EVENT REPORT TEMPLATE – Study Visit to National Technical University

of Athens 17 – 19 April 2018

This template has to be filled by project partners (organisers) for all BE-OPEN events (except SC meetings). Furthermore, this template can be used to inform colleagues and partners about other events attended (promoting BE-OPEN). In the second case please just fill in the first page and delete the chapters thereafter.

Author: Lazar Petrovic

Event Title: Study Visit to National Technical University of Athens

Event Date: 17 – 19 April 2018

Event Venue: - General State Archives premises, Dafnis 61, Psichiko 154 52, Athens

- National Technical University of Athens, Multimedia Center, Library Building Zografou Campus, Athens

- National Hellenic Research Foundation (NHRF), Leof. Vasileos Konstantinou 48, Athens

Type of event: (National, international, press conference, promotional event etc.)

Study Visit

Short description:

Study visit to the National Technical University of Athens to transfer experience and knowledge related to the university-industry linkages and the evaluation of research impacts.

Organiser(s): National Technical University of Athens

Agenda: Study Visit agenda BEOPEN Registration lists - Athens

Number of participants: First day 22, Second day 20, Third day 20.

Links to further information: Study visit to National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Other personal remarks: /

Here you can include the information such:

N/A

EVENT ORGANISATION DETAILS

Invitation was sent off to participants on: N/A

Information material was sent off to participants on: N/A

Date of initial participant list compilation: N/A

Date of final participant list compilation: N/A

Total number of participants invited: N/A

Date of agenda finalisation: N/A

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE EVENT PREPARATION PHASE

*(To be filled by organisers)

Organisers: Please complete (if you have not met with any problems in that phase, please fill in “N/A”. Please also include any feedback by the participants before the workshop ):

1) N/A 2) N/A

EVENT ROLLOUT

Some general information (to be filled by organisers): Final Event Agenda and Participant list

Event Implementation – Commentary by Organizing Partners

WP-leader:

N/A

Task leader:

N/A

EVENT EVALUATION BY PARTICIPANTS

Summary of the Participant Feedback Form Results to be filled by organisers based on the questionnaire results. Please note: insert only the overall percentage of all feedback forms received (e.g. participants total number=30; 15 of them were most satisfied and 15 of them satisfied – please include 50% in the column most satisfied and 50% in the column satisfied.)

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

The event administration 6,25% 6,25% 0% 37,50% 50,00%

The structure of the programme

6,25% 12,50% 12,50% 25,50% 56,75%

The venue and facilities 6,25% 0% 18,75% 31,25% 43,80%

The quality of presentations 6,25% 6,25% 6,25% 31,25% 50,00%

The quality of discussions 6,25% 0% 12,50% 37,50% 43,75%

The level of presenters' competence

6,25% 0% 0% 25,00% 68,75%

The level of attendees' competence

6,25% 6,25% 12,50% 31,25% 43,75%

Overall organisation 6,25% 6,25% 18,75% 37,50% 31,25%

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

My expectations about this event were met or exceeded

0% 12,50% 12,50% 25,00% 50,00%

I enjoyed the interaction with other participants

0% 6,25% 6,25% 31,25% 56,25%

Discussions were relevant for the participants

0% 0% 12,50% 50,00% 37,50%

Methods of working were suitable for the topics and for the participants

0% 0% 18,75% 37,50% 43,75%

Time management was always to my fullest satisfaction

0%

6,25%

6,25% 25,00% 62,50%

Style and level of communication between organisers and participants were professional

0% 0% 6,25% 31,25% 62,50%

I would recommend this kind of event to my colleagues

0% 0% 25,00% 25,00% 50,00%

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements related to open science:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

The information I got during the third day of study visit was very useful to me

0% 0% 6,25% 37,50% 56,25%

The information I got during the second day of study visit was very useful to me

0% 0% 12,50% 31,25% 56,25%

The information I got during the first day of study visit was very useful to me

0% 18,75% 18,75% 31,25% 31,25%

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements related to open science:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

The information I got on open science was very useful to me

0% 0% 25,00% 25,00% 50,00%

The information I got on open access was very useful to me

0% 0% 12,50% 37,50% 50,00%

The information I got on open data was very useful to me

0% 6,25% 25,00% 18,75% 50,00%

I have received all information needed on best practices for introducing the open science, open access and data management

0% 12,50% 12,50% 43,75% 31,25%

This event completely covered the topics I have expected

0% 12,50% 18,75% 37,50% 31,25%

Prior Experience of Similar Events – Overall %:

87,50%

Strengths and limitations of the event: please include comments received

Please indicate the strengths of the event and contributions or activities you find the most relevant to the goals of the BE-OPEN project:

• The Greek experience related to the repository infrastructure is highly relevant to the project, as it reveals the cowpats associated with an early start, in a situation when standards and procedures are not fully developed. It also indicates that a late start (in a situation when standards and procedures are known, established and tested) in Serbia may not be a disadvantage.

• The host has done their best to involve competent speakers. They have enough knowledge and proven experience.

• Third day presentations and discussions regarding conserving and publishing scientific results in open science repositories.

• Presented data and organisations models of the digital collections in different institutions were significant.

• Everything that was achieved in BE-OPEN project was expertly presented and the results themselves were outstanding. Presenters were experts in their fields and information was very valuable.

• Regarding the experience of NTUA in open access, all events were very useful for BE-OPEN project. It would be of significant importance presentation of law in Greece, hold by Prodromos Tsiavos, since legal acts are quite similar to Serbian and it would be good direction to Serbian legal ground for open science.

• Presentations on KALIPOS project and open data.

• The strength of the event is the coverage of three different complementary topics open data, open data archives and open science presented by the representative of the most prestigious institutions in Greece, General State Archives, National Technical University of Athens, GFOSS and National Hellenic Research Foundation.

