I work as a scientific collaborator at the Swiss National Science Foundation and I represent the SNSF in the Chistera consortium where I'm also in charge with the group of NCPs of the Chistera Open Science Group. So what is Chistera?  So briefly speaking, it's a consortium of 28 funding agencies in Europe and beyond. It might be a little bit more today. Whose goal is to support long-term research on digital technologies in ICT with very high potential impact? So we try to support excellent projects with high risk and high potential high impact. Now the program itself is supported by Horizon 2020 under the aeronet scheme and as such we receive support from the European Commission to manage the project and partly for the co-funded goals to support national projects. Now how does it work? We organize yearly two, one call per year on two topics of timely importance which is done in a bottom-up way. So we organize yearly an open consultation where everyone can propose topics of high importance which are then taken all together in order to formulate two main relative general but still narrow enough and specialize enough topics on which we open goals. With the novelty next year where we try to organize, where we try to organize a call dedicated to open science. Now all the information can be found on the Chistera website obviously. So today I'm going to focus more on the open science aspects which is a relatively long tradition in Chistera. By the way dates back to 2009 and has already organized more than 10 calls and supported tens of excellent projects, multilateral projects throughout Europe. This tradition of openness has always been manifesting itself within the calls themselves where we have always been encouraging researchers to adopt good practices in terms of open science to open the publications and possibly the data underlying the scientific publications. But not just, we've already as well organized several activities internally and externally in order to discuss and present new aspects and directions and reflections in open science. An example is the yearly seminar that we organized for Chistera projects in which we have held several times sessions on open science. Now in the in the past call the call 2019 that we have already evaluated and within which projects will be able to start already at the beginning of 2021. We've already started first step towards a policy in open science where open access to publications has become a formal standard which means that all publications scientific publications resulting from projects supported within the call 2019 will be within open access. This is a 100 percent norm even though it's we could already observe very good open science practices in the past course. Now it's becoming a standard and the norm and we have already also encouraged researchers to also open their research data in in the best possible practices. But now we have taken a step forward and and we have engaged themselves we have committed that from now on starting from the call 2020 that will soon open all publications produced by Chistera projects should be open in open access and as well as the underlying research data. I will go a little bit more through the detail but not much since all these aspects will be covered throughout the four modules that you will attend. Now concretely speaking this is this is really something pretty innovative at the level of Europe because we are talking here not about a policy that applies nationally but a policy that applies multilaterally so which means independently of any existing policy at the national level whether it's existing or not and of course it does not imply that every national funding partner has to abide by this policy but this policy would apply strictly speaking to any Chistera funded project but throughout the Chistera network and this is a very important step in this in this in this in this direction in open science and it's very pioneering because as far as I know there are oops now I see can you can you still hear me I guess you can still hear me and I've become a presenter yes perfect um so I take the opportunity to show you myself as well since we are talking about open science so I can also open my camera um so again as I said the goal was really to have a comprehensive policy that goes beyond national practices and that applies throughout the Chistera network and this is really the big pioneering step that Chistera has taken now um you can go forward yes so as as already within the the course of 2019 open access to publication is still the norm but we have taken a step forward by reducing any possible embargo so no embargoes will be possible all publications have to be all the way directly within open access and now the big step forward is at the level of the research data which is now also the new norm for Chistera meaning that any data underlying a scientific publication generated or produced by the project has to be also openly available based on the fair data principles I will not explain what those is most of you probably already know that but this will be covered also within the modules of course this is module modular special clauses Chistera does not only support theoretical or basic science but many projects have also uh partners industrial partners or uh or develop applied research and in some cases of course there might be clauses that does not that do not allow or that forbid uh just simply the opening of any type of research data so there are special cases such as confidentiality clauses which are covered within the policy all those data and and details of course will be released with the cold documents in during this month and and will be accessible of course through the Chistera website uh so but this does not we do not stop here uh when we talk about openness we talk also about transparencies and Chistera wants also to be the example of transparency of openness and in this sense we are also committed to have our own processes as transparent as possible and and and for this we constantly revise and continue revising and thinking about how to improve the transparency and the openness our own processes and and own documents internally speaking but this has also an impact on the evaluation as a consortium we evaluate multilateral projects and we support excellent projects within within our funding schemes and this means that we have to guarantee as well the transparency and the fairness of the evaluation and this is something you have already been trying to to strive towards and we have decided to also formalize this by signing the San Francisco Dora declaration the the declaration on the research assessment which translates simply our commitment to a fair and transparent research assessment and this will continue and we will continue revising and thinking how we could go further within our procedures and guidelines now what does that mean concretely for you as researchers and future applicants and perhaps uh Chistera funded projects this means uh opportunities and some changes within the way the application is handled first of all many opportunities have been singled out and outlined and will be outlined obviously within the cold documents in terms of funding measures for publications for sharing of the of the research data this is a big opportunity of course for all projects because this increases the the visibility and the impact of the supported projects but this also requires quite some change within the consortium within the project consortia and at the level of the projects we now we have not introduced a new role the role of the open science coordinator so every project every application has to set the designate within the consortium an open science coordinator whose role is to put together the the way the the dissemination and the the data policy of the project through and of course keeping up keeping these those data up to date so through the dmp through the way the dissemination will be funded of course via the opportunities that we offer through national funding measures we also give access and make available several tools that support the implementation of the policy and this is also in part in collaboration with open air for the implement for the submission of the dmp for the way to monitor the projects and we keep of course many resources online available and documentation and of course we are ourselves available throughout the project lifetime in order to provide support and advice on questions related to open science so thank you very much for your attention and I hope you enjoy the the four modules that have been prepared for you and I remain of course available for questions throughout and I think also take the opportunity to thank the the team of open air for organizing these fantastic training course thank you very much thank you mad i'm sorry for for the technical inconvenience but now you seem to be a speaker for this for this session all the presentations will be available so I'm sorry if the timing was not perfect for for the slides I see there is a user while I'm now sharing my presentation there is a user that raised his hand Horacio Gonzalez Veles if you if you have something to share with us do you have any questions or please let us know in the chat or was that let me see okay okay it seems maybe probably was it was an error to raise your raise your hand if you have anything to say you can just drop a message in the chat and so I believe we can start with the next presentation we will have at the end a section a sessions with a discussion so probably if you want to if you want to discuss any aspects we can take it after okay so thank you very much thank you Hamad for this opportunity you gave us me and Eli Papadopoulos who is my colleague from Greece Eli is here with us today she will participate in the discussion and also she will be one of she will be one of the teacher of this course so today we're going to have an introduction session about the motivations and reasons behind open and science and access to research data so first let me just briefly outline the course contents today the motivation will be by me and then on Friday we're going to go to deep into the details on how you can provide open access to publication what it means to have fair and open data and fair and open software and then Eli will talk you talk about research data management and data management plan she will also show you some tools that you can use and then we will have an an ending session on December 11th which will be a hands-on session to get to to get you to know the tools that you can use in the open science okay some practicalities for today so we have some some actions that we can make to interact you see this is a remote session but still we can try to interact as in person meetings so you first have your buttons at the bottom on your screen for the zoom so you can use the chat for practical messages the useful links will be shared in the chat so that you can simply click on them and connect you can raise your hands to if you wish to speak during the discussion sections and then you can use the q&a button to send any questions any time to the speakers of course we will answer the questions at the end of the presentations but please do not put your questions in the chat because they could be missed in the between of the other messages that are sent so we will use also an extra interactive tool which is called Mentimeter which allows for a quick interaction with the audience probably many of you already know it if you do not know I'll just briefly introduce you so Mentimeter allows you to respond to questions answer questions or post any comments or a question that you may have in an anonymous way so if you wish your name to appear just please type your name before your comments we will be able to see the results of the interactions live so this is quite useful and you can be able to access the meter from any device so you can use the pc you're using or your mobile phone by simply going into menti.com and entering the code I will tell you when to use this this tool so please do not connect now but you will be told when you will be able to connect and you will be also given a QR code that you can scan on your mobile to use the Menti. Okay so let's start I usually start my presentation by telling you a little bit of myself I am a researcher now at CNR in Italy and I now have open science as my main research topic but before that I was a researcher in a highly technological field photonic integrated circuits where my field of research for 10 years so right after I ended my university course I became a PhD student in innovative research and I have to say that I had a clear picture of how