before giving the floor I would like to tell you that
this workshop will be recorded, so if anyone has a problem
please know from the beginning that this entire workshop
is being recordedjust to thank you all for attending
right now there are one hundred and seven attendees the number of registered
reached two hundred and something today, therefore
the truth is that it is a success for us that you participate in this workshop
in this first workshop we are going to do within the context of the HRS4R logo
which, as you know, is a strategy
of the university and to which we are very committed
in order to make the recruitment and staff development policies
within our Faculty as open and transparent as possible
this first research-oriented workshop is called good practices in
research ethics and open science committee before starting with
the presentations, which I would like to thank the three speakers who are going to
participate for their cooperation in this. we are going to give a brief
instruction, a reminder of what the logo is, what it is for
and what is the framework in which this workshop
is taking place and the subsequent ones that we are going to develop. and with this I give the floor
to Belén Levenfeld Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Teaching Staff and
Carmen Martín Romo the Director of Human Resources
I start now thanks for putting is slide, good morning
to all of you who are here and thanks for attending
first and foremost, to recall the context
in which the human resources strategy is focused
the strategy and its human resources for researchers
is designed under the umbrella of the
2020 horizon framework programme, in particular in article
thirty-two where it refers to working conditions and
recruitment conditions of researchers
In addition to this framework, We have the Euraxess initiative
which is an initiative of forty member countries
adhered to this network, which also promotes
a career path and
services for research personnel. with these
two initiatives it establishes what is the human resources
strategy for researchers
i would like to remind you what this human
resources strategy for researchers really is.
well, it is nothing more than a process of self-assessment and evaluation
culminating in recognition by the european union.
and that recognition is precisely what we call the Human
Resources Excellence in Research Award is a recognition of
good practice that an institution can follow
in terms of its human resources policies
I'm missing the Charter & Code for Researchers image.
It is not an award of excellence, I think
it's important to say that. In 2005
the European Commission approved what we have here, which is
the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct
for the Recruitment of Researchers. these two documents
are governed by forty principles and these principles
can be structured in four fundamental areas which are
the ones we see on the screen: ethical and professional aspects
and today our speakers are going to talk about this first
block or this first area, about these ethical and professional aspects
that we have within our organisation. there is a second block
which is recruitment followed by working conditions and social
security as well as training and professional development
all of this within the framework of the research community. I repeat, this is
the human resources strategy for researchers outlined by
the European framework, but we do not only have this strategy
because that is what marks and what defames Europe we as
an institution, as UC3M, as the Carlos III University of
Madrid, we as an
institution also have our own strategywe have
a human resources strategy for our faculty
and of course for our administrative and
services staff as well but today our context is that of
our facultyAnd what is the human resources
strategy for our faculty? Well, it is
nothing more than the plan established or the global approach adopted
by an organisation, in this case UC3M, to ensure that the
contribution of its staff, in this case our faculty,
is as efficient as possible.
This strategy is obviously made up
of the sum of human resources policies
towards our faculty.so why this graph? because we really want to represent
our human resources strategy for our faculty
on what it is based on and obviously it is based on our mission
and values of UC3M which, logically, are clearly
established in our current strategic plan which
began to be implemented in 2016 and is due to end
in 2022. six years of this current plan
This clearly establishes the mission and
values of our institution, and obviously the achievement
of this mission, these values and all the objectives
established there in are evolved or developed by
the people in the organisation. hence the cross-cutting pillar that we have
established at the bottom of the report.very well, after that, how do we
implement our human resources strategy for our faculty?
well, on the basis of some strategic axes which are the ones
you see in yellow, the first of them, as you will see, is the one that is closely related to
today's presentations. and this first strategic axis
is related to commitment and best practices as well as ethical principles
and obviously we have other axes that are transcendental
and that is open and transparent procurement based on merit and capacity,
i.e. everything related to procurement
we move on to the next axis of working conditions and professional career
of our PDI and another is training and development, and all of this
is also supported by a pillar that we believe to be essential
which is that of communication and the participation of all
our faculty in establishing these human resources policies
that are directed towards this group. very well, if you can see perfectly
well that, our human resources strategy
of our university has a certain parallelism with what the human resources
strategy established by Europe through
its Charter & Code with its four pillars has logically a certain
connection Very well, we move on to the next slide
We could ask ourselves, of course, we have two strategies
the one that Europe tells us and the human resources strategy for
our faculty, and what does Europe intend with this
human resources strategy project for researchers?
Well, look, Carlos III institution, look at your human resources
policies and compare them with the Charter & Code principles
with an objectivethe objective is that you have aligned in
your institution your policies, your human resources strategy for
your institution with the principles of the Charter & Code
and if you remember what I said before, what is the human resources strategy
for researchers? it is a process of self-assessment and evaluation
and this process is shown in the graph on the left hand side
in the slidefirst Carlos III institution you have to
do a GAP analysis, you have to reflect on
how your policies compare with what? with the Charter & Code
I am Europe who tells you in which direction you have to look
And from that comparison and from that analysis you have to establish
an action plan, which is the one you have
to send to me, to Europe, and where you are going to commit yourself.
you are going to execute these actions and you are going to increase them to go in line with the
charter & Code. this graph, then Belén will tell us
where we are at the moment and what we still have to do.
What is true is that we
already in May, in May 2016,
we presented our action plan to Europe and months later it granted us
that recognition we were talking about before, not for excellence
but for good human resources practices for researchers
that we not only use it for researchers who are dedicated only
to research, but for all our faculty.
very well, if you would be so kind Belén, let's go a little bit further
how we established that action plan
because it is not simple.the first thing we did
at the time in 2016 was to set up a standing committee
that stearing committee, which was made up of at least
five vice rectorates with their corresponding services
was precisely in charge of seeing and making that first
analysis of how far we were from what
the Charter & Code was marking. how far we were from our human
resources practices and policies.we did that preliminary analysis
and what we did was to say, well, this is what you think steering
committee, but we are going to take it and we are going to involve our
university community through our faculty.and there we used
a methodology that we have to say that Europe recognized it very
positively, since it valued this involvement of our
faculty and through the working groups and the survey that
was carried out.These working groups in which at least
sixty-five of our research professors participated
where they were asked their opinion through working sessions on
different aspects of our policies.and how did
we asked them, well, in two ways
with two easy questions and in a room in different
sessions that we conducted.and we asked the following questions
what is UC3M doing correctly and therefore
what should be maintained. in the first panel we saw the clusters that .
were formed about those ideas that they considered were being
done well, those policies that we had and that should be
maintained.But of course, what was important and what really gave us the basis and
the fundation for developing our action plan was the
second question we asked our faculty, which was
What should our university be doing and what is it not doing? This is the second
yellow post-it panel and there we found a lot of
things that were missing and logically all this on
the basis of Charter & Code on which they were given some information
about what was the project and what was the basis of the European
human resources strategy.So, with all this information
we started to design the action plan.
The actions that we are going to commit ourselves with Europe to carry out
during the next five years, with a previous review
in between.and not only did we ask these sixty people of
our faculty from our organization, but also
what we did, what came out of here
we took it to a survey.we took it to a survey
in which about 24.8%
if I remember correctly of our entire faculty participated.and the purpose of
that survey was to contrast and evolve the results
that had come out of the focus group. and so it was with all that
information from the focus group and with all that contrasted
information from the surveys that our action plan was designed
which is the one we are evolving in these five years that
we have to have finished by December 2021.
