Webinar - 11th Horizon Europe Open Science requirements in practice

Hello everyone, and welcome to today's open air training webinar, Horizon Europe Open Science requirements in practice. Before we get started, I would like to briefly go through a few housekeeping notes. This webinar is being recorded and transcribed, and the recording will be made publicly available after the session. If you have any questions or comments during the webinar, please use the Q&A section, where you can also upvote questions you'd like our speakers to prioritize. If we are unable to address all questions during the session, we will follow up with a blog post after the webinar. You can access today's presentations using the link displayed on this slide, or by scanning the QR code. You can The link will also be shared in the chat. Now, I'd like to introduce and warmly welcome our speakers for today. Jonathan England, Open Science Training Specialist at Open Air, who will guide us through the Horizon Europe Open Science requirements, and share practical tips, tools, and services to support compliance throughout the project life cycle. Maya Dlinner, User Engagement and EOSC Liaison at Open Air, who will present the EOSC EU node, and demonstrate how its services and tools can support Horizon Europe projects. And last but not least, Pablo de Marit, software engineer with the CERN Zenodo team, who will introduce the EU Open Research Repository, as a node-based repository designed to meet all Horizon Europe Science requirements. And with that, I'm pleased to hand over to Jonathan to begin today's presentation. Thank you. >> Thanks a lot, Marylin. Yes, welcome everyone. Um and I'm really pleased that you're you're here. So, in the last in the next hour, we'll be presenting a bit of the context of the European Commission's mandate for Open Science, and then we'll have a half hour Q&A that's to ask your your questions. Um so the the the slides are a bit text heavy, I will say. Um but the reason for that is so that you have a reference guide uh after that. So, as Mariel said, you already have the slides online and you can refer to that. So, this is for instance a list of links that you can click on. So, in terms of the European Commission, the definition that they give of open science is an approach based on open cooperative work and systematic um sharing of knowledge and tools as early and as widely as possible. So, there's five main pillars that they consider for open science. The usual open access to publications, um two aspects of research data management, so following the fair principles, and the openness of data following the principle as as open as possible, as closed as necessary. Uh I'll go back to you to that in a in a while. And uh lastly, there's they put some emphasis on always providing information about outputs, tools, instruments that are needed to validate and reuse the results of and and the data. And also important aspect is to give access to the digital and physical data to validate the the conclusions. So, let's start by the publications. So, this is just an overview of what I'm going to speak. It's just for a reference. But let's go into a bit more detail. So, the mandate only applies to peer-reviewed publications. So, if a publication that you make is not peer-reviewed, it doesn't fall under the mandate. So, you don't have to make it open access, even though you the European Commission does recommend to make all of your work in general in in accessible in in open access. There's no restrictions on where you publish, but you will see there are restrictions on how you can use the grant money to publish. And you have to deposit the peer-reviewed version of your manuscript. So, I'll in the next slide I explain what those two versions are in what they call the trusted repository. Again, I will explain that in the future slides. And important aspect if you were if you're not used to Horizon Europe and you're about know of other funders or funded under Horizon 2020, you have to provide immediate open access upon publication. So, you're not allowed embargo your period like you were in in the past. You must ensure that you retain enough right on the peer-reviewed version, and you have to apply a CC BY version of creative commons attribution license. There are some exceptions for monographs which I will cover in in a few minutes. And again, I'm insisting on this, but it's something that the European Commission does put emphasis on is to provide information about the research outputs, tools, instruments needed to validate the conclusion. And obviously put the analogy EU at the acronym the usual things that you need to do. So, there are two main aspects of the manuscript journey, let's say. So, before the peer review you have the what we call the pre-print that then gets, you know, through the whole process of peer review. And once the final version of of the manuscript is created. This is the author accepted manuscript. It's what I call the ugly version of your manuscript. It's not formatted. It's not copy edited. Uh but it is the exact same content as the version of record. And so the version of record is basically the publisher's version. They took the author accepted manuscript content and formatted it to make it look pretty. But it's basically the same content um scientifically wise. And so like to go back with what I was saying before, either the author accepted manuscript or the version of record needs to be deposited on on a repository. So it it doesn't have to be the the publisher's version. One important aspect of the of the mandate is that you have to self-archive. So self-archiving is basically depositing on what we call open repositories. Repositories are digital platforms that provide free, immediate, and permanent access. And this word permanent is important. Um uh to permanent access to those research results. It means this permanent access and this free access and unrestricted access means that social networking sites, which are really useful like ResearchGate and academia.edu, they're uh useful but they're not considered repository. The publisher's website, your profile page on the institutional website, again they're not uh repositories because they don't follow some uh certain standards. And we talk about self-archiving because you are depositing yourself or the author accepted manuscript or the version of record on that repository. And it really really doesn't uh matter where you publish. It's uh really about the fact that you are uh uh uploading a version of your your peer-reviewed the peer-reviewed version of your manuscript on on it. It is really about where where you make it available in an open access, not where you you publish. So, this is going to be um slightly more difficult to complain because there's a big um It's a bit of a difficult case in for the European Commission in what they consider trusted repositories. So, they have a few definitions which I'm not going to go in into detail of what they they are, but you know, they they they have specific standards that they they must follow, but basically they is a certified repositories, disciplinary domain specific repositories, or your institutional repository, um or general purpose um ones. One of the issues and you can search for those in Open AI Explorer for instance, for publication on the open directory of open access repositories, um and the issue with um this definition of trusted repository is as it another mandate from the European Commission is that the metadata, so the data that describes basically the the the upload, um also has some standards, and a lot of those repositories considered trusted repositories are not yet compliant. Um so, they're not what we call all full ready for Horizon Europe compliance. So, currently, um as far as I know, there's only five trusted repositories that ready for compliance. There's the French, the Austrian, and the from Denmark um, archaeology group that are compliant and the general purpose one which is Zenodo. Um, so we know also that repositories are making modifications and so they you'll at the time there was a study that you can find here that found that a lot of them were close to essential. So, right now they might be already compliant but there's no updated list unfortunately. So, you would need to contact basically the repository directly to see if it's not only trusted but also metadata ready. So, what I suggest in terms of practical terms is in doubt you deposit on Zenodo which makes it fully compliant with the repository requirements. And it's really it's really easy to to upload. Um, and it automatically deposit it on It's also used by the European Commission publishing platform which I'll I'll I'll talk about. Um, and it automatically also deposit it in the European research repository. Um, and alongside I would also add it to a subject specific or institutional repository because this improves visibility and discoverability of your work and there's better community engagement and networking because sometimes on Zenodo because it's a general purpose repository it can be difficult to to find information. So, in practical terms I will leave you this slide for your your case. But for instance, if you upload the offer accepted manuscript, they are the this version and the version of record are considered different documents. So you would need to get a new DOI. The DOI is this unique