Hello and welcome everyone to this webinar about open science requirements in horizon Europe. It's one and a half hour session today. So rather packed agenda, and we are very happy to have Jonathan England with us from University of Luxembourg, and he'll kick off the webinar with requirements and tips. Julia Gornera from OpenAir will talk about open research Europe publishing platform. And Edward Principe from Meany University will talk about open air services and Argos and horizon Europe of DMP template in Argos. And of course we'll have plenty of time for questions and discussion. So, as you can see we're using zoom meeting functionality, so please mute your mic if you're not speaking and if you want to speak. You can unmute your mic but we're many today so perhaps raise your hand there. If you don't mind there, then it would be easier for us to moderate. Meeting now we don't really have a Q&A functionality so let's use chat box for your questions and comments. And you can also raise your hand if you want to ask a question. We are recording the session as you see and if you don't want your video to appear in the recording please turn on off your camera. And OpenAir uses OpenAir underscore you as a hashtag for open activities if you want to tweet about this webinar. And then if you don't follow us on social media channels, please do open air underscore you on Twitter, then slides and recording of this webinar will be available. We have a website in the webinar session and welcome and it will be very interesting sessions over to you Jonathan now. Can you see the number one or is it not yet. Let me to stop because it's not the display settings on the top menu. Sorry about that. Okay. That's fine. Okay, okay. Hi everyone. So today, I'm going to mention the first, the requirements in terms of Horizon Europe. I will also mention the grant proposals had to write to include open science practices in the grant proposals. And, yeah, we'll go through all of that. Everything I'm going to talk about is based on the documents that are listed here. So, there's obviously the European Commission's own documentation. And then also we have open air guides that tell you about the requirements and they go much more into details about the proposals on how to write for each part of the proposal. And so I'm guessing that you all know what open science is in terms of the European Commission open science is the focus mostly on open access to publication the normal one. Also open access to data and following the as open as possible as close as necessary principle that was also in Horizon 2020. They insist on the fair principles that I'll go back to later on. They also insist on the access to results to be able to validate conclusions so any type of other outputs that would be needed. There's a lot of information about the tools the instruments that need to be to reuse or validate whether it's the publication of the data. So first we'll start about publications. The main important thing is that the European Commission, and you might be familiar with this with plan S. So it is a bit different. Now you need to put in immediate open access any publication as soon as it's published so no embargo periods is authorized anymore before it was between six and 12 months depending on the field. Now you you're not allowed to have an embargo period so you need to provide the, at least the author accepted manuscript which is the, what I call the ugly version of your, of your paper, and the version of record would be the editors version. So, at least your version on on the repository. I'll mention what a trusted repository is for the European Commission. You also need that's the novelty with horizon Europe you also need to retain your rights. So you need to apply a CC by license, I'll go back to the creative common licenses later on. You need to apply a creative comments license to at least your author accepted manuscript. So basically you cannot no longer sign the traditional copyright transfer agreement that was until now. I remember also to add the the acronym and the codes on your paper because a lot of the time. And there are some people forget to add that on in the acknowledgement. So you'll you have no restrictions and that's the biggest difference with planets if you know about planets is that you're not restricted in any way where you publish. In terms of covering the cost to publish in open access you can only cover those that are in full open access journals. So if you have hybrid journals will you wouldn't you would still be able to publish in it. But you would have to cover the costs yourself or go different routes, which is the self archiving routes. So if you go for monographs you can the license is slightly different. So self archiving is about depositing your other the office accepted manuscript or the version of record on the repository. So in any case, even if you were to publish open access you would still need to deposit it on the repository, but it could be a sufficient if you managed to to have your rights on the the author accepted manuscript with no embargo you would still comply and you don't necessarily have to pay for open access. So you can check the journals policy on sharp and Romeo, and you can also use the rights retention strategy which is basically a sentence that you would put on your manuscript on your preprint when you send it to the, to the publisher, saying that any author accepted manuscript that arise from new versions of the manuscript that would arise is under a CC by license which would allow you to to deposit it on the repository with no embargo and to retain your rights. So, just to cover briefly the author accepted manuscript version of records just to visually represented the accepted version is, but what I call the ugly version would be the author accepted manuscript. And then once it goes through the copy editing that version might be under copyrights to the publisher. So if you paid article processing charges usually even the version of record is under an open license and you retain your rights so you would also be able to deposit. It really depends which route you ended up going to. In terms of research data. There's a bit more differences than horizon 2020. In line with the fair principles. You need, I'll explain that in a second. You need to create a data management plan by month six. You have to update it mid project and at the end of the project or as often as necessary but that's the requirement minimum requirements. Deposit your data as soon as possible after production. But you are allowed to have for data specifically you are allowed to have some sort of embargoes as long as for instance you're waiting to publish the results. However, the metadata which is the the data sets the name of the data sets the author's name. Any unique identifiers. So your unique identifies an orchid ID, a DIY which is the unique identify for the data sets, the license and all that. All those, all that metadata needs to be deposited on a repository as soon as it's produced or generated. As you've completed an experiment or the study or you would need to upload that information to tell the world basically that you've produced some data. The data itself can be close for now, but it has to be at least visible online that it has been generated. So as I said, you have to deposit on the repository. That's the default as soon as possible but you have the principle of the European Commission which is as open as possible as because as necessary, and you need to justify why you might be closing something so you don't need to explain why you're opening something, but you need to explain why you don't want to be opening because the default is that you should open data and publications. Yeah, in terms of the licenses, the metadata needs to be under CC zero so it's a license that I don't know if it's the next one CC zero is basically that you don't need any attribution anymore to to the you don't need to cite basically the the office was the CC by that have been mentioning so far is an open license that you can share that whatever you want but you have to credit the the