The git project is any project (a set of information) managed in a way that preserves the entire history of changes over time, using any implementation of Git program solutions. The workshop will cover basic work procedures in the GitLab WEB interface connected to git project life cycles, from initialization to teamwork on the project. This includes project planning using issues and an issues board. Additionally, it will demonstrate how to connect your local git repository with the GitLab service and how to share it with others. The workshop will briefly address licensing issues, and we will use some creative examples to enhance the learning experience.

JATS XML (Journal Article Tag Suite) is an adopted XML format used for publishing scientific and scholarly content. It is an alternative way of publishing contemporary scientific and professional journals, which has multiple advantages over traditional publishing methods.
One of the key advantages of JATS XML is its ability to enhance the discoverability and accessibility of journal articles. This is achieved through the use of metadata tags, which provide a standardized way of describing content and make it easier for search engines to index and retrieve articles. Additionally, the use of JATS XML allows for better preservation of content and ensures that articles are machine-readable and easily integrated with other scholarly resources.
Another significant advantage of JATS XML is its ability to facilitate publishing workflows, but unfortunately although it should be the case, currently that ability is not fully realized. Despite providing a standardized structure for content, which theoretically makes it easier for publishers to manage the publication process, some challenges still exist in the practical implementation of JATS XML. Creating JATS XML requires a lot of time if the editor writes XML from scratch or significant financial resources that need to be invested in purchasing professional tools or outsourcing this work. There are almost no free and effective tools for creating complete and correct JATS XML.
The team from SRCE – University of Zagreb, University Computing Centre behind the HRČAK portal decided to adapt the universal document converter called Pandoc primarily for editors and publishers in HRČAK, but with the intention that in the future it can also be used by the wider scientific and professional community. At this workshop, we will introduce the process of creating JATS XML as part of HRČAK which will allow journal editors and publishers to create JATS XML more easily. The goal of is to allow users to create complete and correct JATS XML files for their journals through a simple interface without any prior knowledge of XML.

Hrčak is the portal of Croatian scientific and professional journals that provides free access to approximately 277,000 papers published in almost 536 journals at the end of April 2023 (https://hrcak.srce.hr). Croatian Wikipedia provides free access to approximately 214,000 articles (hr.wikipedia.org). The advantage of Wikipedia compared to Hrčak is that this online encyclopedia is well known to ordinary Internet users (Singer et al., 2017). The advantage of Hrčak compared to Wikipedia is that information from papers found at Hrčak are generally more reliable than information from Wikipedia articles. For example, the study of Faletar Tanacković et al. has shown that Croatian 'teachers themselves rarely use Wikipedia for academic purposes' (2015). Unreliability of its information is certainly an important reason for that.
The goal of the workshop is to point out the possibility of using the mutual advantages of Hrčak and Wikipedia in order to increase the reliability and the extent of information on Wikipedia and to popularize Hrčak portal, its journals and papers. Also, the goal of the workshop is to familiarize the participants with concrete procedures for improving these portals by upgrading and integrating their content: the participants of the workshop will find content for Wikipedia articles in Hrčak and will prepare and add selected content from Hrčak to Wikipedia articles to which they will add citations and we link to Hrčak papers which will be used to increase the reliability of Wikipedia articles.

For example, Hrčak has over 100 scientific papers in English that are thematically related to the Croatian city of Šibenik. Based on the selected scientific papers from Hrčak, the workshop participants can update the article about Šibenik on Wikipedia and add references leading to scientific articles on Hrčak. Through various activities that are necessary to expand the Wikipedia article about Šibenik, the participants could gain a range of valuable insights. Among these activities are: (1) reading and analysis of the content of the selected article from Hrčak, (2) selection and adaptation of parts of the text that will be added from the selected Hrčak article about Šibenik to the article about Šibenik on Wikipedia, (3) reading and analysis of the article about Šibenik on Wikipedia in order to determine in which places it can be supplemented with data from the selected article from Hrčak, (4) integration of content from the article on Hrčak into the article about Šibenik on Wikipedia with the principle of fitting the added content as meaningfully as possible into the article on Wikipedia, and finally - (5) adding references in the Wikipedia article to the article on Hrčak with the aim of making interested Wikipedia readers aware of the Hrčak repository, with the aim of informing them that on Hrčak they can found various open access scientific articles about Šibenik and other topics, and with the aim of encouraging the Wikipedia readers to further explore the rich archive of Hrčak.

In economics, “a public good refers to a service that is made available to all members of a society”. Typically, these services are administered by governments and paid for collectively through taxation. There is an increasing awareness that the free market is creating deep inequalities in access and participation in scholarly communications, even with the transition to open science. It is now time to collectively chart a new course where research outputs are treated as public goods. This is no easy task, as it requires working across countries, domains, and stakeholder communities. This talk will identify the major actions needed to move forward with this vision, and present the activities of the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR), a global organisation of repository initiatives, that are contributing to our collective progress.

Scholarly publishing is determined and guided by the questionable and artificial prestige of publication channels that are also falsely used for assessing the research and the researchers. This steers researchers to publish their papers in the same publication channels as others do, and many relevant channels are seen as less valuable.
While publishing is focused on certain journals and publishers, open access publishing is increasingly concentrated on fee-based channels, where authors are obligated to pay publishing fees (article processing charges, APC and book processing charges, BPC) just to get their research published in open access. This places a burden for researchers to get funding for publishing; it creates inequality between the researchers with funding and those without it, and it increases the costs for universities and other research organizations. (See e.g., Klebel & Ross-Hellauer 2023.) At the same time the academic community has gone further from the very principles of open science, such as the attempts to control the increasing costs of scientific publications and the aims to improve the equality of researchers and other people in need of science.

Diamond OA as a realistic alternative
Open scholarly publishing should be funded in another way than by charging publication fees from individual authors or their institutions.
Promoting Diamond OA should be seen as part of a larger change in the services and practices of scholarly publishing. The whole global academic community and research service providers should be engaged in this change. The current OA diamond landscape needs to be built as a community that will support diversity and include a wide range of different academic communities in different languages (see Becerril et. al., 2021).
Research communities such as learned societies and research organizations could take more control of scholarly publishing. While universities are now advancing responsible research assessment (see CoARA), maybe it's time to also reconsider the more active and
responsible role of the universities in reforming the scholarly publishing sector.
Case JYU Studies - open monographs with agile services
JYU Studies is a fresh peer-reviewed monograph series for research affiliated with the University of Jyväskylä. We found a demand for an alternative publishing channel for peer- reviewed monographs with the Diamond OA model. The Open Science Centre of the University and the editorial board manage the series and the publishing process. The editorial work and publishing are funded by the Open Science Centre. Close and agile cooperation with the departments of the University and the authors is key to all successful publishing processes.
• The peer-review process is implemented openly, so the authors and the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.
• We offer alternatives for publishing formats (such as Omeka S and EPUB) and develop publishing services in an agile way.
• Our publishing services cooperate closely with our university researchers and listen to their thoughts and ambitions for publishing.
• The publishing services include communication and marketing planning in cooperation with the authors striving to reach the best possible visibility for the publication.
• We also offer the authors a reporting service showing the usage and visibility of publications (e.g., downloads, citations). This way, the publishing service continues after the publication, and the authors get interesting information about the visibility and impact of their publication.
All monographs in JYU Studies are deposited in the University of Jyväskylä repository, JYX, which is an essential infrastructure for research and education at the university. Publishing in an open repository with high-quality metadata and registered DOI identifiers ensures that monographs are indexed in relevant databases.

The economy of open access (OA) publishing has been a topic of intensive research over the last two decades. Dichotomies between the so-called 'green' and 'gold' models, or between fee-based and non-fee-based gold models, the latter known as the diamond model, have been addressed from diverse perspectives. However, some critical insights that would enable a thorough understanding of publishers’ and editors’ decision-making and provide a foundation for developing future evidence-based public policies are still missing.
In recent years, more importance has been given to the diamond OA model, and the European research area has recognized its potential to bring change and possibly transform the scholarly publishing landscape. The 2021 EC-funded OA Diamond Journals Study (Bosman et al., 2021) reveals that while Europe is rich in OA Diamond journals, they are far from all being included in the DOAJ, nor are they equally distributed across scholarly disciplines and European regions. The study indicates the dominance of large commercial and APC-based publishers in Western Europe contrasted to the prevalence of smaller, diamond OA publishers in Central and Eastern Europe. Yet, subsequent research by Laakso and Multas (2023) shows that such a distribution across European regions could oversimplify a more diverse landscape. Their bibliometric-based analysis indicates that within regions, countries can vary significantly in their publishing ecosystems, based on several factors: the type (and size) of dominant publishers, the availability of country-level public funding mechanisms for scholarly journals, and the availability of common publishing infrastructures.