my life would be as a researcher so I managed to made a lot of experiments in the lab to travel a lot and to find very interesting findings and to also participate to the progress of the scientific progress and the research but then I hit the reality and the problem was that I soon realized that to advance in my career the only thing that mattered was publishing in high impact journals and I needed to be cited and these made me enter what it is called the famous publish or perish paradigm so researchers today are forced to publish as much as possible to be cited as much as possible because this will influence their career but what is behind all this well we have to discuss a little bit about what means to have access to scientific literature today so what happens to all these articles that researchers write in their career you probably already know because after the COVID-19 outbreak we most of us were forced to work from home so you probably soon realized that trying to access even your own article outside that your institutional network is not for free so you either if you try to access and this is a screenshot of some of my articles that I wrote in the past if I try to ask them from my home so from my private network what happens is that either the platform is asking me to sign in with an institutional account or what happens is that all the articles are closed so this means that I cannot really download and read the article so I just got a preview and if I try to download them then I am asked to pay a paywall this paywall is what is what makes access to research findings very difficult today as you can see I have to pay 33 dollars to download my own article and this leads us to understand how the access to scientific literature works today so basically there is a main way that you can access your your or other papers and this is done thanks to your institutions that are paying today subscriptions to scientific journals to let you have access and read the contents of the journals themselves what happens is that your institution pays and you as a researcher get access to it but please I would like to highlight that you are getting access and you do not own the papers themselves your institution pays to own nothing this is something that happened after the digital era came and so before that the institutions paid to own the paper so the physical paper and the physical journals were then stored in the libraries so you could get to the library and read also old numbers of a scientific journal but what happens today is that if your institution stops paying for a subscription to a journal then you will not have access even to the old literature that you could get access to in the past so you probably already know but this is the right place to highlight that scientific literature is a commercial service so it is based on some different business models we have seen in the in the previous slides that one of the most used is the traditional subscription based journal so in this model research institutions pay an annual fee to give access to the journal contents to their researchers again they do not own the literature but only have access do you have an idea of how much this cost for an average institution well i'm telling you now this cost is about one to three millions euros every year for each single institution in the world that is paid to give you access to the literature then we have another model that you probably already heard about this is the gold open access the gold open access journals rely on a business model which is quite different from the subscription based one so in this model articles are published and accessible to anyone starting from the very moments of the first publication now sometimes what happens is that the author is asked to pay for an apc an article processing charge to give access to the public to his or her publication now this also has a cost as you see not not all the time not every single gold open access journal are asking you to pay something but some of them does they we can count them on 27 percent of the overall journals that have this kind of model and in this specific model the authors are asked to pay about 100 to 600 euros depending on the specific journal so you see here the costs are of course less than the traditional subscription based but these are paid by authors so each single so the authors of the papers and not the institutions then we have another model which is called the hybrid model so in this particular set of of commercial available scientific journal what happens is that we are talking about a traditional subscription based journal that allows you to have a single paper in open access in gold open access so the whole journal is of course a subscription based so can be read by those paying a subscription but you as an author can decide to freely have to have your your content your single article in open access so freely available for the end user to the world by paying an apc now this apc is about half of what we pay for the gold open access model where all the journals all the articles are open access so freely available for the users and the readers but in this case we have to consider that institutions are already paying for a subscription to have their authors freely read the the papers contained in the specific journal so in this case we talk about double dipping because we the the the scientific publisher are asking money but both to the institutions and to the authors to have different services so what is the total amount of this is an estimation which is quite old we learned in 2015 that the the overall cost for journal subscriptions in the world was about 10 billions dollars this is the cost the money that institutions paid at that time to rebuy the articles that their own researchers writes so what is the problem well we have several problems here first of all there is no transparency about the deals that the big that the the editors make with the institutions we can know how much it costs but we do not know the details so there is no transparency about the details of of the agreements then we learned that the research can be accessed by few only those that have money to spend for buying articles and we long delays because you probably already know when you submit an article for review to a journal the time that passes between the submission phase and the publishing can be several months depending on specific disciplines but we are talking about months and even years for some sectors for having a research published authors are given away their copyrights and they think they have no choice but this is not true because you have to know that you are the copyright owner from the very moment when you write an article so once the article is written you are the author and also the right owner for all the the copyrights that you have and if you have if you think of a parallel with the music when when when you write a song then you can also ask for money for example for distributing this song and this is the same copyrights we are talking about so what you basically you do is that when you sign a copyright you give away your rights for free to the publisher but in principle you could ask for money for that or also you could have your say in which of the different rights you can transfer or you can you can transfer to the publisher so one other problem that we have is that all this costs that I showed you before are rising every year and we are talking about the one to two percent of cost increase for subscriptions and also for apc one other problem is that the apc costs are not usually tracked by the institutions so at the level of the governance of the institution the only cost that they see for publishing is the subscription cost but the apc is paid by the single authors and by the single researchers and usually these costs are not put them all together there is actually a quite nice initiative which is called open apc they realize a method for tracking the apc costs and surprisingly the the institutions that are tracking this cost that they realize that that these apc taken as a whole is not so different from the costs that they are already paying as a subscription to the publishers so last but not least we all know that authors reviewers and editors are not paid but what they do is that they are given for free the raw material to the scientific publishers who make a great profit out of it so the ones that you see here in yellow are numbers from the profits of Elsevier back in 2010 we were talking about a margin of 36 percent which is higher than apple google or amazon posted that year this is because scientific publishing is a commercial activity and the raw material is not paid by the the publisher because we are all giving the raw material for free to those people so the question that i am asking you today is why do we need to spend this large amount of public money to close the research results behind limited access subscriptions scientific journals well we are doing this and now i'm coming back to the beginning of my presentation because of research evaluation so research evaluation and i'm really happy to say and i'm already said cheese there is is about to sign the the Dora research assessment declaration research evaluation today unfortunately is based on biblometric indexes and or for a selected list of of publications and journals where researchers publish their research now these biblometric indexes you probably already know about them they are based on the number of citation that a scientific article is receiving through its life so we have basically two types of index that are used to evaluate a researcher and the first one is the age index for a single researcher is a value is the number age such that the given author has published age papers that have each been cited at least age times so this gives us a number of the production of a single researcher and also on the number of citation his or her papers are getting so the other index that you probably already know about is the impact factor now the impact factor gives us the mean value for the number of citation of the last two years for a specific journal now what i would like to stress here is that they are both based on citation so the number of citations that article gets but whereas the age index can be referred to a single researcher the impact factor itself it's not any in in any way related to a single researcher but it is the mean value of the citations that a single journal is getting now a little bit of story about the impact factor this index was created by Eugene Garfield and this person was was in charge to decide to which journal his institution could subscribe so to understand what which scientific journals were the most used within the single disciplines he realized that this was a nice way to understand to understand this so by counting the citations and the mean of the citations of a single journal he realized that that probably those journals were the most read by a specific community so all these indexes have some criticism where first of all you probably realize that early career researchers are penalized this is because they simply produced less articles than their older colleagues the citation context and we will learn this today is not considered so for example negative citation are taken as a plus one in the count so we're not distinguished between negative and positive citations they are all numbers so the this system is influenced by the limitation of the citational databases so these are all owned and managed by big scientific publishers so Elsevier is one of them for example and this is they are very limited because we may get to know the number of the h index or the number of the impact factor but we will not not we're not getting access to the raw data behind it so it will be for example impossible for us to compute these numbers by ourselves these indexes can be manipulated easily by both authors and reviewers this is done for example when our viewer is asking you to include a citation in your submitted paper and this is done because people tend to cite other researchers that they know this is both done also in how to say it's not said that this is something that the researcher are thinking about but it is easy that groups that are working together for example they cite each other then this way of evaluating research by this index does not take into account for example the number of the authors in a paper and most important that they do not take into account the contribution that is given by each single author to a paper I was working with a research group when I was a researcher in the innovative technologies and this group was