I will now give way to Belén who will continue finishing the following
slides, thank you very much.Thank you Carmen, good morning everybody, well, in this slide
what we want to convey to you is what our current situation is
and what the future looks like from now on.as Carmen has told you
the action plan was presented in 2016 we got
the logo and then, if you see the figure on the left at
the bottom there was an evaluation, a self-evaluation that
was made in 2018.the result of that
self-evaluation, which was documentary, was satisfactory and what
we have left, which is what is here in orange on the left, is the final external evaluation
that is done after five years of having obtained the logo
and that is going to be done in 2021.The next step is
to ask us for evidence of all the actions that we have been developing
to fulfill the action plan that we presented
in 2021.but the cycle does not close here, this is drawn as
a cycle but it does not close here, it starts all over
again and what we need from this evaluation, even
from now on, is to continue providing feedback on this action plan
to follow this action plan with new actions that we want
to carry out and for that we have to count as we have counted before
with all our faculty, with all our faculty in all its stages
so that they can send us proposals and we can
somehow translate those proposals into this action plan and what we think
our idea is to continue with the same methodology
we used because these focus groups were quite successful in order
to implement this action plan.the evaluation after this cycle,
the periodic evaluations will be for three years in order to be
able to continue with this accreditation of the logo here in this slide you can see a table
where you can see all the actions that were included in the action plan
was developed in 2016.they are in different colors depending on
the axis. Remember that Carmen said that there were four: ethical aspects, recruitment
working conditions and training. Of the seventeen actions
you can see that eleven are complete, there they have their green circle
in the table, there are three that are in progress are in orange
and there are three others that have not yet started or have some
delay. And what we have seen is that many of them are going to require communication
actions, that is why we have organized these sections where our
objective is to disseminate this action plan
and everything that has been done in these years
today we are going to focus on the ethical aspects as mentioned before, there are
seven actions proposed for this area. as you can see
they are all in green because they have already been fulfilled and there is one
in orange because it is a very ambitious action that is going to take a lot of
work and therefore will require a lot of time to be carried out
it is the issue of the open access policy that
we are going to talk about in a few minutes.and we are also going to talk
today about the code of good practices which was one of the proposals to
develop this code and also about the ethics committee which we need to know
it exists, what its regulations are and what is the protocol for requesting
reports that in some research projects we are asked to provide
and there are other services which are the ones below
and especially in the case of gender we will talk
about them in relation to the equality plan in a future seminar. to finish, just to tell you
that we are going to focus this dissemination of these activities on six
seminars, today is the first one, six seminars that are going to be internal in
the Carlos III University of Madrid, which you can see on the left in the slide
today is the first one, the second one will be on gender, the third one
will be on recruitment policy. we are also going to organize
two regional seminars to explain good practices
in other institutions at the level of the Comunidad de Madrid
at the national level and also an international seminar to see the
Euraxess perspective and some practices at the European level
to comply with this Charter & Code. and that's all
the presentation thank you very much to all of you and you can ask questions.
any questions related to the subject we will be happy to
answer perfect Belén Carmen Ignacio has not given you time to say anything
at the beginning if someone ask any questions
if you want to leave it for the end there is no problem either
as you have already heard, there are going to be
three interventions focused precisely on one of the
aspects they have talked about regarding the action plan
as you know because it has already been announced
the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Science Policy Sara Martín Salamanca will be
the first to speak on the first topic
we have mentioned, followed by
Ángel Sánchez, who is a member of the Ethics Committee
and Eva María Méndez, Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Science Policy
will close the interventions.We had agreed that the invention would be of
fifteen minutes and that right at the end of each intervention there would be five minutes for
questions, but in any case we are very well on time
so if someone does not have time to join later
and wants to leave it for the end, I think we are going to have enough time
to attend to everyone.so if you wish we will give way
to Sara Martín Salamanca. Hello, good morning
I think you can see me and hear me, right? yes. I am going to try to share with you
a presentation that I have prepared for this very purpose
Before I begin, and in seeing that you are all looking at the
presentation and the title, which has already been anticipated by those who have
already spoken before me, I would like to
thank all of you who have made this initiative possible
for the visibility of the subject, in which
for different reasons I am doubly involved
on the one hand as a researcher, and on the other hand because
I belong to the team of the vice-rectorate for scientific policy
and I have actively participated in the last review we have given
to the code of good practices, now we will talk about it
more specifically, and also because I was also a member of the ethics
committee, although this is not going to be the subject of my presentation
and I do not intend to reveal the secret of what
professor Sanchez is going to tell us later. having said that, I have been asked to
present today the code of good research
and transfer practices that Universidad Carlos III has
in the framework, which has already been anticipated and I am very grateful
for the way it has been well explained
the framework of all the precedents and the regulatory
and circumstantial environment. I am not going to dwell too much on
this because it has already been mentioned and if anyone wants more details
they can be provided later, right? but on the one hand, and within
the precedents of its own regulations, which is the code of good practices
that Universidad Carlos III has as an instrument of
self-regulation, the reason why we have arrived at all this
surely has to do with the conviction, on the other hand
quite rightly, that a Spain, sorry, a strong Europe
is a Europe with a united and robust European science
So, from 2005 onwards,
with the approval of a recommendation by the
European Commission that gives rise to the European Charter for Researchers
and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers
This whole bombastic name is going to be used to
develop a series of more concrete initiatives. this recommendation of
the european commission in 2005, what it really proposed
what on one hand were going to be the roles, responsibilities
and rights of researchers and of those
who hire them. this was above all the full content
of the charter for researchers.
and then the code of conduct for recruitment talked about
the criteria for recruitment and the assurance processes
but perhaps the most interesting thing, as has also been said,
is that the human resources strategy for researchers established
by Euraxess is going to provide the support for its implementation
and then Euraxess will also ensure the awarding of the logo
that we will talk about.on the other hand, and together with the 2005
Commission document, but perhaps more closely linked because it is a little more specific
the European code of conduct for integrity in research is
published, disseminated and subscribed to by many entities involved
in research activity, right? more or less.
the initiative is actually promoted by the european federation of academies
of science and humanities and the european science foundation, so it does not have
a strictly institutional support.
but they have managed to generate a dynamic text.
The first version of this text appeared for the first time in
2011 and it also includes a commitment to review it every three or five years
and there is already a second version, which is the most modern of 2017
Why are we interested in all this? Well, surely in the establishment
of the principles, which are also very recognizable, in what is the current text
of the code of good practices for us, right?
On the one hand, the
2005 recommendation of the European Commission established
six pillars, six fundamental vertexes that will be flowing all the time
in our speech.On the one hand, freedom of research,
on the other hand, respect for ethical principles
in a generic or broad sense, i.e.
everything that affects research.ethical principles with regard to respect for data protection
ethical principles with regard to protection or respect for the
environment, exclusion groups, etc.
