 Okay, so good afternoon and welcome to this new seminar jointly organized by the ICTP library and the Science, Technology and Innovation Unit of ICTP. So it's with great pleasure that we're hosting today Elena Giglia, University of Turin in Italy, and she will talk about open access, why, what and how. So I would start by sharing this good news of the UNESCO recommendation on open science that was presented in the series of seminars just a few months ago has been approved by the General Assembly of UNESCO this week. So that's great news and I don't know if Elena you want to later comment on that. And we had Ana Pechic presenting the recommendation and so it's really great news for us. So a short introduction about Elena, so she's head of open science unit at the University of Turin. She's part of an international open science network being a member of several working groups, some European unit funded projects and scientific boards. She has been training and advocating for open access and open science since 2010. So she has long experience in this and I'm sure that we learn a lot from her talk. Just to say that next week we'll have a second part from Elena about open data that will happen on the 23rd of November at 3 p.m. So we look forward to the second part of this seminar next week. And finally if you have any questions and I'm sure that you will have interesting questions for Elena please use the chat or use the question and answer feature of Zoom. Elena please the floor is yours. Yeah so thank you, thank you Marco for the introduction and thank you for the invitation because it's always so useful and I always enjoy so much talking about open science, open access and so on. And from now on I will switch my camera off so that you can let's say concentrate on the slides and I'm going to share my slides. Can you see them and now in presentation mode right? Okay so the slides will be available for you, they are actually already available for you on Zenodo, on this open repository and as you can see here they have a creative common license so you are free to reuse not only the slides but also the photo because all the photos in the background are mine so feel free to reuse. So we are going to have two seminars together, today we will talk about open access, why, what and how and I will tell you I will be focusing mostly on the why because I don't like when someone told me what to do without knowing the reasons okay why we need why we need open access and open science. And our next seminar will be on fair principles because they are the let's say pillars, the building blocks of the EOS, the European Open Science Cloud and as we and or of a more global let's say open science cloud so it's important in my opinion to know again what and and how to make your data fair. Actually we are going to have just two hours together but in my opinion there would be a lot more to discuss so if you I would say if you like the topics we are going to to discuss today feel free to organize further seminars or courses or anything you want I'm available for that. So let's start with the why, why do we need open access because we we still have 75% of published research behind a paywall and that's not acceptable all the more so because we are talking about research which is funded by public money so in my opinion it's really not acceptable to have just the 25% of this research available and as you can see here you can see that in the slides you will find all the links to the sources so I'm not saying anything without evidence okay so you will find the link to the sources and I particularly like this quote from this article by John Rudik we don't know which research papers that today remain inaccessible could inspire solutions for tomorrow and that's why we need 100% open access and then we are leaving in the pandemic okay so I think we can learn some lesson from from COVID the first one being that sharing is crucial and that open science is not just you know the the fashion of the moment is a must-have because the value of open science was clear during the pandemic the second lesson learned was about data usually when you think about scholarly communication you might you might think about the final output which is the article okay the paper but the COVID showed us that we need data we need data we need them to be fair by design and we need them immediately we need results and by results I mean data but also the paper and whatever immediately okay so we don't have to keep them segregated for this peer review process and I'm not saying and I want to be clear I'm not saying that peer review is not useful but I'm saying that this kind of peer review this process of peer review which keeps the the paper closed for months and even years in some disciplines can be done in another in another way okay because the pandemic showed us that we need the results immediately if you rely on the traditional subscription based system we would have seen the first articles about COVID at the end of 2020 can you imagine because the average publication time is nine to 18 months another lesson learned from COVID and I invite you really to listen and to watch the video recording of the keynote Robert Terry gave to the Open Science Fair early in September this year Robert Terry is working at the World Health Organization so he knows what he is talking about and he told us that in the WHO living guidelines only 20 less than 25 percent comes from traditional literature so he said and it's very I would say it's a strong sentence they failed us right when we needed them more speaking about commercial publishers and commercial journals so again Robert Terry we need