office. And again, as with the publication you need to provide detailed information about any other types of outputs any tools instruments that are needed to either open the the files. We use them validate the data so any types of software algorithm protocols and anything like that that is needed by others so basically you need to think that another researcher should be able to just open your data and know what to do without the need to contact you. And the European Commission is quite specific in terms of the valid justification for not opening the data. And mostly it's in anything commercial so if you could do if you could exploit any of the results commercially. Then you might. You might justify that it needs to be closed. If, obviously, in terms of privacy or sensitive data that's obviously always a legit reason to close. And they are also very specific in terms of security rules that would affect directly the European Union. The repository is. I wouldn't say complex thing but basically don't get to attach to the certified repositories which can be a bit confusing with all those so called trustee or one of that. That's all the information. Basically what you want to to know is that the European Commission does allow you to deposit on any repository that is well known in your field. So, that's, you know, from within your research community, there will be certainly some specific repositories, or you can always use a general purpose repository such as the nodal. You can use other ones but they need to abide through the. The specificities of what they see. Outline. So I will mention the creative commons it's an open license so it removes any doubts into what the users can do with your work. So, under the Horizon Europe grants. The publications are in CC by usually. So, as long as you cite the, or the authors, anyone reusing your publications sites you then that's legal framework. And for the data, it's recommended to go for CC zero, but obviously the best practice is always to cite the authors but legally they don't have to. There are reasons for that I'm going to today. So just to be clear, it is universally recognizable and it is a legal framework so if someone was to reuse some of your publications on the CC by and not cite you and claim it as if it was as you could go through legal copyright infringements. So I mentioned previously the need to create a data management plan. Some of you might have already been creating one. It's a living document because you created within the first six months and then you updated at least twice more. The difficulties with the DMP is that there's no absolute right answer. So as long as you're clear and you justify everything you can, in theory, do whatever you want with your data or process the data or share the data however you want, but you need to justify. So, for instance, if you wanted to use a commercial company to store your data that would be stored in, in the US, for instance. You would need to justify that this company is compliant with GDPR and therefore that's all right. And things like that basically that you there's no right or wrong answer but you need to really justify to the European Commission why you're using such tool why you're using such methods, why you're not opening the data. The more detail you are in the DMP the less issues you will have, because you don't want the project officer basically to dig for for information. And what I always say to researchers also that you know already all this. This is not an, really an admin document in itself, it's more laying out to the funder that you actually know what you're doing, because you've already processed all that in your head. But what the funder is now asking is for you to officialize it and put it on paper. I also mentioned the fair principles. So if you've never looked into this or heard of them, then you'll need to look a bit more. We have some guides on on that now. The principle of fair is findable accessible interoperable and reusable. It can be fair, but not open. But they should always be fair even if it's closed. So what that means is that it always needs to be findable. So as I was saying the metadata needs to be uploaded on the repository so that people can actually know that it exists, because you might have a great piece of data on your computer but no one would know about that. So it should be accessible in a way that it can be limited access with a specific grant granting access. So the thing that we see a lot where someone would say how it's available and request that wouldn't be an accessible. It's accessible under the fair principles. And that's why we deposit on repositories. Interoperable is basically using as much as possible open file formats and so Excel files are the most common ones you would save as CSV for instance. So those are best practices that you need to learn and contact the, the people like your institution or on the opening website to get more information about those best practices in research data management. So what's usable is basically can anyone else actually understand what's going on in your data set. So you need documentation. Usually it's the read me file that would explain all, you know, all the different fields and all the different variables and also they need to be a license attached to it so that people know exactly what they can and cannot do with with that data. One of the most common cases is that even if you close the data the the team might still require you to open it to specific people and then an agreement and confidentiality confidentiality agreements. We've covered the issue also implemented this public emergencies cases. So if the EC triggers it, you need to provide immediate open access to with every research outputs, so not only just publications. You need to provide the DMP as soon as as soon as possible and basically with the grand proposal and and if you need to provide also open access to to to data. If there was a conflict of interest. So as I said, you know whether those cases where you would restrict. You would embargo basically the access to the data and you still need to provide a non exclusive license to those legal entities that would need that research data to for that emergency. So that can apply up to four years after the end of your project, but it is temporary so if whenever you will grant that non exclusive license, it would be for limited time. In terms of reporting and monitoring I want to emphasize that the European Commission has said that they would be, they will be much more much stricter and much more vigilant at all these open science practices in horizon Europe, because it's it is one of the pillars of horizon Europe. So they will check much more and monitor that you're respecting all those requirements. Now I'm going to briefly mentioned the grants grant proposals when you're writing. It's difficult to cover everything because there's a lot of details within the the documents provided by the European Commission. Basically, when you're writing your grant proposal they are different parts that where open science needs to be explicitly mentioned. So in the application form saying part a you will need to list. Now it's not just five publications anymore it can be any type of research output so it can be any software services data sets publications obviously anything. And I'll go back to that because there's other restrictions on how what the what type of publication and that is it can be mentioned. And in terms of the technical description so in part be of the project proposal. There's three different areas where it needs to be mentioned. If you want more information about like really go into detail. Obviously you have the documentation of the European Commission but also on the open a guides they go to from in detail for each section. So I'm only going to mention some general advice. So, any publication that you cite as part says you know in part a as one of your five outputs needs to be in open access, open access without embargo, actual open access and on the repository. So it needs to follow the same requirements as horizon Europe requirements. And the European