The researcher's responsibility, that is to say, own responsibility
assumed in the first person with regard to compliance with
the regulations, among them,
already highlighted and we also highlight in our regulations,
intellectual and industrial property, the contractual obligations
acquired because when an agreement is signed or there is a research project
granted by a certain funding entity
we are signing a contract, an agreement in some way
with them and the responsibility for compliance in the first place
falls on the other leg of the contracting party, which is the researcher
obligation of transparency and accountability, research
or good research has to be a clear research
a transparent research and in which the researcher is also aware
from the beginning to the end, that his activity has to be
audited. I am not talking about cases where, as is often the case
public funding is involved; there is not much to explain in this respect.
good science is a science that has a social commitment, science for
society, science in society, science for society, the researcher is part of
that society.and this commitment is already reflected
since 2005 in the interest of Europe and they speak
specifically of what would also be good practices.
These good practices refer especially in that 2005 document
to the attention to security, confidentiality and data protection.
The European code of conduct, perhaps a little more
concretely, I think, talks about a smaller number of principles
and talks about a science that has to
be very attentive to be realistic, to be credible. Again, it is this idea of
the fluidity of the channel of transition and continuous communication
that must exist between science and reality.good research is
surely research that starts from the present and goes
forward. that is fundamentally the motive and the reason why
research should be done.it is a type of research that is honest and transparent, and again
the emphasis will be on the development of the communication of results
especially the transparency phase.honesty will have
much more to do with the development of the activity
and transparency as I said, on the one hand
transfer of results at the end of the research activity
and on the other hand something connected with
what professor Eva Méndez will also talk about later, open science dissemination,
in short, all this modality.
regarding to our colleagues, i.e. the rest of science, to the regulations that
are more linked to general respect for the scientific environment,
i.e. intellectual property, industrial property, but also
the environment, the environment, cultural heritage and data protection.
and responsibility again underlining what the European Union had already said in 2005.
I believe that from there, or with this point,
we can move on to what we are dealing with,
which is none other than the code of good practices in
research and transfer of knowledge and know-how.
del que se ha dotado la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
you can consult in digital version on the University's research web page.
this text, which some of you may be familiar with and
for others perhaps this is the first time you have heard about it
was drafted in 2017, the code of good practices was approved on
December 14, 2017, to see the chronology and the follow-up
with everything that has been presented before
and with what I have just said.and the truth is that in addition to the code
of good practices as it is and as it was formulated
in 2017, the content of
an instruction from the Vice-Rectorate for Science Policy,
which is much closer in time, from the beginning of this same year, must be included.
both are published in the official electronic bulletin
of the university, as it should be, as all the regulations
and therefore I have not thought it necessary to provide it as added documentation
but here are the data for its location in case the location on the
website of the university was not enough.What is this code?
Well, the truth is that it is a set of recommendations and commitments
on research practice and not only on
research activity, its direct development but also its transfer
The quality of the code is guaranteed by the development of an activity
in accordance with current legislation and also with the rules of good practice
that is, let us say that it is an instrument of
self-regulation that marks what is the lex artis of the researcher.
this threshold is probably what is achieved or
what is in line with the objectives.To whom is it addressed?
to all researchers, be it research of one type or another
and of course also to the university as an institution
guarantor as it is of the development of research, and having assumed this role
even in its statutes, it adheres to, commits to and
is involved in following a series of
principles, some more concrete, some a little more generic,
pending further concretion as we will see later on.
but therefore not only the individual researcher
but also the university as an institution.the content, i am going to talk about the content of the code of good practice in full
that is, as a result of integrating the text of 2017 with
the addition, if we want to call it so, of development of 2019
which in reality, is nothing more than the specification of some
aspects, a little in the view of the practice of the code of good practice
from 2017 to 2019.In the course
of these two years, it became clear that the code
of good practice had been quite useful to the university
community in setting the lex artis, which then has implications in
various scenarios, let's put it that way.
and some inadequacies had also been detected, right? aspects
that could be improved, at least then, in those gaps or in response to them,
the instruction that I have mentioned about the year 2019 was generated.
what it does, as I said,
is a kind of an addendum we could call it
well, let's say structuring the content in big blocks
the code of good practices on the one hand, exposes some general
principles, on the other hand, it focuses on instructions received for the planning
of the research activity.thirdly, and this occupies the bulk of the code
it deals with what should be the activity that integrates the development
of research in the proper sense. and finally it also attends,
as it cannot be otherwise, to the good practices in the final outcome of the
research in the university, in the institution. to its transfer
and protection, to the transfer of results
as its protection many times is the same phenomenon because it coincides in time and interest.
What are the guiding principles of the research? let's go in order
of those who spoke in the code of good practices
the list is quite similar or recognizable to what exists or what we have reviewed
in Europe, in the precedents we have talked about a little earlier.
I have summarized them a little and synthesized them in these three, on the one hand honesty
especially as regards the observance of loyalty in the
attributions, that is to say, loyalty to other subjects and loyalty to the truth.
if I work with others, it is honest
to say that others have worked with me and to establish which
are their contributions and which are mine, in general terms.on the other hand
rigor refers to a research that must be reflective, that must be independent and in this sense must be
as far away as possible or must be alien to conflicts of interest. i believe
that the code of good practices says that conflicts of interest must be avoided
as far as possible and if this is not possible, if this is not feasible,
we have not been able to avoid
incurring in a conflict of interest in any way,
detect it and inform
the entities that could be
affected or involved, the funding entities according to their
instructions or those of the project, and ultimately even the university itself, of the existence of the conflict of interest.and thirdly, responsible research,
a little bit in the sense that we have talked about before.we specify, we advance and we arrive at good practices
in the field, in the scenario, in the planning phase
of the research unit.even the planning should,
as far as possible, be in line with good practice.
what good practice in planning consists of.
well, in that the planning of the research or
the research better said, again as far as possible, must be reflexive, must respond to a program.
good research is not improvised research,
it implies having a timetable that will be respected, establishing a methodology
that will be respected and if we do not respect it, we must inform how, why and justify it,
and even talk about the dissemination of results that we
are thinking about.again, conditions regarding the
intellectual and industrial property rules that exist in the current legislation
and when we are thinking of incorporating third party services,
bear in mind that they are third party services, third party persons
or third party protectable results and acknowledge the authorship, leaving
a record of that third party.no less important is the assessment
of risks in research activity and, moreover,
from the very beginning of
the activity, from the start or even in the planning phase,
the code of good practice alludes to the need to
consider whether we are dealing with issues that require ethical treatment,
a report or support from the institution
because they involve the protection of personal data,
fundamental rights to privacy, honor, and one's own image.
because they involve the use of animals or living
organisms, or affect a specially protected environment
or specially protected collectives for some reason.
if this happens, it is necessary to think about it at the beginning, not at the end,
at the beginning of the research activity and in this sense
the university is also committed to the reaction and the existence
of an ethics and research committee and the reference
to the university's data protection officer, which
will certainly be the fundamental pillars in the way
ethical issues are dealt with.what happens during the course
of the research? what is expected of a researcher in
good practice. I said that this was probably the bulk of the
code of good practice and forgive me because I am going to
summarize it, but as I said, we can talk later
if there are any questions.
on the one hand, i have isolated, for what i consider
to be the importance of project execution and
the projected budget.in this area or in this axis, on the one hand, it is expected
from the researcher, license in the fulfillment of commitments
and conditions, and he will be responsible for
adopting this diligence,
this includes the deadline for eligible expenses
, the calculation of hours of dedication.