There are examples of countries from different European regions that appear to be successful in building a thriving and sustainable national diamond publishing ecosystem. However, some publishers adopt an APC-based business model even in such predominantly diamond ecosystems. Our study will be twofold: a comparative investigation will establish the share of APC journals in several dominantly diamond countries: Croatia, Finland, France, Norway, Serbia, and Spain. Although limited in geographical scope, the intended sample will strive for complete coverage of OA journals: authors from each country will provide comprehensive national addenda to DOAJ lists. The publicly available information on the websites of all identified OA journals issued by the publishers located in the countries mentioned above will be inspected for evidence of APC schemes (any fees or charges required of authors or their institutions for submitting or publishing a paper in a journal). The study will address the following research questions: 1. What is the share of journals charging APCs at the time of research (among all OA journals in the country, and especially among journals receiving public subsidies, if there are such subsidies available)?; 2. What is the range, median and mode of APC costs?; 3. Is the existence of APCs and their cost related to the type of a journal publisher or owner, the scholarly discipline, or the fact that the journal is indexed in
established international indices and databases?
The insight into the incidence of APC-based journals and the context in which they are introduced will be complemented with a qualitative analysis of APC descriptions. This is expected to reveal some of the reasons for their introduction and possibly show that smaller publishers could resort to some local and nonstandard mechanisms. It will answer additional research questions: 4. Are there any specificities of the APC mechanisms among the analysed journals (waivers, discounts, membership fees, etc.)?, and 5. How transparent are journals about their APCs? (What are the terms used for APCs in different languages? Are they listed in their DOAJ records? Is it explained what they are charged for and how the funds are used?).
The results are expected to deepen the existing knowledge about the diversity and sustainability of OA ecosystems.

In October 2022, Ukraine declared its commitment to enhancing the effectiveness, quality and responsiveness of its research by implementing the National Plan for Open Science (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2022). This document represents a significant step forward in aligning Ukraine's national legislation with European Union requirements and promoting the adoption of open science practices. Open access (OA) is a crucial component of open science, and it is imperative to gain insight into its growth to inform funding policies and plan infrastructure development accordingly.
The aim of this research is to obtain a comprehensive overview of the OA development in Ukraine. To achieve this goal, publications affiliated with Ukrainian research institutions and universities in the period from 2012 to 2021 were collected from three well-known databases: Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus. Records were gathered in November 2022 using the web interfaces of WoS and Scopus, while data from Dimensions was extracted via the Dimensions API. After excluding duplicates and publications without DOIs, the OA status of each publication was determined using the Unpaywall API.

The study revealed that between 2012 and 2021, authors affiliated with Ukrainian research institutions and universities published 201,670 research papers. Of these publications, 66.7% were open access, while the remaining 33.3% were behind a paywall. The percentage of OA articles for the indicated 10-year period increased substantially from 33.8% in 2012 to 79.9% in 2021.
Gold open access was the most common OA subtype, with 68.4% of articles published in OA journals. The second most frequent choice was bronze open access, accounting for 15.3% of articles. Green subtype and hybrid were less commonly used, with 8.5% and 7.8% of articles published in these categories, respectively.
Regarding the distribution of open access across different academic disciplines, the highest percentage of OA publications was found in the social sciences, with a rate of 88.1%, followed closely by the humanities at 87.8%, and medical and health sciences at 73.4%. Agriculture sciences, multidisciplinary studies, and natural sciences also exhibited relatively high levels of OA publications, representing 71.7%, 63.4%, and 55.7%, respectively. The lowest proportion of OA publications was observed in the engineering and technology category, with a rate of 47.7%.
This empirical study indicates that the share of OA publications in Ukraine is significantly higher than the global average of 31% reported by Piwowar, Priem, and Orr in 2019 and their estimation of 44% by 2025 (Piwowar et al., 2019). Notably, Ukraine is approaching the indicators of European "openness" leaders, such as Great Britain, Sweden, Austria, and the Netherlands (Robinson-Garcia et al., 2020). It is worth mentioning that northern and central European countries have been early adopters of open access policies (Maddi et al., 2021), while Ukraine lacks mandates for research dissemination through OA, transformative agreements and only a few institutions have registered their OA policy with ROARMAP. The high share of OA publications in Ukraine can be partially attributed to the longstanding tradition of national journals being open access and fully subsidized by hosting research institutions. Therefore, open access has always been a part of the research dissemination culture in Ukraine (Novikov, 2020).

To ensure the success of Open Science, we have to understand how it systematically changes the research system as a whole. This presentation focuses on the synthesis of the changing research landscape and the utilisation of policies, emerging tools, and practices into shaping end-to-end systems for embedding actionability in all research stages: planning, tracking, and assessing. Specifically, it will explore the designing of interconnected systems that involve Data Management Plans, Scientific Knowledge Graphs, and FAIR Assessors, all of which are essential components of research workflows.

The CRAFT-OA project (Creating a Robust Accessible Federated Technology for Open Access) aims to improve the conditions for publishing open access (OA) diamond journals. CRAFT-OA involves a consortium of 23 partners from 14 European countries, all of whom are engaged in institutional publishing and its infrastructures, and committed to sustaining and developing capacities in the field. Over the course of 36 months, CRAFTOA will deliver technical and community tools, training events, training materials, information, and services for the Diamond OA institutional publishing environment. It will also foster communities of practice with the capacity to sustain the project improvements over time.
Within the framework of the EU project CRAFT-OA, we are conducting ten semistructured interviews with institutional platform service providers and editors of scientific journals across Europe. The interviews are a supplement to the quantitative DIAMAS survey and are designed as guided interviews, so that detailed answers and clarifications are possible. The content covers topics such as hosting, submissions and reviews, production, metrics, indexing, archiving, finance, and quality management.

The non-representative interviews offer in-depth insights into the needs of editors and platform service providers. The thematic evaluation of the interview will allow us to incorporate the concrete needs and problems of the editors and platform operators into the CRAFT-OA project to improve the conditions for publishing OA diamond journals.
During the PUBMET conference, we will be able to present the first results of our interviews and outline trends in the needs of publishing platforms and editors. The detailed analysis is still pending, but a first review shows that indexing, financing and the production of certain formats pose the most problems for both platform operators and publishers.

This talk will present a progress report on the ‘PublishOA.ie’, project in Ireland (2022-24). The objective of PublishOA.ie is to conduct a feasibility study for an All-Ireland digital publishing platform for Diamond Open Access (OA) journals and books, designed to advance best practice and meet the needs of authors, readers, publishers and funders in Irish scholarly publishing.
The project is unique in its mandate to report on the feasibility of a shared platform that will be ‘national’ in scope, but encompass academic publishing across two jurisdictions, which are now, post-Brexit, inside and outside the EU: the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The project is led by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA) and Trinity College Dublin (TCD) with 16 partners and affiliates from universities and organisations from the island of Ireland. It is supported by the National Open Research Forum of Ireland (NORF).

Publishers and authors of books and journals are collaborating with international and national experts to conduct this feasibility study. First, a research exercise to map Irish academic publishing is being carried out for the first time, and a directory of all publishers in Ireland was published in June 2023.
The feasibility study will be based on a review of publishing practices in the island of Ireland, with gap analysis on standards, technology, processes, copyright practices and funding models for Diamond OA, international benchmarking and requirements specification leading to the delivery of a pilot national publishing platform. A set of demonstrator journals and monographs will be published using the platform, which will be actively trialled by the partner publishers and authors.
PublishOA.ie is guided by the experience and expertise from members of our international advisory group, including TSV (Finland), Openjournals.nl, DOAJ, SDG Academy, JSTOR, cOAlition S and DIAMAS. Consultation with these international organisations and institutions, all of which have demonstrable and significant experience in the field, are assisting us in analysing and discussing potential solutions to deploy, and where relevant, avail of existing developments. These discussions are proving especially valuable in the context of policy compliance (e.g. cOAlition S), technical advice (e.g. TSV’s use of Public Knowledge Project’s Open Journal Systems), and potential OA content provision.
Diverse disciplinary perspectives e.g. from Irish Humanities Alliance, TCD Long Room Hub, Moore Institute (Arts and Humanities) at the University of Galway, Irish Open Access Publishers (IOAP) (multiple disciplines including Social Sciences and STEM), Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies (DIAS) (Physics, Irish language) and the RIA (multiple disciplines including STEM) will be integrated with international best practice. This will inform decisions on models and technical infrastructure tested and trialled ensuring their validity in the Irish context as well as their international validity.
Bibliodiversity is at the heart of the PublishOA.ie project, as is long-term sustainability. Publishing in Ireland must always have regard to the considerably larger and better resourced publishing trade in the next-door United Kingdom, where Irish authors, writing as they do in English, have historically had strong representation.
PublishOA.ie, aims to increase all-island connections and relationships within and between groups and individuals in scholarly  publishing. The All-Ireland nature of the project strengthens the Shared Island initiative of the Government of Ireland.
PublishOA.ie aims to deliver evidence-based understanding of Irish scholarly publishing and of the requirements of publishers to transition in whole or in part to Diamond OA. It will result in increased knowledge of the needs of publishers and authors in Ireland to move towards Diamond OA publishing. Critically, PublishOA.ie will aim to increase awareness and engagement by policymakers of the system-level risks, challenges and opportunities for a publicly owned, centralised platform for Diamond OA publication of journals and books in Ireland.