URL that is given to you that the publisher will give you one that will be the version of record, but you would create a new one. But now if you upload the offer accepted manuscript on another positive first and you deposit that version on Zenodo, then you wouldn't create a new DOI. You would put that one. So I'll let you I won't go into the details today, but I'll let you read this the slides for the specific case you are you are in. And if you upload the version of record, you don't have to create a new DOI because you would put the one from the publisher. So I've mentioned about Creative Commons licenses. >> [clears throat] >> Creative Commons licenses are I basically um open licenses that tell others what they can or cannot do with with your work. Um and >> [snorts] >> either the author accepted manuscript or the version of record or both have to be under a Creative Commons Attribution license. >> [snorts] >> Meaning they can do whatever they people can do whatever they want with the work. They can expand on it. They can cite it as long as they um they um say who um who was the the author of the of the publication or the data. So the way you do this there are different ways. You can publish in a full open access journal and then the version of record would be automatically under CC BY license. You can pay to publish in what we call hybrid publishers. So, it's publishers that have a business model where it's an it's a uh universities and and libraries still pay for a subscription fee, but that publisher also allows you to pay for open access. You make one work of one um one manuscript open in open access. And those are called hybrid, and the funders don't like this business model. So, you are allowed to publish in this, but you cannot use the grant money to to um to get um to to pay for those um fees. Or you can publish in a subscription-based journal and add the rights retention statement, which I'll mention in in the in a second. One thing that is important to know is that with the Creative Commons Attribution License, the CC BY license, you own the rights. So, basically [snorts] you can do whatever you you want with the work. So, you can automatically upload it on a repository without embargo. So, you need to focus on the license first because that allows you to basically do whatever you want afterwards with with your work because you retain ownership of the the work. Um and it's important to know that the the two version the two two peer-reviewed the author accepted manuscript and the version of record might have different licenses applied to to them. There's one exception. Uh if you are doing long text format, so usually more in humanities, uh arts, um social sciences. So, for instance, monograph, you are allowed to put a more restrictive license. So, for instance, non-commercial, non-derivative, or non-commercial and non-derivative. Um important distinction is a chapter in an edited book is considered as an article following the the European Commission mandate. So, it is not you would have to apply a CC BY license. You can't use that restriction. And so, this is just a slide explaining what Creative Commons uh are and they remove ambiguities about what people can do. Uh in terms of publication, we favor CC BY, but for data for various different reasons, and uh I would recommend um doing um reading about it or talking about it with uh your research report uh staff or librarians at your institution. Um the we favor the the CC0 license for data. CC0 basically means that you don't have to uh give credit to the the the the researchers uh who own the the the data. Uh who created the data set. Um in practice, obviously, it's we're in science, so we are always going to cite where the data comes from, but it just removes some aspects um um that um that can cause problems in terms of uh attribution. Um One aspect that I want to emphasize on is that we get a lot is about commercial exploitation and the link with uh the um open access of uh the uh of your work. Um so, a license applied to a Creative Common license applied to the publication is not uh the same as the license that will be applied to the results themselves. So, the requirements, they concern only the publication, the written words and figures describing your research and its results, but you can apply a different license on the data, on the model software, results, patents. And important aspect of patents, and I'm guessing if you do file patents, you know about this, there's this novelty aspect, meaning that you can't present it at a conference, for instance, because then you would break the novelty aspect and you wouldn't be able to file a patent. Same thing with the publication, if you publish about it first and then file the patents, you won't be able to do that. So, always be careful in terms of which order you do things. So, file the patent first and then make things available in in open access. I mentioned the rights retention statement. It's a statement that you would put on any submission that you give to the the the publisher and basically saying that you apply any on any of the version on any of the office's version, the CC BY license. And only on the version of record would be a different license. You can check that there's a tool, the Journal Checker Tool, that allows you to put basically the European Commission has funded, the journal that you're willing to publish in. Sometimes the institutions are also listed in this website, and it will give you basically what you can and cannot do. A bit of practical guidance. This is from the the the French guide from the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, which I really like Um, because it's important to know that this rights retention statement is no specific rule of where to put it. So, the idea is to the recommendation is to either add it in the first page of the article, in the acknowledgement section, uh, or in and or in the message to the editor, uh, in the the cover letter, basically. It's important to keep that statement from the initial submission to up to the final version. So, always add that uh, rights retention statement in all your submissions, you know, the the revisions. Um, keep um, a trace of what's being said just for legal reasons. And you can even go an extra step and add the CC BY, um, license term or the logo even on on the your on your submissions. And this is just a a graphic to help for those people who are more visual to understand the whole process. And I've already mentioned this, but in terms of budget, the publication fees, uh, that sometimes you have to pay for open access, or so, article processing charges or book processing charges for books, they can be covered by uh, the the grant only if it's full, uh, open access, which we refer to usually as gold open access. Hybrid venues, as I said, um, those that are subscription-based but give the option to pay for open access, the you are allowed to publish in, that's very important to to emphasize on that, but you will have to find the, uh, money to pay for this APCs elsewhere. Um, the only exception for this are the Marie Curie uh, fellowships, so the MSCA. uh Um and if your institution has a transformative agreement or this kind of things, it's the same. They still considered as hybrid venues. As always, any printing fees uh can't be covered by the grants. And there's this new thing that because publishers are, you know, they always trying to to make more money. So, they've invented this the IEEE has invented this new repository license fee. Um this isn't eligible either because the the the venue is still considered hybrid. So, you would still have to find the the the license fee is is lower than the uh um gold open access fee. Uh the the the full open access fee for the version of record um because this would put a CC by license on the author accepted manuscript. Um the fee is lower, but it's still the same. You can't use the grants money for for that. And as I said at the beginning, the European Commission puts emphasis on really making sure that you add any information about research outputs, tools, instruments, um anything that >> [snorts] >> you need to to know about. There's another option in terms of publication, and that is the European Commission's own publication platform. So, unfortunately, the the person from the the European Commission couldn't present today. So, you're stuck with me. I'll have to present for you. Um but um these slides are an adaptation of of her slides on and yeah, I they adapted from I adapted them. Um so, it's it's a important thing. It's a publication platform. It's not a repository. Um so, it's really you would publish there. Um it's not just publish somewhere else and then add it to there. It's it's a publication platform that was launched in 2021 and is open to anyone that is under this funded by the European Commission. And it automatically um makes you comply with all the open access requirements. It's what we call a post-publication peer review. I'll explain in in a second. And here a bit of stats about the um that was end of last year's um stats um 20 December 2025. So, it's um diamond open access publishing platform. So, diamond meaning that you don't have to pay article processing charges. So, it's free for you as an author, and it's free for the viewers also as they don't have to pay anything. Um but as I said, it's not a repository. Um it's