1 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Deliverable

Grant Agreement number: 611742

Project acronym: PASTEUR4OA

Project title: Open Access Policy Alignment Strategies for European Union Research

Funding Scheme: FP7 – CAPACITIES – Science in Society Project co-ordinator

Organisation: EKT/NHRF

E-mail: tsoukala@ekt.gr

Project website address: www.pasteur4oa.eu

Deliverable No.

D5.6

Deliverable Name

Conference Report

Lead Beneficiary

EKT/NHRF

Dissemination Level

PP

2 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Due Date

30/6/2016

D 5.6 Conference Report

PASTEUR4OA is an FP7 project funded by the EUROPEAN COMMISSION

This publication reflects only the author’s views – the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

3 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Background

The PASTEUR4OA (Open Access Policy Alignment Strategies for European Union Research) project aims to support the European Commission’s Recommendation to Member States of July 2012, which states that policies should be developed and implemented in order to ensure Open Access to all outputs of publicly-funded research.

During its 36-month lifespan, PASTEUR4OA has helped by developing and reinforcing open access strategies and policies at the national level, and by facilitating their coordination among all Member States. It has built a network of centres of expertise in Member States, and developed a coordinated and collaborative programme of activities in support of policymaking at the national level under the direction of project partners.

This deliverable concerns the Final Conference of the project, which was titled Green Light for Open Access: Aligning Europe’s OA Policies. It was held over two days, 17-18 May 2016, at the Meervaart Theatre in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

At the conference, which was an officially associated event with the Dutch Presidency of the European Union, the achievements of the project were presented to some 150 delegates. Speakers from across Europe contributed with talks and discussions on various issues related to Open Access policies: policy development, implementation, compliance monitoring, services and infrastructure.

4 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Contents Pre-Conference Planning & Promotion ..................................................................................... 6

Planning & Structure ............................................................................................................. 6

Pre-Conference Promotional Work ....................................................................................... 7

Registrations .............................................................................................................................. 9

Programme Overview .............................................................................................................. 10

Keynote: Ron Dekker ........................................................................................................... 10

Keynote: Gerard Meijer ....................................................................................................... 11

PASTEUR4OA Overview: Victoria Tsoukala and Alma Swan ............................................... 12

Session 1- Current Activity in Developing OA Policies ......................................................... 13

Session 2 – The Funders’ Perspective .................................................................................. 14

Session 3 – Monitoring Open Access ................................................................................... 16

Keynote – Jean-Pierre Finance ............................................................................................ 17

Session 4 – What’s Next for Open Access (Part 1) .............................................................. 19

Session 4 – What’s Next for Open Access (Part 2) .............................................................. 20

Promotion & Media Coverage ................................................................................................. 22

Social Media ........................................................................................................................ 22

Articles ................................................................................................................................. 23

Video .................................................................................................................................... 23

Survey Results .......................................................................................................................... 24

Highlights ............................................................................................................................. 24

Further Comments .............................................................................................................. 24

Annex I: Sign-In Sheets ............................................................................................................ 25

Day 1 .................................................................................................................................... 25

Day 2 .................................................................................................................................... 31

Annex II: Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 37

Overall Aspects of the Conference ...................................................................................... 37

Session Ratings .................................................................................................................... 37

General Impressions ............................................................................................................ 38

Favourite Part of the Conference ........................................................................................ 38

5 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Learning Points .................................................................................................................... 39

Improvements ..................................................................................................................... 40

Other Comments ................................................................................................................. 40

6 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Pre-Conference Planning & Promotion The conference had two main goals: first, to highlight the work of the PASTEUR4OA project and second, to bring together Open Access (OA) professionals from across Europe for two days of thoughtful discussion on the current and future state of Open Access in Europe.

Planning & Structure Planning for the conference was led by LIBER and began in October 2015, with the first of a series of Skype meetings involving key people within the project1. The initial meetings were used to identify possible speakers for the event, and to agree on a basic structure and topics for the programme. These were as follows: Day 1 – Current OA Landscape

Current Activity in Developing OA Policies

The Funders’ View

Monitoring Open Access

Day 2 – What’s Next for OA Policy?

Part 1: what’s required in terms of future support for OA policies, infrastructural requirements, and sustainability?

Part 2: how will OA policies evolve over time?