Research information infrastructure services require transparent criteria and guidelines to be considered trustworthy, i.e. sustainable, interoperable and ready for future challenges. The DINI Certificate for Open Access Publication Services (an English version is currently in preparation) supports these requirements. The community-developed, noncommercial certificate paves the way for open scholarly communication and supports the prerequisites for the free availability of scholarly information as an essential element of future-oriented research-related services. Launched in 2004 and now in its 7th revised version, the DINI certificate has undergone dozens of successful certification processes, and is still unique and can be considered a de facto standard for publishing services, at least in Germany, and a role model for other countries. It is therefore recommended as a guide for publication services by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

The DINI Certificate is managed by a team of information experts from research libraries, research organisations and software developers who are organised in the “Electronic Publishing” working group of DINI e.V. DINI or the German Initiative for Networked Information (Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation) promotes the development of interoperable open and trustworthy information infrastructures and services at research institutions.
The DINI Certificate is based on an elaborate set of criteria that takes into account international standards and reflects the current state of technical, organisational and editorial requirements. For certified institutions, the DINI certificate provides a quasiguarantee that their service complies with the requirements of open science and will continue to do so. For others, it provides guidance on implementing a state-of-the-art service. Feedback from the interested community is collected through an open call for comments and taken into account in the revision processes.
In the latest certificate (2022), the focus is on supporting users as authors and recipients, the requirements of open science, the sustainability of the service infrastructure, and the desired internationalisation. As a first step towards internationalisation, the certificate has been extended to include the specific requirements for certification of Austrian publication services. Complementary tools and measurements support the effectiveness of the certificate.
This presentation will highlight the “DINIverse” − the DINI Certificate and its complementary tools − as a central instrument and inspiration for establishing and maintaining trustworthy Open Access publishing services. In three chapters it will give a brief overview of the origin of the certificate and the continuous adoption of new established requirements as essential parts of the “DINIvolution”, the related workflows, the benefits for users as well as the related services and projects: e.g. supporting tools like the DINI OAI validator, a dynamic overview of publishing services from Germanspeaking countries developed in cooperation with BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine as well as a specialised vocabulary to support compliance with international standards.

The TRIPLE project ran from October 2019 to March 2023, with its main outcome being the GoTriple discovery platform. The platform allows users to search and find documents, projects, authors and researchers’ profiles, all related to the Social Sciences and Humanities domain (SSH). GoTriple harvests documents and project metadata from over 1300 sources, published from repositories of research institutes (including Croatia’s HRČAK) and big aggregators, like Isidore, BASE or OpenAIRE.

Luca has been actively involved in GoTriple’s implementation, first designing and managing the development of the metadata harvesting and processing platform, SCRE, and later becoming the technical director for the entire TRIPLE project.
Ensuring compatibility with the FAIR principles has been one of the main goals of TRIPLE but doing everything right at the first shot is hard. In his presentation, Luca will present the experiences done in the project regarding to adhering to FAIR principles in representing
the digital assets of GoTriple: he will talk about the things that were done right from the start, those which were adjusted “along the way”, without hiding the weak spots that, with the benefit of hindsight, could have been managed differently.
This presentation will on the one hand serve to showcase some of the TRIPLE’s valuable contributions in terms of FAIR principles, that can be reused by other SSH related initiatives; on the other hand it will hopefully provide some useful suggestions on how to in general improve metadata FAIRness.

Open science, accessibility and knowledge sharing, especially of articles and monographs resulting from publicly funded research, seem to be a positive direction in the development of science and have received almost unanimous approval from the scientific community. However, when it comes to data sharing, voices are not in unison. Concerning natural sciences, the data collected could become completely anonymised, while the anonymisation of data in Social Science and Humanities, e.g. ethnology and anthropology, could still result in recognisability of interlocutors.

Anthropologists and ethnologists have been using qualitative methodological tools since the inception of the discipline, documenting their research and data collected (audio tapes, transcripts, diaries, drawings, video tapes). However the data collected were never kept in an open-source archive. On the other hand, historians “discovered” classical anthropological methodology, interviewing people of interest (recording in-depths interviews and transcribing) and applied it to, at least for them, a new type of source - people that witnessed some important (or even not so important) historical events (Dunaway and Baum 1984). They moved a step further because, unlike anthropologists, they wanted to make this source (in the shape of an edited transcript and audio file) accessible to other researchers. They have set up Oral history and Oral history archives that have now been in existence for more than half a century (Starr 1996 (1984): 40) and have started contributing to current goals of open science quite early.
A standard procedure in conducting an in-depth interview (as the most common qualitative methodological tool for anthropology (today mostly anthropology by appointment (Hannerz 2006)) is providing enough information for the interlocutor in order to sign an informed consent. Apart from describing the research, the informed consent sheet has to contain data explaining the procedure of keeping and managing the data, as well as mentioning the media in which the data will be presented (articles, exhibitions, documentaries, etc.).
Anonymity is always one of the possibilities informed consent offers, and while most interlocutors opt for it, not all do. Occasionally, the interlocutor insists on periodically switching off the recorder by the researcher, usually when something delicate is being recollected. Interlocutors are aware that their voices can be recognized and try to make sure that this does not happen. Also, quite often, after the interview ends, the researcher can hear the information that was not meant to be recorded.

Although there are ways to anonymise the data (as explained in Celjak, et al. 2020), interlocutors coming from smaller communities or groups can be recognized from the parts of the transcript that have not been removed (to secure anonymity) or by voice. Also, the obligation of the researcher to describe the ways in which the data will be managed in the future will inevitably impact the narratives collected. Anthropologists have already noticed the difference between “order imagined” and the “order realized” (e.g., the ideal wedding vs. actual wedding traditions). One must consider that the possibility to share, for example, their wedding story with future researchers (whoever they may be), might, for some, result in the creation of a narrative with future researchers in mind - a sort of ‘FAIRy Tale’ for the future. After all, imagine yourself recollecting your own wedding to a researcher, but also knowing that it will become a story for the archive or repository? What kind of story would you tell?
And what if we are researching certain delicate topics, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) experiences or the experience of individuals working stigmatized jobs? Having all that in mind I argue for a more vigilant approach of agencies funding research when embracing the idea that all data should be available. Not all data should be made available because this could, in the end, compromise the integrity of the research process. Some data must remain in the space of trust created between main actors in the research process.

Research data are considered the primary result and output of scientific research, and sharing and reusing data are key aspects of the transition to open science on a European level. However, there are many unanswered questions regarding research data management, such as understanding which data might be shared and under what conditions, who might share them, or even what research data is (Borgman, 2012). In the humanities, research data are among the most diverse of all scientific disciplines because nearly any data on human activity can be considered research data, such as newspapers or photographs. Thus, the boundary between data and publication in this context is often quite vague (Borgman, 2008; Thoegersen, 2018).
This paper aims to examine and answer several research questions related to datasets in the field of humanities. The first research question will analyse the types of research data represented in humanities (1). In literature, a consensus has yet to be reached on the definition, and often, research data in the humanities are used as an umbrella term that includes different types of sources for research. DARIAH-DE defines research data in humanities as all sources/materials and results collected, written, described, and/or evaluated in the context of a research and research questions in the field of human and cultural sciences, presented in machine-readable form for archiving, citation and further use. This definition aims to account for the particular characteristics of human-scientific research and the resulting heterogeneity of the underlying data (DARIAH- DE, 2021). For the purpose of this research, the authors have chosen to adopt the DARIAH- DE definition of research data which will be the base for determining types of data represented in humanities. The research was conducted for humanities fields, including philosophy, theology, philology, history, art history, art science, archaeology, ethnology and anthropology, religious studies, and interdisciplinary humanities science. An analysis of datasets published in institutional and thematic repositories in the field of humanities in Croatia and Europe was conducted using platforms such as Zenodo, Digital Academic Archives and Repositories (DABAR), CLARIN, CROSSDA, and DARIAH. The research aimed to identify the most prevalent data types in the humanities found in repositories.

In a study on the storage of research data from the humanities in repositories, Buddenbohm et al. (2016) note that a culture of sharing and reusing research data has not yet been established; although research data are, to some extent, stored in repositories, they are difficult to find. In light of this, the second research question will examine the extent to which datasets in the field of humanities are represented in repositories in open access and under which licences (2). The third research question will examine to what extent research data align with FAIR principles (3). The evaluation of dataset FAIRness will be conducted using the principles outlined in the Wilkinson et al. (2016) FAIR guidelines and Routledge Open Research data guidelines, as mentioned in Grant (2022) for FAIR humanities data. In addition, based on FAIR guidelines, authors will provide a practical framework for managing research data in humanities, which can be used to assess the quality of research datasets. The paper will present the types of research data in humanities that are represented in repositories, assess their level of openness, licensing, and alignment with FAIR data principles.

Open Science presents the idea that scientific knowledge should be openly shared, as central values of science are transparency, verifiability, replicability, and openness (Abele-Brehm, Gollwitzer, Steinberg, Schönbrodt, 2019). Its aim is to make "bodies of knowledge that would advance human understanding and benefit humankind" openly available (Willinsky, 2006, 36). The scientific body of knowledge consists of various information entities, including widely popular research data. Similar to other information entities in open science, research data should also achieve several purposes: be openly available to make the existing research more credible; enhance science as a global public good via data patrimonialization, pooling, and synergies; help in verification and trustbuilding; broader engagement; add value to data production; facilitate and accelerate efforts to address the big challenges of our time and other mission-oriented science (Berkowitz, Delacour, 2022). The demand for openly shared research data has risen over the last decade, both at the national and international levels, putting pressure on researchers from funding institutions and journal publishers (Thoegersen, Borlund, 2022). These purposes become evident in numerous scientific publications and different scientific events as the interest in the research process continues growing (Andrew, Winnie Wan, 2018).