to rethink the order so first publish the preprint and in physics you you know that with archive you are already used to do it then go for open peer review and then the paper can earn a real impact in the real life and not using this toxic indicator which is the impact factor which is right it is like winning a gold medal without even running a race okay just because you publish in nature your paper is is recognized excellent okay but the the real impact is another way and another message from Robert Terry the concept of journal is dead because there is no such thing as a version of record because science is dynamic okay it's a process you can't fix it in a version of record which on the contrary is what commercial publishers keep saying and keep asking money for and by the way if you are interested in this idea of journals and replacing academic journals there is this preprint by beyond brems and other colleagues speaking about the current crisis in in journals crisis in reproducibility in functionality and in sustainability so what they propose is an open infrastructure just to share data and information and the last lesson but it's it's the most important one look at this paper published at the beginning of the pandemic we are opening everything scientists share coronavirus data in an unprecedented way to contract contain and treat disease but this young researcher when salary year working at the University of Montreal underline an interesting concept so if we have to stress that scientists are opening now everything is because the normal behavior is to put barriers to science and not to open it and look at this wonderful example from nature again at the beginning of pandemic calling all coronavirus researchers keep sharing stay open and then you see subscribe a subscribe label and we know that subscription are an issue because they close the content for anyone not having a subscription and if you look at this recent survey 95 percent of researchers somehow eat a paywall so access is still an issue if not say I wouldn't exist exist and listen to what Bernat-Rontier is telling us the single fact that providing free information on universal science is illegal tells us a lot about how absurd it has become to rely to the on the old research publication model and Bernat-Rontier is rector emeritus at the University of Liege by the way here you go with two tools you can see the link again here on alternative ways to access journal articles without going on Syab which is a pirate so it's not it's not legal but anyway I'm not saying not to use it so what we are doing today and that's why we need open access today we are paying commercial publishers to look up a content which you produced by public money you also it for free and you review it it for free and during the pandemic we have to beg publishers to access our own content resulting in pop-up like this so 32 dollars to buy a PDF or look at this this is a wonderful example an article dealing with the open access ecosystem and you have you have to pay per view okay so it's really nonsense and we are paying a lot in 2016 the March Plan Gesellschaft issued a report on on this let's say it was a white paper actually if you divide the amount of money 7.6 billion dollars in 2016 paid worldwide in journal subscriptions I'm not talking about open access I'm talking about journal subscription if you divide by the number of paper published in here you will find that today in the subscription system we are paying from 3800 to 5000 dollars per article okay so reading today is not for free if you can download a paper is because there's some library paid for it and we pay to close that's the point so this is the amount of money paid in subscription which means excluding all the people not having subscription and by all the people I mean your medical doctor small and medium enterprises startups innovators every every practitioner once he has no longer he or she has no longer an affiliation with a with a research performing organization and the amount of money increased in 2020 to 10 billion so currently we are spending 10 billion dollars in a subscription to close the content to anyone not having subscription and in this situation in which you are not paid nor as those or and or as reviewers the net gain of Elsevier is the 336 percent which per se might be not meaningful if you compare to other commercial giants I think it makes a lot of sense because Google is 25, Apple is 29, B&U is 10 percent but of course they pay the raw material Elsevier does not pay you and 36 percent of net gain means that out of one million and actually the University of Turin every year pays one million in subscription only to Elsevier it means that 360 000 euros of public money is going to Elsevier shareholders so in my opinion that's not a good thing and a few days ago this paper was published about a billion dollar donation estimating the cost of researchers time spent on peer review and that's the actual amount of money 1.5 billion dollars in 2020 so maybe again there might be alternative way to structure this process of peer review you write the papers you review the papers why should you pay me to read them or say in another let's say in another way for researchers it's like going to a restaurant bringing all of your own ingredients cooking the meal yourself and then being charged 40 for a waiter to bring it out on a plate for you and 40 you know is the price of the pay-per-view service so reminder number one publishing should serve science but it doesn't science seems to serve publishers it was costas glinos speaking last week at the conference in Prague costas glinos is the head of the open