COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The European Research Area: time for implementation and monitoring progress
Date: 2017-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU research policy, action programme, gender equality, innovation, international cooperation, job access, research and development, research staff, scientific cooperation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.1.2017  SWD(2017) 21 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The European Research Area: time for implementation and monitoring progress {COM(2017) 35 final}  
 
 
Table of content 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Priority 1: More effective national research systems ............................................................................. 5 

Priority 2: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition ............................................................ 9 

Priority 2A: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition ...................................................... 9 

Priority 2B Research Infrastructures ................................................................................................. 12 

Priority 3: An open labour market for researchers ............................................................................... 16 

Priority 4: Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research ..................................................... 20 

Priority 5: Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge. ................................... 23 

Priority 5a: Knowledge circulation .................................................................................................... 23 

Priority 5B:  Open Access................................................................................................................... 28 

Priority 6: International cooperation .................................................................................................... 33 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 37 

Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 40 

Annex 1: Statistical notes and footnotes to tables ........................................................................... 40 

Annex 2: Actions in support of ERA by the various ERA working groups gathering national 
representatives .................................................................................................................................. 43 

Annex 3: Actions in support of ERA by the members of the Stakeholders' Platform ....................... 56 

Tables 

Table 1  Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (2010-2013) ..................................................... 6 

Table 2A  GBARD (EUR) allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or 
multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector( 2010-2014) ....... 10 

Table 2B 
investment needs .......................................................................................................................... 13 

Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding 

Table 3  Number of researcher postings advertised through the EURAXESS job portal, per 1 000 
researchers in the public sector (2012-2014) ............................................................................... 17 

Table 4  Share of women in Grade A positions in the Higher Education Sector (2007-2014) .... 21 

Table 5A1 
research institutions (2008-2012) ................................................................................................. 25 

Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with public or private 

Table 5A2 
institutions (2008-2012) ................................................................................................................ 26 

Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with higher education 

Table 6  Co-publications with non-ERA partners per 1 000 researchers in the public sector 
(2005-2014) ................................................................................................................................... 34 

Growth rates of countries across ERA priorities ........................................................................... 38 

Performance of countries across ERA priorities ............................................................................ 39 

2 

 
 
 
Introduction 

An  integrated  European  Research  Area  (ERA)  leads  to  'a  unified  research  area  open  to  the 
world  based  on  the  internal  market,  in  which  researchers,  scientific  knowledge  and 
technology  circulate  freely  and  through  which  the  Union  and  its  Member  States  strengthen 
their scientific and technological basis, their competitiveness and their capacity to collectively 
address grand challenges.'1 

The  last  ERA  Progress  Report  has  been  issued  in  2014.  The  present  report  summarises  the 
state of play of ERA and the progress on the implementation of ERA over the period 2014-
20162.  The  accompanying  report  "Data  gathering  and  information  for  the  2016  ERA 
monitoring"  by  Science-Metrix3  provides  quantitative  data  on  a  set  of  indicators  with 
additional policy relevant qualitative information. This report provides essential and detailed 
analysis  on  the  basis  of  the  ERA  Monitoring  Mechanism  (EMM)  for  each  of  the  ERA 
priorities as well as "Country Profiles". Data and an accompanying analysis for all Member 
States and Associated Countries that is necessary for the understanding of the current state of 
play.  

In line with the Council conclusions on the ERA Progress report 20144 the Commission has 
further  improved  the  ERA  Monitoring  Mechanism  (EMM)  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
Member  States  and  ERA  stakeholders'  organisations,  thereby  using  as  much  as  possible 
already existing data, mainly from Eurostat. Almost all of these indicators show considerable 
progress  during  the last  years,  although  there  are  considerable  differences  between  Member 
States. 

Another  important  milestone  for  this  progress  Report  2016  was  the  launch  of  the  ERA 
Roadmap  2015-20205,  a  living  document  to  guide  Member  States  in  structuring  their 
implementation of ERA at national level by drawing up National Action Plans. The European 
Research  and  Innovation  Area  committee  (ERAC)  developed  also  a  set  of  eight  core  high 
level  indicators  for  monitoring  progress  of  the  ERA  Roadmap.  These  so-called  headline 
indicators form the core of the current ERA Monitoring Mechanism6. 

Recently most Member States have published their National Action Plans 2015-2020. These 
National Action Plans give a rich insight in all forthcoming ERA-policies and corresponding 
policy measures in the Member States and Associated Countries. 

1 COM(2012)392 final, page 3 
2 The report has benefited from the analysis and information contained in the JRC Research and Innovation 
Observatory RIO Reports 2015 and  Research Performance Based Funding Systems: a Comparative Assessment, 
EUR 27477 EN; doi10.2791/134058 
3 (Web reference to be included at the moment of publication).  In addition a methodological handbook is 
provided containing statistical definitions and delineations, computation methods, and sources. 
4 Council Conclusions on the ERA Progress Report 2014, 5 December 2014 
5 Council Conclusions on the ERA Roadmap, 19 May 2015 
6 ERAC Opinion on the ERA roadmap – Core high level indicators for monitoring progress. ERAC 1213/15 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  ERA-related  groups  operating  at  the  EU-level  have  contributed  to  the  further 
implementation of ERA. An overview is presented in annex 2. 

Finally also the Stakeholders Organisations organized within the ERA Stakeholders Platform 
have made contributions to the further implementation of ERA.  An overview is presented in 
annex 3. 

This report is mainly backward looking focusing on the developments during the last 2 years. 
For  the  first  time  progress  on  ERA  is  measured  for  each  priority7.  Despite  being  backward 
looking a first impression of the main policy directions of the National Action Plans is already 
included.  The  next  ERA  Progress  Report,  which  will  appear  in  2018,  will  make  a  full 
assessment of the actions that are announced in the National Action Plans by comparing the 
progress on ERA and the related ERA actions identified in the National Action Plans.  

7 The 2014 ERA Progress Report provided static values for a specific year showing the gap between individual 
country values and the EU average. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Priority 1: More effective national research systems 
The  focus  of  this  first  ERA  priority "more  effective  national  research  systems"  has  evolved 
over time. In the 2012 Communication and the 2014 ERA Progress Report the focus was on 
open, national level competition as key to deriving maximum value from public investments 
in  research  and  innovation  which  involved  allocating  funding  and  assessing  the  quality  of 
research-performing  organisations  by  peer  review.  Main  conclusions  were  that  national 
innovation systems have become more aligned to ERA priorities, competitive funding occurs 
in all Member States, although with significant variations. Performance based assessment of 
institutional funding is implemented by the funding organisations in 16 Member States8.  

In the 2015 ERA roadmap 'Strengthening the evaluation of research and innovation policies 
and  seeking  complementarities  between,  and  rationalisation  of,  instruments  at  EU  and 
national  levels'  was  identified  as  the  top  action  with  the  corresponding  headline  indicator 
"Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator". 

8 Performance based assessment of institutional funding is implemented by the funding organisations in 17 
Member States : See table 3  in Jonkers, K. & Zacharewicz, T., Research Performance Based Funding Systems: a 
Comparative Assessment, EUR 27477 EN; doi10.2791/134058 

5 

 
 
                                                            
Table 1 

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (2010-2013) 

Note: 
Source: 

See annex 1 
Calculations by European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Competence Centre on Composite Indicators and 
Scoreboards. For details on the methodology, please refer to Vértesy (2015) 

6 

CountryWeight inGDPScore(2013)CAGR(2010-2013)Lead/Gapto EU-28 CAGREU-2844.46.4%N/ACluster 132.3%69.06.9%0.5Cluster 239.4%46.06.4%0.0Cluster 328.2%22.02.9%-3.5Cluster 40.1%13.11.8%-4.6CH3.6%97.54.2%-2.1UK14.1%72.59.1%2.7DK1.8%70.28.4%2.0NL4.5%70.19.1%2.8SE3.0%66.65.2%-1.2IL:61.52.3%-4.1BE2.7%57.29.5%3.2NO2.7%56.57.1%0.7FI1.4%54.55.6%-0.8DE19.4%49.96.0%-0.3AT2.2%48.62.6%-3.8IE1.2%47.37.3%0.9FR14.6%46.56.2%-0.2LU0.3%44.613.6%7.2IS0.1%40.21.2%-5.1CY0.1%36.68.7%2.3ES7.1%33.95.9%-0.5IT11.1%33.05.6%-0.8HU0.7%29.75.2%-1.2EE0.1%29.73.8%-2.6EL1.2%28.75.5%-0.8PT1.2%27.04.7%-1.7SI0.2%26.3-1.0%-7.4CZ1.1%23.41.9%-4.5MT0.1%22.88.0%1.6LV0.2%20.14.1%-2.3SK0.5%18.64.0%-2.4PL2.7%18.23.6%-2.8HR0.3%17.85.2%-1.2TR:17.80.1%-6.3BG0.3%17.20.6%-5.8LT0.2%16.4-0.6%-7.0RO1.0%15.71.3%-5.1BA:14.61.7%-4.7MD:14.3-0.2%-6.6RS0.2%14.3-1.5%-7.9MK0.1%13.80.3%-6.1ME0.0%13.4-0.2%-6.6UA:12.90.3%-6.1AL:12.26.8%0.4Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3Cluster 4 
 
 
The analysis in the Science-Metrix report shows that in 2016 research excellence measured by 
the  headline  indicator  has  increased  over  the  period  2010-2013  for  the  EU-28  average. 
Although there are differences in growth percentage all countries but  4 have increased their 
level  of  excellence  over  this  period.  Almost  all  countries  have  National  Strategies  for 
Research and Innovation in place, both single overarching strategies (22) as well as multiple 
strategies  by  different  government  bodies  (11).  Several  Member  States  are  redefining  their 
National  R&I  strategies  based  on  a  broad  concept  of  innovation,  encompassing  education, 
research  and  innovation  to  achieve  greater  efficiencies.  Recommending  further  policy 
alignment remains however pertinent. Looking at the GBARD as a proportion of GDP giving 
an  indication  about  the  share  of  GDP  used  for  investment  in  R&D,  there  is  a  growing 
divergence between countries, which may be caused by countries reducing research budgets 
because of the need for fiscal consolidation or increasing budgets with the goal of using this 
for further economic growth. The headline indicator and the European Innovation Scoreboard 
summary index are highly correlated which implies that Research Excellence leads to strong 
innovation performance. 

Other  findings  of  the  Science-Metrix  report  are  that  in  the  case  of  multiple  strategies  by 
various  stakeholders'  alignment  can  still  be  improved  to  provide  a  clearer  direction  and 
efficient  integration.  Funding  is  a  big  issue  and  further  streamlining  of  funding  application 
processes would help reduce existing fragmentation, increasing the return on research funding 
while  facilitating collaboration across  national borders and across  sectors.  It was also  found 
that funding is also allocated through increasingly competitive and transparent processes. The 
criteria  and  processes  for  these  funding  allocation  mechanisms  would  benefit  from  further 
fine tuning, with best practices shared across the ERA. A sustained and appropriate balance  
between  competitive  and  basic  funding  is  important,  at  both  the  project  and  institutional 
levels. National R&I funding commitments need to be clear and explicit, and be laid out long 
term, to provide the environment of predictability sought by the private sector, in addition to 
facilitating clear expectations with respect to collaboration across national borders within the 
ERA. 

In the National Action Plans the following types of actions are intended: 

 

Improvement  of  legal  frameworks  for  national  research  and  innovation  systems 
including innovation friendly regulation and public procurement; 

  Development  of  long  term    national  Strategies  for  Research  and  Innovation  and  (in 

some cases also) Education to improve quality and excellence; 

  Development  of  monitoring  and  benchmarking  mechanisms  for  better  evaluation  of 
Research  and  Innovation  policies 
international  perspective.  New  funding 
in 
mechanisms  with  competitive  elements  and  complementarities  between  national  and 
EU funding including public-private partnerships; 

  Strengthening  the  performance  of  the  European  Research  Area  as  a  whole  including 

widening participation and strengthening excellence;  

  Actions increasing valorisation  and (societal) impact assessments of publicly funded 

research. 

7 

 
 
the  objectives  and  measures 

the 
Comparing 
recommendations in the Science-Metrix report shows that the national action plans are having 
more emphasis on developing the strategies, frameworks evaluation mechanisms whereas less 
attention is paid to the level of and mechanisms for the funding. 

the  national  action  plans  with 

in 

Stakeholders Organisations' contribute to the effectiveness of national research systems by a 
number  of  activities  and  events  such  as  on  strengthening  Europe’s  Innovation  Ecosystems,  
improving financial and auditing rules and state aid regime to best support and achieve ERA 
objectives. Moreover campaigns for sustainable, sufficient and simple funding for universities 
in  Europe, position statements about more effective National Research Systems  and various 
initiatives in the field of widening participation and strengthening of excellence. 

ERAC itself was also active in the domain of priority 1 and adopted an opinion on Innovation 
Procurement in 2015. Innovation procurement has over the last decade become an established 
part  of  policies  in  many  EU  Member  States.  The  principal aim  of  the  opinion  is  to  identify 
good  practices  across  Europe  and  propose  ways  to  promote  and  implement  these  good 
practices.  Furthermore,  the  revised  EU  procurement  legislation  combined  with  financing  in 
Horizon  2020  and  in  structural  funds  have  increased  and  widened  the  interest  in  the 
innovation procurement in the EU Member States.  

Overall Conclusion 

The analysis shows that most countries have made progress in the field of research excellence 
and almost all of them have adopted national strategies for research and innovation. Several 
Member States are redefining their National R&I strategies further based on a broad concept 
of  innovation,  encompassing  education,  research  and  innovation  to  achieve  greater 
efficiencies. A first inventory of the National Action Plans shows that this development into 
the  direction  of  a  more  holistic  strategic  approach  for  research  and  innovation  will  be 
strengthened  in  the  future.  A  necessary  condition  is  however  more  stable  funding  of 
government investment in the future. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Priority 2: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition 
In  the  2012  ERA  Communication  priority  2  includes  both  the  grand  challenges  and  the 
research infrastructures. In the 2015 ERA Roadmap it was decided to split priority 2 into two 
sub-priorities  to  be  able  to  focus  more  efficiently  on  the  issues  though  being  closely 
connected still needs particular attention. 

Priority 2A: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition 
According  to  the  2014  ERA  Progress  Report  transnational  cooperation  at  program  level 
between  Member  States  was  increasing  and  forms  part  of  the  national  strategies  of  16 
Member States. Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) are increasingly helping to align national 
programs  and  activities  to  common  agendas  at  EU  level  addressing  societal  challenges.  
Several Member States have started to develop national plans, roadmaps and strategies in the 
domain of the JPIs they participate in, with a view to strengthening their commitment to the 
Strategic Research Agendas of JPIs. 

This development was further strengthened by the EU ERA Roadmap 2015, which identified 
"Improving  alignment  with  and  across  the  Joint  Programming  Process  and  the  resulting 
initiatives and speeding up their implementation" as top action priority. The headline indicator 
is  "GBARD  allocated  to  Europe-wide  transnational,  as  well  as  bilateral  or  multilateral, 
public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector". 

9 

 
 
Table 2A 

GBARD (EUR) allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral 

or multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector 
(2010-2014) 

Note: 

The CAGR is computed on the 2010-14 period but the trendline shows data for the period 2007-2014. 
Break in time series: EU-28 (2007, 2008, 2012, 2013); 2012 (BE, LV); 2007 (DK, NO); PT (2008, 2013); 2011 
(RO, SI, FI); SE (2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) 
For further notes see annex 1. 
Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: gba_tncoor and gba_nabsfin07) 

10 

CountryWeight inGDPScore(2014)CAGR(2010-14)Lead/Gapto EU-28 CAGRTrendline(2007-14)EU-282 5077.8%N/ACluster 125.9%10 9235.0%-2.8Cluster 236.6%3 6425.4%-2.4Cluster 336.2%1 14015.0%7.2Cluster 41.2%63-22.8%-30.6Cluster 1CH4.1%27 941:BE3.1%9 2511.0%-6.8IT12.6%8 39518.1%10.3AT2.6%6 9583.4%-4.3IS0.1%6 927:SE3.4%6 067-2.5%-10.3Cluster 2DE22.8%4 686-1.1%-8.9NO3.0%4 414-3.9%-11.7NL5.2%4 10110.4%2.6FI1.6%3 795-0.2%-8.0LU0.4%3 38735.2%27.4CY0.1%3 0180.7%-7.1IE1.5%2 9515.7%-2.0DK2.0%2 787-3.7%-11.4Cluster 3UK17.6%2 56111.0%3.3ES8.1%2 3856.2%-1.6HR0.3%1 56922.5%14.8CZ1.2%1 245-3.4%-11.1RO1.2%1 1919.5%1.7EL1.4%1 098-12.6%-20.4LV0.2%1 03047.1%39.4SI0.3%955-18.4%-26.2EE0.2%93925.7%18.0PT1.4%7491.4%-6.4PL3.2%67876.8%69.0LT0.3%22024.8%17.1HU0.8%1943.8%-4.0Cluster 4RS0.3%101:BG0.3%9716.0%8.2SK0.6%5215.7%7.9MT0.1%0-100.0%-107.8 
 
 
 
 
The findings in the Science-Metrix report show that this priority, together with the headline 
indicator  for  priority  3,  has  one  of  the  highest  growth  rates  among  all  8  ERA  headline 
indicators  with  an  annual  growth  rate  of  7.8.  While  this  result  is  an  indication  of  the 
increasing  internationalization  of  science  in  general,  it  also  underlines  the  increasing 
importance  that  national  governments  in  Europe  attribute  to  transnational  and  joint 
programming, which is stronger policy driven as the measured internationalization of science 
by means of international co-publications. 

This interpretation is reinforced by the additional EMM indicators, notably the Member States 
participation  in  public-to-public  collaborations  within  the  EU  R&D  policy  framework  per 
FTE researcher in the public sector. This additional ERA indicator showed at large the highest 
growth  rate  of  all  ERA  indicators  with  an  annual  growth  rate  of  42.1  %  in  the  years  2012-
2014.  Clearly,  the  provision  of  a  common  policy  framework  on  EU  level  as  well  as  the 
provision  of  additional  financial  resources  (for  Art  185  initiatives  and  ERA-NET  CoFunds) 
acted as a catalyst for joint action among Member States and underlines the importance of EU 
policies for the implementation of the ERA. As this additional ERA-indicator is statistically 
one part of the headline indicator for this priority, it can be argued that the common EU policy 
framework and the additional resources provided by the EU R&D framework programs led to 
a significant leverage effect at national level for participating in Joint Programming – notably 
as the growth rate for the additional indicator is about four times as high as for the headline 
indicator.  

The second additional EMM indicator for this priority, the co-publications with ERA partners, 
showed a clear growth of 3.6% in the years 2005-2014 also, however significantly lower than 
the  other  indicators  of  this  ERA  priority.  In  2015,  about  40%  of  publications  produced  by 
ERA researchers were co-published with a partner in another ERA country, a figure that has 
been increasing steadily over the last decade. 

The main challenges indicated in the Science-Metrix report are that national and international 
funding  arrangements  would  benefit  from  further  harmonisation,  which  can  also  facilitate 
international researcher mobility. In addition, Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) addressing 
grand challenges could benefit from being more explicitly linked to the smart specialization 
strategies of the partners involved, and vice versa. The assessment of the societal benefits of 
research  need  to  be  more  robust  to  facilitate  improved  research  management  as  well  as  to 
better communicate the value of research to the public, demonstrating return on investment. 

National Action Plans present a broad range of measures and activities of Member States and 
Associated countries to strengthen their participation in Joint Programming and to better align 
national and Europe-wide R&D programming. These include the following type of measures: 

  Communication  and information  measures include better information of  R&D actors 
in  Joint 

the  opportunities  and  added  value  from  participating 

concerning 
Programming; 

11 

 
 
  Governance and coordination measures are introduced by a number of Member States. 
Dedicated  funding  measures  are  introduced  by  a  number  of  Member  States  for  the 
participation in Joint Programming;  

  Harmonisation  of  funding  rules  is  introduced  by  several  Member  States  aiming  at 

facilitating the national participation in the JPI’s;  

  Outreach  measures  towards  smart  specialization  strategies  and  sectorial  policies, 
especially  focusing  on  a  better  articulation  between  the  European  Structural  funds 
(ESIF),  notably  the  regional  smart  specialization  strategies,  and  the  SRIA’s  of  the 
JPI’s.  

Comparing the objectives and measures identified in the National Action Plans with the main 
challenges  stated  in  the  Science-Metrix  report  it  is  clear  that  the  national  action  plans  are 
responding to the main challenges identified. 

Stakeholders organisations have contributed by an EARTO position on ‘The Role and Future 
of  Joint  Programming’  in  2015  and  more  general  actions  regarding  funding  transnational 
research. 

The High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC) has taken several actions, among others 
exploring  ways  on  how  to  best  contribute  to  foster  the  Joint  Programming  Projects  and 
established new working methods in order to become more operational. In particular, there is 
focus on the long term strategy of the Joint Programming, the relationship between the GPC 
and the JPI and focus on monitoring and evaluation. These result in an evaluation exercise, a 
mutual learning exercise and a development of a future vision. 

GPC  was  also  involved  in  the  Lund  Declaration  2015  which  resulted  from  a  high  level 
conference, ‘Lund Revisited: Tackling Societal Challenges‘. 

Overall Conclusion 

The analysis shows substantial progress in most Member States concerning their participation 
in  the  JPI’s  over  the  last  years.  Referring  to  past  trends  and  measures  implemented  and/or 
planned in the National Action Plans, it can be assumed that volume, quality and impact of 
Joint  Programming  will  continue  to  grow  substantially,  notably  when  an  EU  policy 
framework and additional financial means from EU budgets continue to act as a catalyst for 
Member State action. 

Priority 2B Research Infrastructures 
At  the  moment  of  the  ERA  Progress  Report  2014,  22  Member  States  had  adopted  National 
Research  Infrastructure  roadmaps  of  which  5  had  been  updated  since  2013.  These  national 
roadmaps  did  not  consistently  indicate  the  links  with  the  ESFRI  roadmap  and  the  financial 
commitments to the development of Research Infrastructures identified by ESFRI and other 
world-class Research Infrastructures. 

In  the  2015  ERA  Roadmap  "Making  optimal  use  of  public  investments  in  Research 
Infrastructures  compatible  with  the  ESFRI  priorities  and  criteria  taking  full  account  of  long 

12 

 
 
term  sustainability"  was  identified  as  top  priority.  Achieving  this  goal  will  accelerate  the 
development  of  state-of-the-art  services  needed  by  European  and  global  scientific 
communities and create a more efficient European Research landscape. The headline indicator 
is  "Availability  of  national  roadmaps  with  identified  ESFRI  projects  and  corresponding 
investment needs". 