composed by very few people five or six people but they had a strategy and every time that one of the components of this group was going to write an article they put all the names of the research group in this article and by doing this they knew that this way each of them could increase the number of citation also without having anything to do with a specific paper what happens is that this system does not in any way take into account to research multidisciplinary this is because different fields have different average numbers so for example the average age index is different in the ECT domain and in the social sciences so it is very very difficult that we may agree to start a multidisciplinary research with a group that has lower averages for these indexes for us because this goes against our the increase of our numbers in in this sense so as you may already realize these the use of these indexes to evaluate researchers does not facilitate science freedom so the question here is what are we evaluating today well there was this this article that was released last year it is about the evaluation in Italy and this is just this is such a screenshot but you have the link to the to the to the paper here this was published in plus one and you can see from this graph by looking at the the red curve that after the university reform in in in Italy with the the adoption of these bibliometric indexes to evaluate the researchers what happened is that the Italian researchers started to self cite each other and cross cite each other more than it was doing what what they were doing in other countries so um having said that let's go back and see a little bit into the details on how scientific journals work okay we have a community let's say it is the ICT community and one author makes a very good research and he wants to write an article so what what is produced in the first place is what we call a preprint so the original manuscript that you write is called preprint now when the article is finished at this very moment you are the right owner for the copyright of your your your work what happens is that this researcher submits this article to a specific scientific journal so he sends the preprint to the journal editor now note that the journal editor again is part of the same scientific community so is one of your colleagues around the world then the journal editor decided that this paper is worth for being sent to the peer review process and and so he he chooses two or three reviewers to read the paper and comment it now these reviewers again are part of the same scientific community because they need to understand deeply the details of the paper what happens is that they read the paper they make comments they ask for some more specific questions and then they sent all the comments to the author now the author receives the comments and what he does he writes back to the reviewers and he creates another version of his paper so now from the preprint we have the postprint the postprint is what we can call the final version of your paper now this final version is has the same contents of the version that will be hopefully published on the journal website what happens is that the postprint is sent back to the reviewers and they can approve of this or approve or dismiss this version now if they approve the version these goes directly to the journal editor the journal publisher now this time this person is not part of the scientific community he's a person working for the publisher and what this person does is that takes the postprint and realize what it is called the editorial version now the editorial version is perfectly matching the contents of the postprint but it has this editorial line of the journal so it has for example two columns it has the name of the journal in it has the page number and so on and what then he does is that it makes you sign a copyright agreement where you basically transfer all your rights to the journal editor and you lose your rights to for example republish your paper now the question now is that having said that academic journals don't fund the research they don't pay authors they don't pay peer reviewers but they charge libraries and the public for access to research that is publicly funded and they issue copyright violation to researchers so why do we put up with this well we have better alternatives there are a number of alternatives that are out there we have alternatives to the apc-based or also as you have learned today to the traditional subscription-based model to publish our research now these are some alternatives that allows for open access of the last the published version of the article and even the preprint there was a very nice initiative that started a few years ago in the community of the high energy physics the scope three initiatives what these people did is that the whole community came together and they asked for a specific model for for their journals and their papers so what they did is basically went to the publishers and asked to pay not for reading but for publishing then we have institutional publishing many university around the world and institutions have their own publishing platforms that are sustained by the institution itself and then we had also fundersponsored platform like the welcome trust or the bill and melinda gates foundation and now from just a few weeks we also have the european commission open research europe platform that we are going to see in a moment so we have learned how research is evaluated we have learned about how the the models of the business models of the scientific publishing work and now the question is where is all the rest i mean you are researchers and and you know that science is more than publishing papers in commercial platforms so we are missing a lot of the researcher work only because of this kind of research evaluation that we have where only papers count we are missing for example negative results negative results are one of the most important part of science i mean why should i repeat a research that gave negative results to our researchers in researchers in brazil just because i don't know about it because no one publishes negative results in papers we are missing algorithms we are missing softwares methodology we are missing the work behind the peer review we are missing project proposals leadership skills product development and most of all we are missing data now data this is a famous sentence program still who is not a researcher that once said publishing research without the data is simply advertising is not science so why do we need to share our data because and we already heard about this in hamad presentation because reproducibility is key for science an experiment is reproducible until another laboratory tries to repeat it now let me just stress that reproducibility is still a principle of the scientific method so data is the proof of your papers how can others trust your research without accessing your data now here we have another problem because not sharing data means basically that the data we are not sharing will get lost very soon this here that i'm showing is a research that was done in 2013 here what happens is that researchers try to find data from the 90s and they found out that most of them we are talking about 80 percent of the raw scientific data that were collected by researchers in 1990 are gone forever this is because no one knows where to find it now what i'm going to do now is that i'm going to tell you a couple of stories that will will let us understand more about the importance of data sharing now you probably already have heard about the austerity theory that was quite popular a few years ago in europe now this theory was based by a series of of article that were released by two famous scientists economists rogov and reynard and you probably already know the the contents of this research so i'm not going into the details of this but what happened was that a few years later that they started the publishing on on these aspects a professor asked asked the one of his phd students to re recreate the graphs that were inside a paper now this could this was possible because all the data that the two famous economists used to to make their theory about the austerity were publicly available online through the the the platforms of each single countries so we're talking about brostomatic product values and the amount of depth of a single country so what the student did was that he took this article one article he read the article he created the set of data that the researchers were describing and then he applied the formulas that were on the paper to this data now surprisingly the graph that he obtained were completely different from the first ones so what he did was he had to deliver this this exercise to his professor and so he made a last attempt he wrote an email to the authors of the paper telling them the story and asking for an advice to reproduce the graphs what they did was simply saying okay so we are going to send you the excel file that we used to produce this graph so you're going to have everything that you will need now what happens is that the student found out that the the original excel file had errors so that means that whereas the formulas that were described in the paper were right they made some mistakes in in converting them into the excel file so what happens is that the article that these two famous researchers published were retracted and the phd student made a long list of of article citing the original papers and demonstrating that the the the results that they obtained in the first place were wrong so as you see sharing your research your overall overall research work means that you will also give the opportunity to others to confirm and to validate your own findings now we also see that in this period research is shared in a very massive way and what we see is that many many people working in COVID-19 related field are publishing what we call the preprint okay so the original manuscript before waiting for the peer review now preprint allow for a wider and open discussion in science the discussion you you already know and you you saw from the previous example the discussion does not end with the review process and retraction is actually good for science because it means that the community checks the results even outside of the official review process so this is why the preprint are very important because they allow the findings to to be published without waiting the months needed for peer review and on the other time we already know that we have a good method that is the scientific discussion within a specific community that will help us in understanding which of these preprint can be failed or can fail or not now there is a very nice block which is called the retraction watch where you can find stories like the ones that I already told you about they also have a very nice database where you can find the retraction by different topics or by journals or by authors and they have a very let's say nice statistics and and they tell you the numbers and and the most the the science that scientists that they have the most the greatest numbers of retraction now this connects to what I was telling you about the criticism for the the citation based method for evaluating research now you remember probably that I told you that the the circumstances of the citation is not considered where we when we talk about numbers now this table highlights for example that the number of citation before and after the article retraction can be quite different and in many time many many cases the the number of citation of an article that has been retracted is higher after the article retraction than before so this means that we should not for example count these in the total number of the citations that an article gets but indeed we do not know if this is what happening because the methodology behind the the citational database is is not publicly available but after all this story I have to tell you that this is all about to change so there is a very large debate currently in the scientific community about a new way to evaluate research now here are some some examples you will find all the links when I will give you the presentation we are talking about doras we already heard about it so this this initiative is signed by both scientists and funders and what they are asking is that please do not use the impact factor or or other citational based um bibliometric index to evaluate research then we have the aua the university the european university association and science europe that are making a very big effort in in discussing and understanding how the research a new way of evaluating