Commission is a symmetry of the door declaration, meaning that they will not evaluate any of those research outputs based on the impact factor for instance. So it's only on the qualitative side of the publication. Another advice I would give is you can also give some insights into where you're hoping to publish. It allows you to say I will publish in open research Europe, which will be mentioned later on which is the European Commission's publishing platform. Or I'm going to publish in this on this journal which are for open access journals, for instance, data is the same, it should be fair. So all the data said that you might cite as one of those five outputs in part a needs to be fair. So it needs to be on the repository in open or needs to be fair at least, but accessible to the to the people reviewing your your your grants application. In the grant proposal, there's no real DMP data management plan required, but you have to provide information that is very, very similar to DMP, like the type from the size of the data, any persistent identifiers that you will attribute like the OIS, the licenses. So it's kind of basically like a mini DMP that they are already asking you. And in Horizon Europe, you now have to have a distinct work package called project management that will include the DMP as a deliverable. As you probably know, open access costs or article or book processing charges are eligible. But as I said before, only if they're full open access journals or full open access platforms. If they're hybrid journals, you cannot, you can still publish in those, but you have to cover the cost in a different way. So things to consider data creation costs. So if you have big data sets or if you need to do anything on the data sets that you know want, you won't have time and it's worth investing money for having data creator, you can include those costs in the project proposal It's good also to put at this cost because it also showed to the funder that you actually thought about how much work it will require to process that data and publish it and make sure that it's fair and all that. So, not only you can, you're eligible to put it in your budget, but also it's kind of showing that you know what you're doing. And everything in terms of engagements with open science and citizen science would be also eligible. As I said before, be as specific as possible in your grant proposal, same as for the DMP and be careful because sometimes when I review DMPs, some people will explain what open access is or open science and the project offices or the people reviewing your grant proposals know what open access open science fair data is you don't need you can go straight to the to what exactly how your data is going to be fair. A few special cases for so the ERC and the Marie Curie grant proposals. So in ERC it's good to know that there's no explicit evaluation of open science practices, but if you do include it, and I would highly recommend doing so, it will increase your chances of it will increase your score basically to include it but it will not negatively impact your score if you don't include open science practices. ERC projects do not have scientific work packages but this in Horizon Europe you will have to have the research data management work package with that data management plan deliverable and the ERC also has have their own DMP templates. Marie Curie is very much emphasizing on open science. It represents 50% of the evaluation of the part of the award criteria well it's not the only in the excellence criteria but the excellence criteria it weights 50% and one the open science practices is one of those excellence criteria. And also you need to provide information about which type of training activities and including also in the career development plan and any transferable skills that are linked to open science practices and that is for all Marie Curie actions so whether it's the staff transfers or the postdoctoral, any of them have to have that. So that's for me right now and now Julia will talk about the open research Europe. Thanks a lot for all your questions will address them in about 15 minutes. 20 minutes stop. Thanks a lot for all great questions. Julia. Yeah, sorry just. Okay, I wasn't I was muted just a second that I'm sharing my screen. Good morning everyone for those who join later. It should be this one. Okay. Perfect. So today I'm going to present you open research Europe that does Jonathan explained before. It's the platform of the European Commission dedicated to publication. It's like substituting the classic journal. Open research Europe is one of the two instruments that the European Commission is providing. In particular for publication, the other infrastructure that they open the European Commission is providing these years. So, going back to open research Europe. Also called Ori. It's a publishing platform in which you can submit the original article simply review. The publishing is whatever is funded by the horizon 2020 and the horizon Europe. It's providing open access. Since the beginning. The copyright license is enabled to reuse all the contents. The open science principle are applied in the publishing platform. And so also the open peer review. So the name of the reviewers, the revision, the comments after the auto revision are all openly available. Moreover, it's hyper connect and available to tax and data mining. So it enables to be to comply with all the failed principles already automatically. So you don't have to start another repository or enrich the metadata. Everything will be automatically done by the editors and the platform itself. There is also a new generation metrics. Whatever is the loadable or cited would be available in the platform. It's clear accessible transparent on publication policy and process that you can find in the website. It's aligned with the European principle and regulation. And it's an example also for other founders. Does it work. What is the editorial model. Research Europe. When you are submitting an article, it will go to preprint. But before actually in this passage between the article submission, the preprint there is a strict editorial checks, because all the editors that are part of our native speakers, so they will check the language and they will check the article before the print. So it shouldn't be that scary as a lot of researchers are thinking. There is a very serious process here on the editorial side. Then the preprint is published. Usually within two weeks maximum one month between the article submission and the preprint. Then there is the peer review process in which expert that can be suggest by the authors are called to provide feedback on the paper. And after the peer review is done. It will be published the second version. The preprint process is publicly available and is completely transparent. So in the preprint example, you will see how many views the loads and citation there are. It's possible to to to read the site to the preprint. But it's always written awaiting for peer review. And it will remain the same. The UI. And, of course, everything is linked. And the easy to follow. After you after the paper is revised, you will see the version. Usually, it's not arriving to the fourth question to the fourth version. Usually it's or it's the second or the third but it strictly depends on the review comments. So if it's read, it's fine to be reviewed and how many invited reviewers are there. Everything will be transparent and open. Also, it's good because it keeps the visibility and the credits also for reviewer who are contributing in the research of the grantees. Open peer review example are exactly like that so you can open in the in the right part if I go back. You can open all this review that are listening here. Everybody have the arcade associate if you want or if you don't want to you want to publish it. And then you have the comments from the reviewer and then the responses from the authors. And then you can see all the amendments in the various version. And that example are also within the part of the system so if you are producing new data or using new data that there