With this in place, work began on several aspects of the conference. Speakers and moderators were invited (30 in total). A Communications Plan2 was developed in collaboration with partners undertaking tasks in WP5. A website was set up3 (as part of the overall PASTEUR4OA website). The programme was further developed and logistical requirements relating to the venue were fine-tuned (e.g. catering, room set-up). In order to maximize the impact of the conference, considerable work also went into selecting and briefing the following professionals:

Graphic illustrator – Live drawing of the main themes raised by each keynote speaker and session during the conference;

Reporter – Detailed notetaking of each session, and the subsequent production of articles about the conference for wider dissemination and as a record of discussions;

1 The core planning group consisted of: Marina Angelaki (EKT), Clara de Boavida (Minho University), Pablo de Castro (LIBER), Friedel Grant (LIBER), Melanie Imming (LIBER), Eloy Rodrigues (Minho University), Alma Swan (EOS), Victoria Tsoukala (EKT). They were aided at various points by Hege van Dijke (LIBER) and members of the dissemination work package (WP5): Lieke Ploeger (Open Knowledge Foundation), Gwen Franck (Creative Commons) and Mafalda Marques (Jisc). 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/9s0x3vjx6ne4hns/Pasteur4OAConferenceCommunicationsPlan.pdf?dl=0 3 http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/final-conference

7 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Film Crew - Production of a short film about the conference and the achievements of the project.

Progress on all of these fronts was monitored via the planning meetings. These took place on average once every two weeks, with regular email contact between meetings. Partners contributing to tasks in WP5 also met regularly to discuss and push forward the aspects of the conference related to communications. The programme was largely finalised by end-20154, which paved the way for active promotion of the conference to begin in early 2016.

Pre-Conference Promotional Work In January 2016, an Eventbrite5 page was set up to manage conference registrations and active promotion of the conference began. To encourage registrations, the project published articles on the PASTEUR4OA website, sent emails to the network and publicized the event through its social media channels. These messages were in turn relayed by project partners to their networks. On social media in particular, an emphasis was placed on promoting the conference in as visual a way as possible (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - This graphic was circulated on Twitter, inviting people to attend the conference.

As the theme of the conference fitted perfectly with one of the key goals of the Dutch Presidency of the European Union – to promote Open Access – LIBER also successfully sought to make the conference an officially associated event of the Presidency. This was enormously helpful to the overall promotion of the conference. It meant, for example, that the conference was publicized on the EU 2016 website6 and via related social media channels.

4 http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/sites/pasteur4oa/files/generic/pasteurconference-programme_0.pdf 5https://www.eventbrite.com/e/pasteur4oa-final-conference-green-light-for-open-access-registration-19357437617 6 http://english.eu2016.nl/latest/news/2016/05/17/green-light-for-open-access

8 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

In addition to publicising the conference, LIBER led the selection, design and printing of several promotional materials for attendees. These included conference bags, a laser pointer and post-it notes – all printed with the PASTEUR4OA logo. The bags were filled with logistical information for the day (e.g. programme, list of speakers, map of Amsterdam), along with special flyers created by members of WP5 to highlight the achievements and resources created during the lifetime of the PASTEUR4OA project (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Some of the promotional material which was created for the conference.

9 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Registrations The conference budget allowed for 150 people to attend. Around half of the tickets were taken by members of the PASTEUR4OA project, Key Node representatives, speakers and invited guests. This last category received personal invitations from the Planning Committee. The selection process for invited guests took into account the professional experience of delegates and the country from which they came, in order to ensure a diverse range of views from all regions of Europe. The remaining tickets were distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. Thanks to the promotional work and the strong line-up of speakers, all tickets were reserved one month before the event took place. Enquiries from this point onward were placed on a waiting list. The number of no-shows was low: 145 people were present at the start of the conference. Libraries, universities, research performing institutions, policy makers, OA funders and publishers across Europe were represented. Project partners, associated and networking partners also attended. A full list of those who registered and attended, in the form of sign-up sheets, can be found in Annex 1.

10 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Programme Overview The conference opened with a welcome from Victoria Tsoukala from the National Documentation Centre in Athens (EKT), the institution which is coordinating the PASTEUR4OA project. This was followed by two keynote talks: the first from Ron Dekker, Director of Institutes at the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and Project Leader Open Access for the Dutch presidency of the Council of the European Union, and the second from Gerard Meijer, President of Radboud University (Figure 3).

