following what we call the fair principles so it's the fair principles are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. You need to create a data management plan by month six, which you will update during the project and before the end of the project. You must deposit all the at least the metadata but hopefully the data itself as soon as possible after it's been produced. Or after it has gone any quality controls. It doesn't need to be open but you need to at least deposit it. And you need to deposit it in a trusted repository and follow the rule of opening as open as possible as close as necessary. So, as I said the data can be closed, but the metadata so metadata is any data that explains what the data is the authors, the title, any persistent identifiers that link to to the data. All this is what describes the data is what we call the metadata. You also have to share the data under either a CC by but preferentially under CC zero license. Again, I will explain in the future slide what those are the difference. And as I said before, strong emphasis on providing detailed information about research outputs to validate the and reuse the data. They are obviously and this is very clear from the documentation from the European Commission that intellectual property rights is really important for the European Commission. So they are valid justification for not opening the data so commercially valuable data for instance does not have to be open you can make it closed so that you can exploit basically the results. Obviously, if there's any data privacy that protection rules of, you know, sensitive data, personal data on the GDPR, then obviously you wouldn't be opening that up. There are a few exceptions in terms of the opening the data. If it means for validation, you might need to open it to specific individuals. And in, in, in case of public emergencies and that was created or added to the policy because of COVID-19. And you, it can be triggered by the European Commission and you would need to provide immediate open access basically to not just the publication but also to to the to the data. And they, they might be some conflict with intellectual property rights and this has to be discussed directly with the project officer in general. So, as I mentioned before, I'm going to describe a few things that I had mentioned before a few definitions. So this is the same slide as for the publications, the trusted repositories basically the same definition. And so use one that is well endorsed in your community, or use a generic one like the nodo for research data, there's a specific website where you can look for different repositories, we call these related. Or you can just go and open a explore it has all the different repositories available. So, in terms of licenses, I mentioned for publication, it has to be on the creative commons attribution license a CC by license. And for data, it's perfectly a CC zero. So creative commons is, it's an actual license. So it's, it's a legal binding license, basically that CC by at least it avoids any confusion basically of what you can or cannot do with the data or the publication. And so under CC by you have to basically say, could the authors were only in which context. So, for instance, all those slides here, you can see in the bottom right is under CC by license, meaning that you can reuse as you want, you can modify it. As long as you credit the, the origin, a CC zero is a bit different and I won't go really into details of why it's preferred for data but CC zero is basically you can share that without having to attribute the the authors. And it's quite similar to public domain type of, of a license. So I mentioned the data management plan. And it's a beast in itself, and I can't cover it in what goes into detail but data management plan if you haven't heard of it is a formal called a living document because you will be updating it every time there's any modifications. It basically says how the research data during and after the project will be handled. So, during the project, how are you going to share with other partners, the data after the project, what are you going to do with the data, how are you going to to share it with with the world. The issue with a data management plan is that there's no absolute right or wrong answers. As long as you justify why you made this this decision. And it's in theory. Okay, it's just that you have to prove to the project officer basically that you know what you're doing with with your, your projects. And in terms of the fair principles I mentioned those again. Again, it's, it's a two shorts of a webinar to be able to go into details. And, but basically there are a few different concepts around so, for instance, having your data always needs to have what we call a persistent identify so it's like a DIY. So, for instance, if you deposit on Zenodo, it will give you this URL that was there's never any broken links with a person identifier. It needs to be deposited on a trusted repository. It needs to be well documented. So have a read me file has a clear license and use open file formats if possible or well used file formats, all the type of aspects are form what we call the the fair principles. But again, if you're not familiar with them you will need to look a bit more into it to get familiar with it and to be able to also fill in the the DMP. And you also need to provide so all the articles needs to include data availability statements. Even if there's no data associated with the article you still need to to to provide that. A couple of useful tools that might interest you. I mentioned it already open explore and it's you can search for publication research data to repositories. It has, it's basically an aggregator of all the different types of information they exist, but it's publication data softwares grants organization. It's used by the European Commission, the research graph days behind it is used by the European Commission to make sure that you are compliant also with your