will be asked to provide the discount info of the information and link with the data sets that that you have already published and to give the right creative comments on licensing in the data sets where you store then all the information available. You can also link the softwares and the codes. The open research Europe is not discipline specific it means that any kind of research areas can publish in open research Europe and all the cost are covered by already by the European Commission. So there are no cost on top. Policy and editorial guidelines can be specific in science technology and medicine social science and humanities, and you can publish any type of article that can be support different different discipline areas. So as you can see here in the table so you can. You can publish also a sake is there these brief reports even data notes methods and protocols, you can write also register reports review and any kind of of studies that you can think about. Sorry. So now I will, I will go to publishing experience because I was a Mercury individual fellow before joining open air. And here there were the reason why personally I published in open research Europe. For me, it was to follow the principle of open science without being scared that it was not fully compliant or not. And the fact that there were new metrics that could comply to the research assessment and be much more aligned to the policy of the European Commission. I was happy that everyone 1000 who is with the supporting this platform was one of the assigned editor principles, and they have include everything, every principles in the editorial practices. Also that it's very easy to link in the tender portal so when I had to report to my publication was very easy to do that. It's very easy to use for the researchers so because you can link directly with the orchid that you can assign which is the article type. And then you follow basically a very, very easy template, which is two page. So it's very, very easy and each authors is following the credit taxonomy. So every authors have the correct accreditation. Also the review was is quite easy. And so you publish the first version in preprint and then you go with the first peer review which can be approved or approved with the reservation. And after that, when you were reached to peer review you can start to upload the second version. So it would for the rise on the beneficiaries to be part of the reviewer, because at the moment there is no fully credit, but, but the research assessment discussion that it's currently in on inside the discussion of the European Commission on a research assessment that wants to value the, the work of the reviewers. And that's all. I'm happy to answer to your questions, if there are any. Thanks a lot sir, we'll have Jonathan spot so maybe let's let's finish Jonathan slides and then we'll take questions. Thank you so much. Keep switching. Okay. So, I talked about the requirements so far. And what I'm going to talk about now are the recommended practices that the European Commission also mentions for horizon Europe. All the things that I've mentioned before are the mandatory open science practices that will impact negatively your score if they're not addressed. There are also some recommended open science practices because as you know in science is an umbrella term that includes a lot of things. If you will, if you include them in the grand proposal or even in general in the, in the, in your project, it will positively affect your score, but it won't impact it negatively if you don't include them. So there are some lists that is mentioned in the template but it's a non exhaustive list, obviously. So in terms of what the recommendations are they talk about early and open sharing of research so talking about pre prints, pre registration registered reports which I'll explain in a second. And participation in open peer review, such as participating in open research Europe and involving more and the other actors, so more the public. So in public engagement public outreach and citizen science for instance. So I'll go through all the various definitions. In case you're not familiar with with them. But ultimately, there are things that you'll, if you're interested you'll need to maybe dig a bit deeper and see how that could fit your project within the grand proposal. So pre registration is basically the fact that we've seen, you know, the reproducible reproducibility crisis with the up to quite recently the way that we were evaluating research meant that you were kind of forced to, well not forced but it led to a lot of bad research practices like dated dredging and postdoc theory theorizing postdoc all those type of bad research scientific practices basically. So for registration is the fact that instead of publishing your just your results you're also going to publish the methodology and the question the hypothesis and everything that goes with it so that you can basically also claim in advance that that's that's methodology or that study, even before doing it, and it ensures that people know that you were not just guessing afterwards from the results but you were actually you had thought about that question beforehand. In some domains you have specific procedures, such as in clinical trials which are quite advanced in that since we're talking about human human trials. The difference is you might have heard about it is so traditionally, you know the way that peer review works and the way that's traditional publishing works can be quite time consuming and slow. And so preference is a way to speed up the process in which you're sharing your results. So the non peer reviewed version of your work and then on the preprint server, and then it will get ultimately peer reviewed and published, whether it's through an publication platform like open research Europe, or through a normal journal or publisher. This allows you to have an increase in visibility, not only, especially important if you're an early career researcher. If you're doing longitudinal data, data research, they can, that can help a lot. Public engagement and citizen science is also very important. It's emphasized a lot more and more by the, by the commission. And what the commission wants to see is, and, well it's not so all what I'm saying now is kind of my interpretation or our interpretation of what the commission wants. They're not putting it black and white so what public engagement means in general is that you're trying to do more public outreach to try and democratize democratize science in in general. To make it more approachable inside that can take many different forms whether it's giving talks to the public, giving talks or workshops in schools or in cultural centers, using social media so you can use your platform to do scientific outreach, any TV shows, documentaries, you know, all the cyber things and within the European Commission they are two specific projects that might interest you so science is wonderful is for Marie Curie and European researchers and science is also from the European Commission and it happens every year. So you can have a look also at that to maybe include that in your grant proposal or even at a later stage during your your project. So science is a bit more specific in the way that that it's going to involve research. It's going to involve sorry, the public within the research project so they can take many forms so it can be just data gathering where the like bird watching. I mean, it's probably one of the most well known example bird watching for citizen science, but it can also involve members of the public coming up with with research questions, collecting the analyzing the data. So there are a lot of examples, I just gave a couple of ones like this universe, galaxies you if it's probably the most well known citizen science project where members of the public asked to identify galaxies, basically so they're analyzing the data. There are also some school projects to warn people of any earthquakes, and there's even examples of being included in big franchise video games, and many, many more examples of that. And that's also something