Publishing Research from your Marie Sklodowska Curie Action on Open Research Europe

Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us today. Um we'll give everyone just a few minutes to uh filter on through. Um but I hope you're all having a wonderful day. It's great to see so many of you here. Got 100 participants so far. Um with I think 300 almost 350 of you registered. So, it's wonderful to see uh so many uh Marie Cury funded researchers here to learn more about Open Research Europe. Um let me know if you're having any issues um with hearing me um or anything like that in the chat function. Um and I'll go through introductions and everything shortly. Um um just so everyone's aware up on the sort of top bar of Teams there's a chat function for you to discuss what we're we're talking about at the moment. But if you have any questions at all that are specifically um questions uh do we it would be helpful if you use the Q&A function instead of the chat function that just stops your questions getting lost um and it means that um you can uh upvote other people's questions. So the chances are if you have a question somebody else uh has that question as well and they might have um been slightly quicker on the draw in typing it. Um so do feel free to um upvote any questions that you see that you would like the answers to. Uh we will be posting that presentation up on Zenodo after the event so you can refer back to a sort of PDF of the presentation. Um and I believe that you should receive a link to a recording after um the session's over as well. So, um you can refer back to it and I'll give you you can see my contact details here, but I'll also have a bunch of other contact details at the end um so that you uh can reach out to me if you've got any questions um and don't happen to sort of see um or it wasn't addressed in the webinar for whatever reason. Uh you may also hear beeping uh over the next few minutes. Um my uh colleague will be joining us later, but I will be managing things uh on both ends. um uh techwise and presenting wise for a little bit. Um so if you see me get distracted by a notification, I apologize. Uh I am letting someone in. Um so it's been a few minutes. Um so without further ado, um I think we'll move into introductions and um saying hello to everyone. Um so I am Emma Smith. I'm the one that's been monologuing at you for a little bit um and will continue to monologue at you for um the first part of this uh webinar. I've worked in publishing since 2018 um and have joined um Open Research Europe or F1000 um towards the end of last year and I've been working on publishing platforms um like Open Research Europe um since I started uh sort of helping with the sort of day-to-day oversight um and sort of sharing information to folks like yourselves. Um once I have stopped talking about open research Europe um I will hand over to Dr. Jean Baptiste call um who is a researcher in tectonics and structural geology and has published several times on open uh research Europe um and so they will share their experiences of um publishing with open research Europe um and give you a little bit more of an author's perspective so that you don't just have me telling you stuff about the platform you also hear like an actual author's actual experience of what it's like um using Open Research Europe um And so you sort of have that additional perspective. So without further ado, um I'll move into my slides. Ah wrong one. Ah there we are. That's the one that I entered. Um so um right now I'll talk to you about the platform Open Research Europe um and how it works. So um before I go on to that, I'll talk a little bit about open research specifically. Um what is it and why does open research practice benefit you? So open science or open research more broadly refers to making your academic research freely accessible to everyone including the public. I'm sure most of you are aware of the move towards open access publishing in recent years. Um that's moving away from subscription access to journals and putting articles behind a payw wall. Um and so open access is one key part of open research. But open research does go beyond just making the final research article available. It also includes sharing your methodology, sharing the underlying data and also sharing accompanying communication around the research. So the back and forth that you have with um uh researchers um who are reviewing your work um posting preprints um as well as having different versions of the article um showing how the article progresses over time um and uh across revisions. And we're seeing that there is a real growth in support for this practice of open research both from the public and from more institutional support like funders requesting things like open data policies and pre-printing articles before formal peer review. Some of the reasons that this benefits you as an author is that it helps provide greater transparency around the research and review process. This helps make um peer reviews um more constructive, especially if they're published openly. And it increases the visibility and potential impact of your work. Everyone is reading it. So um potential policy makers are more likely to have access to it. Your fellow colleagues who maybe don't have a subscription to that journal that you were publishing in. Now that your work's open, everyone can read it. And therefore, that can lead to important things for you guys as researchers like higher citation rates. It also helps um within the academic community by making more kinds of research um open to the public um so other academics sort of know what research um you're undertaking and are less likely to repeat experiments or conduct work that is redundant. um you are better able to build upon one another's research and make scientific uh research and and humanities research um a lot more um collaborative and communicative um across uh different fields and disciplines. Um altogether this reduces research way uh waste and sort of helps um with with research endeavors in general. So moving on to open research specifically the European Commission wanted to establish an open research platform that sort of leads by example allowing researchers to share their work collaborate with others and gain recognition for their contributions both as authors and as reviewers openly and quickly. Um so uh some of the aims that they had when developing that platform were to share research quickly rather than waiting rounds and rounds of revision where your paper can't be read by anyone other than the editor and the reviewer um because it's stuck in that journal system. It ensures they wanted to ensure that papers are published as soon as they are as soon as it's possible. They also wanted to ensure that data uh is made openly available and they wanted to accommodate a really diverse range of research outputs. Not just like a standard research article and review, but a much uh wider array of article types to provide that more tailored approach for you as authors uh to credit you for the vast array of work that goes into research articles. That's not just that final product. Um, so for example, sharing things like new methodologies that you're creating and things like that. They also wanted a transparent and open peerreview system and they wanted to move away from journal impact factor as an indicator of quality so that the research uh can be judged on its own merits and we provide article level metrics to support that. They also wanted a transparent and coste effective way of publishing. So that there was no cost to you as authors or to your project budget or grant. So if you are eligible to publish on the platform which as Marie Cury funded authors you would be um then you can publish um an unlimited number of papers related to your uh eligible project project without any cost to you. Um, so F1000, uh, the publishing organization I work for, uh, won that tender back in, uh, the late 2010s. Um, and Open Research Europe was launched with these principles in 2021. Open Research Europe has been lorded across the widely wider scholarly publishing landscape through initiatives such as Plan S, the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, and the EU are increasingly encouraging open research practices that Open Research Europe uses. And we've seen several major funders across Europe sign a statement of intent to um support Open Research Europe in the coming years. So gone into a lot of what open research principles are um and what open research Europe um has as its sort of background but what is the actual process of submitting to open research Europe? What is it that we actually do? So this is our open research publishing model and we'll go sort of one step at a time at a time. So first um you would submit the paper that you're wanting considered by Open Research Europe and from there it would undergo pre-publication checks. So our in-house team of professional editors will carry out those uh pre-publication checks on things like have you made your data available? um and if not we'll sort of help you find or share information that will help you find um appropriate repositories to share your data. Um are you as authors actually eligible to publish on the platform? Uh is your article a scholarly article? Those kinds of checks. Um and once you have passed all of those checks, your article will be sent to our production team. Our production team will then fully type set the article and you will receive those proofs and this helps to um fully embed all of the XML and sort of backend information uh that helps make your article discoverable. From there the article is published on Open Research Europe as a fully citable publication. It has a DOI and it's indexed in Google Scholar at this point in time. Once it's published, that's when we begin the peer review process. Our in-house team of uh editors will select uh expert reviewers to review your manuscript. This you can supplement uh with suggestions um as of potentially appropriate reviewers. Um but our editors do sort of lead the charge on that to sort of help reduce the amount of work that you already have to do as an author. Once we have received two reviews, then you as authors are encouraged to revise the article and resubmit the