Support to Greece in the implementation of PSF country recommendations : final report.
Date: 2023-10-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, Greece, innovation, open science, private investment, project funding, public investment, report, research infrastructure, support policy

Support to Greece in the 
implementation of PSF Country 
recommendations 

Final report 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support to Greece in the implementation of PSF Country recommendations 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate A — ERA & Innovation 
Unit A.1 — Semester & Country Intelligence 
Contact   (Horizon Europe PSF coordination team):  

Magda De CARLI, Head of Unit A.1 
Stéphane VANKALCK, PSF Head of Sector, Unit A.1 
Vladimir Manolov, Coordinator of the PSF Open Greece, Unit A.1 

Email   Magda.DE-CARLI@ec.europa.eu  

Stephane.VANKALCK@ec.europa.eu  
Vladimir.MANOLOV@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in September 2023 
1st edition 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission,  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-05886-2 

doi: 10.2777/901542 

KI-AX-23-023-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023  

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision  2011/833/EU 
of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise 
noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC 
BY 4.0) licence  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed  provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to 
be  sought  directly  from  the  respective  rightsholders.  The  European  Union  does  not  own  the  copyright  in 
relation to the following elements: 
Cover:  ©  ivector  #362422833,  #235536634,  #241215668,  #251163053,  2020.  ©  ivector  #222596698, 
#298595650, © Kanyarat #316321194, 2021. Source: Stock.Adobe.com. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Support to Greece in the 
implementation of PSF 
Country recommendations 

Final Report 

Edited by 

Damien Lecarpentier 

Alasdair Reid 

Thomas Zacharewicz 

2023 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Horizon Europe Policy Support Facility 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

POLICY SUPPORT FACILITY TEAM ................................................. 8 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................... 9 

1.  Introduction: scope of the PSF Open and activities undertaken ........ 15 

1.1. Scope and objectives of the PSF Open 

1.2. Activities undertaken during the PSF Open 

15 

15 

2.  The Greek R&I system and the national research infrastructures ...... 17 

2.1. Research and innovation performance and trends 

2.2. Research and innovation policy governance system 

2.3. Greek research and innovation policy 

2.3.1. National research infrastructures: the 2014-2020 programming period 

2.3.2. Institutional and regulatory framework for the period 2021-2027 

2.4. National research infrastructures: 2021-2027 programming period 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

22 

3.  Overview of the proposed actions to enhance the performance of 

the Greek NRIs ........................................................................................ 24 

4.  Implementation plan 1: a funding system designed to enhance 

performance ........................................................................................... 25 

4.1. Review of the state of the art in Greece compared to European and   

international practice 

4.1.2. Funding models of national research infrastructure 

4.1.3. Research funding in Greece 

4.1.3.1.The introduction of PBF for Greek universities 

4.1.3.2.Existing sources of funding for Greek NRIs 

4.1.3.3.Funding needs of Greek NRIs 

4.2. Overview of proposed actions to meet the PSF recommendations 

4.3. Description of the proposed actions 

25 

27 

32 

32 

33 

33 

34 

36 

5.  Implementation plan 2: a monitoring and evaluation framework 

for the NRIs ............................................................................................. 42 

5.1. Review of the state of the art in Greece compared to European and 

international practice 

5.1.1. ESFRI landmark monitoring and indicator framework 

5.1.2. RI impact assessment 

5.2. Overview of proposed actions to meet the PSF recommendations 

5.3. Description of the proposed actions 

42 

43 

45 

54 

58 

2 

 
6.  Implementation plan 3: enhancing research digitalisation and 

open science practices in the NRI ecosystem ..................................... 61 

6.1. Review of the state of the art in Greece compared to European and 

international practice. 

6.1.1. Open Science as a national strategy 

6.1.2. The role and contributions of NRIs to Open Science 

6.1.3. The role of IT infrastructure 

6.1.4. Training & skills 

6.2. Overview of proposed actions to meet the PSF recommendations 

6.2.1. Support and develop HOSI as the Greek forum for open science, where 

policy and technical developments are being discussed and overseen 

6.2.2. Incentivise NRIs to support FAIR data and contribute to the open science 

agenda 

6.2.3. Strengthen the technical infrastructure and support collaboration between 

thematic and horizontal infrastructures and services 

6.3. Description of the proposed actions 

61 

61 

64 

66 

71 

72 

72 

73 

73 

73 

7. Cross-cutting conclusions and recommendations ............................... 78 

References .................................................................................................. 80 

Annex 1: Interviewees/participants in meetings ............................. 84 

Annex 2: Greek NRIs funded during the 2014-2020 period ............ 87 

Annex 3: Table of obligatory KPIs for NRIs 2021-2027 ................... 89 

Annex 4: Indicative template for periodic reporting by NRIs ......... 91 

Annex 5: Indicative template for impact cases ............................... 95 

3 

 
 
 
 
List of Figures, Tables and Boxes 
Figure 1: Overview of the three implementation plans .................................................................. 9 

Figure 2: Implementation plan for the evaluation of Greek NRIs ................................................. 11 

Figure 3: Overall framework for the implementation plan 2 ......................................................... 12 

Figure 4: Main lines of action of the implementation plan 3......................................................... 13 

Figure 5: Key steps in the PSF Open Greece ............................................................................. 16 

Figure 6: Greece R&I performance – 2016-2023 ........................................................................ 17 

Figure 7: Greece: Research and innovation governance & funding system ................................ 18 

Figure 8: Funding for research infrastructures under the RRF .................................................... 23 

Figure 9: Overview of the three implementation plans ................................................................ 24 

Figure 10: Percentage of NRIs ranking cost groups as “very important” or “quite important” ...... 34 

Figure 11: Research Infrastructure Sustainability Model Template ............................................. 35 

Figure 12: Implementation plan for the evaluation of Greek NRIs ............................................... 36 

Figure 13: Policy cycle for research infrastructures ..................................................................... 42 

Figure 14: ESFRI RI lifecycle model ........................................................................................... 43 

Figure 15: ESFRI Landmark RIs monitoring framework .............................................................. 43 

Figure 16: RI-PATHS impact assessment framework ................................................................. 46 

Figure 17: Theory of change of infrastructure investments for research ..................................... 46 

Figure 18: Percentage of NRIs evaluating each KPI as “very important” or “important” .............. 52 

Figure 19: Overall framework for the implementation plan 2 ....................................................... 55 

Figure 20: Performance reporting framework .............................................................................. 57 

Figure 21: Open Science and Research Initiative in Finland: Open Science for and by the 

Research Community ................................................................................................. 64 

Figure 22: Key components of a FAIR ecosystem ...................................................................... 69 

Figure 23: Main lines of action of the implementation plan 3 ....................................................... 72 

Table 1: Total financing of NRI and other relevant financing during the period 2014-2020 ......... 21 
Table 2: Description of the proposed actions included in the implementation plans ................... 25 

4 

 
 
Table 3: Joint public-private investment in RIs model – Flanders (Belgium) ............................... 28 

Table 4: Quantitative assessment of research and technology organisations in the Basque 
Country........................................................................................................................................ 32 
Table 5: Proposed actions ........................................................................................................... 42 
Table 6: ESFRI monitoring framework – key performance indicators ......................................... 44 
Table 7: Indicators for research infrastructures in Czech Republic ............................................. 49 
Table 8: Common output and result indicators for ERDF 2021-2027 for policy objective 1......... 53 
Table 9: Proposed actions ........................................................................................................... 60 
Table 10: Proposed actions ......................................................................................................... 78 
Table 11. Greek NRIs funded during the 2014-2020 period ........................................................ 88 
Table 12. Obligatory KPIs for NRIs 2021-2027 ........................................................................... 90 
Table 13. NRI identity card .......................................................................................................... 91 
Table 14. Template of key performance indicators – progress compared to targets ................... 94 

Box 1: Joint public-private investment in RIs model – Flanders (Belgium) .................................. 29 
Box 2: Peer-review assessment system of NRIs in Czech Republic ........................................... 30 

Box 3: Quantitative assessment of research and technology organisations                                   

in the Basque Country ..................................................................................................... 32 
Box 4: Monitoring to comply with State Aid rules for research infrastructures ............................. 48 
Box 5: Example of evaluation and monitoring framework for research infrastructures ................ 51 
Box 6: Open science in France ................................................................................................... 63 

Box 7: Open Science and Research Initiative in Finland: Open Science for and by the        

Research Community ...................................................................................................... 64 

Box 8: Anticipating and assessing the e-needs of research infrastructures in the ESFRI 

Roadmap ......................................................................................................................... 68 
Box 9: The key components of a FAIR ecosystem ...................................................................... 69 
Box 10: Governance structure and management procedures ..................................................... 92 
Box 11: Quality of user access policy .......................................................................................... 92 
Box 12: Strategic outlook/position of the NRI in the Greek R&I system ...................................... 92 
Box 13: European and international collaboration / position of the NRI ...................................... 93 
Box 14: Contribution to improving research excellence and education ....................................... 93 
Box 15: Impact on innovation - economy and society ................................................................. 93 
Box 16: Indicative template for impact cases .............................................................................. 96 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ATHENA 

Athena Research Centre in Information Technologies, Communications 
and Knowledge 

DeiC 

Danish e-Infrastructure Cooperation 

DG RTD 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

DMP 

EC 

EIS 

Data Management Plan 

European Commission 

European Innovation Scoreboard 

ELGO-DIMITRA Hellenic Agricultural Organisation-DIMITRA 

EOSC 

EPANEK 

ERDF 

ESEE 

ESEK 

European Open Science Cloud 

Operational Programme Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and 
Innovation 

European Regional Development Fund 

National Smart Specialisation Strategy 

National Energy and Climate Plan 

ESETAK 

National Strategy for Research Technological Development and Innovation 

ESFRI 

European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures 

ESIF 

EU 

FAIR 

FNSO 

FP 

FWO 

GERD 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Union 

Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable 

French National Fund for Open Science 

Framework Programme 

Research Foundation Flanders 

Gross expenditure on research and development 

GRNET 

National Infrastructures for Research and Technology 

GSRI 

HAHE 

HFRI 

Greek General Secretariat for Research and Innovation 

Hellenic Authority for Higher Education 

Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation 

HEAL-LINK 

Hellenic Academic Libraries Link 

HEI 

HOSI 

Higher Education Institution 

Hellenic Open Science Initiative 

HPC-ARIS 

High Performance Computing System 

HRIF 

IT 

KPI 

LTS 

MA 

Hellenic Research and Innovation Foundation 

Information technology 

Key Performance Indicators 

Long-term sustainability  

Management authority 

6 

 
MADF 

M&E 

MERAS 

MEYS 

Ministry of Agricultural Development & Food 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Ministry of Education, and Religious Affairs and Sports 

Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 

MON-ESEE 

Planning,  coordination  and  monitoring  unit  of 
Specialisation Strategy 

the  national  Smart 

NCRTI 

NDC 

NREN 

NRI 

NSRF 

OECD 

OP 

OPESP 

OS 

PBF 

PCTI 

PID 

PSF 

R&D 

National Council for Research, Technology and Innovation 

National Documentation Centre 

National Research and Education Network 

National Research Infrastructure 

National Strategic Reference Framework 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Operational Programme 

Integrated National Quality Information System (HQA-OPESP), University 
of Crete 

Open Science 

Performance-Based Funding 

Science, Technology, and Innovation Plan 

Persistent IDentifier 

Horizon Europe Policy Support Facility 

Research and Development 

RRICs 

Regional Research & Innovation Councils 

RRF 

R&I 

RI 

RPBF 

RTDI 

RTO 

RVCTI 

S3 

SSH 

TSV 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Research and Innovation 

Research Infrastructure 

Research Performance-Based Funding 

Research, Technological Development and Innovation 

Research and Technology Organisations 

Basque Network of Science, Technology, and Innovation 

Smart specialisation strategy 

Social sciences and humanities 

Federation of Finnish Learned Societies 

7 

 
 
POLICY SUPPORT FACILITY TEAM 

The Policy Support Facility (PSF) Open team brought together a diverse set of competences, 
knowledge, and experience to address the assignment requirements. 

•  The rapporteur Alasdair Reid, in cooperation with the project manager, coordinated the 
organisation of the work of the expert panel, in particular in relation to the drafting of the 
implementation plans, consolidating written inputs. He also provided his own analytical 
input to the preparation of the report in relation to his competence area, notably on the 
key performance indicator (KPI) topic. 

•  The  thematic  experts,  Damien  Lecarpentier  and  Thomas  Zacharewicz,  provided 
input  for  the  analysis  of  the  areas  subject  to  the  specific  support  (open  science  & 
digitalisation  and  performance-based  funding,  respectively)  and  shared  analytical  and 
drafting  tasks  (division  by  topics/chapters).  They  contributed  written  input  to  both  the 
draft and the final reports. 

•  The  project  manager  Susana  Elena-Pérez  supported  the  expert  panel  in  the 
organisation  of  the  work  and  provided  liaison  with  the  EC.  She  ensured  the  overall 
organisational  and  technical  support  to  the  project,  including  arranging  and  taking 
minutes of all meetings and the management of the deliverable production. 

•  The  local  support  expert  George  Strogylopoulos  provided  the  expert  panel  with 
requested data and information and contributed to the report assessment of the Greek 
research and innovation (R&I) system and research infrastructure policy. 

•  The  senior  expert  for  quality  review,  Ilaria  Nardello,  reviewed  the  first  draft  of  the 
implementation plans and provided the expert panel with suggestions for improvement. 
She  also  participated  in  the  mid-term  working  meeting.  She  reviewed  the  third  draft 
report, prepared after the second visit to the country. 

•  Communication  activities  were  managed  by  the  communications  team  comprising: 
Communication Manager Lucrezia Titi,  Communication Officer Victoria Henderson, as 
well as Communication Assistants Virginija Balciunaite and Victoria Rodriguez. 

The project was overseen by the PSF Team in the European Commission’s (EC) Directorate-
General  for  Research  and  Innovation  (Unit  A1  –  ‘European  Semester  and  Country 
Intelligence’).  DG  R&I  policy  officer,  Vladimir  Manolov  coordinated  the  exercise  and 
ensured liaison with the Greek authorities. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Greek research and innovation (R&I) performance has significantly improved over the last 
decades,  moving  up  from  the  group  of  catching-up  countries  of  the  European  Innovation 
Scoreboard (EIS) to the group of moderate innovators.  This is based on a series of factors 
amongst which has been a coordinated effort to invest in the upgrade of the R&I ecosystem, 
research infrastructure, scientific equipment, and human capacities.  During the multi-annual 
financial period 2014-2020, the Greek authorities, with the support of the European Structural 
and Investment Funds (ESIF), invested over a 100 million EUR in launching and developing 
28 national research infrastructures (NRIs). In 2022, the Policy Support Facility (PSF) country 
review provided a first assessment of this policy and of the level of maturity of. the 28 NRIs. 
In November 2022, the Greek Deputy Ministry for Development requested a second phase 
of  PSF  support  to  assist  the  General  Secretariat  for  Research  and  Innovation  (GSRI)  to 
prepare for the next round of support for the NRIs. 

This report addresses three of the recommendations made by the PSF Country Report  

•  Development of a framework for performance-based funding for NRIs. 

•  Development  of  a  set  of  key  performance  indicators  (KPIs)  that  reflect  the  role  of  the 

NRIs in the national R&I system 

•  Guidelines  for  open  science  (OS)  and  digitalisation  to  help  NRIs  further  develop  their 

data policies and connect with national and European research data platforms. 

The report draws on a review of the literature and a series of interviews and consultations 
with Greek stakeholders and NRI coordinators that took place during two missions to Athens 
in spring 2023 by the expert panel. 

Performance-based 
funding model
• Diversify funding sources 

& foster long-term 
sustainability

• Six actions

NRI performance 
monitoring & impact
• Optimise performance of 
the NRIs through target 
setting and impact 
pathway monitoring

• Five actions

Enhance digitalisation & 
open science practices in 
the NRIs
• Development of Open 
Science practices and 
FAIR data management 
in the Greek NRIs

• Eight actions

Figure 1: Overview of the three implementation plans 

Following  an  overview  of  the  latest  developments  in  Greek  R&I  performance,  governance 
and policy, the report is structured in three ‘implementation’ plans which provide a review of 

9 

 
 
the  European  and  Greek  ‘state  of  the  art’  for  each  of  the  topics,  followed  by  set  of 
recommended actions. The report aims to contribute to a second wave of investment in NRIs 
that  should  provide  an  overall  leverage  effect  on  the  entire  Greek  R&I  system  further 
enhancing the positive trend in R&I performance over the last decade.   

The  three  implementation  plans  are  inter-linked  ‘building  blocks’.  Together  they  should 
provide, if correctly implemented, a strong foundation for ensuring an optimal investment of 
available ESIF funding to the selected NRIs. This will be done by incentivising the adoption 
of  ‘best  practice’  methods  for  the  management  and  operation  of  NRIs,  through  the 
identification of and monitoring of progress along various ‘pathways to impact’ and, through 
the adoption and application by the NRIs of open science and FAIR data principles.  

A funding system designed to enhance NRI performance 

Research infrastructures are, if not exclusively to a very large extent, funded by public sector 
funds, notably during the investment phase, even if other sources of funding are then secured 
during the operational phase, including from the private sector.  The long-term sustainability 
(LTS) of research infrastructures is not purely a question of securing funding, but the right 
mix  of  funding  can  help  incentivise  the  level  of  performance  required  (effective  support 
services for excellent research, attraction of business users, development and retention of 
skilled people, etc.).  As a 2017 ESFRI report on Long Term Sustainability (LTS) underlined 
there is  a  need  to  “establish  adequate  framework  conditions  for effective  governance  and 
sustainable long-term funding for RIs at every stage in their lifecycle, together with effective 
management”.   

In this context, the expert panel examined models of performance-based funding (PBF) of 
research, and sough to adapt them to the specific case of the Greek NRIs.  PBF provides a 
hybrid  funding  mechanism  that  combines  characteristics  of  institutional  and  project-based 
funding mechanisms.  It works based on five principles: research is evaluated, the evaluation 
is carried out ex-post, research output is evaluated, government funding is distributed based 
on the evaluation of results and the funding system applies nationwide.  An alternative option 
is  to  sign  performance  contracts  between  research  organisations  and  funding  bodies 
(ministries or agencies) that set targets to be reached before the release of part of the funding 
allocated  to  the  organisation.  To  date,  PBF  funding  models  are  not  generally  applied  to 
research infrastructures, but some elements of funding schemes have characteristics close 
to  a  PBF  (e.g.  Czech  Republic,  Basque  Country).    In  Greece,  the  NRI  funding  has  been 
project based (through the ERDF grants awarded during 2014-2020) with additional limited 
revenue raised from other grants and, in a few cases, service provision.  The need to increase 
and diversify revenue and funding sources of the NRIs in the coming years is well recognised. 

In the Greek context, a 2023 reform of funding mechanisms for higher education institutions 
(HEIs)  introduced  an  annual  allocation  of  20%  of  institutional  funding  awarded  on 
performance-based  criteria.    This  new  funding  mechanism  is  in  line  with  good  practice  in 
other  EU  Member  States  and  should  help  to  steer  the  activities  of  Greek  HEIs  towards 
national priorities, including research excellence as well as economic and societal impact. 
Within this funding scheme, the possibility for Greek HEIs to choose some of the categories 
on which their performance is evaluated takes account of the diversity of their activities and 
outputs and introduces some flexibility in the assessment. 

Drawing  inspiration  from  the  LTS  model  development  by  the  ERIC Forum,  the  PSF  Open 
team  proposed  a  performance-based  funding  system  for  Greek  NRIs  structured  in  three-
steps. The first step is directly inspired from the ERIC LTS model and aims to develop a LTS 
plan  for  the  NRIs  though  (a)  the  definition  of  LTS  objectives  and  (b)  the  elaboration  of  a 
pathway to achieve them. The second step involves defining the funding scheme to enhance 

10 

 
performance  through  the  definition  of  (c)  the share of  funding  tied  to  performance,  (d) the 
periodicity of the assessment, and (e) the modalities of the assessment. Finally, the third step 
is  the  implementation  of  the  PBF  scheme  through  (a)  the  first  phase  of  the  evaluation 
(eligibility criteria), (b) the second phase of the evaluation (quality criteria), and (c) the funding 
decision  concerning  a  performance  bonus.    The  performance  bonus  linked  to  criteria 
compliance should be high enough to be considered as an incentive and should steer the 
activity of NRIs. At the same time, the bonus should not exceed a threshold that would create 
too much uncertainty in a context in which Greek NRIs already exclusively rely on competitive 
project funding.  We therefore recommend fixing this performance bonus between a minimum 
of 10% and a maximum of 20% of total funding. 