Table 2B 

Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and 

corresponding investment needs 

Note: 

Source: 

References to a ‘Latvian Roadmap of National Level Research Centres’ may be found online (see e.g. 
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/77424776/latvian-roadmap-national-level-research-centres), which 
describe it as a ‘long-term planning instrument that lists research infrastructures on national importance, either 
new or in need of upgrading’ but the roadmap per se is not available. 
National roadmaps for research infrastructures: 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri-national-roadmaps 

13 

CountryWeight inGDPRoadmap yearID'd ESFRIprojectsID'd fundingrequirementsRO1.0%2008YesYesBG0.3%2010YesYesSI0.2%2011YesYesSE2.9%2011YesYesDE19.5%2013YesYesNL4.4%2013YesYesEE0.1%2014YesYesHR0.3%2014YesYesFI1.4%2014YesYesDK1.7%2015YesYesCH3.5%2015YesYesFR14.3%2016YesYesIT10.8%2011YesIL:2013YesEL1.2%2014YesAT2.2%2014YesPL2.8%2014YesPT1.2%2014YesLT0.2%2015YesCZ1.0%2015YesNO2.5%2016YesIE1.3%2007HU0.7%2012ES7.0%2013BE2.7%No roadmapCY0.1%No roadmapLV0.2%No roadmapLU0.3%No roadmapMT0.1%No roadmapUK15.1%No roadmapSK0.5%No roadmapIS0.1%No roadmapME0.0%No roadmapMK0.1%No roadmapAL:No roadmapRS0.2%No roadmapTR:No roadmapMD:No roadmapUA:No roadmap 
 
 
Currently 21 Member States and 3 Associated Countries have adopted national roadmaps of 
which  13  have  been  introduced  or  updated  since  2014.  There  are  12  countries  that  have 
national  roadmaps  in  place  with  both  ESFRI  projects  and  funding  needs  identified. 
Additionally  another  9  countries  have  roadmaps  identifying  ESFRI  projects  but  no  funding 
requirements.  The  evolution  of  national  roadmaps  in  the  last  years  suggests  a  greater 
alignment of national processes with the European priority setting. This trend is underpinned 
by  the  large  number  of  national  roadmap  updates  since  2014  and  in  the  frequent  use  at 
national level of the methodology consistent with the ESFRI Roadmap. 

Also according to the Science-Metrix report many countries have developed and implemented 
national  roadmaps  for  research  infrastructures  aligned  with  the  overall  ESFRI  roadmap. 
However,  these  national-level  roadmaps  would  benefit  from  more  clearly  and  consistently 
outlining  the  financial  needs  associated  with  the  development  of  prioritised  research 
infrastructures.  Furthermore,  their  long-term  sustainability,  including  prospects  for  stable 
funding  of  operational  costs  should  be  considered  from  the  inception  phase  of  the  project. 
National  funding  mechanisms  and  decision  making  processes  should  also  be  further 
coordinated to speed up the infrastructure development. 

In addition the main findings for further policy discussions in the Science-Metrix report  point 
out  that  national  roadmaps,  in  place  in  most  countries,  would  benefit  from  more  explicitly 
outlining  the  financial  requirements  to  reach  the  operational  phase,  and  to  sustain  the 
operational phase once initiated. Tackling regional disparities in research capacity should be 
to a certain extent addressed through the selection of locations for research infrastructures. In 
addition, smaller-scale research infrastructures could benefit from similar strategies that have 
been  successfully  applied  to  larger  installations:  comprehensive  national  inventories  to 
promote  awareness,  and  time-sharing  arrangements  to  promote  efficient  usage.  Finally, 
including  the  private  sector  in  the  conception,  development  and  operation  of  research 
infrastructures  could  help  to  catalyse  private-sector  involvement  in  R&I  more  broadly.  A 
similar  approach  could  be  taken  with  third-country  partners  to  increase  international 
collaboration. 

Also  in  the  National  Roadmaps  a  lot  of  attention  is  paid  to  concrete  actions  fostering  the 
coordinated development of research infrastructures at European level. These include: 

  Support  actions  to  strengthen  national  involvement  in  pan-European  research 
infrastructures  and  foster  participation  in  Horizon  2020  activities  funded  under  the 
'Research Infrastructures, including e-Infrastructures' part; 

  Funding research infrastructures that are included in the national roadmaps; 
  Fostering  communication  and  strengthening  collaboration  of  academic  and  business 
communities as well as highlighting to the general public the importance of research 
infrastructures; 

  Monitoring of implementation of national research infrastructure roadmaps; 
  Periodic revision and update of national roadmaps following strategic priority setting; 
  Stimulating use of and aligning activities with structural funds; 

14 

 
 
 

Information gathering about the use of infrastructural resources for better alignment of 
investment policies; 

  Facilitation  of  use  by  researchers  from  other  Member  States  which  are  not  in  a 

position to invest in large scale infrastructures themselves. 

Comparing  the  objectives  and  measures  chosen  in  the  national  roadmaps  with  the  main 
challenges found in the Science-Metrix report shows that they do pay attention to the funding 
though  in  a  smaller  scale  than  is  indicated  to  be  necessary  by  the  report.  The  national 
roadmaps  also  often  emphasise  the  need  to  evaluate  the  current  situation  for  an  optimal 
implementation. Some roadmaps also include planning at national level on e-infrastructures, 
the  horizontal  elements  that  enable  networking,  processing,  data  management  and  open 
access. 

In  2014,  ESFRI  published  a  prioritisation  report,  identifying  a  limited  number  of  projects 
from the ESFRI roadmap, which were mature enough to be under implementation by 2015-
2016  and  were  considered  essential  to  extend  the  frontiers  of  knowledge  in  the  fields 
concerned. This report led to the revision of the ESFRI Roadmap methodology and structure 
for the 2016 update. The ESFRI Roadmap 2016 was launched in Amsterdam and consists of 
three  Parts.  Part  1  provides  the  outline  of  the  ESFRI  strategic  considerations  in  the 
development  of  research  infrastructures  in  Europe  as  well  as  gives  an  overview  of  projects 
included in the Roadmap, the methodology, lessons learnt and the outlook into the future.  

The  Roadmap  contains  21  ESFRI  Projects  and  29  ESFRI  Landmarks,  whose  detailed 
descriptions are included in Part 2.  

The  Landscape  analysis  contained  in  Part  3  of  the  Roadmap  document  provides  the  current 
context,  in  each  domain,  of  the  ecosystem  of  national  and  international  research 
infrastructures open to European scientists and technology developers. 

The  ERA  stakeholder's  organisations  contributed  together  with  ESFRI  and  e-IRG  to  the 
“Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures” (RI) that was released in March 2016. The 
charter  followed  the  2012  ERA  Communication  and  set  out  principles  and  guidelines  for 
access to Research Infrastructures. 

Overall Conclusion 

The  analysis  of  national  roadmaps  for  research  infrastructures  demonstrates  a  significant 
progress in aligning priority setting at national level with the European strategy for research 
infrastructures developed in the framework of ESFRI. This growing alignment increases the 
coherence of the European research infrastructure ecosystem and fosters the competitiveness 
of the European Research Area. However, in order to further strengthen the effectiveness of 
public  investments  in  research  infrastructures,  a  strategy  on  long-term  sustainability  of 
research infrastructures should be agreed between the Member States. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Priority 3: An open labour market for researchers 
Priority 3 focuses on Open and attractive labour markets for researchers where the main goal 
is  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  researchers  careers  by  removing  or  alleviate  barriers  to 
their mobility, ensure an open, transparent and merit based recruitment (OTM) and improve 
innovative doctoral training.  

The ERA Progress Report of 2014 highlighted that implementing open, transparent and merit-
based recruitment practices is an important element for having an open research system which 
will allow competition, hence attracting the best researchers. The report also stresses that open 
research  systems  perform  better  in  terms  of  innovation  and  that  mobile  researchers  tend  to 
have a greater research impact than their non-mobile colleagues. In this context a tool such as 
EURAXESS facilitates geographical mobility by helping matching job supply and demand for 
researchers,  and  ensuring  equal  OTM  practices  across  Europe.  Additional  findings  are  the 
lack  of  skills  for  doctoral  candidates  in  the  private  sector  that  do  not  receive  adequate 
intellectual property management training. 

In  the 2015 ERA roadmap the top action  priority was identified as  'Using open, transparent 
and merit based recruitment practices with regard to research positions' with as corresponding 
headline  indicator  "the  number  of  researcher  job  postings  from  a  given  country  that  are 
advertised  through  the  EURAXESS  job  portal,  per  1  000  researchers  in  the  public  sector". 
With  7.8%  compound  annual  growth  rate  in  the  period  2012-2014  in  the  EU-28.  This 
indicator reached 47 % in 2014. 

16 

 
 
Table 3 

Number of researcher postings advertised through the EURAXESS job 

portal, per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2012-2014) 

Note: 

Break in time series: EU-28 (2012, 2013); BE (2012); 2013 (PT, SE, IS); RS (2014) 
For further notes see annex 1 
Source: Computed by Science-Metrix from EURAXESS historical data and from Eurostat data (online data code: 
rd_p_persocc) 

17 

CountryWeight inGDPScore (2014)CAGR (2012-14)Lead/Gap to EU-28 CAGRTrendline (2012-14)EU-2847.07.8%N/ACluster 111.6%180.570.2%62.4Cluster 238.6%64.71.4%-6.4Cluster 349.8%9.612.7%4.8Cluster 4N/AN/AN/AN/ACluster 1HR0.3%362.0308.2%300.4SE2.9%156.117.0%9.1PL2.8%146.7-4.7%-12.5IE1.3%139.117.2%9.4NL4.4%98.713.4%5.6Cluster 2CY0.1%81.7-1.4%-9.2EL1.2%78.8-8.8%-16.6LU0.3%73.7-26.0%-33.8AT2.2%71.314.0%6.2NO2.5%69.111.2%3.4UK15.1%63.84.9%-2.9BE2.7%51.90.8%-7.0FR14.3%49.816.7%8.8IS0.1%42.6:Cluster 3SI0.3%28.021.2%13.4IT10.8%26.410.7%2.9EE0.1%21.813.7%5.9DK1.7%17.83.0%-4.9RO1.0%17.0-34.8%-42.6CH3.5%16.1:ES7.0%13.021.3%13.5CZ1.0%11.4-39.1%-46.9PT1.2%7.331.0%23.2DE19.6%5.58.5%0.7FI1.4%5.4-29.4%-37.2ME0.0%3.1:LV0.2%2.772.3%64.5LT0.2%1.7-19.2%-27.0SK0.5%1.4111.8%104.0BG0.3%1.433.1%25.3HU0.7%1.0-29.4%-37.2TR:0.752.4%44.6RS0.2%0.6-12.1%-19.9 
 
  
 
 
 
The complementary indicator share of doctoral candidates with a citizenship of another EU 
Member  State  shows  that  only  few  countries  are  below  the  EU  average.  The  third 
complementary  indicator  is  the  share  of  researchers  expressing  satisfaction  that  the  hiring 
procedures  in  their  institution  are  Open,  Transparent  and  Merit-based  for  which  figures 
show a well-balanced performance distribution of countries across clusters.  Globally the use 
of the EURAXESS portal seems to be growing strongly in a handful of countries, while only 
starting up in others. Meanwhile, roughly one out of every dozen PhD candidates in the ERA 
comes from another European country, and about half of all researchers expressed satisfaction 
in the hiring processes in their home institutions. 

Main  findings  from  Science-Metrix  study  show  the  growth  of  EURAXESS  usage  varies 
remarkably  across  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries,  depending  partially  on  the 
availability  of  alternative  vacancies  advertising  and  other  factors  such  as  the  mandatory 
requirement to use the EURAXESS portal. It is shown that the benefits of open, transparent 
and  merit-based  recruitment  policies  implementation  seem  to  have  more  impact  on  early 
career stage compared to later career stages  where other criteria seem to have more influence 
toward  hiring  and  promotion  decisions.  Data  highlights  that  further  policy  efforts  aiming  at 
increasing the portability of grants ("Money Follows Researcher" model) and  increasing the 
degree  of  openness  of  national  grant  programmes  to  foreign  researchers  can  contribute 
remarkably to a further improvement of researchers' international mobility.  

It  is  also  worth  mentioning  that  heterogeneity  in  social  security  coverage  remains  and 
discourages mobility from countries with more protective systems.  Another finding is that a 
broader conception of human resourcing is urged in order to improve recruitment as well as 
working  conditions.  Pension  right  transferability  and  language  competency  for  teaching 
requirements are flagged as two salient topics here. To address the first issue  the Commission 
put  in  place a pan-European supplementary pension funds for researchers called  Retirement 
Savings Vehicle for European Research Institutions (RESAVER). This consolidated pension 
arrangement  was  launched  in  2015  and  important  steps  have  been  taken  to  set  up  the  legal 
structure for the pension vehicle to be running by the end of 2016. Progressive roll out across 
the European Economic Area will continue.  

Regarding the second issue legal barriers seem to have been removed in most countries and 
the  major  remaining  issue  for  recruiting  established  foreign  researchers  seems  to  be  the 
national language requirement for teaching. The most attractive systems, such as Switzerland, 
the United Kingdom and Ireland, do not present this language barrier.  

Heterogeneity  on  how  countries  faced  the  2008  economic  crisis,  working  conditions  and 
salary levels must be considered when discussing mobility. Differences in levels of salary can 
remarkably  hinder  mobility  to  low  paying  countries  for  example;  foreign  researchers  must 
currently  be  paid  local  salaries  when  recruited  with  Horizon  2020  funds.  At  the  same  time, 
incentives  for  collaboration  within  Europe  usually  reinforce  the  north-western  European 
nexus. 

Another  finding  is  that legal  barriers  seem  to  have  been  removed  in  most  countries  and  the 
major  remaining  issue  for  recruiting  established  international  researchers  seems  to  be  the 

18 

 
 
national language requirement for teaching. The most attractive systems, such as Switzerland, 
the United Kingdom and Ireland, do not present this language barrier.  

In the National Action Plans the following types of actions are intended: 

 

Intensify  the  usage  of  EURAXESS  network  for  increasing  researchers'  mobility  and 
ensure  compliance  with  OTM  practices  across  Europe.  Therefore  the  majority  of 
countries have foreseen to increase the number of researchers' position in the field of 
higher education and research institutions as well as enterprises; 

  Foster geographical and intersectoral mobility of researchers by addressing a broader 
spectrum  of  social  security  issues  and  promote  innovative  doctoral  training  to  make 
them more open internationally and to the non-academic sector;  

  Promote  the  Human  Resource  Strategy  for  Researchers  and  aim  at  acquiring  the 

 

"Human Resource excellence" award;  
Increase the number of tenure track positions and  where necessary implement a new 
legal basis to facilitate tenure track careers.  

Comparing  the  objectives  and  measures  in  the  national  action  plans  and  the  findings  of  the 
Science-Metrix  report  shows  that  the  national  action  plans  are  putting  adequate  attention  to 
the open ad transparent recruitment procedures and are paying attention to the challenges in 
relation to the social security.  

The  ERA  Stakeholders  Organisations  have  contributed  to  the  effectiveness  of  national 
research  systems  by  a  number  of  activities  and  events  such  as  participating  to  the  Steering 
Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM), organising parallel taskforces, common 
support to the Human Resource Strategy for Researchers trough promotion activities and also 
monitoring  activities  such  as  the  survey  on  "career  development  for  researchers"  and 
"leadership  training  for  researchers"  led  by  CESAER.  LERU  gathered  facts  and  figures  on 
tenure-track  positions  at  LERU  universities  (2014).  EUA’s  Council  for  Doctoral  Education 
(EUA-CDE)  hosted  the  Third  Global  Strategic  Forum  on  Doctoral  Education  in  May  2015 
and held its ninth annual meeting in June 2016.  

ERAC related groups  and especially the Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility 
can list several achievements, namely the strengthened HRS4R implementation procedure to 
obtain  the  'HR  excellence  in  research'  award  now  incorporates  elements  of  earlier 
internationalization,  open  recruitment,  international  peer  review  and  reinforced  monitoring. 
The  SGHRM  also  produced  reports  on  Doctoral  Training  and  Professional  Development  of 
Researchers  as  well  as  establishing  a  working  group 
to  elaborate  sound 
recommendations  easily  usable  for  Open,  Transparent  and  Merit-Based  Recruitment  of 
Researchers  which  lead  the  OTM-R  toolkit  to  be  translated  in  institutions.  For  2016  the 
SGRHM sets itself the goals of creating two working groups focus on 'intersectoral mobility, 
asymmetric  mobility  and  skills'  and  'welcoming  culture  for  non-EU  researchers',thus 
supporting the Open science agenda. 

tasked 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Overall Conclusion 

The  analysis  shows  that  more  attention  is  paid  to  open,  transparent  and  merit-based 
recruitment  as  the  use  of  EURAXESS  has  increased.  Also  the  national  action  plans  are 
emphasising  the  importance  of  the  open  and  transparent  recruitment  and  are  focusing  on 
increasing the use of EURAXESS.  
Potential measures to  further facilitate researchers international mobility, are ensuring equal 
access to national granting programmes for foreign researchers and increasing the  portability 
of  research  funds  granted.  Of  other  measures  could  be  a  broader  conception  of  human 
resourcing to improve recruitment as well as working conditions. Pension right transferability 
and language competency for teaching requirements are equally important topics. 

Priority 4: Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research 

In the 2012 ERA Communication three main objectives were identified for priority 4: 

1.  remove legal and other barriers to the recruitment, retention and career progression of 

female researchers 

2.  address gender imbalances in decision making processes 
3.  strengthen the gender dimension in research programmes.  

The  ERA  Progress  report  2014  noted  the  progressive  policy  switch  towards  institutional 
change  in  research  organisations,  including  universities,  with  longer-term  structural  effects. 
However  the  pace  of  change  was  too  slow  and  there  were  still  many  disparities  among 
countries. The report called for more joint efforts and systematic strategies.  

The  2015  ERA  Roadmap  called  for  translating  national  equality  legislation  into  effective 
action to address gender imbalances in research institutions, and decision-making bodies and 
to  integrate  better  the  gender  dimension  into  R&D  policies,  programmes  and  projects  as  its 
topaction prioriy. In addition, the Council Conclusions of 1st December 2015 on "Advancing 
gender equality in the European Research Area" reinforced the message of the Roadmap. 

The Science-Metrix report shows progress in the headline indicator "share of women in Grade 
A positions in the Higher Education Sector", with 3.4% compound annual growth rate in the 
period  2007-2014  in  the  EU-28.  This  indicator  reached  23.5  %  for  the  EU-28  in  2014. 
Progress is observed in almost all Member States.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Share of women in Grade A positions in the Higher Education Sector  

(2007-2014) 

Note: 

Trend column not presented due to sparse time-series. 
For further notes see annex 1 

Source:  Women in Science database, DG Research and Innovation 

The  share  of  female  PhD  graduates,  considered  as  an  input  indicator,  increased  by  1.2% 
between 2005 and 2012 reaching, 47.3% in the EU-28. This comforts the potential pool for 
the early phase of researchers' career. 

The  proportion  of  published  scientific  papers  that  have  included  the  gender  dimension  in 
research content can give a very preliminary proxy related to objective 3. For the period 2011-

21 

CountryWeight inGDPScore (2014)CAGR(2007-14)Lead/Gap to EU-28 CAGREU-2823.5%3.4%N/ACluster 11.1%41.7%12.3%9.0Cluster 211.4%26.4%4.7%1.3Cluster 383.3%20.1%3.0%-0.3Cluster 44.2%15.0%5.3%2.0Cluster 1MK0.1%66.7%:MT0.1%44.5%34.6%31.3HR0.3%38.0%6.4%3.0LV0.2%34.4%2.8%-0.5BG0.3%34.2%5.5%2.1LT0.2%32.6%12.3%9.0Cluster 2RO1.0%29.7%-1.1%-4.4IE1.2%28.2%12.7%9.3FI1.4%27.9%2.5%-0.9TR:27.8%:IS0.1%26.3%7.1%3.8NO2.7%26.2%5.4%2.1SK0.5%25.3%3.3%-0.1PT1.2%25.0%2.0%-1.3SI0.2%25.0%6.0%2.6SE3.0%24.3%4.3%1.0Cluster 3EE0.1%23.5%3.2%-0.2FR14.6%22.9%2.5%-0.9PL2.7%22.7%1.6%-1.7AT2.2%21.5%6.0%2.6IT11.1%21.4%2.1%-1.3ES7.1%21.0%1.9%-1.5EL1.2%20.4%4.3%1.0CH3.6%19.3%-1.9%-5.3DK1.8%18.1%5.4%2.0HU0.7%17.9%-0.7%-4.1DE19.5%17.9%5.9%2.6UK14.1%17.5%:NL4.5%17.0%6.3%2.9Cluster 4LU0.3%16.5%8.6%5.3BE2.7%15.6%6.4%3.1CZ1.1%14.3%1.7%-1.7CY0.1%13.6%4.6%1.2IL:12.7%: 
 
 
 
2014  it  ranges  from  0.34%  to  2.88%  within  the  EU-28.  A  slight  decrease  of  0.5%  in  the 
growth  rate  of  the  EU-28  was  registered  in  the  period  2011-2014  compared  to  the  period 
2005-2008.  

The analysis in the Science-Metrix report shows that one of the main challenges the countries 
are  facing  in  this  area  remains  the  glass  ceiling  impeding  women  to  reach  higher positions. 
This  is  reflected  in  the  fact  that  one  third  of  the  researchers  are  women  and  at  higher  level 
positions  the  shares  of  women  drop  below  one  fourth.  Although  data  show  that  a  catch  up 
process is ongoing, its pace remains slow. 

Concerning the national policies, the National Action Plans show  a significant improvement 
from  the  state  of  play  reported in  the  2014  ERA  Progress  Report  with  regard  to  adopting  a 
systemic strategy and covering the three objectives with specific measures.  

The  National  Action  Plans  show  also  that  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  gender 
equality  is  ongoing  or  planned,  which  indicates  the  growing  interest  and  commitment  at 
national  level  towards  the  achievement  of  gender  equality  in  their  research  and  higher 
education system.  

In the National Action Plans the following types of actions are identified: 

 

  A  large  number  of  Plans  highlight  the  development  of  national  strategies  including 
binding laws specific for the research and higher education sector. The implementation 
includes  identifying  the  causes  of  existing  imbalances  and  drawing  up  action  to 
promote equality; 
In relation to objective 1, some Plans include targets for women in professor positions 
and initiatives promoting work-life balance, raising awareness on unconscious gender 
bias  and  attracting  young  women  into  science,  technologies,  engineering  and 
mathematics;  
In relation to objective 2, several Plans include targets for gender balance in executive 
board  and/or  board  level  positions,  as  well  as  in  recruitment  committees  and/or 
evaluation panels in universities and research institutions;  
In relation to the objective 3, some Plans focus on integrating the gender dimension in 
research and innovation programmes and projects. Grant applicants will be required to 
consider gender analysis in their research whenever relevant; 

 

 

  Concerning  monitoring,  some  Plans  introduce  indicators  in  addition  to  the  headline 
one, e.g. the share  of  universities  and public research organisations  adopting Gender 
Equality  Plans  or  the  percentage  of  funds  in  R&I  projects  that  include  gender 
dimension as a cross cutting issue.  