to consider because you might have very, your research might require a lot of data analysis, and so maybe you might benefit from involving the public and that's something that's the. If you don't do it obviously it's not going to impact your score negatively, but if you do include it then you will have more chances of getting a positive to get the grants. Before we finish on all this before we go to questions. Some of all tips is to really think about what strategy you want for your project in terms of open science. While you're designing your your grand proposal while you're designing your, your projects, even in the future think about that strategy for all of your research projects. Do include very specific, very specifically so be precise what way you're going to publish the data on your publication who's responsible for this. So that's also part of that data management plan, but do be precise about all this. Then, obviously, updates, as much as possible, all those strategies so it's not because you come up with one strategy that it has to stay forever is you can. Obviously, research is always unpredictable so you might have to change some things and that's why I was saying that the DMP is a living document because it's not because you started with a question that methodology that you have to continue with that then. Obviously, it's flexible so your open science strategy might change based on those changes so updated and give regular reports through the platform. Keep track of any issues that you have discuss it with other people be as collaborative as open as possible.  And now we have time for some questions I know that there's already quite a few that were put in the chat. And so I'll let you in. Thank you so much. So let's take them in the order of appearance and there. I think it could be merged because they are along similar lines. Martin was asking, are DMP still reviewed by external experts, which has based project program offices and the moral saying I was about to write the same question was going to verify that what I've written in the DMP is true. And what happens if they find that it's not true. So I was writing does they see reviews submitted DMP and provide feedback for improvement can indeed DMP be disapproved term. And I guess we will already answer that that it's a project officer and reviewers who read your DMPs and they discuss DMPs with with you at the project with your meetings. So that's a way to monitor and I don't know if there is anything else to add on that. I guess the only thing I would add was to the question who is going to verify that the DMP is true. Ultimately, it's responsible research practices. Obviously you can fake your data if you want to but you'll get caught at one point and I don't think that's in the interest of the DMP is really not that should be an issue. It's more to lay down exactly that you know what you're doing. So if they if you have doubts or so if there's blanks in your DMP, that's fine. You can actually say, actually don't know where I'm going to deposit. Yes. And that's perfectly fine but be transparent. So, as I said, there's no right to wrong answer as long as you're transparent and clear. Thanks. I was asking should data management plans be deposited and accessible along with the data sets. It is recommended. But it's not mandatory. Yes. I was asking how does European Commission evaluate fairness in data and then there were some questions later on. Does European Commission have a rubric to evaluate DMPs and basically European Commission horizon DMP template is structured around data principles. So the questions are basically are they just stored in trusted repositories and things like that. So basically DMP structure is used to review DMP template and it's a lot of marina for posting links to DMP rubrics in a chart. So what European Commission has along those lines. Maybe the only thing I would add also is, and I think you've put that science Europe is that group of funders that discuss all this. They discuss fairness and all that so they're always improving in how they're evaluating. So it's they're not just on their own they actually discuss with other funders and other group of experts how they should be evaluating the projects in general. Christina was asking, should all data produced within a project be uploaded in a repository or is all this data needed to validate the results in the papers published within the project. That's a good question I would say that and all the data should have at least the metadata, because as I said, as soon as you create data you have to add the metadata. There might be different reasons why you don't share the data because if something went wrong in an experiment for instance on the data is not valuable in any way on usable. Then there's no real interest in sharing that data. But if you created data that you're, you end up not using but that could be valuable for other researchers then yes, I would put that also in on a repository in open access. Because you use the horizon your funding to create that data and so it would fall under that. So you have to separate really research data and publications now is obviously there's to validate the publications you want to have the data sets available. But data sets are publications in themselves now. So, anything that you create needs to also be as open as possible. Thank you. Any question from Katia. Good morning, thank you for the presentation regarding my career action what examples of training activities and career development plans can we suggest researchers in the context of open science. Any tips on that. Julia. That's a very good question. I'm sure I have plenty but right now. I have a special section of the military action that is dedicated to the training. So eventually you can contact directly the project officer if they have some specific suggestions. What is currently available is that there is also the network of the Marie Curie alumni association that is providing some specific courses at the moment is there is nothing strictly related to open science. But we are thinking to work on a specific curricula for the Marie Curie for the Marie Curie alumni. And maybe Pedro, I don't know if you have some other specific information. I don't have I don't have only the those resources that usually are used I remember that they used a lot of the ones from available in foster open science so we can still suggest there are some courses even if some things are a bit outdated. I know that Marie Curie alumni still use that and the beneficiaries from Marie Curie. And others, but I remember that they were quite active using those materials from foster open science, we can put the link in the shot. I'm just thinking, for instance, something where you're doing science communication, a workshop on science communication would be valid, a workshop on how to manage your data properly. This type of webinar, this type of webinar could also be considered as this kind of things that there's probably many more but that's the base would be webinars for instance and workshops. Next question from address, Jonathan mentioned on his slides that the MP must be a part of the work package project management, but it can also be a part of scientific empirical work packages. Hence, whether the main research data is being generated or not. If I'm not mistaken, it has to be a separate work package nowadays. So proposals that usually it's part of management work package or even a separate work package. But I believe yes it's it's a specific work package called research data management with deliverable DMP. But we will need to double check that. Thanks. A couple of questions about publications and hybrid journals. You stated that costs for hybrid journals are not eligible. Would you please give us more information than other. Yeah. And what do you mean for hybrid journals, maybe, if you could explain that. So there are some publishers that have journals where you have to pay an open access fee to publish in open access those would be full. They're called gold open access. There are a few less but which are better ones where they publish open