Keynote: Ron Dekker As one of the key players in the development of the host country’s OA policies and the harmonisation of such policies within Europe, Dekker’s wide-ranging talk highlighted the importance of Open Science. He started with the question ‘why open science?’, explaining the advantages of an open approach to research in promoting the transfer of knowledge: ‘open access, open data, open to the world’. This is essential in order to keep pace with innovation, and with a need for even faster innovation in the face of rapidly developing threats such as the Zika and Ebola viruses. Dekker pointed out that about 15% of research papers are now published in fully OA journals, but this still represents relatively slow progress. At the same time, researchers – particularly young researchers, who have grown up with the Internet – are no longer prepared to pay for content. Over 5 million papers a month are downloaded from the Sci-Hub website, which began as a protest against the high cost of ‘firewalled’ papers. Dekker confessed to using the service for himself, to obtain a paper that would have cost his institution $36: ‘Is this free-loading?’ he asked, rhetorically. ‘Probably... but is it ethical for a rich publisher to ask $36 for access to one paper from 2012?’. Dekker suggested that Sci_hub was unlikely to be sustainable but could be a pathfinder towards a more universal OA solution. In the Netherlands, the government has made encouraging open science one of the goals of its current six-monthly presidency of the European Union Council. It has set two pan-European goals, calling for full OA for all scientific publications and a new approach to ‘optimal re-use of research data’ by 2020. In order to remove barriers to OA and to reach these goals, it calls for research infrastructures to be developed; incentives for open science to be created; and open science polices to become mainstream and to be embedded in research culture and wider society. There are many promising ideas, trials and prototypes but progress is still patchy. The Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science highlights the need for ‘cooperation, common targets, real change, and stocktaking on a regular basis’ in order to reach

11 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

these goals; Dekker ended his presentation with a challenge to delegates: What are you going to do tomorrow?

Keynote: Gerard Meijer Gerard Meijer – President of Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands – used his keynote talk to focus on his country’s progress towards OA and the factors which have led to it being a world leader in this area. . He described himself as an early enthusiast for OA, having been involved in the issue since the ‘Berlin Declaration’ of 2003.

Figure 3 - Gerard Meijer and Ron Dekker in discussion after their keynote talks.

Meijer attributed much of the Dutch success in developing coherent OA policies to the fact that it is a small country with only 14 universities, which work very closely together on a number of issues. Notably, the rectors joined forces to negotiate ‘big deals’ for the provision of OA to journals on each publisher’s list. Deals have already been arranged with Springer, Sage, Elsevier and Wiley. OA remains high up the national agenda, with a goal of making 100% of scientific papers available in gold OA journals (accessible for all readers at no cost) by 2024. Progress has been steady and they are on target, despite no extra funds being made available to universities. Meijer then presented some figures for the size of the publishing market, highlighting the fact that each of the approximately two million papers published in 2014 made about €3,800 for its publisher while costing only about €2,000 to process.

12 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

The current model therefore works very well for publishers but much less well for universities and their researchers. Meijer concluded his presentation by suggesting that the OA movement would need to expand from those countries where it is already strong. The Dutch universities have very good contacts with the Max Planck institutes in Germany and with institutions in some other EU countries, but they should expand the network further. They are very willing both to share their expertise and to learn from others’ experience; best practice is not restricted to one country or even one continent.

PASTEUR4OA Overview: Victoria Tsoukala and Alma Swan After a brief question-and-answer session between the audience and the two keynote speakers, Victoria Tsoukala of EKT and Alma Swan of Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) took the stage to give an overview of the PASTEUR4OA project and its achievements in terms of supporting and enabling OA policies across Europe.

Figure 4 – Victoria Tsoukala of EKT describes the achievements of the PASTEUR4OA

project.

During the 30-months of the project, its 15 partners worked to establish a Knowledge Net of expert organisations across Europe, including 33 Key Nodes. Nearly 800 OA policies were examined and recorded in ROARMAP and three criteria were identified that make an OA policy successful: the requirement to deposit papers in a repository, a no-waiver condition for this deposit, and linking compliance with research assessment.

13 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

The project also created a series of advocacy tools (eg. briefing papers, slidesets, case studies, policy guidelines) and gave 9 regional workshops.