Globally  in  the  National  Action  Plans  the  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  are 
paying  high  attention  to  gender  equality  in  their  implementation  of  the  ERA  Roadmap. 
The extent and quality of ongoing and/or planned actions for gender equality vary a lot. 
The  integration  of  the  gender  dimension  in  research  programmes  (objective  3)  remain  a 
challenge in many Member States. 

Almost  all  ERA  Stakeholders  Organisations  have  made  contributions  and  regularly 
reported their activity. Notably, CESAER launched a survey, EARTO Human Resources 
working  group  discussed  gender  balance,  EUA  performed  data  analysis  on  the  gender 
composition  of  university  leadership  and  top  management,  LERU  published  various 

22 

 
 
 
 
articles on gender and EU-life organized various gender related project including training 
activities. 

Overall Conclusion 

The  analysis  show  that  the  majority  of  Member  States  have  made  progress  in  setting  up  or 
planning  more  systemic  strategies  for  gender  equality  in  research,  including  the  gender 
dimension in research programmes. Considering the measures described in the National Plans, 
it can be assumed that the ERA policy based on institutional change through gender equality 
plans  continues  to  act  as  a  catalyst  for  Member  States'  action.  The  three  objectives  remain 
unevenly  covered  across  Member  States.  The  high  number  of  planned  measures  creates 
expectations of significant progress in the coming years. The actual improvement will depend 
on  the  capacity  of  the  Member  States  to  maintain  and  reinforce  on  a  longer  term  the 
institutional change strategies adopted so far. In this perspective, the mobilisation of Member 
States for a proper monitoring mechanism is most valued.   

Priority 5: Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific 
knowledge. 
In  the  2012  Communication  the  priority  5  focused  on  optimal  circulation,  access  to  and 
transfer of scientific knowledge including digital ERA. In the ERA Roadmap it was decided 
to split the priority into two sub-priorities; knowledge circulation and  open access to be able 
to pay adequate attention to the two subjects individually. 

Priority 5a: Knowledge circulation 
The aim of the priority 5a is to foster the potential for knowledge transfer and open innovation 
between the public and private sectors across all ERA countries. 

In the 2014 Progress Report it was found that there is a strong support in most countries to 
knowledge transfer but that in half of the countries there is no frequent financial support. The 
support  to  knowledge  transfer  was  mostly  seen  through:  improved  recognition  and 
professionalisation  of  knowledge  transfer  activities,  a  strengthened  role  for  knowledge 
transfer  offices  and  through  measures  to  facilitate  interaction  and  development  of  strategic 
partnering  and  joint  research  agendas  between  academia  and  industry,  including  small  and 
medium sized enterprises. This would enable a better uptake of research results in the market.  

In 2014 75% of the surveyed Research Producing Organisations (RPOs) in EU answered that 
they have a structure for knowledge transfer and for 66.3% they have staff employed to deal 
with knowledge transfer activities whereas only 6.8% of the RPOs' budget was financed with 
private funds. 

The ERA Roadmap, as a direct follow up to the 2014 ERA Progress Report, focuses on the 
top action for ERA countries to "Fully implementing knowledge transfer policies at national 
level  in  order  to  maximize  the  dissemination,  uptake  and  exploitation  of  scientific  results. 
RPOs and Research Financing Organisations (RFOs) should make knowledge transfer second 

23 

 
 
 
 
nature by integrating it in their everyday work." The agreed headline indicator , "the share of 
product  and/or  process  innovative  firms  cooperating  with  public  or  private  research  
institutions9"  ,  is  a  proxy  which  is  measuring  the  private  sector's  willingness  to  collaborate 
with public research and higher education institutions. 

The analysis carried out by  Science-Metrix shows that substantial economic benefits can be 
derived from the transfer, uptake and actual use of the results of research. It can even be seen 
as  a  fundamental  step  to  address  grand  challenges  (priority  2a)  and  enhancing  the  social 
prosperity. Despite these obvious benefit of knowledge circulation, Europe is not yet ready to 
tapping into the potential to capitalise on the investments in research and the potential these 
have for growth.  

This  indicates  that  there  is  a  large  scope  for  improvements  in  this  area.  Studies  show  that 
better  cooperation  and  connection  between  the  RPOs  and  medium  sized  enterprises  and 
enhancing  of  funding  schemes  for  collaboration  and  knowledge  transfer  are  efficient 
measures.  Besides it  would be also necessary to focus on the legal  side and the educational 
issues.  The  main  obstacles  seem  to  be  missing  mutual  trust,  the  lack  of  entrepreneurial 
orientation  of  the  RPOs  and  their  private  sector  partners  and  issues  with  the  language.  The 
issue  is  that  efficient  knowledge  transfer  and  circulation  includes  also  broader  range  of 
processes and stakeholders that are involved in Research and Innovation. 

The  agreed  headline  indicator,  the  share  of  product  and/or  process  innovative  firms 
cooperating  with  public  or  private  research,  is  a  proxy  which  is  measuring  the  private 
sector's willingness to collaborate with public research and higher education institutions. The 
average  annual  growth  rate  is  3.5%  over  the  period  2008-2012  for  innovative  firms 
cooperating  with  public  or  private  research  institutions  and  1.3%  for  innovative  firms 
cooperating with higher education institutions. 

9 Two indicators are used to show the development in the knowledge circulation for the headline indicator as 
no consolidated data exist on the two categories together. Therefore the following two indicators are used: 1) 
share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with research institutions (table 5A1) and 2) the share 
of product or process innovative firms cooperating with higher education institutions (table 5 A2). 

24 

 
 
                                                            
Table 5A1 

Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with public or 

private research institutions (2008-2012) 

Note: 

Source: 

Definition differs (added by Science-Metrix): 2012 (EU-28, BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, 
LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK, NO, RS, TR) 
For further notes see annex 1 
Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: inn_cis6_coop, inn_cis7_coop, inn_cis8_coop, 
inn_cis6_type, inn_cis7_type, inn_cis8_type) 

25 

CountryWeight inGDPScore (2012)CAGR(2008-12)Lead/Gap to EU-28 CAGRTrendline (2008-12)EU-287.3%3.5%N/ACluster 18.7%16.0%0.4%-3.1Cluster 230.1%10.7%5.1%1.5Cluster 348.9%6.3%1.3%-2.3Cluster 412.2%1.7%0.8%-2.8Cluster 1FI1.4%23.0%-0.1%-3.6EL1.4%15.7%:SI0.3%14.3%:NO2.9%13.8%0.8%-2.7BE2.8%13.3%0.4%-3.1Cluster 2AT2.3%12.6%14.7%11.2DK1.8%10.9%-7.2%-10.7SE3.1%10.8%8.9%5.4LT0.2%10.7%2.9%-0.6ES7.5%10.6%13.1%9.6HR0.3%10.1%-2.2%-5.7UK14.8%10.0%:IS0.1%9.7%:Cluster 3FR15.0%8.0%-1.6%-5.2PL2.8%7.8%-3.8%-7.3LU0.3%7.7%-12.0%-15.5IE1.3%7.1%:RO1.0%6.9%22.9%19.4LV0.2%6.8%0.1%-3.4NL4.7%6.6%:PT1.2%6.5%3.5%-0.1DE19.9%5.9%:HU0.7%5.9%-2.6%-6.1CZ1.2%5.7%-2.3%-5.8TR:5.4%:SK0.5%5.3%-11.5%-15.0CY0.1%4.7%11.2%7.7EE0.1%4.4%10.0%6.5Cluster 4IT11.6%2.8%12.2%8.7BG0.3%2.6%-9.3%-12.8MT0.1%1.5%-0.6%-4.1RS0.2%0.0%: 
 
 
 
Table 5A2 

Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with higher 

education institutions (2008-2012) 

Note: 

Source: 

Provisional: 2008 (EU-28, DK) 
For further notes see annex 1 
Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: inn_cis6_coop, inn_cis7_coop, inn_cis8_coop, 
inn_cis6_type, inn_cis7_type, inn_cis8_type) 

26 

CountryWeight inGDPScore (2012)CAGR (2008-12)Lead/Gapto EU-28 CAGRTrendline (2008-12)EU-2812.0%1.3%N/ACluster 18.4%20.7%2.1%0.8Cluster 245.1%14.7%0.0%-1.3Cluster 333.2%8.8%-0.9%-2.2Cluster 413.3%3.8%-0.9%-2.1Cluster 1FI1.4%26.2%-1.5%-2.8SI0.3%22.0%:AT2.3%20.9%1.7%0.4EL1.4%18.6%:LT0.2%18.1%9.3%8.0BE2.8%18.1%-1.2%-2.5Cluster 2SE3.1%17.1%4.2%3.0HU0.7%17.0%-2.3%-3.6UK14.8%15.9%:DK1.8%14.7%-4.6%-5.9HR0.3%14.4%-0.1%-1.4CZ1.2%14.3%2.3%1.0DE19.9%13.9%:NO2.9%12.8%0.3%-1.0SK0.5%12.6%0.1%-1.2Cluster 3FR15.0%11.0%-2.9%-4.2EE0.1%9.9%8.8%7.5IE1.3%9.8%:PL2.8%9.4%-3.0%-4.3PT1.2%9.3%1.2%-0.1ES7.5%9.2%11.9%10.6IS0.1%8.4%:NL4.7%8.3%:LU0.3%7.0%-12.3%-13.6LV0.2%7.0%-9.8%-11.1TR:6.8%:Cluster 4IT11.6%5.3%0.2%-1.1CY0.1%4.7%-6.5%-7.8BG0.3%4.4%-1.7%-3.0RO1.0%4.3%-4.0%-5.3MT0.1%4.1%7.6%6.4RS0.2%0.0%: 
 
 
 
 
 
According  to  the  Science-Metrix  study  approximately  1  in  9  innovative  firms  collaborates 
with academia and about 1 in 12 have partnership with research institutes (private or public) 
but both indicators are increasing. 

The data shows that for the innovative firms' cooperating with research institutes more than 
50%  of  the  countries  have  a  performance  below  the  ERA  average.  The  EU  average  is  in 
addition  relatively  low  at  7.3%.  For  the  second  indicator  measuring  the  innovative  firms' 
is  more  even  with 
institutions 
cooperation  with  higher  education 
approximately 50% of the countries either above or below the EU average. The EU level is in 
this case 12%. 

the  distribution 

The general obstacle to the knowledge transfer is the lack of support to the market uptake of 
research  outcome.  This  issue  remains  underdeveloped  both  at  EU  and  national  government 
level. One main obstacle is among others that the private sector employs very few researchers 
and that the researchers have little experience outside academia. This is particularly true for 
young researchers.  

Efforts are being done in many countries and it has been found that technology and innovation 
centres are very important in a process to ensure that knowledge is circulated optimally. The 
core  businesses  of  these  centres  are  to  match  industry  needs  with  research  activities  and 
support the commercialisation of research. 

The National Action Plans contain many actions in the field of knowledge transfer, including: 

  Legislation for intellectual property management of exploiting the research results of 

public-private cooperation; 

  Establishment of Technology Transfer Offices and their further professionalization; 
  Training Programmes in entrepreneurship and corporate culture; 
  Development of online tools for IPR issues for public-private cooperation; 
  Development of more different career paths that emphasise education and valorisation 

in addition to research qualities. 

Comparing the objectives and measures chosen in the national action plans with the findings 
in the Science-Metrix report shows that the plans are paying attention to the main challenges 
of public-private cooperation, entrepreneurship and career development. 

The  Stakeholders  Organisations  CESAER  has  a  Task  Force  Knowledge  Transfer  (TFKT) 
which  selected  12  universities  for  a  survey  on  technology  transfer.  The  results  will  be 
presented in October 2016. 

ERAC has set up a working group on Open Science and Innovation in 2016 that will cover the 
issues of knowledge transfer under the umbrella of Open Science and Innovation. The work in 
the group will start in the autumn 2016. 

27 

 
 
Overall Conclusion 

The analysis shows that knowledge transfer is extremely diverse in Europe. There is a need to 
consider how to integrate the funding into each interlink of the knowledge chain and ensure 
that the research will more often be brought to the market. The survey carried out by Science-
Metrix  came  up  with  several  proposals  like  joint  industry-academic  events,  joint  industry-
RPO calls for application and training and career development initiatives integrating doctoral 
students with private industry to boost the trust and intensify public-private collaboration and 
promote intersectoral mobility 

Priority 5B:  Open Access 
 Open access has made strong progress since 2014. In the 2014 ERA Progress Report it was 
observed that open access to research results was backed by a growing number of universities, 
research  centres  and  funding  agencies  across  Europe.  By  that  time  20  Member  States  had 
taken  measures  to  support    open  access  to  scientific  publications  but  only  5  had  taken 
measures to  have  specific provisions on   open access to  research  data. Also the stakeholder 
organisations had been very active through the ERA Stakeholders Platform set-up in response 
to the 2012 Communication on ERA. However, despite general support to open access, most 
policies, initiatives and measures were still fragmented and some did not properly reflect the 
EU definition of open access. 

In  the  2015  ERA  Roadmap  the  objective  of  "Promoting    Open  Access  to  scientific 
publications"  was given again  a top  priority status, while  fostering    open  access to  research 
data  was  identified  as  another  important  priority.  The  headline  indicator  is  "The  share  of 
publications available in  Open Access". 

28 

 
 
 
 
Table 5B 

Share of publications available in Open Access (2014) 

Note: 

Source: 

The clusters are based on total OA  
(:) = missing data 
Computed by Science-Metrix using 1science data 

29 

CountryWeight inGDPTotal OAGold OAGreen OAEU-2852.2%21.0%44.7%Cluster 10.9%61.5%32.8%43.6%Cluster 251.0%57.6%24.7%48.4%Cluster 328.4%53.5%21.4%45.1%Cluster 419.8%47.4%18.1%39.2%Cluster 1ME0.0%65.1%43.2%35.5%LU0.3%61.0%20.6%57.2%HR0.3%60.4%34.6%41.3%RS0.2%59.7%32.6%40.3%Cluster 2HU0.7%59.2%25.8%51.1%BA:59.2%37.3%36.1%PT1.2%59.0%19.6%52.4%BG0.3%59.0%19.2%50.0%FO:58.7%::NL4.4%58.7%25.3%51.8%MK0.1%58.5%28.5%45.0%CH3.5%58.0%25.0%50.6%BE2.7%57.9%22.5%51.3%EE0.1%57.7%22.5%51.7%LT0.2%57.6%24.3%47.4%NO2.5%57.4%26.2%50.0%SE2.9%57.0%25.6%50.4%IS0.1%56.4%21.7%51.7%CY0.1%56.4%20.9%48.3%UK15.1%56.4%26.7%48.5%RO1.0%56.0%29.3%36.6%DK1.7%55.9%26.5%47.2%FR14.3%55.8%18.0%50.3%Cluster 3PL2.8%55.1%26.8%40.6%IE1.3%54.6%22.0%48.5%FI1.4%54.1%22.0%47.1%IT10.8%53.5%18.7%47.3%IL:53.4%19.7%46.6%AT2.2%53.3%23.6%45.9%SI0.2%53.2%23.7%43.0%SK0.5%53.2%20.6%42.5%CZ1.0%53.2%21.2%43.8%ES7.0%53.0%19.6%46.4%EL1.2%52.0%17.8%44.6%Cluster 4LV0.2%50.0%16.7%43.2%DE19.5%49.8%20.5%43.0%MD:47.3%15.4%39.7%TR:47.2%19.9%35.1%MT0.1%46.6%19.5%40.3%UA:46.5%10.8%41.3%AL:44.6%23.6%32.0% 
 
 
According to the Science-Metrix report 24 Member States have adopted policies in support of 
open  access.  The  majority  of  these  measures  have  been  adopted  since  2012,  and  some 
countries  that  were  among  the  early  adopters  have  since  complemented  their  policy  with 
further  measures.    The    open  access  movement  has  evolved  very  rapidly,  from  a 
predominantly subscription based model to articles available in  open access, passing the 50% 
'tipping  point'  in  recent  years.  For  the  publication  year  2014  approximately  52%  of  EU-28 
publications were available in  open access, approximately 45% through the Green route10 and 
21% through the Gold route1112. However, open access policies and practices are very diverse 
and can vary both between countries and Research Funding Organisations. To reach full open 
access  there  is  a  need  to  further  develop  publishing  models  and  reward  systems,  as  well  as 
federate infrastructures to share and reuse research data. 

Following  up  on  the  2012  Commission's  Recommendation  on  access to  and  preservation  of 
scientific  information13  each  EU  Member  State  nominated  a  National  Point  of  Reference 
(NPR),  with  the  task  of  reporting  on  the  implementation  of    open  access  at  national  level. 
Most Member States reported a national preference for one of the two routes of  open access, 
either  the  Green  (self-archiving)  or  the  Gold  (open  access  publishing).  However,  the 
expressed preference for one of the two routes is usually not exclusive of the other which can 
also  be  used,  resulting  in  a  mixed  situation.  Only  a  few  Member  States  have  national  laws 
requiring    open  access  to  publications.  However  institutional  requirements  set  by  research 
institutions or funders can prove as effective as legal requirements, for instance when they tie  
open access to possible withdrawal of funds in the case of non-compliance, or to researchers’ 
careers. 

Perceived obstacles to further progress include the cost of switching to open access, diversity 
of  copyright  laws  across  national  contexts,  opacity  of  the  legal  aspects  of  rights  ownership, 
private  sector  concerns  about  obligations  to  share  data.  Researchers  researchers  are  also 
concerned about the consequences of  open access publishing on the assessment of the impact 
of their work and therefore  on career progression. 

Open access to research data has also been developing but is at a less advanced stage. Here 
again we find a great diversity of approaches, both across national policy contexts and at the 
level  of  policy  implementation  by  individual  institutions.  Important  technical  and  financial 
barriers  impede  a  transition  to  effective  storage  and  reuse  of  data,  while  the  lack  of  data 
specialists  and  the  insufficient  level  of  data  skills  among  the  population  of  researchers  is  a 
bottleneck for effective implementation. 

Member  States  adopted  on  27  May  2016  Council  Conclusions  on  the  transition  towards  an 
Open  Science  System.  In  particular  they  called  for  making  open  access  to  scientific 
publications the option by default for publishing the results of publicly funded research and 
supported a transition to immediate open access as the default by 2020 

10 Self-archiving an article in an institutional or subject repository 
11 Publishing an article in either an  open access journal or a hybrid  open access journal 
12 Note that an article can be available both in green and gold  open access, which explains why the overall 
figure of 52% of  open access is not simply an addition of gold and green  open access. 
13 C(2012) 4890 final 

30 

 
 
                                                            
The  ERA National  Action Plans pay a  lot of attention to concrete actions  to  promote   open 
access. These include: 

  Creating  e-infrastructures  to  enable  access  to  the  results  of  publicly  funded  research 

and storage of science-related digital content; 

  Developing national strategies and action plans, both for  open access to publications 

and research data including monitoring mechanisms; 

  Developing  open access policies for business-oriented and applied research; 
  Requirements  of    open  access  for  publicly  funded  research  including  archiving  in 

repositories and promoting data management plans; 

  Supporting  and  training  actions  for  researchers  including  aligning  with  European 

Initiatives within Horizon 2020; 

  Acquiring licenses for research databases, Concordat on Open research data14; 
  Promoting actions in international bodies to achieve better alignments of definitions. 
An  analysis  of  the  objectives  and  measures  in  the  national  action  plans  against  the  main 
challenges identified in the Science-Metrix report shows that the main emphasis is still on soft 
measures  supporting    open  access  to  data  and  publications  while  there  is  less  attention  on 
regulatory  aspects.  Effective  storage  and  hosting  of  data  is  still  hindered  by  important 
technical and financial barriers15. 

The ERA Stakeholders Organisations have continued to be very  active in the field of   open 
access,  through  organizing  dedicated  meetings,  publishing  statements  and  principles, 
participating  in  expert  groups,  monitoring  developments  by  surveys  and  organising  training 
programmes.  LERU  has  made  a  strong  contribution  by  organising  dedicated  workshops  on 
big data management. 

ERAC set up a Task Force on Open Access and Innovation which report was adopted as an 
ERAC Opinion on Open Research Data on 3 February 2016. 

The  ERAC  report  aims  to  contribute  to  the  progress  of  open  research  data  and  the  optimal 
reuse  of  research  data  from  publicly  funded  research.  It  further  highlights  the  potential  of  
open  access  policy,  while  stressing  the  need  to  remove  obstacles  and  ensure  common 
understanding  early  in  policy  development.    It  presents  a  list  of  11  recommendations  that 
consider  the  national,  European  and  global  state  of  play  with  regard  to  open  research  data. 
These  recommendations  cover  four  types  of  policy  objectives:  Training  of  stakeholders  and 
awareness raising; Data quality and management; Sustainability and funding; and legal issues. 

Overall Conclusion 

Open access to research results (scientific publications and research) is being supported by a 
growing  number  of  universities,  research  centers  and  funding  agencies  across  Europe  in 
recent  years.  However,  as  the  number  of  policies  and  initiatives  has  increased,  this  has 
resulted  in  a  very  diverse  ecosystem  in  Europe  (e.g.  as  regards  the  preference  for  gold  or 

14 See https://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/concordat-on-open-research-data-launched-28-jul-2016 
15 Science Metrix report, section 3.5 

31 

 
 
 
                                                            
green  open access). As a next step, more coordination and policy convergence across national 
borders  (including  at  the  level  of  funders  and  universities)  could  be  useful,  based  on  the 
sharing and mainstreaming of best practices. In the case of open research data policies, much 
still needs to be done and Horizon 2020 provides a useful reference model. 

32 

 
 
 
Priority 6: International cooperation 
The 2012 ERA Communication sets out that the international dimension in relation to ERA is 
a  so-called  cross  cutting  issue  that  should  be  included  in  each  priority.  The  2014  ERA 
Progress Report assessed that it is important that the international dimension is mainstreamed 
across all priorities. 

The 2015 ERA Roadmap included the international cooperation as a new individual priority 
with  the  main  action  'Develop  and  implement  appropriate  joint  strategic  approaches  and 
actions  for  international  STI  cooperation  on  the  basis  of  Member  States’  national  priorities' 
with  the  headline  indicator  on  "co-publications  with  non-ERA  partner  per  thousand 
researchers in the public sector". 