much as you would revise your article in a sort of traditional journal format. Once the article passes peer review, and I'll get into the specifics of that in just a moment, that's when the um article is sent to indexers like Cenodo, PubMed, Scopus and others. An article is considered to be uh completely reviewed when it has received at least two peerreview reports. If um the reviewers have um excuse me as a part of the their peer reviews that are made publicly available um the reviewers are asked to provide a status with their peer review and that provides a sort of quick summary of what the in their view the article is like. So they can select an approved status for when manuscripts are um pretty sound in terms of their methodology and really the only changes that are suggested suggested are really very minor don't have any impact on the conclusions that the authors are drawing in the paper. Then we have the approved with reservation status. So this is when there are suggested re uh revisions that could help improve the paper, but the fundamental results are okay. Um and um you know the the additional revisions are helpful but not incredibly like super super essential. Um and then there is not approved for manuscripts where the paper um needs significant major revisions in order to support the claims that the authors are making. An article is considered to have passed peer review like in this example here when we have two approved statuses or alternatively one approved status and two approved with reservations statuses. So this is when an article has passed peer review and that's when it gets indexed in those major databases like PubMed and Scopus. As I mentioned there are um we have article versioning capability and the versions are literally limitless. So um if you wanted to you can continue to update um your article you can revise it both when the reviewers are suggesting revisions um and uh for example even if you've passed peer review but you may be passed with one approved two approved with reservations and you want to address the uh concerns that the reviewers raised in the approved with reservations reviews. um you can still continue to revise your paper. Um in this paper for example, you can see three um versions of the article um are here on the right hand side of the paper. Um in that first version they had two um approved with reservations peer reviews. um on revision. They then um received um two approved with reservations and an approved which means that version two passed peer review and was sent to indexes but they wanted to address the remaining concerns raised um and uh issued another version of their article. This is an example of open peer review in action with the full reviews, reviewers names published um alongside the article and you can read the author's response as well um which you can read um clicking view um underneath the um sort of status symbols. And you can also see here that there are article views and downloads metrics um that help showcase the level of impact that your research is having. um rather than using the impact factor. Um moving on to those article metrics as I mentioned um this is a sort of wider array of what we can show um and these are immediately viewable after publication. So you start receiving this information um as soon as your article is published which again is um before and during the uh review process not all the way at the end. So what articles can be published on open research Europe? Um as I mentioned one of the briefs that the Europe European Commission had was to make uh to support a really diverse array of research outputs and article types um to help support uh research across disciplines which have different formats uh that they typically share research. um as well as to provide you as authors with more credit for the research that you're doing. So for example um we have um your traditional research article as well as brief reports for those sort of shorter preliminary um outputs um and a variety of other things. uh method articles where you're developing a new methodology, software tools for if you're developing new software, um and study protocols if you're wanting to share your uh sort of uh protocol for your research ahead of time. So, as you can see, there's a really wide array of article types to support a huge variety of uh research outputs that you might have. Each of these um article types um has guidelines and policies specifically for research in science, technology and medicine. Uh for research in the social sciences and for research in the humanities. So this isn't a one-sizefits-all approach to a research article. We appreciate there are wide differences in what you would expect to see in a research article, for example, in an engineering paper relative to a research article um about medieval history. So um again the guidance sort of varies by your discipline um and you can sort of see that on the um open research Europe website. Um you have unlimited amount of submissions. There's no uh sort of app on the amount of submissions that you can make to Open Research Europe. So you could share research outputs from across the life cycle of your project. So if you wanted to, you could share an initial literature review that guided your um research proposal, the study protocol for a particular experiment or line of research that you're doing, the methodology that you then used, you can share a brief report from some of those preliminary responses or results that you received um and before diving into the full research article. So this helps give you credit throughout the research process and begin acrewing publications much earlier in the process uh than you would get in just a traditional research article format. So let me take a sip of tea. Um what are the sort of practical steps about actually sharing uh your research on open research Europe? So um as a sort of general submission checklist um it is pretty standard with what you would expect to see at other journals. So things like the work is original and hasn't been submitted to another journal, isn't under consideration at another journal. um that the study itself meets uh the relevant research and publication standards that the methodological details you know where you have them are uh supplied and that the data has been made available that everyone understands uh open research Europe's journal policies and the publishing model where we publish first and then do the peerreview process openly and transparently afterwards um and um ensuring that your author and affiliation information and conflict of interest statements are all fully provided. This um oh it says cost action there. It should say Marie Cury. Um so the open research Europe um publishing with us ensures that you're meeting your Marie Cury uh grant requirements in terms of sharing your um research in an open manner. In terms of your data availability, um we ask that all uh data is made available unless there are some limited exceptions. Um so this can be raw data for example data you've actively generated um as a part of your study um and you can share this in an approved data repository under an open access license so that other people can reuse that data um and there should be a permanent identifier for that data set like a DOI or it could be source data um so data that you maybe didn't generate but it was used for your research So for example, if you've used archival resources or if you've used another person's data set, you should just provide the relevant details so that other people if they wanted to could access that source data. Um so in general this principle is making your data as open as possible and as closed as necessary. So if you need to protect participant anonymity that's absolutely fine. But what can you make available and how would people go about accessing that data through various data sharing agreements? If you have any questions, you're not really sure um exactly where would be the best place to deposit your data, please do get in touch with us. Um we have resources um on the website, um and do feel free to um get in touch. Our editorial team may be able to supply more uh resources and I'm also happy to chat um and sort of help provide guidance where I can. I also wanted to highlight that the Marie Cury um actions have their full own gateway on Open Research Europe and this allows you to submit your work directly to um the MSCA gateway. Um and so your work can be included among the work of other MSEA beneficiaries. Uh currently we have almost 240 articles published there across a really wide array of uh subject areas and disciplines. I've included a um uh sample of them here. Um but you can uh always browse that and see um what other research uh your MSEA uh beneficiary colleagues um have been publishing. And then in terms of indexation, I just wanted to highlight that we are indexed in a variety of places. So as I mentioned, your initial publication um the one that comes out first before peer review is sent to Google Scholar. So it begins being uh discoverable very very early in the process and then once the article passes peer review so after the peer review process and you have those two approved or one approved two approved with reservations peerreview statuses attached to your article that's when it's sent to indexes such as Scopus PubMed and uh the others uh sort of listed on this website um you can see a full list of um what is um where we're indexed on the um Open Research Europe website as well if you would like to get into that in a bit more detail. So in terms of what's next for Open Research Europe, uh there is a new open-source platform that is currently being built by public knowled the public knowledge project um adapting their systems to suit open research Europe's model. Um we're also looking to widen the eligibility criteria. So um initially open research Europe was only um accessible to beneficiaries of the horizon programs um and now as you can see as Marie Cury beneficiaries um you are also elig eligible to publish and so we're we're seeking to sort of widen those criteria. We've also received support from national funders across Europe to uh support Open Research Europe as a platform and this really helps drive Open Research Europe forward as a collectively owned and supported European research uh publishing program for the benefit of European researchers. So I am going to uh keep quiet now um and get rid of my slides before I hand over to uh Dr. Cole. So let me stop sharing. I'm sure you'll be glad of a change of voice. Um yes, Doss Cole. Is it okay? Can you see my screen now? You see that? Fly publishing dawn of a new new age. Yeah. >> All good. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Excellent. So, thank you very much for this introduction, Emma. I mean, it's um really great to be here. Uh and um just uh find out now how many of you have felt like the guy on this uh picture when it comes down to publishing papers? Show hands. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. uh felt like that so many times uh when it comes to publishing and uh uh really um you know have any any one of you seen that movie the the internship uh I felt it was quite an interesting movie especially when it came to that moment where Vince Vaughn comes and say to this pizza pizzeria place owner uh that we all like we know what we know but you know what's the scariest thing in life is the thing in life that frightens us the most. Change and yeah change can be a bee. It really can be and drive us nuts. uh and and and change affects also not only us uh who are marry and therefore probably non-permanent employees but also unfortunately our dear uh elderly more experienced researchers uh whose instinct has not been accustomed in the latest years to be subjected to change. So their survival instinct suddenly perceives the change of paradigma or whatever your paper is going to suggest as a threat because it's going to involve uh uncertainty for them and certainly effort to which they're no longer accustomed to adapt to a new model to a new parody of course. Yeah, I think that sums it up. Um so that that comes from many many many places and I think this is um uh yeah omnipresent among scientists. I should yeah I changed that to people. Yeah. Uh what Alfred called complexes of inferiority uh basically a feeling of inferiority helplessness uh which one needs to compensate uh inadequate upbringing people feeling like uh uh never feel felt gratified or never felt encouraged and that leads to complexes of inferiority and also complexes of superiority which are actually rooted in a complex of inferiority. That's very sad because it leads to aggressive behavior and withdrawal and victimization. And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about these elderly people who are supposed to be wiser, more experienced that are judging chosen to judge your your research as reviewers or as editors. And you have to think of them like this. And just like us when we get a paper rejected, they have to go through the grief cycle. Now we are temporary employees. So we must move on. We don't have the choice. Life is kicking us in the ass and we need to move on with denial, anger, bargaining, depression and we need to accept the fact that we can't control everything. While these gentlemen which let's face it and still male dominated unfortunately but it's changing gradually but these people are generally u these more experienced people are generally stuck in a denial anger phase when they see something new that they don't like or that destroys their legacy. Now enough about them a bit about me. This is who I am. I am a crazy mad scientist. I I love writing papers and I do research differently and I think differently. I think out of the box. Um and uh a bit where I come from. Well, I started in in France and did a bit of um industry or should I say energy industry uh in my lifetime uh twice actually. once uh after my bachelor and once after my uh master's degree because I couldn't get a PhD unfortunately which was what my lifelong dream uh be a researcher which I eventually got uh had short stints visiting PhDs visiting researchers and I wrote one uh two and three mercury application before I got it uh with short-term positions associated to that uh so lecturers researcher commuting doing here and there. Now I have my uh and then I got a postoc uh just before leaving uh and before getting my marury uh I got a two-year postto which I combined with my three-year marury between Montreal and and Oslo that was really a blessing at the time and what I had not really understood then was um I actually inconsciously understood later but uh on the moment is that when I was submitting my second marry application I chatted finally with the person that was supposed to be main supervisor and I showed him some of my research finding and what I did without knowing it, I lit a bomb which blew up in his face and destroyed his entire research uh publishing strategy for the next 20 years. It had just swept the carpet from under his feet and he was just the only word that he could find on the moment was the f word and the B word to to throw at me. And that was really really tough and really I did not understand what was happening. And then I went across the street on the re on a research center as a as a crossdoc as I was as I got uh just before getting my uh third application funded and then I without knowing an even bigger bone with a another discovery that I made which blew up in the face of the lead researcher there. uh and these two gentlemen did not like that at all and they have segregated my research which is uh unfortunate because they well it can help I I believe it can help and they are not comp but it's also one thing is that I did not see that they were not competent to understand my research they had no background in the field that I or the skills I had gotten from industry and this is this is my my my mistake I had not managed to get these gentlemen on board uh all the way. Um so be careful and be be sure of what people's intentions are. But anyway, now these gentlemen, they are very powerful and they have made it awfully complicated for me to publish my research because as you know in the research landscape or the publishing landscape, the editors and the reviewers have all the power. And generally when they read something new that does not agree with their own papers, they're very angry and they reject your papers. Right? And on top of that, uh that's probably something that has some positive uh some positive um um sides to it. But I don't have time. I don't have time for these gentlemen to to go through any their grief cycles successfully. Uh I have many to go on for myself and my life is not going to be as long as these two gentlemen. I am autistic which I have just discovered and I have a chronic or genetic heart problem which I am sure not to live past uh 60 70. So I don't have time I don't have time for that. But luckily there is a light at the end of the tunnel to share this exciting uh this exciting discovery that I've made and this light is open research Europe. When I discovered it about a year and a half ago late 2023 I sent one paper and I couldn't stop myself. I think I've published seven first author paper papers in open research Europe and I have two more uh in review and that's just one year and a half that I had a lot on my chest with this discovery and I still have a lot um so it's very very nice to have a journal that can really accept so much workload. I mean it's F,000 powered so it's it's a really huge team that has an incredible potential and a bit about the journal as I was saying but from the author's p perspective the great thing about that is that it's published first with a DOI findable immediately anyone can see it anyone can contact you and and then spit keep spitballing you know it's get the ball rolling in many different direction and see where where things go and and and one more It can never be rejected if it passes the first ethical and and fair data checks and all eligibility checks. Your paper cannot be rejected as it so often is when it proposes something dramatically new that people cannot comprehend uh because they don't have the experience or because they fear repraisal from disagreeing with a powerful individual. So cannot be rejected. it will be published and it will be findable forever that it passes peer review or not it doesn't matter it will be there so now a bit about how to find the peerreview process it's not so much of a hassle I must say and it's really transparent it really is something completely new you are the as the author are empowered you finally finally have equal power as the reviewers and this is something really important that you have to understand. The reviewer can no longer bully you in saying that you're just full of That doesn't work. It can it no longer works. This is what is really great with Open Research Europe. So you can of course uh name three opposers u but that doesn't really really matter. You can suggest reviewers, which I strongly encourage you to to do. Um, because it really speeds up the process and and and gives the team at F000 a lot of names to that they can check uh and they do check thoroughly uh for uh conflicts of interests and uh potential uh uh collaboration on previous papers. But you can also use the reviewer referinder tool which is really helpful sometimes when you really have papers that you you you don't know uh you are in in a field where you are you're exploring the implication of a groundbreaking uh discovery you made and you you're not so sure I I I'm I'm structural geologist and I am I have my my research has profound implications for paleontology but I don't know so many paleontologists unfortunately so I don't know who would be a better best reviewer. So this uh tool can really help be helpful. You can click on the on the uh three matching publication. It will display the names and and authors. You can in links to to their PubMed page or something like that. And you can decide whether you think this uh suggested uh reviewer is is a potential match or you can uh so you add it to the list here or you can just decide no I don't like this person or I have a conflict of interest with this person or this person is not competent to to to review my research or is not simply not relevant. That that really rarely happens. the tools are pretty good at finding uh matches, but it can happen. And now off with the peerreview process. And I think the greatest one of the