in principle, it is up to the researcher
to observe this and it will be very important. all of you who already
have experience in this field know it more than enough,
late expenses are not eligible expenses,
ineligible expenses cannot be charged to the project.I am talking about the project
as a usual research formula but it does not have to be the only one, it could
be a contract or another type of
funding agreement framework.in case the researcher has
doubts and this is contemplated because it is possible,
I even read what it says in the call for proposals and I am not very clear
if this expense is eligible or not and I want to know it,
the researcher has to follow up
this duty of diligence, the duty to look for support
and help from the institution and the institution is obliged to provide it.
in this sense, the services dedicated to research
and the vice-rectorate itself are the appropriate instance and of course,
once this unit or service has given us a possible
answer, the only thing is to comply with the indications,
the indications given or provided.if this is not
the case, again the sole responsibility for what may happen
will be of the researcher, not of the service or of the university.
in cases of co-financing there will be the need for a
commitment identifying the funds and
reserving them if this is necessary and there are also the internal rules
regarding the granting of credits.again, in this regard,
perhaps consultation with the service who will be happy to
assist you and if they can resolve your doubts will be
essential.when research credits are granted
which are the eligible expenses, which are not eligible?
facilities and equipment, the university on the one hand outlines
a commitment to provide facilities and equipment,
as far as possible, sufficient and also compatible with
environmental sustainability and
the researcher has for its part, the obligation to make a correct and
responsible use of them, only the one
that has to do with research.Sara, if you don't mind,
we should finish because I know that Angel, who is behind us, was in a bit of a hurry and we can try.
next slide and we will finish our commitment
to action measures on gender issues signature and authorship that would have to do
with compliance with the rules, current regulations on industrial
intellectual property, commitment to the correct indication
of affiliation. I am a researcher at the Carlos III University
in the standardized formcommitment to internationalization
basically affects the institution more than the researcher
and with respect to the researchers there is also the need to
respect an obligation of supervision of the research
personnel in information.Finally, and with regard to
ethics, during development, the
researcher has at his disposal the ethics committee and the
data protection officer, as I said before.
The protection of results and transfer, let us say that there are two axes,
one of which refers in the code of good practice to open publication
which will be discussed later by those who follow me.
and on the other hand, in the scenario of transfer of results
and knowledge, the university provides
researchers with a specific service, which is currently the support service
for entrepreneurship and innovation, as well as a regulatory
environment that is currently under review,
but which is constituted with the regulation on the protection of
research results and technology-based companies.
and the researcher, above all, must communicate in due time and form
and prior to the dissemination of results what he has generated
so that the university can manage their protection and transfer.
and I finish by thanking you very much for your attention.thank you very much Sara
I don't know if anyone has any questions
if there are none at the moment we will pass on to Ángel
so that he can talk to us about the ethics committee.There is a question from Juan
if you do not want to detain him any longer, if it is for me, I am going to be
later if we do not mind and so we do not detain Angel
any longer, as you wish. I can allow myself two minutes Then we give the floor to Juan? Fine by me.
Well, Juan, I don't know if we can give the floor to Juan, Arancha, since he does not have a
microphone permission, we would have to give her the microphone so he
can speak. María José, are you there to give it to him? yes, just a second,
he should be able to speak now. yes, thank you very much.
two very brief questions, the first one has to do with the fact that either I have been
absent-minded, or you have not talked about the good practices of the
researchers' salary, which seems to me to be crucial.
i don't know if someone will talk about it later, and another aspect
is that you talked about the equipment. does the university
have the obligation to maintain the equipment? because
at the moment it only maintains some of them and not others.these are my
questions. very well, let's see, regarding the salary of researchers,
actually, it is not included in the code of good
practices.I understand that because this affects the development of the
research in the sense of the activity, another thing is
that I believe that I, in order to maintain my activity as a researcher,
that is to say that they expect investigates not as you would expect that is, what is expected, how am I expected to do research
another thing is that I say that in order to dedicate myself to research,
it is also desirable that I have a salary, a decent salary
for example, to start with, or a stable working situation or how to generate a
professional research career.but let's say,
that is outside the scope of what I believe to be the object of the code
of good practices.as far as equipment is concerned,
the code of good practices, let's say
that the commitment of good intentions is that the university should offer
sufficient facilities and equipment.Of course, to the extent that
this is functionally possible.
and then within the equipment there are also different situations
as to who they belong to, who owns them, if they belong to the university, if they belong to a
project, if they belong to a research group.I don't think this is
even considered in the question, in short,
the equipment in a generic sense also has
very different impressions about who is obliged, who is the first to be called upon to maintain it, and then I repeat, the university's commitment is to, as far as possible, maintain facilities that are
that are suitable for the research that is carried out there.the problem is that a code of
good practice cannot guarantee a part of the budget,
it's a different story.Perfect, I don't know if there are any more questions or if we should give the floor
to Ángel Sánchez to talk to us about the ethics committee.
Well, if you want to start, Angel, and if there are any more questions, we'll leave them for the end
perfect, all right, thank you, good morning everyone, I have been asked to
talk about the ethics committee, my predecessor Sara could have done it,
she is the secretary of the committee, but well, as I have also had
some experiences as a user, perhaps my point of view is a bit complementary
I don't have the presentation in terms of slides
but I am going to share my screen to show you some things
that are also practical and that there are many people who ask me
and that I can better show you in this way.I think you're already looking at my screen.
perfect, the most important thing to start with is to understand
when you need to go to the ethics committee.that some cases
have already been mentioned before by Sara but if you go to the ethics
committee rules, which is one of the milestones of this process
as we have already been mentioned, you discover that there are many more situations
where the ethics committee has something to say and those are the
ones listed here.I'm going to make it even bigger so that you can see them clearly.
these are six: when the research involves human beings,
which is quite logical, human embryos, animals, when it involves
the collection and processing of personal data. this is almost
always the case that makes people have to go to the ethics committee,
when it affects fundamental rights, when it is developed in
developing countries that want the collaboration of
these countries. this is something that we often don't realise but,
sometimes collaborations are made with countries like this and they should
go through the ethics committee.obviously for defence applications in security
or military or any other ethical aspect of the research
that may be required by a call for proposals.In this sense, my experience
for example with European projects is that if you think that your project
does not involve anything ethical, don't worry, the European
Commission will soon find ethical issues that it has to deal with before
signing the operating agreement.So, my first piece of advice in this
sense is that if in doubt, go to the ethics committee because
the worst thing that can happen is that you are told that there is no
ethical implication, but if not, you already have something to back it up.
And in this sense I would also like to emphasise something that Sara also said,
that these things have to be started with time, when these regulations
were made I remember that the vice-rector was Javier Prieto and
there were several amendments and I proposed one which was that the
committee has to answer within a maximum period of one month, but
it has to be given that time so that it can study the
problems that may arise from what one wants to do.
so, second important observation, don't wait until you have
the paper written. this has happened to us, people who send you,
I have this paper and now it turns out that the journal is asking for the approval
of an ethics committee.Well, you're a bit late, maybe what you've done
is not right, it hasn't happened to us so far, but it
could happen. so, second practical observation, this has to start
soon.the third point i want to make is
the functions of the ethics committee. it is to issue the reports
that are requested, specifically to say whether or not it approves
the study that is to be carried out, the research that is
to be carried out, to draw up other types of reports and in principle, as always in these
legal matters, any other function that it is attributed with.