33 

 
 
Table 6 

Co-publications with non-ERA partners per 1 000 researchers in the public 

sector (2005-2014) 

Note: 

Source: 

Break in time series: BE (2012); 2005 (CZ, IT, UK); 2007 (DK, NO); DE (2006); 2011 (EL, RO, SI, FI); FR (2010); 
PT (2005-2008, 2013); SE (2005, 2007, 2011, 2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) 
For further notes see annex 1 
Computed by Science-Metrix using WoS data (Thomson Reuters) and Eurostat data (online data code: 
rd_p_persocc) 

34 

CountryWeight inGDPScore(2014)CAGR(2005-14)Lead/Gapto EU-28 CAGRTrendlineEU-2850.74.1%N/ACluster 113.1%85.84.8%0.6Cluster 275.9%55.16.0%1.9Cluster 35.8%27.47.7%3.5Cluster 44.2%11.73.2%-1.0Cluster 1CH3.5%96.61.4%-2.7IE1.3%87.56.2%2.1NL4.4%87.15.4%1.2CY0.1%86.58.4%4.2SE2.9%85.13.8%-0.4DK1.7%72.23.5%-0.6Cluster 2BE2.7%62.83.0%-1.1UK15.1%62.85.7%1.6IS0.1%62.29.9%5.8FR14.3%59.74.2%0.0AT2.2%57.72.9%-1.2NO2.5%55.36.0%1.9IT10.8%51.42.9%-1.3FI1.4%50.58.9%4.8DE19.5%49.60.0%-4.2ES7.0%48.79.1%5.0LU0.3%44.713.8%9.7Cluster 3SI0.2%37.25.3%1.2CZ1.0%34.36.3%2.2HU0.7%33.23.0%-1.2PT1.2%32.211.1%6.9MT0.1%28.416.4%12.2ME0.0%27.0:EE0.1%24.68.4%4.3TR:21.43.8%-0.3EL1.2%21.2:RO1.0%20.98.6%4.5HR0.3%20.86.3%2.1Cluster 4PL2.8%16.83.0%-1.1RS0.2%16.34.6%0.5LT0.2%10.67.7%3.5BG0.3%10.51.4%-2.7SK0.5%10.51.6%-2.5MK0.1%9.22.4%-1.7LV0.2%8.11.6%-2.6 
 
 
 
The  analysis  in  the  Science-Metrix  report  shows  a  substantive  growth  rate  for  the  headline 
indicator at 4.1% in the years 2005-2014. This was slightly higher than the growth rate in the 
same period for co-publications with ERA partners where the growth rate was 3.6%. 

This result is an indication of the increasing internationalization of science in general and the 
appearance  of  new  international  partners,  notably  within  the  G20  group  of  countries.  The 
comparison  with  the  other  co-publications  indicator  within  the  ERA  suggests  that  although 
there is already a strong cooperation culture in Europe, the growth rate continues to be nearly 
as  high  as  for the emerging science nations around the globe, reinforcing the importance of 
ERA. 

Looking at the absolute numbers, differences between EU Member States in order of a factor 
ten  are  found  between  the  leading  country  and  the  country  at  the  lower  end  of  the  scale. 
Again, a comparison with the related indicator on co-publications within the ERA, though the 
difference between the two indicators at EU level, reveals that the difference is substantial for 
cluster  1  and  2;  i.e.  the  cooperation  inside  ERA  is  twice  as  high  as  the  international 
cooperation. This result underlines the high importance of intra-ERA cooperation, but also the 
growing importance of the international cooperation. 

This interpretation is reinforced by the additional ERA indicators, the percentage of non-EU 
doctorate students and the license and patent revenues from abroad which shed a light on two 
other dimensions of international cooperation, notably international mobility and international 
commercial knowledge flows. Both show as well substantive growth rates over the observed 
time  periods.  In  2012,  already  25%  of  doctorate  students  in  Europe  came  from  outside  the 
ERA which strongly displays the degree of international mobility in research. 

The  JRC's  RIO  country  reports  as  well  as  the  ERA  National  Action  Plans  and  also  the 
preliminary  results  of  the  OECD  STI  Outlook  questionnaire  present  a  broad  range  of 
measures  and  activities  of  Member  States  to  strengthen  their  international  cooperation 
dimension.  

Main findings in the Science-Metrix report shows that international collaborations with third 
countries are developing, although Western European nations are leading the way and a gap is 
opening with the rest of the ERA. In addition, international recruitment is advancing as well, 
although  once  again  Western  Europe  is  leading  the  charge  on  this  front,  and  pulling  away 
from  the  rest.  A  broader  conception  of  human  resourcing  will  be  important  to  address  the 
disparities in the research environment that have given Western Europe its present advantage. 

The National Action Plans overview on the scope of activities and measures is presented. 

  Strategy development at national level  in  order to  facilitate international cooperation 
and/or international mobility, such as the opening-up of national programs or the legal 
requirements for foreign researchers; 

  Measures  towards  coherent  European  approaches;  i.e.  better  coordination  between 
national  and  EU  bilateral  cooperation  activities,  including  bi-regional  dialogues, 
and/or between national bilateral cooperation with third countries; 

35 

 
 
  Communication  and  Information  measures  through  improving  the  information  flow 
between  the  policy  level  and  the  research  community  on  international  STI 
cooperation; 

  Outreach  and  networking  measures  focusing  on  more 

targeted 

international 

cooperation policy. 

There  is  a  growing  recognition  among  Member  States  of  the  relevance  of  international 
cooperation and for joint action in particular vis-a-vis the emerging science nations, including 
China  and  South-Korea.  However,  often  the  described  activities  are  geared  towards 
international cooperation in general and less towards the ERA Roadmap top priority, notably 
to "develop and implement appropriate joint strategic approaches and actions for international 
STI cooperation on the basis of Member States' national priorities" which is also in line with 
the findings in the Science-Metrix report. 

Major activities contributing to the ‘further development,  implementation and monitoring of 
the  international  dimension  of  the  ERA’  by  the  ERA  related  groups,  especially  SFIC.  This 
group has been used as a fruitful framework for cooperation between Commission, Member 
States  and  Associated  Countries  for  strategic  discussions  on  international  cooperation,  to 
develop operational approaches and to engage in the development of multi annual roadmaps. 
One  example  of  the  support  is  the  new  working  group  on  a  "Toolbox  for  international 
cooperation".  SFIC  also  continued  work  in  the  country-specific  working  groups  on  Brazil, 
Russia, USA, China and South Africa. 

ERA Stakeholders Organisations have contributed through e.g. a taskforce on internalization 
by CESAER and various strategic papers including the international dimension (LERU) 

Overall Conclusion 

Analysis  shows  that  many  Member  States  experience  substantial  progress  concerning  their 
international  cooperation  capacities  over  the  last  years.  It  seems  that  the  added  value  from 
joint approaches in international cooperation between the Member States and the EU as one 
strategy element beside the existing bilateral cooperation is no longer questioned. Especially 
smaller  Member  States  underline  the  need  for  and  the  added  value  of  joint  approaches  in 
particular vis-à-vis the large existing and emerging science nations. 

36 

 
 
Conclusion 

It is with the current report the first time that progress on ERA has been measured on the basis 
of  the  development  of  a  set  of  indicators  in  time.  The  report  confirms  that  ERA  has  made 
strong  progress  during  the  last  years.  All  headline  indicators  show  progress  over  time 
according  to  the  EU-28  averages,  although  large  varieties,  both  in  performance  levels  as  in 
growth rates between countries exist, see the overview table of the growth rates. 

That institutional contexts vary between countries indicates that there is still much room for 
further  progress  on  all  priorities.  The  EU  and  its  Member  States  still  have  not  fully 
implemented  ERA  as  envisaged  in  the  2012  Communication.  Further  work  is  needed  by 
different actors. ERA 'top-scores' can be used as potential benchmarks for countries lagging 
behind.  

The  ERA  national  action  plans  that  have  been  published  by  Member  States  and  Associated 
Countries  are  a  clear  proof  of  political  ownership  on  all  ERA  priorities  and  show  the  high 
level of ambition to make further progress on ERA. 

The Commission’s policy agenda on Open Science, Open Innovation and Open to the World 
will also take the ERA to developments of tomorrow like the digital and global levels. This 
reconfirms  that  ERA  is  an  evolving  concept  in  time.  New  challenges  arise  and  it  is  up  to 
governments  to  define  how  to  take  advantage  of  it.  There  are  new  barriers  to  tear  down.  A 
successful ERA will lead to Open Innovation, Open Science and Open to the World. 

At the same time focus should now turn towards reinforced implementation to deliver on all 
ERA  priorities.  This  is  the  responsibility  of  Member  States,  with  monitoring  and  policy 
support from the Commission. 

The  ERA  Stakeholders'  Organisations  sustained  their  efforts  towards  the  implementation  of 
ERA priorities. Their commitment was underlined by the signing of a new Joint Statement by 
the  Presidents  of  the  five  organisations  represented  in  the  ERA  Stakeholders'  Platform  and 
Commissioner Moedas in June 2015. In addition, the ERA Stakeholders' Platform welcomed 
new  members  in  2016,  thereby  broadening  its  spectrum  of  actors.  EIRMA,  ERF-AISBL, 
ERRIN, EU-LIFE and TAFTIE were granted observer status after they adopted ERA action 
plans. 

The  integration  of  the  monitoring  of  the  ERA  Roadmap  in  the  current  progress  report  is  a 
powerful  tool  to  help  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  define  and  implement  the 
necessary  ERA  reforms  at  national  level.  Also  streamlining  with  other  reports  on  ERA 
priorities  could  be  considered.  Using  the  ERA  Monitoring Mechanism  as  a  backbone  could 
further  strengthen  the  quantitative  foundation  of  ERA  NAPs.  The  ERA  monitoring  process 
could further be strengthened by mutual learning exercises on the basis of a combination of 
the ERA NAPs and the complementary country snapshots for the next ERA Progress Report. 

37 

 
 
 
Growth rates of countries across ERA priorities (headline indicators)16 

Country 

JRC Res 
Excellence 
(2010-2013) 

GBARD 
transnat 
(2010-2014) 

EURAXESS 
job postings 
(2012-2014) 

Women Grade 
A 
(2007-2014) 

Public or Private 
research 
insitutions co-op 
(2008-2012) 

Higher educ- 
private co-op 
(2008-2012) 

Non-ERA pubs 
per 1000 res 
(2005-2014) 

EU-28 

3.4% 
6.0% 
6.4% 
5.5% 
-1.9% 
4.6% 
1.7% 
5.9% 
5.4% 
3.2% 
4.3% 
1.9% 
2.5% 
2.5% 
6.4% 
-0.7% 
12.7% 
: 
2.1% 
12.3% 
8.6% 
2.8% 
34.6% 
6.3% 
5.4% 
1.6% 
2.0% 
-1.1% 
: 
4.3% 
6.0% 
3.3% 
: 
16 No growth rates for "Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding investment needs" and "Share of publications available in Open Access". 

7.8% 
3.4% 
1.0% 
16.0% 
: 
0.7% 
-3.4% 
-1.1% 
-3.7% 
25.7% 
-12.6% 
6.2% 
-0.2% 
: 
22.5% 
3.8% 
5.7% 
: 
18.1% 
24.8% 
35.2% 
47.1% 
-100.0% 
10.4% 
-3.9% 
76.8% 
1.4% 
9.5% 
: 
-2.5% 
-18.4% 
15.7% 
11.0% 

7.8% 
2.3% 
1.8% 
-2.0% 
4.6% 
-1.4% 
-39.1% 
8.5% 
3.0% 
13.7% 
-8.8% 
21.3% 
-29.4% 
16.7% 
308.2% 
-29.4% 
17.2% 
: 
10.7% 
-19.2% 
-26.0% 
72.3% 
: 
13.4% 
11.2% 
-4.7% 
31.0% 
-34.8% 
-12.1% 
17.0% 
21.2% 
111.8% 
4.9% 

1.3% 
1.7% 
-1.2% 
-1.7% 
: 
-6.5% 
2.3% 
: 
-4.6% 
8.8% 
: 
11.9% 
-1.5% 
-2.9% 
-0.1% 
-2.3% 
: 
: 
0.2% 
9.3% 
-12.3% 
-9.8% 
7.6% 
: 
0.3% 
-3.0% 
1.2% 
-4.0% 
: 
4.2% 
: 
0.1% 
: 

6.4% 
2.6% 
9.5% 
0.6% 
4.2% 
8.7% 
1.9% 
6.0% 
8.4% 
3.8% 
5.5% 
5.9% 
5.6% 
6.2% 
5.2% 
5.2% 
7.3% 
: 
5.6% 
-0.6% 
13.6% 
4.1% 
8.0% 
9.1% 
7.1% 
3.6% 
4.7% 
1.3% 
-1.5% 
5.2% 
-1.0% 
4.0% 
9.1% 

4.1% 
2.9% 
3.0% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
8.4% 
6.3% 
0.0% 
3.5% 
8.4% 
: 
9.1% 
8.9% 
4.2% 
6.3% 
3.0% 
6.2% 
9.9% 
2.9% 
7.7% 
13.8% 
13.8% 
16.4% 
5.4% 
6.0% 
3.0% 
11.1% 
8.6% 
4.6% 
3.8% 
5.3% 
1.6% 
5.7% 

3.5% 
14.7% 
0.4% 
-9.3% 
: 
11.2% 
-2.3% 
: 
-7.2% 
10.0% 
: 
13.1% 
-0.1% 
-1.6% 
-2.2% 
-2.6% 
: 
: 
12.2% 
2.9% 
-12.0% 
0.1% 
-0.6% 
: 
0.8% 
-3.8% 
3.5% 
22.9% 
: 
8.9% 
: 
-11.5% 
: 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CH 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
RS 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

38 

 
 
 
                                                            
Country 

EU-28 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CH 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
RS 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Performance of countries across ERA priorities (headline indicators) 

JRC Res 
Excellence 
(2013) 

GBARD 
transnat 
(2014) 

Part ESFRI 
Landmarks 
(2014) 

EURAXESS 
job postings 
(2014) 

Women 
Grade A 
(2013) 

44.4 
48.6 
57.2 
17.2 
97.5 
36.6 
23.4 
49.9 
70.2 
29.7 
28.7 
33.9 
54.5 
46.5 
17.8 
29.7 
47.3 
40.2 
33.0 
16.4 
44.6 
20.1 
22.8 
70.1 
56.5 
18.2 
27.0 
15.7 
14.3 
66.6 
26.3 
18.6 
72.5 

3,511 

30.2% 

47.0 

6,958 
9,251 
97 
27,941 
3,018 
1,245 
4,686 
2,787 
939 
1,098 
2,385 
3,795 
: 
1,569 
194 
2,951 
6,927 
8,395 
220 
3,387 
1,030 
0 
4,101 
4,414 
678 
749 
1,191 
101 
6,067 
955 
52 
2,561 

27.6% 
48.3% 
6.9% 
24.1% 
3.4% 
48.3% 
69.0% 
44.8% 
20.7% 
34.5% 
31.0% 
44.8% 
82.8% 
3.4% 
13.8% 
6.9% 
0.0% 
65.5% 
10.3% 
3.4% 
0.0% 
6.9% 
58.6% 
34.5% 
31.0% 
31.0% 
13.8% 
6.9% 
55.2% 
20.7% 
6.9% 
55.2% 

71.3 
51.9 
1.4 
16.1 
81.7 
11.4 
5.5 
17.8 
21.8 
78.8 
13.0 
5.4 
49.8 
362.0 
1.0 
139.1 
42.6 
26.4 
1.7 
73.7 
2.7 
: 
98.7 
69.1 
146.7 
7.3 
17.0 
0.6 
156.1 
28.0 
1.4 
63.8 

20.9% 
20.3% 
15.6% 
31.7% 
19.3% 
10.8% 
13.1% 
17.3% 
19.2% 
17.2% 
19.6% 
20.9% 
26.6% 
19.3% 
38.0% 
24.1% 
28.2% 
26.3% 
21.1% 
14.4% 
16.5% 
34.4% 
44.5% 
16.2% 
25.2% 
22.6% 
25.0% 
29.7% 
: 
23.8% 
22.5% 
23.7% 
17.5% 

Res Inst- 
private 
co-op 
(2012) 

Higher 
educ- 
private co-
op 
(2012) 

7.3% 

12.0% 

12.6% 
13.3% 
2.6% 
: 
4.7% 
5.7% 
5.9% 
10.9% 
4.4% 
15.7% 
10.6% 
23.0% 
8.0% 
10.1% 
5.9% 
7.1% 
9.7% 
2.8% 
10.7% 
7.7% 
6.8% 
1.5% 
6.6% 
13.8% 
7.8% 
6.5% 
6.9% 
0.0% 
10.8% 
14.3% 
5.3% 
10.0% 

20.9% 
18.1% 
4.4% 
: 
4.7% 
14.3% 
13.9% 
14.7% 
9.9% 
18.6% 
9.2% 
26.2% 
11.0% 
14.4% 
17.0% 
9.8% 
8.4% 
5.3% 
18.1% 
7.0% 
7.0% 
4.1% 
8.3% 
12.8% 
9.4% 
9.3% 
4.3% 
0.0% 
17.1% 
22.0% 
12.6% 
15.9% 

Total OA 
pubs 
(2014) 

52.2% 
53.3% 
57.9% 
59.0% 
58.0% 
56.4% 
53.2% 
49.8% 
55.9% 
57.7% 
52.0% 
53.0% 
54.1% 
55.8% 
60.4% 
59.2% 
54.6% 
56.4% 
53.5% 
57.6% 
61.0% 
50.0% 
46.6% 
58.7% 
57.4% 
55.1% 
59.0% 
56.0% 
59.7% 
57.0% 
53.2% 
53.2% 
56.4% 

Non-ERA 
pubs 
per 1000 
res 
(2014) 

    50.7 

57.7 
62.8 
10.5 
96.6 
86.5 
34.3 
49.6 
72.2 
24.6 
21.2 
48.7 
50.5 
59.7 
20.8 
33.2 
87.5 
62.2 
51.4 
10.6 
44.7 
8.1 
28.4 
87.1 
55.3 
16.8 
32.2 
20.9 
16.3 
85.1 
37.2 
10.5 
62.8 

39 

 
 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1: Statistical notes and footnotes to tables 
The European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC) selected eight core high level 
indicators (one per priority or per sub-priority for priorities 2 and 5) that are regarded as the most 
relevant in monitoring progress in achieving the ERA. In addition to these Headline indicators, 
the  ERAC  selected  two  complementary  ERA  Monitoring  Mechanism  (EMM)  indicators  per 
priority  (including  the  sub-priorities  for  priorities  2  and  5),  resulting  in  a  total  of  24  EMM 
indicators (including the Headline indicators). 

Because the goals to be reached in achieving the ERA constitute moving targets, it is difficult to 
establish reference values to be attained in relation to specific ERA policy actions; some of these 
targets  could  become  obsolete  in  between  each  EMM  round.  Each  table  shows  country-by-
country scores for national performance based on the indicator in question.  

In  the  tables,  the  countries  are  sorted  in  descending  order  of  performance,  meaning  that  the 
strongest  performers  appear  at  the  top,  with  softer  and  softer  performance  results  as  one  reads 
down  the  table.  The  countries  are  clustered  into  groups  based  on  performance  for  the  same 
purpose.  This  clustering  operation  is  based  on  the  distribution  of  scores  for  all  of  the  ERA 
countries for which data is available; countries more than one standard deviation above the ERA 
average  (unweighted)  average  across  the  MS/AC  for  which  data  is  available)  for  a  given 
indicator are in Cluster 1, the strongest cluster; those at or above the ERA average but within one 
standard deviation are in Cluster 2; those below the average  but  within one standard deviation 
are in Cluster 3; those more than one standard deviation below the ERA average are in Cluster 4, 
being the least performing cluster. For each country and cluster, the percentage of the ERA GDP 
that is accounted for by each country and cluster is provided as a reference of the country/cluster 
GDP weight among the ERA countries; at the cluster level, this helps in appreciating the share of 
the ERA’s global economy that is found in each performance cluster, as well as the importance 
of  the  progress  —  from  an  ERA-wide  perspective  —  made  in  each  cluster.  In  addition  to  a 
measurement of performance in 2015 (or the most recent reference year for which sufficient data 
was  available  at  the  time  of  producing  this  report),  the  indicator  tables  also  assess  changes  in 
national  performance  over  time,  computed  as  a  Compound  Annual  Growth  Rate  (CAGR) 
Country-by-country  results  for  performance  and  growth  have  been  colour-coded  to  ease  the 
reading  of  tables,  with  blue  representing  the  lower  scores  and  orange  representing  the  higher 
scores.  The  connection  between  performance  and  growth  is  a  point  of  interest  to  follow 
throughout this report, as it shows whether countries lagging somewhat behind are catching up to 
their stronger counterparts in progressing towards the ERA, or whether the stronger performers 
are pulling further away from the pack. 

The  performance–growth  connection  for  each  indicator  can  be  assessed  visually  based  on  the 
colour-coding of results: performance scores will always be sorted from orange at the top to blue 
on  the  bottom,  so  if  growth  scores  are  predominantly  orange  at  the  top  and  blue  towards  the 
bottom, one can conclude that the leaders are pulling away from the pack; contrarily, if growth 

40 

 
 
scores are predominantly blue at the top and orange towards the bottom, this finding shows that 
those behind are catching up, closing the gap to the leaders. 

The footnotes for each table have been gathered hereunder: 

Table 1 

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (2010-2013) 

The  adjusted  REI  is  a  composite  indicator  integrating  of  four  components:  share  of  top  10 %  most  highly  cited  publications  per  total  publications  (data  source: 
CWTS); PCT patent applications per population  (OECD); ERC grants per public R&D (DG-RTD, Eurostat, OECD) and participation in Marie Skłodowska-Curie 
fellowships (DG-EAC). Dates refer to actual data years, except for MSC fellowships. It was calculated using the latest available data as of April 2016 (i.e. 2013), 
taking into consideration the presence of a citation window for the highly cited publications indicator.  
Source: 
methodology, please refer to Vértesy (2015) 

Calculations  by  European  Commission,  DG  Joint  Research  Centre,  Competence  Centre  on  Composite  Indicators  and  Scoreboards.  For  details  on  the 

Table 2A 

GBARD  (EUR)  allocated  to  Europe-wide  transnational,  as  well  as  bilateral  or  multilateral, 
public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector (2010-2014) 

is 

on 

for 

the 

the 

the 

data 

shows 

period 

period 

CAGR 

2010-14 

trendline 

computed 

2007-2014. 