research can be performed they also signed together a position statement and recommendations on research assessment processes now these people are really discussing into the details via webinars and and meetings they are issuing briefing and and papers they're making some surveys around the scientific community to understand how we can change research evaluation so having said or that and having having given you the motivation for a new way of performing science let's discuss about open science so the first thing that i'm going to do is that i'm not going to tell you what open science is instead i'm going to tell you what it is not the opposite of open science is not closed science but it is indeed a bad science why is that because science is um you you know science is discussion why should we close science why should we end the discussion and close it behind a payroll uh one of the most interesting part of open science is that science is accessible to all this means that we can involve the citizen uh and other communities into the scientific discussion um i'm going to give you an example this is a very nice citizen science project it is a collaborative project named Galaxy Zoo what happens is that all the the universe observation data were open to the the whole citizen so not only to scientists but also to to to the people to normal citizens so what happens is that a a dutch teacher realized and discovered a new galaxy by looking at this data this galaxy was uh actually was not seen by the scientists so she um she she found it in the first place and now it has her name but we have also other collaborative projects that are possible thanks to open science one is that about zika it is called open zika and it is a very huge collaborative project on zika virus you may remember the breakout of zika a few years ago and what the scientist did where was to organize a platform where they can openly share their results on zika virus all together uh collaboration is key and now with covid 19 you probably already already found out this what happened is that in march when when we had this this outbreak um scientists have realized that they needed to open everything so what happened is that also the scientific publisher decided to go and open access all the papers related to the SARS and covid 19 research now note that what they did in march was opening everything they announced it and then they said we are closing it up everything in october so now that we are experiencing in in the whole world the second wave of this virus what they said was that okay so now we postponed the closes the close of all these articles until january 31st 2021 and now let's just think about this so we are having a huge outbreak of this new new disease and we are discussing about when to close the research about this virus and what about the cancer for example or other uh other viruses out there why we don't open up the research and the whole research so that collaboration can be truly achieved so why do we need open science um well you you have learned that that currently the scientific communication system is regulated by market interest of big much big commercial publisher and outdated research assessment criteria so uh we are closing everything behind expensive paywalls uh that nobody can afford think of your doctor or professional or SMEs so now the the system that we are in now is that every institution pays four times for research they pay the salaries of researchers research funds they pay subscription to buy back their researchers and then they pay for rights to reuse the results uh so all this is done by public by using public money we have seen that every single institution pay millions of euros for subscriptions to journal and in all that we do not forget that neither authors or reviewers or editors are paid so i'm just uh showing you again the numbers that we are discussing here we are talking about 10 billion dollars uh probably more every year but this is not about saving money so what i'm going to tell you is not that we should eliminate scientific uh commercial platforms but it is about spending public money in a better way what does it mean it means that we should open each step of the research cycle open science is based on some uh some principles so we are talking about transparency we are talking about the reproducibility of science collaboration inclusiveness so not only few but all should have access to the research results accuracy and reuse of others findings open science steps from a concept that is the research that is funded with public money has to be immediately available to the community now in the last years more than 10 years the european commission and a long list of international funders like chistera made a clear choice towards open science what it means it means to give broader access to publicly funded research results this way we can allow a long list of action we can build on previous research results easily and by doing this we improve the quality of results we can encourage collaboration and avoid the duplication of effort so we have a greater efficiency in science we can speed up innovation because faster progress to market means faster growth we can involve a citizen we have seen it and society and we can improve the transparency of the scientific process now open science is an umbrella term what does it mean it means that inside open science you can perform different actions that will open up your research life cycle so there is open access to publication and data we are talking about open education citizen science so involving the citizen into the scientific workflow we are talking about open software methodologies we are talking about open workflows and protocols and software and we are talking about open peer review now all this is inserted in an environment where we should keep in mind that we need to provide research integrity we needed to change the system that we are using to evaluate research and then we need to have the research infrastructures and tools that will help us in embedding open science into our workflow now the main pillar of open science is open access to publications and research data so open access means to allow for free and unrestricted online access to research outputs again text or data now be aware because open access doesn't mean that you will have to pay for publishing and so how can you give access to your production to your data and to your publication you can do this through a repository so what is an open access repository it is a repository that stores open access digital objects and makes them available and downloadable so it is a platform where you can both deposit your outputs and make them available for the public now one important thing is that these platform deploy a long-term archiving policy so you're not only giving access to your outputs but you're also preserving them in time so repository can be of many different types we can have institutional, thematic, disciplinary, literature, data repository or cattle repository you can find a list two lists that will help you in choosing your repository both for literature and for data we will discuss about the repository in the next module into the details but why do we need to deposit in our repository well we said because of two main reasons the first one is to preserve your output now repository are managed and maintained by institutions by countries for example France has its own national repository HAL institutions like the university or research organization they have their own repositories and they are managed by transnational infrastructures or solid scientific communities that implement long-term curation and preservation of the contents so basically your research will not be lost then repository allow you to share your results and this is done because the repository provides a public interface that allows anyone to access the metadata of the digital object so the information about your data or about your object and then the author can assign different access rights for the attachments that means that that your file can be shared openly or you can provide a restricted access to some specific people or for specific reason you can assign an embargoed access or a closed access now the embargo is the fact that you basically close the attachment in your repository for a number of months this may be done because of compliance with the copyright that you have signed with your publisher or for other reasons for example you wish your data to be preserved but you wish to share them only when you are done with your own experiments so the embargo basically said say that you are depositing today and then you are opening in the future so now this ends the first part of my presentation second one will be shorter but now I want to make a little pose with you and I propose you to go and connect to Menti and this way you can respond to the questions that I prepared for you so what I'm going to do now is that I'm going to stop sharing my screen and linking the Menti in the chat so that everyone can connect or if you manage to use the QR code so you are now giving the link that you can click on and you can go directly to Menti.com and respond to the question what I'm going to do is that I'm going to show you the live results of what you are voting just let me share my screen again okay I believe you can now see my screen okay I see you are voting so the question here is preprints will get your research scoped this is something that researchers often think that if you publish a preprint then someone else can go and steal your research and findings so I think Ellie is still here with us Ellie can you maybe open your mic and help me in commenting the results are you there I don't see you yes so I guess most of you could could vote here and we can say we have half-half well I'm going to give you the the right answer to this the answer is false so actually what the preprint to do is that they give you a timestamp and they give you the authorship for the research that is included in the preprints so that means that actually by publishing a preprint you can be identified as the author of a research even before it is published in a journal so this is actually the contrary of what most people think so by by publishing a preprint your research will not cannot get scoped because you will have the proof that this article is yours so let's go to the next the next question copyright transfer is required to publish and protect authors now if you refresh your page on the mantimeter you will be able to vote okay so many of you are answering false Ellie do you want to comment on this I see people are still voting so maybe we can wait for a few seconds more I think it's a bit controversial the way it's phrased because it is required to publish actually so you have to sign a copyright transfer but to protect I'm not sure let's yes this is actually a false because it is not it is not actually required either to publish so in order to publish a paper with a scientific publisher you are not required to transfer your copyright you could simply allowing the publisher to republish your work without transferring your rights because one thing is allowing people to copy and and reproduce your work and one other thing is to transfer the copyright so the right to publish to a single publisher and it does not protect the authors and it's it's basically the contrary it protects publishers against authors okay so this is this is controversial so Ellie for you these are taken for from an article by John Tennant that you probably know okay so let's go to the next can I add something on the topic because it's it's like a topic that we're discussing the copyright transfer since I'm also in the director of open access journals you and I think you will mention that in tomorrow yes the researchers have to be very careful when reading this copyright agreement that they're because nowadays we see that very many publishers tweak some words to make to make researchers you know more or less reluctant into signing them yes I completely agree with you so these are these copyrights are very simple to sign nowadays so basically sometimes you sign nothing but you simply think on on on something on a website so researchers do not think too much about the fact that they are signed an agreement with a private private commercial platform and and for example every time you sign a contract I believe you read it but I bet you are reading the copyright and and also understanding it it's not because we are not able to understand but it's because these are languages that are used in in in legal domains and sometimes changing a word as as Ellie was saying