Session 1- Current Activity in Developing OA Policies The first of the conference’s thematic sessions with multiple speakers focused on current activity in developing OA policies, with views from four distinct European countries (Slovenia, Belgium, Malta and Sweden). First to speak was Meta Dobnikar from the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport in Slovenia. Moderator Iryna Kuchma had described Slovenia’s OA policy as ‘one of the best national level approaches in Europe’ but Dobnikar was more modest, claiming only that her small country had made the ‘first steps’. The strategy she presented was nevertheless impressive. It was adopted in September 2015 after a public consultation, is fully aligned with the Commission’s requirements for OA in Horizon 2020 and sets a goal for all nationally-funded publications in 2020 to be freely available at most a year later. The Belgian perspective came from Eric Laureys of the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO), who described the research landscape in his country as ‘scattered’ with many policy-makers and, therefore, many different policies at university and funder level. Belgian researchers tend to favour a repository-based approach because publication can be controlled by public sector institutions that have a stake in keeping the material permanently available, and because they feel that an over-reliance on APCs reduces publishing opportunities for researchers who are short of funds, whether this shortage is due to their home country, institution or discipline. Kevin Ellul, the director of library services at the University of Malta, gave an overview of the development of an OA policy for his institution that is due to be used as a template policy for the whole country. The university’s comprehensive OA policy was drafted after a wide consultation including the PASTEUR4OA project team and requires researchers to deposit a copy of each peer-reviewed paper in the institutional repository as soon as possible after publication. Researchers are also recommended, although not required, to make their datasets freely available. Beate Eellend from the Royal Library of Sweden gave the final talk of the session. She manages the OpenAccess.se programme, which promotes and supports both green and gold OA to all works produced by Swedish researchers, teachers and students. It also acts as a national contact point or partner in numerous Europe-wide and international initiatives. A recent set of guidelines gave milestones for developments from 2015-2020, suggesting that books by Swedish researchers should be included with papers in the materials to be made available free of charge by 2020. Further ‘strategic objectives’ for 2025 suggest that all publicly-funded ‘scientific publications and artistic works’ should be licensed through Creative Commons by that date. These are far-reaching and ambitious proposals, and Eellend recognised that many practical issues will need to be solved before they can be implemented.

14 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Figure 5 – Delegates from Session 1 discuss OA with the audience.

Session 2 – The Funders’ Perspective

The second session, chaired by LIBER’s Pablo de Castro, featured short talks from representatives of funding agencies from four countries and the European Commission, starting with Rūta Petrauskaitė from the Research Council of Lithuania. Her slide of a glass of bubbles was used to introduce a guided tour of an ‘alphabet soup’ of bodies, projects and infrastructures involved with monitoring or supporting OA in Lithuania. Lithuanian OA policy is already aligned with the requirements of Horizon 2020 and its current formulation, which covers the period from 2016-2020, includes some requirements for data as well as publications. Jean-François Dechamp from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, which administered the Framework programmes (and thus PASTEUR4OA) and now looks after Horizon 2020, gave the view from the Commission. He noted that Horizon 2020 project participants are expected to publish their results on OA, with a requirement to make research data freely available from 2017. There are still open questions over, for example, the allowed lengths of embargoes between first publication and paper deposit for green OA, and how far the Commission should be prepared to fund author contributions to gold OA journals. Dechamp also pointed out the importance of good communication, in order to maintain support for OA (eg. reassurance that some data, such as confidential data, may stay ‘closed’).

15 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Neil Jacobs from Jisc, a provider of digital services for the UK’s academic sector, spoke next. He explained how research councils in the UK and the Wellcome Trust, a large charity funder, all now specify that the research they fund must be published OA and give block grants to institutions to help pay for APCs. In addition, the UK’s higher education funding council, HEFCE, provides block grants to university departments for research. These are allocated every few years following quality assessment through a Research Excellence Framework exercise (REF). Any paper published after 1 April 2016 may only be included in future REFs if it has been made openly available. From Portugal, João Nuno Ferreira of the research council Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) described how they are implementing an OA policy. He stressed the importance of making it simple to use. FCT has therefore created a software tool that automatically validates a paper deposited in a repository, associates it with a particular project and generates the required scientific and financial reports. Patrick Danowski, the library manager at IST Austria, rounded off the session by describing how Austria was transitioning to open science. The Austrian Science Fund, FWF, already requires papers from the research it funds to be published with a CC-BY Creative Commons licence. Open Access Network Austria is a voluntary association that takes this forward, moving beyond OA for published work to open science: that is, to a transformation of the research infrastructure at all levels. The Network recognises that ‘openness is the normative pledge of science and scholarship’ and is working towards a ‘100% open’ landscape by 2025. More detailed interim goals include reorganising contracts with publishers and collaborating with like-minded partners internationally.

16 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Figure 6 – Patrick Danowski, library manager at IST Austria, describes how Austria is

transitioning to open science.