Develop a Long-Term 
Sustainability Plan for 
NRIs
• Define objectives of 

the LTS

• Develop a pathway for 

NRIs towards LTS

Embed the PBF 
mechanism within the 
LTS of NRIs
• Define the share of 

funding tied to 
performance

• Define the periodicity 
of the assessment
• Define the modalities 
of the assessment

Strengthen the LTS of 
NRIs through 
implementation of PBF
• Implementation of the 

first phase of the 
evaluation (eligibility 
criteria)

• Implementation of the 
second phase of the 
evaluation (quality 
criteria)

• Funding decision

Figure 2: Implementation plan for the evaluation of Greek NRIs 
Source: authors 

A monitoring and evaluation framework for NRIs 

In order to apply the PBF scheme, there is a need to establish a monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E) framework for the NRIs.  Drawing inspiration from both European (ESFRI landmark 
monitoring,  RI-PATHs  guidance)  and  national  approaches  (Czech  Republic,  Flanders, 
Netherlands, Portugal) to monitoring and evaluating research infrastructures, the PSF Open 
panel has developed a tailored approach that should be implemented during the 2021-2027 
funding period.  The M&E framework takes account of the need for the NRIs to track progress 
towards common output and result indicators of the ERDF.  However, the ERDF indicators 
do not provide a sufficient basis for monitoring and assessing the performance of a NRI which 
is primarily expected to provide services to users (academic researchers, private companies, 
public sector organisations), rather than producing publications, patents or product/process 
innovations itself.   

The proposed framework enables the Greek authorities to: 

• 

• 

(a) Assess NRIs performance via interim and ex-post evaluations; 

(b) Allocate a performance bonus (see implementation plan 1); 

At an operational level, the KPIs and reporting framework support the NRIs to: 

•  Self-assess their own progress on their contribution to national priorities; and 

•  Develop and implementing LTS plans that ensure diversified sources of public funding 

as well as generating revenue from service provision to users. 

The framework is split into four main steps, with specific actions foreseen for each step.  A 
NRI Management team should be established (within the GSRI, but in close liaison with other 
ministries and agencies) with responsibility for supervising the monitoring and evaluation of 
the NRI and suitably resourced (two to three staff, budget for peer reviewers, evaluations, 

11 

 
 
etc.) over the period 2023-2030. Moreover, a cross-departmental NRI supervisory committee 
be formed (meeting no less than once a semester) to review progress in implementing the 
plan and the development of the selected NRIs. 

NRI monitoring 
and evaluation 
framework 
design and set 
up
• M&E 

management 
committee 
(team)

• KPI 'menu' for 
NRIs to select 
a relevant 
subset from
• Templates for 
reporting and 
impact cases

• Open data 

repository set 
up

NRI 
management 
performance 
tracking
• Monitoring 

procedure for 
selected KPIs 
defined and 
data collection

• Annual 

reporting on 
NRI progress 
and 
performance
• Impact cases 
(narratives)

NRI peer review 
(mid-term and 
final)
• Peer review 

panels set up 
for (groups of) 
NRIs to assess 
scientific 
excellence and 
NRI operations

• Peer review 
hearings/site 
visits 

• Peer review 

reports 
submitted to 
GSRI

Impact 
evaluation 
(2027+)
• Consolidated 
KPI dataset 
• Consolidated 
set of impact 
cases

• Peer review 

reports

• Tender for 
evaluation
• Evaluation 
focusing on 
impacts on 
research 
system, 
innovation and 
societal 
priorities

Figure 3: Overall framework for the implementation plan 2 

All NRIs should be required to report on a minimum obligatory set of KPIs, namely: usage of 
the  NRI,  education  and  training;  income;  publications  and  open  science.    NRIs  are 
encouraged  to  define  additional  KPIs  on  which  their  performance  can  be  assessed.  We 
recommend that each NRI adopts not more than 10 KPIs in total. Each NRI should provide a 
baseline situation as well as mid-term and final targets for each KPI. To support the NRI M&E 
framework, the PSF Open panel developed a template for NRI reporting (mid-term and final 
reviews) structured according to the six broad criteria developed by the previous PSF Country 
panel. To complement the KPIs and ensure a qualitative and narrative approach to recording 
and presenting pathways to impact, the NRIs should provide at least two impact cases by 
mid-term and four by the end of the period. A template for impact case reporting is provided. 
A  final  recommendation  is  that  the  NRI  management  team  should  set  up,  or  use  a 
procurement procedure, to develop a NRI monitoring database. This database would enable 
all  NRIs  to  report  online  their  KPI  performance,  as  well  as  to  submit  impact  cases.  This 
database  should  include  an  open  access  repository  of  FAIR  research  data  and  digitally 
identified objects produced by the NRIs. 

Enhancing research digitalisation and open science practices 

Over the last decade, open science (OS) has become a policy priority in Europe and is now 
the standard method of working under the European Commission’s R&I funding programmes. 
OS has also been embraced by EU Member States, which have adopted national plans and 
strategies aimed at making OS the default practice in the research system.  The publication 
in June 2020 by a group of Greek academic, research, and infrastructure stakeholders of a 
National Open Science Plan and the establishment in February 2022 of the Hellenic Open 
Science  Initiative  (HOSI),  which  aims  to  advance  and  implement  this  plan  nationally,  are 
positive developments. They will allow Greece to align with other well-advanced European 
countries. The Greek draft plan for OS, provides a sound basis for setting up a National OS 
Strategy. The draft plan is far-reaching, encompassing many aspects of the Greek research 
and open science ecosystem. It covers four key areas of the OS ecosystem (open access to 

12 

 
 
 
 
publications,  open  access  &  reuse  of  research  data,  development  and  management  of 
research software, and open access to NRIs and e-Infrastructures).   

The role of RI is increasingly recognised in national OS strategies and national roadmaps.  
The PSF Open panel reviewed experience of other EU Member States (the Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Finland, France, etc.) in defining the role and contribution of NRIs to OS.  RIs are 
often invited to include in their access conditions the principles of open access publication, 
and of opening by default of data and source code and to formalise their OS policies through 
a public strategy document.   

A second key issue examined is the e-needs of RIs and the role of e-infrastructures. ESFRI’s 
approach  to  support  FAIR  data  management  provides  a  good  model  for  application  at 
national levels. Indeed, several countries have begun to require their RIs to anticipate their 
e-infrastructure requirements at an early stage in their funding cycle. While e-infrastructures 
may offer RIs from all disciplines open access to the advanced digital capabilities, resources, 
and  expertise  they  need  to  collaborate  and  to  carry  out  data-  and  computing-intensive 
science, persistent identifiers (PIDs) and repositories are among the critical services that RIs 
will need to improve FAIR data management practices. The use of PIDs by RIs – for research 
data and software – is often seen as one of the critical actions which underpins effective data 
sharing, together with the use of metadata and open formats.  

Finally, OS practices require systemic change, which can take several years. In addition to 
making  strategic  investments  in  infrastructure  and  tools  to  support  FAIR  data  in  a 
coordinated,  interoperable,  and  cross-disciplinary  way,  it  is  critical  to  invest  in  skills  and 
training, targeting both researchers and data managers operating at NRIs. NRIs should be 
encouraged to recruit professionals responsible for processing, quality checking, describing 
and  preserving  data.  In  Greece,  research  infrastructures  can  rely  on  a  solid  network  of 
experts on open access, in particular, through the OpenAIRE network, and infrastructure, via 
GRNET, to support them in their digital and FAIR strategies. 

The  panel’s  recommendations  for  OS  and  digitalisation  are  designed  to  facilitate  the 
development  of  OS  practices  and  FAIR  data  management  within  the  Greek  research 
infrastructure ecosystem. The recommendations target the elements that are most relevant 
to NRIs and will help them to improve their OS practices and contribute to the OS agenda. 

Support the 
development of the  
Hellenic Open Science 
Initiative (HOSI)

Give mandate to HOSI to 
oversee the 
implementation of the 
Open Science agenda in 
Greece 
Revise HOSI governance 
to include more effective 
steering from 
stakeholders
Support HOSI financially 
to be able to effectively 
coordinate discussions 
and activities

Incentivise Research 
Infrastructures to 
support FAIR data and 
contribute to the Open 
Science agenda

Ensure availability of 
clear access policies
Make data management 
plans (DMPs) mandatory
Make a contribution to 
Open Science a 
performance criterion

Strengthen the 
technical infrastructure 
and support 
collaboration between 
horizontal and 
thematic 
infrastructures

Assess e-infrastructure 
needs at proposal 
preparation stage and 
during operation

Develop the Greek 
EOSC node

Figure 4: Main lines of action of the implementation plan 3 

13 

 
 
The recommendations are structured in three main lines of action. 

•  Support  and  develop  HOSI  as  the  Greek  forum  for  OS,  where  policy  and  technical 

developments are discussed and overseen. 

• 

Incentivise NRIs to support FAIR data and contribute to the OS agenda 

•  Strengthen the technical infrastructure and support collaboration between thematic and 

horizontal infrastructures and services. 

14 

 
 
 
1. 

Introduction: scope of the PSF Open and activities undertaken 

1.1.  Scope and objectives of the PSF Open 

During the dissemination event of the PSF Country review of the Greek national research 
infrastructures (NRIs), the General Secretariat for Research and Innovation of Greece (GSRI) 
expressed  its  commitment  to  the  policy  needs  defined  in  the  PSF  final  report  and  its 
engagement with the PSF in the implementation of recommendations. On 4 November 2022, 
the Deputy Minister of Development and Investments, Mr Christos Dimas, formally requested 
the support of the Policy Support Facility (PSF) in the form of PSF Open. 

The  PSF  Open  exercise  addressed  three  PSF  recommendations  from  the  PSF  Greece 
Country report (EC, 2022):1 

•  Development of a general framework for performance-based funding of research 
infrastructures  (RIs),  as  referenced  in  recommendation  4.1.2  of  the  PSF  Report 
‘Develop a medium-term, performance-based funding framework for NRIs’ (p.128). 

•  Development of a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) that reflect the role of 
the NRIs in the national R&D system, as referenced in recommendation 4.1.5 of the 
PSF Report ‘Adopt a set of key performance indicators that reflect the specific role of RIs 
in the national R&I system’ (p.134). 

•  Guidelines  for  open  science  and  digitalisation  around  which  NRIs  should  further 
develop  their  data  policies  and  connect  with  national  and  European  research  data 
platforms,  as  referenced  in  recommendation  4.2.5  of  the  PSF  Report  ‘Enhance  open 
science and FAIR research data management capacities of the NRIs’ (p.140). 

The project provided expert support to define the three implementation plans to address the 
mentioned recommendations. The recommendations are formulated to ensure that the past 
investment in NRIs is optimised during the 2021-2027 period. The aim is to place the NRIs 
on a footing of long-term sustainability that fosters scientific excellence while contributing 
to meeting national socio-economic and societal challenges, in line with the National Smart 
Specialisation Strategy (ESEE) for 2021-2027. 

1.2.  Activities undertaken during the PSF Open 

The PSF expert panel has defined three implementation plans with a concrete set of actions 
and with associated timing for their implementation: 

• 

• 

• 

Implementation  plan  1:  ‘A  funding  system  designed  to  enhance  performance’ 
(Section 4). 

Implementation  plan  2:  ‘A  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  the  NRIs’ 
(Section 5). 

Implementation  plan  3:  ‘Enhancing  research  digitalisation  and  open  science 
practices in the NRI ecosystem’ (Section 6). 

Each plan includes: a review of the state of the art in  Greece compared to European and 
international  practice;  an  overview  of  the  proposed  actions  to  strengthen  the  Greek  NRI 
ecosystem  including  a  roadmap  diagram;  and  a  full  description  of  each  of  the  envisaged 

1Report available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fc6b0103-45ed-11ed-92ed-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF 

15 

 
 
actions, indicating the action owner, timeframe, resources needed and key milestones.The 
PSF panel’s work has built on:The previous PSF Country report (including the survey sent to 
the NRIs between December 2021-January 2022); 

•  The Multi-Annual Financial Plan 2014-20 of the Greek NRIs; 

•  A literature review on the key topics and on the existing practices in Greece and in other 

European countries; 

•  A  series  of  interviews  and  meetings  with  Greek  national  stakeholders,  the  NRI 
coordinators, representatives of selected projects and policy-makers during the first panel 
mission to Greece at the end of March 2023; 

•  Working sessions with Greek stakeholders during the second mission from 30 May to 1 
June 2023, during which the first drafts of the implementation plans were discussed. 

The implementation plans will be presented at a dissemination event in Athens  in autumn 
2023. The process of defining the implementation plans is summarised in the figure below. 

Inception phase

• Kick-off meeting with Greek authorities (20 February 2023)
• Literature review and analysis of European examples and practices
• Inception report 

Assessment phase

• 1st mission of the panel to Greece (27-29 March 2023)
• Interviews with NRI representatives and selected projects, Greek authorities,  policy-makers and other 

relevant stakeholders

• First draft of the three implemention plans (PSF Open draft report) 

Consultation on the proposed implemention plans 

• 2nd mission of the panel to Greece (30 May - 1 June 2023)
• Additional working meetings with NRIs and R&I policy-makers to discuss the implemention plans
• Second draft of PSF panel report (July 2023)

Presentation of final report

• Final report based on feedback from Greek authorities and European Commission (August 2023)
• Dissemination event in Athens (autumn 2023)

Figure 5: Key steps in the PSF Open Greece  

The PSF panel thanks all Greek stakeholders and NRI projects’ representatives (see list of 
interviewees  in  Annex  1:  Interviewees/participants  in  meetings)  for  their  constructive 
contribution to the review. 

16 

 
 
 
 
2.  The Greek R&I system and the national research infrastructures 

2.1.  Research and innovation performance and trends 

The Greek research and innovation (R&I) system has developed significantly over the last 
two decades. In 2011, gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) amounted 
to 0.68% of GDP (€1,391 million); in 2021, it reached 1.45% of GDP and had almost doubled 
in  terms  of  absolute  expenditure  (€2,635  million).  According  to  the  national  reform 
programme 2020, the goal is for R&D expenditure to reach 1.81% of GDP by 2030. Since 
2008,  Greece  has  advanced  from  the  group  of  Catching-up  countries  of  the  European 
Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) to the group of Moderate Innovators. 

GREECE 
is  a  Moderate 
Innovator  with  performance  at 
the  EU  average. 
79.5%  of 
is  below 
Performance 
the 
the  Moderate 
average  of 
Innovators.  Performance 
is 
increasing at a rate higher than 
that  of  the  EU  (8.5%-points). 
The country’s performance gap 
to the EU is becoming smaller. 

Relative strengths 
• 
• 

Product innovators 
Innovative SMEs 
collaborating with others 
Employment in innovative 
enterprises 
Sales of innovative 
products 
Business process 
innovators 

• 

• 

• 

Relative weaknesses 
Foreign doctorate 
• 
students 
Lifelong learning 
• 
•  Medium and high-tech 
product exports 
•  Design applications 
• 
Strong increases since 2016 
Product innovators 
• 
Business process 
• 
innovators 
Public-private co-
publications 

Broadband penetration 

• 

Strong decreases since 2016 
Environment-related 
• 
technologies 
Broadband penetration 
Enterprises  providing  ICT 
training 

• 
• 

Figure 6: Greece R&I performance – 2016-2023 
Source: EC & Hollanders (2023) 

17 

 
 
 
The  overall  Greek  innovation  performance  remains  below  the  EU  average,  however  the 
country’s performance gap to the EU is reducing over time (summary innovation index trend), 
at a rate higher than that of the EU (8.5%-points). 

2.2.  Research and innovation policy governance system 

In  Greece,  there  is  a  long-standing  fragmentation  of  research  policy  management  and 
funding sources, which are provided by several ministries: the GSRI, the Hellenic Foundation 
for  Research  and  Innovation  (HFRI)2  and  regional  authorities.  The  National  Council  for 
Research,  Technology  and  Innovation  (NCRTI)  and  13  Regional  Research  &  Innovation 
Councils (RRICs) provide advice to ministers and national agencies, and regional authorities 
respectively on R&I topics. 

There has been an inadequate coordination amongst these policy advisory and management 
bodies, as well as an administrative separation of research  funding management between 
universities and research centres. Moreover, there is still a high level of bureaucracy in the 
various bodies involved in the financing of research activities, which is due to specific laws, 
regulations  and  provisions  that  hinder  the  research  projects  (e.g.  slow  evaluation 
procedures). 

Figure 7: Greece: Research and innovation governance & funding system 
Source: authors 

The GSRI is a public body, under the Ministry of Development and Investments, tasked with 
planning and coordinating the implementation of R&I policy. It supports the activities of the 
research  community  as  well  as  trade  and  industry  bodies,  through  competitive  R&I 
programmes, and it supervises the majority of public research centres. Furthermore, it follows 
EU and international developments related to R&I and represents Greece in EU committees 
and international organisations in its areas of competence. 

2See: https://www.elidek.gr/en/homepage/  

18 

 
 
 
 
The  HFRI  was  founded  by  Law  4429/20163  and  is  supervised  by  the  Deputy  Minister  of 
Development and Investments responsible for Research & Technology. HFRI was founded 
with  the  objective  to  “promote  R&I  in  Greece  and  more  specifically  to  support  and  assist 
unrestricted  research  without  any  thematic  or  geographical  limitations,  having  quality  and 
excellence  as  a  unique  criterion.”  It  provides  support  for  the  development  of  Greek 
researchers, at all stages in their career and in all fields of research. A 2021 evaluation found 
that the HFRI contributed to constraining the brain drain phenomenon, facilitated the return 
of  early  career  researchers,  enabled  the  renewal  or  acquisition  of  high-value  research 
equipment, and supported participation of Greek researchers in Europe-wide RIsin the field 
of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). 

The Ministry of Education, Religious  Affairs and Sports (MERAS)  is responsible for higher 
education institutes, university research institutes and overseeing the Hellenic Authority for 
Higher  Education  (HAHE).4  HAHE  organises  the  monitoring  of  and  external  evaluation 
(carried out by a panel of independent experts) of academic units, including on their research 
activity. 

the 

first 

time, 

it  brings 

The Ministry of Digital Governance is a recently established (2019) public administration unit. 
For 
technology  (IT)  and 
telecommunications structures related to the provision of electronic services to citizens and 
the  wider  digital  transformation  of  the  country.  It  is  not  directly  related  to  R&D  activities. 
However, under its auspices are two very significant organisations: GRNET and the National 
Documentation Centre (NDC).5 

together  all  critical 

information 

GRNET6 acts as an advisory body to the Ministry of Digital Governance in matters of design 
and  upgrading  of  advanced  information  systems.  It  contributes  to  the  promotion  and 
implementation of the ministry’s strategic objectives. It has a central role as coordinator of all 
digital infrastructures for education and research. It advises and supports the State, with the 
design  of  advanced  information  systems  and  infrastructures,  as  well  as  the  design, 
development  and  maintenance  of  advanced  computing  and  network  infrastructures  and 
services.  GRNET  supports  the  Pan-Hellenic  fibre  optic  network;  data  centres;  high 
performance  computing  (HPC)  system  (HPC-ARIS);  the  operation  of  the  National 
Competence Center EuroCC-Greece HPC Hub7; the operation, development and promotion 
of  the  National  Digital  Academy;  coordination  of  the  project  ‘Innovation  Hub  for  Digital 
Governance’  (DigiGov  InnoHub).  The  Hub  supports  innovation  at  national  and  European 
level, coordinating and participating in OS projects and participating in the formulation of a 
national strategy for Artificial Intelligence. 

GRNET provides international interconnectivity through the pan-European GÉANT network 
and  is  the  national  research  and  education  network  (NREN).  It  also  manages  the  Greek 
Internet  Exchange  (GR-IX),  a  national  infrastructure that  interconnects  the  most important 
internet companies operating in Greece (e.g. internet service providers, cloud, hosting, VoIP, 
etc.).  In  parallel,  a  new  research  institute  for  artificial  intelligence,  data  processing  and 
algorithm development, has recently been established in the ‘Athena’ research centre, under 
the auspices of GSRI. 

