 My name is Tony Ross. Hello. I'm the scientific manager for open air Today, I'll just give a brief presentation to tell those of you Who don't aren't familiar with open air, which a lot of you will be a little bit about open air and why we are involved with the field of open peer review so Open air is a is an e infrastructure for open science. We are a With an easy funded project. We're now in our third phase of project funding. We've been going since 2009 and our Our mission has evolved along with the open access policies of the European Commission So we were funded by the European Commission to help implement and monitor their open access policies The European Commission since 2008 had a pilot on open access. We helped disseminate information on that and monitor levels of compliance with the open access and then in horizon 2020 Now the open access Pilot is extended to a mandate. So the European Commission all funds for horizon 2020 projects now require All that all publications be made open access The it's a the mandate is a green mandate. So even if you publish in APC journals, you still must deposit within a repository Deposit your paper within a repository Although the easy does pay for APC's both from project budgets, but now also we are running a pilot to disseminate funds post Pilot, this is called the FP7 post grant pilot and then the Becoming more progressive with open science the European Commission At the start of this year had an open data pilot This was for about 20% of projects in horizon 2020 In the same way as the as the open access pilot and this was Projects had to commit taking part in the pilot had to commit to making the all the raw data that underpins Claims in scientific publications. They had to commit to making that Openly accessible. We've just found out that from 2017. This will now become the word isn't mandate yet But it will become open data by default lots of very easy opt-outs if you have concerns over sensitivity or Competition or so on very easy opt-outs, but it will open data will become the default within horizon 2020 from 2017 And so we can see here the evolution the key concern at first was open access to publications This was this was really and for the for the European Commission It was the key and for open air it was the key open air stands for open access Infrastructure for research in Europe. We were very much focused on open access, but as the European Commission has evolved And we like to think that they have evolved with us as well But so we have evolved with them and so now Open air is very much an open science infrastructure for Europe How do we do this we provide we have a network of of Open acts national open access desks that provide awareness And help to harmonize and align policies that provide support and training and in how and what open science is How you do it? We also provide Interoperability and services. So we have on the one hand this human network And on the other side a digital network The current project phase is open air 2020 it is It has 50 partners from all over from all over Europe. We're in every EU country and more And we are consist data centers universities libraries and especially repositories To talk a little about the human infrastructure of open air Then the human infrastructure the backbone of it is the national the network of national open access desks So we have local representatives in every European country every EU country and beyond. So we're also in Norway Turkey Serbia and so on and they provide local support to For open access training and support they help to align policies From the EC level down to the local level and they also provide technical assistance to find your National open access desk just go to the open air portal for no ads and then finally so we the human infrastructure is about From a European level from the EC level trying to bring that implementation right down to the national and to the local level The institutional level, but then we also don't want to just be a European Silo, of course, we don't want that so we then then have outreach fire the Coalition of open access repositories by via core. We have outreach to similar organizations in in the rest of the world most We're in very advanced discussions with La referencia day of in Latin America as a similar network They've recently taken up our guidelines and we also hold talks with court with share in the US for example So this is the human infrastructure here This is the technical infrastructure. I won't Spend too long here. I just want you to look at the left-hand side. So we The European the EC's policy is a green open access mandate, okay? And we are a repository. We are an infrastructure that is very much originally based on repositories, so repositories institutional repositories and Subject repositories are very much the the backbone of Of our architecture at first So what we do is we publish guidelines for repositories to say Publish your metadata in this standardized format and then we can aggregate it So we can act as the finding agent for all the very diverse repositories of Europe for the EC to be able to check that Their publications that they are funding have been made open access. So this is the monitoring aspect So it's built on repositories, but we also take from Chris systems from research information systems And also straight from open access journals and increasingly we will be taken from data repositories as well Because with the open data pilot, we are now very keen to move forward with the linking of data to publications We once we have all this information Our tech people do some really clever things on with text and data mining to find which projects they belong to Which institutions? They link the data to the publications and so on here And then this allows things like discovery monitoring reporting and so on and the result is this is the open-air information space It's 14 million publications with 7 million authors more than 690 data providers and Lots of data sets lots of publications lots of organizations linked to each other So the ideal being that the European Commission or any funders could go and look They funded this project how many publications came from this project which with which impact and they can then see Levels of compliance with open access, but they can also see what impact their research is having Open access open-air 2020 we've broadened our remit like I said into open science so we are for example, we Our information is all openly available via API, but we're also making it available now by linked open data That service is already in