optional. You don't have to publish there because you are allowed to publish wherever you want, but you can make use of it if you want. And it's as I said before, post-publication open peer review because uh the name of the reviewers, the revisions, the comments from the authors after revisions, all of this, all of the process, the the peer review process is openly available and under a CC BY license. And obviously, it's an immediate uh publication. You publish first, and then you the review takes place. So, in a sense, the the work isn't published yet. It's available on the platform until it passes through peer review, and then it becomes published. It automatically complies. And the good thing with this is that you don't have to self-archive it. They will automatically do it for you and they will upload it on Zenodo for you. So, that's benefit of of it. Um the publishing platform process, sorry, is the same but it's more open. So, you submit this pre-publication checks from the the in-house team just to make sure that everything complies on ethics and policies and guidelines. Um then it's available on the website so anyone can read it. Um The peer review are invited. There's the peer review process. Every peer review process is published and then you would need uh Wait, I can't remember what was it? Two pass uh two pass two So, out of the three peer reviews, two approved or one approved and two approved with reservation. And so, if you pass that, then it becomes published and it then becomes indexed in national and indexes. Um there are many different types of publication types that you can see see there in the different fields. I know that they're expanding that also at the moment. So, this might not be um true in in a couple of months. Um yeah, this is what I said in terms of the pre-publication check. There's a lot of different things that the the in-house team does. Um And the the the peer review is only done by the reviewers themselves, not by the in-house team. Um the reviewers are suggested by the article by the authors. Um but obviously the in-house team make sure that they meets the the criteria like conflict of interest and this kind of things. Um there's a process in terms of the peer review, so there's a list of questions that they must be answered uh which guides the reviewing process um and depends on on the domain, obviously. Um This is what I said and this is how it looks on the website. You will see those smart checks. For instance, the third example is awaiting peer review, so this is uh published but uh since version one published, but hasn't received peer review yet. And then it goes through different >> [snorts] >> uh processes of peer review and once they get uh two approved or one approved to approve with reservation, then it becomes uh um indexed and actually published. So this is just an example of the peer review on how it looks and this would be on the an open license. There are research communities that uh to make it easier to find um information, so um in find communities, find uh topics in within the the publishing platform. Um So a couple things that is important to note about it, it's there are quite a few modifications now that are happening for Open Research Europe. Um It's changing uh it's uh business well, it's not business model, but it's changing hands, let's say. So, um, there's, um, currently, it was only allowing, um, grantees, European Commission grantees to, um, to publish in it, but now they have made some collaboration agreements with living countries, and any researcher, uh, living, working in that country will be able to publish on Open Research Europe. The modification is that, uh, up to now it was, uh, the publishing, uh, the publisher F1000 that was, uh, um, supporting it, and now it will be CERN, um, so the the Centre for European, uh, Nuclear Research in in Switzerland. Um, and the new service, so in firstly, the the person, um, from CERN hasn't started working yet, but, uh, for the December webinar, because we organize this webinar three times a year, they will be presenting, um, presenting this. Um, and so the transition will happen in in October. Um, this is a list of all the different countries. They'll probably expand, um, in the in the future. Um, and this, I can't remember what it was. Yeah, there's more information about how the membership, uh, works in terms of, um, of the, uh, of them joining the this, uh, collaboration agreement. So, if you want more information, um, you can go on on their website or follow them on the on, um, social media. So, now, uh, this was all for publication, so it's quite a lot of things. Uh data is not easier, but it's basically the same principles, so it will go a bit faster. Um so, basically, you must manage research data principles under what we call those FAIR principles, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Um if you don't know what those are, obviously, I can't give you a a talk about it right now and go into details because we don't have enough time, but I highly recommend you uh look into courses about it or talk to with your um local research support staff. By month six, you need to have created a data management plan and um yeah, created a data management plan that you update through throughout the the the project, so mid-project at least and at the very end. You must deposit any data uh or at least the metadata, so that data that describes the data, as soon as possible after production or generation or after processing and quality control. That does mean that any data, even if it's not linked to your publication, should be um deposited. You need to deposit in a trusted repository. That's the same principle as I said uh before and make them open um as possible following this principle as as open as possible, but as close as necessary, but open being the default. Um So, those FAIR principles, I'm not going to go into detail as I said. This is a bit more information. If you want to read about it, uh but I highly recommend if you don't know about those FAIR principles to really uh learn about them a bit more in into details because that will help you write the the data management plan. And the data management plan is what we call a living document because it's not something that you write by month six and then you've finished. It's you have to update it whenever there's new people joining or if there's things that needs to be adapted. So, it really identifies the key actions and strategies that you put in place to make sure that the data is available, that it's safely stored, that it's sustainable, and whenever possible accessible and reusable. The issue we have with data management plans is you can't ask for your local research support staff to give you a template because there's no absolute right answers to how to write a a DMP. The European Commission gives you a template, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to. You the the you have to basically detail everything that is linked to your project. So, you must be clear, specific, and detailed, and justify any decision. That's the most important thing. So, you want to prove to the funder, to your project officer, that you've reflected on what you do on in terms of data management, and that the approach seems reasonable. One advice I would say is don't wait until the very last week to write your before month six to write your DMP because it takes time. So, my recommendation is as soon as you start the project, start working on your DMP because going to your research support staff members a week before to write a DMP is a bit tense. You will You will see if you if you do that, and that happens a lot. So, do try and start as soon as possible, and do update it throughout the the process. To help you write the the DMP, the we OpenAIRE has provided [snorts] you with a tool called Argus. You can have more look into it, and it has the European templates in it. And some institution have also their templates their own templates added in it. Um One important aspect is that the data might be closed. For instance, if you're doing a patent, and you need to put an embargo period on on it. But the metadata, so those you know, the the name of the authors, the name of when was the data created, the the the license supply, the language in it's in, all this metadata must be uh following the FAIR principles under um uh CC0 license, meaning that they need to be uploaded on on the repository and made available. And as I said before, any detailed information about research outputs. There are some valid justifications for not opening the data. So, if you're the the European Commission has many three. Commercially valuable data, if it won't undermine exploitation of the result. They They They really put emphasis on that. This You should really commercially exploit your data if if possible. Um obviously, any data protection, privacy, and any security rules for projects. Um there are some exceptions in terms of public emergencies that arise uh because of COVID-19 uh pandemic um which accelerate basically the the openness of those rules. If you're looking into uh data and personal data, uh OpenAIRE has this tool Amnesia that is an anonymization tool basically that allows you then to publish your data safely without sharing personal data. Okay, and I spoke enough for for right now and now we'll have um a look at the EU Open Research Repository and I'm