A presentation by Birgit Schmidt

1. Horizon2020 Open Access mandate
on publications and research data
How OpenAIRE can help: infrastructure & support
Birgit Schmidt
State and University Library,
University of Göttingen
@bschmid1
@openaire_eu

2. Overview
• Introduction & context of OpenAIRE
• Open Access to publications
• Open research data
• What assistance does OpenAIRE provide
2

3. EC Open Access Mandate
Progression
FP7 (2008)
• 20% programme areas
• Deposit in Repositories
• APC payments during project
• ERC OA Guidelines
Horizon 2020 (2014)
• 100% programme areas
• Deposit in Repositories
• APCs during and after project
• Open Data Pilot (100% from 2017)
3

4. From Open Access to
Open Science
4
Aim: To open up scientific processes
and products from all levels to
everyone …
• Open Access (publications, data, software,
educational resources)
• Open Methodology (open notebooks, study
preregistration)
• Citizen Science
• Open Evaluation / Open Peer Review

5. 5
OpenAIRE
Dec. 2009 – Nov. 2012
OpenAIREplus
Dec. 2011 – Dec. 2014
OpenAIRE2020
Jan. 2015 – Jun. 2018
Now in our third project phase …

6. Human
Network
50 Partners from every EU country, and beyond
Data centers, universities, libraries, repositories, legal experts
Digital
Network
… fosters the social and technical links
that enable Open Science in Europe and beyond
6

7. Human Infrastructure
• Local support for Europe’s diverse research landscape
7
Human support network
• 33 expert nodes all over
Europe to help with:
• OA training and support
• OA policy development
• Technical assistance
• World-wide synergies

8. Integrated Scientific Information System
Access to
17.7+ mi unique publications (80% full
text)
31+ K datasets linked to publications
800 validated data providers
500Κ publications linked to projects from
12 funders
3.5K links to software repositoriesOrganizationsProjects
AuthorsDatasets
Publications Data Providers
8

9. Literature
Repositories
OA Journals
Funding Info
Validation
Cleaning
De-duplicating
Inferring
Linking
Organiz-
ations
Projects
AuthorsDatasets
Publica-
tions
Data
Providers
…
Monitoring
Reporting
Evaluation
Impact
Classification
Clustering
Analysis
CRIS systems
An EU-CRIS system
Data
Repositories
Metadata
Full text
Usage data
Discovery
Crowdsourcing
APIs
Trends
Aggregators
Enriching
ServicesOpenAIRE PlatformData Providers 9

10. What‘s the current state of Open
Access for FP7 and H2020?
• FP7: 62% OA success rate for 193K identified publications.
Of these about one third (34%) was published in gold OA (both pure
OA journals and hybrid journals, where applicable with publication
fees). (Somewhat higher for: ERC funded-researchers with 67% OA
and EC SC39 projects with 71% OA)
• H2020 so far: about 60% OA rate from the 6K identified publications,
with an estimate of 37% of the OA set published in gold OA
Note: The overall OA rate continues to grow as embargoes expire.
In both programmes: deposition in repositories stays strong with a 60-
80% rate.
10

11. HOW TOS FOR OPEN ACCESS TO
PUBLICATIONS
11

12. OPEN ACCESS IS
DEFAULT FOR
PUBLICATIONS
12
Publications in H2020

13. Research results & their exploitation and/or
dissemination
The decision on whether to publish open access comes after the decision on whether to seek
protection for intellectual property rights. We‘ll concentrate on cases where the researchers have
decided to publish their results.
IPR Helpdesk, Factsheet Open access to publications and data in Horizon 2020
https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Open_Access_in_H2020_0.pdf
13

14. Grant Agreement: § 29.2 Open access
to scientific publications
Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications
relating to its results.
In particular, it must:
(a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or
final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications;
Moreover, the beneficiary must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the
deposited scientific publications.
(b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest:
(i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or
(ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other
case.
(c) ensure open access — via the repository — to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication.
The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following:
- the terms ["European Union (EU)" and "Horizon 2020"]["Euratom" and Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018"];
- the name of the action, acronym and grant number;
- the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and
- a persistent identifier.
14