makes the the context and and also the the meaning of a single sentence very different so the use of single words should be carefully and I see that there are some in the in the q&a we have people adding more you know we have also questions in the q&a yes yes I'm reading that aloud so that you also hear it can we really can we really as authors refuse to sign a copyright transfer required by a publisher do we not risk the paper not being published thanks okay so yes you risk the paper not being published of course because they require you to sign but what you can do is that you can contract the copyright so the thing is you are the author you are the copyright owner someone is asking you to transfer your rights to them it is not that you have to do that you decide which copyright you want to transfer or which copyright you want to concede temporarily for example and you could in principle also also ask for money for this okay and now the the thing is you should rely on your ipr or a tto office for example to to understand what is best for you and the other thing is that the the european commission makes you available a template for contracting the copyright with the publisher so that you can keep the rights that will allow you to republish your work in a repository for example so this is something that you can do I have the link for this addendum that you just can commission one in the chat yes so this is a very nice resource that you can use when the publisher is asking you to sign the copyright you simply respond with this email template where you ask not to include the transfer of rights or the transfer of specific rights to to the publisher if you want we can discuss this in details in the next module I didn't include this part but if you want to know more about the copyright and the rights that you have as an owner I can I can give you more details okay should we continue with the discussion or yes we can continue with the mentor and then we can go to the next questions now the question here was journal impact factor and journal branding are measures of quality of researchers of researchers now you most of you answered the right so this is false we have learned today that the journal impact factor is only a metric for for assessing what is the mean number of citations obtained by a specific journal over two years okay so has nothing to do with the quality of a researcher writing a paper in that specific journals so these are not linked okay so we can go on with the next mentor question and in the meanwhile you vote we can we can answer to the next questions we have what are the alternatives we need to publish in high-ranked journals in Spain yes this is also in Italy otherwise we're not valued so we need to sign whatever they ask this is not true this is similar to the to the questions that I gave you do not have to sign whatever they ask you can contract and you can ask them to simply to leave you the rights that you need to republish your research outside their platforms so with this resource this link that Ellie posted in the chat I will include it also in in my slides if you want you can ask the publisher to consider changing the copyrights if they want to publish your valuable research okay because once the peer review process has ended and someone said that that your research is valuable the publisher can also change a little bit their standard copyright agreement in order to have your research published with them okay we have also the the results for this next mentee the question was not all good open access journals require the authors to pay an apc Ellie if you want to answer this a comment that the yes so it's most of you for it right like 20 of you this is true not all an access to pay apc and there is a list of posts you can find out in the oaj and later today I assume yes I think we are taking the oaj in the next module but yes I believe Ellie correct me if I'm wrong it's about 27 percent of the gold open access journal asking for an apc and the rest so more than 70 percent are not asking for money to the author so this sentence is true so we go on okay what are the advantages now I'm going to the questions posed by the public while you vote for this new mentee what are the advantages of open science open data for private research is release of metadata only considered open science so this is two questions in one well for what you will learn in this course is about public funded research so this is this is a quite an important principle and concept that that we will have to learn so if our research is publicly funded then we should make our results immediately available to the society for private research this can still be done because what you can do is that when you are contracting your grants with a private publisher with a private sorry funder you can still ask to include the fact that that your research results should be made publicly available now this is it's another question if we are talking about so a private for example company asking you for support for delivering a new product and possibly protect and patent your research but we will see how this is also something included in the european commission for example open science policy so you still have the right to patent your research if you think you can can have any economical or industrial advantage in that uh is release of metadata only considered uh only considered open science well it is part of the open science process and this question also allows me to say that open science can be done step by step you do not need to open everything uh in in in a single time um the fact that that for some data set we only release a metadata is possible and we will learn in this course that for some data is mandatory not to share the data itself but it is preferable to share only metadata so this is something that is within the open science domain the fact that that we need to think about is is it really necessary to close the data so this will be our the the question that you will be asked you will be asked to think about during this course okay so we have many people voting for this question so approval by peer review proves that you can trust our research articles so now we have some people answering through some people answering false well I have to say that the approval by peer review does not prove that you can trust an article we have seen that many articles that went through the peer review process and were successfully accepted by a journal to be published were then retracted if you go and check on retraction watch blog you will find a lot of papers that are retracted every day they also have a facebook and twitter account where they they post every day more and more articles that that are retracted so this is a known phenomena in the in the publishing in the scientific publish it is true that review the peer review is a quality process so for these two or three scientists that read the paper they found the probably the paper ready to be published but as you have seen today then the scientific discussion continues also after the paper is published and what I can say just to close this is that two or three scientists are of course only few part only little part of the overall scientific community behind a paper so of course we can trust more maybe that the the discussion that comes after the article and not the peer review probably okay we go on and we maybe Emma sorry maybe I can add just a few things also from my experience and in the research it's also very field dependent I mean in some fields the the peer reviewing can last one two even more years like in mathematics and in those cases really people try to really reproduce the results and re-proof all the all the theorems that are stated in some other fields it can can really last a few days or a few weeks and in these cases obviously peer reviewers did not have time or are not necessarily required to reproduce the data so yes it's very much community dependent as well but I agree with the answer yeah and also for many in many many cases for example the data is not available for the reviewers to check we have seen the the case with the austerity theory they did not provide the the EXAT formulas that they used that the excel files so even the reviewers were not aware of it so they just simply trusted the results in the paper so there is another question that questions are are coming so I just leave you some some few moments to to answer this mentee so some journals often offer pre-printing your paper in archive during submission how does that go related to copyrights where the copyright in this in this case is on the final version of the paper which is different from the the pre-print okay so every time you have a new version of your paper in principle you have you have a new piece of work so the copyright in this case is on the final version the one after the reviewing okay okay then you have I imagine that we are also going to discuss open reviews so yes we are in a few moments right after the the the the mentor sometimes you can't finish the submission of the final version of the paper until you sign the agreement so I don't understand how we can prevent this but I am interested in learning more are we discussing about the copyrights so are you asked to have the final version of your paper before signing the copyright agreement so this is probably you haven't seen I'm not sure if Julia wants to comment this because I'm not sure I understand the question but you are just talking about not having the final proof of the paper in your hand before signing the agreement probably this is the case but Julia if you want to comment more in the chat or in the question and answer then I can understand better your question okay we go on in the meanwhile we have the we have the the answer from the Mentimeter now the question was why do we need an embargo period for the open access version of a scientific paper to be deposited so just let me just refresh how to say remember this the embargo is the period where your paper is already deposited in our repository but it is not given open access so if people try to access your paper through the repository they will not be able to do so but after the embargo period has expired then they will be able to download the version that you made available through the repository now the quest the answer is here where the embargo period on green open access is needed to sustain the publisher so this is not true because the publisher can really live without an embargo period believe me by by saying that this answer is correct in theory what we are saying is that the added value that is given by the publisher platform is useless because they need some time to have the how to say the to be the only one providing this this paper to gain enough money and sell the papers yes yes to sell the papers yes um so the the publisher can can really live without the embargo period to believe me uh otherwise uh gold open access journals so will not be um um one of the possibility that they will have so um uh gold open access platforms are the ones without embargoes and they live so they do not need that uh the embargo is needed because it allows the discussion on new findings only within the expert community now the the thing is why shouldn't the other be allowed to read the latest findings um of the research so the experts can have their discussion also if all the others can read now the last was the embargo period is not needed at all so this was the the right answer that most of you got it so there is no need for the embargo I mean we can make research freely available to everyone uh we don't need to wait why should we wait uh months or years to read the new findings um okay um so we we have one more the quality of science relies on and then you have different options in the meanwhile I go back uh to the question we already we already answered right yes but uh Julia commented on oh sorry I didn't see it sorry because when I share my screen I cannot see the chat so I don't worry did you want me to read it loud yes thank you okay so uh regarding the questions he says yes that was my question that the journal requires us to submit a final version to publish it and in the process of submission you need to sign the copyright transfer and until you do you can't submit and if you don't submit by a certain date the paper is pushed to the next issue or not published at all not sure what happens because I never really tried okay so probably this is uh this is a matter of the platform that you have but when you say the final uh the final version I believe it has minor changes with respect to the latest one so probably you only have to move uh figures or