What is not the role of the ethics committee is to ensure that researchers
apply what they have said they are going to do.the ethics committee endorses, gives a stamp
of approval that something complies with ethical standards, but then does not monitor it, and this
and this, within good research practice, as
Sara has already mentioned, is the responsibility of the researcher. the ethics committee
cannot be on top of all the research it has
reviewed to give them a favourable report, the researcher has to do that
sometimes we receive requests that say: the ethics
committee will ensure compliance with
the rules. no, that's not how it works, that's the researcher's responsibility
I am going to move on to something more practical
and then I will mention some other points that I think are important, but
at this point, the first step is, well, I am going to do this
research, how do I apply to the ethics committee for approval?
well, if you don't know where this site is, all you have
to do is type in goole ethical aspects UC3M and it takes you directly
in the first hit to this site.and here you can go, I'm going to make it a little bit
bigger, you can go to the UC3M ethics committee.
then, once you are there you can go, you can see the regulations,
which is the one I just showed you, you can also see the
application procedure.But, this link needs to be authenticated by aula global
and the same goes for the ethics committee link, I've already authenticated myself
and then I can go to the ethics committee link.
again, as is often the case on our website, the people are infinitesimal
but here on this site of the ethics committee you have everything
everything you need to know in the first place, here is a
reminder of when you have to apply for an ethics approval,
here is the current composition of the ethics committee, more
than the people, which we are a little bit,
more than the people who will pass through the committee
as required, what is important is the structure. And the structure
is a committee that is the one that, in principle, evaluates the applications.
But there is also, because this is a problem that affects many
applications, a subcommittee for data protection with people
who are on the ethics committee, in this case Manuel Desco and Arturo Ribagorda,
with people from the IT service such as Rafael Calzada
and José Furones, who is the data protection delegate
of the university.So, everything that has to do with data goes
first through this data protection subcommittee, which
is the one that really informs the rest of the committee:
this is right, this is wrong, this should be done this way, this should be done
in a different way.In particular, if you suspect, and it happens more often
than you think, that you may need approval from the ethics
committee for a personal data issue, I advise the data protection delegate,
José Furones, who can sometimes even make our job easier
by telling us, you should do it like this, put it to the ethics committee
like this and then there will be no problems.In this sense, the contact
person is our DPD, our data protection delegate.
as i was saying, here you have all these clues
about whether you need the approval of the committee, there you have all these
things and the most important thing is that here at the bottom of the website
you have the application procedure, which is what we are
looking at now, and the request form, either in english or in spanish.
the request form is very simple, it seems to me that there are three pages, I am not going to fill it in now but the first ones are
basically details of who is requesting and who is not requesting
and if the data protection group has been contacted and then basically
what it asks for is a small description, it doesn't have to be very
exhaustive but it has to be clear, of what is intended to be done
and what are the ethical aspects that require a review
by this committee.In this sense, I take advantage of this form
for about practical information as you see it here
it asks us about the funding body, if there is no funding body because it is
research that does not require funding, there is no problem.But what I do
want to tell you is that the ethics committee of our
university is going to evaluate or study projects that have to do with
Now Juan asks if you have to go to the ethics committee with
any biological material, the answer is yes.
any biological material can always have ethical implications,
so it's better to be on the safe side.I was saying if the Carlos III
ethics committee evaluates projects at the Carlos III.
In that sense, the principal investigator of the project must
be from the Carlos III and the funding must be here. I´m telling you this because,
sometimes, one participates in research led by another
institution where the funding is in that other institution and, in that sense,
it must be that other institution that deals with your request, not the Carlos III
University. at the end of the day, the person responsible for the funding is the one who
must deal with this issue.if it is a research
that does not need funding, it is not a problem, a Carlos III
professor can obviously apply for approval here.And
as I said, on the next page you will be asked for
a brief description of what you want to do and you can
provide a PDF file. this goes directly to the secretary of
the committee and from there the study process begins and,
as I said, there is a period of one month to reply.
if there are two projects, if there are two COIPs, then it doesn't matter, the COIPs are the same
and any of them can apply for it, so there is no problem at all.
I'm going to stop sharing the screen because what I have left
is to make a couple of observations that I don't need either,
I think I'll keep referring to the website.the couple of remarks I wanted to make is, I want to insist on what I have already
said that a lot of research has ethical aspects although
sometimes we do not think about it.so when in doubt it's better to go to the ethics committee and in particular
everything to do with data is very, very, very, important.
a simple sending of an email can require the approval of the
ethics committee and that has happened to me personally.
so if you hesitate, don't think you're being a nuisance
because you might actually need it, an email is personal data
and also the use might be restricted, so it's okay
to ask it and to look at it.because in the end, and this is another
observation I want to make, this is to the benefit of the researcher,
for example, I have a line of work that has to do with the behaviour
of children in secondary schools and as you can see this is quite
problematic, among other things, because it involves people who are also
minors and in our case it took us a lot of work, together
with the ethics committee, to design a procedure to be able
to do our research without ever having the personal data
of the boys and girls, which is what we really wanted
to avoid.I don't want to have personal data of minors because
that is very dangerous and we ended up reformulating our research
process to avoid that step, which was ethically
not problematic, but it did require us to take very strong security
measures with respect to the data.
So, as I say, this is in the end to the benefit of the researcher. and I think
that I have covered all the basics of the ethics committee, now
if you want to ask me or Sara anything else, you can do so. Thank you
thank you very much Angel, I don't know if anyone else has any questions.
Yes, let's see, Juan asks about all the e-mails that we, the department directors,
have received with personal and health data of
suspicious or positive teachers, what do we do?well, this is not
directly related to the investigation and, in any case, this is
information that you, as a department director, must
have. Me, although it has nothing to do with the investigation, the best thing to do is that,
once you have acted as you should act on those emails,
I would advise you to delete them and make them disappear.but it's something that you
should be able to see in terms of your position.I don't know if Sara wants to clarify anything else.
Well, thank you because you have explained what we do in the ethics
committee, not only well, but beautifully, so Angel, nothing to add.
but in response to Juan, in any case there is always the possibility
of consulting the data protection officer, whether or not it is linked to
an ethical issue, I repeat, data protection and ethical issues
sometimes converge, that is, other ethical issues apart from data
protection, but as I believe that in this case,
as Ángel has said, it does not seem to me that this is linked
to research, but it is still an event that
has happened where data protection is involved.
the data protection officer is the option I would always
recommend to a good friend.
Well, I don't know if there are any more questions or if we can go to Eva Méndez and
come back to questions when she finishes her intervention.
there is a question Sonia says ...... ethics committee.
yes, she is on the ethics committee, as a member of the
data protection subcommittee and then,
does a project that involves processing the brain signals of
the person section of data such as name age photographs? yes, it requires
the approval of the ethics committee because you are doing something with
a person. I would certainly ask for approval and I would not do anything without it, it's not about the data, it's about research with people.
Right! Eva I'll leave you the floor, perfect, let's go with Eva then, we'll take up the questions at the end if you like.
you can see my screen, yes? now yes.
good morning everyone, talking before lunch always
has its risks but I hope to at least make the talk interesting
enough so that you don't go and make
a sandwich and leave me hanging here.i think that the subject
we are dealing with today is very interesting, i feel very privileged to
be part of this human resources strategy of
the university with such an important and complicated
subject and so, let's say, motivating on the other hand, as i said Carmen
at the beginning, as is open science.I'm going to tell you
a little about the journey towards open science at the
Carlos III University of Madrid because, in fact, when I was looking at the
logo papers last week, everything that the human
resources logo implies, I took on this task when I was still
assistant vice-rector for digital education strategy.