science unit sorry at the european commissions something about the market so why it's important and it's a worry okay because if you read this landscape analysis um conducted by um Claudio Aspezi for Spark Spark USA this this coalition of of libraries and and so on supporting open science anyway the landscape analysis showed that publishers are moving from content provision to data analytics and they are selling them they they tried in the last let's say two or three years to buy or to develop tools to cover the entire research cycle as you can see here if they sell data analytics it means that they will know everything about what you do and who does it 24 hours seven days a week they are big brother and you are paying them to do it uh this is peter marie rast speaking again during a conversation on on twitter last last week okay so it's it's scaring all them or so because they are absolutely not aware of any conflict of interest which in my opinion is this crystal clear on the contrary and they never consider ethical aspects because if you sell data analytics on the behavior of researchers academic freedom is at risk but also in some countries like uh Hungary or um let's say not so free countries uh also the personal freedom of researcher uh can be uh at stake and all in all what's the difference the difference is that the business of publishers is to make money the business uh in in brackets of academic institutions is to advance knowledge okay not to enable publishers to achieve their commercial goals so in my opinion that would be the perspective to lead us in speaking with in them sorry in dealing with uh with open access and with and with journals but uh houston uh we have a problem uh we have several problems today we have the time to uh to deal only with this one which is 40 43 percent of retractions um in the last years are for fraud our attraction is you know when when a paper published is retracted uh it used to be because of you know errors mistakes or let's say uh not a sound methodology or something like this as you can see in the in the image here and again you have the the link to the source um 43 percent of retractions are now uh because of fraud and by fraud we mean um data fabrication data falsification data makeup and so on and so forth and if you look at retraction watch you will find a lot of um i don't know how to put it interesting stories but also scaring uh so stories and as you can see in the leaderboard uh 183 136 so it's not just one uh rotten apple uh it's it's a sort of new modus operandi um for several researchers and what what is most i would say um worrying in my opinion is that there is a direct correlation among the number of retractions and the impact factor of the journal so the highest impact factor the highest the number of retractions but why is that so it has also been called the natural selection of bad science because if current research assessment criteria uh tell you to do anything uh to publish in high impact or journals you do uh literally anything including falsifying and fabricating uh the data and that's because evaluation became an obsession uh it was a sentence during um yes it was said during a workshop at the Royal Society in London back in 2015 and speaking about early career researchers they said not only we are failing to provide the right incentives we are providing perverse ones because when a measure becomes a target it seems to be a good measure because people gain the system at every level and if you are interested in this topic please go and read this book edited by Mario Biajoli gaming the metrics misconduct and manipulation in academic research but again evaluation is the key uh is the key because this idea this let's say this idea of linking evaluation to the prestige of the journal uh maintains this dysfunctional system of high journal prices uh promotes competition over collaboration and of course uh creates adaptive behavior in researchers but what is more relevant for open access and mostly for open science is that it fails to recognize other research outputs like data uh code protocols methodology because the focus is only on the final output which is the uh the research paper the article so in this context uh open science might uh might help and what's the definition of open science because don't forget that open access is just a component of open science open science stands for the transition to a new more open and participatory way of conducting publishing and evaluating scholarly research and all the three aspects are crucial because it's a different way of doing research of disseminating it but also of evaluating it and central to this concept is the goal of increasing cooperation and transparency in all research stages this is that is achieved by sharing research data publications tools and results as early and open as possible open science leads to more robust scientific results to more efficient research and faster access to scientific results for everyone these results in turn into a greater uh societal and economic impact that's important to underline because open access and open science are not important per se they are important because they have a benefit on a society at large this might be a problem uh in some research performing institution i'm sure for you uh is not but open science depends on open minds and she was nearly pro-est speaking the former vice president of the european commission as we were saying open science is an umbrella concept so open access is just one of the components and uh as you can see in in in this uh infographic coming from the UNESCO the the focus is no longer only on the final output is on the