access without you having to pay and as an author, which we call diamond open access. But a lot of the journals nowadays, what they do is they will have a subscription model where libraries for instance or you as an individual need to pay to read part of the paper of the journal. But some they also give you as an author the opportunity to pay an APC to publish in open access, meaning that the journal has a mix of the author pays and the reader pays and that's hybrid and that's a problem because it leads to what we call double dipping where you have the authors. Yeah, as a subscriber you're basically kind of paying twice. Because some of those articles are already in open access but you're still paying the full price. I have a couple of questions about open research Europe. Laura was asking, how is foreign insuring that usage starts and not gained robots set her. This is an art question that I think it's more for the technical team of open research. I can give a tip if you allow me Julia because it's the services compliant with the counter rule of practice so as the other facilities of publishers. So they all follow a code of practice that is in fact the international standard. And this, the, the user statistics from those kind of services follow this code of practice which provides some kind of quality insurance or certification to this kind of figures numbers. Thanks. I have a question from York. Also, or will they be metadata that links preprints to the final version of articles as well as metadata that links previews to final version of preprints to which they protein. The link up. Actually, what, what is very clear is that you can see all the process till the end. So if all the metadata are modified and reached. All the versions at the end the final version should be already the one and reached. But everything is available in the whole process, including the metadata information. I can go also order to the other question which is, are the editors of or a publicly mentioned, and therefore our knowledge, not at the moment. But we can suggest to do it for transparency reason regarding the indexing. In the indexing of or at the moment that the, the first indexed was with the IG. And they are, since the start, they were going in deep to other kind of index system, but to reach some standard it applies sometimes. But we already are after one year. They are currently in the process to be indexed. And Laura was writing a question on semantics, a record in order before peer review, is it a preprint or submitted article. I think we can call it boss. The landscape is changing. Or reviewers are not paid there. About number of citations or to work on the provided on the way across threat. I guess yes, but we will have percent sure. Yes, I can share the link if someone wants to go in deep in the information. And you can, you can check the various link. The name does can open communication peer review process can result into a conflict between an awesome review or how do you solve such situations in order publishing process. Haven't really heard of any conflicts and I guess open peer review is a way to have a constructive dialogue like you would have its conference and that conflict. I don't know if colleagues could answer that. Thank you. Sorry. Yes. No, go, go, go ahead. If there are any conflict of interest, you can already stay. When it suggests to the reviewer. What usually is asked by the open research Europe platform is that the authors are suggesting the reviewers and they have to state if there is any conflict of interest. Moreover, the review, the reviewers, every time they do open peer review, they can ask to the editors if there is something that is appearing. I've seen revision in which the peer reviewer was mentioning that he had some previous discussion with some previous work or they know the authors personally but they were trying to address all the comments in a way that it was not affecting the quality. But if there are some kind of strange, strange situation that it is called to find the solution of finding new reviewers. I think that's a better term for questions and then we'll hand over to you, sorry about that. Kerstin was writing in what way do you suggest information about other research outputs needed to validate results or should be provided in the repository in a separate documentation file or in a metadata field. Because practice is when a read me file is available to provide this information and then if, if there are metadata fields where this information will be included that would be useful as well. Yeah, it really depends on how complex your, your data is and so when I'm sharing some learning materials for instance sometimes I'm a pretty. The licenses within the read me file because I cannot put that in the metadata so the metadata of the data set is in an open license but then within the read me file you would find each license individual licenses. For example so it really depends on the case by case basis, but usually in your institution you would have research for staff librarians that can help with to answer this kind of questions. Antonio was asking what is the procedure to sanction on compliance with requirements. So I saw examples when funding was cut because projects went on compliant frozen frozen the funding in the reporting period and waiting to for feedback from the researchers so we this is one of the. This is the main activity that usually the project officer does, if they check that there is like zero publications in open access or something like that they frozen the reporting period until there is a change of procedure or justification. And over to you Petra and if we missed some of the questions in each other this right again. Yes, we will try to address them in writing or at the end I will try to do my best just to do these highlights in 1230 minutes. So what what we want now is just to highlight some of the services functionality is available in the open air services to support Horizon Europe project to support the researchers to support the project coordinators in terms of delivering the MP depositing publications link publications or data sets to to the project and report it back to them to the European Commission. I letting some of the materials that we have available. Point to you point to you to the horizon Europe template available in Argos the tool to deliver and prepare data management plans, pointing to you the facilities that you have in Zenodo repository to deposit publications and data and also the claiming projects where in explore the open air to you, you can link publications and that the sets to your specific project. So that the management plans we already talked about so it's a formal document explaining how you are going to handle the research that through the data lifecycle. It's mandatory in horizon Europe. It's also placed it in different national open science requirements policies from national funders. And it's becoming also a practice in different universities for PhD students, which will you present the structure of the DMP is based on these six areas where we have where you we can have a summary of the data description, where the way that the data will be documented and the and describe it so documentation and metadata. So policies for storage for backup for. The practices of this area and then legal and the questions related with legal and ethical issues the way that the project will address them that the sharing practices and also the policies for long term preservation and then distribution of resources costs people in charge of the different responsibilities within the research data lifecycle so those that are creating that etc. And the bit what we have in your eyes in Europe template is also also integrate these six areas that the DMP should should have there is a template. That is also available in the documentation that is also incorporated in the Argos DMP tool. What is important to say is that the data management plan is in Europe needs to be delivered in the first six months is off the project the initial DMP and then you can have. As a living document is the commission really