I've been in another vice rectorate for two years now, so it's a long journey,
it's a long road, but the idea is that we should take the
road with good saddlebags and with leaden feet so that we can arrive t
at something that is not improvised.as you all know, now we are not only talking
about open access which, at the beginning, linked
to the logo, the key word is open access, basically because
the Charter & Code is from 2005, where it still
talked about open access as the general parameter for access
to open knowledge.But open science has many more
implications and so, when we decided to involve
this in the logo, I spoke to
Carmen and Nacho and we decided to call it open science from the beginning.
On this path, we have some friends, we have a bit of the
YERUN strategy that has accompanied us in the last four
years, I represent YERUN, the Young European Research University
Network in the Open Science Policy Platform, which is a group of
open science experts that advise the Commission on this
even longer path that the
European Commission's science policy has.We also have a discussion
around this policy, we have many elements that help us, we have
many inputs that give us clues and we are in the phase of adopting
a strategy. And I believe that this red circle
has been transparent since around 2017
and is still in force, because adopting a strategy
is something that takes time.What we have done along
the way, friends, is to set up some practical issues,
for example, we have created something that I am going to tell you about later,
which is the open science unit or the open science university
working group, which we also call it with this double faction so
as not to give it the exact name of a unit, which is always
much more linked to a service and, in the last year, we have achieved
a SWAFS Science with and for Society project within the scope of YUFE,
which the Carlos III leads the work
package linked to open science.This means that
all the ideas that have arisen along the way at the university level
can be transferred to a wider range of universities
in the context of the YUFE alliance.what I am going to tell you
basically it's a bit of context, which I think
Carmen and Belén have already given us very well, and also the context of
ethics, because depending on who you talk to, open science has
a component of a new ethic, of a new ethical
commitment that is quite serious. and also those
who talk to you about ethics, those who talk to you about good practices, as Sara
has done, who can say that good practices imply
open science or open science. I'm going to tell you where we are,
where we want to be and also how to make it possible.
where we are in general we see is a context of responsible
research & innovation. We could say that RRI is a philosophical area
that is leading, in a way, everything we have been doing in
science and innovation for the last seven or eight years. for me
RRI is much more than a philosophy, it is a responsibility
or I would say more, a high-level meta-responsibility that aims
to shape, maintain, develop and align the processes and responsibilities that
we have as universities and institutions with research
and innovation.In such a way that we can guarantee that the research
results are desirable, are acceptable
and are also open so that the people who pay for the research,
the citizens, can ratify that these results are possible
or are what we need, not what society needs.
In this context we have a series of elements public engagement,
gender balance, the whole part that we have talked
about this morning, governance.It is essential to create a
system of governance in this meta-responsibility that the
institutions have, but above all we also have a charter,
a code, which is the code of ethics for researchers where,
although it still appears in a very sketchy way in
2005, there is a commitment to open up the results
of research. but in this context, openness and
transparency are an integral component of that high-level meta-responsibility,
to which I referred earlier, that research institutions
such as universities have. in this context, let me
tell you something, these are the recommendations that we made in the European
Open Science Policy Platform that we call OSPP, which is
a very strange acronym in Spanish.But in these recommendations
we made a series of recommendations for different stakeholders.
but one of the key recommendations that we made in the context of
the Open Science Policy Platform in 2018
and that was presented to the competitiveness council and also
to all the ministers of science and innovation. this has been heard by
all European ministers, one of the general recommendations
was, to ensure that the practices of the human resources
strategy for research in addition, of the evaluation of
horizon Europe, which at that time in 2017 we still
called FP9, we had not yet christened horizon
Europe the next framework programme, reflect the principles
necessary to effectively embed or include a culture
of open science at institutional level.Let's say that we give a value to
the human resources strategy that legitimises the fact
that open science is part of this human resources policy,
that the researchers we hire are committed to
publishing and transmitting what they do with and for society, and also that
this is an element of evaluation.In this sense, I would like
to tell you a little about where we are. the Carlos III university
has been working for many years, since it signed the Berlin Declaration,
which was signed by Don Gregorio Peces Barba when he was the rector,
may he rest in peace.This Berlin Declaration
led us to have an infrastructure that we could say is the basic infrastructure
of open access in "green", the green line
is the institutional repository where researchers must
deposit everything we do. This is, let's say, the ABC,
the multiplication table of open science, which is the basic thing
we have to do as workers in a RPO of
a university or any research
organisation.we also have a much newer data infrastructure
that we share with the madroño universities
and which also allows those institutions
or those disciplines that are not data intensive research,
that are not intensive data producers, such as
astrophysics or life sciences or in other fields.
we can also have a place where we can deposit
our data and that the institution legitimises its durability. Furthermore, as you all know, we have infrastructures to make our research visible, which is a bit of a nice thing to put it nicely.
We have an infrastructure called vivo, which is an expert finder, a search engine for researchers
that correlates the scientific output of researchers.
with what they have published in open access. In addition, we have
also created spaces, there is a fundamental aspect of
open science, which is citizen science, which we have also wanted
to give a nod to by creating a space, creating a maker
space in the Leganés library that can be like a gym
where you can go from one to two o'clock to dance the tango and from two to three o'clock
you can go and do weights.This is the same, you can go to create
a mask for protection or you can create an activity
that involves citizens. But it is still a space
that is a call to science in open and where do we want to
be, well, of course we want to be, not only in the spaces,
not only in the structures, we want to be in a real projection
of open science at a European level. And that's why in the university's current strategic
plan, we came up with the idea that we were going to
create an institutional open science policy that
includes not only publications, as most
universities have. around 2004-2006 there are
a lot of open access mandates in Spanish universities,
but also includes the research data policy
and other actions that have to do with open science.
but how to make it happen? the two options we had
were top-down, we create an open
access mandate and then nobody fulfils it. nothing happens because it happens too,
or we do something bottom-up where we create a culture.
and in that confluence of the mandate, the political need or
the need for open science policies at the funder level,
at the agency level, at the instruction level and the practice
that the university does, we make this something that is possible.
that' s why what we have done is to create a
this is a slide that fascinates me because I saw it
whenever I talk about these things because it implies
all the things that we have to have when we talk about creating
complex change.We are very conscious that's why we haven't finished
this task within the logo, that's why Carmen said that it's a
long-term task, we are very conscious
that we are dealing with a cultural change.
managing a cultural change in an institution such as universities
implies managing a complex change and managing a complex change
implies managing a matrix where we manage a vision, skills,
knowledge, incentives, resources and an
action plan.because if we lack the vision, we will create
confusion, if we lack the skills we will create anxiety.