two greatest features of of Open Research Europe together with the fact that your papers can no longer be rejected is that um sometimes I would see you. So you see here the the status of all the the reviewers that I have added to the list or that some the editor editorial team has added themselves because it was suggested by another referee or by someone that couldn't review and some people agree and then you say, "Oh, okay. Great three people have agreed I have will speed up the process and suddenly one of them you would realize one of them has dropped out. So one thing that can happen is that they suddenly realize oh no I don't have time to do that but it's rare I must say very it is very rare when you accepted to review a paper it's you do it what h what happens is that and I I know that because I know personally some of the individual that have suddenly disappeared from that list have agreed uh is that people at the moment of submitting their peerreview report realize that oh shoot I can't remain anonymous I cannot insult that person and be different in my comment. Shoot, I don't have all the power anymore. Oh, so I will just not submit my report. I will not be a reviewer anymore. So that can no longer happen. You referees, it's pure fully transparent. Referee cannot no longer remain anonymous and they can no longer be injurious in their in their comments. They have to have their name attached to their comment. They have to be to stand up for for for that comment for what they say. That means that open research Europe is also on the other side trying to create an environment for young scientists to also feel like they can express their opinion. May they disagree with powerful individuals and that I think is a really um amazing thing to do. Uh and of course if you you may be afraid of sharing your opinion then just decline. If you're really really really afraid to disagree with someone just decline. But um if you if you are a researcher you and you want to propose something new, you you must be a tad courageous. You don't have the choice. You are going to change you're here to change people's life. Europe believes in you. We believe in you and we really want you to achieve great things. So please share it with everyone else. Open research is a great place to do that. You're not going to be just Oh, by the way, did I mention that it's a diamond open access journal? Free to publishing and free to access. It's just checks all the boxes and now yeah just on the editors I mean this is very new but open research Europe the editor is no longer this person that tells you that okay the re the reviewers one of the reviewers said no out of three so I'm inclined to say no like him so in in most journals the editors will take also will also u have an opinion on whether your paper should be published in their in their journal No longer it is the case in open research Europe. An editor's mandate should not be to to to to decide whether a paper should should be published because an editor is actually well technically biased because it would generally tend to try to have as many papers to published or or if it with uh questionable uh ideas and just wants to segregate ideas that are not agreeing with his then he would decline publications which suggest an alternative to his models. An editor should be impartial. It should be a conflict solver between reviewers on one side and authors and help them solve their uh differences. It is all about that. Once a manuscript is submitted, the editor is is a facilitator that sends the manuscript to the reviewers and tries to talk each of them to try to agree and make compromises. This is what it is about. And sometimes it's difficult and sometimes not possible. Of course, that that happens very well. and then the paper does not pass peer review but it's still there and still can be improved. That's the beauty of open research Europe. It is all it will always be there and if you 20 years later you want to give it another crack at this paper that still hasn't passed peerreview and let's say mentalities have evolved paradigms have changed in your field then you go back to it and you can do it and you can you don't start from scratch again and open research Europe as said it's moving away from irrelevant and insist on on the word irrelevant impact factors and citation indicators these are not relevant to evaluate the quality and impact of your research and I'm going to get and this is very stupid example most not stupid it's very basic example that shows the irony of using such irrelevant parameters this is Alfred the father of plate tectonics basically the father of the foundation of the geocciences for everything we do is connected to his finding that the continents have moved and are still moving. He published this book in 1915 or his first version, first edition of the book which has been cited a whopping 1500 times. Google Scholar. Now we know that is mostly true. Not everything is true in his book, but a lot of things are still true and accepted widely accepted. Now we go to this gentleman which against which I have nothing against. I mean he's a very decent person, a very good researcher and that also is very open to characterizing the uncertainty around his research. In 71 he published an update an upgrade to the continental plate tectonics theory of beginner and this has been cited more than twice uh more than uh book although it is actually extremely controversial and very it works almost in no situation. So if you want to focus on being cited and having high impact factors, I suggest you start understanding that your research is going to be wrong or controversial. Let let's put it this way. If you want to write a research proposal or write a paper, the introduction to a paper, let's say, and you want to introduce the field, you are not going to refer to something that is broadly accepted. We know it. We don't want to repeat it. But you want to go to the point, okay, these mental plumes that this mr. Jason Morgan has published about in 71. This is still not completely accepted and it still has problems and therefore it is cited because it is still controversial. All right. Uh I'm going to stop now but yeah just to to tell you open research Europe is really one of the greatest thing that has happened to me in the last year and a half. It was it's really a great experience and great manuscript handling. uh every time you look at nature and science reviews by authors whether their paper was accepted or not most of these review are negative because people feel like they're treated like This never happens in open research Europe. guarantee I've I've had nine manuscripts submitted there and it's really every time it's different but you feel like you're supported throughout the process and you feel that you are always partly in control that you have equal power with with the other forces in that are at play. So thanks uh thanks a lot if you have questions of course again I'll stay here and uh don't hesitate I have you also will have my presentation and my email is in there so happy to converse about this further cheers. Thanks, Sean Bertis. That's super helpful. Um, Kelly, um, I don't know if you are around to help with Q&As's or not >> because I haven't seen your face >> to share a little bit. >> Um, would that be okay? Uh, just because I am aware I monologued a lot for most of this uh, webinar. So, people might want another voice. Um, so for those of you um, I think I may have forgotten to introduce Kelly. That's entirely on me. Um, but Kelly is um does a lot of the is a lot of the driving force behind Open Research Europe. Um, and um is uh a wonderful person um and has worked in open access publishing for many a year. Um so uh they are uh wonderful. So questions throw them at us. Um, and in the meantime, I will share the contact page for myself for people that that have any questions that we don't get to. >> Thank you very much. Um, so I will be using the up vote feature in the Q&A to determine which questions we'll get to first. Any questions that we don't get to, we will post in a blog post at the end um on Open Reset Europe. So, we will get to all the questions even if we don't get to them in this session. Um, so the first question we've got is can we publish the same note or paper in archive and in open research Europe? >> Yes, you can because archive is a preprint server um and open research journal acts um it's a peer-reviewed uh platform for like a journal. So it's um they are sort of distinct kinds of publication um and so preprint servers are absolutely fine um for you to share your work in and then submit to us. >> Perfect. Thank you. Uh second question, if you're working on a Mary Cury project that has finished or the grant has ended, are you still eligible to publish the results from that project on Open Research Europe? >> Uh yes, you are. You can publish um as long as the research is coming from that project, you can publish uh that research um with us for as long as you would like after the end of the actual project itself. So, um, if you have, um, a research output that you're thinking of sharing, but you're like, man, my, uh, grant ends in a month, and there's no way I can pull this research article together in a month, absolutely fine. Uh, just share it with us when it's ready. Um and that's um absolutely um a okay just as long as it is funded in whole or in part um by one of our eligible funding streams of which the MI cury um actions are one of them um then it's eligible for open research Europe. >> Thank you. Um and then we've had a few questions just asking to confirm that publication is free. Who is eligible to submit for free? How can it be free? How is it funded? That sort of thing. Yeah. Um, so we work centrally with the European Commission. So when you submit um a manuscript to us, we um then tell the European Commission like, "Hey, we've had x amount of papers published um on the platform and then we chat with the European Commission centrally about um funding arrangements. So for you guys as authors um it is free for you to publish as long as you're one of our eligible funding streams. If you're not an eligible funding stream, then you can't publish on the platform. There are a really wide array of eligible funding streams. So, um, Horizon 