entire research process and on all the components of the research process data methodology open lab notebook and so on and so forth and as we were saying before two days ago the scientific commission of of the UNESCO adopted or voted unanimously for to adopt the the UNESCO recommendation so this is very strong because these are strong recommendation but i'm sure Anna Perzic also presented them to you what's the goal of open access and open science to put science back at the heart of society this is paula mazuzzo speaking i invite you to watch this webinar it was like 20 minutes so it's easy to do because we need to recognize that uh all the in between is science not only the final um the final paper we need to redefine excellence we need to take back control engaging communities and funding open infrastructure to share knowledge and all the more so tell it like it is redefine the concept of failure because science it's it's an incremental process and you also make mistakes okay but science uh goes further also by mistakes okay so the shift we we should let's say uh encourage a shift from the final outputs to the entire to the whole research practice so coming to the what because we have no so much time what is open access is this is the Berlin Declaration the authors uh grants to all users are free irrevocable worldwide right of access to and license to copy use distribute transmit and display the word publicly in any digital medium for any responsible purpose subject to proper attribution of authorship so the only constraint is the proper attribution of authorship and as you can see here it it has been done for any responsible purpose and I would stress it because at the beginning at least um here in Italy or I would say in my institution uh open access was perceived as plagiarism okay I put my staff online and people will copy me but it's not the case because as you can see the only constraint is the proper attribution of authorship and it's clearly stated for any responsible purpose we of course we have some pillars of of this idea of open access the first one is that knowledge is a common and I think we can all agree that scholarly communication is a great conversation so of course the more is I would say open and the richer it is and this is the principle of all the recommendation the policies and so on the results of publicly funded research must be publicly available for anyone really literally anyone uh of course we have benefits the first uh of them being transparency on the use of public funds the second one is a benefit for science itself because if ideas circulate uh earlier and in a in a in a let's say in a wider way so the creation of knowledge uh is boosted okay but if you want to look at this infographic you will find uh I would say a lot of uh a lot more benefits okay in in open access and in in open science and if you are funded in horizon Europe you have to okay so horizon Europe shifted from open access to open science and open science practices will be evaluated at the proposal stage okay as you can see as you can see here so if you are planning to to apply in uh in horizon Europe for a grant uh bear in mind that open science is uh mandatory and it's a strong let's say it's a strong commitment from the European Commission towards open science coming to the how you know that in open access we have two uh roads uh the so-called green and gold uh but again Houston we have a problem at least in Italy in in let's say in academia open access uh the perception about open access is that we are speaking about journals only we always pay to publish and all all open access publishers are predatory publishers uh of course uh none of the book is true and if you if you have some of these doubts or uh let's say uh believing uh please go and and read this paper about 10 minutes around uh open scholarly uh publishing because it's very clear again evidence based so it's not just theory it's not just an idea but you will have some data and some evidence about this about these 10 topics so the green road uh which is also called self-archiving or depositing uh what does it mean that the author self-archive is self-archives in an open access repository the allowed version of the paper wherever it was published according to the publisher copyright policy so basically this is the only one the only uh slides which the only photo sorry which is not mine but the copyright is here to Mel Brooks uh you can do it okay like in uh Frankenstein union uh you can do it even now even according to the current evaluation criteria because you can publish wherever you want and then you deposit uh bearing in mind that as I was saying that it's not only that you can but in horizon Europe you must and to know which is the allowed version uh you have to check uh into the Sherpa Romeo database the Sherpa Romeo database contains the copyright policies of more than uh two uh two thousand uh scientific publishers rarely the allowed version is the version of records so the published one uh often is the author's accepted manuscript which is the let's say the final version before publishing there are possible uh embargo months uh embargo means some months in in which the paper is deposited but it remains uh enclosed access uh if you search in a Sherpa Romeo by the journal name you will get something like this so when you see this icon it means 12 months embargo you can see that you have different uh potential allowed version in this case for the published version you have to pay the accepted version if you put it on the authors on page it's no months embargo if you put if you put it in the institutional repository you have 12 months embargo