3Paragraph 5 of Law 4429/2016 was replaced with article 111 paragraph 3 of Law 4623/2019 and where in 
the law, the mentioned ministry is the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, this has now been replaced 
by the Ministry of Development and Investments. 
4See: https://www.ethaae.gr/en/about-hahe/about-hahe  
5See: https://www.ekt.gr/en/index  
6See: https://grnet.gr/en/  
7See: https://eurocc-greece.gr/about/  

19 

 
 
The  Ministry  of  Agricultural  Development  &  Food  (MADF)  has  a  network  of  laboratories 
across  the  country,  working  in  support  of  the  primary  sector  and  food  industry.  However, 
there is no direct collaboration with the other ministries on R&D issues, except in the case of 
the NRIs. The network of institutes and laboratories of MADF are named ELGO-DIMITRA8 
(Greek  Agricultural  Organisation  DIMITRA).  The  main  object  of  ELGO-DIMITRA  is  the 
development  and  support  of  actions  aimed  at  the  modernisation  and  development  of  the 
country’s agricultural sector, the improvement of production processes, the strengthening of 
competitiveness,  the  certification  of  quality  agricultural  products  and  food,  plus  the 
establishment and certification of correct agricultural practices and controls in the production-
distribution chain. 

2.3.  Greek research and innovation policy 

Greece  lacks  a  stable,  predictable  and  sufficient  flow  of  funding  for  basic  research  with 
specific strategic priorities and systematic evaluation of the bodies that conduct this type of 
research (Pissaridis et al., 2020). However, the establishment of the HFRI in 2016, along with 
the financing of six flagship actions addressing specific challenges, are positive steps in this 
direction.  Additional  flagship  actions  will  be  supported  by  the  national  Recovery  and 
Resilience Facility (RRF) Plan ‘Greece 2.0’9. However, there is not a specific strategy beyond 
these financial commitments. 

R&I policy in Greece is based mainly on two strategies. The National Strategy for Research 
Technological  Development  and  Innovation  (ESETAK)  (not  yet  adopted),  provides  the 
general  framework  for  the  development  of  the  country’s  RTDI  system  during  2021-2027. 
ESETAK  is  based  on  two  central  pillars:  the  ESEE  2021-202710,  and  the  basic  research 
policy. The ESEE is a comprehensive agenda of economic transformation, with the aim of 
improving the competitiveness of the national production system. ESSE aspires to improve 
critical  dimensions  of  the  national  innovation  ecosystem,  firstly  in  a  horizontal  way  (e.g. 
human  resources,  skills,  and  infrastructure).  However,  there  is  strong  vertical  targeting  in 
selected thematic areas or sectoral ecosystems, where the country should invest, as Greece 
has productive entities that can support the development of relative competitive advantage. 

ESETAK embraces both ESEE and the pillar of basic research, meaning ‘blue sky research’ 
that  may  not  always  have  a  directly  applied  nature,  e.g.  social  sciences  and  humanities 
(SSH), but which can create a broad background of knowledge and form the basis for solving 
current or anticipated future problems. ESETAK adopts the basic assumptions and goals of 
the ESEE, in order to ensure a common orientation. However, it highlights the interventions 
that are necessary to complete the entire Greek R&I system. 

In  addition,  the  design  of  ESETAK  aims  to  harmonise with  a)  national  strategic  plans  and 
policies,  such  as  the  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  ‘Greece  2.0’,  the  National 
Energy  and  Climate  Plan  (ESEK),  the  National  Plan  for  the  Just  Transition,  the  Digital 
Transformation  Bible  2020-202511,  business  and  investment  strategies,  and  regional 
development strategies, etc.; b) the policy directions of the European R&I landscape and in 
particular the European Research Area (ERA) policy agenda12; c) the global challenges in 

8See: https://www.elgo.gr/  
9See: https://greece20.gov.gr/en/  
10See the synopsis in English available at https://gsri.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Synopsis_National-
Smart-Specialisation-Strategy-2021-2027.pdf  
11See: https://digitalstrategy.gov.gr/en/  
12European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021): The new European 
Research Area. Publications Office of the European Union,  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2736 

20 

 
 
the  context  of  the  17  United  Nations  sustainable  development  goals  (SDGs),  and  the 
European Green Deal for a green, digital and inclusive transition. 

2.3.1.  National research infrastructures: the 2014-2020 programming period 

The  GSRI,  as  the  State’s  competent  body  for  R&I,  developed  during  the  2014-20 
programming period a multi-annual funding plan, through which 28 NRIs were financed. The 
NRI plan was aligned with the strategic priorities of the smart specialisation strategy (S3) for 
2014-20,  an  ex-ante  conditionality  for  the  use  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds (ESIF) for R&I. A total of 28 NRIs were financed (see Figure 5 and Annex 3) by the 
EPANEK Operational Programme for Competitiveness (2014-2020). 

In preparation for developing the NRI strategy for the 2021-27 programming period, GSRI 
made use of the European Commission’s PSF. A panel of international experts examined the 
performance of the 28 NRIs in terms of their contribution to the economy and society, their 
relevance to the S3, international recognition as well as their development prospects. The 
final  assessment  report13  included  a  set  of  recommendations  aimed  at  the  further 
improvement of the operations and efficiency of the NRI during the period 2021-2027, through 
the adoption of a long-term sustainability model that will promote scientific excellence while 
also contributing to addressing socio-economic challenges. 

Measure 

Support of 
NRIs 

Strategic 
development 
of research 
centres 

Regional 
Excellence 

Initial 
allocation 
of funds (€) 

Awarded 
after calls 
(€) 

Final 
commitments 
(€) 

Funded 
projects 

Participating 
organisations 

93,000,000 

95,538,798 

91,546,050 

28 

212 

31,860,000 

31,860,000 

30,324,368 

30 

30 

45,000,000 

87,161,763 

87,160,763 

44 

Total 

169,860.000 

214,560,561 

209,031,181 

103 

242 

Table 1: Total financing of NRI and other relevant financing during the period 2014-2020 
Source: GSRI 

The main recommendations were: 

•  Establish a NRI coordination technical assistance unit. 

•  Foster  the  organisational  transition  from  a  project  consortium  to  a  single  legal  entity 

model for NRIs. 

•  All NRIs should have a dedicated management team. 

•  Strengthen capacity to engage with and deliver services to industry and societal users. 
To  develop  an  innovation-orientated  approach,  the  NRIs  should  reinforce  their 
organisational capacities and expertise. 

13See: https://gsri.gov.gr/apotimisi-ton-erevnitikon-ypodomon-2014-20/  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Enhance OS and FAIR research data management capacities of the NRIs, in line with 
the Greek OS Plan, established from the bottom up by the main academic and public 
research institutions. 

2.3.2. 

Institutional and regulatory framework for the period 2021-2027 

The main elements of the regulatory framework for the current period are: 

•  Law 4712/2020, which designates the General Secretariat of Public Investments and the 
National  Strategic  Reference  Framework  (NSRF),  in  cooperation  with  the  competent 
Ministries  and  Regions,  responsible  for  the  coordination  of  the  S3  (Article  36,  Law 
4712/2020 (A' 146)). 

•  The Council for the ESEE is re-established, with the main objective of recommending to 
the Minister of Development and Investments the approval of the ESEE (Decision of the 
Minister of Development & Investments no. 24448/26-02-2021 (B' 943)). 

•  The  Planning,  Coordination  and  Monitoring  Unit  (MON-ESEE)  established  with  the 

mission of planning, managing and coordinating the implementation of the ESEE. 

•  The ESEE Coordination Network was also established (Government Gazette 2416/B/ 12-
04-2023) to coordinate and address common issues and strengthen the complementarity 
between the national and regional branches of the ESEE. 

•  Law  4961/2022  ‘on  emerging  information  and  communication  technologies,  the 
reinforcing of digital governance and other provisions’ was published in the Government 
Gazette (GG 146/A/27-07-2022). This law regulates the utilisation and use of a basic set 
of contemporary advanced technologies with significant economic and social impact. 

All R&I support actions for the period fall under the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF) enabling condition for Policy Objective 1: A smarter Europe by promoting innovative 
and smart economic transformation, namely good governance of national or regional smart 
specialisation. This calls for the continuous monitoring of the fulfilment criteria for the enabling 
condition, namely: 

1.  Up-to-date analysis of bottlenecks for innovation diffusion, including digitalisation. 
2.  Existence  of  a  competent  regional  national  institution  or  body,  responsible  for 

managing the S3. 

3.  Monitoring and evaluation tools to measure performance towards the objectives of 

the strategy. 

4.  Effective functioning of the entrepreneurial discovery process. 
5.  Actions necessary to improve national or regional R&I systems. 
6.  Actions to manage industrial transition. 
7.  Measures for international collaboration. 

2.4.  National research infrastructures: 2021-2027 programming period 

In  early  2023,  the  GSRI  Directorate  of  R&I  Planning  and  Programming  announced  a 
consultation on a Call for Expressions of Interest for the new National Research Infrastructure 
funding  Action  in  the  context  of  the  ‘Competitiveness’  Programme  2021-27  into  Open 
Consultation. The deadline was 28 March 2023. Through the open consultation, the research-
academic community was given the opportunity to verify, propose amendments or enrich the 
plan:  the  main  criterion  was  alignment  with  the  national  ESEE  for  2021-2027  and  its 

22 

 
 
 
 
contribution  to  an  innovative  economic  transformation  of  the  country.  The  consultation 
findings have been incorporated in the new version of the call. The call text is in line with the 
recommendations of the PSF experts, both in terms of implementing the selection process of 
the  NRI  to  be  funded,  the  evaluation  criteria  and  the  funding  based  on  their  performance 
(performance-based funding and KPIs), as well as  moving towards the strategic directions 
for supporting the NRI and international good practices. The main principles of the call for 
NRIs are: 

•  To support those NRIs from the Multi-annual Financial Plan 2014-20 that have completed 
the preparatory phase of development and are proceeding with their full operation. 

•  The further strengthening of those NRIs of the Multi-annual Financial Plan 2014-20 that 

need to complete the preparatory phase of their operation. 

•  The selection of a limited number of new NRIs to support their preparatory phase, in the 

event that additional needs emerge in the priority areas of the national ESEE 2021-27. 

The duration of the projects cannot exceed four years. The maximum public expenditure for 
the financing of the full operation phase of an NRI is €8m, if it includes mergers of existing 
NRIs (created in the framework of the 2014-20 programming period). The public expenditure 
for the financing of existing mature NRIs (to be proven through specific KPIs) will not exceed 
€6m, while the public expenditure for the financing of NRIs which require further development 
to  reach  full  operations  is  up  to  €4m.  Overall,  the  maximum  number  of  NRIs  that  will  be 
included in the 2021-27 roadmap will not exceed 20.  

Figure 8: Funding for research infrastructures under the RRF 
Source: GSRI 

Finally, for the sources of financing for the programming period 2021-27 and in addition to 
the ESIF co-funded ‘Competitiveness’ programme14 (€120m are specifically dedicated to the 
second phase of development of the NRIs), resources to support  research infrastructures, 
but not specifically the NRIs, are also drawn from the RRF (€207m), the regional operational 

14See: http://21-27.antagonistikotita.gr/ (in Greek) 

23 

 
 
 
 
programmes (€30m) and HFRI (€120m). The RRF funding is focused notably on buildings, 
although some funding is directed at the upgrade of research infrastructure equipment. 

3.  Overview of the proposed actions to enhance the performance 

of the Greek NRIs 

In the context set out above, this report proposes a strategic and operational framework 
for enhancing the performance of the Greek NRIs that will be funded during the period 
2021-2027.  The  report  aims  to  provide  a  basis  for  looking  beyond  2027  and  supporting 
preparations  for  the  next  multi-annual  financing  period.  The  current  dependence  on  EU 
funding, through ESIF, for financing the investment in and operations of the NRIs (and indeed 
the entire Greek public R&I system) is not sustainable. In the longer term, there will be a need 
to increase Greek national budgetary resources allocated to the Greek R&I system and more 
generally  to  diversify  funding  sources.  This  diversification  can  be  achieved  by  making  the 
NRIs attractive partners and suppliers of services to both Greek and international research, 
business and other ‘clients’. 

Performance-based 
funding model
• Diversify funding sources 

& foster long-term 
sustainability

• Six actions

NRI performance 
monitoring & impact
• Optimise performance of 
the NRIs through target 
setting and impact 
pathway monitoring

• Five actions

Enhance digitalisation & 
open science practices in 
the NRIs
• Development of OS 

science practices and 
FAIR data management 
in the Greek NRIs

• Eight actions

Figure 9: Overview of the three implementation plans 

The  three  implementation  plans  are  inter-linked  ‘building  blocks’.  Together  they  should 
provide, if correctly implemented, a strong foundation for ensuring an optimal investment of 
available ESIF funding to selected NRIs by fostering the adoption of ‘best practice’ methods 
for the management and operation of NRIs, identification of and tracking of progress along 
various ‘pathways to impact’ and, through the adoption and application by the NRIs of  OS 
and FAIR data principles, a leverage effect on the entire Greek R&I system. 

Each plan, after a review of the European and Greek state of the art, sets out a number of 
recommendations and presents a detailed set of actions using the template below. 

24 

 
 
 
Action number 

Action title  

Action owner(s) 

Organisation(s) in the Greek R&I system that should be the lead for 
implementing the action. 

Timeframe 

Indicative timeframe for the action. 

Resources 

Human, funding, regulatory/administrative measures, etc. 

Description of the action 

Details of what needs to be done to implement the action. 

Milestones 

Main milestones for the action. 

Table 2: Description of the proposed actions included in the implementation plans 

4. 

Implementation plan 1: a funding system designed to enhance 
performance 

4.1.  Review of the state of the art in Greece compared to European and 

international practice 

4.1.1. 

The  development  of  research  performance-based  funding  in  the  European 
Union 

Over the last decades, performance-based funding (PBF) frameworks have become a central 
instrument through which many EU Member States have sought to increase the effectiveness 
and  performance  of  their  public  sector  research  systems.  In  2010,  the  OECD  countries 
indicated their interest to engage in mutual learning on this topic.15 Similarly, at EU level, the 
European Commission mentioned in 2012 its aims to foster “more effective national research 
systems – including increased competition within national borders and sustained or greater 
investment  in  research.”16  This  commitment  to  increase  research  performance  through 
continent-wide competition was reaffirmed in 2021 as a cornerstone of the new ERA agenda. 
The development of PBF systems is one of the funding mechanisms designed to reach this 
objective by fostering competition between research institutions. 

Traditionally, public research funding has been classified into two main categories.17 The first 
is  institutional  funding,  which  can  be  defined  as  “the  funding  of  institutions  with  no  direct 
selection  of  projects  or  programmes  to  be  performed.  Under  this  type  of  funding,  it  is  the 
receiving institution that has discretion over the R&D projects that are to be performed, not 
the funding organisation.”18 The second main category of research funding is called project 

15OECD (2010), Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: 
Workshop Proceedings, Éditions OCDE - OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264094611-en. 
16European Commission (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Reinforced 
European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth /* COM/2012/0392 final */ 
17Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J., van der 
Meulen, B (2007). Comparing the evolution of national policies: what patterns of change?, Science and 
Public Policy, 34(6), 372-388. 
18Steen, J. v. (2012). Modes of Public Funding of Research and Development: Towards Internationally 
Comparable Indicators’, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2012/04, OECD 
Publishing. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
funding, defined as “money attributed to a group or an individual to perform a R&D activity 
limited  in  scope,  budget  and  time,  normally  on  the  basis  of  the  submission  of  a  project 
proposal describing the research activities to be done.”19 It has been generally assumed that 
institutional  funding  is  mainly  non-competitive,  while  project  funding  is  characterised  by  a 
higher degree of competition. 

Since the 1980s, the evolution of European research funding systems has been  guided by 
the active role of governments in defining scientific policy. Specifically, there has been a shift 
from a model of delegation of academic activity to the scientific community (both universities 
and  public  research  organisations)  to  a  model  in  which  governments  aspire  to  direct  and 
channel  research  towards  socio-economic  and  political  needs.  To  achieve  this,  project 
funding  has  emerged  and  grown  in  importance  as  a  tool  that  allows  public  funders 
(government  departments,  research  funding  agencies,  etc.)  to  steer  research  towards 
predetermined objectives. Consequently, the share of this funding model within total research 
funding has increased very substantially over the last 40 years in the EU.20 

In parallel with this increase of project funding compared to institutional funding, the traditional 
dichotomy  between  these  two  funding  models  has  increasingly  been  challenged  by  the 
emergence of a hybrid funding mechanism, which includes characteristics of both institutional 
and project funding. This hybrid mechanism is called Performance-Based Funding (PBF)21 
and is defined by five principles: 

•  Research  must  be  evaluated.  Evaluations  of  the  quality  of  degree  programmes  and 

teaching are excluded. 

•  Research evaluation must be ex post. This ex-post evaluation of research results is one 
of the main differences with the project funding modality, as project funding is based on 
an ex-ante evaluation of research proposals. 

•  Research output must be evaluated. Systems that allocate funding based only on PhD 

student numbers and external research funding are excluded. 

•  Government distribution of research funding depends on the results of the evaluation. 
Ex-post evaluations of university research performance used only to provide feedback to 
universities or to the government are not considered as PBF. 

•  The PBF system must be a national or regional system: intra-organisational funding 

allocation rules are not considered PBF. 

On this basis, three main funding mechanisms related to performance may be identified. First 
some  countries  do  not  include  any  performance-based  elements  in  their  research  funding 
system  or  they  allocate  funding  exclusively  based  on  education-related  metrics  or 
assessments (without research output considerations). Secondly, some other countries base 
their  funding  allocation  on  a  set  of  quantitative  and/or  bibliometric  criteria  combined  in  a 
formula.  The  primary  objective  of  the  formula  is  to  ensure  equitable  treatment  of  higher 
education  institutions,  by  using  the  same  criteria  to  evaluate  performance.  This  approach 
enables  transparency  in  funding  decisions.  The  funding  authorities  typically  define  the 
variables  and  parameters  in  the  formula,  so  as  to  closely  align  with  the  government's 

19Lepori et al., op.cit. 
20Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance, an 
international comparison. Research Policy, 39: 822- 834. Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, 
B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J., van der Meulen, B (2007). Comparing the evolution of national 
policies: what patterns of change?, Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372-388 
21Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251-
261. Zacharewicz, T., B. Lepori, E. Reale, and K. Jonkers. (2019). Performance-Based Research Funding in 
EU Member States—a Comparative Assessment. Science and Public Policy 46 (1): 105-15. 

26 

 
 
overarching higher education and research policy priorities. Thirdly, some countries allocate 
funding  based  on  peer  review  exercises.  This  category  can  further  differentiate  between 
metric-based peer review and qualitative peer review. 

In addition to these three main categories of PBF, an alternative option consists of the signing 
of  performance  contracts  between  universities  and  public  funding  bodies  (e.g.  ministries, 
funding agencies) to agree on a set of targets that universities or research centres need to 
achieve,  in  order  to  be  eligible  for  part  of  the  organisational  level  funding.  Under  this 
mechanism, the amount of core funding transferred to an institution is based on a negotiation 
between funding authorities and research-performing organisations. 

The PBF system can be applied to the total amount of public funding transferred to research-
performing organisations or only to a percentage of this funding.22 

4.1.2.  Funding models of national research infrastructure 

The European Commission defines research infrastructures as: 

“Facilities  that  provide  resources  and  services  for  the  research  communities  to  conduct 
research  and  foster  innovation  in  their  fields,  including  the  associated  human  resources, 
major  equipment  or  sets  of  instruments;  knowledge-related  facilities  such  as  collections, 
archives or scientific data infrastructures; computing systems, communication networks and 
any other infrastructure of a unique nature and open to external users, essential to achieve 
excellence  in  R&I;  they  may,  where  relevant,  be  used  beyond  research,  for  example  for 
education or public services, and they may be ‘single sited’, ‘virtual’ or ‘distributed’.”23 

While universities may provide RIs and facilities in addition to education, NRIs are dedicated 
to providing advanced research resources and related services on an international, national 
or  regional  level.  NRIs  are  typically  established  and  maintained  by  government  agencies, 
research organisations, or consortia of universities and research institutions. In this context, 
funding  of  NRIs  is  focused  on  supporting  the  development  and  maintenance  of  the 
infrastructure,  as  well  as  the  provision  of  high-quality  research  resources  and  services  to 
researchers and other users (which can include businesses), in the country or region. The 
mechanisms  of  funding  of  NRIs  differ  widely  across  countries  with  some  countries 
encouraging joint investment by the private sector (see example of Flemish funding model). 