The purposes also raised a question about whether all research data already stored in, for instance, digital repositories, are suitable for further analysis and can be correctly interpreted and reused in new research. The purpose of this research is to investigate whether researchers in different fields of science in Croatia consider research data as a prerequisite and/or a starting point for their next research, and whether these data are reused just for comparative purposes with their results or as a means to assess the quality of other scientists’ research. The research study is not pre-registered as Croatia does not have a national open science online platform for pre-registration, and there are no ethical concerns with the research questions. The principal research method in this research study is an online questionnaire written in the Croatian language, consisting of 28 questions created for this research study (they will be made available after the conclusion of the study, as is customary). The questionnaire is divided into four parts: aspects of use of research data (sources of research data, importance of research data for planning, executing and quality of research), access to research data for other researchers (quantity of data to share, interaction between researchers, rewards for sharing research data, obstacles when sharing research data, benefits of sharing research data), archiving of research data (where and what) and data about the respondents. The possible participants are invited via e-mail sent to the Croatian scientists mailing list (a central e-mail address) including scientists from all fields of sciences. Therefore, thesample is a convenient one. The results will be analysed using descriptive statistics. It is expected that the participating scientists in Croatia will provide answers that will help clarify their position on the role of use and sharing of research data in their research activities.

Since the era of Enlightenment, the role of encyclopaedias has been to organise and structure knowledge, and communicate it to society. In the digital age, professionally edited encyclopaedias have not lost its enlightenment mission; on the contrary, its role in enabling systemic and reliable orientation within the ever-increasing amount of data and information is even more emphasised. By entering the digital age the functionality and usability of encyclopaedias are enhanced enormously. Digital technologies transformed the ways in which encyclopaedic knowledge is prepared, organised and presented, and more importantly facilitated its distribution, accessibility and usage (Jermen & Jecić, 2018; Jermen & Jecić, 2020).
Professionally edited open access national encyclopaedias contribute to raising the level of public knowledge by dissemination of reliable and verified information in users’ mother tongue. They provide a connection between experts and average citizens, acting as an important science communication tool, and as such should be at the core of the research and didactic infrastructure of any modern society (Jecić & Jermen, 2020). Furthermore, in fierce competition with various, often unreliable online information sources, they could also play an important role in the struggle against the speedy growth of disinformation and misinformation (Bentzen, 2018).
As one of the prominent examples of the importance of encyclopedistics in the modern age is the very existence of the Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography in Croatia, a publishing house and a scientific institution, which is defined in the governmental act as a “public institution of relevance for the Republic of Croatia''. With the mission to systematise and disseminate scientifically verified knowledge in the broadest span of scientific disciplines, its publications (encyclopaedias, encyclopaedic monographs, lexicons, dictionaries, etc.), targeted for a broader audience, as well as specialists, have been produced in collaboration with numerous high-profile researchers from academia since its foundation in 1950. Since 2008, the Institute has been developing freely accessible collections of digital encyclopaedic editions, which currently comprise approximately 270,000 articles. A great number of Institute’s editions (along with the additional digital content) that are available in open access surely contributes to their increased visibility (more than 15 million page views in 2022) and hence the potential for creating societal impact.
This presentation aims to provide an overview of the development of lexicography and encyclopedistics in the digital environment, primarily from the perspective of the Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography. It places special emphasis on the Institute's open access publishing efforts over the past 15 years. Considering the fact that there are still no dedicated open access publishing schemes for books in Croatia, and that open access still represents a relatively small part of the book publishing landscape in Europe (Gimenez-Toledo et al. 2022), the Institute's endeavours in this area have been rather innovative. Along with the dissemination of scientifically verified information, open access encyclopaedias give the possibilities of linking to the digital data and collections of other research and cultural institutions, thus serving as the important component of digital knowledge infrastructure (Jermen & Jecić, 2018). Thanks to this increased connectivity, the Institute has taken part in several projects, initiatives, and communities, both in Croatia and abroad, which will be described in this presentation.

Open access (sometimes referred to as Public Access in the US) to academic publications and FAIR research data increases public scrutiny in research, but these two directions of travel are not enough to produce a profound change for the society and the research culture itself.
Let’s be frank: Research is still an elitist activity, defined by a hermetic culture. Some call it “The Ivory Tower”. Ordinary people know little about research practices and, with a few exceptions, people are not used to contributing to and consuming research. One effect of this elitist state is that Research became a small-community, well-oiled machine based on public grants and proxy-style assessments. Meanwhile, 70% of Research remains nonreplicable, and the research community continues to struggle to sink this number. This is bad. For this reason and with respect to what Research represents (hopes, needs, healthy progress and, more recently, reparations) both Research and Society need deeper scrutiny tools to understand and encourage participation in the process of creating knowledge.
At the same time, we remain slow in identifying flawed research. Lives, hopes and important resources are lost that way. Too many researchers are complacent about the system. Left alone, Peer Review is not capable enough to distill good from bad research. The lack of public scrutiny into how knowledge is produced remains a cause for sideslips in research.
This presentation challenges the current understanding that Research should remain an esoteric sector of our society. In a “message-from-the-future” manner, this presentation promotes the idea of open and participatory research and invites the audience to coalesce to make possible a deeper and healthier scrutiny of research activities.
Starting with a declaration in Rome (2014) and continuing with theoretical frameworks, monitoring programmes, and practitioners’ networks, the EU triggered a series of actions around what is called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). It constitutes an important building block for “aligning research and innovation to the values, needs and expectations of society”. While progress has been slow, it has the potential to improve Research and the relationship between science and society. Recognising the work surrounding RRI, this presentation invites the audience to travel beyond the RRI horizon: to imagine a world in which Society feels welcomed and invited into the researchers’ world.
Through a comparison with the evolution of gastronomy, this presentation provokes the audience to imagine how the world could be changed by turning research into a popular culture, like literature, music, travel, and gastronomy turned out to be. Cultures become popular when ideas, customs, and behaviours are embraced by large parts of the population. They have the potential to become part of community identity when they are strong enough to mark with their characteristics the past, the present and the future. Literature, Gastronomy, Music, and others did it. What kind of world would we get if Research achieved the same? Setting this question in a thoughtful manner is the main novelty of this presentation.
Another possible novelty could be the presentation style which will be unusual, with the presenter speaking from the year 2065 to an audience from 2025.
In summary, the role of this presentation is to inspire the audience. It promotes the idea that research deserves to be a popular culture and gives a vision about a possible future for Research.

“You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue. … It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen—in the arena of action, a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication.”
– Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Two decades ago, discussions about ethics were relatively rare in publishing. Retractions were almost unheard of. Science was ‘self correcting’. Today, the rise of paper mills, peer review manipulation, and predatory journals, alongside an increased awareness of a lack of reproducibility, have forced publication ethics up the agenda. What has caused this surge in issues and what can be done to take advantage of the concern about these ‘crises’ to tackle these problems at scale, to ensure the future integrity of both research
and its publication?

Case reports, as an article type in the biomedical field, hold particular importance in paediatrics because it is the optimal way to present new or rare diseases or overlapping syndromes that are usually hard to diagnose clinically (Nissen et al, 2014). The CARE (CAse REport) guidelines are a tool that helps standardise reporting in case reports.
Those guidelines were published in 2013 (Gagnier et al., 2013) with the purpose of supporting an increase in the accuracy, transparency, and usefulness of case reports. Given the stated, the aim of this presentation is to examine the actual use of the CARE guidelines in the paediatrics field journals.
Using Pubmed and Web of Science databases, journals in the category of Clinical Medicine - Paediatrics were searched and their instructions for authors and selected published case reports were examined. Based on inclusion criteria journals that publish case reports were included in the study and screened for the CARE guidelines using the CARE checklist.
A total of 184 journals met the criteria, 130 journals (71%) were in the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded) category, while 54 journals (29%) were in the ESCI (the Emerging Sources Citation Index) paediatrics category. Most of the journals, 160 (87.5%) publish case reports, among them 44 journals (27.5%) mention the CARE guidelines in the instructions for authors. There were altogether 10,617 case reports published in 184 journals, of which 3527 in open access.
Of the 44 journals that mention CARE guidelines, 27 journals (61%) are in the SCIE database category and 17 (39%) in the ESCI. There is a significant difference regarding the quartiles of SCIE journals that use CARE guidelines (p=0,041), the higher the quartile, the more journals that use the CARE guidelines (Q1=10; Q2=9; Q3=5; Q4=3).
For the purpose of the oral presentation, authors will examine 10% of the available free full text case reports (except for the journals that have more than 100 case reports where 10 cases will be examined) and the expected sample size is 144. Two authors will check the compliance of randomly selected case reports with the CARE guidelines using the CARE checklist. As with every study, this one has certain limitations, as it is limited to the field of paediatrics and not all case reports can be examined as they are not available.