don't want this as to be a kind of bureaucratic exercise that you deliver the document and is then that is something that you continues to update you can have one or more updates during the project depends on the process of changes in the research changes in the consortium different reasons and then you also have it as a final report and it's important to say that the reviewers of this project will also assess the data management plan. There are tools that okay they are kind of assistant tools to facilitate our life there are several tools available online applications. One of them are simple forms just to simplify our lives. Others have wizards with the with the detailed guidance on each of the areas to prepare the data management plan and some like Argos from open air is quite rich in terms of machine readable data management plans, which clearly differentiate Argos from from other tools of course there are some institutions that already indicate the specific tools or tools that are more used in specific research fields. Argos is a generic tool available for all just to finish this introductory part. This is a very important remark this is what we really want from the research point of view. So examples that the management plans that we can see what others what other colleagues from our area often other disciplines, prepare in terms of the MP so you can find lots of in Zenodo in fact in Zenodo.org if you search for data management plans that are lots of data management plans as reports from specific projects published there. You can also check in the Argos because there is a part of public DMPs and there is an interesting the National Open Access Task Force Open Air in Austria did the very good work. And there is also a page that the link is available in the here in the slides that you can access for different collection of different data management plans that can be useful for you for you they are from horizon 2020 projects but so in terms of structure of the DMP. It's similar to the horizon Europe template. So just two or three highlights related with with Argos that is a tool that you can use it's free to use. It's online. Of course people also can this is also an open source software that can be installed in a facility in the institution but be aware that it's, it's, it's free to use and it's integrated in the European Open Science Cloud Services catalog. Two or three things I two or three highlights from the functionalities. There is a possibility to create the MPs in a collaborative way so it's quite easy someone started the MP and shared it with other logins to access and to edit the MP or just to revise it. There are several different templates that you can use of course the from the EC horizon 2020 in the horizon Europe are available. You can export the data management plans in different formats as a document the PDF but also in other way ways like Jason for example. And it's integrated with several different API is integrating different kinds of information from PID from authors until list of projects with list of repository so it's really really rich service in terms of integrating different tools. And it's just to highlight you some interesting points for this assistant tool. It's important to say that there is a difference between the the DMP and then the description of that the set the DMP can integrate different descriptions for different processes really rich in terms of what we we wanted to deliver from this tool. Of course it complicates a bit because it put it more complex but it's really a benefit for the project itself because sometimes the project really release different kinds of data sets completely different in terms of the organization in terms of the data collection procedures etc so it's good to have this difference. The other the other highlight is that easily at the end of the process you can get digital object identifier for your DMP and in can you can infect mind the DOI DOI for different versions of your DMP as for the initial version and for the different updates that you are going to deliver. We will look into into the uses of this tool but you can see that there is in the DMP basic information a way for you to identify your project and identify the template that you want to use horizon Europe. And the there is a template with the structure of the template fully available and quite well described and with the detailed guidance for each of the topics that you see here. The descriptions, the fair practice is the location of resources security ethical aspects. So they are all available in this this tool. So, this is not an assistant tool is much more than that because as we are using Argos embedded incorporated in the open air infrastructure. The DMP is that you can deliver can be easily linked to other kinds of research outputs to publications into into data will be also available in them. And the European Commission participant portal. So we made available for different actors in the open air infrastructure which is really interesting and there is a connection between Argos and Zenodo so at the end of the process if you decide to publish the DMP. You can publish it directly in Zenodo and there is a possibility to integrate with other repositories at the institutional level also to finish design machine actionable templates in the the machine actionable facilities that there are in Argos are really really important. You can also differentiate Argos from some of the other tools because we integrate different APIs different information sources of information. IDs, persistent identifiers from organizations from authors, etc, which make also very rich. In terms of input types and then in semantics. So let's just check one highlight so you can access in Argos dot open air to you. It's free to use you just need to create a login there are different ways for you to, to, to create a login from from your account from from using Google account etc. So, need to create a data data management plan, when you create a data management plan you will be guided to identify the main information the funding and not currently but this is what we are working on so the list of the entire list of projects from from Argos are not yet available in the open air infrastructure. In fact, we already have it in our back end was something that we are pushing a lot to receive it from the European Commission finally we have it. And soon on the coming week, this will be available in the open air infrastructure will be available in the expert in the service will be available in Argos will be available in in Zenodo so all the demos that I am doing now, we will be made available soon. You can indicate the project here and then after finalizing this first four topics, you will identify the data set template that you want to use and this is where you have you will find horizon Europe template. So, and all then for each data set it can be only one or it can be 234 depending on the structure of your, of your project in the way that you are collecting that so you can identify describe the way that you are going to manage the data for each data set so you have all these topics to cover quite well documented okay. It's a long list. So, don't be afraid to explore there are lots of explanations useful links so you can start delivering preparing your sorry preparing your data management plan. And being supported by the guidance that that we have there are lots of integrations like I said, from different, different tools and you can describe it and it's quite easy to use. Of course, it's a bit complex but there are several fields to fill of course you can discard some of these fields but it's quite well documented this template. Okay. This Argos really simplifies your, your life. It's really a support for researchers and for project coordinators and simplify a lot administrative process. So, last three minutes, just I wanted to have from you to highlight them for main things that you can also benefit in the open air services. To support the positive of your research outcomes and to support the reporting to the European Commission in a easy way. Open Air relies on the on the