In  Flanders  (Belgium),  for  large  infrastructures,  the  Flemish  funding  agency  funding 
provides as a baseline 70% of total costs for RIs, implying 30% cofounding by partners.  
However, the maximum funding is 90% if the infrastructure is proposed by a consortium 
and this can be raised to 100% if there is an in-kind contribution of “third parties”, which 
means private companies producing or selling large infrastructures/equipment (the third 
parties do not receive a subsidy). 

• 

90% of the subsidisable costs if the proposal is made by research groups from more 
than  one  subsidy-eligible  body  and  it  is  demonstrated  in  the  application  that  all 
applicants  account  for  at  least  half  of  the  amount  they  would  have  to  pay  if  the 
remaining 10% of the subsidisable costs were proportionately distributed; 

22An EC study (EC, Jongbloed et al (2023)) quantified the degree of performance-orientation research 
funding in each EU Member State and categorised the modalities of research assessments. 
23Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing 
Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for 
participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013 (Text 
with EEA relevance). ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj 

27 

 
 
 
• 

100%  of  the  portion  of  the  subsidisable  costs  to  be  funded  by  the  university  or 
university college itself if at least 25% of the eligible costs are borne by a body other 
than a higher education institution.  

An example is given below for a €2m total cost investment involving three partners. 

Body  

% cost  

% subsidy  

cost to be borne  

University  

35%  

100% (= € 700,000)  

€ 0  

Strategic research 
centre   

Third party 
(company) 

35% 

30% 

90% (= € 630,000) 

€ 70,000 

0% 

€ 600,000 

Table 3: Joint public-private investment in RIs model – Flanders (Belgium) 

An  example  of  a  large  RI  developed  and  jointly  operated  by  a  consortium  involving 
industrial  partners  is  the  HAXPES-Lab.  The  Hard  X-ray  PhotoElectron  Spectroscopy 
(HAXPES) tool consists of an integrated (and automated) system including X-ray sources. 
HAXPES  is  a  rapidly  evolving  analytical  method  providing  much  needed  insight  into 
material interactions at surfaces and buried layers and interfaces. A consortium composed 
of Flemish academic and industrial partners created an easily accessible HAXPES user 
platform  to  boost  applied  research  in  areas  like  batteries,  photovoltaics,  catalysis, 
corrosion prevention and semiconductor devices. The presence of the manufacturer of the 
tool  within  the  consortium  and  the  complementary  research  by  the  partners  on  the 
fundamentals  of  HAXPES  also  contribute  to  the  further  optimisation  of  this  emerging 
technology  and  enables  its  quantitative  application.  The  multiuser  facility  leverages  the 
extensive analytical portfolio and knowledge base available within the consortium which is 
composed of: UHasselt, VUB, KUL, Imec, Toyota-BE, Solvay and Scienta Omicron. 

The cost categories eligible for subsidies are as follows in Flanders: 

•  Equipment:  Costs  for  research  investments,  i.e.  the  costs  of  purchasing  and 
connecting  the  research  infrastructure  or  purchasing  the  components  for  the 
construction  of  the  planned  research  infrastructure,  including  the  non-refundable 
portion of VAT. This also includes the upgrading, i.e. the substantial improvement of 
existing research infrastructure; 

•  Personnel costs for the development and construction of the research infrastructure. 
This also includes the personnel costs for upgrading the research infrastructure and 
the costs for the operational or maintenance personnel once the infrastructure is up 
and running; 

•  Operational costs consisting of maintenance costs over the entire depreciation period, 
i.e.  the  costs  arising  from  maintenance  agreements  or  research  infrastructure 
upgrades and equipment repairs. 

The  overhead  percentage  applicable  to  research  infrastructure  projects  is  10%.  This 
overhead  must  be  used  primarily  to  cover  the  costs  for  modifications  to  buildings  and 
connection costs relating to the research infrastructure. 

28 

 
 
With  respect  to  personnel  costs  for  the  permanent  maintenance  and  operation  of  the 
research infrastructure, account is made of the costs for personnel already in service at 
the  host  institution  on  a  permanent  or  contractual  basis,  the  current  wage  cost  for  that 
personnel will be included in the budget in part or in full as a cost eligible for subsidy (based 
on  the  total  hours  per  month  spent  on  permanent  maintenance  and  operation  by  that 
personnel). 

Costs  for  training,  education  and  retraining  of  personnel  on  the  use  of  the  research 
infrastructure are eligible for subsidy. These are considered as maintenance costs, more 
particularly  personnel  costs  for  permanent  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  research 
infrastructure.  To  enable  the  operation  of  the  research  infrastructure,  either  competent 
personnel  must  be  recruited  or  already  employed  personnel  must  be  trained  and/or 
retrained. 

Box 1: Joint public-private investment in RIs model – Flanders (Belgium) 
Sources: https://www.fwo.be/en/fellowships-funding/research-infrastructure/large-scale-research-infrastructure/ and 
https://researchportal.be/en/project/high-energy-photoemission-easily-accessible-user-facility-surface-and-interfacial-
analysis 

The OECD (OECD, 2020) identified and analysed the tools and options used by countries for 
long-term  planning,  investment  policies  and  life-cycle  management  of  RIs.  This  analysis 
focused  on  how  portfolio  managers  (at  agency  or  ministry  level)  reconciled  the  need  for 
flexibility  in  funding  with  financial  constraints.  To  do  so,  two  surveys  were  conducted  of 
national  funders,  policy-makers  and  RI  managers.  The  results  emphasised  that  national 
governments and agencies are implementing a wide range of approaches  for funding and 
strategic planning.  For example, Norway has a clear road-mapping process covering all NRIs 
and managed by the Norwegian Research Council, funding the capital and start-up costs, 
with operational funding coming from user research grants or institutional funds. In contrast, 
Australia releases a roadmap every five years and supplements it with an investment plan 
every  two  years.  This  investment  plan  is  based  on  a  strategic  approach  elaborated  by 
national authorities and involves co-investment from state authorities and users.  

Within this broad range of funding approaches, two different models from the Czech Republic 
and the Basque Country (Spain) may be used as case-studies, as they highlight two notable 
perspectives on evaluation and funding allocations. While the Czech Republic has developed 
a  peer-review  evaluation  system  to  assess  NRIs’  activities  and  performance,  the  Basque 
authorities rely on a quantitative and indicator-based approach to evaluate the activities of 
regional  research  and  technology  organisations.  In  both  cases,  funding  is  subsequently 
allocated based on evaluation results. 

In the Czech Republic, the R&D budget is allocated through two main funding categories, 
namely targeted support and institutional support. Institutional support is primarily intended 
for  financing  research  institutions  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  and  other  research 
organisations,  based  on  their  performance  in  the  previous  budget  period.  Targeted 
support, on the other hand, is meant for supporting specific objectives and  programmes 
managed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS), the Technology Agency, 
or the Ministry of Trade and Industry. An example of such a  programme is the large RI 
projects programme, which falls under the jurisdiction of the MEYS. Institutional support is 
also  utilised  to  cover  membership  fees  for  ERICs  and  international  organisations.  In 
addition, the ERDF plays a crucial role as a significant source of funding for R&I. Between 
2014 and 2017, both existing RIs and new proposals in the Czech Republic underwent a 
two-stage evaluation process by international scientific panels. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
In 2014, the MEYS carried out a comprehensive assessment of all RIs, regardless of their 
funding  source  or  lifecycle  stage.  The  evaluation  was  conducted  in  two  stages  by  an 
International Evaluation Committee, consisting of experts from six scientific areas (Social 
Sciences  and  Humanities,  Environmental  Sciences,  Material  Physics  and  Space, 
Informatics/e-infrastructure, Energy and Biomedicine). The first stage evaluated proposals 
based on the definition of research infrastructure, while the second stage assessed the 
quality of the RIs. 

The  definition  of  research  infrastructure included  three  main  elements:  the  operation  of 
unique technological R&D facilities, nationwide importance and impact, and open access 
policies. Proposals that passed the first stage were further evaluated, based on several 
criteria  related  to  their  socio-economic  impact;  uniqueness  of  technological  facilities; 
management and sustainable development strategy; open access policy; R&D strategy; 
cooperation with other research organisations and RIs operated in the respective scientific 
field or multidisciplinary R&D area and industrial sector; quality of R&D results achieved 
by  using  the  research  infrastructure;  and  potential  for  the  development  of  new 
technologies.24 

During  the  second  stage,  scientific  panels  of  experts  reviewed  self-assessment  reports 
from  RI  managers,  assessment  reports  from  scientific  advisory  boards,  and  conducted 
interviews with management representatives of the RIs. Panel evaluations are discussed 
during joint sessions coordinated by the head of the  international evaluation committee. 
Prior to financial decisions, RI managers are asked to present and explain their budget 
proposal. 

The  evaluation  resulted  in  58  positively  evaluated  RIs,  including  42  high  priority  RIs 
recommended for public funding by the international evaluation committee, according to a 
rating  from  A1  (highest  priority)  to  A4  (lowest  priority).  These  four  performance-related 
groups  indicated  the  priority  for  public  funding  in  direct  proportion  to  the  quality-
differentiated output of the evaluation. Following this classification, a landscape analysis 
was  conducted  by  the  expert  working  groups  and  consisted  of  “putting  individual  R&D 
facilities  into  the  RI  landscape  of  the  Czech  Republic  and  identifying  persistent  gaps, 
drafting  the  outlook  for  future  development  and  presenting  the  possible  scenarios  for 
eventual  clustering  of  research  infrastructures  (if  applicable)”.  On  this  basis,  the 
determination on the allocation of funds is made by the government and carried out by the 
ministry. 

More  information  about  the  Czech  case  is  available  through  the  InRoad  project,  D3.3. 
Good  practices  and  common  trends  of  national  research  infrastructure  roadmapping 
procedures and evaluation mechanisms.25 

Box 2: Peer-review assessment system of NRIs in Czech Republic 

24Some criteria, such as the uniqueness of technological R&D facilities and open access policies, are found 
in both stages of the evaluation. While the first stage makes a preliminary assessment of the inclusion of the 
main characteristics linked to these elements, the second stage of the evaluation focuses on the quality of 
both uniqueness of technological R&D facilities (e.g. analysing the technological level and knowledge 
intensity of activities) and of open access policies (e.g. whether open access provides access to a broad 
range of potential users from the R&D community). 
25This deliverable is available at: http://inroad.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/D3.3_Good_practices_and_common_trends_of_national_research_infrastructure_r
oadmapping_procedures_and_evaluation_mechanisms.pdf Consulted on 26.04.2023. 

30 

 
 
 
 
In  the  Basque  Country,  around  half  of  the  income  of  RTOs  (Research  and  Technology 
Organisations) comes from companies (via contract research). The other half is made up 
of public funding: around 20% is basic funding from the Basque government, and the other 
part, around 30%, is made up of competitive funding from R&D programmes (European, 
Spanish, and Basque). The main mission of RTOs is to contribute to the strength of the 
Basque  industry  and  economy.  RTOs  are  part  of  the  ‘Basque  Network  of  Science, 
Technology,  and  Innovation’  (RVCTI),  created  in  1997.  The  RVCTI  is  composed  of 
different  types  of  agents:  ‘singular  agents’,  university  research  structures,  centres  for 
fundamental  and  excellence  research,  cooperative  research  centres,  multifunctional 
technology  centres,  sectoral  technology  centres,  health  innovation  centres,  R&D 
organisations in the health sector, R&D units of companies, intermediation agents between 
supply  and  demand,  and  agents  for  the  dissemination  of  science,  technology,  and 
innovation. 

A  decree  from  2015  regulates  the  RVCTI,  based  on  the  strategy  defined  in  the  2020 
Science,  Technology,  and  Innovation  Plan  (PCTI),  the  S3  strategy  for  the  2014-2020 
period  of  the  Basque  Country.  The  objective  was  to  increase  the  efficiency  and  results 
orientation of the RVCTI agents and to improve their value contribution to the productive 
and social fabric of the Basque Country, through collaboration and complementarity. To 
this end, the Basque government designed a results-oriented model based on a balanced 
scorecard that details the indicators, weights, and objectives to be achieved depending on 
the nature of each agent. This model aimed to develop a more market-oriented scientific 
and technological activity, to concentrate activity in the three areas of smart specialisation 
of the Basque Country (advanced manufacturing, energy, biosciences/health) in order to 
increase productivity and quality, to improve the excellence of all RVCTI agents, and to 
strengthen collaborative research. 

The decree specifies for each type of agent the indicators in four main groups: R&D activity 
mix  (basic  research,  industrial  research,  experimental  development),  the  distribution  of 
activity by S3 specialisation area, excellence indicators (publications, patents, jobs created 
in  technology-based  companies),  and  interactions  in  the  R&I  system  (private  funding, 
collaboration  among  RVCTI  agents,  international  cooperation).  The  two  indicators  of 
international  cooperation  relate  to  the  percentage  of  funding  received  from  the  Horizon 
programme (or other European or international programmes) and the number of European 
(international) projects of the RTO in which they involve a partner (Basque) company. 

Assessment  indicators  of  research  and  technology  organisations  in  the  Basque 
Country 

Category 

Indicator 

Unit  Weight  Objective 

R&D activity mix 

Specialisation 

R&D activity 
- % expenditure on 
Fundamental Research  
- % expenditure on Industrial 
Research  
- % expenditure on 
Experimental Development 

- Percentage of R&D 
expenditure in Advanced 
Manufacturing 
-;Percentage of R&D 
expenditure in energy  

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 
% 

10% 
3.3% 

10% 

3.3% 

60% 

3.3% 

30% 

10% 

90% 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic 
research 

Excellence 

Industrial 
Research 

Experimental 
research 

Transfer to 
the market 

Relationship 
model 

Collaboration 
among RVCTI 
agents 

International 
collaboration 

- Percentage of R&D 
expenditure in biosciences 
and health 
-Scientific indexed publications  
-Scientific publications in the 
first quartile (Q1) 
-EP0 and PCT patent 
applications 
-Revenue from licences and 
patents 

-New jobs created  
-Revenue attracted 

-% Total private funding 
-Researchers transferred to 
Basque companies 
-Co-supervision of doctoral 
theses 
-Co-authorship of scientific 
publications 
- Co-invention of patents 
-% of international public 
funding  
-International projects with 
business presence 

Nº 
Nº 

Nº 
€ 

Jobs 
€ 

% 
% 
Nº 
Nº 

Nº 

Nº 

% 

% 

2% 
2% 

12% 
12% 

6% 
6% 

5% 
5% 
5% 
5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

20 
10 

3 
400 

20 
3,500 

40% 
50% 
12 
8 

8 

1 

15% 

50% 

Table 4: Quantitative assessment of research and technology organisations in the Basque Country 

Box 3: Quantitative assessment of research and technology organisations in the Basque Country 
Source: Reid, A. (2021) Unpublished case-study report. 

4.1.3.  Research funding in Greece 

This  section  first  presents  the  reform  of  research  funding  implemented  in  2023,  which 
introduced a form of performance-based funding for Greek universities. Secondly, it explains 
the current funding schemes of NRIs. Finally, it analyses the future funding needs of NRIs. 

4.1.3.1. 

The introduction of PBF for Greek universities 

In  2023,  a  reform  of  the  funding  mechanisms  for  Higher  Education  Institutions  (HEIs), 
designed by the HAHE, was introduced and specifically focused on an annual allocation of 
20% of institutional funding on the basis of performance-based criteria. This funding scheme 
is based on a five-step process, in which the HAHE evaluates universities’ performance, while 
the responsibility for funding lies with the MERAS. 

First, each HEI is requested to submit an activity report focusing on its achievements and 
including quality indicators each year. Each institution is asked to select three modules for its 
evaluations, consisting of one mandatory module and two out of four optional ones, and to 
provide  values  for  each  criterion  included  in  these  modules.  Modules  include  (1)  the 
continuous improvement of basic academic activities (compulsory), (2) research activity and 
excellence, (3) connection with society and the labour market, (4) internationalisation, and 
(5)  quality  of  the  university  environment.  This  possibility  for  universities  to  choose  the 
modules on which their performance will be evaluated is intended to account for the diversity 
of institutions, academic fields and orientation (e.g. basic or applied research). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Secondly, each HEI must calculate and document the value provided for each indicator. The 
calculations are based on the Integrated National Quality Information System (OPESP) data 
and other publicly available data at international and national levels, or on other sources of 
information of each institution for each criterion and indicator. The values of each indicator 
provided must be documented by specific back-up documents. 

Thirdly,  each  indicator  is  evaluated  and  given  a  score,  based  on  the  method  provided  by 
HAHE.  Fourthly,  the  evaluation  of  HEI  performance  reports  and  their  related  score  is 
conducted  by  HAHE.  Finally,  a  share  of  the  20%  of  institutional  funding  based  on 
performance is calculated for each HEI, on the basis of the score previously obtained. 

This PBF system implemented for the allocation of 20% of institutional funding to universities, 
and  dependent  on  the  calculation  of  a  funding  formula,  is  in  line  with  funding  systems 
implemented in a majority of EU countries.26 This mechanism, and the different evaluation 
criteria it is based on, help to steer the activities of Greek HEIs towards national priorities, 
including research excellence as well as economic and societal impact. Within this funding 
scheme,  the  possibility  for  Greek  HEIs  to  choose  some  of  the  categories  on  which  their 
performance is evaluated considers the diversity of their activities and outputs and introduces 
some flexibility in the assessment. 

4.1.3.2.  Existing sources of funding for Greek NRIs 

The funding sources of the NRIs were analysed in the background report of the 2022 PSF 
Country exercise (Strogylopoulos & Paliogiannis (2022 p.87-96)). Through a survey, each of 
the 28 Greek NRIs was asked to describe its sources of funding. The findings were: 

•  The ERDF co-financed EPANEK operational programme (2014-2020) was the primary 

source of support for all NRIs (all NRIs were in receipt of a grant from EPANEK). 

•  The  other  main  source  of  support  for  61%  of  the  NRIs  is  the  allocation  of  funds 

individually obtained by the participating partners. 

•  Half  (50%)  of  the  NRIs  have  secured  funding  from  various  other  sources,  such  as 

donations, grants, and contracts with public authorities. 

•  Around 43% of the NRIs use money from nationally funded projects. 

•  Around a third (32%) of the NRIs depend on their partners’ institutional funding from the 
State budget, which covers permanent staff salaries and infrastructure expenses. 

•  Six NRIs (21%) use services provided by the partners as an additional source of support. 

•  Only  four NRIs  (14%),  at  the  time  of  the  survey  in  early  2022,  had  generated  income 
from provision of services: Innovation-EL, EATRIS-GR, HELLAS-CH, and PlantUp. 

4.1.3.3.  Funding needs of Greek NRIs 

An  analysis  of  the  funding  needs  of  Greek  NRIs  was  conducted  for  the  PSF  Country 
background  report.  It  found  that  the  acquisition  and  maintenance  of  equipment  are  a  key 
financial concern for all NRIs, independently of their maturity stage, as 96% of NRIs highlight 
this as their most important issue. The increase of funding capacity to develop new services 

26For a comparative assessment of PBF evaluation practices, see summary table in the following document: 
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Jongbloed, B., 
McGrath, C., Boer, H.et al., Final report of the study on the state and effectiveness of national funding 
systems of higher education to support the European universities initiative. Volume I, Publications Office of 
the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/885757 

33 

 
 
is considered equally important,  because the same share of NRIs (96%)  view it as a very 
important financial need. In addition, most NRIs mention that their financial sustainability is 
directly related to the employment of permanent staff (although temporary staff is considered 
equally  important).  This  is  a  common  problem  in  Greece,  since  new  permanent  or  tenure 
positions are very limited. Overheads are also considered an important cost category.  

Figure 10: Percentage of NRIs ranking cost groups as “very important” or “quite important” 
Source: Strogylopoulos & Paliogiannis (2022), p.97 

All  NRIs  consider  the  promotion  and  advertising  of  their  activity  as  an  important  financial 
concern, although not as the most important one. Nevertheless, participation in international 
networks  and  networking  with  European  and  other  national  RIs  and  innovative  SMEs,  is 
considered critical for their development. 