Background and objectives: Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts’ quality and the quality of the peer review process itself. With regards to reviewers’ recommendations, a 2010 meta-analysis found a very low inter-reviewer agreement of 0.34(1), and the Elsevier data covering 7,220,243 manuscripts from 2019 to 2021 across 2,416 journals, found 30% absolute reviewer recommendation agreement after the first review round.(2) This study aimed to evaluate a pilot program of structured peer review by: 1) exploring if and how reviewers answered structured peer review questions, 2) analysing their agreement, 3) comparing that agreement to agreement rate before implementation of structured peer review, and 4) further enhancing the piloted set of structured peer review questions.
Design: In August 2022, we introduced structured peer review, consisting of nine questions, in 220 Elsevier journals.. For the pilot analysis we aimed for 10% of this sample. We applied a random selection of journals across all fields and IF quartiles, and then selected research manuscripts that received two reviewer reports in the first two months of the pilot, leaving us with 107 manuscripts belonging to 23 journals. We did not have access to further review rounds, or final editors’ recommendations for these manuscripts. Review reports were qualitatively analysed, with (partial) agreement defined as reviewers answering a question with the same answer (e.g., yes, no, NA, etc.) or a similar answer (i.e., one reviewer answering yes, the other - yes, but I would suggest improving...). Eight questions had open ended fields, while the ninth question (on language editing) had only a yes/no option. After the nine questions, reviewers could leave Comments-to-Author, and Comments-to-Editor. All answers (for questions 1 to 8 and Comments-to-Author) were independently coded by MM and BM with an inter-rater agreement of 94%, who then met on regular intervals to reach a consensus that was used for results reporting.
Results: Almost all reviewers (n=196, 92%) provided answers to all questions, with 12 (6%) skipping one question, and 6 (3%) skipping two questions. Overall the length of reviewers' answers to the eight questions (9th question was a yes/no) was 164 words (IQR 73 to 357), with the longest answer (Md 27 words, IQR 11 to 68) provided for question 2 (reporting methods with sufficient details for replicability or reproducibility). Reviewers had the highest (partial) agreement (72%) for assessing the flow and structure of the manuscript, and lowest (53%) for assessing if the interpretation of results is supported by data, and for assessing if statistical analyses were appropriate and reported in sufficient detail (also 53%). Two thirds of reviewers (n=145, 68%) filled out the Comments-to-Author section, which resembled standard peer review reports compiled during the review process and then copied to the field. Those Comments-to-Author sections contained on average 4 out of 9 topics (SD 2) covered by the structured questions. Absolute agreement regarding final recommendations (exact match of recommendation choice) was 41%, which was higher than what those journals had in the period of 2019 to 2021 (31% agreement, P=0.0275).
Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that the adoption of structured peer review leads to reviewers covering more topics than they usually do in their reports. Individual question analysis indicated the highest disagreement regarding interpretation of results and conducting and reporting of statistical analyses. While structured peer review did lead to improvement in reviewer final recommendation agreements, this was not a randomised trial, and further studies should be done to corroborate this. Further research is also needed to determine if structured peer review leads to greater knowledge transfer or improvement of the final version of manuscripts. 

In times of war raging on European soil, the academic community can help by doing what it knows best – documenting important evidence and publishing research. The experience of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) editors during the Homeland War shows how a scientific journal can help during wartime (Marušić & Marušić, 2002). The CMJ published numerous scientific articles on various aspects of war (Marušić & Marušić, 2012; Marusic, Markulin, Lukic, & Marusic, 2006). To attract more authors to write about war and to improve the quality of the submissions CMJ editors introduced an authorhelpful prereview (Marusic & Marusic, 2001). CMJ editors worked with the authors to help them prepare their manuscripts until they were ready for an external peer review. Editorial staff working closely with authors formed the cornerstone of CMJ editors' work and became a unique approach in the world of medical journals (Marušić & Marušić, 2002, 2022).
In October 2022, the directors of the postgraduate doctoral program Translational Research in Biomedicine (TRIBE), decided to use that experience and together with the editorial board of the ST-OPEN journal, which is now led by the former editors of CMJ, launch the Giving Voice project to help Ukrainian authors write reports about the war in Ukraine. We named the project Giving Voice because we wanted to give a platform to voices that often are not heard loud enough, particularly those that do not belong to academic elites: students, refugees, vulnerable and marginalized groups, and others whose lives have been disrupted by war.
In collaboration with the ST-OPEN editorial staff, we are inviting interested authors from Ukraine to send us their manuscripts. ST-OPEN is an interdisciplinary journal so we welcome contributions from all scientific fields. We will re-employ the author-helpful prereview. Our help will include assistance with study planning, statistics, writing, and English language editing to make the obtained data publishable. Other experts who would like to become a part of our network of mentors are more than welcome. All articles will go through a formal external review process, so we cannot guarantee that all will be accepted for publication, but we will do our best to make them publicationready.
Although many projects are aimed at helping the academic community in Ukraine, to our knowledge, our approach is unique. Additional details about the Giving Voice project, already published articles, and similar projects are listed on the project website (Sapunar, 2022). As members of the academic community, we can make a difference within our professional realm. We should not only be a simple service for publishing articles but also, perhaps more importantly, agents of change for the scientific community. As directors of the TRIBE doctoral program, we aim to educate scientists to solve research problems and write reports about them. We should not only try to provide future scientists with knowledge and skills or gather them around the key values – we should also help create enlightened agents of change and equip them with leadership qualities accompanied by social and moral accountability (Frenk et al., 2010). We will extend the same efforts to the authors and mentors who decide to take part in the Giving Voice project.

After twenty years of the open access movement, there has been growth in the uptake of open access, and some progress has been made in achieving its original goals; however, results have been far from satisfactory, with more than half of the research literature still closed (COKI, 2022; Curry, 2018). Moreover, new concerns have arisen, such as questionable quality and the reliability of peer review, in particular predatory publishing. There are also threats to equity, including stratifications of publishing as a consequence of the exclusionary character of the author-pays model of open access, and new risks of bias and exclusion in the means of transparent evaluation (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2022). It is argued that these challenges are the result of the uncritical narratives of openness and their narrow focus on access alone which fail to address inequitable power dynamics, systemic problems and the structural barriers in scholarly publishing and knowledge production (Perry, 2020; ibid.).
These cha(lle)nges in the system of scholarly communication, coupled with recent advances in technology and the tectonic transformations in the information environment, require new (pedagogical) approaches and foci that would enable researchers and students to understand and navigate such a complex environment; for this, a holistic and integrative approach to scholarly communication and information literacy is needed (ACRL, 2013; Špiranec, 2015).
Scholarly communication, including open access, is impossible without information literacy (Hebrang Grgić, 2016). As they are both concerned with (access to) information, open access and in particular critical information literacy largely share the same goals, ethical dimensions and values of (social and epistemic) justice, equity and democratisation. Indeed, they have been considered instrumental to achieving these, and even proclaimed a panacea and deus ex machina for the current scientific, social and political challenges and crises (Hebrang Grgić, 2016; Kapitzke, 2003). However, literature on the intersections and interplay between open access and information literacy has been limited.
This paper seeks to intertwine these two concepts more strongly, for mutual exchange and benefit, by analysing their convergent aspects as well as the role information literacy has in the context of the complexities of the scholarly communication system and in achieving open access. The paper builds on the few empirical studies of the intersections between the two concepts (e.g. Hebrang Grgić (2016) which confirms the importance of ‘open access literacy’), but goes beyond their functional approaches, advocating a more holistic and critical approach to open access to help reinvent it and make a more substantial progress in open access. It argues that the transformations in the information environment and the scholarly communication system require not only basic skills and competences at the core of information literacy but also specific skills of, for instance, managing scientific data and publishing in open access sources. More importantly, what is also required is critical consciousness of all the aspects of the research process including the context, power relationships, and the privileged positions in knowledge production, publishing and dissemination, and an ability to evaluate the quality and reliability of information.
The paper proposes critical open access literacy as a pedagogical methodology and strategy to confront the challenges and enable a critical understanding of the contemporary information environment and scholarly communication. In line with the tenets of critical information literacy, critical open access literacy is directed at an analysis and critique of the economic, social, political, legal and technological conditions, aspects and implications of open access and the overall scholarly communication system, as well as the power dynamics, tensions and flaws within them. This will empower students and researchers to navigate this environment successfully and potentially become champions of its transformation to make it more meaningful, reliable, equitable and democratic.

Citizen science, as part of open science, holds significant importance for its participants, including citizen scientists and professional scientists who engage in collaborative scientific research (Booney et al., 2009). However, the benefits that organizers of citizen science gain are rarely emphasized. These organizers can include governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities (Walker et al., 2016), as well as institutions such as libraries. Citizen science is important for libraries because it increases civic and research interests, scientific publishing, and scientific progress (Trouille, Lintott, and Fortson, 2019). Additionally, it helps libraries attract new users, enhance social cohesion, and improve the perception of library's social value (Cigarini et al., 2021). With the help of citizen science, libraries can enrich their collections and make them more accessible (Ignat et al., 2018), and librarians can develop new competencies.
The presentation aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the specific ways in which citizen science can benefit libraries and how libraries can effectively utilize citizen science to achieve their goals. Therefore, the benefits of citizen science for libraries will be discussed in detail, with examples and practical insights provided to illustrate their potential impact. The presentation will include an analysis and experience of the National and University Library in Zagreb with carrying out citizen science activities and the advantages this institution had for librarian education. It will highlight the essential role of libraries as implementers of citizen science activities and the impact of such activities on the positioning of libraries in local society and the scientific community.

Where does the whole hype about artificial intelligence (AI) come from? Is it the first time? Do we really have a true, general AI? If not, how soon shall we have it? How much will technology change everyday tasks, complete job descriptions, entire professions? Does it apply to scientific publishing and how? What do scientists really need in publishing, what can be done by AI and what is the job for a human?