yes okay that's why because it's it's uh basically it has the same contents but it's uh in a different fashion it's like the published version and the postprint okay so the contents are the same and what you're really selling to the publisher or giving away for free is uh the contents of your paper and the way you you um you basically present them in a paper okay so this is possible because probably the copyright is designed in such a way that you are transferring all your rights to the publisher and so this allows the publisher also to have to put the copyright on the new version that you are sharing now these things are very technical so I really encourage you to to discuss the copyright with experts we at OpenAir have a team of experts in in this field that may help you also for specific question I've learned during this year that it is not possible to give a very easy question easy answer uh to general questions regarding legal legal aspects but you really have to study the single case and the single copyright in this in this case to to give the correct answer okay I see there is another question but I believe we already answered this journal software for printing your paper in archive during submission how does that go related to the copyright we already we already answered this okay okay so we go back to the Mentimeter the quality of science relies on the pre-review process authored by scientific journals and no one of the previous oh sorry there was a type of previous answers most of you think that no one of the previous answers are right so they were the number of citation of a single pair paper I'm very proud of this that no one responded to that the journal editorial board where the science is published again so this is the editorial board is actually a board of expert is part of the scientific community so this might have something to say with the quality of science published because they are the ones having the final word to decide that so they are part of the review process the the peer review process we have seen that is is is actually one of the only time where our research paper is actually assessed by quality and not by quantity of citation so but basically the quality of science relies on the science community and discussion so it was no one of the above of course the peer review process is part of the scientific discussion we will see later today with the open peer review okay so let me go and okay there was probably another okay so I'm just leaving this and leave the question and comment for the last so now I'm closing the Mentimeter I see there is another question Ellie I don't know if you want to take this while I am preparing the next part of the presentation so the next question in the Q&A reads like this back to the embargo it allows for an intellectual property rights protection non-published ideas are patentable otherwise you can simply write an article only after you put up your put up application is your patent application sorry is registered okay yes so we will see in a moment actually the article publishing and patenting is are two ways of how to say to protect or to publish your results but they are exclusive so if you are patenting a research funding you will not then be able to write an article on it and the contrary is also not allowed so if you already publish a paper then you will not be able to apply for patenting okay we will see it in a moment Ellie you want to add something to this no no since we are about to touch up on that no yeah so I'm going just to share again my presentation and when we go on with the rest of the course and then we will have a discussion at the end so please keep on posting your questions in the question and answer box so the questions that you answered during the Mentimeter were taken from this article that I was citing before so the article is 10 myths around open scholarly publishing you can find the here a simple a figure that is included in the article with a summary of the reason why these are all myths around the open access open scholarly publishing and you will find the the so the the the overall version of this paper in the link that I give you so I encourage you to go and read this article so now what we're going to do is that we are going to discuss a little bit more about what European Commission has done in these years about open science so open science is something that is under discussion for the EC since 2006 so we're talking about almost 15 years the the first thing that the the EC did was setting up what is called an open science policy platform on eight priorities about open science so we have people discussing about the rewards and incentives research indicators and next generation metrics we have learned today that this is key to embrace the open science the future of scholarly communication European open science cloud we will see it in a moment fair data we will talk about this in the next module research integrity we already discussed this skills and education and citizen science now there are some recommendation that the European Commission released in 2016 and then a new version in 2018 these are recommendation to the member states and to the institutions to access and preservation of scientific information from this most all of the country have released in a way or another a strategy a road map or are discussing in this moment like it is for example in Italy and also in the in the eastern part of Europe they are discussing road maps for open science and national open science policies so this is something that is going on some of the countries already have very nice road maps like France and and the Netherlands then there were a number of group of experts from the European Commission that released a very interesting document these are two of the most famous one but we have also unfair principle and on other aspects and then we have plan s we will discuss about plan s in the second module so I'm not taking it today but let's see in the details of what the European Commission did well one of the most let's say the biggest changes is that the European Commission is creating what it is called the European open science cloud EOSC EOSC aims at creating a virtual research environment to access and interoperate the research data and other research outputs in Europe and across the different disciplines now you will find more information in the links that I gave you but think of it as a single point of access for all the research outputs made in Europe and this will be available for the overall world EOSC is built by federating the existing research infrastructures that are already out there and we have several research infrastructure for single domains or also we have horizontal infrastructure that provide services and tools for the open science and across the different domains so it is a very very important news and a new piece in the open science environment that European researchers will have and EOSC is entering its operational phase starting from January 2021 the first phase design phase will end in December this year so there are a lot of news to come so stay tuned and keep you informed about the opportunities that EOSC will have for you so another important news is that the European Commission is releasing what is called the open research publishing platform now this is open research Europe it will be an open publishing platform that will offer a service for fast publication and open peer review for research that is conducted under the horizon 2020 and that will be conducted under the horizon Europe beneficiaries now this platform is not into place yet but it is accepting submissions you will find more information to the link below and so the papers are now accepted and they will be published in 2021 now this is reserved and dedicated to the EC funding beneficiaries and the European Commission is sustaining the platform so the authors will not have to pay anything it is all sustained by the European Commission the platform will manage all publication post publication curation and preservation processes we will see in a moment the details for the open peer review and what will happen is that you will be able to publish your preprints and all the subsequent versions including the final versions of your paper they will be open to the end users free of charge also to non-scientists and citizens and they will be licensed for reuse so this is quite important all the findings there will be assigned an open license that will allow and encourage the reuse of results the platform will fully support the the fact that the underlying data will meet the fair principles so you will be asked to provide the fair data behind your paper they will support you in this so if you don't know what to do there is a dedicated support and the platform will help you in in achieving verification of your data so this is a very very very big news and I said already that the platform will be available online starting from the beginning of next year now let's go a little bit into the details or how the open research Europe publishing model works okay so the first step is the article submission this is completely identical to what you are doing now so what you do is that you send you submit your article your preprint to the system what happens then is that this article will undergo a check on the fact that the article adheres to the policies for example the ethical policy or the content policy of the platform and then once this check is done it will be immediately published so the preprint will be open from the very first moment and then you will be asked of course to provide the the data the position so the article will be associated and linked to the data that will be needed by a third researcher to validate the results into the data are presented into the paper so you both publish the preprint and the data then the open peer review will start now let me immediately state that the reviewers will be chosen by the authors this will be done by a very simple process but this process undergoes checks for example the conflict of interest of interests between authors and reviewers will be checked by the public the platform this will be done also thanks to some specific algorithms that they have to check for example if the reviewer is working in the same institution as the author and so on now when I say that the authors will choose the reviewers I want to specify that you will first be asked to provide some names for the reviewers when you submit the article and the the platform will check if they are there are some conflict of interest between you and the reviewers that you suggest this if you do not suggest any reviewers or if the reviewers that you suggested are not available to review your article what will happen is that the the platform will look for pool of reviewers and then you will be asked to choose two or three of them now this process will be completely transparent and open so what will happen is that after you choose the reviewers the article revisions will start how will that work it will work this way now the article is published and then the open peer review begins and everyone will see who are the reviewers that were assigned to your paper now bear in mind that everyone will know that you choose those reviewers okay so the process is completely transparent what will how will the open peer review process go on well the reviewers will read your preprint or the version the current version of your paper and what they will do is that they will provide comments that will be published on the platform so everyone in the world will see the comments of each reviewers and you will be able to answer these comments through the platform itself so this process will be completely open and transparent and if you will be asked to provide a new version of your paper this will be published together with the previous one and all the versions will be available in time so you will be also able to go back to previous version if you want to read the previous versions of your paper now what the reviewers will be asked to do to do at the end of the reviewer process is that every version will be they will be asked to mark every version with an approved or approved with the reservation or not approved check so and everyone will know who did approved or not the paper one other important thing is that this platform will allow the visibility and the credit for the reviewers so this is not this will not be something hidden behind the publisher platform but everyone will know the the contribution of the reviewers to the paper the orchid ID IDs will be used to track the the work both of the reviewers and the authors and one other aspect that I found very