and please notice that if you find it difficult it's not our fault it's not the library uh the closes are imposed by publishers and um you should be aware of the rights you transfer to the publisher once you signed the copyright transfer agreement so beware beware of your rights and please try to maintain at least the rights to deposit why of course the definitions I think you are familiar with this idea of preprint which is the file you submit to the journal the author's accepted manuscript the final revised version and the version of record which is the published version just to be clear this is the same paper on the left is the author's accepted manuscript on the on the right you have the version of record why I insist on the green road because you can grow old in publishing in the same journal which is maybe the highest imperfector journal the most prestigious one the journal the current research evaluation criteria ask you to publish in but then you can liberate your paper simply by uploading a file in an open archive it's immediately feasible zero cost so why not to do it and why I say in a in a in an open archive you in physics you have archive but maybe you also have an institutional archive you can use it's an order you can use whatever you want but not academia dot edu and research gate because they are academic social networks so they were created for another purpose they are perfect as academic social network but not as open access repositories why the issue is here in the business model because if they make profit they might be both tomorrow you know that we also had Mandalay but Mandalay was was bought by Elsevier in 2017 so what what what guarantees you that your content put in research in Mandalay will forever be open on the contrary if they don't make profit they can close tomorrow so what will be of your content of the content you put there and then the the there in the past years there have been continuous suing and trials and so on and so forth because because of copyright infringement okay and also in September there was content takedown asked by Elsevier in in research gate if you look for a repository you can go to the directory open access repository or to the directory of preprint servers but of course in physics having archive it might not be an option something about embargo just to notice that if publishers really added value to the paper they should not impose embargo because anyone would pay for the plus that they add to the accepted version but actually the problem is as you can see in this preprinting archive the debt there is really a little change from the preprint to the final published version the other road is the gold road meaning that you publish in an open access journal you can find more than 70 000 journals in the directory open access journal 29 percent of these 70 000 asked for an apc for an article processing chart which goes from 250 to 2900 per article but here you might have to change your publishing venue i mean it might not be the highest imperfect of journal the most prestigious one and so on in physics again you are lucky because thanks to the score of three project almost all the journals in high energy physics have converted to open access so you basically can publish you can always publish in an open access journal but you have to pay attention because there is a substantial difference among subscriptions and APCs subscriptions are paid every year every institution pays for the same content i mean if the university of Turin pays the subscription to nature the university of Milan has to pay the subscription to nature if not they can treat it subscriptions increase every year and as we said before they close the content for all those who don't have a subscription on the contrary article processing charges so open access processing charges they are paid once and forever only by the authors institution and they open the content to all so in my opinion there is a substantial difference and you also have to never never mix native open access publishers so fully open access publishers because they have no revenue but the apcs with traditional publishers offering an open option because they generate the so-called hybrid journals but here the main revenue is still the subscription so basically every institution pays the so-called double dipping okay because you pay for the subscription and for the apcs some tips and tricks if you have to choose a journal in the directory of open access journals and this is the concept of hybrid so you pay twice and if you want to know more about this idea of why hybrid journals are the evil please go and refer to this paper in in plan s open access journals are different because they enable open science they enable artificial intelligence text and data mining they publish negative results which we see are important because science fails okay so you can you can you can see here the benefits of publishing in an open access journal and two words about predatory publishers look at this example this is a journal called Early Human Development published by Elsevier and considered one of the highest impact factor journals in in education science they have to retract more than 100 articles published by a researcher because they dealt with medicine in Star Trek and the same happened two weeks ago Springer Nature retracted 44 articles because they were simply nonsense okay and yet they managed to pass through the Springer Nature production system without notice so basically when you speak about predatory publisher quality depends on editorial process and not on business model and if you refer to the paper we have already cited only two to