15. OA mandate in a nutshell:
§ 29.2 Open access to publications
Each beneficiary must ensure open access to all scientific publications
relating to its results
 How? Deposit a machine-readable copy of the published version or final
peer-review manuscript in a repository for scientific publications
 When?
 Deposit as soon as possible and at the latest on publication
 Ensure open access to the publication: (i) immediately if the publication is
published Open Access with a publisher, (ii) within 6 resp. 12 months (STM resp.
HSS)
 Acknowledgment of funding (acronym, grant agreement number etc.) in
the publication and bibliographic metadata
15

16. Where to deposit
• Institutional repository
OR
• Disciplinary repository (arXiv, Europe PubMed Central, etc.)
OR
• Zenodo (www.zenodo.org) if none of the above is available – a EC-cofunded,
multidisciplinary repository, for publications & data
Remarks:
• ERC:
• Strong recommendation to use disciplinary repositories (agreements with arXiv and Europe PMC)
• Deposit of books as well (endorsement of and agreement with the OAPEN library)
• Finding a repository: via registries e.g. OpenDOAR http://www.opendoar.org/ or via OpenAIRE
>> Why via repositories? OpenAIRE harvests and aggregates metadata from repositories
and several publishers and displays the result by project
16

17. Researcher
decides where
to publish
Check SHERPA
RoMEO to see what
OA and self-archiving
options are available
www.sherpa.ac.uk/rom
eo
Publish in a
subscription-
based journal
Publish in an
open access
journal
IF OPTION EXISTS
e.g. a ‘hybrid’ journal
(a subscription-based
journal that has a paid
open access option)
Immediate open
access (via
publisher)
Immediate open
access (via
publisher)
Pay Article
Processing Charge
(APC)
Pay Article
Processing Charge
(APC) - if required
Self-archive in a
repository,
based on
publisher policy.
Immediate or delayed
open access,
depending on
publisher’s policy
Search for a repository
http://service.re3data.org/se
arch or http://opendoar.org/
GOLD OA
ROUTE
GREEN OA ROUTE
Adapted from Sarah Jones, see also: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/blog/fostering-open-science
Opportunities in Open Science, Stockholm, 19 January 2017 17

18. What are projects expected to do?
Start planning early on.
18
• During proposal writing phase
• Outline of dissemination and exploitation strategy, including OA >> impact section of the
proposal (how will results be shared, data be managed and shared?)
• Include resources for publication costs (what journals, how many publications, what does it
cost on average?)
• Combine GREEN/GOLD strategies to achieve maximum of OA
• During the project
• Additional provisions in the Consortium Agreement? (where to deposit, who is responsible)
• Implementation of the dissemination strategy, report at reviews and update
• What issues occur and how can they be solved? (publisher embargos, repositories for specific
material, etc.)
• After the project end
• Are there publications foreseen after the ending of the project (ie which will not be covered by
the budget) – for post-FP7 project publications there is a pilot (funds granted by the EC,
managed by OpenAIRE)
• Who takes care of deposit in repositories after the project end?

19. Typical questions
• What role does Open Access play in the review of proposal/projects?
At all stages: Take it seriously, standard formulations are not sufficient.
• What budget should be added for publishing?
Publishing in OA journals: c 1,500 EUR / paper, hybrid journals c 1,980 EUR / paper (average values!)
How about monographs? c 3,000 – 10,000 EUR / book – needs to be checked with the targeted publishers
• What about longer embargo periods?
An obligation not just a best effort applies. The EC / ERC may apply sanctions in the future.
• How about publications after the project end?
These have to be covered too. Regarding publication costs: still ongoing FP7-post grant publication fund in
OpenAIRE (pilot, for 2 years)
• Helpdesks:
• OpenAIRE Helpdesk, FAQs, Factsheets etc. https://www.openaire.eu/support/helpdesk
• IPR Helpdesk https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/
19