4.2. Overview of proposed actions to meet the PSF recommendations 

The aim is to design a funding system to progressively enhance the performance and long-
term  sustainability  of  Greek  NRIs.  The  implementation  plan  builds  on  international  best 
practices  for  defining  a  sound  assessment  and  funding  framework.  In  addition,  the  plan 
considers the specificities of the Greek research funding structure and recent developments 
in the implementation of a performance-based funding system for Greek HEIs. 

One  main  question  arises  when  designing  funding  mechanisms  to  enhance  performance: 
what is the general objective of these funding schemes? Beyond the capacity to deliver R&I 
outputs or to foster collaboration with private stakeholders, the key policy priority underlying 
the development of PBF instruments is to incentivise the elaboration of a long-term vision 
and the sustainability of NRIs. Long-term sustainability is defined by the European Investment 
Bank  (EIB)  as  a  compendium  of  practices  aiming  to  (a)  ensure  strong  governance, 
transparency and accountability for the use of public funds; (b) integrate high environmental, 
technical  and  social  standards  into  business  activities,  by  linking  research  to  innovation 
outcomes; and (3) minimise risks and deliver results.27 These practices were recently further 
described by the ERIC Forum Implementation Project28. 

27Antonella Calvia Goetz, EIB, ‘Sustainability Issues in funding research infrastructure’, presentation at the 
Symposium on European Funding Instruments for the development of Research Infrastructures, Madrid, 
2016. 
28ERIC Forum Implementation Project, Report and proposal for a model sustainability plan for ERICS, Work 
Package 4 – Deliverable 4.4, 2022. https://www.eric-forum.eu/wp-content/uploads/ERICForum_Deliverable-
4.4_Final_v2.pdf  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: Research Infrastructure Sustainability Model Template29 
Source: ERIC Forum Implementation Project, D4.4 (2022). 

This  framework  can  be  used  for  a  qualitative  analysis  of  RI  sustainability.  Though  this 
framework was specifically designed for European-level (ERICs) research infrastructures, it 
provides  useful  insights  for  developing  sustainability  targets  to  be  incentivised  through  a 
performance-focused  funding  scheme  of  Greek  NRIs.  In  particular,  it  suggests  an  ‘input-
process-output’  transformation  process  for  value  creation  (ERIC  Forum  Implementation 
Project, D4.4, 2022, p.27). 

On  the  input  side,  most  ERICs  favour  multidisciplinary  approaches,  which  enable  them  to 
tackle research questions from diverse angles as well as to attract researchers from different 
academic  disciplines.  This  can  significantly  enhance  RI  activities  and  foster  the  overall 
‘productivity’ of the RI system. A second issue about the sustainability of RIs is linked to the 
nature of their stakeholders. The public ownership of RIs is a common feature for the majority 
of ESFRI RIs, 94% of the ESFRI RIs’ stakeholders are public, and only a few RIs have private 
stakeholders. This is also the case for all the Greek NRIs. 

The  process  part  of  the  model  consists  of  four  dimensions.  The  first  one  refers  to  the 
governance  of  RIs  and  underlines  that  most  well-established  RIs  have  developed  similar 
governance mechanisms and bodies, typically comprising a strategic management board, a 
general director, and an internal scientific committee. The second dimension of governance 
is linked to the nature of human resources, as most staff of RIs should be permanent. This 
provides stability and continuity to the organisation, while allowing for consistent operations 
and the ability to build capacity over time. The third dimension of governance is linked to the 
ownership of the equipment, which is generally partly owned and partly in use through service 
agreements.  Finally,  the  fourth  dimension  of  governance  refers  to  the  main  activities 
performed  by  RI.  Service  provision  is  the  most  typical  activity  and  is  generally  divided 
between  access  to  data,  training  services,  access  to  facilities  and  research  services.  The 

29This scheme highlights the dimensions of an ERIC sustainability model. The colours of the various 
elements indicate the average level of expression of each element by the ERICs (green: the element is 
positively expressed; orange: the element is partly expressed; red: the element is marginally or not-at-all 
expressed;). 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
second and third most typical activities of service provision are research and training, and, to 
a lesser extent, education. 

In terms of output, the model distinguished between financially evaluated outputs and non-
financially  evaluated  outputs.  The  former  category  refers  to  outputs  linked  to  access  to 
facilities or data, training, contract research, IP and licensing and to a lesser extent through 
spin-offs. Non-financially evaluated outputs refer to publications and educational or training 
activities. 

On  this  basis,  the  implementation  plan  of  a  performance-based  funding  system  for Greek 
NRIs is structured in a three-step approach. The first step is directly inspired from the ERIC 
sustainability model and aims to develop a long-term sustainability (LTS) plan for the NRIs 
though (a) the definition of LTS objectives and (b) the elaboration of a pathway to achieve 
them.  The  second  step  involves  defining  the  funding  scheme  to  enhance  performance 
through the definition of (c) the share of funding tied to performance, (d) the periodicity of the 
assessment,  and  (e)  the  modalities  of  the  assessment.  Finally,  the  third  step  is  the 
implementation  of  the PBF scheme  through  (a) the  first  phase  of  the  evaluation  (eligibility 
criteria), (b) the second phase of the evaluation (quality criteria), and (c) the funding decision. 

Develop a Long-Term 
Sustainability Plan for 
NRIs
• Define objectives of the 

LTS

• Develop a pathway for 

NRIs towards LTS

Embed the PBF 
mechanism within the 
LTS of NRIs
• Define the share of 

funding tied to 
performance

• Define the periodicity of 

the assessment

• Define the modalities of 

the assessment

Strengthen the LTS of 
NRIs through 
implementation of 
PBF
• Implementation of the 

first phase of the 
evaluation (eligibility 
criteria)

• Implementation of the 
second phase of the 
evaluation (quality 
criteria)

• Funding decision

Figure 12: Implementation plan for the evaluation of Greek NRIs 
Source: authors 

4.3. Description of the proposed actions 

Action 1.1 

Phase 1 – Define the objective of the Long-Term Sustainability plan 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

Second semester 2023 

Resources  

Human resources 

Description 
of the action 

Following the framework designed by the ERIC forum, the national LTS plan should 
focus on the definition of a general vision for Greek NRIs, including: 

36 

 
 
 
 
Action 1.1 

Phase 1 – Define the objective of the Long-Term Sustainability plan 

• 

Inputs 

−  A multidisciplinary approach of research activities should be incentivised. 

−  Given  the  mainly  public  nature  of  the  NRIs’  stakeholders  and  the  public 
funding, the NRIs should contribute to achieving national strategic goals. 

• 

Process 

−  A  clear  governance  framework  and  management  structure  including,  at  a 
minimum, a strategic management board, a general director/manager, and 
an internal scientific committee. 

−  A human resource policy favouring the permanency of staff. 

−  A set of NRIs’ activities articulated around research services, access to data 
and  facilities  (including  a  clear  access  policy),  training  services  and 
education. 

•  Outputs.  A  set  of  NRIs’  outputs  linked  to  financially  and  non-financially 

evaluated outputs should be defined and may include: 

−  Financially evaluated outputs: access to facility and data, training, contract 

research, IP and licensing, and spin-offs. 

−  Non-financially  evaluated  outputs:  publication,  education,  professional 

journals, workshop, research project activity, and marketing strategy. 

 Milestones 

• 

The general vision for Greek NRIs should be released together with the next 
call for funding. 

Action 1.2 

Phase 1 – Develop a pathway for NRIs towards long-term 
sustainability. 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI and NRIs 

Timeframe 

Second semester 2023 

Resources  

Human resources 

Description 
of the action 

• 

• 

• 

Following  the  national  Long-Term  Sustainability  plan  for  NRIs,  this  second 
action  aims  to  develop  a pathway  towards  sustainability  with each  of  the  six 
main groups of Greek NRIs.30 To do so, we recommend the implementation of 
agreements with each NRI selected for funding during the 2021-2027 period. 
These agreements should include measurable performance standards through 
key performance indicators (KPIs) and performance targets to be reached. 

A proposed NRI performance reporting template is included in annex 4. 

The list of KPIs to be used to reflect the specific role of RIs in the national R&I 
system is included in annex 3. 

30 The six groups refer to NRIs in the following categories: (1) agri-food, (2) energy, (3) environment and 
sustainable development, (4) health and pharmaceuticals, (5) physical science and materials, and (6) data 
and digital research infrastructures. NRIs falling under the seventh ESFRI grouping (social and cultural 
innovation) are included in category 6, under data and digital research infrastructures. 

37 

 
 
 
Action 1.2 

Phase 1 – Develop a pathway for NRIs towards long-term 
sustainability. 

Milestones 

• 

The  KPIs  will  be  agreed  as  part  of  the  application  for  funding  and  contract 
negotiations for the new round of NRI funding. As outlined in implementation 
plan 2, guidance and support should be provided to the NRIs in selecting KPIs. 

Action 1.3 

Phase 2 – Define the share of funding tied to performance 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

Second semester 2023 

Resources  

Human resources 

Description of 
the action 

• 

The performance bonus linked to criteria compliance should be high enough to 
be  considered  as  an  incentive  and  should  steer  the  activity  of  NRIs.  At  the 
same  time,  the  bonus  should  not  exceed  a  threshold  that  would  create  too 
much uncertainty in a context in which Greek NRIs already exclusively rely on 
competitive project funding. 

•  We therefore recommend fixing this performance bonus between a minimum 

of 10% and a maximum of 20% of total funding. 

Milestones 

• 

The level should be set prior to the release of the next call for funding. 

Action 1.4 

Phase 2 – Define the periodicity of the assessment 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

Second semester 2023 

Resources  

Human resources 

Description 
of the action 

The periodicity of the assessment is a key feature to be considered when evaluating 
the performance of NRIs. It should be long enough to allow for the implementation 
of NRIs’ activity, while not exceeding the funding period. 

Therefore, we recommend a minimum of 2-3 years after the award of the grants and 
one  to  two  years  after  the  end  of  the  funding  period.  The  assessment  should  be 
aligned with the NRI peer review cycle, as defined below. 

Milestones 

• 

The periodicity of the assessment should be defined prior to the release of the 
call for applications for NRI funding (September 2023). 

38 

 
 
 
 
Action 1.5 

Phase 2 – Define the modalities of the assessment 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

Second semester 2023 to first semester 2024 

Resources  

Human resources 

We  recommend  conducting  a  peer-review  assessment  of  NRIs’  performance.  To 
conduct  the  evaluation,  the  GSRI  will  establish  an  International  Evaluation 
Committee,  which  will  be  chaired  by  an  impartial  and  internationally  recognised 
expert in the fields of RIsand R&D policy. The remaining members of the Committee 
will also be experts in their respective R&D fields. 

The  International  Evaluation  Committee  will  be  composed  of  a  chair  and  six 
scientific panels consisting of at least three members evaluating each group of NRIs 
in the fields defined in the PSF Country report: agri-food, energy, environment and 
sustainable  development,  health  and  pharmaceutical,  physical  sciences  and 
materials, data and digital infrastructure. 

Description 
of the action 

It  would  be  advisable  to  have  the  same  experts  on  horizontal  aspects  such  as 
governance and digital/e-needs aspects across more than one domain. This would 
be  similarly  to  the  ESFRI  procedure  for  project  proposal  evaluations  and  for  the 
monitoring of landmarks. 

We recommend that every scientific panel of the International Evaluation Committee 
includes  one  Greek  Member,  so  that  the  scientific  panel  may  be  provided  with 
information  about  the  RI  landscape  and  R&I  system  in  Greece.  Chairs  of  the 
scientific panels should always be foreign. 

 Milestones 

The modalities of the assessment should be defined by the end of 2023 or in the 
first semester of 2024. 

Action 1.6 

Phase 3 – Application of the eligibility criteria during the selection 
process 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

By mid-2024 

Resources  

Human resources. International Evaluation Committee, composed of six scientific 
panels,  plus  a  chair.  Each  panel  should  be  composed  of  at  least  three  experts 
(among which one Greek member). The evaluation may be done remotely. 

Description of 
the action 

The first stage of the evaluation relies on the assessment of eligibility criteria. The 
examination  of  these  criteria  aims  to  assess  the  nature  of  the  applicant  RI  and 
whether it encompasses a Long-Term Sustainability plan. It should be tied to the 
funding decision made for the period 2024-2027. 

To do so, the eligibility criteria are organised in three main categories: 

•  Operating a unique or a main R&I facility at national level with a clear vision 

and mission statement. 

39 

 
 
Action 1.6 

Phase 3 – Application of the eligibility criteria during the selection 
process 

•  Managing the NRI in accordance with the national LTS plan for RIs, with the 
general vision for Greek NRIs; and with international best practices for access 
policy  or  commitment  to  develop  a  clear  access  policy  for  the  upcoming 
funding period. 

•  Demonstrating  a  positive  effect  on  public  services,  culture,  the  economy, 

health, or the environment beyond the scientific community. 

Six scientific panels in the International Evaluation Committee should evaluate the 
fulfilment of the three eligibility criteria.31 Applicants not complying with these criteria 
will be excluded from the second stage of the evaluation (action 1.7). 

The evaluation form design may be inspired by the ‘Evaluation Form A’ used by the 
Czech MEYS to assess the quality of Czech NRIs.32 

Milestones 

Funding  decision  made  for  NRI  for  the  period  2024-2027  by  the  Ministry  of 
Development and Management Authorities. 

Action 1.7 

Phase 3 – Implementation of the second phase of evaluation (quality 
criteria) 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

By December 2026 

Resources  

Human resources. International  Evaluation Committee, composed of six scientific 
panels,  plus  a  chair.  Each  panel  should  be  composed  of  at  least  three  experts 
(among which one Greek member). Part of the evaluation of the KPIs may be done 
remotely;  interviews  of  management  representatives  of  each  of  the  NRIs  will  be 
done in Greece. 

The quality criteria should be  based on the KPI defined in  implementation plan 2 
(section 5.2). The evaluation will be conducted in three steps: 

• 

First, each scientific panel will provide an assessment of each NRI performance 
on  the  basis  of  the  KPIs  and  performance  targets.  As  a  complement  to  the 
evaluation  of  quality  criteria, 
the  scientific  panels  with 
management representatives of each NRI will be organised to complement the 
information included in each application. 

interviews  of 

Description 
of the action 

•  Harmonisation of the evaluation results will be done in a cross-panel session, 

chaired by the head of the International Evaluation Committee 

• 

A  ‘consensus  report’,  produced  by  each  scientific  panel  and  including  an 
evaluation of the quality of each of the NRIs and recommendations for funding, 
should be provided to the relevant ministry/GSRI. 

31While the evaluation of the eligibility criteria would ideally be performed by six different scientific panels and 
follow the categorisation of NRIs in six groups, it may be possible to reduce the number of panels for the first 
phase of the evaluation. 
32The document can be downloaded at this address: https://www.msmt.cz/file/39360_1_1/  (consulted on 
26.04.2023). 

40 

 
 
 
Action 1.7 

Phase 3 – Implementation of the second phase of evaluation (quality 
criteria) 

The evaluation framework described above aims to provide a quality assessment of 
NRIs. NRIs will be classified according to this evaluation scale: 

GROUP 1 

The NRI stands out for its exceptional quality in terms of its uniqueness, novelty, 
significance, and influence on its users. The RI’s relevance is crucial for the Greek 
R&I system, and it plays an essential role in  contributing to national development 
priorities. 

GROUP 2 

The  NRI  shows  high  quality  and  potential,  but  it  does  not  reach  the  highest 
standards in terms of its uniqueness, originality, significance, and impact on its user 
community.  Nevertheless,  the  RI  remains  highly  pertinent  for  the  Greek  R&I 
system’s  future  development,  significantly  contributing  to  national  development 
priorities. 

GROUP 3 

The NRI’s quality enable the provision of good-quality services in its field. The NRI 
offers substantial potential for future use and is relevant for the Greek R&I system’s 
future development. However, it does not  play an essential role in contributing to 
national development priorities. 

GROUP 4  

The  NRI’s  quality  and potential allow  it to  make a contribution  to  the provision of 
services  in  its  sphere.  Nonetheless,  due  to  its  small  user  community,  low 
significance, and limited relevance for the Greek R&I system’s future development, 
the RI’s impact is relatively minor. 

GROUP 5 

The  NRI  does  not  meet  the  necessary  level  for  providing  relevant  services  at 
national  or  international  level,  and  it  lacks  the  potential  to  become  a  significant 
element in the Greek R&I system's future development. 

We recommend aligning the evaluation scale to this funding framework: 

•  NRIs in group 1 should be provided from 75% to 100% of the financial bonus. 

•  NRIs in group 2 should be provided from 50% to 75% of the financial bonus. 

•  NRIs in group 3 should be provided from 25% to 50% of the financial bonus. 

•  NRIs in group 4 should be provided less than 25% of the financial bonus. 

•  NRIs in group 5 should not be provided any additional funding. 

Milestones 

The second phase of the evaluation should be over by December 2026. 

Action 1.8 

Phase 3 – Publication of evaluation results and funding decision 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

First semester 2027 – before the end of next funding period 

41 

 
 
Action 1.8 

Phase 3 – Publication of evaluation results and funding decision 

Resources  

Regulatory/administrative measures 

Description of 
the action 

The relevant ministry/GSRI will communicate to NRIs the results of the 
evaluation and the funding decision. 

Milestones 

The funding decision should be communicated before the end of the next 
funding period. 

Table 5: Proposed actions  

5. 

Implementation plan 2: a monitoring and evaluation framework 
for the NRIs 

This  section  addresses  the  request  for  the  development  of  a  set  of  key  performance 
indicators (KPIs) that reflect the role of the NRIs in the national R&I system, as referenced in 
recommendation 4.1.5 of the PSF Country Report. 

5.1. Review  of  the  state  of  the  art  in  Greece  compared  to  European  and 

international practice 

RIs  are  part  of  national,  European  and  international  R&I  systems  and  their  activities 
contribute to enhancing research  capacities in specific fields. They also generate, through 
the experiments conducted or data curated and made available, research results that may 
be  exploited  by  other  researchers,  businesses,  the  public  sector,  etc.  In  the  context of  an 
overall  policy  cycle  (Figure  13),  there  is  a  need  to  set  up  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework of RIs’: 

•  Progress  to  meeting  performance  targets  set  by  the  management  team  or by  funding 
bodies, e.g. based on their inclusion in a national research infrastructure roadmap and/or 
following a call for funding applications; and 

•  Medium to long-term socio-economic impact (usually within the framework of objectives 

set by a national strategy, such as a S3).  

Figure 13: Policy cycle for research infrastructures 
Source: Griniece et al (2020) 

42 

 
 
 
Over the last decade, the European RI policy framework, including monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E)  methods  and  tools,  has  been  developed.  This  has  happened  notably  under  the 
European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), as well as by initiatives and 
projects conducted and/or funded by the EC, the OECD and national governments. 

5.1.1.  ESFRI landmark monitoring and indicator framework 

At European level, ESFRI provides the crucial governance framework that helps steer the RI 
policy  cycle,  including  the  monitoring  of  performance  (KPIs,  monitoring  reviews).  ESFRI 
defines  monitoring  as  “the  continuous  process  of  examining  the  performance  of  an  RI 
including the delivery of outputs and supply of services to intended users”. Monitoring is often 
linked to an interim (and final) evaluation: the timing is usually related to the funding cycle of 
the RI rather than necessarily being linked to the lifecycle stage (see Figure 14)  

Figure 14: ESFRI RI lifecycle model 
Source: ESFRI Roadmap 2021 Public Guide 

Since 2018, a number of ESFRI working groups have contributed to developing a monitoring 
framework33  for the  ESFRI  Landmark  RIs,34  including  an  overall  process, self-assessment 
and peer review reporting templates and KPIs. 

Monitoring 
panel set up

• Appointment of 

panel per 
landmark
• Planning of 
monitoring 
process

ESFRI 
Landmarks 
input

• Qualitative 

questionnaire
• Data on KPIs

Panel 
reporting

• Hearings/site 

visits

• Draft panel 

reports

• Decision on 
future of 
Landmark

Figure 15: ESFRI Landmark RIs monitoring framework 
Source: authors based on ESFRI material 

33See: https://www.esfri.eu/monitoring 
34The ESFRI Landmarks are RIs that were implemented, or reached an advanced implementation phase 
under the ESFRI Roadmap. See: https://roadmap2021.esfri.eu/projects-and-landmarks/ 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In  2019,  an  ESFRI  Working  Group  developed  a  set  of  KPIs  for  monitoring35  that  were 
discussed in several working meetings and through a survey of the ESFRI community (policy-
makers and ESFRI RI managers/coordinators) (ESFRI, 2019c). 