The 
but 
Break in time series: EU-28 (2007, 2008, 2012, 2013); 2012 (BE, LV); 2007 (DK, NO); PT (2008, 2013); 2011 (RO, SI, FI); SE (2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) 
Definition differs: 2007-2014 (EU-28, NL, SK); HR (2012-2014); NO (2007-2009); CH (2008, 2010, 2012) 
Estimated: 2007-2014 (EU-28, BE, NL); DK (2014); IE (2007, 2014); HR (2013); 2012-2014 (IT, SE); LU (2007, 2014); AT (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014); SK (2007); FI 
(2011-2014); UK (2010-2014); CH (2008, 2010, 2012) 
Provisional: 2014 (EU-28, BE, CZ, DK, IT, CY, LU, MT, NL, AT, PT, SI, UK 
Potential outlier: EE (2009); CY (2008); HU (2012) 
Eurostat country flags have been retained in the EU-28 aggregate 
Missing countries in EU-28 aggregate: Performance (FR); Growth (DE; EL; FR; IT; RO; SI; FI; SE) 
Exception to reference year: DE (2013); IS (2013); CH (2012) 
Exception to reference period: DE (2011-2013); 2011-2014 (RO, FI); 2012-2014 (EL, IT, SE) 
Data unavailable: FR, ME, MK, AL, TR, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA 
(:) = missing data 
CH is more than four standard deviations away from the mean and was therefore not used in establishing the clusters' boundaries. The data for Researchers in FTE in 
the Swiss Government sector are only covering the Federal or central government. However, recall that public sector researchers in this study refer to the sum of the 
Government and Higher Education sectors, the latter usually being much larger than the former. As a result, a bias favouring Switzerland is possible, although likely 
not that large. 
For the Netherlands, data for the category ‘National contributions to Europe-wide transnational public R&D programmes’ do not include the joint programmes as 
defined  in  the  JOREP  project.  All  projects  have  to  be  approached  separately.  An  "Estimated"  flag  is  used  in  Eurobase,  but  it  is  likely  that  the  real  value  is 
underestimated.. 
Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: gba_tncoor and gba_nabsfin07) 

Table 2B 

Availability  of  national  roadmaps  with  identified  ESFRI  projects  and  corresponding 
investment needs 

References to a ‘Latvian Roadmap of National Level Research Centres’ may be found online (see e.g.  http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/77424776/latvian-
roadmap-national-level-research-centres), which describe it as a ‘long-term planning instrument that lists research infrastructures on national importance, either new 
or in need of upgrading’ but the roadmap per se is not available. 
Source: National roadmaps for research infrastructures: https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri-national-roadmaps 

Table 3 

Number  of  researcher  postings  advertised  through  the  EURAXESS  job  portal,  per  1 000 
researchers in the public sector (2012-2014) 

Break in time series: EU-28 (2012, 2013); BE (2012); 2013 (PT, SE, IS); RS (2014) 
Definition differs: EU-28 (2012-2014); HR (2012-2014); NL (2012-2014); SK (2012-2014); CH (2012) 
Estimated: EU-28 (2012-2014); 2014 (BE, DK, DE, IE, LU); AT (2012, 2014); SE (2012-2014); UK (2014) 
Provisional: 2014 (EU-28, BE, CZ, DK, DE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, NL, AT, PT, SI, UK) 
Eurostat country flags have been retained in the EU-28 aggregate 
Missing countries in EU-28 aggregate: MT 
Exception to reference year: CH (2012) 
Data unavailable: MT, MK, AL, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA 
(:) = missing data 
The data for Researchers in FTE in the Swiss Government sector are only covering the Federal or central government. However,  recall that public sector researchers 
in this study refer to the sum of the Government and Higher Education Sectors, the latter usually being much larger than the former. As a result, a bias favouring 
Switzerland is possible, although likely not that large. HR is more than four standard deviations away from the mean and was therefore not used in establishing the 
clusters' boundaries. 
Source: 

Computed by Science-Metrix from EURAXESS historical data and from Eurostat data (online data code: rd_p_persocc) 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Share of women in Grade A positions in the Higher Education Sector (2007-2014) 

Exception to reference year: 2013 (BE, LV, LU, AT, RO, CH); 2012 (IE, PT, IS, MK); TR (2007); 2006 (UK, IL) 
Exception to reference period: BE (2007-2014), DK (2006-2014), EE (2004-2014), IE (2003-2012), EL (2000-2014), FR (2006-2014), CY (2006-2014), LV (2007-
2013), LU (2006-2013), MT (2004-2014), AT (2006-2013), PT (2003-2012), RO (2007-2013), IS (2007-2012), CH (2007-2013) 
Data unavailable: ME, AL, RS, TR, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA 
Data prone to yearly fluctuations due to small denominator: MK (6/9 = 66.7 %) 
(:) = missing data 
MK is more than four standard deviations away from the mean and was therefore not used in establishing the clusters' boundaries. 
Trend column not presented due to sparse time-series. 
Source: 

Women in Science database, DG Research and Innovation 

Table 5A1 

Share  of  product  or  process  innovative  firms  cooperating  with  public  or  private  research 
institutions (2008-2012) 

Definition differs (added by Science-Metrix): 2012 (EU-28, BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, 
SK, FI, SE, UK, NO, RS, TR) 
Provisional: EU-28 (2008); DK (2008) 
Low reliability: EU-28 (2008); SE (2008) 
Eurostat country flags have been retained in the EU-28 aggregate 
Missing countries in EU-28 aggregate: Growth (DE, IE, NL, SI) 
Exception to reference year: 2010 (DE, IE, NL, SI, IS) 
Data unavailable: CH, ME, MK, AL, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA 
(:) = missing data 
Source:Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: inn_cis6_coop, inn_cis7_coop, inn_cis8_coop, inn_cis6_type, inn_cis7_type, 
inn_cis8_type) 

Table 5B 

Share of publications available in Open Access (2014) 

The clusters are based on total OA  
(:) = missing data 
Source:Computed by Science-Metrix using 1science data 

Table 6 

Co-publications with non-ERA partners per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2005-2014) 

                        Break in time series: BE (2012); 2005 (CZ, IT, UK); 2007 (DK, NO); DE (2006); 2011 (EL, RO, SI, FI); FR (2010); PT (2005-2008, 2013); SE (2005, 2007, 2011, 

2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) 
Definition differs: FR (2005-2009); HR (2012-2014); NL (2005-2014); SK (2005-2014); SE (2005-2007); NO (2005-2009); CH (2006, 2008, 2010, 2012) 
Estimated: EU-28 (2008-2010); 2014 (BE, DK, DE); IE (2007, 2014); EL (2006, 2007); LU (2007, 2014); AT (2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014); SE (2005-2014); UK 
(2005-2008, 2014) 
Provisional: 2014 (EU-28, BE, CZ, DK, DE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, AT, PT, SI, UK) 
Eurostat estimate: PT (2005) 
Exception to reference period: CH (2006-2012); RS (2008-2014) 
Data unavailable: AL, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA 
(:) = missing data 
Source: 

Computed by Science-Metrix using WoS data (Thomson Reuters) and Eurostat data (online data code: rd_p_persocc) 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex  2:  Actions  in  support  of  ERA  by  the  various  ERA  working  groups 
gathering national representatives 
Under  the  authority  of  the  European  Research  and  Innvovation  Advisory  Group  (ERAC) 
Steering  Group,  each  specialised  working  groups  bringing  together  representatives  of  Member 
States  is  in  charge  of  one  of  the  ERA  priorities.  The  aim  is  to  foster  implementation  through 
reforms at national level. Although an effort has been made to harmonize their mandates, each 
working group retains its own characteristics, inherited from a complex history. 

Each  operational  working  group  was  asked  to  report  on  the  success  achieved  in  its  activities 
since the last ERA Progress Report, i.e. over the period 2014-2016. 

ERA Priority 2A: High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC)  

Fostering the Joint Programming Process 

The first task of the High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC) mission was to identify and 
establish  the  Joint  Programming  Initiatives  (JPIs).  By  the  end  of  2014,  all  ten  JPIs  had  fully 
functioning governance systems in place. The GPC considered that development as a remarkable 
success.  Althgough  the  GPC  considered  that  developement  as  a  remarkable  success,  it 
acknowledged  that  this  achievement  fulfilled  only  part  of  the  objectives  of  the  Joint 
Programming Process (JPP).  

As a result, the GPC explored ways on how to best contribute to foster the JPP and established 
new working methods in order to become more operational. Four Working Groups (WGs) were 
set up dealing with issues related to the collaboration between the GPC and JPIs, the promotion 
of  alignment,  the  Framework  Conditions  for  JP  and  the  JPIs’  progress  and  impact.  The  final 
reports of the WGs were adopted by the GPC in September 2014. 

Building  on  the  WGs’  reports,  the  GPC  considered,  among  others,  the  following  elements  as 
being crucial for the development of the full potential of the JPP: 

  Commitment  and  support  from  both  the  participating  countries  and the EC  towards  the 

JPP and the JPIs must be strengthened; 

  Following  the  adoption  of  Strategic  Research  Agendas  in  the  context  of  JP,  the 
participating  countries  should  follow  a  strategic  approach  to,  when  appropriate,  align 
their national programmes, priorities or activities, with a view to implementing changes 
to improve efficiency and effectiveness of investment in research; 

  JPIs  must  become  strategic  hubs  or  platforms  for  research  and  innovation  in  their 

respective challenge and be used as such by all relevant actors and stakeholders; 

  The interoperability of national research systems should be spurred also by reducing the 
degree  of  divergence  of  terminology,  rules  and  procedures for  funding  R&I  throughout 
MS and AC; 

  Effective  methods,  parameters  and  indicators  for  measuring  the  impact  of  the  JPIs  on 
their  respective  societal  challenge,  and  of  the  JPP  in  general,  must  be  developed  and 
implemented. 

GPC Self-Assessment 

During the last months of 2014, the GPC has gone through a self-assessment of its activities. The 
exercise indicated a widespread willingness to enhance and streamline the cooperation between 
the GPC and the other ERA-related Groups, including ERAC, to produce a more comprehensible 

43 

 
 
 
and  coherent  picture.  Furthermore,  the  GPC  clearly  expressed  its  wish  to  see  its  mandate 
updated, according to the requirements of the new scenario, and to be involved in the preparation 
of the relevant aspects of the ERA Roadmap. 

Implementation Groups 

In early 2015, the GPC established 3 Implementation Groups (IGs), in order to build on the work 
of 
their 
recommendations.  

to  promote  and  facilitate  full 

the  previous  WGs  and 

implementation  of 

The  IG1  on  “Fostering  Relationships  among  the  JPIs  and  the  GPC”  provided  the  essential 
elements for the drafting of a document on “Keeping the GPC up to the job – Tasks and Profile 
of  the  GPC  Delegates”  and  led  to  the  decision  of  inviting,  wherever  possible,  the  JPIs’ 
Representatives to the meetings of the GPC. 

The  IG2  on  “Improving  Alignment  and  Interoperability”  performed  an  alignment  mapping 
exercise  which  highlighted  the  importance  of  a  high  level  national  commitment,  of  an 
overarching  inclusive  national  strategy,  and  of  using  the  national  budget  as  an  instrument  for 
promoting alignment. Interestingly, also the national governance of the JPP was explored, which 
led to a set of recommendations. 

The  IG3  on  “Monitoring  and  Evaluation”  mainly  focused  on  the  establishment  of  minimum 
conditions for JPIs  to  be used  both  for possible new JPIs,  as well as  for the assessment of the 
existing ones.  

The final reports of the IGs were adopted by the GPC in late 2015 and 2016.  

Lund Declaration 2015 

In  December  2015,  a  high  level  conference,  entitled  ‘Lund  Revisited:  Tackling  Societal 
Challenges‘,  was  organised  to  discuss  the  progress  that  had  been  made  since  the  Lund 
Declaration  of  2009  and  propose  an  updated  Lund  Declaration  2015.  The  updated  Declaration 
identifies four priority areas (alignment, frontier research and European knowledge base, global 
cooperation  and  achieving  impact  on  challenges)  and  calls  on  all  stakeholders  to  take  these 
priorities into account in their field of responsibility. 

Revision of the GPC Mandate 

The  revision  of  the  GPC  mandate  was  accomplished  according  to  the  main  concept  that  “the 
focus of the GPC activity should shift from the JPIs to the JPP”. After extensive discussions, 
the  renewed  mandate  was  adopted  by  the  GPC  on  12  February  2016  including  the  ‘common 
clauses’ of all the ‘ERA-related Groups’. 

Hernani’s Report 

In  June  2015  the  EC  established  an  Expert  Group  (chaired  by  J.  Hernani)  to  carry  out  an 
‘Evaluation of Joint Programming to Address Grand Societal Challenges‘.  

The key message from the Hernani Report (March 2016) is that the ‘Joint Programming Process 
does not yet have sufficient Commitment from national stakeholders to achieve its potential‘. The 
final  recommendation  of  the  Group  is  therefore  addressed  to  all  policy  stakeholders  who  will 
play  an  influential  role  in  the  planning  process,  due  to  start  in  2017,  for  the  next  Framework 
Programme  (FP).  The  Group  recommends  that  ‘each  of  the  JPIs  should  be  invited  to  consider 
their  longer  term  strategy  in  terms  of  socio-economic  impact  objectives/deliverables  and  what 
support instruments they would need from the next FP‘.  

44 

 
 
WG on the “Long Term Strategy of Joint Programming» 

Following the Lund Declaration 2015, the output of the Annual Conference of JP (organized by 
ERA-LEARN  2020  in  Jan.  2016)  and  the  recommendations  given  by  the  Hernani  Report,  the 
GPC  decided  (April  2016)  to  establish  a  WG  on  the  ‘Long  Term  Strategy  of  Joint 
Programming‘. The WG is composed of volunteering GPC delegates, JPIs representatives and 
representatives of the EC. 

The main output of this WG is not an additional evaluation of the JPIs, but a general framework 
for JPI long- term strategy which will serve as a basis for GPC recommendations regarding the 
future of JP in the next FP. Moreover, as a first step towards a common approach for connecting 
the JPIs and the next FP, the Working Group will also prepare a proposal for the positioning of 
JPIs in the Work Programme 2018-2020. 

Mutual Learning Exercise  

In addition, to enhance the alignment process, the GPC decided to launch in collaboration with 
the  EC  a  Mutual  Learning  Exercise  (MLE)  on  "Alignment  and  Interoperability  of  Research 
Programmes"  using  the  'Policy  Support  Facility'  (PSF)  under  H2020.  The  MLE  will  run  in 
sequences and is expected to support the countries to find solutions for increasing MS/AC and 
EC commitment to  the joint  programming  process and to the JPIs,  for enhancing  alignment of 
strategies  and  programmes  and  for  improving  interoperability  among  MS/AC  instruments  and 
with the EC instruments. 

Future Vision 

A synthesis of the GPC view on the state-of-the-art and its vision for the near future includes the 
following: 

  a genuine joint programming of research strategies, programmes and activities is at the 
core of the full implementation of the ERA in the corresponding priority area of the 
societal challenges; 
 
joint funding activities are not per se making a genuine JPP to develop and grow; 
  a stronger effort of the national scientific communities and an effective political will of 
the decision makers are required for aligning strategies, programmes and activities on 
major societal challenges; 

  most likely, a more visible role of the JPIs within the H2020 could contribute to 

effectively developing JPIs as strategic hubs for the European research on major societal 
challenges. 

ERA Priority 2B: European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) 

In  2014,  ESFRI  published  a  prioritisation  report17,  identifying  a  limited  number  of  projects 
from  the  ESFRI  roadmap18,  which  were  mature  enough  to  be  under  implementation  by  2015-
2016 and were considered essential to extend the frontiers of knowledge in the fields concerned. 
This task implied a strong involvement of the different ESFRI Strategy Working Groups.  

17 https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/ESFRI_projects_for_impl_7_april_2014.pdf 
18 https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/ESFRI_projects_for_impl_7_april_2014.pdf 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
The  prioritisation  exercise  started  from  the  report  of  the  Assessment  Expert  Group  (AEG), 
published  in  September  2013.  This  AEG  report19  provided  a  snapshot  of  the  status  of 
implementation  of  36  projects  on the  ESFRI  Roadmap,  not  including  the  already  implemented 
“success stories” and two other projects that fall within the domain of EURATOM. 

ESFRI Chair communicated the short list of projects to the Greek Presidency of the Council. The 
Competitiveness Council conclusions (adopted on 26 May 2014) acknowledged the work done 
by the ESFRI on prioritisation of projects for implementation and welcomed plans to update the 
ESFRI roadmap with new research infrastructures of pan-European interest. 

In 2014 ESFRI revised the structure of the ESFRI Roadmap and the methodology to be followed 
for the 2016 update. Main innovations were a) the ten-year rule that limits the permanence of a 
proposal on the Roadmap: implementation is expected to occur within ten years of the first entry; 
b)  after  ten  years  the  project  leaves  the  Roadmap  unless  it  moves  to  the  list  of 
implemented/science performing research infrastructures newly defined as ESFRI Landmarks, or 
it  can  re-apply  as  project  in  competition  with  new  proposals  and  only  after  deep  revision  or 
reorientation; c) the extensive Landscape Analysis of all the RIs performing services and  open 
access to the European scientists in all the domains covered by ESFRI. 

Consequently in 2014 the Strategy Working Groups started developing a landscape analysis in 
their respective scientific fields - Energy, Environment, Health and Food, Physical Science and 
Engineering,  Social  and  Cultural  Innovations.  The  Physical  Science  and  Engineering  Strategy 
Work Group (PSE SWG) created an ad-hoc Working Group to develop a thorough analysis of 
the  European  Landscape  of  Research  Infrastructures  devoted  to  Neutron  Scattering  and 
Spectroscopy, and its evolution in the next decades. The rationale behind this decision was that 
on one hand the ESFRI project ESS-neutrons was launched. But on the other hand, a number of 
national facilities, based on nuclear reactor sources, had announced their termination creating a 
complex cross-over dynamics that needed to be well understood in order to plan strategically the 
availability  of  neutron  resources  for  European  science  in  the  period  2020-2050.  This  Neutron 
Landscape Group (NLG), co-chaired by Prof. Colin Carlile (former Director General of the ILL 
and of the ESS-Scandinavia) and Prof. Caterina Petrillo (now vice-chair of the ESS Council) has 
delivered a report20 that was published in 2016 as the first “ESFRI Scripta”. 

Following the 28-29 May 2015 Competitiveness Council meeting, ESFRI was invited to explore 
mechanisms for better coordination of Member States' investment strategies in e-infrastructures, 
covering also HPC, distributed computing, scientific data and networks. For this purpose, ESFRI 
launched  a  Working  Group  on  investment  strategies  in  e-infrastructures,  chaired  by  Mr. 
Sverker  Holmgren  (also  e-IRG  Chair). 
  This  Working  Group  will  provide  its  final 
recommendations in late 2016. 

ESFRI  activities  in  2015  focused  on  implementing  the  innovative  scheme  of  the  2016  ESFRI 
Roadmap. The process included the following steps: 

19 The assessment was based on a detailed methodology described in the report that looked critically at all non-
scientific aspects of the projects, i.e. governance, management, funding, legal issues, etc. The AEG report gave a 
reasoned assessment of the status of maturity of each of the projects under these aspects and, specifically, of their 
likelihood  of  reaching  the  official  kick-off  of  the  implementation  phase  by  the  end  of  2015,  as  sought  by  the 
“Innovation  Union”.  The  AEG  rated  the  projects  that  they  assessed  under  3  categories:  Category  1  –  “ready  for 
implementation  in  2015”  (although  may  not  be  fully  secure  in  terms  of  financial  commitments);  Category  2  – 
“might be able to achieve maturity by 2015, if substantial actions are implemented to address the bottlenecks and 
weaknesses”; and Category 3 – “minimal chances of achieving maturity by 2015 for various reasons”. 

20 http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri-publications 

46 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
  Assessment of Implementation of projects which entered the Roadmap in 2008 and 2010; 

  Collection of new proposals submitted to the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap; 

  Evaluation  of  proposals  consisting  of  scientific  assessment  and  the  assessment  of 

maturity; 

  Selection of ESFRI Projects and ESFRI Landmarks to be included in the Roadmap; 

  Preparing the landscape analysis of large-scale research infrastructures in Europe; 

  Drafting of the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap document. 

The ESFRI Roadmap 2016 document21 consists of three Parts. Part 1 provides the outline of 
the  ESFRI  strategic considerations  in  the  development  of  research infrastructures in  Europe  as 
well as gives an overview of projects included in the Roadmap, the methodology, lessons learnt 
and the outlook into the future. 
The  Roadmap  contains  21  ESFRI  Projects22  and  29  ESFRI  Landmarks23,  whose  detailed 
descriptions are included in Part 2. ESFRI selected new projects following evaluation by a) the 
Strategy Working Groups with respect to their scientific excellence, pan-European relevance and 
socio-economic impact and b) with respect to their degree of maturity as benchmarked against an 
“assessment matrix” developed by the ESFRI Implementation Group (IG). 

Other  proposals  that  did  not  enter  the  Roadmap  were  described  in  the  landscape  analysis  as 
having  a  high  potential  of  scientific  excellence  and/or  complementarity  to  existing  ESFRI 
Projects  or  Landmarks.  These  are  expected  to  compete  for  future  updates  or  coordinate  with 
existing RIs. 

The  landscape  analysis  contained  in  Part  3  of  the  Roadmap  document  provides  the  current 
context,  in  each  domain,  of  the  operational  national  and  international  research  infrastructures 
open  to  European  scientists  and  technology  developers  through  peer-review  of  competitive 
science proposals. It represents an impression of the European  RI ecosystem. This  responds to 
the  invitation  by  the  Competitiveness  Council  to  broaden  the  view  of  ESFRI  beyond  the 
Roadmap list of projects. It has been produced by the five Strategy Working Groups (SWGs) of 
ESFRI that  are composed  of well-recognized  scientists and are  coordinated by a member, or  a 
permanent  expert,  of  the  ESFRI  Forum.  The  e-infrastructures  landscape,  transversal  to  all 
domains,  has  been  elaborated  by the  e-Infrastructure  Reflection  Group (e-IRG).  The  landscape 
analysis  is  a  key  ingredient  of  the  new  ESFRI  evaluation  methodology  as  it  supports  the 
understanding  of  the  impact  of  new  projects.  It  does  not  represent  in  any  way  the  view  or 
prioritization of ESFRI or of any Member State for commitments or future investments. ESFRI 
in no case acts as an advocate of specific potential future projects. ESFRI and its Member States 
have taken note of it. 

With the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap update, the process incorporated the necessary steps to further 
strengthen the RI ecosystem in the years to come. ESFRI will continue to update its roadmap in 
2018, further refining its methodology, and offering opportunities to new projects in all fields of 
science. 

21 https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri-roadmap 
22 These ESFRI Projects consist of nine from the 2008 Roadmap, six from the 2010 Roadmap, five new projects plus 
one reoriented project that were selected from among twenty eligible proposals that were submitted in March 
2015. 
23 ESFRI Landmarks are the successfully implemented ESFRI projects delivering science services or effectively 
advancing in their construction 

47 

 
 
                                                            
 
The  ESFRI  Roadmap  2016  was  launched  on  10  March  2016,  in  Amsterdam.  The  event  was 
organized under the Dutch Presidency by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 
(KNAW) in close cooperation with ESFRI, the European Commission and the Dutch Ministry of 
Education,  Culture  and  Science.  Discussions  focused  on  strategic  road-mapping,  long-term 
sustainability and the socio-economic impact of research infrastructures. 

In  2016  the  ESFRI  Innovation  Working  Group  published  its  report24  to  contribute  to  the 
development  of  a  strategy  aimed  to  strengthen  and  improve  the  relations  between  Research 
Infrastructures  and  Industry  and  to  promote  the  potential  for  innovation  of  Research 
Infrastructures. 

ESFRI presented the 2016 Roadmap in the Competitiveness Council meeting of 27 May 2016.  
The Council conclusions welcomed the identification of ESFRI Landmarks and recognised their 
continued strategic role in driving scientific excellence and innovation in Europe and called on 
ESFRI  to  closely  monitor  the  implementation  of  ESFRI  projects,  to  periodically  assess  the 
scientific status of ESFRI Landmarks, and to prepare the next ESFRI Roadmap update in 2018. 

As  a  follow-up  of  the  May  Council  conclusions,  ESFRI  started  to  streamline  the  Roadmap 
methodology in order to prepare the 2018 Roadmap Update. 