Recent developments in ChatGPT have initiated a prompt response in the academic libraries’ community. This includes discussions on possible applications of AI text generators (Fernandez, 2023) and the implications of ChatGPT for academic libraries (Cox and Tzoc, 2023). In various segments of library services, ranging from reference services, cataloguing and metadata creation to content creation, ChatGPT can be used for natural language processing activities.
In this paper, our aim is to investigate a specific application of ChatGPT in relation to Open Educational Resources (OER): instructional design for information literacy courses in academic libraries. The starting point for our research is using openly-licensed informational resources, i.e. ‘content infrastructure’ as facilitators in creating educational resources. It is widely recognised that large language models (LLMs), which use deep learning techniques to generate text based on prompts, greatly contribute to the speed of creating  informational resources which comprise the content infrastructure (Wiley, 2023). However, ensuring the quality of the generated output and the requirement for review and improvements is an issue.
Our analysis of the model will be conducted in three stages: 1. developing a strategy for producing information literacy syllabus using ChatGPT; 2. training the model according to predefined standards; 3. conducting the review process. In the first stage, the following guidelines will be applied: assign the model the role of a subject-matter expert (SME); provide context; instruct the model to use specific standards, i.e. “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” (ALA/ACRL, 2000) and direct the model to use a specific output format. The second stage, or model training, will consist of a series of structured prompts, including feedback and reflection prompts. In the third stage, two external reviewers will be included in the process, with the following profiles: 1. an academic library information literacy programme coordinator; 2. English language specialist (assistant professor, PhD level). The purpose of the review is twofold: to check for pedagogical accuracy and psychometric validity, as well as usability in the actual academic environment.
The results will provide some insight into the benefits of strategic and well-planned use of ChatGPT technology in creating content, while also considering responsible and ethical use of the new technology in the academic library sector.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is a category of AI technology capable of producing various types of content, including text, images, audio, video, 3D models, simulations and synthetic data. Although it has been present for some time, it has been popularised in the recent months due to text and image GenAI tools, such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, LaMDA, BlenderBot, DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, some of which have already received new and upgraded versions.

The main issue for the scholarly research and publications relates to the fact that because of the technology breakthrough the AI tools, based on machine learning models and usually fed with large volumes of data, no longer only assist researchers in recognising patterns and predicting, but also in generating content. This raises questions such as: On a general level, is it acceptable to use the generated content in academic publications? Does the use of such tools in research and publications violate academic honesty? Is a researcher violating another person’s intellectual property right when using these tools?

This paper seeks to answer these questions with the aim of suggesting whether and to what extent there is a need for GenAI to be regulated within the academic institutions or beyond. Additionaly, the paper is aimed at investigating the models for such regulation as there are already some attempts to do so at various academic institutions in the world and many such processes are ongoing.

Introduction and aim: Scientific journals are a key communication channel for the transmission of scientific information, and the publication of articles is mandatory in scientific advancements. Open access publishing enables greater visibility of scientific outputs but publication in open access is rarely free (Van Norden, 2013; Pourret 2022). The aim of this research is to examine the article processing charges (APCs) of journals in the Health professions category within the SCOPUS database, along with their respective business models (hybrid, OA or diamond OA).
Methods: We collected data on journals using Scimago, DOAJ and Sherpa Romeo databases, as well as the homepages of journals and publishers. Using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank data for the year 2022, we filtered journals belonging to the field and category of "Health Professions (miscellaneous)". Data were gathered on the number of journals in Scopus, the type of journal (hybrid, open access, diamond journal) and the cost for publishing (APC) an original scientific article/review article in open access. Information about the type of the journal was collected in Sherpa Romeo/DOAJ databases, information on the APCs was found on the pages of the journal or publisher.
Results: A total of 60 journals belonging to the category of Health professions in Scopus were identified, with 28 (47%) of them also in the Web of Science database according to Scimago. Of these 60 journals, 28 are hybrid journals, 32 are in open access (53%), including 10 in open access with an APC, and 22 completely free - diamond journals. The publication cost in all journals is in the range from €0 to €3,385.00, with an average median price of €788 (ranging from €0 to €2,895). The average APC is significantly lower in open access journals than in hybrid journals (median €881, ranging from €92 to €2466, versus €2895, ranging from €2045 to €2977), which is in line with previously published results in the medical field (Siler et al, 2018). Most of the diamond journals are in the 3rd (6 out of 22) and 4th quartiles (9 out of 22) or have only recently (3 out of 22) been included in the Scopus database.
Limitations of the study: The study sample is small, and has only 60 journals, while there could be more journals connected with health professions in other Scopus categories. Information about waivers was not collected.
Conclusion: Journals of the 1st and 2nd quartile, which are considered an important criterion for advancement in the biomedical field, are mostly hybrid journals and the APCs are very high. Consequently, the conclusion emerges that health professions do not have a large selection of journals for publishing in open access, and therefore it is necessary to educate authors to self-archive their articles.

Responsibility, ethics, inclusiveness, and the principles of Open Science are central to the advancement of scholarly research and publishing. By embracing these values, we can create a more transparent, collaborative, and accessible research ecosystem, as proposed by UNESCO (2022). However, there is a pressing need for effective tools that aid researchers in practising Open Science while addressing the specific requirements of disciplines such as the Humanities and Arts, especially in the context of the welldocumented prevalence of STEM disciplines over the Humanities in the development of Open Science and Open Access trends (Eve, 2014). The Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities (DARIAH-EU) consortium, formed by "researchers for researchers", is uniquely positioned to address this inequality while driving the development of an open ecosystem that naturally evolves from authentic community practices and needs (Tóth-Czifra, 2021). Croatia as a member country with its DARIAH-HR coordination office readily follows it in this endeavour by organising workshops, creating one-of-a-kind digital platforms and tools, etc.
In this poster presentation we aim to introduce several digital tools designed or codesigned by DARIAH-HR for scholars in the fields of the Humanities and Arts (and broader): 1) a digital tool for the creation of thesauri, 2) a digital tool for creating registers, 3) a digital tool for generating GDPR-compliant forms for obtaining consent from data subjects and 4) a software for modelling, processing and representation of monumental heritage and culture of memory. While the first and second tools represent pioneering efforts to encompass the widest community of humanists and researchers in Croatia, the third and fourth tools provide in-depth solutions in their respective areas of focus, extending their reach to an international level and catering to a diverse audience that includes researchers as well as tourists.
The digital thesaurus creation tool “tezaurus.hr” is designed to streamline the process of developing structured vocabularies relevant to the Humanities and Arts. The digital register development tool “DH Register” provides a user-friendly interface (currently in development) that enables researchers to create and curate registries, incorporating metadata standards while adhering to the requirements of the FAIR principles (as recommended in, e.g., Hahnel & Valen, 2020). The “Consent Form Wizard” (CFW) is a tool developed by the DARIAH-EU working group Ethics and Legality in Digital Arts and Humanities (ELDAH) to support humanities researchers within the European Union in obtaining valid consent for data processing in the context of their specific professional activity. “Monument Heritage Map” is a digital platform that allows the implementation of available data and methods for data collection, processing, multimodal visualisation and mapping of cultural monuments.
When integrated into an Open Science framework, these tools provide researchers with efficient means to enhance knowledge organisation, resource sharing, and collaboration while upholding responsible research practices and promoting inclusivity within the academic community. Enabling researchers to create user-friendly thesauri and registers also facilitates the discoverability, interoperability, and accessibility of research outputs. Conclusively, it contributes to the development of a robust and interconnected research infrastructure.
Through the presentation of these digital tools and their implications, this poster seeks to contribute to the discourse surrounding responsible and inclusive research in the context of the Humanities and Arts. It emphasises the significance of training, education, and capacity building for Open Science.

While Diamond Open Access is widely considered the most progressive publishing form for Open Access journals, these journals face various challenges including (technological) standardisation, ensuring sustainability for journals, and juggling a broad set of workflows while depending largely on voluntary work.
The CRAFT-OA project (Creating a Robust Accessible Federated Technology for Open Access) aims to help standardise Diamond Open Access journals by offering technological innovations available to all Diamond Open Access journals. In cooperation with the DIAMAS project, CRAFT-OA will foster a community of practice, further enhancing Diamond Open Access publishing by uniting the scholarly community behind common goals.
The proposed poster will include an overview of the key objectives and phases of the project as well as a section dedicated to explaining how the project’s results will support diamond OA publishing and be made available via the capacity centre prepared jointly with the DIAMAS project. Specifically, it will explain how the results of DIAMAS and CRAFT-OA complement each other in that regard by providing all information, best practice guidelines, workflows and training materials relating to Diamond Open Access in one place.

Open access scholarly publishing is a diverse realm, involving numerous stakeholders and various organisational models (Fuchs and Sandoval, 2013). However, one facet that has often been overlooked is the publishing activities carried out by scientific institutions themselves. Given that these institutional initiatives play a vital role in preserving the social, linguistic, cultural, and epistemological diversity within the European research landscape, the primary objective of the Horizon Europe project, "Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication" (DIAMAS), is to establish a unified European standard for the currently fragmented institutional publishing landscape (Mounier and Aspaas, 2023). This initiative aims to enhance efficiency, quality, and the overall practices of publishing activities and services across the European Research Area (ERA).
The DIAMAS survey targeted 252 Institutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs) in Croatia and achieved a robust response rate of 77%. Half of Croatian IPSPs are affiliated with universities, faculties, and learned societies. IPSPs in Croatia primarily handle academic journals, academic books, and conference outputs. However, their services extend to encompass other research outputs, media, digital products, and non-academic content. On average, a Croatian IPSP publishes 1-5 scholarly journals, 11-100 scholarly articles, 1-10 academic books, and 1-20 conference proceedings annually. Multilingualism is a notable feature among IPSPs, with 82% practising multilingual publishing to engage wider audiences. Despite linguistic complexities and the need for human translators, the scientific community's commitment to extensive outreach remains evident.