very interesting in that is that they will allow for transparent core reviewing work now it happened to me many many times in my career that a professor asked me to review a paper on its name now this is something that happens very often so the the journal is asking a famous expert in a field to review the paper but we have a very serious problem on ghost writing because often these experts do not have time to take the review process so what they do is that they simply send the the papers to be reviewed to some phd students or other other researchers and then they send them self the the comments to the journal so from the journal side it seems that the this famous expert has made and sent the review but internally there are some cases where this is not done by that person now with this core reviewing process every reviewer can ask the platform to include a core review a core reviewer together with a more her so if you see here it's on reviewer number two we have Olivier Girard who was assigned as a main reviewer and then we have Lucas Sustel who is helping and core reviewing the paper with him now this is completely transparency of the overall process and this is how or is working okay now apart from these official peer review process which is open the platform will allow the other users to comment on the article and this will be available throughout all the process of publication so as you can see this platform will allow both for a specific a peer review but also for the community discussion to happen and so this is not the only platform that will have this model many other online publisher have this for example f1000 who is in charge of delivering the platform to the European Commission already has already maintains a platform with a similar peer review process and this is something that is is not new but it's a it's something that we needed again because we will need many other places where we can publish our work now this or a platform will be included in the evaluation of the next horizon Europe submissions and so people will be encouraged to to publish on the opera search publishing platform but this will not be mandatory so in case you will be granted for a project under the horizon Europe you will you will be not asked to only publish on this platform but this is another tool that the European Commission makes available for beneficiaries in case your favorite journal does not comply with the next open science policy of the European Commission now regarding the policies that we have in in force now for the age of 2020 these are this is a list of documents that you should know about so you have the model grant agreement where the obligation are laid out and then you have some guidelines that you can use to understand how you can comply to this this obligation what is what the commission is asking you in the first place is to decide whether to patent or protect your work or to publish the results of your research now this is what we were discussing thanks to a question before or this is a choice that you have to make in the first place and as you see the two lines are not crossing each other so either you decided to publish by disseminating your results or you decided to exploit or protect your work through a patenting or other forms of protection in case you decide to disseminate then you enter the mandate for open access to publication and data regarding open access to scientific publication this is open by mandate so every single publication that is done thanks to a specific project has to be made open access openly available to the whole world this can be done also considering an embargo period that in your case cannot exceed six months and you have to deposit in a specific repository that is compliant and linked to open air we will see in a moment what open air is and how you can find your repository you have to deposit either the postprint or the editorial version in a machine readable electronic copy now the postprint has the same content of the editorial version by only depositing the pre-print you will not be compliant with the open access policy of the commission and also you have to ensure that the metadata associated with your deposit contains the project coordination that means the name of the action the acronym and the grant number now this is a mandate this is an obligation you can skip it for the data we have another a different policy now the data is open by default but in fact you can opt out from the open pilot open data pilot whenever you want either at the beginning of the project or after the project has begun you can also opt out for a single data set I will tell you in a moment what are the options that you have for opting out what you need to deposit is basically the data that are produced in the pros in the in the project and specifically those data that are led to a scientific publication but in general any kind of data that you will you will generate again you will have to deposit the data and then provide the metadata with a reference to the specific project so the number of the project and again you will have to choose a repository that is compliant with the open air and linked to open air you will be asked also to produce a data management plan now the data management plan Ellie will will talk talk to you about this in the third module the main principle that you will have to keep in mind when you will decide whether to opt out or to close your data with the restricted access is that you should open as possible your research and keep it closed only when it is necessary when it is necessary are the options for open opting out for the data pilot now these reasons are industrial or commercial exploitation we have seen in the beginning that if we choose to protect or patent our results these will not be included in the open access policy so this is something that you can do to opt out for from the data pilot if the participation to the pilot is incompatible with the need for confidentiality related to security issues or incompatible with the rules on personal data protection okay if the achievement of the project objective it will be if the the project will not achieve their its objectives in case you share your data openly this is another reason for opting out and also if you're not producing any data now these are the options that you have it is not as simple that you can think that you simply write I choose this option and I'm out so this will undergo the review of the project officer and of the reviewers of the project that will decide if your the reason why you're asking to opt out is reasonable or not now in in summarizing what actually the commission is asking you is not to share openly everything that you that you that you collected within the project but to perform a proper research data management okay this is why you will be asked to provide a data management plan within month six of your your grant and to update it frequently okay and you will be asked to adhere to the fair principle while managing your data we will learn in the next module that data must be fair what it means to make your data fair is means that your data must be managed so that people will be able to reuse them reuse reusable is one of the the word that is inside of the fair acronym but it is the most important one because everything you will do when you manage your data according to the fair is because you want your data to be reused by others data must be findable so it should be clear where data are located and this way they can be cited they should be accessible for at least 10 years it does not mean that data is open but it must be clear who and how can access the data interoperability is the one of the one other important principle so data should be easily integrated with other data machine readable and linked to other research results now as you can see here fair does not mean open but it means managing your data in a correct way now the main principle behind all this is that the data should be open as possible as open as possible and as closed only when it is necessary now this principle was stated by Carlos Moedas who was the previous European commissioner and commissioner in the research science and innovation directorate be aware because there are sanctions so grant reduction or payment suspensions are the sanctions that you can go you can find if you do not comply with the open science policy of the european commission now regarding kist era and open science we have seen an introduction today by amad i only have a few slides about the steps that kist era is taking towards the adoption of of an open science policy we started this work in march with a workshop that was organized by kist era to discuss open science in transnational research now a group of experts came together in this workshop to assess the current practices the status of the open science policies in the european landscape and the platforms and the tools that are already available there for researchers so the conclusion of these workshops where that the kist era has has entered a path for shaping a new open science policies and has defined a roadmap for this now for what concerned today the open science policy of kist era consists in two pillars the open science open access to publication and open access to research data so researchers are committed if they are selected to deposit the publication resulting from the project into an unopened archive and are encouraged to opt for publishing in open access journals for the moment they must provide if they are selected a data management plan together with this yearly project scientific report that you have to deliver to the funder you are encouraged in that respect to adopt approaches as open as possible and the applicants must indicate that their proposal the guide in their proposal the guiding principles of their approach and the evaluation criteria encompassing some dimension of open access and open data including the reproducibility of the results now kist era has released a policy statement in october this year about why we need open science the commitments of the funder and the implementation now you can find the full statement in the link below just to let you know that kist era wants the fully open availability of the research results free of charge for the user and this means for them to improve transparency reproducibility visibility and democratization of research the commitments kist era is committed to implement the best open science practices transnationally and accompany foster and trigger the efforts towards the open science europe open science in europe and is committed to continuously refine the evaluation procedures starting from the principle of the san francisco declaration on research assessment and now believe me this is very important because because this is the change in the research assessment that we need in order to fully embrace the open science the implementation will be done by the new policy that will be published i think ahamada correct me if i'm wrong next year and the policy will aim at achieving a hundred percent of the publications produced by the researchers of kist era in open access and of the underlying data to be open following the fair principles now open air is helping many many funders including chistera and the european commission to monitor open science what is open air open air is the infrastructure for open science in europe that was designed and developed thanks to uh several projects under the european commission framework uh so now what we do is that we collected the data coming from more than 17 000 data providers around the world and we build a graph that connects research results so article data software whatever with the projects with the institutions and with funders these are some of the numbers of open air so this is what our graph is composed by we're talking about the 40 million publications three million projects 10 million data set and this is uh increasing every day and now what we do is that we provide through our portal uh different perspectives of the open air graph by institutions so each institution is will is able to go and check what are the projects what are the publications the data that are assigned to his it's researchers we provide the perspective of the repository including the the metadata and their their contents we provide a perspective on the single project so we assign uh the the results that each project has developed uh so publication research data softwares other research products and then we also provided the perspective on a single product so for a single product we can tell you uh what are the projects that we're involved uh where you can find this product in