20. Targeted journals & publication strategy
1. List of targeted journals
Project X
• Ocean Science
• Journal of Climate
• Climate Dynamics
• Progress in Oceanography
2. Look up the OA conditions (via SHERPA/RoMEO
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php)
3. List all OA repositories that the consortium will be using
4. Decide as a consortium for which journals which strategy will be
used (deposit + traditional, deposit + gold OA, deposit + hybrid OA)
5. Keep the information up to date.
20

21. Look up self-deposit conditions
21
21

22. Example #1: NACLIM
22
List of publications as discovered by
OpenAIRE
22
Status as of 2015-09-09
22

23. More on the project website but…
Post-print sits in the website‘s CMS, ie
non-permanent link, can‘t be cited nor
metadata be harvested
Check which version of the article can
be deposited in repositories
23

24. OA Conditions of targeted journals
• Ocean Science and Open Science Discussions, Copernicus – OA journal, CC licensed, moderate APC
• PLoS ONE – OA journal, CC licensed
• Física de la Tierra – Open Access but no clear license information >> need to check with publisher
• Geophysical Research Letters – postprint on author/department website, publisher’s PDF must be used in instutional repository 6m
after publication
• Journal of Climate, American Meterological Society – hybrid OA $800, publisher’s PDF must be used in instutional repository 6m after
publication
• Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, American Geophysical Union, Wiley – publisher’s PDF must be used in instutional repository
6m after publication
• Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres: deposit of postprint in repositories, publisher’s PDF must be used in institutional
repository 6m after publication
• Global Change Biology, Blackwell – hybrid OA $3,000, deposit of postprint in institutional repository (12m embargo)
• Climate Dynamics, Springer – hybrid OA 2,200 EUR, postprint can be deposited (12m embargo)
• Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meterological Society, Wiley – hybrid OA $3,000, deposit of postprints in repositories, use of publisher’s
version after 36m embargo
• Progress in Oceanography, Elsevier – hybrid OA $3,300, immediate deposit in a few disciplinary repositories (arXiv, RePEc), deposit in
institutional repositories typically 12-48m embargo, or the author pays the hybrid OA fee
Via SHERPA/RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php (search for journal name or ISSN)
OA Journals
EC mandate
compatible
journals
Non-compatible
journals – at least if you
don‘t use the hybrid OA
option
24

25. Progress in Oceanography
2525

26. 26
Status as of 2017-01-10

27. Example #2: AMARSI
• OpenAIRE records 112 publications – of
these c 68% are OA, 32% closed access
• Project website lists 200+ publications
• The project has closed in February 2014
27

28. FP7 Post-Grant Open
Access Pilot
• Pilot runs for two years (until 30 April 2017)
• Provides funding to cover the OA publishing fees for
publications arising from completed FP7 projects
• 4 million euros are made available by the EC to fund the OA
“post-grant” publications of over 8,000 completed FP7 projects
• No hybrid journals; 2000 EUR cap on APCs; max 3 pubs per
project
• Up to 6000 EUR per monograph
https://postgrantoapilot.openaire.eu/
Opportunities in Open Science, Stockholm, 19 January 2017

29. FP7 postgrant publication funds
29

30. 1. Funding requests may be directly submitted by researchers or delivered by Libraries and/or
Research Offices on their behalf
2. Users need to register with the Central System in order to submit a funding request
3. Data about the project and the accepted publication will be requested in order to check their
eligibility. Once this is checked, the funding request will be approved and left pending until an
invoice is available
4. Invoice for the OA publishing fee needs to be
uploaded into the Central System when made
available by the publisher. The invoice must be
issued to Athena Research Centre (ARC).
How to Apply for Funding
30

31. Uptake of the pilot
Running until April 2017
31
• 635 publications from 493 projects have been approved for funding since 1/1/2015.
• A total of 895k EUR has been paid for APCs, with an average of 1,613 EUR
per publication:
• 519 articles with an average of 1,448 EUR
• 24 books with an average of 5,379 EUR
• 9 book chapters with an average of 1,259 EUR