really pleased to to have uh Pablo from uh CERN who who is going to to present. So, let me give you control. Okay, you should be >> Hello. Thank you, Jonathan. Uh yes, so the EU Open Research Repository is uh essentially a dedicated area in Zenodo focused on EU funded research. So, we gather everything on Zenodo which is EU related. It is managed by CERN on behalf of the European Commission. And you can share any research output that you produced as part of your project. Uh as Jonathan said, it's not meant to replace everything. Maybe your data should go in a subject-based repository, but this helps you make some of the compliance aspects a bit easier and maybe some some discoverability too. Um so yeah, just uh well, Jonathan explained a lot about OAR, but it's two two services from the Commission. So, the the difference if it's not clear is OAR is essentially for publishing articles. It's open peer-reviewed and yeah, it's a publishing venue basically for for text. Everything else which is not on the journal articles, things like uh presentations, posters, new deliverables, data sets, software. All of these can go in uh the EU Open Research uh repository. It's uh curated uh either by uh people on the Zenodo team or preferably people responsible of each EU project. We'll see a bit of this later. Um uh so yeah, it's curated but not peer-reviewed and it's a trusted a trusted repository repository solution uh for projects funded by the European Commission. So um the way the preferred way of uh of joining uh and being part of the EU Open Research Repository is by uh having a a community specific to a project. Um it's the same as a normal Zenodo community if you are familiar with it. The only difference is that it's uh also available and showcased in the EU Open Research Repository. So when you go to Zenodo, it's like you have a little EU flag and if you click on it, that's uh that's uh that's the place. Um and so it's a place where all the partners of the project can collaborate and and store the the different outputs of the project. And so as I said before, we added features to ensure compliance with the Horizon Europe open science requirements. Uh it's not enough to deposit on Zenodo. There is some metadata that you need to provide. Um and as I said yes, so it's uh showcased in the in this portal and it's uh people can discover your research outputs not by searching specifically for your project but also for instance by browsing by specific subject uh subject areas like I don't know, social science, natural sciences, etc. Thanks to the metadata uh you provide. Um so yeah, as I said uh a project community is a place where uh you can collaborate across institutions. Often institutions have their own repositories but if you need to log in and deposit something on it, it's not always easy to get access to it for partners. So yeah, in the case of of a project with multiple partners, you know, there's a neutral place where you can meet and share the project outputs. Here we can see that you can you can have some owners, some managers. You can choose who is allowed to submit in your community and things like this. On the compliance aspects, sorry, the screenshot is a bit small, but so we we we do quite a lot of checks on on the metadata that that you provide alongside your record. And so for instance, yeah, the questions of license, if it's an article that it should be a Creative Commons attribution license, this is something we check. We also check that the the authors are referred to with persistent identifiers like ORCID. And yeah, the most important we will we check that the records are also linked to to the grants, the European grants. And so this is for the metadata, and then there's also the the file format aspects. So we check that the file formats used are open and scientific. And the goal is the fairness goal, making sure that this this data this files can be read and used in the years to come. Something that couldn't be guaranteed if you used closed or proprietary formats. So we don't forbid you to provide some, but we ask you to provide open alternative as well. You can upload more than one file per record. So as a project participants to submit contents, the preferred way is the one I just presented, having a dedicated community sub-community part of the EU Open Research Repository. The reason for that is that people from the project are the ones who know what are the the legitimate research outputs related to this project that are ready to go and when they can be published and so on. Another option is to directly submit to the EU open research repository portal without having a community. It's in this case created by the Zenodo staff with some semi-automation. So it takes a little bit longer. So that's one of the negative aspects for you. But it can be a good use case. Imagine if you worked on a project that maybe is finished and you found back some data sets that you think are worth publishing. It probably doesn't make sense to create a community if there is not one. So you can publish one or two records directly to us. And then the last way that records end up showcased in this portal is via automated harvesting. So it can be records which pre-existed before the this portal was created. And so we automatically include them when we we find these grant numbers. Or it can be also people who are just not aware of the EU open research repository portal. So to get started you can you can have a look at this guide on help.zenodo.org that explains all the different steps and and requirements. The the one requirement is that yes you are working on a project which is funded by the European Commission research and innovation program. So Horizon Europe or the other programs like Horizon 2020 FP7. And also IMI, ERC, Euratom. And so the guide shows you how to set up a new project. So you make a request. The one main requirements we we ask you is to use to to to login with a with an institutional uh, address, so we can, uh, prove your, uh, affiliation and the legitimacy of, uh, of your request. And this is important because then we delegate the curation, well, there's there's automated checks, but the final call of is this project is this record being published in the, uh, in the project is the, uh, the owner of the communities which are which are treating this. So, we want to make sure that people don't, uh, impersonate, uh, other researchers, let's say. Um, and then, yes, from then on you would have a place where you can collect your deliverables, your presentation data sets, and, uh, and, uh, be compliant and showcase them, uh, to to the world. So, yeah, that's what it I'll give you back the control. >> Yeah, thanks a lot, Pablo. And, um, now, um, Maya is going to talk about the EOSC EU node. So, let me Let me show. >> Okay, thank you very much, Jonathan. So, hi from my side as well to everyone who's here. Uh, so, I am part of the user engagement and communications team of the EOSC EU node, otherwise, I work for OpenAIRE as well. And here in this section, uh, I'll shortly explain to you how the EOSC EU node initiative can enable open science by providing access to research data services and also computing resources. And this platform can basically really play a crucial role in uh, helping you as a researcher to comply with open science and fair data principles. Um, so, yeah, so the EOSC EU node is the key infrastructure for open science in Europe, as I already said, it's a federated platform, uh, that basically, uh, enables researchers to access and share publicly funded research outputs across disciplines. It also supports open science principles such as fair data, which we already heard about today, open access, and reproducibility. Uh this platform is built and operated by a consortium of research institutions and it ensures compliance with the Horizon Europe's open science policies. So, who is it basically? Who can I actually use the platform? Uh it's open to a broad audience. It's accessible to all researchers, academic institutions, citizen science scientists, and all other public initiatives. The platform is free to use and it's supported by European Commission funding. And it has a credit-based system that basically ensures a fair allocation of computing and data resources. So, it depends on the access level that you're granted depend on your role uh within the the research area. Uh so, um Okay, let's move. Okay. So, uh what can EOSC-hub basically do for Horizon Europe projects? Uh we all we have already heard that Horizon Europe places a strong emphasis on open science and uh EOSC-hub is here to provide the necessary infrastructure also to support this. It simplifies compliance with European Commission and other funders' requirements. Uh it can enhance transparency and also improve the overall impact of research. EOSC-hub fosters interdisciplinarity and seamless collaboration uh by, for example, uh enabling researchers to share files securely via the service files you can share, develop and deploy applications for the tools hub using ready-to-use cloud deployment recipes, or also to create and share interactive notebooks and leverage high-performance computing and storage resources resources uh ensuring efficient teamwork and knowledge exchange across disciplines. The EOSC-hub Note researchers, sorry, uh through uh by providing access to a vast repository of over 192 million research resources