data and publication, the data and publication requirements. Amnesia is for compliance with GDPR basically is where you're going to analyze the personal data or sensitive data and it's a useful tool so that you basically don't have to fall under GDPR because the data becomes anonymous. Argos is a tool to write data management plans it's free it's open source. It's, you can create different versions of it so you can update it throughout the life of the project. Then you can even publish it on Zenodo. And it has the Horizon Europe DMP template already embedded in it. And there are some community calls if you want to participate in this. Okay, so I've mentioned up to now the requirements. So I'm going to, it's a bit more towards the end or during the it's the reporting basically on the monitoring of those of those elements of open science requirements. You will always have the, the project offices and the reviews that will be monitoring compliance around the open science, the open science mandates. And you need to report basically in an instructed way on the portal what's your, your achievements basically. So in terms of the continuous reporting you have different probably familiar with the, the portal, you have different tabs that are relevant to open science. The publications is basically for publications and you can import automatically it will suggest based on so for instance if you were to upload it on on Zenodo. And you will link it to the project and then it will automatically appear on on the portal and you can accept it as part of the project or not so it will already be pre-filled for for you. That's why it's important to deposit on the trusted repository because it makes also your reporting easier. They are, I'm going to go into details of this, but because you'll have the slides, but there is a few fields that you need to make sure that are that are correct. In terms of data sets, it's the same. It will, if you deposited it on the trusty repository, such as another it will appear in the suggested data set and you can just accept them the same way you did with the publications. There's also the results and other results and tabs, which can be slightly confusing because of the names. So the results focus on the any discovery series product services methods that you come up with as part of the project, whereas other results is about reporting other type of resources like softwares, protocols, prototypes, workflows. So yes, it's, it might be a bit confusing at the beginning but I think after this, it's well explained on the portal. So up to now I've explained, I've covered basically once you've already have a grant with Horizon Europe, what your requirements are, and we're going to take a step back. Because I also wanted to give another view of during the ground proposal, what are the open science elements that you need to cover. Again, this is a site so that you get an overview of which parts of relevant to open science. So in part A, so the application form, you have to list publication data sets that are relevant, that your publications are relevant to the call. And in part B, so the actual project proposal, you have to under excellence impact and quality and efficiency of the implementation, you have some elements to mention around open science. In terms of publications, so part A, you always want to be, the publication use sites have to be available in open access, meaning that they have to be on a trusted repository available. If you share, if you cite one of your publication that is not in open access, you won't be considered as valid for the current proposal. One thing important because you probably know that the commission doesn't evaluate researchers and the researcher assessment isn't done on impact factor anymore. So the impact factor of the journal that you mentioned is not relevant. It's the actual quality of the content inside the paper that will be. And you can also give some insights in what you want to publish, including the commission's platform, Open Research Europe. In terms of research data, it's the same, the data you list needs to be fair. And so openly available if possible. An official data management plan is not needed at this time, but they will ask you very similar questions to it. So, in a way, you're doing like a mini DMP inside the grand proposal. So you already need to start thinking about it. And there's a distinct web package project management that must include the DMP as a believable. And as I said before, it's by month six. In the budget, don't forget that the article processing charges, the open access fees for full open access journals are eligible. So you should include those. Any help with data curation costs can also be included and you should definitely think about who and how you're going to manage the data. That's also why it's important to have that in the to think about this mini DMP when you're submitting the proposal. And anything related to engagement of citizens will add basically like bonus points to your applications and you can include them in the budget. And so just a couple of tips I can give in terms of the grand proposal in terms of the open science is to be as specific as possible. And so you don't want people the reviewers to try and find the information of what you will do with the data and you want basically to to prove to the commission that you know what you're doing and that what will be done in the in the proposal. And there's a few special cases, so the ERC and mercury fellowships. So in the ERC, there is no explicit evaluation or requirements for the open science, but it will always have a positive impact if you include them. And it doesn't have a specific work package. But it does have, it does require a DMP. And for the mercury actions, it is open science is quite a big important aspect. It will be considered under the excellence criteria. And, and it also needs to include any training activity and career development that has a focus on open science for it to be scored better. So