beta We are doing lots of things with the The RDA and with the world data system WDS world data system in terms of data citation and Literature data integration. We also are looking at legal issues in open data Issues of data protection and public sector information in open data We're looking at new metrics for open access and is and one more task. We are looking at is open peer review and The idea being that Open science is more than open access. It's about open process open results and open processes We'll talk about this a lot today, so I won't dwell on it but traditional problem traditional peer review has problems we know that and These are some of the actual some of the claims of problems with with traditional peer review and Open peer review of its many colors is thought to be able to tackle some of these problems, so One thing that I would like in the breakup groups this afternoon One of the things that I would really like to work on is the question of what is open peer review because I think a lot of people I think sometimes we make competing claims and We're arguing past each other because if I say open peer review is Helps with incentive if you have a different model of in of open peer review in mind that doesn't have anything to do with incentive You'll say no, this is stupid so I think one of the main problems that we have and a forum like this and Going forward. Maybe we can work on this together is to define what we mean by open peer review and for me It's an umbrella term Traditionally open but traditionally peer review is anonymous at least usually single or double-blind so it's anonymous and it's selective in that The reviewers are usually selected by editors and it's opaque in that the reviews Neither the reviews or the process are made public So my conception of open peer review is any type of new peer review that changes one of these factors In order to tackle one of the perceived problems of peer review So openness in peer review for me means either absence of anonymity so open identity it or self-selecting reviewers meaning Open participation perhaps you're also open commentary comes into play or public processes and public reviews This would be open access peer review. I suppose Why is what is open-air doing so we We've been doing a landscape scan of initiatives and models and so on we will have a report coming we will put out a stakeholder survey in in July On specific issues and we've also Used the infrastructure the open-air infrastructure as a seedbed for small-scale experimentation with open peer review the first one Today was from Open edition My friend is not so good, but Pierre Monnier is here and he'll be chairing the panel later. This was a Really treated open peer review as a social rather than technical problem They used existing technology. So they used a blog platform hypothesis org for open reviews and they used Hypothesis is the annotation software for open commentary. So This wasn't about the technology at all. It was about the mediation and trying to get the Get people involved. They did experiments with open review and with open commentary Next the result of a technical that we held was Josh from we have Josh Nicholson here. He'll speak shortly and Josh runs the win over and Open access journal for gray literature And with them the experiment was to try and incentivize post-publication peer review specifically Journal club reviews. You'll hear more about this later and provide a platform for reviews of for repository content generally and Zanodo content specifically and then finally Open scholar and Pandelus is here. He will be on the panel later as well they produced An open peer review module plug-in for d-space repositories. This is a plug-in which Can be added to an institutional or subject repository which makes them in which makes it into a functional evaluation platform Includes published reviews disclosed identities reviewer reputation system And the complete code is open source and available on github Pandelus will Give you tell you more later So just to end I just thought that I would give my two cents on where Open peer review should go in future and for me I would I definitely think that we need to uncouple peer review from publishing is Peer review is another stage in the production of academic material. It's a necessary stage I don't think that there is any other any better way of of Reshaping our material Or acting as the the filter than to have peers judging the work but I Would hope that we would see more services that function just as peer review platform And thinking here of things like peerage of science And then The repository infrastructure here comes into play because if you have repositories or pre-print servers or post-print servers And then you have a peer review module if you have the repositories here The researcher just puts the pre-print here You have the peer review module here and the two can interact then you have a functional Platform to get publications to an advanced stage. You would then need of course need publishing software at the next stage but So the idea of then is to federate open peer review services We need to agree and So we need standardization Like I said, we need to agree what we're talking about when we're talking about open peer review And we need to agree what models we're talking about It would be great if we could agree how we measure the effectiveness of open peer review for example, our experience was scores were small-scale and a lot of the results were such that the There wasn't enough Critical mass to be able to give authoritative answers. It was just this shows in this direction And but how do we make studies such studies comparable so that we can use them to build an evidence base to say What works in what circumstances? This is something I think that we should work on and finally With this idea of federating services I think that we need and with this idea a couple to this idea of the vocabulary for open peer review We can I think perhaps we need to move towards Standardization of metadata so that we can encode within reviews if reviews are to become Become research objects themselves so that we can encode what kinds of open peer review This is under which circumstances and make that so that this information can be shared between Services so that it's not locked in silos. These are my thoughts for the future of open peer review and I thank you all very much for coming today and I Think we're gonna have a really great day. I hope everything goes as planned. I'm sure it won't but I hope There with us if it doesn't So that's thank you from me