through the resource hub, which enables seamless discovery and reuse of data, publications, and softwares. Researchers can also leverage the tools hub to easily deploy applications over cloud cloud resources. And they can also utilize six specialized services for data processing and analysis and access personalized research environment uh through the user space. And throughout their journey, they can receive comprehensive support through the help desk, FAQs, um documentation, fact sheets, and training resources, which then enables them to smoothly and efficiently uh use uh the platform. So, the resource hub is a core feature of the VOSviewer Note. Uh this is uh a feature that's available without login, and it basically aggregates uh research outputs from multiple European sources. It includes indexed resources, publications, datasets, software, and other possible research outputs. Uh researchers can use this hub to discover new datasets uh and integrate them into their work. And this uh feature basically significantly enhances collaboration in data reuse, which are which is basically a key principle of open science. Um so, we have currently six available resources uh they're not resources, but services to streamline research workflows. File sync and share is there to share files across locations and teams, and it builds on collaborations. Then we have interactive notebooks, which are there to create uh and share documents with real-time Q code execution. There is a service called large file transfer uh that enables you to click securely transfer large files. Uh then we have virtual machines where you can use computer resources to launch your own virtual machines to create either isolated environments for experimenting with different configurations, software setups, or algorithms. And these computer resources can also be used to create reproducible research environments. Then there is also a service called cloud container platform, which is there for deploying application that can easily scale, and bulk data transfer service, which is used for use moving large amounts of data across different locations. So the user space on the other hand provides a personalized dashboard where you can access the tools hub and the six services we just mentioned. You can also manage here the credits and create groups. In this basically the space integrates tools all the tools for data storage, analysis, and sharing that we just heard about, making it a central workspace for researchers using the EOSC node services. So the EOSC node supports basically all stages of the research data life cycle from data collection and publication to reuse. Here you have some examples of how you could use the platform on the different different phase during the different phases of the research data life cycle. For example, you could search the resource hub for any existing research research outputs that that are connected with the research you're performing. You could also use the services virtual machines or interactive notebooks to carry out analysis of the data that you have collected and so on. And if you look at the the second part of the research data life cycle, of course, we have also services and features of the platform that support support you on this journey and you can read more when you will go through the slides later on and how you could use this different sides of the platform to support you on your research data life cycle journey. So, um integrating EOSC node into research proposals is uh can be really effective um because as we have heard, it uh the platform supports the key aspects of the research life cycle. Firstly, you could mention uh EOSC EOSC node in data management plans as a resource for data storage, sharing, and processing uh which will then ensure compliance with Horizon Europe's open science requirements. >> [snorts] >> You can also apply the EOSC node tools and services throughout the research life cycle from data collection to analysis and publication, enhancing collaboration and efficiency. Additionally, it also helps you ensure compliance with open science mandates uh as it is a federated infrastructure that's all that's fully aligned with fair data principles, making research outputs more accessible and reusable. And finally, you can also reference it in dissemination and impact plans, demonstrating how the project will use the EOSC node to maximize maximize visibility, accessibility, and also long-term sustainability of research outputs. >> [gasps] >> Uh we currently have uh available uh credit grant for Horizon Europe projects uh the where you where grants up to 40,000 uh credits may be provided to EC-funded research and innovation projects. This is one-time uh grant per project and this can this project grant can be used during the project's duration and exclusively for the needs of the project. The the credit grant is allocated to one uh EOSC node group uh created by the project coordinator or other group owner and is not replenished. So, as I said, it's a one-time grant uh and it doesn't expire between periods. So, how to basically get access to this grant? There is a mistake on the slide, so this is the previous process that we had. So, the submitting a help desk ticket. Now, it's uh now it's a different process. You go to the user space and basically just submit a request for a credit voucher. And then based on the evaluation and the um from our team, then the grant is allocated to you and you will see it in your project group. Um so, um there are also so the various learning resources available to support you on your EOSC-Hub node journey. Uh there is the EOSC-Hub node learning center where you can find tutorials and courses for researchers. Tutorials are basically there as a quick and step-by-step guides to help you understand uh how to use the EOSC-Hub node effectively. So, the different features, tools, and services. And courses on the other hand deepen your knowledge and skills in using the EOSC-Hub node services and tools. Uh and by completing a course, you can also earn a certificate that verifies your participation and knowledge in the EOSC-Hub node. However, you can also uh complete compete a designated learning path to earn a digital badge that you can then use in your CV, LinkedIn, or professional portfolios to demonstrate your skills and expertise uh in the EOSC-Hub node. Currently, we have two different badges that researchers can get. First one is the foundational badge which just goes through the basics of the EOSC-Hub node and what you can use it for you and how you can use it in your research. And then we have a a more in-depth badge uh which then goes into all of the services um and um showcases your knowledge in and in those. >> [sighs and gasps] >> So, getting started with the EOSC-Hub node is really simple. Just visit the website of the EOSC-Hub node, sign in using an institutional credentials, um uh explore the resource hub for data sets and publication, and of course use the available tools including the virtual machines, Jupiter notebooks, and cloud storage. And of course, I encourage you to integrate EOSC services, EOSC services into your research workflows and Horizon Europe proposals because this this is how you will basically get the full benefit of the EOSC capabilities. So, thank you very much. That's all from my side. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them afterwards. >> Thank you, Slawomir. And sorry about that. I don't know what happened. I did copy-paste your new slides, but yeah. I'll need to check what what happened there. Sorry about that. Um Thanks both of you. I'll just take 5 more minutes to mention a couple of things. So, OpenAIRE Explore, I've mentioned before, is to it's a uh discoverability tools, basically. So, you can find more information here. Um I just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about reporting and the monitoring. Um so, there's an extensive reporting aspect of open science practices within the uh European the Horizon Europe. Um so, there's part that is structured and part that is free text reporting on the different the other open science practices. So, it's reviewed by the project officer, obviously. And it's one [snorts] of the the uh KPIs. Um on the participant portal, you have different uh tabs that are relevant to open science. The publications, so in the publications, it will if you provided the the DOI and you've attached, so for instance, on the another, if you've put the grant number, it will automatically appear on your publication tab. If it doesn't, then you can basically add it through providing the the the DOI from the publisher on on it. Or if you really don't find it, you can manually add it. Uh the different aspects that can be a bit confusing, that's why I've explained uh what the type of PID, what the PID of deposited publication means, the PID of published publisher version of record, um all these kind of things that is explained on on the slides. I won't go into details because you can read for for yourself, but uh it can those terms can be a bit confusing sometimes. The data sets is also relevant for um open science. Same thing, it will any data sets that you've added to repository that has a DOI will automatically only if you've added the the linked it to the the the grant um project uh number, it will appear automatically, but you can obviously add it manually and you should any