Session 3 – Monitoring Open Access Four different talks at the end of the first day of the conference focused on systems for monitoring how – and, in fact, if – OA policies around Europe are used. Moderated by Jisc’s Neil Jacobs, the session kicked off with a talk from Mikael K. Elbæk from the Technical University of Denmark. He described how a software tool, the Danish Open Access Indicator, is now being used to monitor Danish researchers’ progress towards the goal of 80% of papers published in 2016 and 100% of those published in 2021 being made freely available within a year. Back in the Netherlands, Kim Huijpen of the Dutch universities’ association VSNU, described how OA policy and practice are monitored in that country, especially the Dutch target of making all publications available openly by 2024. A 2014 study by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science helped to establish a baseline from which progress could be monitored. Four categories of OA were created (re-defining the standard ‘gold’, ‘hybrid’ and ‘green’ definitions) and all Dutch universities are now working on a measurement for 2015 that will be presented to the Ministry in September. Frank Manista then described the Jisc Monitor services used to monitor compliance in that country. Jisc Monitor comprises two separate but linked services, Monitor Local for institutions and Monitor UK for aggregating data country-wide. Monitor Local is used after papers are accepted and allows institutions to record and report on their academics’ use of both the ‘gold’ and the ‘green’ OA routes for their research publications, facilitated through automatic connections with other software tools. It is currently available only as an alpha release. Monitor UK will aggregate information about ‘gold’ OA, showing how much publishers are charging and institutions paying in APCs to publish through this route. The final talk of the session came from Stephen Curry: a researcher, professor of structural biology at Imperial College London, an advocate for OA, and an enthusiastic blogger. He noted how the OA ethos and academic ethos fit together well. Despite this, there are tensions. For example, in general academics hate organisation but compliance with OA rules requires it. Researchers also worry about the high cost of APCs to authors, particularly from journals with high impact factors. Many have begun to query the over-reliance of journal impact factors in assessing the quality of published work, particularly as the majority of papers in even the highest-impact journals are not particularly well cited. Alternative metrics for assessing research quality should be considered alongside more traditional ones, Curry said.

17 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Day 1 of the conference then finished with a round-up from EKT’s Marina Angelaki and a reception, which gave delegates a chance to network and to discuss the themes of the day with each other.

Figure 7 – Delegates networking at the end of Day 1.

Keynote – Jean-Pierre Finance

The second day of the conference began with a keynote address from Jean Pierre Finance, President of the conference of French rectors. He also works with the European University Association (EUA) as chair of its expert group on ‘Science 2.0 / Open Science’ and spoke to the meeting largely in that capacity. With over 800 member institutions in 46 countries, the EUA plays an important consultative role in political developments relevant to the university sector. It has already contributed to a number of actions to support both OA and the broader open science movement, including the Commission’s planned Open Science Cloud, which should provide a virtual environment for Europe’s researchers to store and share data.

18 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Figure 8 – Jean Pierre Finance of the President of the conference of French rectors and

the European University Association (EUA) kicks off Day 2 with his keynote talk.

One of the EUA’s key focus areas is the creation of a scientific infrastructure that is more open, ‘fair, transparent and sustainable’. It can play an active role in many ways: political at national and European levels, financial, and through support for institutions. Its involvement in the OA movement goes back to 2008 and the publication of recommendations from its first working group. Later task forces produced reports, yearly surveys of university OA policies and, in 2015, a practical guide to implementing such policies. Its new expert group comprises 20 members from a variety of disciplines and has just published its first significant output: a roadmap on OA to research publications. This aims to encourage and support dialogue between all groups with a stake in making research findings more widely available and sets out a range of policies, research assessment systems, standards and business models as steps towards this goal. Finance highlighted the ambitious nature of the aims listed in the roadmap and set out a number of more detailed ‘priority actions’ for initial work under three headings: information gathering and sharing, dialogue with researchers at all stages of their careers and with other stakeholders, and recommendations for good practice within institutions. Next steps for the group include establishing dialogue with an association of scientific publishers and holding a workshop on peer review – and highlighting the importance of the open approach for building connections between scientists and society at large.

19 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Session 4 – What’s Next for Open Access (Part 1)

The two thematic sessions of Day 2 of the conference focused exclusively on the future of Open Access, with the first part zeroing in on developments in infrastructure to support OA. Bill Hubbard, deputy head of scholarly communication support at Jisc in the UK, stressed the link between supporting infrastructure and supporting policies, and the need for sustainability. This should not place a burden on authors of scholarly publications, Hubbard said. It should therefore be simple to use but complex enough to satisfy the requirements of all stakeholders – librarians, publishers and funding agencies as well as researchers – and financially as well as technically sustainable for the foreseeable future. It would also need to be scalable, to cope with many countries’ and funders’ requirements for 100% of published papers to be available on OA within a few years. Rob Johnson, the founder and director of Research Consulting in the UK, explored This need further and stated that if for OA to be fully implemented it required correct policies, a sustainable infrastructure and the ‘hearts and minds’ of the broader research community. Johnson said OA services were currently fragmented and discussed a proposal for setting up a new body to promote and facilitate these services, to maintain a register and to assess further requirements, and to suggest ways of filling gaps. Many questions remain about the scope of such a body, how it would interact with existing ones, and – most importantly – where the funding would come from. Nonetheless, plans for a pilot project are underway.