there's a big focus on open science in in in those schools. So I mentioned until now, the requirements, but there's also a lot of other different types of open science practices because open sciences and umbrella term. And so I'm not going to go into details, but I'm going to leave those slides for you if you're interested. And basically, while the mandatory open science practices are required, so you will, your score will be lower if you don't address them. The recommended open science practices don't have a negative impact. They will only have a positive impact if you include them. So if you include citizen science, for instance, that will be a positive. But if you decide not to do citizen science, it won't have a negative impact. So, yes, there's a lot of different elements to it. Pre-registration is basically where you will publish the plan of a study. So the research question, hypothesis, research days, design, how you're planning on analyzing the data before you even start doing the research. So pre-registration, if you're planning on doing that, I would highly recommend adding it inside the grant proposal to show that you're really trying to make your research as open, transparent as possible. Pre-prints is, as I mentioned before, the version when you, before peer reviewing. So Open Research Europe is an open peer review process. So it doesn't really have a pre-prints, it's immediately available. But there are some pre-prints service that you can use to, so archive for physics is the most known one, but there's now a lot of different ones that you can use. And yes, I would always recommend sharing your work as soon as possible, even before peer reviewing. Yes, so then there's public engagement that can be done in many different ways. And if you are going to do public engagement, really think about demonstrating in the grant proposal what you're planning on doing that will improve your, you will get a better score. And citizen science are involving directly citizens in your research project is also something that will grant you something that the European Commission does really favor. So if that fits your project, then again, I would recommend trying to include that. So just to conclude on this presentation and before we ask for and open the floor for Q&A. I want to emphasize that it's, I know it's a lot of things around open science because as part of a grant you already have a lot of things to think about, not just the open science. So I would really recommend from the start she designed an open science strategy. So not just create a DMP or you know but really have a plan in terms of how you want to all those different requirements, all those different optional recommended practices to fit in your project. And yes, be as specific as possible in the grant proposal during the project implemented so don't write the DMP two days before the bill of all this due because it takes time so I would recommend starting from month one because it does take time to do and to review. Yeah, and make sure to report everything you do. And as I said for the DMP for instance, it's a living document so if there's any issues coming up, it's okay to change it. It's okay to, you know, change strategy during the project. Nothing is set in stone. So, yes, please keep track of those issues and continue moving forward. And yes, so we run this, this webinar three times a year, the date for the next one is already out there. And on this, I'd like to thank all of you. And I'll have a look at the, the Q&A now. So, I have a question. Most leading journals in our field impose embargo periods for self archiving possible. So we are forced either to pay a fortune in every more expensive APCs or not to publish in this journal. It is correct. Is there any way out? Yes. So embargo periods and the difference, big difference between Horizon 2020 is that embargo periods are not allowed. So yes, in the past, it was allowed by the European Commission so six months for or 12 months. Now that's not, that's not possible. So yes, you are required to, if the publisher doesn't allow you to use the rights retention strategy, then yes, you do have to pay for APCs. But again, you would have to find that money elsewhere because hyper journals would not be covered. But I would really try and go for trying to include the rights retention strategy, this, this statement when you send it. So, even if the, the publisher might not appear to want to, you can still try and then they will tell you, no, we, we don't accept the, the rights retention strategy statement. So yes, unfortunately, if you can't pay for hybrid in another way, or if they don't accept the rights retention strategy, then you do have to find a different venue for for publishing. Articles uploaded in our academia or research gate considered archived. Yeah, so I should have mentioned that. No, the straight answer is no, the academia and research gate are social websites, but they don't fit in the definition of a trusted repository. So they are useful as for you as researchers. But, and you can't share them there. But, but no, they're not trusted repositories, you need to find one that they specific to your field or a generic one like then order. And what about archive apparently does not fulfill all metadata requirements. The, the, you know, has with horizon Europe. Okay, so if you look at the pure definition of the horizon Europe, what is considered a trusted repository. There's, I think, up to now only three trusted repositories in the world. So the commission, maybe I shouldn't say that. The commission sometimes does things that like sets things that is a bit too much in advance, even if it doesn't exist yet. My view on on it, and I don't think it's an issue from up to now it hasn't been an issue brought up by the commission is trusted repositories is this loose definition of a repository that at least has minimum set of criteria like having a persistent identifier like a DIY and and has metadata and all this that is endorsing your community. So