type of um data set that you create as part of the uh the the the project. Um there's another two tabs that is results and other results. So, the results tabs focus on the content of the results, so discoveries, theories, products, services, methods. And the other results is more for reporting about software, workflows, protocols, and prototypes. So, I know it can be a bit uh confusing. If you have any doubts about this, either contact your uh research support staff and send us an email obviously. Um sometimes it's just easier to talk with people from your institution or ask directly to the project officer. I'll just take I I won't cover this uh because it's another beast in in itself and the the the main aspect of today is about how to be compliant. But you have sites about the grant proposal. You have different open science aspects in the grant proposal in different parts. The couple of things I want you to to mention is that any publication so they they ask you to site some publication to you know to to apply for for the grant. Those publications should be available in open access. So they should be openly available for the reader. This doesn't mean that they need to have CC by license like the the the the mandate but the Horizon Europe mandate they just need to be openly available for the the reader to to read. And obviously a lot of funders now are moving away from impact factor and they evaluate the publication that you site only on its qualitative aspects. If the existing article that you have is not in open access, this is a workflow that you can look into. So you can check on the open policy finder that previously was called Sherpa/RoMEO if you if you knew it by by that name. Most publisher after an embargo period so it depends 6 to 12 months in in in the sign in health sciences and 20 12 to 24 months in humanities and social sciences. Um it >> [snorts] >> if you're beyond that period usually you can add the author accepted manuscript on a Again, you you might have signed a copyright transfer agreement. That doesn't matter for the the grant proposal. Um the research data that you cite uh that for for the application should also be uh under the fair principles. So, they should be available on the trusted repository with a PID. Um and an important aspect also to note is that there's no official data management plan needed for the grant proposal, but the grant does include questions that are very similar to a DMP. The type and size of the data, the you know, the the the intellectual property rights that you'll be using, all these kind of things. So, in a way you're already kind of writing a mini DMP at uh that stage. Um and it's very important in terms of the budget to budget for open science. There's many things that you can include. Uh do include uh the article processing charges um knowing that hybrid journals are not eligible. Um data curation cost costs if you if you need a data curator uh data stewards and any other recommended open science practices like engagement with citizens, citizen science, uh crowdsourcing activities, and all the like. Um so, be as specific as possible. That's my main writing tip. Uh and you don't need to explain what open access is, fair principles, and and all that. Focus really on what you will do in terms of making your research as open as possible. There are a couple of uh special cases that I'll just leave there for the ERC that doesn't have explicit evaluation of open science, but it will always be uh a positive impact. And the MSCA, I did mention that there's no specific cost eligibility rule for APCs, so you can include the in your budget the the fees for hybrid journals, the APCs, but you need to budget for for it, obviously. Uh but if if I'm not mistaken, MSCA is a lump sum uh project, so you you just need to make sure that you sort it out, so you don't run into issues for funding other things later on. Um and this I'm not going to uh comment, but there are many other open science recommended practices that will only give you positive points. Uh they will never lower your score uh if you don't include them, but they can only uh increase it. So, you have uh many things like preregistration, preprints, public engagement, citizen science, and all the like. So, just to finish, there's a lot of things, I know, um especially if it's your first time kind of discovering what all those uh mandates are in terms of open science. So, take a step back and uh rewatch this uh webinar or relook at the uh the the slides later on. Um but the best way to approach this is to design an open science strategy for for you for your project. So, include those kind of things in if you're writing the the grant in the consortium agreements about where you're going to publish, who will be responsible for the data, who will make sure that all the outputs are deposited in time, and this kind of things. Um and there are no as I said, no right or wrong answer in this. It's sometimes you might run into some issues, but implement your open science strategy, report um at reviews, and uh track of those issues. I know that sometimes people have issues because they didn't follow this CC by rule for one of the publications. So, they ask us, "What do I do?" And, you know, sometimes there's no good way, so you would ask the project officer. Or other times there are some ways. So, look around you for for for help, or send us an email in in that respect. So, there will be another webinar. We do it three times a year um in November. And if you want to be informed of any new events that we organize at OpenAIRE, you can follow this this link. And helpdesk@openaire.eu is the way you can contact us. Usually in terms of open science related questions, it's me who will be be answering. So, sorry, I talked just a bit more than um needed. Um let's have a look at the questions. So, um is archive considered a trusted repository for Horizon Europe open access compliance? Um mostly no, but it depends in some cases. So, archive is not metadata ready. It could be considered a trusted repository if it allows you to edit the the the preprint version because archive is a preprint server, so you upload the before the peer review process. If it allows you to update with the the author accepted manuscript or the version of record, then it would mostly be compliant. But again it's the the the problem with the metadata ready aspect of of it. Is it permissible to deposit the same publication in multiple repositories? For example, if a project partner independently deposit a publication on archive while the project maintains a dedicated Zenodo community. Is it also necessary to deposit the publication in Zenodo or is archive deposit sufficient? Um Are we recommended or are we obliged to deposit a copy of the preprint in the Zenodo project community even that copying the DOI? Okay, so first the the the first part of the the the question. You can. There are some issues with it. When you deposit in various places, you're going to dilute basically the number of viewings, the number of citation which can be a problem for your KPIs, for your projects. Some people really looking into this. So, that can be an issue. At the same time, you need to be compliant with the European Commission mandate. So, the best way of doing this is to first deposit in your institutional repository for instance. Um and then you will get a DOI. And then on Zenodo, Zenodo will act act act as a backup. So, basically you in there will be this question that will ask Do you have already DOI? You would say yes. You add that DOI and basically it's it will act as a backup. So, if the the the other repository ever disappears or if the publisher's site ever disappears, it's it will it will link automatically to Zenodo. Same thing is you are um We had this question recently. If you are citing um uh your publications and it's an open access publication on the publisher's website, you should um use the publisher's DOI, not the a new version because it's the same document, so you would again on Zenodo say, "Yes, I have a DOI." and put the publisher's DOI. If the publisher ever disappears, then it will automatically uh move forward to to the to Zenodo. So, Zenodo is there as a backup in in in that case uh and at the same time it will also add it to the Zenodo project community on on EU open uh repository. It's not obliged because you don't have to deposit on Zenodo. It's just there for you and it allows you to comply better uh it's easier to comply with the the the mandate. I don't know if you want to add anything, Pablo, on on this aspect. >> No, no. What you say is good. Uh don't uh don't duplicate the don't create new DOIs if uh if it's the same record. One uh mistake that sometimes people do is that they say, "Yes, I have a DOI." but then they upload the data set for instance. So, yeah, if you have a data set and a paper, these are two different entities, two different DOIs. >> Yeah. Yes, it's as soon as it's different types of documents, different DOI. If it's the same document, same DOI. Don't uh cuz then you have duplicates and then the the you have issues with reporting uh which can be um bad for for, you know, for for your project. Uh could you provide an overview of the different types of research outputs and how the peer review requirements apply to them? For example, conference proceeding, conference papers, journal articles, and other publication