Specifically  on  Long  term  sustainability  of  Research  Infrastructures,  the  Competitiveness 
Council  conclusions  invited  the  Commission  to  prepare  together  with  ESFRI  and  relevant 
stakeholders  a  targeted  action  plan".  As  a  follow-up,  ESFRI  created  a  dedicated  Working 
Group on Long term sustainability of Research Infrastructures, which will start its' activities 
in the last trimester of 2016. 

ERA Priority 3: Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM) 

The  SGHRM  aims  to  advise  and  support  the  Commission  on  aspects  related  to  the 
implementation of ERA25 and its impacts at national level, monitoring developments related to 
researcher careers and mobility at EU level. In this respect, ERA priority 3 is 'key' for the work 
of the group which is focusing on this priority since its establishment in 2001 while priorities 1, 
2 and 4 are inextricably linked. 
The  group  contributes  to  creating  awareness  on  European/national  level  and  provides  the 
forum  for  mutual  learning  and  exchange  of  good  practice  among  MS  and  AC,  while 
reinforcing  a  consistent  implementation  of  actions  of  common  interest  or  inspiring  new  or 
improved actions. 
Its main task is the definition of Community actions within the ERA Framework by liaising with 
other  relevant  groups  and  stakeholders  to  make  better  use  of  existing  initiatives,  such  as  the 
EURAXESS  activities  by  strengthening  links  with  the  national  Bridgehead  Organisations 
and  by  ensuring  effective  coordination  with  activities  of  HORIZON  2020  and  the  relevant 
Programme  Committees  with  the  aim  of  supporting  a  coherent  development  of  policies  and 
measures  at  national  level  and  by  enhancing  complementarities  and  synergies  between 
national and Community actions. 

24https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/esfri/publications/wginno_final_report_032016.pdf#view=fit
&pagemode=none 

25 COM(2012)329 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
The SGHRM provide regular updates and advice to ERAC or to the Competitiveness Council 
as appropriate on the work undertaken and the results achieved. 

Main achievements and action taken 

According to its workplan, the SGHRM has recently developed a strategy to reach by 2020 the 
aim of 'recognizing researchers as professionals' in order to achieve a fully open labor market 
for researchers. All recommendations and reports on various aspects contribute to this ambitious 
challenge and already to date, much progress has been made. 

1.  Portable pensions for researchers (RESAVER) 

The mobility of researchers being a driver of excellence in research, researchers still face 
many  difficulties  in  preserving  their  supplementary  pension  benefits  when  moving 
between  different  countries,  an  issue  that  was  identified  by  the  SGHRM  as  a  major 
barrier to mobility. 
In  creating  a  single  European  pension  arrangement  (RESAVER)  offering  a  defined 
contribution  plan,  tailor-made  for  research  organisations  and  their  employees,  a 
significant momentum was reached at the launch of RESAVER26 on 1 October 2014. 
RESAVER will now enable mobile and non-mobile employees to remain affiliated to the 
same pension vehicle when moving between different countries and changing jobs. 

2.  Doctoral Training and Professional Development of Researchers 

In 2014 the SGHRM produced two key reports on Doctoral Training27 and Professional 
Development  of  Researchers28  which  were  adopted  by  the  Member  States.  As  a  real 
example  of  the  transposition  from  policy  to  practice,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  group's 
work on  Doctoral Training has been integrated into Horizon  2020  especially within the 
Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions. 

3.  Open, Transparent and Merit-Based Recruitment of Researchers (OTM-R) 

Open  Recruitment  being  still  an  issue  in  a  certain  number  of  Member  States  and 
Associated Countries, the SGHRM established a working group tasked to elaborate sound 
recommendations easily usable for Open, Transparent and Merit-Based Recruitment 
of Researchers. The report was approved by the SGHRM in June 2014 and contributed 
directly  to  reinforcing  the  HRS4R  implementation  procedure  under  preparation  in 
parallel. This report provides a highly valuable tool (OTM-R Checklist29) for institutions 
planning 
transparency of their recruitment processes 
for researchers. 

to ensure the openness 

and 

4.  Strengthening  the  procedure  implementing  the  principles  of  Charter  and  Code 

(HRS4R) 
In parallel, a mixed group of members of the SGHRM and specialized experts tackled the 
issue  of  strengthening  the  implementation  of  the  Charter  and  Code  principles  in 
research  institutions.  This  group  was  set  up  in  follow-up  of  a  feasibility  study  which 
presented the issue of strengthening as the best option. 

26 See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1063_en.htm and http://www.resaver.eu 
27 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/SGHRM_IDTP_Report_Final.pdf  
28 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/Final%20Report%20of%20the%20ERA-
SGHRM%20WG%20on%20Professional%20Development%20of%20Researchers%202014.pdf  
29 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/OTM-R-checklist.pdf  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  strengthened  HRS4R  implementation  procedure  to  obtain  the  'HR  excellence  in 
research'  award  now  incorporates  elements  of  earlier  internationalization,  open 
recruitment,  international  peer  review  and  reinforced  monitoring  while  moving  from 
measuring  progress  towards  quality,  thus  remaining  a  flexible,  but  essential  tool  for 
institutions engaged in the HRS4R process.  

On-going and upcoming actions in the second semester 2016 

In  2015,  the  SGHRM  also  established  2  further  working  groups  focussing  on  specific  topics 
related to ERA Priority 3 and working to an agreed mandate under the chair, with membership of 
the SGHRM, including selected external experts  and major European stakeholder organisations 
(e.g. EUA, LERU). 
As a general rule, such groups are expected to report back within a defined timeline, usually 6 
months.  These  2  working  groups  focus  on  'intersectoral  mobility,  asymmetric  mobility  and 
skills' and 'welcoming culture for non-EU researchers' to Europe (linked to the EURAXESS 
initiative of 'Science for Refugees'). 

5.  Inter-sectoral Mobility and Skills 

The  objective  is  to  identify  and  propose  solutions  to  overcome  barriers  for  mobility  of 
researchers across sectors. One significant barrier is transferable skills, which are often 
requested from industry and business, but not a regular part of training of PhDs and post 
docs.  These  issues  are  highly  relevant  in  a  culture  of  the  3Os  policy  initiative  by 
Commissioner  Moedas.  This  initiative  advocates  the  advancement  of  knowledge  and 
innovation  through  a  collaborative  approach,  seeking  solutions  to  overcome  these 
obstacles  and  recommend  adequate  actions  to  the  European  Commission,  national 
research councils, research institutions (HEIs) and potential employers in the private and 
public sector. The report is close to finalization and should be approved by the SGHRM 
in September 2016.  

6.  Welcoming culture for non EU researchers 

This  group  deals  with  asymmetric  flows  of  researcher  mobility,  including  particularly 
services  for  incoming  researchers  to  Europe.  The  WG  discussing  measures  and 
innovative transnational mobility initiative in order to take into account the asymmetry of 
researcher  mobility  brain  drain  within  Europe  and  include  the  issue  of  diaspora 
researchers. The work of this group is contributing to the broader policy of Open to the 
World.  The  report  is  currently  to  be  finalized  and  will  be  presented  to  the  SGHRM  in 
December 2016 for approval.  

Open Science, Open Innovation and Open to the World being Commissioner Moedas' recent 
policy  initiative,  the  SGHRM  was  tasked  to  take  care  of  2  working/expert  groups  reporting 
directly to the Open Science Policy Platform advising Commissioner Moedas. 

7.  Modernisation  of  scientific  career  assessment  in  an  Open  Science  environment 

(Rewards) 
to 
Modernisation  of  scientific  career  assessment 
'recognition/rewards/incentives' guaranteeing fair/equal career development of individual 
scientists is a top priority to be addressed. The mixed working group (SGRHM/experts) is 
currently  working  on  sound  recommendations  to  modernize  the  current  career 
assessment system based on (biblio)metrics. The group also works with Member States 
&  Council  Presidencies  to  follow  up  on  the  2012  Recommendation  on  Scientific 

including  elements 

related 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Information  to  ensure  that  at  MS  level  the  academic  career  system  supports  and 
rewards  researchers  working  in  a  culture  of  OS.  A  final  report  is  expected  by  the 
beginning of 2017. 

8.  Open Science education and training of researchers (Skills) 

Open Science education and training tailored to all research career stages (R1 to R4) as 
well as  in  early  education while  developing  links with the  European  Skills  agenda is 
another top priority while at a policy level this activity would need the linkage between 
ERA  and  the  EHEA.  The  group  is  expected  to  deliver  a  finalized  outcome  in  early 
summer 2017. 

Both groups will promote and encourage implementation of best practices of Open Science 
issues. In particular, the SGHRM will raise awareness in the Member States to ensure that Open 
Science  education  and  training  is  offered  in  all  curricula  and  at  all  levels  and  that  ideally  all 
research  institutions  are  to  take  up  the  modernized  career  assessment  system  for  the  best  and 
harmonized equal treatment of  researchers. 

In the context of the SGHRM's strategy towards 'recognizing researchers as professionals' in 
order  to  achieve  a  fully  open  labour  market  for  researchers,  the  SGHRM  currently  started,  in 
follow-up of the Young Researchers' Bratislava Declaration, an in-depth discussion with the 
upcoming Presidencies  to  ensure  progress  of  the  research  career  file  tackling  it  under  diverse 
aspects within the next years. 

ERA priority 4: Helsinki Group on Gender in Research and Innovation 

The  Helsinki  Group  on  Gender  Equality  in  Research  and  Innovation  (the  HG)  gives  strategic 
policy advice to the Commission and the Council on policies and strategies on gender equality in 
Research and Innovation (R&I) at European, national and regional levels; contributes to creating 
awareness  at  European  and  national  levels  of  European,  national  and  regional  policies  and 
strategies related to gender equality in science, technology and innovation; and provides a forum 
for  mutual  learning  and  best  practice  exchange  among  member  states  and  associated  countries 
related  to  advancing  gender  equality  and  gender  mainstreaming  in  science,  technology  and 
innovation in the ERA, thus contributing to policy coordination of ERA Priority 4. 

The  HG  brings  together  representatives  of  national  authorities,  and  thus  provides  authoritative 
advice  reflecting  positions  of  MS  and  AS.  The  HG  also  plays  a  vital  role  in  the  policy 
coordination of gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research and innovation at the EU 
level and between the MS and the Commission. In line with the ERA Communication of 12 July 
2012, the HG provides strategic policy advice, including to RFOs and RPOs, on gender balance 
in leadership and decision-making positions, gender balance in research careers and integration 
of gender dimension in research programmes. 

The  HG  currently  has  four  subgroups  to  move  ahead  its  Work  Plan.  Formed  in  2014  are  (a) 
subgroup on the Cooperation with other ERA-related groups, with mandate to foster cooperation 
with  these  groups,  with  a  particular  focus  on  SGHRM  and  SFIC;  (b)  subgroup  on  ERA 
governance with a mandate to foster coordination and mutual learning among MS with a view to 
implementing  Priority  4;  (c)  subgroup  on  H2020,  with  a  mandate  renewed  in  April  2016  as 
subgroup  on  European  funding  systems,  to  develop  advice  on  gender  equality  and  gender 
mainstreaming in H2020, the upcoming framework programme and European Structural Funds, 
including  the  integration  of  the  gender  dimension  in  research  content,  and  (d)  subgroup  on 
awareness  raising  with  a  mandate  to  draft  background  documents  to  facilitate  the  work  of  HG 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
members (work completed and subgroup terminated). Formed in 2016 is: (d) subgroup on gender 
balance in decision-making with a mandate to deliver guidance in line with Council Conclusions 
on advancing gender equality in ERA. 

As an ERA-related group, the HG is aligned with the new ERA governance structure.  

Main achievements and action taken 

Recommendation  delivered  to  the  Commissioner  on  role  and  responsibilities  of  NCPs 
1. 
with  regard  to  gender  equality  in  H2020  and  on  the  evaluation  of  the  gender  dimension  in 
H2020. In 2015 the HG communicated recommendations to the Commissioner on the role and 
responsibilities of NCPs in providing information on gender equality and gender mainstreaming 
in  H2020  calling  for  training  activities    to  be  stepped  up  in  NCP  networks.  Secondly,  the  HG 
submitted recommendations on the evaluation of the gender dimension in H2020, calling on the 
Commission  to  comply  with  its  own  commitments  and  highlighting  the  importance  of 
coordination  between  Commission  and  MS  policies  and  actions.  These  recommendations  were 
communicated to the Commissioner through a letter of 25 June 2015. 

2. 
The  Rome  Declaration:  The  HG  co-chair  participated  in  the  IT  Presidency  Conference 
“Science,  Innovation  and  Society:  Achieving  Responsible  Research  &  Innovation”  and  HG 
provided strategic advice to include gender equality and gender dimension in research content in 
the Rome Declaration (2014). 

Development  of  comparable  European  statistics  and  indicators.  Throughout  2014  and 
3. 
2015 the HG members and statistical correspondents supported and advised the Commission in 
the preparation of comparable European statistics and indicators on gender equality in R & I and 
provided feedback and comments on individual chapters of the 2015 She Figures. HG members 
liaised  with  their  respective  national  statistical  correspondents  to  coordinate  the  national  data 
collection and verification. 

4. 
A  particular  achievement  was  the  work  to  support  the  Luxembourg  Presidency  in  the 
preparation  of  Council  Conclusions  on  gender  equality  in  the  European  Research  Area  of  1 
December 2015. 

On-going and upcoming actions in the second semester 2016 

1. 
Guidance  on  gender  balance  in  decision-making  positions.  In  line  with  the  Council 
Conclusions  on  advancing  gender  equality  in  the  ERA,  a  subgroup  on  gender  balance  in 
decision-making was formed in April 2015, with the mandate to map and assess current practices 
and  policies  to  support  gender  balance  in  decision-making  positions  with  a  view  to  giving 
guidance to MS in this regard. The work of the subgroup is planned for completion by the end of 
2016, with dissemination to commence as of 2017. 

Joint HG/SFIC guidance on gender dimension in international cooperation in STI. In line 
2. 
with  the  Council  Conclusions  on  advancing  gender  equality  in  the  ERA,  the  subgroup  on 
cooperation with other ERA-related groups, formed in 2014, initiated contact with SFIC, to carry 
out the task. In fall 2016, rapporteurs will be appointed in both groups, to coordinate the work, 
which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2016.  

3. 
Recommendation to the Commission and the Council on the inclusion of gender equality 
and gender mainstreaming in NCP activities. Following a questionnaire survey among MS and 
AS carried out in 2015 and again in 2016, recommendations will be delivered to the Commission 
and Council following the adoption of the recommendations in September 2016. 

52 

 
 
 
 
Mutual  learning  and  coordination  of  ERA  Priority  4.  Building  on  its  long-standing 
4. 
objective to facilitate mutual learning between more and less advanced countries, following the 
adoption of national strategies and actions to implement ERA Roadmap, the HG will regularly at 
its meetings feature 3 national presentations of ERA Roadmap Priority 4 actions and indicators. 

ERA priority 6: Strategic Forum for International Cooperation (SFIC) 

As the ERA-related Group responsible for ERA Roadmap Priority 6 (International cooperation), 
SFIC has during mid-2014 – mid-2016 contributed both to the external dimension of ERA30 and 
to the ERA Roadmap process.  

SFIC’s  main  task  is  to  provide  ‘strategic  and  timely  advice  on  international  S&T  cooperation´ 
including  ‘the  implementation  and  further  development  of  the  ERA  Roadmap’.  The  activities 
have mainly been carried out in line with SFIC Work Programme 2015-1631 including a specific 
section on ‘Contribution to further development and implementation of the ERA Roadmap’. 

Major activities contributing to the ‘further development, implementation and monitoring 
of the international dimension of the ERA’ 

  SFIC has been used as a fruitful framework for cooperation between Commission, Member 

States and Associated Countries: 

 

 

 

to  build  a  more  open  and  strategic  discussion  on  ways  to  improve  structured  policy 
coordination  and  a  more  open  and  transparent  approach  vis-à-vis  Joint  Science  and 
Technology Cooperation Commitee (JSTCC) meetings and bi-lateral dialogues (both at 
national level and EU-level); 
to have an operational approach towards enabling SFIC to propose activities in support 
of  policy  dialogues  (in  the  framework  of  the  future  Service  Facility  in  support  of  the 
strategic  development  of  international  cooperation  in  research  and  innovation);  SFIC 
has appointed a rapporteur in order to consolidate input from SFIC; 
to  discuss  and  engage  in  the  further  development  of  the  Multi-Annual  Roadmaps 
process  and  the  2nd  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  EC’s  international  R&I 
Strategy  where  SFIC  engaged  with  constructive  input  to  the  EC  during  the  whole 
process through e.g. several Workshops. 

  SFIC  has  provided  sound  and  timely  advice  to  Council/Commission  via  relevant  opinions 

on: 

 

the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  for  international  cooperation  in  research  and 
innovation of the European Commission32 and the related Reports, with SFIC reiterating 
the  further 
its  recommendation 
implementation  of  its  strategy  for  international  cooperation  and  the  Multi-Annual 
Roadmaps; 

include  Member  States 

to  systematically 

in 

  ERA Governance: Review of the status, the mandate and the reporting lines of SFIC33; 

30  It  is  worth  noting  that  SFIC's  contribution  to  ERA  Roadmap  Priority  6  is  not  the  exclusive  remit  of  SFIC's 
activities, as many initiatives are covering areas of action not specifically touched upon by the ERA Roadmap 
(e.g. initiatives by SFIC country-specific working groups). 

31 ERAC-SFIC 1353/15, as adopted on 12 February 2015. 
32   ERAC-SFIC 1352/15, as adopted on 27 January 2015 
33   ERAC-SFIC 1355/15, as adopted on 4 March 2015. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 

common principles for the conduct of international R&I cooperation34, as response to a 
Council  request,  including  a  mapping  of  global  research  standards,  a  questionnaire 
amongst Member States and interactions with relevant stakeholders. 

  SFIC  has  contributed  to  the  new  priority  of  the  European  Commission  and  in  particular 

‘Open to the world’: 
  opinion  on  Commission's  "Open  to  the  World"  agenda35  where  SFIC  in  particular 

highlights: 

  SFIC considers that strengthening the external dimension of the European 
Research  Area  (ERA)  is  a  key  element  towards  a  more  coherent  and 
efficient interaction in research and innovation at a global level;  

  SFIC  believes  that  Europe,  its  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries 
should  benefit  from  and  engage  more  in  already  existing  or  planned 
specific R&I initiatives, for instance joint R&I programmes or regionally-
targeted initiatives, as well as developing new ones;  

  As an advisory body, SFIC is ready to continue to play an active role by 
supporting external policy, contributing to science diplomacy, serving as 
an  exchange  platform  to  discuss  implementation  of  S&T  cooperation 
agreements or strengthening its networking with stakeholders.  

  SFIC has created a new working group on a "Toolbox for international cooperation"36, with 
the objective to develop a practical overview for Member States, Associated Countries and 
the  Commission  in  their  implementation  of  international  STI  agreements  and  STI 
cooperation activities at bilateral and multilateral level. Based on already initiated activities, 
such  as  the  comprehensive  gathering  of  information  from  MS/AC/EC  by  means  of  a 
questionnaire and an overall assessment of already existing studies, the working group seeks 
to provide an overview of relevant instruments for international cooperation. 

  Continued work by the SFIC country-specific working groups: 

 

 Brazil: successfully contributed to the Destination Europe as well as Tour of Brazil events, 
participation  to  Science  without  Borders  programme  and  developing  a  SFIC  Roadmap 
towards Brazil; 

  Russia: hosted a workshop on “Internationalisation of the European Research Area: Towards 
a  Common  European  Approach  in  STI  Cooperation  with  Russia”  in  2014,  compiled  an 
overview  of  the  member  states’  cooperation  agreements  with  Russia,  its  activities  of 
implementation,  and  the  main  topics  of  bilateral  cooperation  by  means  of  a  questionnaire, 
and  developed  and  adopted  an  EU/MS/AC-Russia  Strategic  Research  and  Innovation 
Agenda (SRIA); 

 

 USA: successfully engaged in a number of events, such as a workshop on innovation issues 
in EU-US research cooperation in 2015, thematically focused on ocean literacy and marine 
litter and started developing a campaign on it, opened-up initiatives towards Canada; 

  China:  successfully  engaged  in  a  number  of  Workshops  in  China  and  also  engaged  in  JPI 

such as “Urban Europe”; 

34   ERAC-SFIC 1357/15, as adopted on 9 June 2015 
35        ERAC-SFIC 1354/16, as adopted on 21 March 2016  
36   ERAC-SFIC 1360/15, as adopted on 29 September 2015 

54 

 
 
                                                            
  SFIC  has  also  engaged  in  South  Africa  during  the  period  though  Workshops  and  a 

questionnaire. 

  SFIC  has  been  represented  in  five  Destination  Europe  events  in  the  US  as  well  as  one  in 
Brazil.  The  SFIC  Chair,  the  vice-Chair  and  the  Chairs  of  WGs  have  participated  in 
numerous seminars/conferences on behalf of SFIC both in Europe and outside Europe.  

  SFIC  has  engaged  with  the  EC’s  Science  Counsellors,  e.g.  participation  in  meetings  in 

Beijing and Tokyo. 

55 

 
 
 
 
Annex  3:  Actions  in  support  of  ERA  by  the  members  of  the  Stakeholders' 
Platform 

The ERA Stakeholders' Platform convened regularly in 2015 and 2016 (4 regular meetings each 
year) and had several additional extraordinary meetings dedicated to its own future (April 2015), 
the monitoring of the ERA Roadmap at EU level (June 2015) and its enlargement to other pan-
European  organisations  active  in  the  field  of  research  and  innovation  (September  2015).  The 
important  conference  "Opening  up  to  an  ERA  of  Innovation",  held  on  23-24  June  2015,  was 
intensively prepared in the context of the Platform insofar as a new Joint Statement was signed 
on 23 June.  

Renewing  and  reinforcing  relations  between  EARTO  (European  Association  of  Research  and 
Technology  Organisations),  EUA  (European  University  Association),  CESAER  (Conference  of 
European  Schools  for  Advanced  Engineering  Education  and  Research),  LERU  (League  of 
European  Research  Universities),  Science  Europe  and  the  European  Commission,  the  Joint 
Statement extended the ERA partnership to 2020 and opened the Platform to new organisations. 
As a result, 5 organisations have already joined the Platform as observers: EU-LIFE (European 
Life  Sciences  Institutes  for  Excellence),  EIRMA  (European  Industrial  Research  Management 
Association), ERRIN (European Regions Research and Innovation Network), ERF (Association 
of  European-level  Research  infrastructure  Facilities)  and  TAFTIE  (The  European  Network  of 
Innovation Agencies). 

The  founding  members  of  the  Platform  were  closely  associated  to  the  tuning  of  the  new  ERA 
monitoring  tools,  which  were  designed  to  incorporate  the  monitoring  of  the  ERA  Roadmap  at 
EU level and the various national ERA Action Plans that derive from it. 