2020, if there's anything outstanding from that, Horizon Europe, cost actions, um, the Marie Cury actions, um, if you're a member of staff with the European Commission, things like that. Um there is a web page um that I won't be able to pull up right now um but it's called eligibility under our how it works section on the open research Europe website um and that um lists all of the Thanks Kelly that lists all of the eligible funding programs. So if even one author is publishing an output um that relate that that they use that funding for on that paper then it's eligible to publish. So if you um have um a sort of PhD that's funded by the Marie Cury um actions um and you're the only person with eligible funding who is publishing on that paper, that article is still eligible for publication on open research Europe. >> Just to further clarify that point as well because we've had another question around that. Um the authorship position in the publication doesn't matter either. You do not have to be the first or the last author. You can be any author in the paper as long as the work itself was funded by the commission and and the eligible programs listed on that website. Um then you can publish. Right. Let me get back to the Q&A. Um how is a recognition for papers published in Open Research Europe? When thinking about when your funding proposals are being reviewed or job applications, how do they assess papers published on Open Research Europe? Um that is an excellent question that will probably vary by institution. Um but what um I can say is that when your article is published so again like that initial stage um before peer review when it's very first published on the platform it receives a DOI and can immediately start being cited start being viewed um and things like that. So you can point to your um publication on open research Europe even before peerreview as a demonstration of productivity um and um that something is undergoing peer review as a part of your um grant application and things like that um and because of the transparency of our process um it is easy for anyone who looks at that paper to see where it is in the process. So for example um if you've just submitted a revised version um that has started going through peer review and you have those sort of earlier maybe you've got two approved with reservations peer reviews um then um anyone sort of looking at that paper can see um the stage that it's at read those previous reviews and things like that. Um and finally once it passes peer review so you've got those two approved or one approved two approved with reservations peerreview statuses attached to your article um then the open research Europe paper is then sent to indexes like PubMed and Scopus um so that it is um more akin to a sort of final version um that you would find in a sort of traditional version traditional journal article um because it's being sent with two sort of indexes as a sort of Thumbs up. The reviewer said uh yes to this one. Um so that uh are those are some various different ways that you can use a publication on open research Europe throughout its life cycle with us. Um and not just as you would have in a sort of traditional process of manuscript in prep uh under review and then an actual publication. You can instead point to exactly what reviewers have said, exactly where it is in the process. Um and I think Jean Baptiste maybe has something to contribute as well from his experiences. >> Yeah, actually this is from my experience as an ERC reviewer evaluator. Um if I see a proposal that does not contain that we will the project will publish the data on xenodor open on open research Europe or on any open access journal or open but especially open research Europe or on any of the open access data repository. I would not respond positively to that to that proposal. Uh the reason is Europe is making that change and Europe is one of the European Commission is one of the main source of funding for universities in Europe. There is a reason why we're going in this direction. Uh we need progress to accelerate not to be stopped con constantly. Uh and um I think universities will have no choice but to adapt in the very near future. There is a need for them to value the fact that you have published in open researcher that you're acquainted with what it takes to make your research truly fair and and findable uh available interpable and and reusable. This is where we're going and there's no going around it. >> Brilliant. Thank you so much. Great to have the author perspective there on that one. Um let's have a look. We're getting quite a few questions around timelines. So can you give an overview of the timelines from submission to publication and then from publication to peer review etc. >> Yeah. Um so obviously everything that I'm about to say is um related to our sort of medians um that we um sort of take um so um in terms of submission to publication those initial pre-publication checks the ones where our editorial team are checking like hey is the paper eligible is the article um in scope for us um and the various different pre-publication checks. um they should get in touch with you um within a few working days um if they have any questions about that uh those sort of initial checks. Uh from there it depends a lot on um author responsiveness. Um if you are traveling, if you've submitted your paper right before conference season and can't get back to us, um that will uh sort of obviously change um how quickly um the the paper goes from the submission to publication. uh stage. Um one of the things that we find is that there is sometimes confusion over um what data can and should be made available. Um how best to make it available. Um so when you are preparing your submission um it's worthwhile checking out both our article guidelines and our open data software and code guidelines. Um I've got my email up on the um screen that hopefully you can see. Um, so if you have any questions ahead of submission, please don't hesitate to get in touch. There are also additional resources on the website just to check those things and then prevent delays just because you've um misunderstood what the data availability policy actually is and things like that. Um, but yes, so you should get that initial email from us uh within a few working days. um in terms um of from when it's like accepted so our editorial team's input is over you've had that back and forth um to when it's published that's normally I think a couple of weeks uh to get all the production stuff um sorted the proofing the type setting um any uh errors to correct in the proofs um and then it will go up um online um so I think again because it depends so heavily on author responsiveness and what questions our editorial team ask um and what needs to be provided um that can vary quite widely in terms of submission to publication times. Um, Jean Baptist, she wanted to chip in here as well. >> From experience, uh, if the stars align and you have done your due diligence of preparing your data the way they should be prepared or or and you know how they need to be prepared in advance and you have done all the reference check in your in your paper etc. It could go as as quickly as one or two weeks to get it published uh and and fully available. It can be awfully quick. But if you are in a if you are writing a paper like I did recently on a field that is not exactly mine then the data are a bit more challenging to to know how to share them how to present them and it took about two months of back and forth but it was like two months it was really intense discussion was not a lot of work but it was back and forth. I think we had the five or six exchanges with the production team and and Q and Q&As on how to share the data or the references etc. And it took about two months. It was it was really not overwhelming. It it was really good. And and when it comes to the peer review, if you want to have a firm number on it, I've had papers uh peer-reviewed uh as quickly as and accepted and passing peer review as quickly as three weeks. And that again if all the stars align then and you have recommended a lot of referees and reviewers and and and they are available and they want to get rid of their paper off their plates because it's Christmas then they will review it very quickly and done done there can be that quick. two weeks plus 3 weeks. It was the quickest paper I've ever seen accepted in passing peer review. Five weeks total this one took. But I have another one that has been submitted more than a year ago and it's still uh not uh hasn't passed peer review and it's a paper that shakes the foundation of my own my own science field. So it's completely normal and I I expected that and and it is perfectly fine. Uh so you have depending what you are publishing. Thank you so much. Um, so just to add a few concrete numbers to that, I think the the case study there from John Baptist is really helpful and the overview from Emma, but um, the median times we're looking at at the minute from submission to publication are around the 50-day mark. Um, as we said, there's lots of variation there. There'll be some that come in within two weeks and some that take a bit longer, but median is around 51. Um, most of those papers receive their peer review reports by around the 70day mark. Um, and then they ultimately end up passing peer review somewhere around 90 days to 100 days. So, these are the numbers that we're working with at the minute, but as Jean Baptiste said, if if you've done your due diligence, that can happen a lot quicker. Um, or if your paper is particularly complicated, then that can happen a lot slower. So, um, swings and roundabouts really. I don't know if that's an expression that translates across all of Europe, but it's a very British one. Um, okay, let's have a look. What have we got? Oh, we've had some questions about the thematic scope of Open Research Europe. and do we have sections or anything like that? >> Um that is a great question so thanks for asking. Um so open research as a whole is designed for European researchers as a whole. Um so uh in terms of subject scope as a platform um as long as you are eligible um to publish on open research Europe we will accept any topic um for consideration for our um