types treated Um yeah, we get that a lot. I should really make it more explicit, especially in terms of conference proceedings. Uh it all depends whether they are peer-reviewed or not. And the concept of peer review is sometimes a bit loose for conference proceedings because obviously you do have a selection process, but sometimes it's more of a conference selection process and not really an actual peer review process. So, there's no um official uh definition from the European Commission in terms of conference proceeding on that um aspect. I would say that if you had a back and forth uh of um peer peer review, basically, of you know, you make a revisions, then that would be considered as peer review, then you fall under the open access requirements. If you don't, then you don't have to, but you should. The European Commission still uh suggests that even if it was in a journal paper that isn't published isn't peer-reviewed, you would still want to make it available in in open access. Um so, it really depends on whether they are peer-reviewed or not. So, that's the main aspect of the different types of uh publications. Um what do we do with already published papers in non open access venues? Um you can't just say uh well, that happened. You have to find a solution. So, my first uh suggestion is to contact directly the publisher and explain, we made a mistake. Uh the the our funder uh requires us to make it open access. What are our options? Um if you if it's a hybrid journal for instance and you don't have the funds, then you would ask whether you could have the author accepted manuscript uh the license change and to CC BY license. Um if that doesn't work, but usually it does because the the publishers the one thing that's you need to remember is that you seem you feel like you're in your power list again publishers, but they rely on you at the office. So if you force a bit, they usually comply. Um they they they make it seem that they they owe you in a way. Um but if if you insist a bit on and uh and add the saying that you know your funder requires you, usually they they they will comply. If that really doesn't work, then um contact your project officer and see what you could do in in that uh respect. They might I'm I'm just saying this hypothetically, they might just say, "Okay, this one is fine, but in the future make sure of that." Um this really depends on the project officer. Some will be more um let's say nice and others will be a bit more strict on on that aspect. Um is it an issue if we link our resources sections of the project website to the project's Zenodo community, meaning the link bring users directly to Zenodo? >> Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. So I think I think it's fine. If you're asking about like kind of integrating it in the webpage, we we we don't provide such like kind of widgets allowing you to automatically show latest uh records published in the community or something like that. But uh yeah, obviously you can you can link to to Zenodo to to all your research outputs there. No problem. >> Uh will the Core Trust Seal certificate for an institutional repository comply to trusted repository? Yes, so uh, CoreTrust Seal is one of those um, certificates uh, that uh, make a repository uh, considered a trusted repository. However, again, ironically, it's not because you have a CoreTrust Seal always that you are metadata ready. And funnily enough, Zenodo doesn't have a CoreTrust Seal, but is compliant with the European Commission. Um, so, you know, um, there's various aspects like that, but yes, if your if your institution has a CoreTrust Seal, then definitely it is a trusted repository. Could you provide an overview of how to comply with open access requirements when publishing with IEEE? Um, I would use the um, the um, rights retention statement. So, when you submit to to them, you add the rights retention statement that says that basically on any um, publication, a peer-reviewed publication, um, that arises would be under a CC BY um, uh, license, and you might um, transfer sign the copyright transfer agreement for the publisher's version, the version of record, um, but that's that's the approach. In practice, I don't know how well it works. I haven't heard from I've had this question a few times. I haven't heard back from the people if it worked or or not. Um, but if I didn't, then hopefully it did. That's that's that's my recommendation, the safest um, way of doing it, the easiest way is to add the rights retention Could you provide guidance on how to handle cases where authors do not have persistent identifiers such as ORCIDs, where the author information is incomplete, ambiguous, or difficult to verify? Are there any recommended practices or compliance requirements for Horizon Europe project in such situation? >> I can answer on on the Zenodo checks side. So, I mean, first of all, we don't support only your kid, we also support ISNI and GND. So, so that's one one thing to check. Maybe these these people have other identifiers. Um otherwise, from the checks point of view, they are not blocking. So, as a creator of a community, if somebody submits a record to for your project and there is five authors and one of them does not have an ORCID identifier, it's going to warn you about it, so you cannot say, "Oh, I didn't notice." Uh but it's not going to be blocking. Then in term of compliance, I don't know if it's going to pass and with good justifications or not. Maybe Jonathan, you you know more. >> Um as far as I know, it's you're not obliged to have an ORCID ID, even though I don't understand why you wouldn't, because it's it just literally takes 2 minutes to create, and then you can add the bare minimum information. So, one thing I'm thinking about it it might be just a well idea, but in the consortium agreement, when you're creating the project, you actually add it as saying all partners or [snorts] or people that will work will have an ORCID ID. So, enforce it in in some way. It's a bit stupid because we are adults, we shouldn't, you know, but sometimes it's these kind of things that um but I've seen projects in in which I am part of one project, for instance, where some of the publications say the people don't have an ORCID IDs. In the end at the end of the day, it's >> [snorts] >> a loss for them because they're not being cross-referenced in in in things. So, they won't be as visible in in on the web than people who do have persistent identifier. Um but I don't think it blocks the the requirement. It's not one of those requirements. Um For the funding disclaimer, the current wording no longer includes the project name or grant agreement number. Ah, okay. I didn't know that. Funded by the European Union, views and opinions expressed, blah blah blah. Did you include the statement within publication or is it sufficient Sorry, I'm reading it. Is it necessary to include this disclaimer directly with publications or is it sufficient to provide the funding information and disclaimers through repository metadata? If the disclaimer should be included in the publication, could you provide a recommended example including any reference to project name and grant agreement number? Um okay, so I I don't know if that's a statement that you don't it no longer includes the project name or if you're saying that that statement that they mentioned um um doesn't have it. I searched for this quite a while. I think it was last year. They don't have and I asked someone from the commission, they don't have They basically say, "Oh, do you however you want." So, there's no real way of doing it properly. So, someone else said in the past that in some of the the publishers the the the statement is too long. Uh and unfortunately, I don't really have a solution for that. You would have to contact the publisher directly and say it has to be on on on the on the publication." I would always add the project name and the grants agreement number on the publication, but obviously you want also to add this statement and the project name and the grants agreement number on in the metadata, basically. Which for instance Zenodo does. It will just this a job list where you put the project name or the grants agreement number and you'll find it and you will automatically link link to it. Cuz that's what you want. You want to make links with different uh uh objects. So that so that it links to your data, links to your publication, to your presentation. So everything links to together. That's why the metadata is is there for. Um but for the disclaimer, uh yeah. As as much as far as I know you still need to put it on directly on the on any publication that you that you put. Are creative commons licenses the only open licenses allowed under Horizon Europe? No, you can uh specific wording is so I simplify I should mention that I simplify things in the in this talk because >> [snorts] >> a lot of people just want the minimum, you know, so that to comply. The exact wording is that a creative commons CC by license or equivalent. So you are allowed to use another open license if you want to. In the data management plan, I would justify why. Just because if the project officer is not used to a different license, you explain why you use that specific license. For softwares, there's no specific licenses applied to softwares in the current Horizon Europe framework. Um but again I would justify the licenses. They