Members  and  observers  were  consulted  on  many  policy  topics  such  as  research  integrity,  the 
Charter  for  access  to  Research  Infrastructures,  Scientific  Advice  Mechanism  (SAM),  the 
preparation  of  the  Lund  Conference  on  Societal  challenges,  Gender,  the  "science4refugees" 
initiative, Open Innovation and the proposed European Innovation Council, Open Science and its 
Policy  Platform.  Exchanges  were  also  organised  with  the  incoming  Dutch  and  Slovak 
Presidencies  2016  to  enable  better  interactions  and  synergies.  This  practice  will  be  continued 
with future Presidencies of the Council. 

In the following sections, some of the recent activities of each Stakeholder Platform member are 
presented. 

Conference  of  European  Schools  for  Advanced  Engineering  Education  and 
Research (CESAER) 

Over  fifty  European  universities  of  science  and  technology  from  twenty  six  countries  united 
within the Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research 
(CESAER) adopted a Unilateral ERA Statement in June 2013 endorsed by CLUSTER, EuroTech 
Universities Alliance, IDEA League and Nordic Five Tech (N5T), drafted joint statements and 
deployed initiatives in relation to the European Research Area (ERA). 

56 

 
 
 
Acting  as  an  umbrella  organisation  and  interlocutor  to  the  European  Commission  (EC)  when 
presenting  jointly  agreed  common  positions  regarding  European  education,  research  and 
innovation  policies,  CESAER  reports  on  the  actions  undertaken  in  support  of  ERA  from  the 
universities of science and technology for the ERA Progress Report 2016. 

1.  Optimal transnational co-operation and competition 

-  The  universities  of  science  and  technology  actively  participate  in  the  EU  Framework 
Programmes for Research & Innovation and pro-actively contribute to the ERA initiatives. 

-  The  universities  of  science  and  technology  were  active  in  the  `Widening  participation  and 
spreading  of  excellence`  actions  under  Horizon  2020,  linking  between  institutions  from 
EU15 and EU12: Twinning and Teaming between universities, utilising monitoring data for 
identifying possible partners and developing new collaborations. 

2.  An open labour market for researchers 

The  CESAER  Task  Force  Human  Resources  (TFHR)  directly  promoted  the  awareness  on  the 
European Charter and Code for Researchers and stimulated institutional initiatives through two 
workshops  (Leuven,  Aachen)  and  a  parallel  session  during  CESAER  Human  Resources 
Conference in 2014 at TU Delft. Concerning the open, transparent and merit based recruitment 
(EURAXESS Jobs Portal), the TFHR organised a parallel session on recruitment at the Annual 
Seminar 2014, drafted a CESAER position on `Open, transparent and merit-based recruitment` 
(July 2014) and a CESAER representative was appointed to the  new SGHRM Working Group 
`Open  Recruitment`.  Two  further  documents  followed,  i.e.  a  CESAER  position  on  `Adapting 
Hiring Procedures to the Challenges of the Future (December 2014) and a CESAER position on 
`Performance Management and Appraisal Systems` (February 2015). 

The universities of science and technology indirectly contributed to an open labour market: 

-  A survey on `Career development for researchers` was carried out and discussed at a parallel 

session at the HR Conference in 2014 resulting in a report (December 2014). 

-  A survey on `Leadership training for researchers` was carried out, discussed during a parallel 

session at the HR Conference in 2014 resulting in a report (September 2014). 

-  The  TFHR  organised  workshops  on  `Tenure  Track  Policy`  on  22nd  April  2016  at  Aalto 
University, on ` Graduate Training` on 2nd November 2015 at TU Munich and on `PostDocs` 
on 7th October 2015 at KU Leuven. 

-  The  EuroTech  Universities  Alliance  organised  a  High  Level  Event  on  ‘Tenure  Track  –  A 
Real  Paradigm  Shift  for  Attracting  Top  Research  Talent?’  in  June  2013  in  Brussels.  In 
follow-up,  the  Alliance  contributed  to  a  panel  discussion  organised  by  the  League  of 
European  Research  Universities’  on  ‘Tenure  and  Tenure  Track  Models  in  Europe’  in 
September 2014 in Brussels. 

- 

In collaboration with the EC and the European Regions’ Research and Innovation Network, 
the  EuroTech  Universities  Alliance  jointly  organised  an  event  on  ‘Fostering  attractive 
research careers – the role of the EU HR Strategy for Researchers’ in May 2015 in Brussels. 

57 

 
 
-  Five  European  associations  of  universities  of  science  and  technology  –  CESAER, 
CLUSTER, EuroTech Universities Alliance, IDEA League and Nordic Five Tech published 
and presented a discussion paper on `Innovative Doctoral Training at Universities of Science 
and  Technology`  in  October  2015  in  Brussels.  Colleagues  from  European  universities  of 
science and technology will discuss practical examples during a workshop in August 2016 at 
DTU. 

-  As  a  European  framework  to  promote  international  and  interdisciplinary  research 
collaboration,  the  EuroTech  Universities  have  promoted  exchange  between  their  graduate 
schools. They have developed joint interdisciplinary summer schools, a common database of 
doctoral courses and a framework for promoting joint supervision of doctorates. Since 2012, 
the EuroTech Universities have each invested €1 million in a joint  GreenTech initiative for 
doctoral  and  postdoctoral  researchers  to  collaborate  on  projects  in  the  fields  of  Energy 
efficient buildings and communities, Photovoltaics and Wind. 

-  CESAER  was  a  partner  in  the  first  and  second  edition  of  EIT  Foundation’s  Internship 
Programme  (2013  pilot  action):  7  universities  participated,  45  eligible  applications,  3 
students  selected,  2  students  active.  10  available  positions  were  offered  for  2014-2015  and 
resulted in one internship starting February 2015.  

-  A  high  level  representative  was  mandated  by  CESAER  to  help  prepare  the  ground  for  the 
effective  establishment  of  RESAVER  and  is  member  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of 
RESAVER. Thanks to this connection CESAER was able to keep its members up to date on 
the Retirement Savings Vehicle for European Research Institutions. 

-  The  CESAER  Task  Force  Entrepreneurship  (TFE)  did  a  survey  on  entrepreneurship  in 
engineering, organised a workshop in 2015 and published a summary report in June 2016. 

-  The  EuroTech  Universities  Alliance  has  organised  a  High  Level  Event  on  ‘Addressing 
Societal Challenges through Strategic University-Industry Partnerships’ in December 2013 in 
Brussels  and  the  EuroTech  Universities’  Technology  Transfer  Offices  have  an  exchange 
programme  on  key  related  topics  related  to  university-industry  collaboration,  including 
intellectual  property  portfolio  and  licence  management,  market  orientation,  license  deal 
structures  and  conditions  and  conflict  of  interest  policies.  In  addition,  14  professors  across 
the EuroTech Universities presented a joint discussion paper on ‘The Future of the EU as an 
Inclusive and Sustainable Innovative Economy’ at a High Level Round Table in May 2016 in 
Brussels. 

58 

 
 
 
 
-  The EuroTech Universities organised a High Level Event on ‘Nurturing the Entrepreneurs of 
Tomorrow  –  A  Central  Role  for  Europe’s  Universities’  in  June  2015  in  Brussels, 
accompanied  by  a  Policy  Paper.  The  European  Venture  Programme,  funded  by  the 
ERASMUS+  Strategic  Partnership  Initiative,  funds  20  student  entrepreneurship  exclusive 
access to the entrepreneurship expertise and networking resources available at the EuroTech 
Universities.  Further, 
joint  communications  platform, 
TECHNOLOGIST,  was  launched  in  June  2014  and  covers  the  latest  news  in  Science  and 
Technology in Europe, including a dedicated section on start-ups. 

the  EuroTech  Universities’ 

-  The  CESAER  Task  Force  Responsible  Research  and  Innovation  (TFRRI)  held  its  kick-off 
meeting in April 2014 at Delft University of Technology, organised a workshop in October 
2014 and contributed to the Dutch Presidency Conference on RRI in June 2016. 

-  The  EuroTech  Universities  Alliance  organised  the  Plenary  Session  on  ‘Translating 
Responsible  Research  and  Innovation  Policies  into  Practice’  at  ESOF  in  July  2016  in 
Manchester. 

3.  Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research 

CESAER  undertook  a  Gender  Equality  Survey,  discussed  and  presented  it  findings  at  various 
conferences  and  workshops  (CESAER  HR  Conference  2014,  workshop  in  Vienna  27-28 
November  2014;  COST  meeting,  March  2015)  resulting  in  a  report  on  `Gender  Equality  at 
European Universities of Science and Technology`(2015). 

4.  Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge 

-  From 2015 to 2016, the CESAER Task Force Knowledge Transfer (TFKT) selected twelve 
universities  for  a  survey  on  technology  transfer,  followed  by  a  visit  to  each  of  these 
universities.  A  summary  as  well  as  examples  of  best  practice  in  knowledge  transfer  at 
universities of science and technology will be presented in October 2016. 

- 

`CESAER towards Open Science` (March 2015) was the first result from our commitment to  
open  access.  Open  Science  was  a  prominent  theme  at  the  CESAER  annual  meetings  in 
October 2015. In 2014, the universities of science and technology expressed their support to 
the LIBER letter on `Text and Data Mining` to ELSEVIER and discussed the Data Protection 
Regulation. 

-  The  EuroTech  Universities  Alliance  will  organise  a  High  Level  Event  on  ‘Opening  up 

Science, Advancing Innovation’ on 21 September 2016 in Brussels. 

5.  International cooperation 

CESAER  recently  established  a  Task  Force  International  Cooperation  addressing  this  sixth 
action line of the ERA. The scope of the TFIC also extends to competition and cooperation as 
well as development in higher education, research and innovation. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) 

In view of the preparation of the 2016 ERA Progress Report, this section gives a short overview 
of the main activities of EARTO supporting the ERA objectives in 2015 and 2016. EARTO has 
participated  actively  in  the  ERA  Stakeholders’  Platform  and  has  informed  and  mobilised  its 
members on the ERA objectives.  

EARTO Working Groups’ Activities Linked to ERA  

EARTO has currently 10 active working groups, 7 of them discussing topics related to ERA. 

EARTO Working Groups  

Working Group 

Experts 

Topics Related to ERA  

1.  Financial 
Experts 

2.  Legal Experts  

3.  Horizon 2020 
Experts 

4.  Structural 
Funds  

5.  Human 

Resources 

6.  European 
Innovation 
Council 
7.  EARTO-EIB 
Joint WG on 
Access to 
Finance for 
RTOs 

30 

18 

50 

28 

10 

15 

18 

  How  to  improve  EU  financial  rules  and  auditing 

rules to best support the ERA objectives. 

  How to improve state aid RDI Framework, GBER & 
IPCEI schemes to best achieve ERA objectives. 
  Looking at all Horizon 2020 implementation aspects, 
including    open  access,  research  integrity,  gender 
requirements in H2020 projects. 

  Discussions  on  how  to  best  achieve  synergies 
between Horizon 2020 and EU Structural Funds (ESI 
Funds). 

  HR  managers  discussing  topics  such  as  the  HR 
Strategy  for  Researchers  (HRS4R),  gender  balance, 
EU  pension  scheme  for  researchers,  intersectoral 
mobility of researchers. This  WG contributed to the 
update  of  the  research  integrity  article  in  H2020’s 
Model  Grant  Agreement, 
the  consultation 
organised  by  ALLEA  to  review  the  European  Code 
of  Conduct  for  Research  Integrity  as  well  as  to  the 
consultation on the EC gender equality online tool. 
  How  to  ensure  the  EIC  is  supporting  EU  R&I 
activities  which  contribute  to  achieving  the  ERA 
objectives. 

to 

  How  to  ensure  EIB  funding  is  supporting  EU  R&I 
activities  which  contribute  to  achieving  the  ERA 
objectives. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. EARTO Publications & Events Linked to ERA 

1.1 Publications  

EARTO has published several position papers in relation to ERA objectives in 2015 and 2016: 

  EARTO Response to EC Consultation on the Financial Regulation. 
  EARTO Recommendations for a European Innovation Council Pilot. 
  EARTO Inputs to European Structural and Investment Funds Simplification.  
  EARTO Paper on How to Boost Pre-Commercial Procurement in Horizon 2020.  
  Economic Footprint Study: Impact of 9 European RTOs in 2014. 
  EARTO Paper on Open X. 
  EARTO Paper - The European Innovation Council – A New Framework for EU 

Innovation Policy.  

  EARTO Letter to President Juncker on Appointment Adviser on Innovation.  
  EARTO Open Letter to European Parliament on EFSI. 
  EARTO Feedback on EU Audit & Control Approach.  
  EARTO Paper - Data on European RTOs.  
  EARTO Amendments to the European Commission’s Proposal for Regulation on the 

European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).  

  EARTO Answer to EC Consultation on Patents and Standards CESAER, EARTO, EUA, 

LERU, Science Europe Joint Statement on Juncker Investment Fund.  

1.2 EARTO Events supporting ERA Objectives 

EARTO organised several events on ERA related topics in 2015 and 2016: 

EARTO Annual Conferences 

  2015: Infrastructures and Resources Sharing between Industry & RTOs in Europe  
  2016:  Today’s  Challenges  for  Innovation  Infrastructures  within  EU  Innovation 

Ecosystems and Industrial Value-chains 

EARTO Policy Events 

  2015:  ERA  of  Innovation:  Finding  Better  Ways  To  Help  Business  To  Be  More 

Innovative 

  2016:  EU  R&I  Policy  Supporting  Europe’s  Innovation  Ecosystems:  H2020  &  Beyond 

(October 2016) 

EARTO Innovation Schools 

  Understanding Innovation and the Technology Readiness Levels Scale  
 

Is  There  Still  Room  for  Open  Innovation  in  a  Digital  Single  Market  Built  on  Open 
Science?  

  How  RTOs  Contribute  to  the  EIT  KICs  and  What  Can  Be  Improved  to  Boost  EIT’s 

Impact? 

Other EARTO Events: 

  EARTO-ERRIN High-Level Debate “How Can Regional Smart Specialisation Strategies 

Support Innovation Ecosystems & Value–Chains?” 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Towards Horizon 2020 Midterm Review: Funding Models & Auditing Policy in EU R&I 

Programmes (September 2016) 

  EU  Regional  Innovation  Policies  looking  forward  Post-2020:  RIS3  &  Simplification 

(October 2016) 

EARTO members also active in the following key external events: 

  HR Circle Workshop: Making The Best Out Of Our Diverse Talent (September 2015) 
 

Info  Day  HRS4R:  How  to  Comply  with  Article  32  of  the  H2020  Grant  Agreement 
(October 2015) 

  EC Seminar on Intersectoral Mobility and Industrial Talents (January 2016) 

All  details  and  proceedings  of  those  events  can  be  found  on  the  EARTO  website  at: 
www.earto.eu 

European University Association (EUA) 

During  2014-2016,  the  European  University  Association  (EUA)  supported  the  development  of 
the  European  Research  Area  (ERA)  through  a  wide  range  of  activities  with  focal  points  in 
research  and  innovation;  governance,  funding  and  public  policy  development;  and,  doctoral 
education. 

EUA’s  commitment  towards  strengthening  the  ERA  was  further  reinforced  in  June  2015  by 
signing – after similar agreements in 2012 and 2013 – a third joint statement with the European 
Commission and the other members of the ERA Stakeholder Platform.  

Highlights  of  past  and  present  EUA  activities  in  promoting  the  ERA  since  the  2014 

 
“ERA: Facts and Figures” report include: 

  EUA  issued  its  Antwerp  Declaration,  “A  strategic  agenda  for  universities:  Developing 
strong institutions to advance the knowledge-based society”, as an outcome of the 2015 EUA 
Annual Conference, Antwerp, 17-19 April 2015. The declaration advocated strong European 
Research and Higher Education Areas. 
  EUA provided steady input to the European-level debate on the ongoing progress and the 
future of the current EU funding programmes and their post-2020 successors, e.g. as part of 
its  member  consultation  in  the  context  of  the  mid-term  review  of  Horizon  2020  and 
Erasmus+. 
  EUA  endorsed  sustainable,  sufficient  and  simple  funding  for  universities  in  Europe 
through  a  coherent  campaign  aimed  at  raising  awareness  of  financial  and  other  pressures 
facing  universities  in  contributing  to  the  ERA  among  high-level  policy  makers  and  public 
funders at European and national levels. 
  EUA’s Research Policy Working Group (RPWG) discussed ERA developments regularly 
at their meetings and provided, among other undertakings, input for the ex-post evaluation of 
FP7  in  May  2015.  In  its  response,  EUA  highlighted  that  FP7  has  been  instrumental  in 
supporting  universities  in  consolidating  their  actions  towards  the  ERA  goals,  particularly  in 
removing barriers and implementing policies. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  EUA established an Expert Group on ‘Science 2.0/Open Science’ in 2015. Its members 
prepared and released the “EUA Roadmap on Open Access to Research Publications” in early 
2016. The roadmap strove towards a more open system for the generation and circulation of 
new knowledge through research and thus contributed to major ERA goals. 
  EUA  also  intensified  its  activities  in  the  area  of  smart  specialisation  (RIS3).  Its  RIS3 
Expert  Group  published  a  report  focusing  on  the  contribution  of  universities  to  regional 
development  and  innovation  in  April  2016.  The  report  argued,  inter  alia,  for  a  better 
alignment  of  funding  instruments  and  intensified  cooperation  across  regions.  It  hence 
bolstered key priorities of the ERA agenda. 
  EUA contributed in close cooperation with the other ERA, ESFRI and e-IRG stakeholder 
organisations to the “Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures” (RI) that was released in 
March 2016. The charter followed the 2012 ERA Communication and set out principles and 
guidelines for access to RI. 
  EUA  organised  the  upcoming  3rd  EUA  Funding  Forum  in  October  2016  bringing 
together  higher  education  and  research  stakeholders  to  discuss  funding  models,  social  and 
economic  contributions  of  the  university  sector  to  society  and  efficient  university 
management. 
  EUA’s  Council  for  Doctoral  Education  (EUA-CDE)  hosted  the  Third  Global  Strategic 
Forum  on  Doctoral  Education  in  May  2015  and  held its  ninth  annual  meeting  in  June  2016 
issued  a  new  set  of 
with  more 
recommendations  on  doctoral  education,  “Taking  Salzburg  Forward”,  in  April  2016.  The 
paper  insisted  on  continued  reform  and  internationalisation  of  doctoral  education  and 
recommended shared ownership among all participants. It therefore promoted main objectives 
of the ERA. 

than  200  participants.  EUA-CDE 

furthermore 

In  terms  of  monitoring  and  analysis,  the  following  activities  amongst  others  can  be 

 
mentioned: 

  Monitoring and reporting on trends in public funding of the university sector via the EUA 
Public Funding Observatory (yearly release and online tool including data for more than 20 
European countries). 
  Monitoring and reporting on national and institutional trends in university autonomy and 
governance via the EUA University Autonomy Scorecard (release of updated data in spring 
2017). 
  Monitoring  of  mergers  and  concentration  processes  in  the  university  sector  that  are 
featured in an interactive map of European university mergers and comprise the largest online 
database of university mergers across Europe.  
  Monitoring  of  national  and  institutional  developments  in  Open  Access  through  annual 
surveys  with  EUA  members;  input  of  its  Expert  Group  ‘Science  2.0./Open  Science’;  and, 
dialogue with the National Rectors’ Conferences (NRCs). 
  EUA  continued  analysing  data  on  the  gender  composition  of  university  leadership  and 
top-level  management  based  on  the  database  of  its  membership  (ca.  4.000  individual 
university leaders including rectors, vice-rectors and high-level administrators). 

 

Participation in EU funded projects: 

  Fostering  European  universities’  financial  sustainability.  Completed  in  2015,  the 
DEFINE project (Designing Strategies for Efficient Funding of Higher Education in Europe) 

63 

 
 
 
 
has  resulted  in  a  final  report  offering  recommendations  to  policy  makers  and  university 
leaders  with  regard  to  the  impact  of  public  funding  schemes  stimulating  excellence  in  the 
university sector, the rationales for universities to merge and the related costs and gains, and 
the use of performance elements in public. 
  Enhancing  university  efficiency  through  the  ongoing  USTREAM  project  (Universities 
for Strategic, Efficient and Autonomous Management). EUA is seeking to examine measures 
that are in place in universities across Europe to enhance efficiency at operational level, and 
also explore conducive policy environments for efficient university management, with a view 
to  identify  good  practices  and  develop  recommendations  for  both  university  managers  and 
policy makers. 
 
Improving  the  quality  and  relevance  of  higher  education  systems  through  cooperation 
with  universities,  NRCs  and  ministries  of  education  in  the  Eastern  Neighbouring  Area 
(Moldova,  Ukraine  and  Armenia).  The  ATHENA  project  (Fostering  Sustainable  and 
Autonomous Higher Education Systems in the Eastern Neighbouring Area) outcomes include 
analyses of the progress of university autonomy over the past three years and policy roadmaps 
indicating the remaining challenges and offering concrete steps for further reforms. 
  Mapping and mobilising the research, innovation and educational capacities of Europe’s 
universities in the field of energy, one of the major societal challenges of today, through the 
UNI-SET  project  (Universities  in  the  SET-Plan).  UNI-SET  is  an  FP7  Coordination  and 
Support  Action  that  started  in  September  2014.  It  is  coordinated  by  EUA  and  jointly 
implemented with KU Leuven, representing universities in KIC InnoEnergy. 

League of European Research Universities (LERU) 

Events organisation and participation 

LERU  has  unabatedly  continued  its  support  for  ERA  in  the  period  since  the  previous  ERA 
progress report, renewing its engagement by signing a Joint Statement on ERA together with the 
other stakeholder organisations (SHO) in the ERA Platform (CESAER, EARTO, EUA, Science 
Europe), and the European Commission in Brussels on 23 June 2015. 

LERU has participated in many ERA related events organised by stakeholders or the EC and has 
consistently  participated  in  the  ERA  SHO  platform  meetings  and  the  do-ers  meetings.  It  has 
informed  all  relevant  LERU  bodies,  communities,  working  groups,  etc.  of  the  latest  ERA 
developments, including those realised via the SHO partnership. 

The  Secretary-General  of  LERU  was  nominated  as  a  member  of  the  European  Open  Science 
Policy Platform. Various LERU representatives were appointed as members of the Open Science 
Expert/Working  Groups,  such  as  those  for  the  European  Open  Science  Cloud  or  Almetrics. 
LERU  was  also  actively  involved  in  the  drafting  of  the  Amsterdam  Call  for  Action  on  Open 
Science and participated in the Open Science EU conference held in 2016.  

For major LERU policy papers mentioned below LERU has organised a public event in Brussels 
to discuss ERA topics with a wide group of stakeholders and media. 

LERU has organised briefings at the European Parliament, for example, on EU copyright reform 
and  was  actively  involved  in  advocacy  campaigns  to  highlight  the  need  for  a  mandatory 
exception for text and data mining in the EU. 

Recent LERU doctoral summer schools have been on ERA topics, namely ‘Data Stewardship for 
Scientific Discovery and Innovation’ (2016) and ‘The Value of Knowledge Exchange’ (2015). 