Objective 

KPIs 

1.  Number of user requests for access 

Enabling scientific 
excellence 

2.  Number of users served 

3.  Number of publications 

Delivery of education and 
training 

Enhancing collaboration 
in Europe 

Facilitating economic 
activities 

4.  Percentage of top (10%) cited publications 

5.  Number of master and PhD students using the RI 

6.  Training of people who are not RI staff 

7.  Number of members of the RI from ESFRI countries 

8.  Share of users and publications per ESFRI member country 

9.  Share of users associated with industry and publications with 

industry 

10.  Income from commercial activities and the number of entities 

paying for service 

11.  Engagement achieved by direct contact 

Outreach to the public 

12.  Outreach through media 

13.  Outreach via the RI’s own web and social media 

Optimising data use 

14.  Number of publicly available data sets used externally 

Provision of scientific 
advice 

15.  Participation by RIs in policy-related activities 

16.  Citations in policy-related publications 

17.  Share of users and publications per non-ESFRI member country 

Facilitating international 
cooperation 

18.  International trainees 

19.  Number of members of the RI from non-ESFRI countries 

Optimising management 

20.  Revenues 

21.  Extent of resources made available 

Table 6: ESFRI monitoring framework – key performance indicators 
Source: ESFRI (2019c) 

The ESFRI working group recommended that all KPIs should be adjusted to the objectives 
of  RIs  and  fulfil  the  RACER  criteria:  relevant,  accepted,  credible,  easy  to  monitor,  robust. 
Each  KPI  should  be  accompanied  by  a  reference  sheet  that  provides  a  definition,  data 
source(s),  method  of  calculation,  and  other  information  concerning  the  calculation  or 
applicability. 

The ESFRI Landmark Monitoring 2022-2024 First Batch Report (ESFRI, 2023b) drew several 
conclusions from the early implementation of the monitoring framework. These include: 

35https://www.esfri.eu/latest-esfri-news/report-esfri-working-group-monitoring-ris-performance  

44 

 
 
 
 
•  RIs found the monitoring framework and monitoring report template useful both for their 

own needs and for reporting to authorities/funding agencies. 

•  Most  RIs  are  still  working  with  developing  KPIs,  at  different  levels,  and  some  RIs  will 
need  to  invest  more  in  collecting  and  categorising  relevant  data.  Most  RIs  have  only 
started an effort to develop KPIs in recent years. Those with longer standing KPIs are 
adapting their KPIs in line with the ESFRI KPIs, while others are working to adopt KPIs 
suitable for their own needs. 

•  Some  RIs  have  difficulties  in  selecting  such  KPIs  suited  to  the  activities  of  their 
organisations, so further training and guidance are required. It was also helpful that the 
panels could discuss the KPIs before the landmarks filled out the questionnaire,  while 
prior discussion improved the quality of the monitoring exercises. 

•  Socio-economic impact is difficult to measure for many of the RIs, but they all provide 

some form of evidence. 

•  The  main  threat  to  RIs  is  long-term  sustainability,  e.g.  in  terms  of  insecurity  about 
membership of organisations and the commitment of countries, as well as the available 
and  secured  funding,  given  strong  competition  for  funding  and  uncertainty  about  the 
funding and support landscape (at national levels, etc.) 

•  From  a  procedural  viewpoint,  the  monitoring  panels  timeframe  proved  too  tight.  For 
subsequent exercises, the planning of events and requests to RIs should be spread out 
a little more. 

Overall,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  landmark  monitoring  framework  and  KPIs  provide  a 
good model for developing similar exercises at a national level, as in the Greek case. 

5.1.2.  RI impact assessment 

The monitoring of KPIs during the RI project lifecycle provides a basis for the evaluation and 
impact assessment of RIs. While evaluation is not directly under the responsibility of ESFRI, 
ESFRI has recently published a policy brief on RI impact assessment (Kolar et al, 2023)36 
which  builds  on  past  work  done  by  the  OECD  and  through  the  Horizon  2020  RI-PATHS 
project37.  It also cites national good practice including the previous PSF Country assessment 
study for Greece.  

The  impact  assessment  framework  developed  by  RI-PATHS  (Figure  16)  distinguished 
between  three  ‘spheres’  for  which  the  activities,  outcomes  and  impact  of  an  RI  can  be 
monitored and assessed.  The monitoring of KPIs should help provide the data for the ‘sphere 
of control’ which the RI management should be able to track and assess over time.  As the 
focus  shifts  towards  outcomes  and  impacts,  the  data  collected  for  the  KPIs  provides  an 
evidence  base  which  can  be  complemented  through  tracking  other  indicators,  notably  in 
terms of what is done with the research results produced on the RI, how the RIs activities 
influence skills available in the R&I system, etc. 

The  RI-PATHS  project  developed  a  set  of  indicators  covering  four  impact  areas  (human 
resources,  economy  and  innovation,  society,  policy)  and  three  broad  types  of  indicators: 
activity, outcome and impact38.  The indicators, co-developed with RI managers, provide a 
good basis for identifying possible outcomes and impacts and designing impact pathways.  

36See: https://www.esfri.eu/esfri-policy-brief-impact 
37See: https://ri-paths-tool.eu/en  
38See : https://ri-paths-tool.eu/en/indicators  

45 

 
 
Figure 16: RI-PATHS impact assessment framework 
Source: Griniece et al, (2020) 

Likewise,  an  evaluation  of  investments  in  research  and  technological  development 
infrastructures and activities supported by the ERDF, in the period 2007-2013, proposed a 
generalised theory of change of infrastructure investments for research.39  

Figure 17: Theory of change of infrastructure investments for research 
Source: EC DG REGIO (2021) 

The  framework  was  applied  to  several  cases  that  developed  more  elaborated  theory  of 
change models (e.g. Italy below) to evaluate the impact of ERDF support for RIs.40 

The study drew three main conclusions concerning past ERDF support for RIs: 

• 

Insufficient  administrative  and  institutional  capacity,  both  at  the  level  of  the  research 
institution and the responsible MAs. An over-long duration of the evaluation and project 
selection  process,  a  high  fluctuation  of  staff  in  responsible  institutions,  the  untimely 
disbursement  of  funds,  uncertainty  and  ambiguity  regarding  public  procurement  and 
other  laws.  All  of  these  contributed  to  significant  delays  or  negatively  influenced 
implementation. 

•  A limiting factor was a lack of human resources available to manage and operate the 
newly acquired research equipment or to work in the new or modernised infrastructure. 
As a result, laboratories were not operational or they functioned at a significantly reduced 
degree, due to the inability to hire the staff to operate the instruments effectively. This 

39See: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/evaluations/2021/evaluation-of-
investments-in-research-and-technological-development-rtd-infrastructures-and-activities-supported-by-the-
european-regional-development-funds-erdf-in-the-period-2007-2013  
40See: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/evaluation/eval2007/rtd-2007/rtd-2007-italy.pdf  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
limited  the  effectiveness  of  the  investments  for  infrastructure  and  the  purchasing  of 
research equipment. 

•  Uncertainty regarding State aid rules affected the impact of the newly acquired research 
equipment and modernised infrastructure. In some settings, access to the infrastructure 
was at first not allowed for private sector use, while in other settings, it was strictly limited. 
The State aid regulations limited the potential to generate a more diversified use of the 
new infrastructure and the possibility of identifying new revenue sources. Moreover, the 
regulations hampered research organisations from using the infrastructure to engage in 
more pro-active knowledge transfer and cooperation with private sector partners, thereby 
reducing collaboration efforts. 

While these findings concern the 2007-2013 period, it is noteworthy that these problems still 
exist  in  Greece,  as  the  2022  PSF  Country  Report  underlined.  While  an  effective  M&E 
framework  cannot  solve  all  these  issues,  it  should  provide  an  ‘early-warning’  indication  of 
difficulties in implementing NRI projects and meeting intermediate targets. 

In particular, the Greek experience – as analysed in the PSF Country Report – is that, despite 
two  rounds  of  revision  (in  2014  and  202241),  the  State  Aid  Framework  for  Research, 
Development and Innovation (RDI) continues to create difficulties for NRIs seeking to develop 
collaboration with, and generate revenue from, services to businesses. Guidance has been 
developed  on  applying  the  RDI  State  Aid  Framework  for  research  and  knowledge-
dissemination organisations (RDOs), including RIs in 2020, in the form of a set of ‘decision 
trees’ (Kebapci et al, 2020). 

While the RDI State Aid rules were updated in 2022, the guidance remains essentially the 
same  and  Kaiser  et  al  (2021)42  provide  more  details  and  examples  complementing  the 
decision trees and a set of recommendations: 

•  Separate  accounting:  economic  versus  non-economic.  It  is  mandatory  for  RDOs 
(including RIs) having mixed activities that there is no cross-subsidisation of economic 
activities with public financial means intended for their non-economic activities. 

•  Ancillary  economic  activities:  if  a  RI  with  mixed  activities  can  demonstrate  that  its 
economic activities are ancillary (i.e. that they do not account for more than 20% of the 
annual capacity of the RI and that they consume exactly the same inputs  as the non-
economic  activities)  and  are  clearly  separated  from  non-economic  activities,  then  the 
rules for direct State Aid do not apply to the public funding of that RI. 

•  Distinguish  carefully  between  “effective  collaboration”  and  “research  on  behalf  of 
undertakings” for RDI partnerships between an RI and an enterprise, when funded by 
the enterprise. This is important because some of the effective collaborations could be 
wrongly  understood  as  “contract  research  on  behalf  of  undertakings”  and  then  as 
economic  activities.  This  distinction  is  needed  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  economic 
activities do not account for more than 20% of the annual capacity of the RI. 

Where a research infrastructure is used for both economic and non-economic activities, 
public  funding  falls  under  State  Aid  rules  only  insofar  as  it  covers  costs  linked  to  the 
economic activities. Where a research infrastructure is both publicly and privately funded, 
and the public funding exceeds the costs for the non-economic activities, then the excess 
funding is considered to subsidise the economic activities. The presumption applies to the 
relevant  entity  for  the  specific  accounting  period  concerned  by  the  public  support. 
Therefore,  State  Aid  rules  require  separate  accounting  for  economic  and  non-

41See: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/state-aid/legislation/modernisation/rdi_en  
42See: https://www.earto.eu/earto-paper-state-aid-on-rdi-the-right-way/  

47 

 
 
economic activities. Failure to do so makes all public funding subject to State Aid. RIs 
are advised to adjust their financial monitoring practices accordingly. 

Monitoring  of  annual  capacity  is  necessary  if  the  research  infrastructure  needs  to 
demonstrate that economic activities are of an ancillary character. Failure to do so would 
make  all  public  funding  for  the  economic  activities  subject  to  State  Aid  rules.  The 
monitoring procedures required cover annual capacity of those inputs which are used for 
both  non-economic  and  economic  activities  AND calculate  the  percentage  of  economic 
activities as opposed to non-economic. Depending on the nature of activity and the type 
of resources required, capacity can be calculated on the basis of 

• 

• 

• 

time accounting – human resource capacity measured in employee working hours, 

inputs, such as material, equipment and fixed capital, and 

other elements relevant to the specific activity of the entity. 

Box 4: Monitoring to comply with State Aid rules for research infrastructures 
Source: Kepapci et al, 2020 

5.1.3.  Monitoring and evaluation practice in other Member States 

EU Member States with investments in RIs have developed processes and procedures for 
the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of national RIs. However, detailed evidence on the types 
of KPIs applied is limited in publicly available documents. In most cases, the M&E process 
involves: 

•  A call for proposals (usually directed at consortia of partners,  although in some cases 
single site/single institution applications are accepted) for new or further development of 
existing RIs serving the national research  community and/or operating at international 
level. 

• 

In the case of new ‘very large’ investments of national to European scale43, an ex-ante 
‘impact  evaluation’  may  be  requested,  including  a  cost-benefit  analysis.  Such  a  study 
may  provide  a  baseline  for  KPIs  used  in  tracking  the  development  of  the  RI  through 
lifecycle stages. 

•  Annual reporting both of quantitative financial and activity data (on KPI) and through an 

annual (narrative) report on activities and development of the RI. 

•  Periodic (mid-term) external reviews of the RI’s performance (or maturity), often carried 
out  by  a  panel  of  (international)  peers,  usually  commissioned  by  the  funding 
agency/ministry (and hence complementary to any international advisory panels the RI 
may have created as part of its own governance structure). 

• 

In  some  cases,  a  socio-economic  impact  assessment,  e.g.  as  part  of  the  ex-post 
evaluation of ESIF-funded programmes’ support for RI. 

43See for instance, the impact assessment for the Einstein Telescope: 
https://www.einsteintelescope.nl/en/great-opportunity-for-the-region/  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the Czech Republic, as part of the process for applying funding as a large-research 
infrastructure,44  each  RI  is  required  to  make  commitments  to  a  set  of  indicators  to  be 
fulfilled during the future stages of the RI’s implementation. The indicators below are the 
‘obligatorily defined outputs’, pre-defined by the MEYS. 

Type of outcome 

Present 

Planned 

from 

Publications 
the  RI’s 
activities  created  by  the  RI’s 
users (annually) 

from 

Publications 
the  RI’s 
activities the RI’s team members 
participated in (annually) 

number 

number 

number 

number 

National / foreign users of the RI 

number / percentage 

number / percentage 

Master students educated within 
the RI / subset from abroad 

number / number 

number / number 

Ph.D. students trained within the 
RI / subset from abroad 

number / number 

number / number 

Financial  income  from  national 
resources (public/private) 

amount  (million  CZK/year)  / 
amount (million CZK/year) 

amount  (million  CZK/year)  / 
amount (million CZK/year) 

Financial  income  from  foreign 
resources (public/private) 

amount  (million  CZK/year)  / 
amount (million CZK/year) 

amount  (million  CZK/year)  / 
amount (million CZK/year) 

Table 7: Indicators for research infrastructures in Czech Republic 
Source: Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 

In  addition,  each  RI  is  expected  to  define  a  set  of  “indicators  specific  for  the  RI”  to  be 
defined at the RI’s discretion depending on their field of research, maturity, etc. 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  NWO  funds  the  Research  infrastructures:  national  consortia45 
programme,  which  aims,  like  the  Greek  NRIs  programme,  to  strengthen  the  RI 
infrastructure available  to  the  national  research  community.  Funded  Dutch  RIs  must be 
open to the entire research community working at accredited knowledge institutions (all 
universities  and  various  research  institutes).  While  there  are  no  mandatory  KPIs, 
proposals  for  funding  are  expected  to  provide  a  list  of  suitable  KPIs,  milestones  and 
deliverables for the purpose of periodic reporting and an (interim) evaluation, which will 
enable transparent reporting on aspects such as technical and financial realisation and will 

44See: https://www.vyzkumne-infrastruktury.cz/en/roadmap-of-large-research-infrastructures-of-the-czech-
republic/  
45Applications can be submitted by national consortia from all scientific disciplines. Research with, and 
exploitation of, the infrastructure is not financed. NWO finances €1.5 – 10m and host institutes (consortia 
members) provide a 25% own contribution. 

49 

 
 
 
clearly  illustrate  how  the  use  of  the  infrastructure  will  benefit  science,  society  and  the 
economy. 

In Flanders (Belgium), the regulation46 governing the regional government’s investment in 
‘large-scale research infrastructures’47 requires monitoring of both scientific activities and 
outputs as well as of users of the infrastructure. The ‘supervisors’ (RI coordinators) must 
submit a scientific report to the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO): 

•  For  ongoing  projects:  during  the  last  year  of  the  agreement,  a  scientific  report 
indicating the progress status of the research and the project work still to be carried 
out, together with a list of scientific publications, if any. 

•  For  fully  completed  projects:  upon  expiry  of  the  agreement,  a  final  report  on  the 
scientific activities, together with a list of publications related to the project, and the 
logbook (in electronic form) must be added. 

The  supervisor  is  required  to  maintain  a  logbook  from  the  moment  the  infrastructure  is 
operational until the end of the depreciation period, which includes these elements: 

•  The users of the research infrastructure; 

•  The use of the research infrastructure; 

•  The duration of use of the research infrastructure; 

•  User comments on the efficiency and effectiveness of the research infrastructure. 

For the International Research Infrastructures (IRI) programme, proposals are required to 
describe: 

•  The impact and achievements already obtained or to be expected. 

•  The long- and short-term scientific, economic, societal and/or policy-relevant impact 
achieved or to be expected; quantify if possible and provide concrete examples. 

• 

(Where applicable) demonstrate the results/output of previous research funding (i.e. 
key  publications,  patents,  visibility,  training,  development  of  collaborations  and 
projects, development of linkages with Flemish ‘spearhead clusters’, etc.) in the past 
four years. 

The proposals are required to include five specific KPIs, wherever possible, with quantified 
targets for four years. These are expected to cover scientific and economic, societal and/or 
policy-relevant  impact.  For  the  next  call,  the  FWO  will  probably  require  IRIs  to  use  the 
ESFRI KPI as a framework. 

In the Portuguese case, the monitoring of the implementation of the National Roadmap 
of  Research  Infrastructures  of  Strategic  Interest  (RNIE),  as  well  as  the  analysis  of  the 
socio-economic  return  of  RIs  and  the  promotion  of  synergies  with  ESFRI,  are  the 
responsibility  of  the  Research  Infrastructures  Monitoring  Committee,  established  by  the 
FCT48  and  composed  of  national  experts  only.  In  2015,  the  FCT  asked  the  Monitoring 

46See: https://www.fwo.be/en/fellowships-funding/research-infrastructure/large-scale-research-
infrastructure/regulations-for-large-scale-research-infrastructure/  
47See: https://www.fwo.be/en/fellowships-funding/research-infrastructure/large-scale-research-infrastructure/  
48Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) is the national public agency that supports research in 
science, technology and innovation in all areas of knowledge. It is a public institute under the responsibility of 
the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. 

50 

 
 
Committee  to  perform  a  first  analysis  of  the  maturity  of  the  implementation  of  the  52 
infrastructures49 integrated in the RNIE, and their ability to serve the scientific community.50 

The  criteria  used  in  the  maturity  assessment  cover  aspects  related  to  the  process  of 
preparing and implementing a RI. They are also aligned with the assessment for inclusion 
of pan-European infrastructures in the ESFRI Roadmap. The criteria are: context analysis, 
governance and legal framework, articulation with users and other stakeholders, human 
resources policy, strategies for accessing and using and managing data, scientific impact, 
knowledge  extension strategies  and socio-economic  impact,  risk  analysis, sustainability 
and alignment with public policies and societal challenges. 

Following the assessment, three (6%) of the RIs were classified as having low maturity, 
19 medium, 24 high and six very high. The assessment, carried out by panels of experts 
(31 experts in total), was based on a questionnaire sent to the national RIs as well as other 
materials.  No  mandatory  KPIs  appear  to  have  been  defined  by  the  FCT  and  a  more 
narrative approach to explaining impact on research, society and economy was adopted. 

Box 5: Example of evaluation and monitoring framework for research infrastructures 
Source: authors based on references provided 

Beyond quantitative KPIs, the drafting of impact cases51 is one approach that can help RI 
management teams illustrate the results that are derived from the use of the RI. These cases 
can  be  written  up  as  input  to  annual  or  periodic  (interim  evaluation)  reports52  to  illustrate 
impacts or impact pathways (i.e. progress made toward a specific type of impact). They can 
also provide input for promotional material for websites53 or as the basis for videos,54 etc., 
showcasing the RIs’ societal relevance and impact. Use cases or case studies are a similar 
approach and can be focused on how scientific or industrial users have worked with the RI 
and used equipment or (open) datasets55 to generate results or translate them into products 
and/or processes generating economic or societal value. 

5.1.4. 

The  existing  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  of  Greek  research 
infrastructures 

During the 2014-2020 period, the monitoring of NRIs was essentially carried out at two levels 
by the management authorities of the EPANEK Competitiveness Programme, in line with the 
ERDF common indicators and reporting procedures. Only two KPIs were tracked across all 
28  NRIs,  based  on  data  provided  by  the  NRIs,  by  EPANEK-GSRI,  in  line  with  the  ESIF 
regulations, namely: 

•  Number  of  researchers  working  in  improved  research  centre  facilities  (full-time 

equivalents, FTE). 