You can't ask a researcher to do something they don't know
how to do. if we don't have incentives, we're going to have resistance. and
we're here at a time when everything we do and my
colleagues at the university who are listening to me you know
everything is flat rate.we do everything for the same price and
we do more and more things but we do this with enthusiasm because we believe
that the science we do has to be like this. and also we have to
have resources, we have to have a plan of action.What I am going to
talk about, in order not to get frustrated, is above all
the action plan and what I consider to
be important when it comes to contributing to the open science policy of
the whole university.On the one hand, we talk about the motivators
of will, which for me are clearly three: money,
law and relevance. researchers are unfortunately driven
by research projects, the European Commission asks us to
publish openly and if it doesn't give us the money, we do
give the cross, it has been published openly, yes. The law,
the Spanish science law in article thirty-seven obliges us to
deposit all publications in institutional repositories.
sometimes we don't do it, but that doesn't stop them from coming for inspection
and all the publications that are not published according
to article thirty-seven of the science law, they have to return
the money or something similar. and then the rankings,
because we are passionate about the rankings, we all hate them
but we are all linked to them the impact factor
is still a ranking the JCR Q1 Q2 Q3 is a way of organising us and
putting us in a certain order to give us the possibilities
that the academic career has, which in the end are linked
to some number or something, because it is quite important or
quite simple when we link all this to a numerical factor. but
there is not a reason for the essential will which is the seduction
then there is a fundamental will motivator which is seduction when we do things because they are simple enough
or interesting enough.have you ever wondered
why you use whatsapp and do you remember when you start using it?
no, you just do it that way.have you ever wondered
why you started publishing in CUN journals? no, they told you
it was there and you go there.there will come a time when we will have to publish
openly, share, collaborate, and when we collaborate it will seem
like we have always done it that way. that's why in the
action plan that we have developed in the university to create
the open science policy, what we are trying to do is to create an open science
philosophy by seduction.We created UniOs, which is a unit,
a working group that meets every month, and we have
very interesting discussions.Ángel Sánchez, for example,
belongs to this group and, as you can see, he is closely linked
to all the factions of the logo, of open science, of ethics
and of all levels. and it has been conceived as a unit for discussion,
debate, to create policies, initiatives, plans, projects,
ideas and also to be a support unit. I especially want to thank
the library because the library, let's say,
is the executing arm of many of the things that we decide
within the United working group or the research unit
or the open science unit or university.but the IT service
is also linked because we want to develop
technical developments, human resources is linked because
it is closely linked to the logo and
the research service and the innovation entrepreneurship service
are also linked because we believe that this is something that affects transversally
many bodies in the university. and within UniOs we have
created a pilot project that we have called Full Open Science
in a somewhat pretentious way, because being full open science would imply
many more things than what we have tried to do, where we asked for
volunteers when Javier Prieto was still vice-rector of
science policy, we asked for volunteers, Some of you who
are in this session will remember research groups
and also that Juan Val Sega was the one who said instead of
linking it to departments, why don't we link it to research
groups that have a more concrete entity,
more linked, do more things together,
have a much more collaborative synergy and it would be much more in line with
creating a full open science research group.
And what we have done with the FOS is a pilot project
that we are now going to transfer from YUFE to YUFERIN, when we start
with the YUFE research and innovation project.
And what we have done is a little bit the idea of the logo, isn't it? what I am
rewarding you is to take a step forward, take a step forward,
you want to be an open science group and we are going to help you. and among the
indicators what we believe is that researchers should publish
at least eighty percent of their publications in open
access but one hundred percent of the metadata. Because
we can deposit the publications in the repository and our
metadata will already be visible, even if we don't have the rights yet
to make them visible in open access without stopping.
that's why we are creating these initiatives or indicators
that allow us to promote or push as much as possible the visibility
of our researchers. The same with the data that, still
in Spain or at least in the university, we do not have an
intensive research unit in data, we do not have infrastructures
or powerful facilities to produce a lot of data, it is still something that is
difficult for us because the data is something that we have
very sloppy or on our servers. and we also
want these groups to be full open science, to have a commitment to
citizen science, to have a commitment in all
research proposals to say that they are a full open science group
because that is going to have an impact.in fact, the idea of full open science
came up in a discussion we had with the previous commissioner
that they wanted to create a logo, the same as the human
resorces for open science. and all this in our future that
we are thinking about a cultural change, that we are
being part of it little by little, in that stage that I call "darling, we need to talk" because you
know, when someone tells you this, one day I told the vice-rector
for teaching staff Nacho we need to talk, when someone tells you this
you know that something is going to change. you don't know if it is the curtains
in the livingroom or the child's school, but you know something is going
to change. and we all know that with open science, with the
European Union's research policy, which Unesco has now embraced,
which is in a process of consultation, in a pilot project that will
approve a Unesco declaration on open science in 2021. all
countries are embracing this idea, we all know that something
has to change.I don't know why researchers,
publishers and the whole research system are in this mortal embrace
that no one understands and that we all think can be broken.
I believe that the Carlos III University is on the way to
being able to do this. and for this the final reasoning will be to create
an open science policy. for me, the most important thing and
the message I want to convey to you, because I can't tell you
everything we do in fifteen minutes, nor everything we debate, nor how
complex this is, is a very clear message: training,
training, training, training, training. don't think that I have copied and
pasted it, I have written it every time it appears on this slide.
because there are so many false friends, there are so many
misunderstandings, nobody understands that you have to pay to publish,
no, it's not paying to publish.so, open science is that I put it,
where I put it, and then when it costs meno, there are
a lot of misunderstandings and we have a commitment from the
university and from here I want to encourage you all to count on
the library, on UniOs, on the vice-rectorate for science policy,
on all of us who are linked to the logo, to train us
to create a critical mass that will allow us to
move around the world of science, which is open, in a
legitimate way and with a lot of solvency, without fear of paying, without
fear of not having a sexennium, for example, and let me remind you that
next week is open access week, international open access week.
what we are going to do is to launch a website, which I think
is going to be the direction, we are looking
for the DNS that are more emblematic UC3MOpen/Science
because UC3M/Open is one of the parameters
or bastions of the strategic plan.We are going to launch
a micro-site website, for the moment very tentative, telling a little about
what UniOs is, telling a little about the FOS pilot and where
we will try to transmit news, images, courses, everything
that is necessary to make this possible. and let me remind you
something, the context in which we are right now, in the times
of COVID-19, in the times of the Sustainable
Development Goals, science is like a parachute, if it does not open
it will not help us, thank you very much.I hope I have spent two minutes
of the time thank you, if there are any questions I would be delighted and forgive the speed
because I wanted to tell you a lot of what we have done in these four
years and in fifteen minutes and it is practically impossible, thank you.many thanks to you Eva because
you have scrupulously stuck to the time
with the passion with which you tell things. I don't know if there are any questions
as well if anyone wants to ask any questions. I'm watching the chat to see if there is
anything I've left out. Andrés Barrado has raised his hand,
I don't know if you can give him the microphone.
Yes, I have it, very good, This question goes to Eva. I think that,
in all the projects I've been involved in at the university, which are quite
a few, I haven't sent the library any information
about the articles I've published zero, I think it's been
zero, well I'll tell you the practice, I don't think I've sent
any of themright now, I published it in the journal
where it corresponds and already, in an indexed way, they appear in all
the platforms where our scientific production is collected,
ResearchGate or any other, right? So, on a practical level,
I find a difficulty, I have always found a difficulty with open science
and that is that, in my field, I believe that you cannot put the sexennium
at risk. You can't put it at risk
because it excludes you from many other things, so you
have to publish in Q1 journals.in some cases
you may be allowed some Q2 but you have to go to Q1. I think that 100% of
the journals in my field in Q1 are fee-paying, so what do
we do? because I can't, I don't even consider not publishing in journals that
are not Q1 because otherwise you put many other things at risk.
apart from the fact that there are many other indexes that categorise them.