mantra that is deposit once reuse multiple times and this mantra is quite important to facilitate researcher life. So, you can find where to deposit in explore dot open air dot you. And if you don't have an appropriate thematic discipline or institutional repository or a Cree system in your institution, you can use the nodo and the nodo is available for for for everyone to, to use. So, you can search in the in this page and identify if your, if your repository is available and if it's compliant with open air or not so it's easily I'm like I'm sharing my own repository. If you don't have an appropriate because it you can deposit using the nodo to my lights. The first one is the size of the, the records that you can upload so until 50 gigabytes which which is so quite easy for publications but for that is quite also very supportive. Important to say that all the projects are listed in the in the nodo also so you can easily when you were describing your publication or your data set, there is a specific field for you to identify your project, like this publication which was from fit for a rise and horizon 2020 project you can easily identify the funder and then search for a project and then save and this information will be visible and automatically available in open air and automatically visible in the participant portal from the European Commission. In open air, the second highlight that I want to do is that we have, as you can see, we have almost 140 million publications already available, but there is a landing page for each project okay if you search for your project. If it is an horizon Europe project search next on the coming week Okay, if you search for an horizon 2020 project currently in rising Europe in the future. You will see that there is a landing page for your project where all the outputs are gathered and those outputs will be suggested to the participant portal for reporting proposals. So this example from on merit it's an horizon Europe horizon 2020 project, you can see all the publications research that and you can also see the the DMP that was prepared for this project, this is a very good way to gather all research outputs. It's important to say that the list of projects is part of the open air research graph, and we also test mine publications, and we, if we find in using our test mining algorithms and links between publications and the projects, we will put it available in our infrastructure and visible in the explore that open air to you. So this is important and for the fact that we have this list of projects. So different repositories institution repositories can also like this one from our university can also easily identify projects in in when depositing publications like I demo already in in Zanodo. I like is really useful tool that we have in open air, really, really useful. And it's quite well use it a lot. We know because when it comes to the reporting, we have last minute deposits, we have last minute. And with the project coordinator, he identifies that several research outputs are not yet properly linking to the project etc. So this service is available for you to link a publication on a data set to a specific project and to claim a publication so in explore open air to you. If you use the linking service the linking facility you need to be logged in of course you can search. So, and when you search for a publication you can search for a specific DIY or can you just search. We are searching automatically in the entire graph of open air in the crossref database in that the seat or even in archive. Okay. Let's take an example of a real DIY that from a data set that it's not yet. You, you search for DIY, and you will see that in that the seat, there is the metadata of this record, okay, data from a survey. This data was deposited in University of Minio data repository. It's not linking yet to the project that this data set belong so you can claim this publicly this data set to the specific project. Okay, if you want to do more you can do add more and then finalize the claiming let's finalize the claiming you just search for a DIY or another query. Identified and then you can continue to link and then you will say okay, I want to claim this publication for my project or to linking to another research result this is good if we want to link a data set to publication for example but we now. We want to link into an horizon Europe project this case I will demo with an horizon 2020 project. I will identify that I want to link to a specific project then I will search for the project. Okay. I will identify the project and then oops, I don't need to click I will click in plus. And then I finish. Okay, this data set. Now, we'll be linking to this specific project as an output from this specific project, this is quite useful as several repositories don't have the facilities to to provide this method that information and to do the linking so we can easily do it and we can finalize as this is a real example I'm finalizing this link, which is this will then will be made available also in the Young Merit webpage because I did the link for the young merit important to finish last thing. Participant portal so I show you that it's there is an easy way to deposit publication there is an easy way to identify projects through that the sets into publications there is an easy way to claim. It's not properly described in your repository, and then you can easily do it in the participant portal in the participant portal. If you, let me see where is okay for the reporting period. Okay session expire, you will see that in the tab publications, open air suggested publications and then you can easily click. My session is expired but there is the same for the open data tab so in the publications tab, and in the open data tab. All the publications listed in the project landing page in open air will be visible here for the project coordinator to select his publications and reported to the European Commission, and with this, we close the cycle, the circle, and we close the cycle, and we, in fact, use this mentor of depositing once and reuse it multiple, multiple times. So, and with this, I'm finishing my, my presentation, just highlighting that we have three new guides related with Verizon Europe. In English, last week and this week, they are available for you to say right to check I hope this will be useful for you. Guides are now to comply with the rise in Europe mandate for publications and for that and also a guide to support you on the preparation of a proposal when it comes to the open science requirements. Thank you so much for the bedroom that was excellent and very good tip about linking that that's really unique service. I don't see any questions just send you messages and. Okay, perfect. Hands on so sorry that you had to rush. No, no problem, no problem. It's not also we reply to all the questions what are important are the questions from the participants yes I hope this demo is useful so the recordings will be made available for us later if they want. So maybe last minute to add any questions and if you need to leave, feel free to leave sorry that we went over time and slides and recording will be made available in the webinar page. Once again. We'll have a blog page where slides and recording will be available. We'll also have a blog slash new site on the open air website about that. Feel free to contact us if you have any issues playing with the tools that we just demo accessing help desk at open air to you. We are changing the help desk service so this will be. So email help desk at open air to you. This will be registered in a new ticket system that we have so it will be easy for us to reply and to and to follow up with your request so don't take the take to put questions. Okay. So, there are no questions I think. Thank you for your questions. Once again I brought to link to the feedback form. If you could add some suggestions for other topics that we should be covering and provide any other feedbacks that would be very useful and thanks again and have a good rest of the day here. See you at other open air webinars. Excellent speakers today. Bye.