• There were 2 very interesting presentation on the second day, and 2 on the third day. The experience of Greek collages is very important for us, and it seems to me that it is comparable for Serbia.

• The participants.

• Presentation of the archive, and the workflow for collecting the Greek PhD theses and doctorate holder’s statistics was the most relevant for my scope of work.

• Variety of topics and presenters.

Please indicate how you think the event could have been improved:

• The presentations failed to cover crucial Open Science

topics - e.g. great attention was paid to open government data (instead of research data) and heritage preservation and digitization, which are not the focuses of the BEOPEN project.

• By allocating an open panel session each day for all attendees and presenters to discuss the topics that have arisen during presentations and Q&A.

• A visit to the National Library of Greece would be a valuable experience.

• Maybe there could be more water and tea/coffee during the brakes. Maybe a snack or two.

• I do not have any suggestions.

• I have no particular suggestions.

• The event does not need improvement.

• Maybe better preparation from our delegation and much more discussions with foreign partners.

• To present more topics related with the main activities in Be Open project.

• More days.

• I have no further comments.

• More topics suited for researchers and policy makers rather than librarians.

Did all important stakeholders attend the event and did they get a chance of presenting their opinion on open science and open access:

• Yes indeed, there was a discussion after each session.

• All-important stakeholders attended the event and they got a chance of presenting

their opinion on open science and open access.

• Except the representatives of the State University of Novi Pazar, all important stakeholders attended the event and had the chance to present their opinions.

• The MESTD again sent new person, and one of Serbian partner were missing. We had a possibility to express our opinion and practice.

• Yes, they did.

Any further comments: • I have no further comments.

• We have once more evidenced how much organisation, work and efforts have to be mobilized in the field of open science and open data in order to catch up with the existing state of the art in EU countries.

• I have no further comments.

Additional comments:

*to be filled by local partner

Please add the following additional information here:

• Charts of the statistical figures from the tables above (pie or bar charts) FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS:

6,25% 6,25%

0%

37,50%

50,00%

THE EVENT ADMINISTRATION

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25%12,50%

12,50%

25,50%

56,75%

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25% 0,00%

18,75%

31,25%

43,80%

THE VENUE AND FACILITIES

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25% 6,25%

6,25%

31,25%

50,00%

THE QUALITY OF PRESENTATIONS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25% 0,00%

12,50%

37,50%

43,75%

THE QUALITY OF DISCUSSIONS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25% 0,00%

0,00%

25,00%

68,75%

THE LEVEL OF PRESENTERS' COMPETENCE

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

6,25% 6,25%

12,50%

31,25%

43,75%

THE LEVEL OF ATTENDEES' COMPETENCE

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS:

6,25% 6,25%

18,75%

37,50%

31,25%

OVERALL ORGANISATION

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0,00% 12,50%

12,50%

25,00%

50,00%

MY EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THIS EVENT WERE MET OR EXCEEDED

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0,00% 6,25%

6,25%

31,25%

56,25%

I ENJOYED THE INTERACTION WITH OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0,00%0,00%

12,50%

50,00%

37,50%

DISCUSSIONS WERE RELEVANT FOR THE PARTICIPANTS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0,00%0,00%

18,75%

37,50%

43,75%

METHODS OF WORKING WERE SUITABLE FOR THE TOPICS AND FOR THE PARTICIPANTS

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0,00% 6,25%

6,25%

25,00%62,50%

TIME MANAGEMENT WAS ALWAYS TO MY FULLEST SATISFACTION

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

THIRD SET OF QUESTIONS:

0,00%0,00%

6,25%

31,25%62,50%

STYLE AND LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ORGANISERS AND PARTICIPANTS WERE PROFESSIONAL

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0,00%0,00%

25,00%

25,00%

50,00%

I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS KIND OF EVENT TO MY COLLEAGUES

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0%0%

6,25%

37,50%

56,25%

THE INFORMATION I GOT DURING THE THIRD DAY OF STUDY VISIT WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0%0%

12,50%

31,25%

56,25%

THE INFORMATION I GOT DURING THE SECOND DAY OF STUDY VISIT WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0% 18,75%

18,75%

31,25%

31,25%

THE INFORMATION I GOT DURING THE FIRST DAY OF STUDY VISIT WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0%0%

25,00%

25,00%

50,00%

THE INFORMATION I GOT ON OPEN SCIENCE WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0%0%

12,50%

37,50%

50,00%

THE INFORMATION I GOT ON OPEN ACCESS WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0% 6,25%

25,00%

18,75%

50,00%

THE INFORMATION I GOT ON OPEN DATA WAS VERY USEFUL TO ME

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0% 12,50%

12,50%

43,75%

31,25%

I HAVE RECEIVED ALL INFORMATION NEEDED ON BEST PRACTICES FOR INTRODUCING THE OPEN SCIENCE, OPEN ACCESS AND DATA

MANAGEMENT

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF SIMILAR EVENTS:

0% 12,50%

12,50%

43,75%

31,25%

I HAVE RECEIVED ALL INFORMATION NEEDED ON BEST PRACTICES FOR INTRODUCING THE OPEN SCIENCE, OPEN ACCESS AND DATA

MANAGEMENT

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0% 12,50%

18,75%

37,50%

31,25%

THIS EVENT COMPLETELY COVERED THE TOPICS I HAVE EXPECTED

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

LESSONS LEARNED

(Please fill in using bulleted text, e.g.)

• N/A

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

(May be filled by any of the organising partners)

Please add in any other comments concerning the preparation and organisation of this event:

On the project website, partners can find Agenda, Gallery, Attendance sheet and this report.

BE-OPEN TEAM

The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of

the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for

any use which may be made of the information contained therein.