32. Funding by country
32

33. Interim summary
• Librarians provide assistance for checking journals and
publication costs (beware of low-quality journals)
• Project websites or Research Gate are not sufficient (not OA)
• Consider sharing early, preprints are an option via repositories and
publishers (but there is no requirement)
33

34. HOW TOS FOR RESEARCH DATA
34

35. AS OPEN AS
POSSIBLE AS
CLOSED AS
NECESSARY
35
Research data in H2020

36. Why open access and open
data?
“The European Commission’s vision
is that information already paid for by
the public purse should not be paid for
again each time it is accessed or used,
and that it should benefit European
companies and citizens to the full.”
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h20
20/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-
guide_en.pdf
36
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 36

37. Mandatory, with a few exceptions
The Open Research Data Pilot applies to all thematic areas of
Horizon 2020 from the start of the 2017 work programme.
A few instruments are excluded:
• "co-fund" and "prizes" instruments
• "ERC proof of concept" grants
• "ERA-Nets" that do not produce data
• SME instrument, phase 1
37

38. What is research data?
‘Research data’ refers to information, in particular facts or numbers, collected to be
examined and considered as a basis for reasoning, discussion or calculation.
In a research context, examples of data include statistics, results of experiments,
measurements, observations resulting from fieldwork, survey results, interview
recordings and images. The focus is on research data that is available in digital form.
Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020
v.1.0, 11 December 2013, Footnote 5, p3
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 38

39. What is open data?
Openly accessible research data can typically be accessed, mined, exploited,
reproduced and disseminated, free of charge for the user.
Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020, p3
 make your stuff available on the Web (whatever format) under an open licence
 make it available as structured data (e.g. Excel instead of a scan of a table)
 use non-proprietary formats (e.g. CSV instead of Excel)
 use URIs to denote things, so that people can point at your stuff
 link your data to other data to provide context
Tim Berners-Lee’s proposal for five star open data - http://5stardata.info
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 39

40. What does FAIR data management
mean?
F = Findable
Making data findable, including provisions for metadata
A = Accessible
Making data openly accessible, e.g. by deposit in a
repository
I = Interoperable
Making data interoperable, by allowing data exchange
and re-use, adhering to standards (data formats,
software applications)
R = Re-useable
Increase data re-use, e.g. through licences which permit
wide re-use
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf
40

41. Which data does the pilot
apply to?
• Data, including associated metadata, needed to
validate the results in scientific publications
• Other curated and/or raw data, including associated
metadata, as specified in the DMP
Doesn’t apply to all data (researchers to define as appropriate)
Don’t have to share data if inappropriate – exemptions apply
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 41

42. Exemptions – reasons for opting out
• If results are expected to be commercially or industrially exploited
• If participation is incompatible with the need for confidentiality in connection with security issues
• Incompatible with existing rules on the protection of personal data
• Would jeopardise the achievement of the main aim of the action
• If the project will not generate / collect any research data
• If there are other legitimate reason to not take part in the Pilot
Can opt out at proposal stage OR during lifetime of project.
Should describe issues in the project Data Management Plan.
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 42

43. 43
ORD pilot core areas
• Proposal stage: Out of 7869 proposals in the ORD
core areas 66.3% stayed in the pilot,18.2% opted out
(main reasons: IPR protection, privacy, no data
generated) and 15.5% did not answer the question
• Funded projects: Of the 431 funded projects 34.6%
opted out
Calls not in the core areas
• Funded projects: Out of the calls not in the core areas
of the ORD pilot 11.8% opted in (388 out of 3268
funded projects)

44. Requirements of the
open data pilot
1. Develop (and update) a Data Management Plan
2. Deposit in a research data repository
3. Make it possible for third parties to access, mine, exploit,
reproduce and disseminate data – free of charge for any user
4. Provide information on the tools and instruments needed to
validate the results (or provide the tools)
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 44