editors to go through those pre-publication checks and to sort of begin that peer review process um in terms of looking like hey I work in chemistry or I work um on medieval history or renaissance history in a particular um country. Um we have um on the website uh community gateways um which is our funky name for subject areas. So if you want to have a look um for a specific broad topic um then the community gateways tab is where you would look. Um so maybe I should pull up um open research Europe here. Um so you would go to gateways and collections and community gateways and you can see the sort of broader subject areas here. Um we also have collections uh which are um akin to uh sort of much narrower in scope. There are sometimes like commissioned articles or we've um or we've got gateway advisers that have reached out um uh about a specific topic um or for example cost actions are normally sort of larger interdicciplinary networks that want a home for their research. Um and so these are much smaller in scope than the um community gateways which are sort of broader subject areas. Um but yeah, those are the places that you would look. Um, and if you click into each of them, let's say you're a health sciences researcher and you want your research tagged into that gateway, you can click directly submit to this gateway and it will take you to a submission form and automatically tag your research into that gateway. Um, so um that hopefully is helpful in terms of uh scope questions. >> Brilliant. Thank you. Um, we've had someone comment saying that they agree with Jean Baptiste about what you said about journal impact factors, but sadly many hiring committees still focus on this when reviewing applicants CVs and it still seems to have weight for things like the UK ref. Um, is there any insight or data on how open research Europe is viewed by the ref or other national bodies such as the AQ AQU Catalonia in Spain or by social science departments particularly with reference to hiring or promotion. Um so as Emma and John Baptist said there really is big movement across Europe in particular to move away from using things like the impact factor in hiring decisions and also in funding decisions but that is going to take a really long time. Um if we think about how long the world actually took to accept peer review although we consider that to be a standard um practice in publishing actually took decades before people were accepted accepted uh having their papers to be peer- reviewviewed rather than just having them published as soon as they were submitted. So change takes a really long time. However, um things have really kind of picked up in the last few years, especially with the co the creation of Kowara, the coalition on advancing research assessment. I think it's done. Um and also with the European Commission pushing Open Research Europe. So, I'm not sure if Emma mentioned this during the presentation, but um the European Commission is really committed to expanding Open Research Europe and removing the eligibility criteria of it to allow researchers not funded by the European Commission to also make use of the platform. And in order to do that, they've been negotiating with uh many different funders predominantly across Europe at the minute for obvious reasons um and asking them to contribute financially to the running of Open Research Europe and therefore allow researchers based in that country or funded by those organizations to um publish in Open Research Europe as well. So I mentioned this just to say that the more of these national funders and institutions that get on board with a model like Open Research Europe and engage with KOAR, the more they will have to change their own hiring policies and funding policies um to reflect this support for um or the support for moving away from the impact factor and instead focusing on each individual piece of research and the the worth of it in on its own merit instead of looking at the venue of where it's published. Jean Baptiste, do you want to come back in on that? Yeah. Um I I want to say that it can really hap a change can really seem a ms away but s can really happen very suddenly quickly and when the first domino falls then everything falls into place and it's it's going to happen very quickly. So you want to be on the right side uh once this change happens and and and just to my surprise I was invited to to give that talk. I just had not realized that I was that I had that much experience after a year and a half with open research Europe you you get a lot of opportunities be on the right side of it right now just it takes all of us to make the change but it actually not doesn't take so many of us it takes only the 10 first 10 the first 10% until we reach tipping point where all the others which are generally followers and we can be followers for very different things in our lives but we also can be drivers and those 10% of people that are th all that we need to drive the other 80% because there will all be always be these 10% of resistant people that will never accept it which is fine we all we need diversity but these 10% pe people will drag the other 80% with them so once this happens it's going to be moving very fast you really want to be publishing on open research Europe now and that would make a big difference for you for example in terms of funding as I say as I review proposals for the ERC and I I got to make the decision me out of all the evaluation Since I know very much about open access, I was the one to make the decision on the last proposal funding. Uh we we funded three proposals and two were very tied. One knew about open access. One did not even mention open research Europe. Had no previous experience about open science and anything like that. That was clear. It was a clearcut. It was a clear decision. >> Brilliant. Thank you. Um, someone's asking if their paper is rejected or I'm guessing in our quirky O language. Um, if it receives uh not approved peerreview statuses or doesn't reach the threshold to pass peer review, does the paper remain on the platform? >> Yes, it does. Um, so um, one thing that I normally emphasize and didn't uh, in this webinar uh, for some reason um is that not approved despite the sort of scary red X is not a rejection. It is um an invitation for you to undertake major revisions. So um much as like in a journal you can get um sort of uh accepted minor revisions major revisions that's sort of broadly how you can think um of approved approved with reservations and not approved. So, um there is no outright rejection on Open Research Europe um because you can always revise your manuscript, submit a new version, and then those re uh original reviewers are reinvited. Uh we could potentially also secure new reviewers depending on if the first reviewers are unavailable for any reason. Um and then um with though uh as those original reviewers now update their reviews to reflect your revisions, what was previously potentially like um you had one not approved review and one approved with reservations, those could now become two approved reviews and therefore your article would be would pass peer review and be indexed in Scopus and PubMed and what have you. So there is no rejection on the open research Europe platform. It is instead a go away, revise your paper, come back. Um and once you've got that new version um issued um then you know the new reviewers original uh or the re-reviews sorry the new reviews um can be updated to reflect those changes. >> Go for it. >> If I if I can say >> Yeah. Yeah. Go for it. If you if you if you really just want to focus on the peer review on passing peer review, it doesn't matter how many researchers disagree with your point of view and and want to to not not approve your paper. As long as you can find a small community of people that agrees with you and and and understands what your paper is about and want and approve your paper, that's that's all that matters. If a thousand people reject or want to not approve your paper, it's up to them. But it will pass peer reviews as soon as two people have approved it or one approved and two plus with reser reservation. >> Yeah. The other thing to mention on that point is we do check all of the reviews before they're published to make sure that they actually founded in something and not just saying this paper is rubbish or I don't agree. They really have to explain in detail what it is that is the problem that they have with this paper and they have to advise the authors constructively on what they can actually do to improve the paper. It's not enough to say you don't agree or you don't think this should be published. You need to explain why and explain what the authors can do to get it to the point where it should be accepted. So that's another kind of key difference um in our model. I'm just going to nip to the chat because there's a few questions in here. So should the platform be considered an alternative to the journal or um can you submit to both Open Research Europe and any other named journal? Um, so it is an alternative to a journal instead. So you wouldn't be able to um publish your research in the journal of neuroscience and open research Europe. It has to be one or the other because we are a peer-reviewed platform and if your article passes peer review then it is indexed. So um in much the same way as you wouldn't send your article to two journals at the same time, uh you wouldn't submit your article to Open Research Europe and um another another journal. So it is either or. >> Uh then there's a question asking is there any plan by the European Commission to suggest that universities consider open research papers because they don't currently exist. Um yes and the commission has followed up on that and particularly where there are national policies or for example national approved lists of journals that you must publish within these named lists of journals in order for your paper to count for your next round of funding. Um, if those sort of lists don't include Open Research Europe for whatever reason, then the European Commission has been lobbying, I guess would be the word, or at least uh having conversations with those various funding bodies um and institutions to say, you know, you really should be including Open