five percent of open access publishers are predatory are really predatory publishers but let's think of it if reviews were public if we all underwent open peer review would it be better and this is the real question if you weren't under this publish or perish pressure wouldn't you be more careful in choosing the publication venue for your paper so it's it's again a sort of perverse effect of this prestige and competitive research environment but by the way to just let's say to detect potentially predatory publishers you have this compass to publish created at the university of liège as you can see is agreed and then you will have a sort of score or of potentially predatory behavior from a publisher and just to recall to recap sorry two ways so you can publish wherever you want and then you deposit in an institutional or disciplinary repository and that so you liberate your paper this is important for evaluation purposes because you keep publishing in the most prestigious journals okay you are compliant with the current research assessment criteria but the only let's say constraint in depositing is to check the policy in of your publisher in share per volume the other way the other road is to the gold road is to publish in open access journal they can be gold so you pay the apc but they can also be diamond so nobody pays your paper is immediately open there are also publishing platforms preprint servers open notebooks they are more disruptive against the current dysfunctional system the problem here is that they are still not recognized in research evaluation but I would say that research evaluation is also trying to change on January on sorry on December the 8th there will be in Brussels a meeting of experts on evaluation just to let's say to align assessment criteria to this idea of openness okay of so rewarding for instance the more the more you are open the more you are positively evaluated so something is changing if you are interested in this evaluation topic we can have a seminar specific on on evaluation something coming from plan s I know you are not let's say it's not relevant for you but there is this right retention strategy which is something new you you have to know because it's the same strategy adopted by horizon Europe so you need to be to be aware if you ever are planning to apply in horizon Europe and because it's a sort of you know prior obligation to your funder and here you have a list of misleading guidance by publishers and the other one is this price transparency so basically every journal should be required to tell you what you are paying for so you are paying for actual services you are not paying for prestige okay so I think it's it's a good let's say way forward okay if you are interested also in books you have open books publishers and all the more so you have some networks okay to discuss in the humanities commons and also an open access books toolkit as you can see is very complete because it starts from let's say it covers every step of the research life cycle so if you also publish books that could be a useful tool for you and finally something about rights so you need always to consider rights in and rights out so may I use other people's material and what I what allow people to do with my with my work this is for pictures so it might be useful for you and also tools to find freely reusable pictures and this is about the author rights so as I was saying before think twice before signing a copyright transfer agreement I don't know if you are familiar with the creative common licenses we have four principles attribution share alike non-commercial and non-derivative works giving place to six licenses going from the most open which is the attribution by to the least free okay as you can see as you can see here and again what I suggest I would suggest is also an entire seminar on copyright and on licenses and something like this okay and that's all from from me for now so thank you for your attention sorry if I hurryed up but we just have one hour so maybe now we can go I stop sharing right and we can go see the chat I don't know Marco if you want to read something you thank you thank you very much Elena first of all for the very comprehensive talk maybe we can start from the Q&A where there has been some interesting questions so maybe the first one is kind of big and it's about the ethical dilemma right there's a journal that our private companies making money of you know funded research with you know public money and is open access overcoming or improving the situation that's a good question thank you thank you Sebastian Miller and yeah it's ethical because it's public money and in my opinion I wouldn't hesitate to use the word exploitation since now I would say that open access can improve can help improve it depends on which open access okay so not the hybrid one I was mentioning diamond journals for instance at the University of Turin we are offering to our researchers a platform to publish open access journals now hosting 31 journals mostly in the humanities but nobody pays so or better it's not true that nobody pays the the library system pays okay but it's free for readers and for and for authors so in my opinion that would be the the right way to go okay and or some open infrastructure open platform not even a journal if you if you go and read this paper I you find in the slide replacing academic journals it's perfectly explained so what we need is basically a big archive okay just to share knowledge to to go back to this let's say initial nature of scholarly communication which is a great conversation so once you publish your preprint then the community discuss okay and