Figure 9 – Speakers from the first part of Session 4 in discussion with the audience.

20 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Natalia Manola from the University of Athens and the Horizon 2020 text mining project OpenAIRE moved the discussion on from OA to open science. She pointed out that repositories will need to go beyond merely preserving research papers and provide facilities for text and data mining. Repository infrastructure, she said, needed to be flexible, extendible and, wherever possible, driven by the research community and open to every researcher and SME. The final presentation of the session was given by Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen, president of LIBER, the association of European research libraries. Enabling OA is a key strategic goal for LIBER and its network of 400 libraries. It aims to increase OA ‘content and coverage’ through supporting the publication process at all levels and exploring new channels for OA publication. Hormia-Poutanen pointed out that new services will be needed if OA to scholarly publications is to be increased and maintained, and LIBER is involved in several projects to plan and investigate these.

Session 4 – What’s Next for Open Access (Part 2)

The focus switched from infrastructure to policy for the final session of the conference, with the first talk coming from Ben Johnson, research policy advisor at the UK’s funding agency for higher education, HEFCE. He explained the context of university research funding in the UK as having two distinct parts: ‘block grants’ for university departments and individual ones for discrete research projects. HEFCE is responsible for the block grants, which are awarded based on the score that each department achieves in the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Johnson said a new policy to only count research papers that are freely available for download when assessing research excellence had proven to be a ‘relatively simple’ policy but nonetheless a ‘game changer’ in terms of OA adoption. He then explained how the widely-supported policy had been developed with the involvement of stakeholders across the research community: academics, publishers and librarians. Johnson finished by noting that academic research in the UK (as everywhere) will need to become still more open to the world outside if it is to play its part in responding to challenges such as climate change and food security: open science, as well as OA. Bernard Rentier, vice-president of the Federal Council of Science Policy in Belgium and a former rector of the University of Liège, then spoke about his significant success with OA at Liège. In 2007 the University of Liège mandated that the full text of all papers from its researchers that were published after 2002 should be deposited in its repository, with compliance linked to the research assessment. A large majority of academics are satisfied or very satisfied with the policy. Rentier suggested that OA does have drawbacks, particularly the cost of authors’ contributions in gold OA. The final presentation of the meeting was given by Stephan Kuster of Science Europe, an association of large public research organisations and funders from all 28 EU countries. Kuster explained how 70 percent of Science Europe’s member institutions already have an OA policy, most of which have been revised at least once.

21 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

In recent years, Science Europe has set out a number of common principles for the transition to OA, including policies to standardise and increase the efficiency of this transition, and a recommendation to publish using the Creative Commons licence CC-BY. Kuster challenged the audience to support the entire worldwide knowledge infrastructure as a public good. Question-and-answer sessions and panel discussions followed each section of the programme, giving the audience regular opportunities to share thoughts and ask questions. Another very popular interactive element came from Elco van Staveren, a live illustrator who drew separate sketches for each session, and refined these drawings following feedback from the audience and speakers (Figure 4).

Figure 10 - One of the six sketches of conference discussions, created by Elco van Staveren.

The full discussions of the conference were captured by the conference reporter Clare Sansom. Her main report was published on the PASTEUR4OA website7, and was combined along with reports of the individual sessions in a PDF for download8.

7 http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/news/219#.V1aVvPmLSCg 8 http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/sites/pasteur4oa/files/generic/conference%20report.pdf

22 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Promotion & Media Coverage

During and shortly after the conference, members of the organising committee cooperated to promote the event to the widest possible audience.

Social Media The bulk of our social media effort was focused on Twitter. Using this channel, organisers shared tweets, numerous photos, seven short video interviews9, the sketches produced by the graphic illustrator, and 18 visual quotes10 (Figure 5).

Figure 11 - Two of the visual quotes produced and disseminated during the conference.

9https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732909823126347776, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732910330888740865, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732910939025092608, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732911311798075392, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732521615901229056, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732534938986262529, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732568240233316352 10https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732879807487344640, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732878191287783424, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732875465321545728, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732855315159453699, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732853193324003328, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732850332460535809, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732846000872755201, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732844515837546497, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732837233137463296, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732835560583204865, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732547825129558018, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732545655055355904, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732516328926384128, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732512365095194625, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732500977643720704, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732483201168367616, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732475754215133186, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732474803613917184

23 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Delegates also tweeted actively, and key accounts like the Dutch Presidency @eu2016nl account (15,000 followers) and @openscience (45,600 followers) relayed news of the conference to their audiences. These combined efforts led to some 3,000 mentions of the #greenlight4oa hashtag11. The top three tweets were all relaying sketches by illustrator Elco van Staveren, with 48, 32 and 25 retweets respectively12.