Research Europe and this is why. And a lot of the times we've we've we've had those discussions, we realize it's just a lack of understanding or a lack of awareness as to what Open Research Europe is, how it's different and how it should be seen as the same as a as a journal or an alternative to the conventional journal publishing model. So um yes, they do do that and uh we we should see that changing in the future. Um, a question about someone looking to publish their review article and how long it might take to publish a review article in particular. Um, so we do consider review articles. Um, I'd recommend checking out the article guidelines for your specific field of research. Um, as I mentioned, we have those sort of categories of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and humanities. So whichever most applies to you. Um but review articles are considered by Open Research Europe. Uh in terms of timelines, it would be the same as the ones that we previously mentioned. So uh when you submit it to us, our editorial team should be in touch um within a few working days. Um then depending on the sort of back and forth um that you have with them, the sort of median time from submission to publication being around uh 50 days and then those peer reviews um the median time to receiving at least two peer reviews um being around 70 days and to passing peer reviews. So the two approved or one approved, two approved with reservations um that hovering around the sort of 90 100 day mark. So those um are sort of broadly uh similar in terms of timelines. Um yeah, I hope that helps. Um then there was a question about do we have difficulty securing peer reviewers? Um is it more difficult than a conventional journal because they have to be um non-anmized and they their reports will be published. Do you want to take that one Emma or do you want me to take it? >> Um would you be able to take that one? Um I don't think we have radical differences but I can't remember off. >> No. Um so it normally takes us about 20 reviewers on average um invited in order to get the two or three reviews secured for the platform. Um and the vast majority of people that decline um to review for Open Research Europe is because of time. It we don't really see a significant increase in people declining to review because of the open peerreview element. It's really just um part of the reviewer crisis that there's so many papers to review and lots of demands on researchers time that this is often one that that falls off and that's completely understandable. So um no I mean that's a fairly standard um amount of invitations to be sending especially in an an open access um journal or publication. John Baptist. >> Yes. Thanks. um use the reviewer finders tool. If you don't if for whatever reason that is you don't have a list of a ready list of ready uh email addresses of individual that you know would be able to act uh for as reviewers in this field or this field then I I suggest to use this reviewer find finding tool so that you have at least about 10 reviewers at all time in the list uh ready to be checked by the editorial team in case some of them should drop out or should not have time or should not feel quite Wi-Fi to review your work and then that would really speed up the process and select kind of reviewers. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, so we've had a question about when budgeting for a new Horizon Europe project, are publication costs still eligible under purchase costs or is it mandatory to use Open Research Europe? It is not mandatory to use Open Research Europe. Um, under the agree under your Horizon Europe grant agreement, you are free to publish uh wherever you want as long as the paper is made openly available um and the data as well if possible. There are um exceptions to that rule as there are with any but um yeah, you don't have to use open reset Europe and I believe you still can claim for publication costs under purchase costs. Um, but they would like it if you would use Open Research Europe and I would like it too. >> Um, it's free with us. So it >> it is free. Yeah, you don't have to claim because we charge the commission directly and they take care of all of that for you. Um, John Baptist, was that what you were going to say because your hand went up? >> No, no, no. I was going to say that when as a reviewer uh when I see uh costs attached to publication uh to to say that they would um reports or projects are going to publish in nature in science I start saying no that that is for me if when it goes to to to cost it it is a cost that is very likely to be cut so be careful with that you you don't need those costs you can publish in many other journals we don't need impact factor we don't need citation anymore these are so why publish in nature which is a journal where generally the research published there is wrong so it's you know not always but it's uh yeah we're trying to move away from that >> yeah that is one thing I would say I mean the the cost that we charge to the European commission is significantly less than what the average article processing charge would be to in another open access journal um and we are much more open on the website about the service that you actually receive from us for that money that the commission is paying so as Emma may may have mentioned there's a pre-publication checks page on our website that fully explains everything that we do to check your manuscript. So, it gives you a bit more of a quality check when it's initially um published and then we detail all of our peerreview processes, the production phase. So, we're much more transparent about every stage of the process. Um so, you really know kind of what you're getting for what the commission is is paying in comparison to other venues. um could you please elaborate on the difference between the pre-publication um indexation and the approved version indexation? So when it after it's passed the pre-publication checks, where can we find it? And then once it's passed peer review, where can we find it? Yeah, that's a great question. So in terms of when it's very initially published, it's just passed the publication checks and it's just gone up on Open Research Europe. You can find it on open research Europe and on Google Scholar. Um in ter once it's undergone the peerreview process um that's when it is um and it's past peer review that's when it's sent to other indexers as well. So, Scopus, PubMed. Um, a full list of this is detailed on our indexation page um going through um who exactly it is uh the paper is sent to um after it passes peer review. So, there are uh some national um biblometric databases and then some of the sort of more well-known ones like PubMed and Scopus. Um so that's the sort of distinction there is uh Google Scholar will um index quite broadly um whereas uh some of the other databases will only index once an article passes peer review and that's the sort of distinction. >> Great John Baptist. >> Yeah just in case uh some of you should should wonder each version of your article because it will have a different DOI. So when you publish your you submit your article it's published but not yet peerreviewed that's one DOI and then when the peer reviewers have come back to you and you have made revisions and you have submit re submitted a revised version of your article this will be attached a new DOI which all of which you will be able to find on the manuscripts page uh once they're published they will always mention when you get to the papers page uh if by uh mistake you are thrown to the first version of an article we always tell you there is an updated version to that article do you want to see that one >> yeah so so each version of the article gets its sort of child DOI um and so you can sort of trace back for example if there's a comment attached to like the first version of the article um and um you know uh later versions potentially address that comment then the the you can sort of decouple uh versions but it's also So they're they're linked together so you can see um an article that that um pro how it progresses over time as well. So yeah, thanks. Okay, let's have a look. So we've had someone asking how they can become a reviewer for Open Reset Europe and I have dropped in the link to the reviewer page on the platform where if you scroll right down to the bottom, you can fill out a form to volunteer to become a reviewer for O. So if you're thinking about that, please look for that question. Um, we've also had a question, how are the evaluators recruited considering that researchers do not pay for the publication? I think you're talking about reviewers. Um, in which case we've spoken about that quite a lot, but the reviewers are um not paid. Um, that was actually a discussion that we had at one of the open researcher scientific advisory board meetings where it was kind of universally decided that that was a terrible idea and introduced this bias into the system. Um but uh yeah so the reviewers are invited by the editorial team. Um we can source reviewers for you but as Jean Baptiste has mentioned you can also uh put suggestions for reviewers in yourself and you can use the reviewer finder tool as well to help you do that. Did you have something to add to this comment John Baptist or is your hand just still up from last? >> Oh no sorry it's lower. >> Um yeah I do. Um so in terms of um benefits you would get as a reviewer as well. It's worth um highlighting that each review receives its own DOI as well. So you can um that means you can link it to your orchid as a reviewer. Um all reviewers are named. So the the um work that you put in um is credited um to you and potentially if you're mentoring a PhD student in peer review and things uh they can be a named co-reer and also have their orchid linked. Um so it allows you rather than your peer review being buried in the back end of a journal system never to see the light of day. Instead, your um expertise is showcased. Um your thoughtfulness in your peer reviews is showcased as you provide comments publicly and openly um to um your you know fellow uh colleagues um in the research community. Um and because it can be linked to your orchid profile as well then you know you can showcase that in a sort of separate place as