45. Develop a Data Management Plan
Not a fixed document – should evolve and gain precision
• Deliver first version within initial 6 months of project
• More elaborate versions whenever important changes to the project occur.
• At least at the mid-term and final review.
Templates provided.
Note that the Commission does NOT require applicants to submit a DMP at the proposal stage. A DMP is
therefore NOT part of the evaluation.
However, all project proposals submitted to e.g. “Research and Innovation actions” (RIA), “Innovation actions”
(IA), and “Community and Support Actions” (CSA) include a section on research data management which is
evaluated under the criterion “Impact”. (Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions: calls until 25 July participate in the
ODP on a voluntary basis, after Article 29.3 of the Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement applies.)
Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020, v.3.0, 26 July 2016
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 45

46. A starting point: Impact section
in proposals
• What types of data will the project generate/collect?
• What standards will be used?
• How will this data be exploited and/or shared/made accessible for
• verification and re-use? If data cannot be made available, explain
why.
• How will this data be curated and preserved?
• How will the costs for data curation and preservation be covered?
Basic questions to be answered (fleshed out later in the DMP)
46

47. Creating a DMP
Basic structure
1. Data summary
2. FAIR data: findable, accessible,
interoperable, re-usable
3. Allocation of resources
4. Data security
5. Ethical aspects
6. Other (e.g. reference to
national/funder/institutional
procedures)
47

48. www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-guides/license-research-data
Licensing research data openly
This DCC guide outlines the pros and cons of
each approach and gives practical advice on
how to implement a data licence
CREATIVE COMMONS LIMITATIONS
NCNon-Commercial
What counts as commercial?
SA Share Alike
Reduces interoperability
NDNo Derivatives
Severely restricts use
These clauses are not open licenses
Horizon 2020 Open Access
guidelines point to:
or
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 48

49. Where to deposit: Data
repositories
http://service.re3data.org/search
Zenodo
• OpenAIRE-CERN joint effort
• Multidisciplinary repository
• Multiple data types
– Publications
– Long tail of research data
• Citable data (DOI)
• Links funding, publications, data & software
www.zenodo.org
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 49

50. Examples on where to deposit
data
Institutional, disciplinary or general purpose repository
50

51. Enabling discovery: Metadata and
documentation
Metadata: basic info e.g. title, author, dates, access rights...
Documentation: methods, code, data dictionary, context...
Use standards wherever possible for interoperability
www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/metadata-standards Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 51

52. Enabling reuse: Data file formats
If researchers want their data to be re-used and sustainable in the long-
term, they should opt for open, non-proprietary formats.
Type Recommended Avoid for data sharing
Tabular data CSV, TSV, SPSS portable Excel
Text Plain text, HTML, RTF
PDF/A only if layout matters
Word
Media Container: MP4, Ogg
Codec: Theora, Dirac, FLAC
Quicktime
H264
Images TIFF, JPEG2000, PNG GIF, JPG
Structured data XML, RDF RDBMS
Further examples:
www.data-archive.ac.uk/create-manage/format/formats-table
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 52

53. Provide info on tools needed
for validation
Need to share much more than just the data for
research to be reproducible...
Difficult to validate data if you’re missing info on the steps
between the initial idea and end results
Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 53

54. SUPPORT PROVIDED BY
OPENAIRE
54

55.  OpenAIRE helpdesk – direct point of contact for all H2020
and Open Science questions
 Regular webinars on meeting H2020 Open Science
requirements and other key Open Science topics
 Workshops (~workshops in OpenAIRE2020) on open
access, open data, Open Peer Review, measuring OA
impact, etc.
 Factsheets, briefing papers & FAQs for researchers,
research administrators, project coordinators & data
providers
 Updates on Open Science via monthly newsletter and blog:
• https://www.openaire.eu/newsletter/view
• https://blogs.openaire.eu/
55
Training, support and dissemination
55

56. openaire.eu
56

57. 57
The open repository for all research objects
zenodo.org

58. 58

59. Supporting the Open Data Pilot:
Training & Support Materials
• Briefing papers, factsheets,
webinars, workshops, FAQs
• Information on:
• Open Research Data Pilot
• Creating a DMP
• Selecting a data repository
• https://www.openaire.eu/opendatapilot
• https://www.openaire.eu/support
• https://www.openaire.eu/services-factsheets
59