as, as long as it's robust, then it is considered as as as valid for for publishing. The one thing I do want you to mention is archive as a preprint server so you can upload your, your work as a preprint, then have it published and then change the version that is on there from the preprint to the author accepted manuscript that would make archive as a trusted repository. But if I'm not mistaken and may correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the case. You cannot upload an actual paper on archive. It's a preprint service before peer reviewing that has the option to update it with the peer reviewed version. But yes, so far, in terms of like the pure definitions of the EU in terms of trusted repositories. I would say archive is still considered as a trusted repository. Horizon Europe project reimbursed only publication in fully open access journals. What about books should the open access book be published by a publisher that publishes 100% open access, or could the publisher of the open access book be hybrid. So again, any publication that is peer reviewed falls under the open access mandates. So a book, so a long tanks format and monograph would also have to be made full of made available in open access. But it doesn't have to be the final version that is in open access. It's the same as with articles. So the on the publisher's website, for instance, the books, you could be You have to pay for it. But on the trusted repository, the, let's say what I call the ugly version of your manuscript, the non edited version would be openly available. So you need to at least have that version. One thing to that I mentioned is that the it doesn't have to be under creative commons attribution license. It can be more restricted. But books also have to be open access. And in the same thing with article you if it's full open access full open access book publisher. It is absolutely Compatible with with the grant so you can you can ask for For the grant to cover those those costs. Okay, apparently there's a problem with the DIY let Athena answer on this shouldn't have but okay. And Could you Could you discuss creative commons licenses we've currently listed CC by However, we'd like to know what other person identifiers have used in the past and why there's a tool on the creative commons website to help figure out which license might be best. But we want to make sure we're complying with open science while maintaining certain rights. And I can't really answer this question without knowing exactly what you're referring to. It will depend on what What's your licensing. So if it's a publication, it has to be CC by days. That's the role. If it's data, it has to be CC by or CC zero or something equivalent. If it's software. It's not mandatory but It is recommended by the European Commission and It is recommended to do an open license and so it really depends on On On the type of Elements that you want to be publishing. So if Yeah, if it's if it's data, it's more CC zero if it's publication. It's CC by There are other open licenses But in my experience, the creative commons licensee are the easiest to implement. So I don't see really the The point of trying to use another one since this one is widely available If it's software, it's it's it's a bit different. Why is it important that the MP is required by month six That's just the rule that the European Commission has set The reason why the European Commission does that is to make sure that you know what you're doing with the data. So if So a very Stupid example is if you're managing personal data and you need to within the consortium you need to share it with different Partners and especially if those partners are located outside of the EU then how are you practically Sharing that that data What tool are you using what platform is the platform secure? Are they any The security protocols are in place to ensure that there's no data leaks on this kind of things These are things that you need to think about and you need to put them in the in the DMP to make sure that You have thought of them and that's what the Commission wants is to make sure that You know what you're doing, but they want to make sure that you know what you're doing And also because a lot of the time it's something that we might think about but we might not Concretely write it down so people might be using different file naming conventions and to it's to avoid any Confusions as to how to Organize your folders organize your your your files within the consortium Are there any numbers or percentage on how well the rights retention strategy is received And image most generals will just reject the paper if the it is mentioned And I don't have an actual figure my feeling is that yes, it's still something that is Let's say optimistic Although I have had experiences where researchers I think one of the elements that researchers are don't feel in in power So they feel like the power falls completely in the hands of the the publisher Which is not true in reality you have a lot of power because if you all decided to tell the publisher no that's how we wanted you could definitely do it We've seen examples of that And I've had experiences where I've Recommended to authors to send a message to the publisher and the publisher did accept So It really depends on the actual Publisher we know that some publishers are a bit more Conservative let's say but the general checker tool will help you Check if it check on on that Is ERC eligible to publish in open research Europe. Yes, definitely anyone that it falls on the horizon Europe It's specific branch, but it still falls on the horizon Europe. So yes And could it be possible to have the aspect that differentiates self archiving from publishing? So publishing is when you Do the actual peer-reviewing process and it will be available If we talk about the traditional publisher it will be available In open access for instance on the publishers websites The issue with that is that if one day let's say the publisher And