they recommend an open license, but they don't specify which one. Softwares at the moment don't have to be uh openly licensed. Yet, who knows for the next uh framework. >> We do have a have a check on Zenodo for software, which says that it has to be OSI approved license. >> Okay. >> and it should be following the principle of as open as possible and as closed as necessary. With exceptions possible. >> yes, yes, yes, true, yes, yeah. But if you need it to be closed, then you will need to justify, obviously. But nowadays there's yeah. Um are there any differences in the open access requirements in the MSCA program? No, so ERC and MSCA uh they So, all the different programs in Horizon Europe follow the same principles. The only difference with MSCA is that you can use your grant money to pay for hybrid to to publish open access um to pay the article processing charges of hybrid journals. Um that is the So, they don't have uh uh these restrictions in terms of the article processing charges. Uh institutional repository lacks formal certification but has documented policies, procedures, and demonstrate trustworthiness in practice. Given the situation, can we safely recommend it to researcher for deposit, or should we advise dual deposits as a precaution? How will the Commission evaluate this during project reporting? Will an uncertified but well-governed repository be accepted, or does formal certification matter? No, so formal certification doesn't you don't need formal certification. You don't need the core trust seal, for instance. As long as you have all the um the uh the aspects that uh the requirements uh that are um asked by the European Commission, the repository would be compliant, would be considered as a trusted repository. The issue comes from also the metadata that they ask for, which is quite extensive. Um and I'll be transparent, it's I find a bit stupid for them to have implemented that without evaluating repositories before because there are so few repositories that actually comply with this that they should have looked at that before. Um but they implemented the theory and not uh in practice uh first. Um so my advice to make it easier for you, even though it's a bit more work, is to really be legally compliant is to first deposit on your repository, that's the most relevant, but then have a on on Zenodo uh with that DOI. So you don't create a new DOI, you put the that one and add the exact same uh um publication. Um I don't know how the project officers uh exactly evaluate. It depends on the project officer. There's a lot of variation depending on the personality of the the person. What other languages apart from English does Open Research Europe accept? Currently, only English, but in the future it they will accept other languages. Who decided if data are closed or open? Um you. Um but you need to justify basically. So, when you're in doubt because sometimes you might think, "Oh, well, I can't make this data open because uh I don't know, because of my patent." Maybe you're wrong on on some aspects. So, do you get advice from people from your institution, from research post staff, librarians, uh data stewards, um >> [snorts] >> your um chief technology uh the like that that can help you uh in deciding whether uh you are right in closing the the data. The project officer will in any case also challenge you on on that aspect if you don't describe enough why you decided to close the the the data. But, it is up to you to decide uh because in theory you know better. You're the the researcher. So, you you have to be the one deciding whether to uh close it or not. But, remember that it's as open as possible, as closed as necessary. So, the open is by default. >> An embargo could be yeah, an option. Having an embargo? Maybe? >> Yes, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, so um obviously you can put an embargo on your data rather than close it indefinitely. It will actually be easier to argue with than saying close for for forever. If it's personal data, that is it's easy. You say it's closed, but then you can anonymize and say this part of the data will be closed, but this will be anonymized and this will be uh open. In case we already have a community in Zenodo, would it be possible to save an open research here, publication there? >> Yeah, I can say a word about it. The from from what I understand there is integration between ORA and Zenodo so that when an article is finished it gets automatically published into Zenodo. But it's currently into a community called Open Research Europe. So a community just for ORA inside Zenodo. I do not think that technically it's possible today to also add this record to your community unfortunately. Because the the the the process has to be initiated by the person who uploaded the record. In this case it's the the ORA account let's say. So yeah, this is a a limitation currently but yes, ideally it should it should be part of probably the ORA community and also your specific project community if you want to. Yes, so it is showcased in the EU open research repository but it's not in your project specific community currently. >> Thanks for that. If I don't have a DOI but another PID for instance in a handle for my data, do I understand currently you still need to upload the file to Zenodo and that my PID in alternate identifier sections. Yeah, the DOI I always mention the DOI because it's the most common one but it's not mandatory. It can be another type of PID. In terms of Zenodo though Pablo can you because I >> Yes, so in Zenodo you either need to generate a Zenodo DOI or you need to provide an existing DOI. So I mean again, you're not obliged to upload this record into Zenodo. But if you do, you do need a DOI. So you can you are in this case I don't think it would count as duplication if there is no DOI at all. You you are allowed to generate a Zenodo DOI and indeed you can link many different type of identifiers through related identifiers to help with the duplication and and so on. >> But one important aspect is DOI shouldn't be the default. It's just the one used the most, but handles and other type of PIDs are perfectly valid. This is an important aspect to to to remember. Some institution use handle for um for um reason in terms of uh not economy, but in terms of um because DOI is a is a commercial entity and handle is not for for um not philosophical, but ethical or something like that. They kind of know what I mean. So, it depends on the the situation of the institution. About the Open Research Europe and languages, I have heard that promise about future acceptance of paper in other languages some years now. When is it going to happen? Well, who knows. Um it's the European Commission. It's a an enormous uh institution. As you know, things are very slow to happen. So, I have no idea. Um but in the future it will it will happen. I mean, just look at at it's on on the good side is uh they had promised that it would open for other people than adjust the the the Horizon Europe grantees. And uh now it's the case. So, I mean, it's been 5 years already, but still, you know, they they are making progress. It's not um stagnating. So, I'm sure it will it will happen. And it needs to happen because you can't really call them from a uh philosophical uh um uh view, you can't call it a diamond open access if you don't really accept other languages. Um The help desk for Zenodo, I'm guessing is how they set Zenodo >> So, if you go to help.zenodo.org, you have all the documentation with some FAQs and things that hopefully answers your questions. And if you still don't If you still need help, there's a a contact link at the bottom of every help page where you have a form where we we ask you to to provide a bit of information and and we we answer within a few [clears throat] days. >> And just last question for you, Pablo, again about the publication in open research Europe and depositing Zenodo community. If we have a Zenodo deposited output, is it possible to link it to a Zenodo community without doing dual deposit? Meaning, can the same output in Zenodo belong to two or more different Zenodo communities? >> Yes, so there's no limitation in in the number of communities to which one record belongs. Again, the one limitation is that the as a community owner, you cannot pull records into your community because it actually gives gives the community managers the the right to for instance correct metadata or things like this. So, we we don't have this option for we don't want people to be able to hijack records. So, the the record for the for a record to be included in the community, it's the the uploader of the record who has to initiate the process of submitting to a community. And in the case of the ORA records, which are automatically published into Zenodo, unfortunately, the user is ORA. So, yeah, currently there's no mechanism for for that. But yes, you can have many communities. You could imagine having a community for your organization and one for the projects. And you can you can showcase the same record in in several communities. That's not a problem. >> Perfect. Well, thanks everyone for being here. Thanks again, Pablo and Maya, for for for presenting. If you have any questions, um you know how to contact us and thanks again for for being here today. Have a lovely end of the day and and and weekend and see [snorts] you see you soon. Thank you. Bye.