Publications 

64 

 
 
 
Since the last ERA progress report LERU has published many policy papers and reports on many 
topics pertaining to the ERA priorities, covering for example doctoral education, gender, tenure-
track careers, innovation, access to publications and to data, text and data mining, and copyright. 
A list of major papers is provided at the end of this document, and all publications are publicly 
available on the LERU website37. 

In  addition,  other  LERU  papers  have  addressed  the  additional  topics  that  LERU  suggested 
should be taken up in ERA in its 2014 “ERA of change” briefing paper, namely anchoring ERA 
in  a  strong  international  strategy,  linking  education,  research  and  innovation  in  an  EERIA 
(European  Education,  Research  and  Innovation  Area),  including  the  Humanities  and  Social 
Sciences,  understanding  Science  2.0  (open  science),  promoting  the  enhancement  of  research 
integrity, and fostering effective science and society interactions. 

LERU  furthermore  continues  to  frequently  issue  press  releases  to  comment  on  ERA  topics, 
decisions, events, meetings38.  

LERU has contributed articles about gendered research and innovation and about global societal 
challenges  for,  respectively,  the  fourth  and  fifth  ERA  Newsletter  published  by  the  European 
Commission. 

LERU  was  actively  involved  in  the  drafting  of  the  European  Charter  for  Access  to  Research 
Infrastructures.  

The ERA SHO issued a  joint statement on the  European Fund for Strategic Investments on 23 
January 2015. 

Monitoring 

LERU  commissioned  the  report  “The  Economic  Contribution  of  LERU  Universities”,  which 
quantifies the combined economic value of the LERU members and, by extrapolating its results, 
presents an estimation of the economic contribution of research universities in Europe.  

For the paper on tenure-track careers, LERU gathered facts and figures on tenure-track positions 
at LERU universities. 

LERU ran an updated questionnaire on  open access to publications and research data amongst 
its  members  (end  of  2014)  as  a  follow-up  to  the  2013  ERA  Memorandum  of  Understanding 
questionnaire. 

Other activities 

LERU developed a statement on  pen access “Christmas is over – research funding should go to 
research, not to publishers”, which was issued as an online petition on the LERU website in late 
2015. The petition which obtained almost 10,000 signatures, was handed over to Commissioner 
Mr Moedas and Dutch Secretary of State Mr Dekkers at the informal Competitiveness Council 
meeting in January 2016. 

LERU has  gradually intensified  its contacts and gathered  with  sister  organisations world-wide, 
aiming at the creation of a Global Council of Research-Intensive Universities Networks.  

LERU has also reinforced its international positioning by setting up a close cooperation with the 
United Nations by signing up to the UN Academic Impact Principles (UNAI) and applying for 
a special consultative status at the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).  

LERU fully supported the Science4Refugees initiative launched by the European Commission to 
help  refugee  scientists  and  researchers  find  suitable  jobs  that  both  improve  their  own  situation 
and  put  their  skills  and  experience  to  good  use  in  Europe's  research  system. This  support 

37  See http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/ 
38 See http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/press-releases/ 

65 

 
 
                                                            
complemented  the  many  initiatives  undertaken  by  the  LERU  members  to  offer  solidarity  and 
help to refugees and asylum seekers. 

A selection of recent papers, reports and statements by LERU 

LERU’s  response  to  the  EC’s  call  for  Ideas  on  a  European  Innovation  Council  (April  2016, 

statement)  

The  new  EU  General  Data  Protection  Regulation:  why  it  worries  universities  &  researchers 

(April 2016, policy brief)  

Maintaining a quality culture in doctoral education (March 2016, advice paper)  

LERU response to the Horizon 2020 simplification survey (October 2015, statement)  

Gendered research and innovation: integrating sex and gender analysis into the research process 

(September 2015, advice paper)  

The economic contribution of LERU universities (September 2015, report)  

SSH  and  interdisciplinary  research,  a  showcase  of  excellent  research  projects  from  LERU 

universities (November 2014, good practice report)  

Leiden statement on the role of SSH in the global research landscape (November 2014, statement 

with six national and global university associations) 

Tenure and tenure track at LERU universities (September 2014, advice paper)  

Philanthropy at research-intensive universities (July 2014, statement) 

Online learning at research-intensive universities (June 2014, advice paper)  

Science Europe 

The most direct contribution to European Research Area (ERA) by the Science Europe Member 
Organisations  (MOs)  is  their  role  as  public  Research  Performing  Organisations  (RPOs)  and/or 
Research funding Organisations (RFOs) that employ and/or fund a significant part of Europe’s 
researchers and provide world-class research infrastructure and framework conditions.  

Collectively, using Science Europe as a platform for collaboration, the MOs have continued to 
work  towards  the  objectives  of  the  Science  Europe  Roadmap  which  contributes  to  the 
strengthening of ERA. The following are examples of Science Europe activities in various fields 
in the period since the last ERA Progress Report in 2014: 

  Research integrity is a crucial element in the conduct of research, with a direct impact on 
scientific quality and on the reliability of individual results. The ability to prevent and deal 
with  cases  of  research  misconduct  and  to  enhance  research  integrity  is  crucial  for  the 
effectiveness of national research systems and for scientific capacity building. The work of 
the  Science  Europe  Working  Group  on  Research  Integrity  supporting  the  MOs  in  the 
promotion of research integrity therefore directly contributes towards ERA Priority 1.  

o  Contribution to the knowledge base: Science Europe published in December 2015 a 
Briefing Paper on ‘Research Integrity: What it Means, Why it is Important and How 
we Might Protect it’.  The paper reviews some of the most compelling evidence found 

66 

 
 
 
 
in the literature on research integrity, research misconduct, its consequences and the 
efforts to deal with it.   

o  Mapping and supporting policy development: In July 2016, Science Europe released 
in  Science  Europe  Member 
a  survey  report  ‘Research  Integrity  Practices 
Organisations’  that  maps  existing  policies,  procedures  and  practices  for  promoting 
research  integrity  in  Science  Europe  MOs.    The  report  makes  a  number  of  key 
recommendations  for  improving  research  integrity  including  processes  and  policies, 
awareness raising, training and collaboration. 

o  Awareness  raising:  The  Brochure  ‘Seven  Reasons  to  Care  about  Integrity  in 
Research’, produced by the Science Europe Working Group in June 2015, has been 
successfully used by Science Europe to advocate the importance of research integrity 
to non-specialist audiences, policy makers and key stakeholders.  

  Promotion  of  Open  Access  to  research  publications  has  been  one  of  the  key  priorities  of 

Science Europe MOs and of ERA (Priority 4) in the past years.  

o  Common  position:  In  May  2015  all  MOs  of  Science  Europe  adopted  a  set  of 
‘Principles  on  Open  Access  Publisher  Services’  which  set  minimal  standards  of 
quality, transparency and openness to all publishers providing Open Access services. 
These principles set the bar very high for what are acceptable standards and practices, 
in  order to ensure that the  transition to  Open Access is  not in  any way tarnished or 
hampered.  

o  Mapping and supporting policy  development:   in  autumn  2016 Science Europe  will 
publish  a  survey  report  of  Open  Access  policies  of  its  members.    The  report 
highlights  progress  made  in  policy  development  made  and  lists  some  remaining 
challenges that need to be met in order to complete the transition towards full Open 
Access for all scholarly publications by 2020, as called for in the conclusions on ‘The 
Transition towards an Open Science System’ adopted by the Council of the EU on 27 
May 2016. 

o  Briefing  and  awareness  raising:  In  April  2016  Science  Europe  issued  a  ‘Briefing 
Paper  on  Open  Access  Business  Models  and  Current  Trends  in  the  Open  Access 
Publishing System’. This paper contributes to raising the general level of knowledge 
of audiences of policy makers and stakeholders about current developments in Open 
Access scholarly publishing.  

  Helping  to  exploit  the  full  potential  of  new  technological  possibilities  to  collect,  store, 
analyse, confirm, share and re-use research data is a major step towards realising the ERA 
objectives and towards understanding the needs of Open Science. 

o  Contribution  to  the  knowledge  base:  Science  Europe,  together  with  Knowledge 
Exchange,  conducted  a  joint  study  on  ‘Funding  Research  Data  Management  and 
Related  Infrastructures’  (report  published  in  May  2016).    The  paper  informs  the 
discussion on the funding of Research Data Management and related infrastructures 
in  Europe,  helps  raise  awareness  of  the  current  challenges,  and  communicates 
opportunities  for  co-ordinated  action  to  relevant  stakeholders.  The  paper  highlights 
that the funding of Research Data Infrastructures, enabling RDM, comes from a great 
variety of sources and institutions that have different responsibilities. The long-term 

67 

 
 
 
 
funding of data infrastructure, increasingly vital for science and scholarship, is by no 
means guaranteed and very few good practices exist across the ERA.   

o  Advocacy for better regulations and policy: In April 2015 Science Europe published a 
briefing  paper  with  fact-based  arguments  for  the  need  of  a  research-friendly 
Copyright  reform  in  Europe.  This  briefing  paper  helped  Science  Europe  in  briefing 
the  European  Commission  and  the  European  Parliament  working  on  Copyright 
reform.  The  ‘campaign’  for  research  friendly  Copyright  rules  culminated  in  a 
workshop on ‘The Importance of Content Mining for Science’ organised by Science 
Europe in October 2015, attended by influential actors in the issue. Advocating for a 
broad  exception  for  research  in  European  Copyright  rules  that  allows  unrestricted 
Text and Data Mining is crucial to public research organisations and directly supports 
ERA priorities and Open Science.  

The  above  is  a  sample  of  Science  Europe  activities  with  direct  ERA  relevance  in  three  areas 
described in detail. Science Europe has taken similar action in many more areas including: 

Research Infrastructures:  

  Expert input to the European Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures together with 

ESFRI, e-RG and the ERA Stakeholder Organisations. 

  Publication of a Science Europe Survey Report on ‘Strategic Priorities, Funding and Pan-

European Co-operation for Research Infrastructures in Europe’ (January 2016). 

Peer Review and other methods of assessing scientific quality:  

  Expert  workshop  on  ‘Research  Assessment  for  the  Purpose  of  Resource  Allocation’ 
organised  in  October  2015  that  looked  into  challenges  of  the  Peer-Review  and  other 
assessment process and ways to address them.  

Advancing research evaluation:  

  Expert workshop on ‘Societal Impact Assessment’ in April 2016. 
  Expert workshop on ‘Data and Indicators Limitations’ in June 2016. 

Research Careers:  

  Workshop and Report on Career Pathways in Multidisciplinary Research (published June 

2016). 

Cross-border Collaboration:  

  Promotion  of  the  Money  follows  Researcher  (MfR)  model  of  Cross-Border  funding 
collaboration.  By  July  2016  twelve  MOs  have  signed  the  declaration  of  intent  and 
provided implementation details.  

  Further  development  of 

the  Lead  Agency  Procedure  model  for  cross-border 
collaboration,  through  an  expert  workshop  (December  2014)  and  subsequent  report 
(October 2015) on ‘Lead Agency Procedure Strategies’.  

ERA Policy 

Science  Europe  MOs  harness  their  collective  expertise  to  advise  policy  makers  and  EU 
institutions on ERA policy, notably through positions testament on ERA relevant topics:  

68 

 
 
 
  Position  Statement  on  Priority  One  of  the  2012  ERA  Communication:  ‘More  Effective 

National Research Systems’, adopted and released in November 2014. 

  Position Statement on ‘The Role and Future of Joint Programming’, adopted and released 

in August 2015. 

The  above  are  a  few  examples  of  activities  that  directly  or  indirectly  support  Science  Europe 
MOs in performing their roles and which helped strengthen the ERA in the past two years. More 
information  about  all  the  above  examples  and  the  full  portfolio  of  Science  Europe  activities  is 
available online.  

ERRIN (European Regions Research and Innovation Network) 

ERRIN  (www.errin.eu)  is  a  Brussels-based  platform  for  regions  that  wish  to  enhance  their 
research and innovation capacity and has over 120 members mainly regions but also some cities, 
universities and innovation agencies.  

ERRIN  –  European  Regions  Research  and  Innovation  Network  was  invited  to  join  the  ERA 
Stakeholder  Platform  in  April  2015  and  presented  its  case  for  joining  to  the  current  ERA 
Stakeholder Platform in September 2015. Following the sending of a formal written application 
in November 2015, ERRIN was invited to become an observer on the ERA Stakeholder Platform 
in December 2015. 

Because of the regional nature of the network, ERRIN cannot contribute to all the ERA priorities 
but considers that it can add value to the ERA roadmap in the following areas (see Figure 1). 

ERRIN  has  attended  the  Stakeholder 
Platform  meetings  in  January,  March 
and  June  2016.  ERRIN  nominated  a 
high-level 
a 
Brussels  meeting  organised  by  DG 
RTD  on  completing 
the  set  of 
indicators  for  the  ERA  Monitoring 
Mechanism (EMM).  

representative 

for 

ERRIN  Opening  Science  Working 
Group 

The  participation  as  an  observer  has 
Figure 1 ERRIN's potential contribution to the ERA Roadmap 
meant  that  ERRIN  can  relay  some  of  the  main  messages  on  ERA  to  its  Opening  Science 
Working  Group.  This  working  group  is  composed  of  regional  representatives  in  Brussels  and 
covers  relevant  aspects  of  Open  Science,  the  European  Research  Area,  Science  With  and  For 
Society,  Responsible  Research  and  Innovation,  Social  Sciences  and  Humanities.  The  Working 
Group  is  led  by  five  regions,  Berlin,  Bremen,  Copenhagen,  South  Norway  and  Welsh  Higher 
Education Brussels and especially welcomes university representatives.  

69 

 
 
 
 
Since the application to the ERA Stakeholder Platform, the Opening Science Working Group has 
met in Brussels on the following occasions. 

September 2015 

Commission presentations on Open Science and Science 2.0 

November 2015 

February 2016 

April 2016 

June 2016 

Commission presentation on Social Sciences and Humanities within 
Horizon 2020 
Commission presentation on European Innovation Council and the 
Dutch Presidency  
Commission presentations on European Open Science Cloud Initiative 
and the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 
Brokerage session for Social Sciences and Humanities EU projects 

September 2016 

Universities and migration (with Copenhagen) 

November 2016 

Proposed event on the Circulation of Knowledge at the regional level 

 

Table 1: ERRIN's Opening Science Working Group meetings  

ERRIN helping disseminate ERA to the regions 

ERRIN  has  and  will  be  been  able  to  disseminate  key  messages  from  the  ERA  Stakeholder 
Platform  and  make  regional  stakeholders  more  aware  of  the  Stakeholder  Platform,  the  ERA 
Roadmap  and  ERA  activities.  ERRIN  has  also  been  able  to  bring  to  the  Platform  a  stronger 
place-based  perspective  of  research  and  innovation.  As  Robert  Madelin’s  recent  report 
‘Opportunity  now:  Europe’s  mission  to  innovate’39  points  out  that  ‘Innovation  very  much  still 
depends  on  location.  There  is  plenty  of  scope  for  place-based  public  policy.  Evidence  from 
Europe  confirms  that  Druckerian  clusters  remain  a  source  of  advantage,  and  that  distance 
between assets or actors is often still a relative handicap. It is rare to see effective cooperation 
span 50 kilometres…’.  

Specific  focus  on  Priority  5  of  the  ERA  Roadmap:  ‘Optimal  circulation  and  transfer  of 
scientific knowledge’. 

ERRIN is therefore proposing to organise with the possible support of the Stakeholder Platform 
an event in Brussels  late  November 2016 to  examine the circulation  of knowledge  at  the local 
level  which  falls  under  Priority  5  of  the  ERA  Roadmap  ‘Optimal  circulation  and  transfer  of 
scientific knowledge’.  

Open science is an important priority for regions and there are numerous examples of improving 
communication  between  universities,  companies  and  public  authorities  in  regions.  While  the 
triple  helix  dimension  remains  important,  increasingly,  the  active  role  of  citizens  in  science  is 
being  discussed  through  debates  on  Open  Science.  Open  Science  can  include  citizen  science 
where  citizens  directly  contribute  to  scientific  knowledge  increasingly  through  digital 
innovations which opens up the discussions on the use of big data and how regions and cities can 

39 http://ec.europa.eu/epsc/pdf/publications/strategic_note_issue_15.pdf  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
increase  their  economic  competitiveness  through  the  collection  and  use  of  local  and  regional 
data. Open Science also brings in a stronger role for responsible research and innovation.  

ERRIN would also like to examine the changing role of some universities towards a more ‘civic’ 
or  regional  focus  where  the  university  becomes  a  key  driver  of  the  economic  strategy  and 
economic success of the region. 

EU-LIFE (European Life Sciences Institutes for Excellence) 

EU-LIFE  is  an  alliance  of  top  research  centers  whose  mission  is  to  support  and  strengthen 
research excellence (www.eu-life.eu). Partners in EU-LIFE are renowned institutes that operate 
with  similar  principles  of  excellence,  external  reviews,  independence,  competitiveness,  and 
internationality. The alliance spans geographically across Europe and represents a wide variety 
of the different European research contexts. Officially launched in 2013, the basis of foundation 
of EU-LIFE was the perception that there was a gap in the science policy landscape regarding 
the representation of independent research centers.  EU-LIFE roadmap includes: 

  Advocating for excellence in research 
  Promoting fruitful scientific collaborations intra and internationally 
  Attracting talents to Europe and retain top scientists 
  Developing  and  disseminating  best  practices  in  science  and  science-related  areas,  such  as 
advanced  training,  research  infrastructures,  science  communication,  technology  transfer, 
funding, open science 

  Contributing to European and International science policy dialogue 
  Be a voice for research institutes in Europe 
Contribution to the monitoring and implementation of ERA (2014-2016) 

1.  At  present,  EU-LIFE  has  eight  Working  Groups  aiming  at  discussing  and  implementing 
activities  in  line  with  the  achievement  of  ERA  and  focusing  respectively  on  Grants  and 
funding  opportunities,  Science  Communication,  Translational  Research,  Technology 
Transfer, Training, Information Technology, Core Facilities, Indicators and Strategy. 

2.  Issuing of position papers and statements, including: 

  Key  elements  of  excellence  in  research,  brainstorming  about  institutional  policy  and 

practices at research centers,( 2016) 

  “Stimulating translational research: several institutes put their heads together” (2015) 
  Mentoring researchers for a scientific career, (2015) 
  The storage challenge (work in progress) 

3.  Designing  and  implementing  transdisciplinary  and  multi-institutional  projects  to  foster 
excellence in research in its several dimensions including production of research results and 
data, gender balance and knowledge circulation, among others. 
A  flagship  European-wide  project  is  LIBRA  (funded  by  H2020).  Officially  launched  in 
2015,  the  project  designs  and  implements  assessment  procedures  to  investigate  the 
unconscious  gender  bias  (including  running  a  survey  among  EU-LIFE  partners),  identifies 
causal  factors  for  gender  bias  and  extracts  best  practices  to  reduce  inequity  and  provides 
frameworks  for  the  development  of  gender  equality  plans  within  research  performing 
institutions.  

71 

 
 
 
 
4.  Development  of  online  tools  for  talent  circulation,  enhancing  mobility  and  promoting 

internationalization of research, including: 
  Funding opportunities search tool, launched online in February 2016 - allows searching 

for funding opportunities in the different regions of Europe.  

  Online database of Technological facilities, which are embedded and developed inside 
research  intensive  institutions  of  the  EU-LIFE  alliance.  Available  since  2014,  allows 
researchers and other sectors (SMEs, industry) to search for technology expertise across 
Europe (130 entries).   

  Online  database  of  independent  research  groups  of  the  EU-LIFE  alliance,  allowing 
researchers  at  different  career  stages  to  search  for  future  positions  or  scientific 
collaborations according to the academic field or institution (533 entries).  

  Scientific job opportunities available within the EU-LIFE network across 13 European 
countries;  and  expansion  of  this  tool  through  partnerships  with  agencies  from  other 
regions (currently with Brazil) for cross-dissemination of job opportunities. 
All  the  tools  aim  at  serving  the  worldwide  Science  and  Innovation  communities  and 
thus are publicly available through the EU-LIFE website (http://eu-life.eu/ ). 

5.  EU-LIFE organizes regularly events on topics with relevance for the landscape of research 
in  Europe,  fostering  transnational  and  international  collaboration  and  sharing  of  good 
practices in the following topics: 
  Strategy and community meetings held every 6 months to discuss topics related to ERA 
such  as:  Strategies  to  enhance  scientific  cooperation  across  Europe,  establishment  of 
pan-European 
interactions, 
international  cooperation  with  other  regions  of  the  world,  gender  equality  in  research. 
Relevant  stakeholders  are  invited  as  keynote  /  special  guests  to  participate  in  the 
discussions. 

training  programmes, 

industry/academia 

innovative 

  Open  Science  and  Bridging  research  &  innovation:  Organization  of:  1)  “Starting-up  a 
company:  alternative  compensation  for  in-kind  contribution  Technology  transfer”, 
September 2015 to professionals within Research Performing Organizations (RPOs); 2) 
annual  scientific  workshops  in  translational  research  (  2014  on  “Biology  of  cancer: 
bridging  basic  and  translational  research”  ;  2015  on  “Epigenetics  and  disease”;  2016 
“Inflammation  &  Immunity  in  health  and  disease”);  EU-LIFE  chaired  a  session  at 
BioEurope  Spring  2016  on  “Innovation  in  Early  Stage  Funding”;  3):  EU-LIFE 
workshop on communicating animal research - discuss institutional strategies for RPOs 
and peer-to-peer learning, Cambridge, Feb  2016 

  Monitoring progress in member organizations, benchmarking and sharing good practice 
through questionnaires and data analysis including the following topics related to ERA 
implementation:  1)  Open  Science:  Open  data,    open  access,  research  assessment;  2) 
Human  Resources  and  innovative  training;  3)  Technology  transfer;  4)  Outreach;  5) 
Research infrastructure; 6)  Actions towards gender balance in  leadership in  science & 
innovation; 7) Competitiveness of research institutes to attract international and national 
funding (private and public); 

  Joint scientific retreats / workshops between postdocs / PhD students’ communities. 

6.  International Cooperation  

  EU-LIFE members are actively pursuing international scientific cooperation, talent 
circulation and innovative training with several regions of the globe and have 
institutional collaborations in Asia, America, Latin America, Africa and Australia. 

72 

 
 
 
  EU-LIFE / FAPESP (Brazil) cooperation agreement (2016): Signature of a 

Memorandum of Understanding between EU-LIFE and FAPESP, S. Paulo State’s R&I 
funding agency, to implement scientific collaborations; and organization of a FAPESP-
EU-LIFE scientific workshop (June 2016) to encourage talent circulation and scientific 
collaborations between Brazil and Europe. 

7.  Other activities:  

  EU-LIFE nominated for the EC platforms: Open Science Platform (2016) and ERA 

Stakeholders Platform (observer, 2015) 

  EU-LIFE member organization currently implementing institutional policies and 

training the next generation of scientists on  open access, gender equality, research 
integrity, data management. 

73