goes bankrupt The website won't be maintained and so the link will just die The self archiving that the point behind it is to deposit it on a repository which has the role of a long-term preservation of research So the biggest difference is this long-term preservation of your work to make sure that it is available For anyone to read for free in in the future So that's the difference is publishing is from the Publishers websites and self archiving is you doing it on a depositing a version on on on a repository What about publication in different less scientific outlets? Newspaper or the conservice conversation can we do or do we have to deposit them in trusted repositories? So if they are Maybe I should for next time I should emphasize on that it's only peer reviewed The mandate only falls on the peer reviewed articles So if it's not peer reviewed you don't have to do it. It's not required But it is recommended by the European Commission and I personally also would recommend Uploading it on the trusted repositories such as another because it will provide you with this DOI this Persistent identifier meaning that it will never the link will never break Which can make it easier to to share because sometimes Articles in newspaper for instance might not be widely available So it can be also a way of sharing with the greater public what you you've done and it's also important as one of those Other types of resources of outputs that you did for the project that doesn't fall in the traditional way of Of publication or data Can we deposit the author accepting manuscript in more than one repository as another and the institution Yes, absolutely. It might be redundant Because From You might want to deposit in only one repository because you want the more say traffic to it the more downloads from one place And to make sure to see really in one place that impacts your your work has But yes when I was working at the previous University I would upload it on both The institution and on the note of that was the personal choice Because there was an institutional mandate also So yes, that's absolutely fine. It's just a strategy you think need to think about whether it's The best strategy or not in terms of Yes traffic to your downloads and views to your to work So for publication if they are not peer reviewed they don't have to deposit it in a trusted repository and they don't have to be reported It's as I mentioned you don't have to deposit them on a repository but There's no There's no point not reporting them because that's A really important that the commission doesn't value just the publication and the data they value other type of outputs So this is not fully open science. It's more of Dissemination and outreach But the commission is definitely interested in in all the different outputs that you you do during the project. So even if it's not mandated is definitely something Positive for for you as part of the project to to do so would still highly recommend doing it How shall we proceed if the data collected to not completely belong to the researcher The communication of objects in museums here usually the data can be used for research But not shared with others without specific permission of the museum and as the researchers we have no leverage over this Yes, so As the commission mentions is as open as possible as close as necessary They might be some elements that are not in your control. If for instance you work with a private company They might not allow you to To provide everything in openly This is another case where you can't you might not have the specific commission Again, that's perfectly alright. You just need to Inform In the dmp for instance why you won't be able to open specific data to the public and You just explain this on my situation the museum doesn't allow me and then that's okay There's no right or wrong answer as long as you justify everything. So If it was a different Case where you you were saying I don't want to share because I said but then the project officer might say well, I disagree with this I think there's still room for you to open it but in this specific case. No, it's from Another Member in your Yeah, you don't have to if You're not required to if you if you can't If you don't have the permission Will there be another webinar scientific reporting so far it's not planned by by open air. No How exactly will the content be evaluated is a novel view what sorts of aspects are seen Equality even when those aspects are made this highly depends on the reviewers and the project officer There's no right or wrong answer. You probably Well, if you have been funded by under the European Commission that it really varies from Review to review and from project officer to project officer. There some will be much more involved and others will be much more Do what you want so it really depends on the project officer. There's no right or wrong answer. You probably know Well, if you have been funded by under the European Commission that it really varies from On the actual work people rather than the Specific Set of qualitative Questions and some journals offer the possibility to buy the open access for fee And these fees eligible for funding. So this is the difference between full open access and hybrid journals if the Journal only allows Full open access. So you have to pay whatever you have to pay fee. Then yes, that is eligible if it's a traditional Subscription based journal, but you don't have to pay for open access. But if you do they will Make it open access then those costs are not so eligible Considering on the open access publications in proposal may be very probative in certain areas of research What should people do when the major journal in the field and open access So remember that In the grant proposal we are talking about publications that have been published So the mandate of immediate open access is not In place that we are talking about is open It's available in open access meaning that For a lot of Publishers there's an embargo period