well. Um and because it has a DOI it can also be uh receive views and citation metrics on its own. So u there are a lot of uh benefits to providing your open peer review um beyond um uh you know financial um which we don't provide at uh there is that sort of um more for the general good and also receiving like actual credit for this um rather than just being like hey I reviewed in a CV. Um so David is asking in our Mary Cury action we've decided to select associate doctoral candidates which was not initially planned in the project can they also submit articles as long as you're going to credit uh the Mary Cury grant that you were awarded in the funding section of the paper. So the work that was conducted in this paper was funded by the Mary Cury grant that is fine whether it was initially planned in the project or not but doesn't really matter as long as we can clearly see that the subject matter is related. So obviously you can't have a grant on like plant biology and then come along and submit something about I don't know poetry or so like we will check to make sure that the work does appear to be connected to the grant that you're citing. Um but yeah, otherwise that's fine. Um also a question about Mary Cury co-und projects and are all fellows still eligible for publishing their research? I believe that they are. I think that is listed on the eligibility page, but please double check. Um since there is not an impact factor parameter, how is the quality of Open Research Europe as a journal evaluated? >> Um yeah, that's a that's a great question. So I think um one thing to note is that the European Commission um really wanted to focus on um the impact of your individual research and the quality of a journal um measured through impact factor is literally uh the amount of citations that that journal got um in the past couple of years divided by the amount of papers they published. So it doesn't measure the quality of your article. Um what we have instead is the full reviewer comments fully available. So um the when a reviewer states how amazing your research is and all of the strength to your paper and that it's um a glowing uh gem in your research field, which obviously your research is. um then um you can point to that, you can cite that um and sort of showcase uh sort of what your peers are saying in the community. Um you also have those individual article level metrics to showcase your research, so views and downloads and who's um reading your research where. Um and so you can showcase that over time and you can begin acrewing those views and citations much earlier in the process than you would in a traditional journal because of course in a traditional journal you've got all the rounds of review and then the um the revisions that you have to do and then the re-review and then potentially the other revisions and then uh the production process before it's finally made available to the public. um in all of that time um open your work would have been available on open research Europe so you could begin sharing it amongst your networks for people to read and and influence you know their research and the way that they're thinking about your field um so that also helps to um sort of showcase the impact of your individual work um so I hope that sort of helps um address the question um which um is more that um The journal's quality is made up of the sort of quality of the peer review we provide and and the articles that you guys are submitting and not um this sort of overall uh very um sort of generic very vague uh sort of um measure that is impact factor. >> John Baptist did you want to come in? >> Yeah. Yeah. From experience. So first first when because your papers on open research Europe are not mine now that I know that I recommend as many reviewers as possible because then I get not only two reviewers reviewing my papers but at least four or five or sometimes it really gets a lot people and when the evaluators will no longer be able to look at impact factor and citation. They will go into your research. The first thing they will find on Open Research Europe with the DOI is the peerreview reports. How people have passed from rejecting your paper to progressively accepting it. They will see that you're a problem solver that you put that you set everyone or that you make everyone agree with you or you convince people. The second thing that came back from uh the feedback that came back from evaluation reports uh recently from evaluators that are re reading my work uh in evaluating my my suitability for research project is that they are forced to now look at the quality of your research. Are you creative? Are you thinking out of the box? Are you proposing groundbreaking research? And they truly look at that now. They don't have the choice. There's no way around it. they have to look and read a bit of your papers when they evaluate your proposals. So that's that's a great step forward I should say. >> Yes, it's kind of concerning that we were making judgments without actually reading people's papers but it's fine. Um so I have double checked and the merry cury co-und projects are definitely eligible to publish their research on open research Europe. So please carry on and then just in the last couple of minutes we've been asked to elaborate on the relevance or advantage of nonomized non anonymized peer review. Would it not be better to have double anonymized process in order to tackle the power narrative presented by Jean Baptiste and also avoid the inconscious bias towards names? This is a really interesting question. So, just thought we'd end on a end on a high bit of a debate. Um yeah, this is a really interesting question and one that comes up a lot in the publishing e ecosystem um of you know how do you address these um sort of the ways that you know conscious or subconscious biases can affect the um review process. Um I think from like my perspective and from sort of the the mandate that we were given by the European Commission in making open research Europe is very much around transparency. Um it's only by having um things made available to the public and um items that previously were sort of you know publishing is a bit of a black box. It's like um very um difficult to access pieces of information in a sort of traditional um journal process like you know peer reviews are not typically published still. Um, so by having everything out in the public, by having um the um reviewers comments public and attached to their names, it ensures that reviewers um are providing their reviews in the most um constructive way that they can. Um and still um ensuring that those reviews are sort of honest critique because you know um but done so respectfully because you have to stand by your comments um and do so in a sort of public way. And the same goes for authors, right? The author response is made public. The way that the authors address the comments that are provided by the reviewers, that's all made public as well. And so by having this discussion out in the open, um it helps uh sort of um what is it? Sunlight's the best disinfectant kind of thing. Um it ensures that everyone is held accountable for their actions and the way that they approach um revisions, the way that they approach scholarly discussion and scholarly communication. Um, and I think it also becomes a really powerful resource for the research community because you can use these reviews as a teaching tool and the author responses as a teaching tool, um, members of the public get a better understanding of how research works. And so rather than the narrative of well one scientist said this and therefore this is truth capital T truth um they get a better understanding of no there is nuance you have to make decisions based on budget or what tools you have access to or the the latest developments in your field and so it really helps showcase what research actually is uh which is a lot of scholarly debate um reaching a consensus of greater and greater understanding of a topic. Um, so I think that's sort of one of the benefits of transparency versus double anonymization which can kind of allow a lot of these things to happen in the background um that aren't based on names um solely. >> Okay, we'll hand over to Jean Baptiste to take your perspective. >> Yes, this is what it is. If you double anonymize, you're still hiding. You do not own your research. You do not own your comments. You have to own it. You have to have the courage of your words. Your words mean something that you cannot just say something and not attach have it attached to your name. This these are important things. We can't just play a game here. We are not in World War I where we were fighting in trenches and throwing missiles at at people we couldn't even see. We are throwing words that mean something at another human being that may or may not think like like we do. But we are going to try to find common ground with these people. We cannot segregate these people. They are they have the right to live. They have the right to have their ideas. They have the right to publish their research. We are going to find a way to make it through together all together. >> Brilliant. Thank you so much. Emma, do you want to close us out? >> Um Oh, sure. Um so, uh thank you everyone for joining us today. Um I hope you found um the webinar useful. Huge thanks to Jean Baptiste for joining us today sharing his experiences. It's greatly appreciated and I know that I saw um several people in the chat thanking you for your your presentation and your passion. So uh thank you for for coming on uh today and sort of sharing uh from the author perspective. >> Cheers Dan. Thanks for the opportunity. It was really great. >> Um so um I believe you'll receive a um recording of the event after the session. um should be via email. If you do have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out. Um I'm happy to help answer any questions that you might have. Um and as we mentioned, anything that's still um on the uh questions that are still outstanding, we'll uh address in a blog post um in the coming weeks. So, thank you so much for everyone attending um and I hope that this was useful and uh please do go ahead and uh hopefully submit. Thank you. Thanks so much everyone. Have a great rest of your day.