So, on a practical level, how do we make this
transfer, how are we going to move to an open science model when you find that,
on the one hand, where it is recognised that everything is done with Q1 certification,
on the other hand, some journals are tremendously expensive when
it comes to publishing in open access? where we are looking for
a balance to publish in open access that you are talking about.
thank you very much Andrés because you have reflected perfectly, I think you have put
all the descriptors that surround each and every one of
us researchers today.You have put on the table
research gate, sexennium, payment, library, burning,
practical, I do not risk, you have put perfectly, your question was generating
me a cloud of labels that you have given perfectly
the context in which we all are.on the one hand, let me tell you research gate,
this is a discussion that I had with the vice-chancellor.
why put the articles in the repository
and not in ResearchGate or in other platforms that
researchers have, basically because on the institutional
repository the university can create developments, it can
create a semantic layer to visualize the researchers
and above all there is sustainability.what happens if tomorrow ReserachGate
closes down, I am honest with you, I like ResearchGate
much more than the university induction repository
or any other repository in the world, because it also sends me a
message and tells me someone has read your paper, which for researchers
is fundamental or they have asked you to send them the article,
which is what we have done all our lives when there was no open access,
send the article when someone asked you to do so but ResearchGate, one, is not
considered as green open access the European Commission
will never allow you to deposit in ResearchGate to give the tag that
you have signed the article thirty-nine of the Great Agreement that you
publish it in open access green no, because that is not an institutional repository
and has no guarantee and two, besides, it is not
something that is going to happen with ResearchGate, it has happened
three weeks ago with Slideshare, I have a debate in
UniOsin the next UniOs meeting, I want to discuss
if we should create a specific collection, in the university
we should create a collection for the presentations, because
the presentations that we had in Slideshare are now going to
belong to a company, and this can happen tomorrow
with our papers. when you talked about the sexennium you hit the
key of the will motivatorsi belong to the open science
commission that the ministry has created, just today, the open science commission is
meeting, i belong to the technical commission,
today the governmental commission is meeting, where they are evaluating
the recommendations that we have made at a technical level,
for the open science strategy of spain.spain wants to create an
open science strategy at national level, following the parameters of
France, Holland, Finland, Ireland, which are
the five most emblematic examples of open science that have
broken the agreements with publishers, that are creating a system of
legitimization of the institution itself and of the
national institutions themselves.in this open science policy, what
do you think if the Spanish Agency, besides asking you for Q1 Q2
and those things, asks you, as an administrative requirement, to have
your papers deposited in the institutional repository of
open access to the university, not for nothing, because it is
in the law, because the commission says so, because you have signed it
in an agreement.and then the third issue that you mentioned that is also fundamental is,
the pay journals, right now we think that you can only
publish in open access, when you pay in open access and that is
a false friend, because it may be that you can publish the preprint
without having to pay the open access goldwhich is what is
trying to be promoted in the context of the
"es" plan, surely it sounds familiar to you, you will have heard it also
it is not only that you have to pay to publish, but that
you can publish a version in open access, that you can make visible
what you are doing. and then a fundamental commitment, you say,
I have not sent it to the library, we are working very hard
from the vice-rectorate to make this something that can be done by the
the researcher individually, in a simple way
because I think it is a commitment of the researcher, the
institutions embrace this policy and make the commitment
with the logo, with open science or whatever, but at
the end of the day, the researcher is the one who has to have a commitment.
of course we agree to help you in whatever way we can. one thing for example,
I was commenting about ResearchGate because the list of your articles appears
without you doing anything. you do not inform ResearchGate, ResearchGate is in charge of
looking for the new articles that you publish in the
different journals, I publish in i-e-cubo fundamentally
or in Elsevier, I do not make any effort. you were talking before
about the flat rate for professors and researchers, i.e.,
all these management things charge and charge. they are small
things, that if you look at them separately, they are not very important but
together with all the others they take a lot of time.So, I have
mentioned ResearchGate because the search work is done by them
I am totally open to open science
but I think that the channels still don't
make it easy in the sense that if I have to publish in Q1 and that
is closed, it turns out that I am not complying with open access, I don't know.but there are two
pressures, on one hand there is the pressure that
institutions and governments are organizing right now, for example
the CRUE is in a process of negotiating
licenses for what are called RAP Read and Published.right now
the universities pay only for reading immoral
amounts, Andres that if you knew them
they are immoral and also the worst of it all is that they do not read them.
because if they would read my articles and put me on a chip
here, it's okay, but the issue is the potential to read what we
are paying for. but right now they are in a national negotiation
to pay for read and published i.e. to pay the same to publish
and read, both thingsThis is a pressure that does not correspond to
us as individual researchers, it corresponds to the institutions
and countries. there is another pressure that is the pressure
of funding agents and there is another pressure that we experience
individually that, if ResearchGate will solve our problem I would be
delighted, but why ResearchGate finds because it has its norkit,
the norkit has been given to you by the university,
the Carlos III University of Madrid has forced you to have a norkit and because of this, which seems like magic,
your publications appear because there is a series of
standards digital audity identifier persistent identifiers
of the publications that are also linked and all that,
is part of a system that makes the magic of something and what
we try to do in the university is that seduction. there will come
a time when we do it and we don't remember like whatsapp
we don't remember that we did it differently beforewe are
working on this believe me
I, the message I convey is
that you should take into account not to put the research in
a position where there is no way out, that is, that you are asking for
two things that are incompatible. if you are asking me for one on
the one hand because that marks my quality and on the other hand I have to
write in a Q3 journal in order to do open access
because it is the only place where in price I would enter, for example,
you are putting me in a complicated dilemma.so, I submit it to you as a concern
I know that you are there working hard thank you very much thank you very much Andrés
and any comment is much more than welcomeperfect, thank you very much, there are some comments in the chat
see if you can read some Eva and meanwhile, I give the floor again to Belén who
wants to launch one last message well, I know that this topic is very
interesting, there were a lot of questions, and I think we have
to do what Eva said, to train ourselves I am going to save the chat,
I am going to save the chat and I will take you offline.
some questions, but above all comments and I think that this is the most important thing,
training.I know that Eva has a training course coming up soon,
I have signed up, and well I invite you all to go to the logo page,
there is a training section where you will find a lot of courses and
there is a course on all these topics that I think would be great for
us all because many of us are very lost and we are going to try to
promote more and I would like to thank you all for having attended,
I think it has been a satisfactory meeting for all of
us and that we have learned many things, I am sure that many did not know
that there was an ethics committee or that there was a document of good practices,
so I think that our objective has at least been
achieved, to spread what we are doing in the logo
so that we all encourage each other, as Eva says, that this seduces us
in some way and we follow the path. now Arancha is going to say something to finish
and we hope to see you in the next seminars
which are six and that we will be announcing the next one will probably be
in the middle of November it will be a regional seminar at the level of the Comunidad
of Madrid and we will announce the date in time so that you can
sign up for it well, I, for our part,
thank you Ignacio, Carmen, Belén,
the three speakers, it has been very interesting and to the more
than one hundred and fifty people who at different times have been connected and
following it because I think it is a very good start and of
course I am sure that in future events many more will join.now, as soon
as you disconnect, you will receive a survey that will take you
three minutes to fill in and that will help us a lot to solve
any failure that may have been detected or that you may have detected
so, for our part, thank you very much, thanks you and we will keep
working on it. yes, don't forget the survey