49Initially 40 infrastructures were selected to access funding from the ERDF operational programmes through 
two tenders launched in 2016 and 2017, following which 39 projects were contracted for a total of €131.5m 
eligible public funding, to be implemented by 2021. A further 12 RIs were included in the revised national RI 
roadmap in 2019 and were covered by the maturity assessment. 
50See: https://www.fct.pt/en/financiamento/programas-de-financiamento/avaliacao-de-maturidade-das-
infraestruturas-de-investigacao-de-interesse-estrategico/  
51See for instance guidance here: https://www.ucd.ie/impacttoolkit/communicate/writinganimpactcasestudy/  
52See for instance CERN’s knowledge transfer highlights report: https://kt.cern/annual-report  
53See for instance: https://www.syke.fi/en-
US/SYKE_evaluation/Societal_impact_and_sustainability_leadership - https://www.nwo.nl/en/cases/granted-
when-email-comes-your-heart-rate-shoots or https://www.infraportal.org.uk/browse-all-case-studies  
54See for instance: https://www.cells.es/en/outreach/videos or 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivVORUxABiQ&ab_channel=NWOWetenschap  
55See for instance: https://www.openaire.eu/case-studies or 
https://innovation.desy.de/for_industry/case_studies/index_eng.html  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Number of young researchers (FTE). 

As  summarised  in  the  PSF  Country  Report,  individual  NRIs  also  set  up  their  own  KPI 
reporting  frameworks,  inspired  by  ESFRI  (e.g.  used  by  OMIC-ENGINE),  RI-PATHs  (e.g. 
HIMIOFOTS) or other EU-level RIs (e.g. CBMR applied KPIs in line with those adopted by 
EMBRC-ERIC). Moreover, as part of the PSF Country exercise, the NRIs were asked, via a 
survey,  to  rank  the  importance  of  a  selected  list  of  KPIs  (mainly  based  on  the  ESFRI 
indicators). The diagram below summarises the share of NRIs ranking a set of possible KPIs 
as “Important” or “Very important”. 

Figure 18: Percentage of NRIs evaluating each KPI as “very important” or “important” 
Source: Strogylopoulos & Paliogiannis (2022) 

The KPIs given the most importance, in the 2014-2020 period, reflect the focus on supporting 
young researchers (as a means to reduce the brain-drain from science and Greece), followed 
by total NRI revenue. Other high-ranked KPIs are the utilisation of knowledge generated by 
using the NRI and the number of scientific publications produced. Indicators related to RI-
service uptake were also mostly highly ranked, such as number of users served and number 
of user access requests. However, very few NRIs generated revenues from access services, 
during  this  period,  as  reflected  in  the  lower score given to  the  indicator  ‘revenue  from  the 
provision  of  services’.  The  limited  focus  on  ‘economic  return’  is  underlined  by  the  low 
frequency of the indicator ‘number of patents filed by NRI members’. 

Detailed responses to the open questions in the questionnaire suggest that NRIs are aware 
of the importance of attracting and serving users. Indicators such as number of user access 
requests, number of users served, number of postgraduate and doctoral students using the 
services and training of non-NRI staff are all core indicators reflecting the service provision 
function of an NRI and the need to inform and train a community of users.  

From an OS perspective, it is noticeable that the indicator ‘number of publicly available data 
sets’ was scored lowly, with one NRI noting that “public data sets are not common practice 
for certain of our research topics”. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
For  the  current  2021-2027  reporting  period,  the  management  authority  (MA)  for  the 
Competitiveness  Programme  confirmed  that  they  will  apply  the common  output  and result 
indicators of the ERDF regulation (listed in table 1 of annex 1 of the Regulation)56 and have 
not created specific additional indicators. The table below presents the full choice of possible 
output and result indicators available for the specific objective Developing and enhancing R&I 
capacities and the uptake of advanced technologies under Policy Objective 1 (PO1) ‘A more 
competitive and smarter Europe by promoting innovative and smart economic transformation 
and regional ICT connectivity’. 

Outputs 

Results 

RCO 01 – Enterprises supported (of which: 
micro, small, medium, large) 

RCO 02 – Enterprises supported by grants 

RCO 03 – Enterprises supported by financial 
instruments* 

RCO 04 – Enterprises with non-financial support 

RCO 05 – New enterprises supported 

RCO 06 – Researchers working in supported 
research facilities 

RCO 07 – Research organisations participating 
in joint research projects 

RCR 01 – Jobs created in supported entities 

RCR 02 – Research jobs created in supported 
entities* 

RCR 02 – Private investments matching public 
support (of which: grants, financial instruments) 

RCR 03 – Small and medium-size enterprises 
(SMEs) introducing product or process 
innovation* 

RCR 04 – SMEs introducing marketing or 
organisational innovation* 

RCR 05 – SMEs innovating in-house 

RCO 08 – Nominal value of R&I equipment 

RCR 06 – Patent applications submitted* 

RCO 10 – Enterprises cooperating with research 
organisations 

RCR 07 – Trademark and design applications 

RCO 96 – Interregional investments for 
innovation in Union projects 

RCR 08 – Publications from supported projects 

Table 8: Common output and result indicators for ERDF 2021-2027 for policy objective 1 
Source: ERDF Regulation (2021) 

According to the MA, the common indicators that will be applied to the NRIs funded during 
2021-2017 are: 

•  Researchers working in support research facilities (RCO 06) – output indicator. 

•  Nominal value of R&I equipment (RCO 08) – output indicator. 

•  Publications from supported projects (RCR 08) – result indicator. 

For the first indicator, the MA indicated they would qualify the indicator by focusing on ‘young 
researchers’  without  specifying  how  this  term  will  be  defined  (e.g.  age,  qualification  level, 
etc.). Potentially, other common output and result indicators could be also relevant, e.g. RCO 
07  on  research  organisations  participating  in  joint  research  projects,  RCR  02  on  private 

56Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the 
Cohesion Fund.  OJ of the EU, L231 of 30 June 2021. 

53 

 
 
 
 
investments matching public support (e.g. if a private company co-invests in a NRI facility or 
equipment), or RCR 06 patent applications submitted. The indicators proposed by the PSF 
Open report could be added as additional indicators. 

However,  the  ERDF  common  output  and  result  indicators  do  not  provide  an  ideal 
framework for monitoring and assessing the performance of a NRI which is primarily 
expected to provide services to users (academic researchers, private companies, public 
sector  organisations),  rather  than  producing  publications,  patents  or  product/process 
innovations itself. Hence, there is a need in designing the M&E framework to go beyond these 
indicators, or at least for a core group of ‘mandatory’ indicators (e.g. Czech example). 

The GSRI organises periodic assessments of (11) research centres and institutes under its 
supervision,  e.g.  the  Institute  of  Molecular  Biology  and  Biotechnology  (IMBB),  the  Athena 
Research Centre, etc. The assessments are carried out by a panel of international experts, 
who produce an evaluation report structured as follows: 

•  General assessment of the institute’s performance and its standing in the international 

scene. 

•  Evaluation  of  the  infrastructure  and  the  operation  of  the  facilities  plus  comments  on 

planned developments. 

•  Evaluation of the recruitment practices, operational and financial management. 

•  Evaluation of the policies and practices for inclusion and diversity, gender equality and 

scientific integrity. 

•  Assessment of the national and international institutional collaboration potential. 

•  Evaluation of the innovation and application-related activities and IP protection practices. 

•  SWOT and recommendations on the planned directions and priorities. 

The reports provide a peer-based narrative assessment, but use data derived from KPIs. The 
GSRI intends to develop a platform to which all GSRI-supervised research institutes will input 
data annually for the experts analyse it. The GSRI is in the process of defining the indicators 
and the indicators proposed by the PSF Open for the NRIs can feed into this process. 

We  recommend  that  all  Greek  research  infrastructures,  independent  of  their  source  of 
funding (ERDF, RRF, EIB, national budget, etc.), should be monitored and evaluated using 
the same common framework and process. 

5.2. Overview of proposed actions to meet the PSF recommendations 

The  development  of  a  set  of  KPIs  was  one  of  the  recommendations  of  the  PSF  Country 
Report  (EC,  2022),  namely  to:  “adopt  a  set  of  key  performance  indicators  that  reflect  the 
specific role of RIs in the national R&I system”. During the PSF Open kick-off meeting, the 
GSRI confirmed that KPIs will be used at a policy level, by the Greek authorities for: 

(a)  Assessing NRIs performance during interim and ex-post evaluations; 

(b)  Allocation  of  performance  reserves  (or  additional 

funding  awarded  based  on 

performance) (see implementation plan 1); and 

(c)  As input to the design of funding instruments according to the NRIs’ lifecycle stage (e.g. 
with variations in eligible expenses, level of funding) (in support of implementation plan 
1). 

54 

 
At an operational level, the KPIs should also be useable by the NRI for: 

(a)  Self-assessing their own progress on their contribution to national priorities; and 

(b)  Developing  and  implementing  business  models  which  envisage  a  diversified  input  of 
public  funding,  i.e.  obtaining  additional  funding  from  different  public  programmes 
(national, regional and European) as well as recovering costs or generating revenue from 
service provision to users (businesses, public sector bodies, etc.). 

The KPIs will be included in the NRI call for proposals as a framework, and applied, at a later 
stage,  during  the  implementation  of  projects.  Additionally,  the  GSRI  requested  that  a 
methodology for the implementation of the KPI framework should be provided as part of the 
implementation plan. The implementation plan 2 framework is illustrated below. 

NRI monitoring 
and evaluation 
framework 
design and set 
up
• M&E 

management 
committee 
(team)

• KPI 'menu' for 
NRIs to select 
a relevant 
subset from
• Templates for 
reporting and 
impact cases

• Open data 

repository set 
up

NRI 
management 
performance 
tracking
• Monitoring 

procedure for 
selected KPIs 
defined and 
data collection

• Annual 

reporting on 
NRI progress 
and 
performance
• Impact cases 
(narratives)

NRI peer review 
(mid-term and 
final)
• Peer review 

panels set up 
for (groups of) 
NRIs to assess 
scientific 
excellence and 
NRI operations

• Peer review 
hearings/site 
visits 

• Peer review 

reports 
submitted to 
GSRI

Impact 
evaluation 
(2027+)
• Consolidated 
KPI dataset 
• Consolidated 
set of impact 
cases

• Peer review 

reports

• Tender for 
evaluation
• Evaluation 
focusing on 
impacts on 
research 
system, 
innovation and 
societal 
priorities

Figure 19: Overall framework for the implementation plan 2 

The framework is split into four main steps, with specific actions foreseen for each step.  

The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework requires the establishment of a ‘governance 
structure’. We recommend that a NRI Management team be established (within the GSRI, 
but in close liaison with other ministries and agencies) with responsibility for supervising the 
monitoring and evaluation of the NRI and suitably resourced (two to three staff, budget for 
peer  reviewers,  evaluations,  etc.)  over  the  period  2023-2030.  This  will  enable  the  M&E 
framework of the NRIs to be designed and implemented effectively. In addition to the M&E 
tasks,  the  NRI  Management  Team  would  be  responsible  for  drafting  and  developing  an 
updated national RI roadmap and landscape analysis (as recommended by the PSF Country 
report). 

The  GSRI  has  overall  responsibility  for  research  infrastructure  policy.  However,  other 
ministries, agencies and bodies provide funding, have an interest in the performance of NRIs 
for their fields of activity, or have expertise that can be applied to supporting the development 
and  monitoring  and  assessing  the  performance  of  the  NRIs.  Such  a  cross-departmental 

55 

 
 
 
approach is in line with the shift towards a ‘whole of government approach’57 and recognises 
that  NRIs  may  and  should  lead  to  results  and  impacts  that  contribute  to  a  wide  range  of 
national policy priorities across various ministries. We therefore recommend that a cross-
departmental NRI supervisory committee be formed. It would meet as required (but no less 
than once a semester) to review progress in implementing this plan and the development of 
the selected NRIs. The committee would receive reports and background information from 
the NRI management team, based on the monitoring of KPIs, etc. 

We recommend that all NRIs should be required to report on a minimum set of KPIs. 
These will be additional to the three ‘common indicators’ required by the ESIF Management 
Authorities for the Antagonistikotita (Competitiveness) Operational Programme.58 The 
obligatory set of KPIs to be tracked by all NRIs should include: 

•  Usage  of  the  RI:  this  may  be  measured  by  the  NRI  in  terms  of  one  or  more  of  the 
following:  number  of  users,  usage  ratio  (annual  hours  equipment  used/annual  time 
theoretically available), and/or access and download of datasets. Wherever possible, the 
usage should be broken down by type of user: Greek or international; researchers from 
HEIs  or  research  centres  other  than  the  host  institution(s);  researchers  from  the 
consortium institutions; private enterprises, public bodies, others (NGOs, etc.). 

•  Training: masters and PhD students educated and trained within the RI and indicating 
the number of hours of training received: broken down by nationality and distinguishing 
between  students  from  the  consortium  institutions  versus  students  from  other  HEIs 
(Greek or foreign). 

• 

Income: (additional to funding from the Antagonistikotita OP) broken down by type of 
income  (grant,  charitable  donation,  payment  for  services,  intellectual  property  licence 
payments,  etc.),  service  provided,  type  of  organisation  providing  the  funding,  whether 
from  national,  EU  (programmes,  other  Member  States’  organisations)  or  non-EU 
countries’ resources. 

•  Publications:  the  common  ERDF  result  indicator  is  not  fully  suitable  for  a  research 
infrastructure, since the NRI staff should be providing services to other researchers and 
not,  as  a  main  occupation,  be  carrying  out  research  themselves.  Therefore,  it  is 
recommended that the indicator should be retained but the NRIs should be required to 
differentiate publications authored by external users of the NRI and those in which the 
NRI’s team members are (co-) authors. To this end, an appropriate policy of requiring 
users to acknowledge use of equipment, data and/or technical support provided by the 
NRI  when  publishing  should  be  in  place  in  all  NRIs.  An  open  access  policy  for 
publications should be respected and the share of publications generated by the usage 
of the RI that are open access should be reported. 

•  Open Science: in line with Action 6: NRI open science assessment of implementation 
plan 3, we also recommend that an appropriate KPI should be included to assess the 
NRIs’ contribution to OS. Examples of metrics could include, e.g. measures to FAIRify 
data, use of certified repositories, publishing guidelines for users, participation in HOSI 
expert groups, implementation of HOSI recommendations, training, etc. The list of criteria 
for measuring performances should be jointly discussed and validated within HOSI (e.g. 
via an expert group on Monitoring). The EOSC Partnership Monitoring Framework could 
also be explored for inspiration on KPIs in the OS area.59 

57See: https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/statistics/policy-support-facility/psf-challenge/mutual-
learning-exercise-whole-government-approach-research-and-innovation 
58See: https://21-27.antagonistikotita.gr/  
59See: https://eosc.eu/sites/default/files/2022-05/Monitoring%20Framework.pdf  

56 

 
 
The set of obligatory KPIs is presented in table format in annex in section 3. We recommend 
that each NRI, as part of its funding application, provides a baseline situation (last full year of 
operation) as well as mid-term (end 2026) and final (2029 assuming N+2 operations) targets 
for each obligatory KPI. They may adjust the five core indicators to reflect their field of science 
and operations, but should justify any changes made to the above definitions.  

In addition, we recommend that NRIs should be free to define additional KPIs on which they 
want  their  performance  to  be  assessed  and  similarly  indicate  baselines  and  targets.  We 
recommend that each NRI adopts a limited number of KPIs, and not more than 10 KPIs. 

Maturity of governance structure and management procedures

Quality of user access policy

Strategic outlook: uniqueness and alignment with national strategy  

European collaboration

Impact on research excellence (including training of researchers) 

Impact on innovation (on one or more S3 priorities).

Figure 20: Performance reporting framework 
Source: authors based on PSF Country Report 

We  recommend  that  the  template  for  NRI  reporting  (mid-term  and  final  reviews)  are 
structured according to the six broad criteria developed by the PSF Country panel (see Figure 
20).  A proposed NRI performance reporting template is included in annex in section 4. 

We  recommend  that,  to  complement  the  KPIs  and  ensure  a  qualitative  and  narrative 
approach to recording and presenting pathways to impact, the NRIs should provide at least 
two impact cases by mid-term and four by the end of the period. A template for impact case 
reporting is provided in annex 5. 

A  final  recommendation  is  that  the  NRI  management  team  should  set  up,  or  use  a 
procurement procedure, to develop a NRI monitoring database. This database would enable 
all  NRIs  to  report  online  their  KPI  performance,  as  well  as  to  submit  impact  cases.  This 
database should ideally include an open access repository of FAIR research data and digitally 
identified  objects.  The  database  should  enable  the  NRI  management  team  to  generate 
reports and visualisations for specific NRIs or groups of NRI that can be used by the NRI 
Supervisory Committee, as well as by the peers and evaluators. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. Description of the proposed actions 

The following actions are proposed for the implementation plan: 

Action 2.1 

Establishment of the NRI Management Team 

Action 
owner(s) 

(Deputy) Minister for Development & GSRI 

Timeframe 

September-December 2023 

Resources  

2-3 staff members are assigned (or recruited if so required) within the GSRI to 
staff the NRI Management Team, plus appropriate budgetary funding allocated for 
full cycle of M&E (technical expertise, peers, external evaluation, etc.), 
administrative orders issued as per Greek legislation. 

Description 
of the action 

Milestones 

• 

• 

• 

• 

At least 2 full-time equivalent staff assigned to supervising the 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the NRIs. The staff should 
either have past expertise in research infrastructure policy, RI management 
and a knowledge of evaluation of research and/or RI impact assessment. If so 
required, the staff should be provided with training on these topics. 

Estimation of required financial resources for the period to 2029 for 
implementation of the M&E plan. 

Approval of the required staff and financial resources. 

Assignment or recruitment of staff. 

Action 2.2 

NRI monitoring and evaluation framework design 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI in co-operation with the relevant ministries, agencies and management 
authorities 

Timeframe 

Last quarter 2023 to end of first quarter 2024 

Resources  

Core GSRI NRI team staff plus experts from Ministry of Digital Governance. If 
required, technical expertise for designing the monitoring platform may be 
provided via a procurement contract. 

Description of 
the action 

• 

• 

• 

Approval of the composition of the NRI Supervisory Committee. We 
recommend that this committee should include at least representatives of the 
GSRI (chair), Antagonistikotita OP Management Authorities, HAHE, MERAS, 
the NCRTI and the HRIF. 

Adaptation of the proposed reporting templates (annexed to this report) by 
the GSRI in consultation with the Antagonistikotita OP Management 
Authorities and in consultation with the NRI Supervisory committee. 

Technical specifications for the NRI monitoring platform to be developed in 
partnership with the Ministry of Digital Governance (which is currently 
supporting the design of the platform for the NRI applications) and, if 
required, by an external consultant (procurement). 

58 

 
 
Milestones 

• 

• 

• 

Establishment of the NRI Supervisory Committee – last quarter 2023. 

Preparation of reporting templates and other procedural documents for the 
NRI reporting – in time for launch of projects (first quarter 2024). 

Technical specification of the NRI monitoring platform approved – first 
quarter 2024. 

Action 2.3 

NRI on-going performance tracking 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI and coordinators of the funded NRI projects 

Timeframe 

First semester 2024 to completion of all projects (2028) 

Approximately 1 day per month for NRI coordinators after initial set-up. 

Resources  

Approximately 1 FTE at GSRI overseeing and managing reporting by NRIs on 
KPIs, etc. Additional technical support from Ministry of Digital Governance for 
updating, technical improvements, etc. of the monitoring platform. 

Description of 
the action 

Milestones 

•  GSRI should organise a training workshop for all NRI coordinators on 

monitoring and designing impact pathways. 

• 

Each NRI coordinator should develop an internal M&E plan that includes 
developing specific impact pathways. 

•  NRI coordinators should continually monitor and complete the reporting on 
specific KPIs, notably usage, etc. Depending on the indicator, this may 
mean monthly, quarterly or annual updates of KPI data. 

• 

• 

• 

Annual reports should be submitted by NRI coordinators to GSRI. 

Training workshop on RI impact pathways and monitoring KPIs delivered 
(by third quarter 2024). 

All NRI coordinators submit with first annual report their internal M&E plan, 
as well as proposed impact pathways. 

•  Data on KPIs updated at least every six months by NRI coordinators to the 

NRI monitoring platform. 

• 

• 

Annual reports submitted by NRI coordinators. 