and that can varies between 12 and 24 months So if your work is not available on a repository in open access you can check That That you can open it up and then just add it to a repository In open access so there's a difference between the requirements during your project which have to be a very specific set of Of Sets of license and immediate open access and What is for the grant proposal which they just means that you they want you to Provide an An open access version to your work In a DMP should we deal only with open research data or is it more general any type of data used or created by the project Such as deliverable created software minutes of meeting It's Research data in general so minutes of a meeting is not considered as research data But software definitely is a type of output. It's not necessarily just data but Any other type of outputs could be Added and because when you create a software you have specific files That Created and so you want to mention okay. We are going to create Whatever type of files we are creating in the project and we're going to store them here And this is what we're going to do so minutes of a meeting is Not research data in itself so it doesn't have to be added but anything that is Part of the research output like official research outputs of the project should be included in the DMP When should there be the data publisher the latest publication data for an article So the metadata needs to be provided as soon as the data is generated So much before the publication date The data itself should be made open as soon as possible meaning it could be before the publication dates But obviously you might not want to do that because you want to make sure that the publication is there first so because sometimes people might be Afraid of scoping and this kind of other groups, you know analyzing the data and publishing Before them so that's the perfect valid reason to put in let's say embargo on opening the data but the actual metadata so the To to make the world aware that the data is Exists basically there has to be as soon as possible Do you need informed consent from parts men to place the data in a control repository Yeah, that's that's ethics and informed consents and GDP out there. So all those types of rules always always apply If you're dealing with sensitive data and so I see genetic sequence data and this kind of things There's an extra step I would say of making sure that the data is secure So as With everything if you're doing your grants or before when you're writing I would Go with the data protection officers sit down and make sure that you've considered all the The venues for GPR compliance and a lot of the Organization universities have a chief information security officer also that Deal more with the IT aspects and so definitely contact those people to make sure that your Your Infrastructure the IT infrastructure is the best as possible to protect the The the data to double check embargo piece a lot in Horizon Europe, but not patient and no, it's a reverse So H20 20 was before now in Horizon Europe in H20 20 we could Were allowed six months for Stem sciences and 12 months for social sciences and humanities Under Horizon Europe so the current calls it needs to be immediate open access And just checking that the Yes, so there's another Common the problem here is the scientists at sitting between a rock and a hard place Articles and necessary to advance one's career and get grants and be good widely recognized publishers usually have more articles submitted than they can publish Yeah, there's I am not I understand the frustration I'm here presenting the The requirements set by the the European Commission they are Really strong reasons why the European Commission does it like this because without any change it just research would not go forward it would be Published it would still be very opaque about And we saw it really well during the pandemic when there was a real need for opening the the research to to advance on on vaccines and all that I understand the the frustration because it is a very difficult Situation to be in because for your career you do need to kind of follow the rules that were like the previous rule But at the same time you're in a transition period where hopefully in the future it will the research assessments will and it's already changing but The research assessment will be more widely accepted as not based on just the impact factor on the way it's been done the last 20 30 years, but in a more in a more transparent transparent and ethical way So I can completely understand the frustration and it's something that is Difficult to to deal with But But yes, unfortunately, that's the current you're in a transition period so it's it's always the hardest but hopefully we're going in the right direction because so there's another final comment about Question about open access book with the cost for an open access book be eligible if the book plug it But publisher is hybrid and publishes all the book that not 100% open access Also the cost to be level they should be publishing on the open access books. Yeah, so it's the same as for general articles if it's a hybrid publisher Then you cannot cover the The the book processing charges under the under the grant you would need to find another way but again you don't need to publish it in an access if the publisher allows you to retain your rights on the also accepted manuscripts and So applies to see by license to that and then upload that to a repository then you are compliant Okay, so if there are no more questions, I hope this was Useful The you can always ask more questions to the help desk at open ed at the EU and I'm behind I'm the one answering those emails anyway So yes, if you have any more questions don't hesitate sending us Email and on this. Thank you very much Thank you very much for joining everyone As Jonathan said that you can always reach out to us if you need to know we hope to see you at the next one. Have a great afternoon. Bye. Bye