Croatia's Commitment to Open Access
In Croatia, the academic publishing landscape is significantly shaped by universities and learned societies, staunch proponents of the non-profit model and early adopters of open access (OA). This dedication, supported by a national HRČAK platform hosting over 400 active OA journals and government subsidies, underscores Croatia's unwavering commitment to unencumbered knowledge sharing. The country's preference for not resorting to "article processing charges" reflects strong support for the diamond OA model.
While a comprehensive national OA/OS policy is still in progress in Croatia, support for OA exists through different national laws and strategies. The government mandates OA and inclusion in the HRČAK portal for subsidised journals and OA repositories for graduation and doctoral theses. 64% of respondents reference some form of OA/OS policy, indicating the integration of OA principles into scholarly publishing practices over decades.

Funding, Income Streams and Sustainability
Government subsidies from the Ministry of Science and Education and other ministries are the primary sources for scholarly journals, with the average IPSP budget below €10,000. Voluntary efforts significantly influence Croatia's IPSP landscape, with 53% of respondents relying on unpaid staff, accentuating the country's unique and complex scholarly publishing ecosystem. The importance of voluntary work is underscored by IPSPs' reliance on in-kind support from parent organisations in terms of facilities, IT services, and staff salaries.
Challenges to financial sustainability include the lack of funding continuity, irregularity, delays, and insufficient funding. Furthermore, changes in government funding eligibility without notice and price increases in printing and copy-editing pose challenges. Suggestions to address these issues include enhancing financial literacy, collaboration, and promotion of scholarly publishing.
Editorial Quality, Technical Services, Visibility, Metrics and Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging (EDIB)
IPSPs actively participate in editorial management, with 71% involved in editorial board recruitment and other aspects. Regarding peer review, a double-anonymous peer review is preferred by 44%, followed by a single-anonymous peer review (15%). Some IPSPs have begun implementing open identities and open review reports. IPSPs predominantly offer editorial services voluntarily or as in-kind contributions. In contrast, production and IT services are mostly outsourced. Technical challenges arise from financial constraints, lack of human resources, expertise, and technical limitations.
Croatian IPSPs aspire to have their journals indexed in WoSCC and Scopus databases. Other indexes such as DOAJ, DOAB, ERIH PLUS, PubMed, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Google Books, and OAPEN are also considered. While 44% of IPSPs are content with their current indexing status, some face challenges in meeting technical participation criteria.
IPSPs utilise metrics such as submissions, acceptance and publication dates, visits, views, downloads, and Journal Impact Factor. EDIB measures are prioritised, with the main measures being a code of conduct and non-discrimination policies. Accessibility standards are often unknown, and 64% of IPSPs do not have accessibility policies. Gender Equality Plans (GEP) are implemented by 25% of IPSPs.
In summary, the DIAMAS survey illuminates the intricate landscape of scholarly publishing in Croatia, revealing its commitment to diamond open access while highlighting challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Background: After the fall of communism, post-communist Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries struggled to advance to the level of Western European countries of similar sizes, both in quality and quantity of their publication performance. (Gui et al., 2019; Hu & Zhang, 2017; Jurajda et al., 2017) The same may apply to the field of medicine, where CEE countries still function on the basis of individual work and personal connections, with few publications in higher impact journals. (Jovanovic et al., n.d.) Being a researcher in a country with lower research performance has an effect on the extent of publication and the development of international collaborations. (Pina et al., 2019) Entering the European Union has made some difference in that field, as shown in the example of Malta and several other countries. (Makkonen & Mitze, 2016; McMillan et al., 2016)
Aim: Our aim is to test the hypothesis that the quantity and quality of publications by Croatian authors in the field of clinical medicine have increased after Croatia’s accession to the EU.
Methods: Bibliometric data for publications indexed in Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and Scopus, and authored or co-authored by researchers with Croatian affiliations in clinical medicine were collected via the inbuilt export for two time periods: 2005-2013 and 2014-2022. Additional data will be collected through automated data extraction using Python, WoSAPI and ScopusAPI.
The study sample was all publications with a Croatian affiliation indexed in WoSCC (n=113,695) and Scopus (n=122,932) at the time of the data extraction for the period between 2005 and 2022. Minimal sample size with the desired precision of estimate of 0.05 and confidence level of 95% was estimated at 385. However, we aimed to include all publications with a Croatian affiliation in clinical medicine in both databases.
A list of all possible names for all types and forms of organizations dealing in clinical medicine was compiled using public domain records and lists, especially the list of registered subjects, provided by the government and public, government-run institutions. Names that shared the same relevant words, such as hospital, were grouped under a single term. Terms were then truncated to include all possible and relevant variants, e.g. hosp* for hospital, hospitals, hospice and hospices. Truncated terms, which included terms with two or more truncated and non-truncated words, were connected using a Boolean operator OR and put in brackets. Brackets were further combined to include only the results with Croatia in the affiliation, retrieving only works with a Croatian affiliation in the field of clinical medicine.
The indicators that will be compared are author count, publication count, and citation count. An interrupted time-series analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Resources for Review Authors. (Cochrane EPOC, 2017) The analysis will calculate pre- and post-intervention (membership in EU) coefficients and change in the slope of the annual value of indices, which may indicate if the intervention observed had an actual impact on possible changes. Additionally, the percentage of journal articles and reviews in all types of publications may indicate an increase in the quality of publications before and after Croatia accession to the EU.
Expected results: We expect our analysis to show a positive correlation between the EU membership and quantity and quality of publications by Croatian authors in the field of clinical medicine, regardless of other influencing factors such as funding. We plan to have the results by the end of August 2023.
Conclusions: The positive impact of EU membership on a small country’s quantity and perceived quality of publications may help Croatia’s decision-makers when deciding on joining other such communities, as well as decision-makers in similar countries considering EU membership. In addition, it might instigate others to conduct similar studies to see the full impact that formal international relations may have on science and scientific production.

Conceived in 2015 at the Scholarly Communications Institute, the Open Access Book Usage Data Trust (OAEBUDT) has grown into an international effort to develop and pilot a global data trust for OA monograph usage data. It progressed through three stages:
• Project 1 (2018-2019): This project documented the challenges and opportunities facing the aggregation, analysis, and communication of OA book usage.
• Project 2 (2020-2022): This project documented the data supply chain (Clarke and Ricci, 2021) and use cases related to OA book usage data (Drummond and Hawkins, 2021), developed infrastructure for usage data aggregation and provision, and identified community-based governance models to support a diverse, global data trust for OA monographs usage data.
• Project 3 (2022-forward): In partnership with OPERAS and OpenAIRE, this project is developing the Governance Building Blocks for its Industrial Data Space (IDS) infrastructure, with an eye towards how such infrastructure can be extensible to usage and impact data for other scholarly outputs.
Since 2015, with support from the Mellon Foundation, stakeholders have worked through the global OAEBUDT effort to foster the secure, multi-party exchange, aggregation and benchmarking of book usage-related data. This work aims to increase trust in usage metrics, improve data quality, and reduce reporting and compliance resource-burdens related to OA usage data. Prior work, such as  facilitated stakeholder interviews and virtual design workshops, revealed diverse use-cases and staff roles interested in OA book usage data across libraries, publishers, and publishing platforms and services (Drummond and Hawkins, 2021). It also indicated a shared system-wide need for simplifying usage data curation, aggregation and management given the time and costs individual institutions allocate when combining COUNTER-compliant reporting alongside other usage data dashboards, and non-COUNTER compliant web- analytics. This reinforced the hypothesis that a “Data Trust” model could benefit those working with usage data by facilitating the aggregation and processing of data upstream according to shared, transparent community norms, thereby generating economies of scale (O’Leary and Hawkins, 2019), for example, reducing costs and resources used when aggregating and curating such data.
Creating a data exchange ecosystem to unlock public/private usage data sharing would help minimise the time and resources used, plus provide more transparency to all the organisations involved in the data exchange process. While the term “usage data” is often used today to refer to web analytic reports that tally page visits and file downloads, the OABUDT works towards a future where linked usage data analytics regularly inform book publishing and scholarly communications operations. Clear ethical norms, privacy and
security guardrails are required to unlock such data exchange for granular analytics.
After researching and documenting the challenges, use cases and supply chain for OA book usage data from 2015 to 2021, the current effort is focused on developing governance building blocks for a sustainable infrastructure. These blocks are modelled on a certifiable European IDS that will help ensure that organisations wanting to participate in data sharing meet the highest security standards. In April 2023, an OA Book Usage Data Exchange Use Guidelines and Principles meeting gathered publishers, libraries, standards, and service representatives to draft principles and identify trust mechanisms for such an IDS infrastructure.The aim is to ensure that usage data exchange would be both trusted and support ethical, non-harmful data use.
The principles and trust requirements drafted in this meeting are now being shared with the global open science community for consultation to ensure that they meet the needs of diverse OA book stakeholders and the research community at large. This poster will provide background to the OAEBUDT and a preview of emerging participation and ethical data exchange and use guidelines for the data trust.