which repository if the copy available is open or not uh and and many many other information and statistics so what we do is that then we send all this data to the uh to the funder this is the horizon 2020 participant portal so all the data that you find there about the open data and publication are provided by open air and this is what we will do also with uh with the cheese era and then we have a network of support which is called the national open access tests Ellie and I are part of this network which is spread all over 34 countries in Europe and behind and what we will provide for a cheese era is that we will use the open air graph information to make the information available for monitor to cheese era so we have a monitor service that the funder can use for a decision and evaluation process and then we will provide some tools Argos that you will learn to use in the third module is an actionable actionable dmp tool that will allow you to write your dmp and your dmp will be actionable you will learn uh how it works with Ellie and then last but not least we will provide the training like discourse and support for the researcher for the open science policy uptake so now this concludes my presentation I encourage you to go back to the mentor so let me just close the presentation and share with you the mentor window where you will be able to provide um uh comments or to ask for questions so let me just uh reopen the mentor I don't know if we have any questions uh Ellie can you help me in case there are some in the q and a yes okay we can maybe take it while we ask people to connect yes yeah so let's see there's one uh generic question maybe for the end of the session what is your opinion about illegal or illegal websites like side hub that offer access to a lot of papers that are not available otherwise that's a very good question and uh yeah yes just a comment about this if you all make available your own products via your institutional or um thematic repository then there will be no need for these illegal tools because we are using them because we have the paywalls and we can if we can skip the paywalls and everyone makes its own research completely available we will not need the illegal tools this is my comment to this yeah and if you are uh looking for articles in side hub then why not publish your own in open access so you don't so you don't have to do it anymore yes so you don't have to go illegal you can go legal okay so uh I see there are more questions yes so will this open research publishing platform ranked in rankings like other journals yes the or the question is absolutely no because the european commission has signed the the plan s and has so many things into place regarding also the change in the evaluation system I can tell you this because this I didn't tell you but open air is involved in the dissemination process of the european open research europe platform so elli and i are both involved in the dissemination of this new platform and we have a channel open for for a discussion with the people that are designing and implementing the platform so I personally asked these to the representative of the european commission that presented us the platform and she said absolutely no so there will be no impact factor for the the open research europe there will be no ranking because this is something that they want to avoid uh elli do you want to read the next question yes because it was it was a question to provide more information about open peer review but that was covered during okay so but there is a I left this because there's a good statement here okay I do not I do think that this model open peer review generates significant pressure on the reviewer and some people might prefer to not be involved in open review process or really and I would I think I've heard that before I've seen that before and I think one of the key things that people would feel more reliant reluctant in the offering the review is I guess the question to all how do you do your peer review do you have guidelines that you follow how do you have specific guidelines because we see that people need to be trained even for that specific process of the open of publishing in general yeah there are efforts there are efforts for academic libraries and different other institutions and initiatives that are providing such such trainings and I believe this is one thing we have guidelines and yes there is a learning curve and it's always planned okay I'm also reading the chat sorry okay I don't know if this person wants to open his or her mic to explain better this is a very nice uh discussion topic so why should a reviewer feel pressure for an open peer review I don't know who who posed this question if if you want to to discuss openly you can raise your hand so we understand that that you are up on it I can I can understand the pressure for an early career researcher but again this is one of this is a contribution this is how I think we should see like a contribution to yes so Julia I'm opening your mic so you can explain is that okay with you let me check okay I just see okay you have your right your hand raised I also see that Stephen Sigg asked for for uh can you hear me yes okay hello thank you I don't understand the comment about the pressure on doing a review because especially if it's public with your name because if you basically advise not to review something you're going against other researchers and then especially at early stages of your career but even after like there are rankings there is people that is more famous than you are you gonna like reject a paper that is from somebody that maybe it might have bad repercussions to your career so I think the pressure might be might be here and then of course I do agree that review should be considered as a as a contribution and which right now is the work that we do that is not seen everywhere anywhere but I guess the pressure is here I would I participated in an open review process in the last robotics science and systems I was a reviewer and there was an open system that means that the reviews were published but not with the name so you could access the reviews but but they were not uh yes there are yeah there are different uh traits when we talk about open peer review this is one one of the methods let's say that the reviews are served openly but not uh but you know with the by name um this is fully open peer review the the one yeah I understand I like the proposal but the the comment that has been about the pressure on on on researchers I agree that depending who the author of the main paper is it might be difficult to reject you might feel like who this is they are gonna be upset with me and these people that then you're gonna find in congresses and and maybe people that you want to collaborate with you know what they mean mm-hmm yes I completely understand your point yes uh I think still we have this bias because of the pressure that we have in publishing so this is linked to this because uh the publish is is the only way that we have to be evaluated and we need to have many papers and we need to so these partially solve the problem because this this platform will not be included in this system for evaluation to understand what I mean because they will not have an impact factor so publishing in this uh um uh open research publishing platform will have a different meaning okay so but at some point though there has to be a change on how we as researchers are evaluated like if no longer having papers on q1 is important then I don't care putting my best work on this platform but if then this is going to be something that I cannot show as publications when I have to access a position in my institution because the only thing that they care is for many q1 papers I have that's like that's a problem like then I cannot put my work on this platform that I really like the proposal and I really like who is gonna work and I think it solves a lot of problems but then because and I understand why they will not have a ranking and when it's like I agree on that but then at the same time something needs to change yes exactly but the thing is now we are in the middle of the change okay now this is for us a very good opportunity because the discussion on the new evaluation system is happening now so this is the time where all the different researchers and in particular the different research communities can have their say on how they think of their thought for a new evaluation system of course this is a transition period so things will change we do not know how but what we need to do is to set into place and develop all the tools that we will need so this is a step in this process yes I think if I understand correctly you there's also the institutional aspect in your commentary like you mentioned that okay I can I will do that but my institution won't you know approve or will not consider that for example for a promotion or a tenure I guess yes uh exactly and this is in my institution like I know but the european commission urges and you know they have these communications and directives and recommendations that they like the communication for open for access to and preservation of scientific information and that they urge all the countries and member states of europe to adopt their national law in that so things things are starting to you know move towards that direction this will take of course time but I we see that um researchers practice and policy measures should go in parallel in order to you know I see a conflict the moment where the the curriculum of people are going to change from day to night when this changes because maybe you have been building your CV so it has a lot of q1 journals and maybe other people that they don't and they are considered like with less possibilities of getting these positions and then from day to like from the next one day to the next one maybe this is not going to matter and the only thing that matters is the number of applications without I understand I just see difficulty change because maybe some people are not going to be interested in this change because maybe then they're gonna have I don't know because we've been working towards building a CV with some rules and now these two these rules have to change and I believe that they have to change whether the same time is like yeah if I can make a comment here there is a system that they are using for example in the Netherlands the Netherlands is one of the country that is most advanced in the uptake of open science this is also because of something that happened in the past with a researcher that built fake data to publish a new research line and this was a major how to say something that really broke the how to say that the way that citizen viewed the science so they really are now one of the country most advanced and what they do is that they already created a new way of assessing a researcher in their career but they offer you to follow the old rules or the new ones okay so when you will be evaluated for a new position you can say either I want to go for the old model because I'm a very you know I'm an older researcher and I built my career on that or I prefer to be evaluated with a new matrix because I am a new career researcher and I am I did yes it's interesting yes this is one thing that I found very practical also because in in a transition period you will need some how to say some flexibility also so I see someone with a conflict of interest I don't know who this is from the comments in the Mentimeter so we are already 10 minutes behind our time I see no other questions and also I see no comments in the Menti and so if I don't know how mad if you want to close this first module and then we can we can see each other on Friday yes of course so I'd like to thank you very much actually it was a very nice discussion and presentation so yes I just wanted to add a short comment the new policy so the one that will be valid for the next call the call 2020 will be released with the call announcement later in December so within this month and the big change as I said in the beginning is is now the full commitment to open science in terms of open data open sharing open sharing of research data is no longer just an encouragement but rather an obligation to be to be followed of course always with a principle as open as possible as closed as necessary so with this again thanks a lot I think there were lots of interesting discussions within the conversation and within the Q&A and I'm very much looking forward to the next session in two days thank you very much thank you all so we will release the presentation soon I think it's an auto a model also for you and I see you on Friday thank you