Articles

In order to make the most of the momentum generated by the conference, the organising team worked to immediately write a short conference overview. This was published on the websites of the Dutch Presidency13, LIBER14 and OpenAIRE15. On the PASTEUR4OA website a short overview was published16, followed by a more complete conference summary17.

Video The short film of the conference was released two days after the conference finished, and was published both on YouTube18 and Vimeo19.

Newsletter

A special edition of the PASTEUR4OA newsletter was released in early June to

disseminate information about the conference and the resultant available

resources20.

11 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1umpbSf2zuXstneiKqDc3lGlIFBIhwGe4Fg9nspTqZaU/edit?usp=sharing 12https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732498056797507588, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732521168435974144, https://twitter.com/PASTEUR4OA/status/732865837388988416 13 http://english.eu2016.nl/latest/news/2016/05/19/aligning-europe%E2%80%99s-open-access-policies 14 http://libereurope.eu/blog/2016/05/19/green-light-open-access-aligning-europes-oa-policies/ 15 https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=913 16 http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/news/218#.V1a_7_mLSCg 17 http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/news/219#.V1a_8PmLSCg 18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42dqrpBfELE 19 https://vimeo.com/168310179 20 http://us9.campaign-archive2.com/?u=5fbf4a76563e0df5ac5e3eef0&id=8a3e3d1763

24 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Survey Results

Fourty-eight people responded to a survey, circulated after the conference ended. The highlights are below, with full results presented in Annex II.

Highlights The overall impression was very positive.

98% rated the overall content as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’

92% said it met their expectations

93% said it was useful and/or relevant to their work or organisation

96% said the organisation and logistics of the conference were ‘good’ or ‘excellent’

Individual speakers and sessions were also broadly praised.

The keynote talks of Ron Dekker and Gerard Meijer were rated as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ by 85% and 93% of respondents

The four main sessions received individual approval ratings ranging from 80-93%

“Great speakers and an excellent coverage of the topic from different perspectives. It was perfect to get updated on open access state-of-art.”

“Always so nice to hear real researchers/scientists give their opinion - in relation to working with and living up to open access and the policy / mandate Stephen Curry were great, as well as Bernard Rentier - my two favorites.”

Further Comments Although not officially rated, the live sketches of the conference were commented on by many respondents:

“The graphic summary at the end of each session was great!”

“Very good idea to ask Elco to make the drawings!”

Those who responded also had suggestions in order to improve future events. Many

comments related to the venue. The Meervaart Theatre, which was selected largely

because of budget considerations, was rated as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ by 73% of

respondents. Some delegates would have preferred a more central location and a

conference-style venue rather than a theatre. Some also commented on the

programme structure, suggesting that more interaction for the audience and

diversity in the style of session would have been appreciated.

25 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Annex I: Sign-In Sheets

Day 1

26 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

27 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

28 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

29 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

30 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

31 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Day 2

32 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

33 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

34 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

35 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

36 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

37 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

Annex II: Survey Results A survey was circulated to all delegates, shortly after the conference ended. Forty-eight people responded and the results were as follows:

Overall Aspects of the Conference

Aspect % ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’

Overall content 98%

Structure and pacing 92%

Venue 73%

Catering 81%

Organisation and logistics 96%

Twelve people made additional comments. These mainly focused on the venue. The Meervaart Theatre was selected by organisers because it was within the budget available. Some delegates said they would have preferred a more central location and a conference-style venue rather than a theatre. Some also commented on the programme structure:

“I would have opted for some more diversity in the way sessions were addressed - structure was very similar.” “The programme was very comprehensive and I really enjoyed the flow between the sessions. AND THE DRAWINGS were amazing.” “Even though there were only plenary sessions, there was enough possibility for interaction, so that was good.” “I think there was a need to have some space for discussion, especially to talk about the future.”

Session Ratings

Talk % ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’

Keynote: Ron Dekker 85%

Keynote: Gerard Meijer 93%

PASTEUR4OA Outcomes & Achievements 72%

Session 1: Current Activity in Developing OA Policies 89%

Session 2: The Funders’ View 93%

Session 3: Monitoring OA 91%

Keynote: Jean-Pierre Finance 52%

Session 4: What Next for OA Policy? (Part 1) 80%

Session 4: What Next for OA Policy? (Part 2) 87%

38 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

General Impressions

In this section, delegates were asked to indicate to what degree they agreed with the following statements:

Statements % ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’

The conference met my expectations 92%

There was a good balance of presentations and discussion

77%

I found the conference useful and/or relevant to my work or organisation.