Building a connected open scholarly communication system requires unambiguously identifying research-related entities. It is not a simple task: for example, the same organization can have a range of names (eg. legal name, a shortened version, an abbreviation, in national language or in English), as well as varied metadata in other sources. Additionally, persistent IDs might not be helpful when several data sources (eg. ROR, ISNI, EC PIC) utilize various PID schemas to identify organizations. Due to this ambiguity, there are efficiency issues with information sharing, discoverability of research outputs, keeping track of activities, and ultimately building an integrated open scholarly communication system and OS services (Artini et al., 2022).
A new tool called OpenOrgs was developed to address this old issue: the disambiguation of organizations engaged in the research process (Pavone, 2021) as well as the parentchild relationships between departments and organizations. OpenOrgs tackles the ambiguity in the data that OpenAIRE collects from several research organization registries (eg. ROR), as well as other sources including institutional repositories, scientific journals, and CRIS systems, and aggregates them to populate the OpenAIRE Graph (OpenAIRE Graph, n.d.). To make up for the lack of information and increase the organization's discoverability and recognition, OpenOrgs combines automated processes with human curation. Numerous data sources are used to gather and merge information on organizations. Their metadata are automatically compared and combined, then these suggested identities are manually checked by data curators assigned at a national or multi-national level.
These two steps work as follows:
1. The deduplication algorithm (De Bonis, 2022) suggests a similarity between organizations that emerge in various sources by comparing their metadata (eg. the organization name, URL, country).
2. The automatic procedure is then verified by a manual curation process. By indicating whether two or more entities pertain to the same organization or not, data curators can clear up any ambiguity surrounding duplicates detected using the automated approach. Furthermore, they can themselves suggest new duplicates unidentified by the algorithm and make up for the information shortage by editing metadata description of the organization, compensating the lack of information from sources and enhancing the organization records' completeness and discoverability, for example by adding a persistent identifier, an alternative name (OpenAIRE, 2023), or establishing parent- child relationships (eg. university and departments). As of now, there are more than 70 registered data curators from over 40 countries, with more than 100,000 curated organizations.
OpenOrgs offers a number of advantages for researchers, Research Performing Organizations (RPOs), Research Funding Organizations (RFOs), and all other stakeholders of Open Science services. It improves the findability of digital objects for academics and provides RPOs with a consistent showcase of the overall scientific production. It offers RFOs consistent data on the impact of resources. Finally, OpenOrgs offers functional and up-to-date services to all parties involved in Open Science.
In the OpenAIRE ecosystem, OpenOrgs plays an important role. For example, OpenAIRE Explore displays the curated metadata from OpenOrgs, giving researchers quick and easy access to details about the organizations involved in the research process (OpenAIRE EXPLORE, n.d.). These data are also used by the OpenAIRE Monitor service, which tracks and monitors research activities and Open Science trends of organizations (OpenAIRE MONITOR, n.d.). This integration improves these organizations’ discoverability and recognition even more, fostering a more open and cooperative research environment. Therefore, rather than just a tool, OpenOrgs is a game-changer for the research community, and we believe it will contribute positively to build and maintain an integrated open scholarly communication system in the years to come.

The PATTERN project, officially known as "Piloting open and responsible Activities and Trainings Towards the Enhancement of Researchers Networks," is a comprehensive initiative funded by the European Commission under the Horizon Europe programme. Its primary focus is to advance open and responsible research and innovation (Open RRI) across Europe through training for researchers to enhance their capacity for effectively addressing societal challenges while promoting transparency and inclusivity in research. The project spans 42 months and involves a total of 19 organisations and institutions from 13 European countries, including the Ruđer Bošković Institute in Croatia, contributing to the development and implementation of training programs tailored for researchers at all
career stages.
PATTERN's training modules cover a diverse range of topics vital to open RRI, including open access, FAIR data management, citizen science, research integrity, gender equality, non-discrimination, inclusion in research, dissemination and exploitation of results, science communication, and management and leadership skills. By addressing these crucial aspects, the PATTERN project aims to equip researchers with the knowledge and skills necessary to excel in today's dynamic research landscape. The project’s implementation began by systematic mapping and comprehensive analysis of contemporary educational opportunities for researchers on Open RRI, after which comes the development of innovative curricula, with an emphasis on inclusivity and fairness in the modules.
Implementation and testing are integral components of PATTERN's strategy. The project intends to test its training modules through a variety of tailored activities conducted by nine core partners and five associated institutions, which will act as pilot institutions across Europe. PATTERN's expansive network includes Croatia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Turkey. This network, encompassing OpenAIRE members and National Open Access Desks (NOADs), ensures a broad and diverse reach for the project's training curricula.
Crucially, PATTERN will establish a digital platform, where all training materials will be openly accessible, providing a solution for hosting and disseminating freely available training modules. This platform will not only facilitate knowledge sharing but also mobilise and moderate the research and innovation community. It will serve as a valuable resource for relevant bodies and institutions responsible for educating researchers, disseminating project results, and promoting OS practices in multiple languages. Based on the accumulated knowledge and insights, a series of policy recommendations will be designed and developed, targeting European Union bodies, national entities, higher education stakeholders, and research institutions, ultimately promoting open and responsible research practices at a systemic level.
There is an ongoing demand for training and promotion of open science (OS) topics in Croatia among researchers, with a notable deficiency in formal OS education within Croatian higher education institutions. To bridge this gap and promote OS practices effectively, PATTERN leverages a wealth of expertise accumulated through EU projects that have laid the groundwork for comprehensive training programs designed to enhance researchers' competencies. The PATTERN project represents a pioneering effort to advance open and responsible research and innovation practices in Europe. With active participation from institutions such as the Ruđer Bošković Institute, PATTERN aspires to empower researchers and institutions alike. By developing comprehensive training modules, creating a collaborative platform, and providing policy guidance, PATTERN is poised to contribute significantly to the advancement of science and society in the European Research Area.

Modern electronic publishing enables faster and easier access to information and scientific publications. Unfortunately, misleading publishing practices have adapted and become harder to identify. It is not only the publication in these journals and publishers that is questionable but also the citation of these sources. We find that such unverified and unreviewed scientific publications can negatively impact the society as a whole.
Regrettably, even at the University of Maribor, we are seeing an increase in the use and adoption of such sources. As a result, the University of Maribor Library has compiled a private list of predatory publishers according to our own criteria, we provide further education, create LibGuides, and maintain a public list of open access sources. We also offer advice on checking journals, publishers, and conferences. This includes both students, who should be cautious in the selection and use of sources, as well as lecturers and researchers, who should be careful not just in the selection and use of sources but also in the selection of reputable journals for publication.
The very process of submitting the final student theses to the institutional repository includes content similarity detection. Content similarity detection is also available to any University of Maribor researcher who wants to double-check their article before publication. Our practices of raising awareness about unverifiable sources will be presented in more detail on the poster.

This paper focuses on the role of national-level infrastructure in promoting open science principles, with a specific emphasis on Slovenia. It presents the latest measures implemented within the country to facilitate open science practices.
The first part of the paper explores the specific measures adopted in Slovenia to promote open science. It highlights the ongoing development of regulations to implement scientific research following open science principles. The Slovenian Scientific Research and Innovation Activities Act (ZZrID) and the Resolution on the Slovenian Scientific Research and Innovation Strategy 2030 (ReZrIS30) strongly emphasise open science and encompass various measures. The paper discusses the accessibility of research data addressed by the ZZrID and the Decree on the implementation of scientific research work in accordance with the principles of open science. Furthermore, it outlines upcoming actions in education and infrastructure solutions, as outlined in the Open Science Action Plan.
The second part of the paper delves into the role of the Academic and Research Network of Slovenia (ARNES), the Slovenian national research and education network (NREN). ARNES has played a pivotal role in the construction of two new national data centres dedicated to the permanent storage of research data. The paper analyses the benefits of these national solutions, which enhance infrastructure accessibility, simplify researchers' work, and provide a more efficient and secure environment for research organisations to store their data. The development of data storage services and the construction of data centres take into consideration existing best practices and collaboration with researchers and research organisations. The solutions offered by the data centres will support existing
university repositories and align with the objectives outlined in the Open Science Action Plan. The integration of research funding and evaluation services into a centralised platform will be thoughtfully considered, taking into account the requirements of the research community. A key objective is to enable the implementation of services and infrastructure in accordance with OpenAIRE, where ARNES will play a pivotal role. As a mandated organisation in the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and being in touch with best practices in the EU area as an NREN, ARNES is well-positioned to contribute to this endeavour.
The paper also highlights the broader objective of improving research quality, efficiency, and responsiveness within the national open science ecosystem. It discusses the establishment of the Slovenian Open Science Community (SSOZ) as part of the tripartite European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) event, making Slovenia one of the pioneering countries in the European Union. The SSOZ, along with Slovenian representatives in the EOSC, has already addressed challenges related to the permanent preservation of research data, which will be comprehensively discussed in relation to the new data centres and associated activities.
Additionally, there is a growing demand for education on repository usage and infrastructure upgrades. The Slovenian Open Science Community serves as a unifying platform for all major universities and research institutions in Slovenia, fostering collaboration among its members. It encompasses participants from various initiatives, such as the NI4OS project, which aims to promote the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) at a regional level. Furthermore, the community includes stakeholders from the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) and similar European and institutional initiatives dedicated to advancing open science principles.
Drawing from the experience of the case study, the paper critically highlights how the national infrastructure can simplify researchers' work. It emphasises the role of data centres in fostering sustainable and long-term data storage solutions aligned with the principles of open science. As an NREN, ARNES already manages public research infrastructure and offers solutions that facilitate research, such as data sharing and access to EuroHPC's supercomputing infrastructure. The establishment of new data centres by ARNES will significantly enhance the infrastructure for open science in Slovenia, providing primary conditions for implementing open science principles in research work. The implementation of planned professional training programs focused on utilising the infrastructure, along with workshops on open science organised by the Central Technical Library at the University of Ljubljana specifically for researchers in Slovenia, will serve as essential catalysts for enabling research activities that align with the principles of open science. With the infrastructure in place, these initiatives will empower researchers with the necessary knowledge and skills to embrace open science practices effectively.