60. 60

61. 61
Research and development into new
trends in scholarly communication
• Linked Open Data
• Legal issues in Open
Data
• Data Citation
• Literature-Data
Integration
• OA Metrics
• Open Peer Review
New in OpenAIRE2020

62. What‘s next for the Open Science agenda?
• Expanding Open Science topics
• EU copyright reform: Exceptions for Text and Data Mining (TDM)
• ERC will commission a study on researchers‘ attitudes towards Open Science policies and practices
and on how to step up assistance
• Funders increasingly endorse preprints and alternative routes of publishing (e.g. Wellcome Trust, MRC)
• Open Science Policy Platform (EOSPP)
• High-level expert group, works on recommendations
• Working group on Altmetrics in place, further will be created in 2017
• Consolidating and bridging eInfrastructures
• European Open Science Cloud: High-level expert group provides advice to the EC; EOSCpilot project
starting in Jan 2017
• Sustaining eInfrastructures and filling gaps
• Linking up to Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI) activities
• Combine efforts in order to strengthen institutional/organisational uptake
For an official view, see:
DG RTD, Draft European Open Science Agenda, February 2016, EOSPP,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-policy-platform
A selection of current activities
62

63. www.openaire.eu
@openaire_eu
facebook.com/groups/openaire
linkedin.com/groups/OpenAIRE-
3893548
Thank you!
bschmidt@sub.uni-goettingen.de
63

64. ERC Open Access
Same principles, with some specific recommendations
64

65. OPENAIRE‘S
OPEN PEER REVIEW STUDY
65

66. Why did OpenAIRE look into
Open Peer Review?
• Peer Review is still widely considered as the foundation for
safeguarding quality of and therefore trust in published research – but it
has several flaws, e.g. intransparency, social and publication bias
(positive findings preferred!)
• Open Peer Review claims to fix several of these issues but it comes in
various sometimes confusing flavours
• Strategy of the OpenAIRE study
• Clearly define OPR based on its core properties, e.g. Open Reports, Open
Identities, Open Participation >> literature review
• Commission 3 OPR experiments and collect lessons learned
• Community workshops
• Study OPR perceptions and practices >> online survey
Opening up review and communication processes
66

67. Open Peer Review
Module for repositories
• OPR Plug-in für Repositories (DSpace)
• Open Reports
• Open IDs
• OPR plug-in for (DSpace) repositories to convert them into functional evaluation platforms
• Includes published reviews, disclosed identities, reviewer reputation system
• Complete code, with full documentation, available on Github under an open license:
• https://github.com/arvoConsultores/Open-Peer-Review-Module
67

68. • Integration with Zenodo
• Capturing reviews from
“journal clubs”
• Experiment with small
financial incentives
• 68

69. • French journal
• Blog platform hypotheses.org used
for publishing and open peer
review, hypothes.is annotation
Plugin for comments
• Not a technical but a social
challenge (invitation to review is
essential)
69

70. Findings from the OPR survey
• Online survey, 8 September – 7 October 2016
• Disseminated via mailing lists, publishers‘
newsletters and contacts
• Aims:
• Exploration of author attitudes towards peer review,
openness in various facets
• Views on terminology/definition
• Experiences with different aspects of openness
• Over 3,000 responses received, primarily from STM research areas
• High number of respondents with experiences in open peer review
… as editor 19.4% (594 of 3062)
… as author 63% (1930)
… as publisher 2.2% (68)
… as reviewer 59.1% (1808)
70

71. 71

72. 72

73. 73

74. 74

76. Outlook
• Further research and experimentation is needed, in different context
(research data, conferences, books, proposals, etc.)
• Uncouple review from publishing? (federated trusted services)
• Common language and standards?
• Disciplinary areas, publication types – some commonalities, but also different
needs to be taken into account
• What kind of openness works in which context
• How effective are the services
• How can reviewers be rewarded (e.g. on CVs / researcher profiles)
• Citation of review reports?
76