it's again a great conversation I think this could be the way forward excellent and then we have I think some questions even in the chat about the same thing so about you know putting your paper in a preprint archive and how what is the timing do you have to do that before you submit it to you know a journal or can you do it after you have submitted it it depends it depends in high energy physics they they use archive so they submit before they put the preprint in archive and then they publish in the journal in other disciplines it's the other way around so you submit the paper and you you publish also the preprint in other disciplines again first you publish the journal paper and then you deposit maybe the final version and not the preprints it really depends on the let's say on the community usage I would say I see also do publishers like Elsevier allow open archiving yes yes of course not the published version but this accepted manuscript so you can do it I forgot to mention that 82 percent of publisher listed in Sherpa Romeo allows some kind of self archiving including Elsevier nature springer nature while a Taylor and Francis all the big ones they they allow for some kind of of self archiving and I would say the library is there to support you so if you have any doubt please refer to your librarian who can help you I mean the question from Hugo is really in the chat it's in the Q&A at the bottom maybe okay okay yeah if open access is supported by the same editors that are subject to the criticism why should it be reliable this is not reliable it's what I mentioned when I talk about hybrid journal and I I I think I use the word avian okay so it's not reliable at all because it's hybrid is a further exploitation because you pay both for the subscription and for the APC so I would avoid the open access by Elsevier and the entrepreneur and so on so sorry maybe I wasn't not clear and then I think the interesting point is that this journal contributes to the metric you know induced perceived excellence so now you pay to publish sorry for instance I find the publication cost of open access journal very high and this journals contribute to the metric induced perceived excellence yes but again it's it's about the first of all evaluation is the key so I see also the question by Ricardo at the end evaluation is the breaking point okay so evaluation is the key we should let's say aim to change these evaluation criteria but anyway even in open access in hybrid journals prestigious journals also open access APC are based on the same prestige let's say scale okay so you don't pay for actual services you simply pay for the prestige to publish in nature you know that after planets so the mean APC in hybrid journal is 3000 okay 3000 euros once planets was enacted nature said this press release saying if you want to publish hybrid in nature so just for one article open in nature you pay 9500 so again the logic of commercial publishers is commercial so you don't pay for a service you pay for prestige and this is what we have to what we have to to change okay this is the point you should pay for real services not for prestige I don't know if it's clear and also Ricardo and then there was a question about she helped that you mentioned in in your talk so can you put pressure and again if you go I see I see Sebastian yeah see up can you put pressure on the established journal yes it is should one promote Saab how is Saab not being legally prosecuted it is legally prosecuted several it has several trials the creator of Saab Alexandre Bakian is actually on the fly because she nobody knows where she lives so it has been prosecuted legally some people in the even in the open science let's say network they they think you should promote Saab but actually I think we should have more sustainable and of course legal ways to make to make communication open we have publishing platforms we can have open infrastructures okay but legal ones and not not Saab oh there are a lot of questions yeah in the chat so and also the yeah one one more again in the QA it's about open peer review should it be anonymous or not it can be both it can be both if you look at Copernicus Copernicus is a German publisher in chemistry I think or at least STM and they they have been doing it for years so they have a double channel the traditional double blind and eight weeks in open peer review for the community and in open peer review you can put your comments by your name or anonymous but what the publisher told us in several conferences anonymous comments are always less constructive than if you put your name because if you put your name and that's the point of open science it's transparent okay so people knows what who you are and what you are saying but if you have nothing to be afraid of why not but anyway open peer review can also be anonymous oh the last one is there any assistance for researchers in developing countries to pay or waive yes the ABC yes there is yes there is many publishers as a waiver okay so yes and as I see questions coming but it's three o'clock so we have to stop here because you have also another maybe if you can save the the file with the questions I can try to to to answer in a written way okay okay not not not to lose all all these questions absolutely so maybe in the next talk next week yeah maybe you can start by answering yeah the big question perfect okay so thank you for your participation because I see really a lot a lot of innovation yeah thank you very much Elena really appreciate it and thank you all and see you next week for the second part of the talk about data thank you thank you thank you bye bye bye thank you everybody