93%

I have learned something new and gained insights on the topic of open access.

81%

I have made valuable new relations or was able to strengthen existing relations.

83%

There were three comments on this section:

“This being the final conference of the project I was expecting more focus on key results.”

“Nothing really new, but a very useful update.”

“I would be happy to hear more critical remarks on the new type of APC-focused Big Deals and have more room for discussions, not only 10 min after each session. Furthermore, there was barely attention given to alternative, promising solutions such as the Open Library of Humanities or eLife journal. In this way, the conference rather reflected only the "mainstream" topics and focused on prevailing power relations. The KNAW publication on interviews with researchers would have been a good starting point for a more reflexive discussion and a sort of ‘reality check’.”

Favourite Part of the Conference

Delegates were asked to share their favourite part of the conference. Of the 33 comments, appreciation was expressed for the overview of OA which was given during the conference. There were also many comments on the speakers and structure of the conference: Speakers:

“Talk by Gerard Meijer with direct insights form negotiations with publishers. And, participation by more than just the 'usual suspects', from organisations and from a few countries that do not participate often at this kind of conference on OA issues.”

“Great speakers and an excellent coverage of the topic from different perspectives. It was perfect to get updated on open access state-of-art.”

39 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

“Choice of speakers - researchers and management, not only library people”

“Always so nice to hear real researchers/scientists give their opinion - in relation to working with and living up to open access and the policy / mandate Stephen Curry were great, as well as Bernard Rentier - my two favorites.”

Structure:

“The format! Short presentations and Q&A with all speakers involved contributed to a lively discussion!”

“The structure was very good; the pace was good and most speakers had an interesting story.”

“The Q&A parts of the presentations and Elco's sketches.”

“Its pace plus the variety of participating speakers and topics addressed.”

Learning Points Delegates were asked to share what they learned during the conference, or to express how their future work would change because they had attended the conference. Of the 29 comments, collaboration emerged as a theme:

“More collaboration is needed, some initiatives need to be bundled.” “Too many organisations are trying to reach the same goal - we need more collaboration.” “As one of the speakers said, it's mostly about collaboration so the goal is to unify various efforts and not reinvent the wheel all the time...”

Other comments included the following:

“I gained more insight in cultural differences on OA and the importance of monitoring OA.” “I was mainly impressed by the quality of the Open Access work being done at different levels in many countries. This may be useful for networking purposes in the future.” “Information about OA deals and OA statistics was very useful for me.” “Useful tips on how to make OA policies work” “I have learned about some details influencing the success of an OA policy. Also J.-P. Dechamp's information on ORD mandate since 2017 was a valuable and timely for informing the researchers in the country.”

40 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

“I have learned more about the role of Open Access services in supporting the implementation of Open Access policies.”

Improvements Delegates were asked how similar events could be improved upon in future. Of the 24 comments, the following themes emerged:

More Interaction

“More active participation from the conference attendances.”

“One suggestion: to have someone in charge of the questions arriving from outside the room via twitter. They were quite a few of these and no-one conveyed them to the speakers.”

“Adding a slot for more interaction with attendees.”

“Break-outs with smaller groups actively engaging with each other.”

“More variation in formats, involving the audience, explicitly ask for vivid graphical interactive presentations.”

Global Perspective

It would be interesting to include one experience from outside Europe, in order to get a sense of how European actions benchmark globally.”

Organisation

“Conference dinner - with self payment, if that should be the case.”

“Write a short summary for relative outsiders (like myself) that gives an outline of where things stand at present.”

Other Comments The final question in the survey gave delegates an opportunity to leave any other comments which they felt were relevant. The 17 responses were broadly positive, including the following comments:

“Great work by the team in charge of the organization!”

“The graphic summary at the end of each session was great!”

“All in all - a great conference, nice suggested hotel and a great bunch of speakers, all well prepared. And really nice to see the activity on twitter - perfectly run, summed up and facilitated - especially with Elco´s drawings.”

41 | P a g e P A S T E U R 4 O A C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t

“Tickets were limited and I do not belong to one of the partner institutions. I very much appreciated to be able to attend this conference.”

“Very good idea to ask Elco to make the drawings!”

“I think that there should be more attention for open data, but of course this wasn't the main topic of the conference.”

“Pasteur staff has done great job! My best congratulations for them.”