At least two impact cases submitted by mid-term and four by end of project. 

Action 2.4 

Greek National Research Infrastructure Monitoring Platform 

Action 
owner(s) 

Timeframe 

GSRI, Ministry of Digital Governance 

•  Design phase – by mid-2024 

•  Operational – by end 2024 

59 

 
 
 
Resources  

•  Depending on the design specifications and hosting options, this may be 
handled by internal IT experts (e.g. at Ministry of Digital Governance) or 
outsourced (e.g. to GRNET). 

• 

The platform budget could be integrated in one of the NRI projects, in order 
to provide a single cloud-based portal for all NRIs to present services, 
datasets and to record data on KPIs. 

Description of 
the action 

•  Development of a web platform enabling the NRIs to present a catalogue of 
services on a public facing site and give access to FAIR data and digital 
objects developed by researchers using the NRIs, plus an ‘extranet’ platform 
for reporting on KPIs and annual reports. 

• 

The platform should ideally be integrated as part of the Greek EOSC node 
(see action 3.8 below). 

•  Monitoring platform operational by end 2024. 

Milestones 

•  On-going technical improvements and updates during period to 2028 (end of 

NRI projects). 

Action 2.5 

Impact evaluation 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI and NRI supervisory committee 

Timeframe 

2027-2028 

•  Human resources: 1-2 project officers from GSRI (part-time) to oversee 

Resources  

process. 

Description of 
the action 

Milestones 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Funding: approximately €250,000 tender for external evaluation (public 
procurement) plus budget for peers for panels (travel and allowance). 

Preparation of the terms of reference for the procurement tender to select 
an independent evaluation team. 

The evaluation will build on the dataset developed through the NRI 
monitoring procedures set out in the previous actions, including the impact 
cases and reports of the peer review panels. 

The evaluation findings should provide input for the design of the funding 
programme for NRIs for the next financial period. 

Tender documents prepared by mid-2027. 

Tender launched and supplier selected by end 2027. 

Evaluation during the first semester 2028. 

Final report published and recommendations presented – third quarter 
2028. 

Table 9: Proposed actions 

60 

 
 
 
 
6. 

Implementation plan 3: enhancing research digitalisation and 
open science practices in the NRI ecosystem 

6.1. Review  of  the  state  of  the  art  in  Greece  compared  to  European  and 

international practice. 

6.1.1.  Open Science as a national strategy 

Over the last decade, open science (OS) has become a policy priority in Europe and is now 
the  standard  method  of  working  under  the  European  Commission’s  R&I  funding 
programmes.60  OS  has  also  been  embraced  by  EU  Member  States,  which  have  adopted 
national  plans  and  strategies  aimed  at  making  OS  the  default  practice  in  the  research 
ecosystem.61 

The  publication  in  June  2020  by  a  group  of  Greek  academic,  research,  and  infrastructure 
stakeholders of a National Open Science Plan and the establishment in February 2022 of the 
Hellenic Open Science Initiative (HOSI)62 – which aims to advance and implement this plan 
nationally  –  are  positive  developments.  They  will  allow  Greece  to  align  with  other  well-
advanced European countries. 

The  Greek  draft  plan  for  Open  Science,  which  is  currently  being  discussed  by  the  Greek 
authorities (Ministry of Digital Governance, MERAS, and GSRI), provides a sound basis for 
setting up a National Open Science Strategy. 

The draft plan is far-reaching, encompassing many aspects of the Greek research and OS 
ecosystem. It covers four key areas of the OS ecosystem (open access to publications, open 
access & reuse of research data, development and management of research software, and 
open access to NRIs and e-Infrastructures). 

The  draft  plan  lists  62  actions  to  be  undertaken.  These  range  from  infrastructure 
developments  and  investments  (in  platforms,  aggregators,  repositories,  services,  etc.)  to 
educational and research policies (on curricula, skills, incentives & rewards for researchers, 
etc.), as well as funding (creating of a national fund for OS) and legislative measures (change 
of Greek research and intellectual property law). 

To be realised, the draft plan will require the involvement and buy-in of many stakeholders, 
including 
funding 
organisations, libraries, and scientific publishers. 

researchers,  universities  and 

research  organisations, 

research 

The Hellenic Open Science Initiative was created in the aftermath of the first publication of 
the plan and has the objective to ”formulate the national strategy, along with initiatives and 

60See https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-
science_en 
61See for example, the Second French Plan for Open Science in France, the Open Science and Research 
initiative in Finland, the National Programme Open Science in the Netherlands, the National Action Plan for 
Open Research in Ireland, the National Strategy for Open Science 2023-2027 in Spain, or the Roadmap for 
Open Science in Italy, to name just a few initiatives. 
62https://www.openaire.eu/blogs/introducing-the-hellenic-open-science-initiative-hosi 

61 

 
 
actions, for implementing Open Science in Greece by updating and specifying the ‘National 
Plan for Open Science’ (…).”63 

Currently,  HOSI  has  14  members,  including  research  and  library  organisations,  and 
technology  providers.  It  has  a  small  ‘organising  committee’,  which  prioritises  topics  for 
discussion  by  the  ‘general  assembly’  and  the  three  ‘working  groups’,  which  have  been 
established  on  training,  software,  and  the  OS  plan  itself.  HOSI  operates  on  the  basis  of 
voluntary contributions from its members, without any central budget. 

In other countries, where OS policies have been successfully implemented for several years, 
such as France or Finland, we find a comparable organisation of the activities, with a central 
group of stakeholders (or organisation) tasked with coordinating actions undertaken by the 
wider community. 

In France, representatives from higher authorities (ministries, research organisations, funding 
agencies, etc.) are directly involved in the actual steering of the initiative. Finland, in a more 
bottom-up style, gives a large role to the ‘community of practitioners’, with little, if any, steering 
from central authorities. 

In both cases, an organisation has been empowered to effectively implement a set of agreed 
actions  and  tasks  –  with  a  clear  mandate,  executive  power,  and  financial  support.  These 
elements appear to be lacking in HOSI and so they should be made more explicit. Indeed, 
these  elements  will  be  critical  for  HOSI,  as  they  would  enable  it  to  effectively  steer  the 
implementation of the actions laid out in the national plan. 

The French Committee for Open Science – involving higher authorities and decision 
makers at all stages  

In France, the implementation of the national plan is delegated to a specific committee – 
the Committee for Open Science – which includes a Steering Committee consisting of 
high-level representatives from ministries, research agencies and universities. This gives 
some  authority  to  the  Committee,  which  is  entrusted  to  make  decisions  concerning  the 
most  strategic  aspects  of  the  plan  and  to  decide  which  calls  and  initiatives  should  be 
financed. 

A National Fund for Open Science supports the overall initiative, and therefore provides 
the financial means to realise the actions set out in the plan. This fund was allocated €5m 
per year during the first plan and grew to €15m per year during the second. 

This Committee is supported by a Permanent Secretariat for Open Science, led by a 
National  Coordinator  for  Open Science,  and  including  several  senior representatives 
from  ministries,  universities  and  other  stakeholders.  The  Secretariat  is  responsible  for 
preparing the Steering Committee for Open Science’s work and ensuring its decisions are 
implemented.  

The  Secretariat  also  coordinates  the  work  of  five  Colleges  (on  Publications,  Research 
Data, Europe and International, Skills and Training, Software and Source Code), and two 
Expert Groups (on Open Scientific Publishing and Legal Affairs), which provide guidance 
on specific topics. It also oversees the ouvrirlascience.fr website. 

63Ibid. Another key objective of HOSI is to manage Greece’s national representation in the EOSC 
Association 

62 

 
 
Finally,  a  Forum  for  Open  Science,  consisting  of  over  300  professionals  from  higher 
education  and  research  organisations,  supports  the  Committee  by  contributing  the 
experience  in  the  field  of  professionals  from  higher education  and  research  institutions. 
The Forum provides a space for dialogue, sharing and building shared expertise. 

Box 6: Open science in France 

The Open Science and Research Initiative in Finland: Open Science for and by the 
Research Community 

The  Open  Science  and  Research Initiative  in  Finland  is  a  good  example  of  how  the 
drafting and implementation of  OS policies can be effectively managed by the research 
community. 

In  Finland,  the  Ministry  of  Education  and  Culture has  delegated  the  coordination  of  the 
National  Open  and  Research  Initiative  [to  the  research  community  itself,  with  the 
coordination responsibility assigned to the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV), 
which includes 295 societies and four academies from all branches of arts and sciences. 

Experts Panels from the research community are responsible for drafting policies related 
to open scholarship, open data, open access to research publications and open education. 
Expert panels can decide to establish Working Groups on specific topics. 

These policies are then approved by a Steering Group made up of members appointed 
by  the  key  organisations  in  the  Finnish  research  community  (representing  universities, 
research  funding  and  performing  organisations,  e-Infrastructures,  libraries,  and  various 
other stakeholders). Each organisation is then responsible for implementing the policies 
locally. 

A  Secretariat,  hosted  by  TSV  and  funded  by  the  Ministry  of  Education  and  Culture, 
supports the activities and organises events related to expert work in OS. The Secretariat 
carries  out  the  monitoring  of  OS  and  research  and  it  maintains  international  relations 
between experts in OS. Around 3-4 FTEs are allocated each year to run the Secretariat 
and its activities. 

The National Steering Group for Open Science and Research 

•  Members appointed by the key organisations in the Finnish research community.  
•  Drafted (2019) and accepted (2020) the Declaration for Open Science and Research.  
•  Accepts policy documents. 

Expert panels 

•  Membership is open. The panels had c. 500 members in total in 2022. 
•  Draft the policies for the four areas: the culture of open scholarship, open data, open 

access to research publications, and open education. 
•  Accept recommendations drafted by working groups. 

Working groups 

•  Draft the recommendations. 

63 

 
 
 
Secretariat for the National Open Science and Research Coordination 

•  Supports the national coordination of OS and research. 
•  A part of the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. 
•  Funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture. 

Figure 21: Open Science and Research Initiative in Finland: Open Science for and by the Research Community 

Box 7: Open Science and Research Initiative in Finland: Open Science for and by the Research Community 

6.1.2.  The role and contributions of NRIs to Open Science 

Open science practices are often discussed at the level of individual researchers, but the role 
of research facilities and infrastructures in fostering an OS ecosystem is equally critical. This 
role  is  increasingly  recognised  in  national  strategies  and  national  roadmaps,  as  new 
requirements for RIs are emerging. 

Some of these requirements concern access and usage policies. For example, the Research 
Council of Finland, which is funding Finnish RIs, recommends in its strategy document for 
NRIs  that  “research  infrastructures  shall  make  their  usage  policies  easily  accessible  and 
provide customer-friendly services for all those interested in their services”.64 

Access policies may include different access modes – which may not be all open to all65 – 
but  they  should  be  made  clearly  visible  to  the  (potential)  users  in  order  to  increase  the 
usability and impact of research infrastructures, and as a way of supporting OS. 

In the Czech Republic, the existence of an open access policy is an evaluation criterion for 
large  RIs  in  the  national  roadmap,  together  with  other  criteria  such  as  management, 
expertise, research results or budgets. Open access policy is defined by the Czech MEYS 

64Academy of Finland, Strategy for National Research Infrastructures in Finland 2020-2030, 2020. 
65See European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European charter of access 
for research infrastructures: principles and guidelines for access and related services, Publications Office, 
2016. 

64 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
as  “the  manner  of  organising  open  access  to  the  capacities  that  a  large  research 
infrastructure offers to its user community”.66 

As most national RIs generate data  – some in very large volumes  – a number of national 
strategies  are  also  encouraging  RIs  to  ensure  that  the  data  they  generate  is  properly 
managed according to well-defined data management policies. 

For  example,  Slovakia  requires  as  part  of  its  evaluation  process  for  joining  the  national 
roadmap that “research infrastructures should have a data management policy that supports 
the  concept  of  open  science,  in  which  research  methods,  data  and  results  are  well 
documented and publicly available. In this context, the research infrastructure must have a 
data  management  plan  that includes  information  on  data  acquisition  and  processing,  data 
storage and data ownership”.67 

Other  countries,  such  as  the  Netherlands,  also  require  national  RIs  to  submit  a  data 
management plan at proposal preparation phase. 

Denmark  goes  one  step  further.  The  Danish  Agency  for  Higher  Education  requires,  in 
negotiations on new grants for national research infrastructures, that research data produced 
via  the  new  and  existing  RIs  should  comply  with  the  FAIR  principles.68  This  is  a  strong 
requirement,  especially  since  making  data  FAIR  has  a  cost  and  requires  significant  work, 
investment, and support for RIs. 

The  Danish  e-Infrastructure  Cooperation  (DeiC)  published  in  2021  a  National  strategy  for 
data  management  based  on  the  FAIR  principles  to  help  research  institutions  meet  the 
requirements for FAIR data. This strategy lists a series of principles for a data management 
practice compliant with the principles.69 It covers many aspects of the FAIR ecosystem and 
includes recommendations on merits, skills, technical infrastructure, tools, and funding, but 
primarily  addresses  these  aspects  at  the  level  of  individual  researchers  and  research 
institutions, rather than at the research facility level. 

Another  path  taken  by  national  strategies  has  been  to  recognise  the  role  of  national 
infrastructures  as  promoters  of  OS  and  FAIR  data.  In  addition  to  ensuring  that  the  data 
generated  meets  the  requirements  of  OS  and  FAIR  data,  RIs  have  a  role  to  play  in 
“transforming the practices” and converting their users to the new paradigm. Hence, RIs may 
be required to demonstrate the efforts they are making in doing so. 

In its call for applications to join the national RI roadmap 2021-2024, the Academy of Finland 
stipulates  that  “the  research  infrastructure  must  offer  feasible  guidelines,  practices  or 
incentives/demands for researchers in order to support open access to research data”.70 

France  goes  further  by  encouraging  national  infrastructures  to  request  open-source 
publications,  data,  and  source  code  and  to  offer support  to  researchers  in  these  fields.  In 
particular, it invites infrastructures “to include in their access conditions the principles of open 

66Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Roadmap of large Research Infrastructures of the Czech Republic 
for the years 2016-2022, update 2019. 
67Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports of the Slovak Republic, Roadmap of research 
Infrastructures – SK VI Roadmap 2020-2030, March 2021. 
68Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science, Danish Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020, 
February 2021. 
69DeiC, National strategy for data management based on the FAIR principles, 2021. 
70Academy of Finland, FIRI 2023: Roadmap Research Infrastructures 2021-2024 and International 
Memberships, 2023. 

65 

 
 
access publication, and of opening by default of data and source code” and “to formalise their 
open science policies by making a strategic document public”.71 

It is in the interest of the NRIs to fully embrace  OS, as this will increase their visibility and 
impact, which in turn will support their long-term sustainability. However, a successful open 
science strategy cannot solely rely on the goodwill of research facilities. Clear requirements 
and incentives, defined as part of the selection process and continuous evaluation of the RIs, 
must be put in place to help achieve a concrete change of practices. 

Efficient  monitoring  of  the  progress  is  also  critical  for  the  effective  development  of  OS 
practices.  Finland  provides  a  very  good  example  of  how  this  monitoring  process  can  be 
organised in close collaboration with the research community.72 

An important point to remember for policy-makers, however, is that any new requirements 
will have a cost. As rightly stated by the European Commission’s expert group on FAIR data, 
these  requirements  should  be  “met  with  appropriate  investments  in  infrastructure  and 
services to make them feasible to implement and sustain”.73 

6.1.3.  The role of IT infrastructure 

The topic of infrastructure – and more precisely e-Infrastructure – is intimately linked to OS, 
with the latter relying extensively, and increasingly, on the use of digital technologies. Digital 
transformation is changing the practice of research by offering new tools to access, analyse, 
share  and  preserve  research  data.  Open  science  builds  on  this  transformation,  enabling 
increased  discoverability  and  easier  access  and  reuse  of  scientific  content.  The  e-
Infrastructure needs – or e-needs – of RIs have long been emphasised by ESFRI, which sees 
e-infrastructure  as  an  integral  part  of  the  RI  ecosystem  and  a  key  enabler  of  the  digital 
strategy of the European RIs. 

In 2018, ESFRI included in its roadmap a recommendation to coordinate EU Member States 
and European investments on e-Infrastructures in order to support FAIR data management. 

For  the  2021  Roadmap,  ESFRI  added  a  specific  section  on  ‘e-needs’  to  the  proposal 
submission questionnaire, asking all applicants to outline their data management plan and 
data access policy, the type of e-infrastructure services they needed and how these services 
would  be  implemented,  as well  as  how  the  RI  would  contribute  to  the  development of  the 
European  and  global  e-infrastructure  landscape.74  Precise  expectations  and  requirements 
were also set according to the lifecycle of the RI, from the design phase to the preparation, 
implementation, operation, and termination of the RI (ESFRI, 2019a).75 

71MESRI, Second French Open Science Plan. Generalising Open Science in France 2021-2024, 2021. 
72Open Science Coordination in Finland, Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, Monitoring Model for Open 
Science and Research – Principles and Practices, 2022. Other examples of monitoring, in the context of 
EOSC include: EOSC Partnership – Monitoring and Reporting: https://eosc.eu/monitoring-reporting, and 
Monitoring Framework for National Contributions to EOSC (2022): 
https://zenodo.org/record/7410762#.ZF1oFi9BxpR 
73European Commission’s Expert Group on FAIR Data, Turning FAIR into Reality. Final Report and Action 
Plan, 2018. 
74ESFRI, Strategy Report on Research Infrastructures, Roadmap 2021, Proposal Submission Questionnaire, 
2019. 
75ESFRI, Strategy Report on Research Infrastructures, Roadmap 2021, Public Guide, 2019. 

66 

 
 
 
Anticipating and assessing the e-needs of RIs in the ESFRI Roadmap 

For  the  ESFRI  2021  Roadmap,  a  section  on  ‘e-needs’  was  included  in  the  proposal 
submission  questionnaire,  as  part  of  the  scientific  case  assessment  of  RIs.  The  other 
sections were scientific excellence, pan-European relevance, socio-economic impact, and 
user strategy & policy: 

Section 5: e-needs 

5.1.  Outline  the  Data  Management  Plan  (DMP)  and  data  access  policy  of  the  RI.  If 
applicable, describe how data would become accessible to the public. 

5.2.  Describe  and  quantify  what  e-infrastructure  services  -  e.g.  resources  for  storage, 
computing, networking, tools for data management, security, access, remote analysis, etc. 
- your RI will need. 

5.3. Describe how the e-infrastructure services needed by your RI will be implemented, 
specifying  the  potential  need  of  external  e-infrastructure  resources  and  the  relations  to 
external e- infrastructures. 

5.4. Describe the compliance with the FAIR principles and how the RI will contribute to the 
development  of  the  European  and  global  e-infrastructure  landscape  at  all  levels 
(institutional, regional, national, international) - including the e-infrastructure commons and 
the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). 

5.5.  In  case  of  a  specific  (non-horizontal)  e-infrastructure,  describe  the  interface  with 
existing communication networks and technical design of your RI. 

A list of ‘key minimal requirements’ was also provided to the applicants, corresponding to 
the different phases of the Research Infrastructure’s lifecycle. 

Design 

•  Vision  on  e-infrastructure  requirements,  including  access  policy  and  security 

measures ready. 

• 

Interfacing with communication networks or distributed calculation or HPC/HTC. 

Preparation 

•  Conceptual design of e-infrastructure ready. 

•  Contributions of e-infrastructure resources at all levels (institutional, regional, national, 

international) described. 

•  Access policy and Data Management Plan (DMP) outlined. 

•  Compliance with FAIR principles. 

Implementation 

•  Technical design of e-infrastructure ready and approved. 

•  Draft operational planning for e-infrastructure service delivery. 

67 

 
•  Agreements  with  parties  delivering  core  e-  infrastructure  services  (Central  Hub) 

drafted. 

•  Access policy and DMP approved, including plan for sustainability of data. 

•  Security policy defined and approved. 

• 

Implementing FAIR. 

Operation 

•  Operational plan ready and approved. 

•  Agreements with service provisioning parties signed. 

•  DMP implemented and security policy deployed. 

•  Operational application of FAIR. 

Termination 

•  Deployed sustainability of data beyond decommissioning. 

Box 8: Anticipating and assessing the e-needs of research infrastructures in the ESFRI Roadmap 
Sources: ESFRI (2019a) and ESFRI (2019b) 

At the national level, several countries are also urging RIs to anticipate their e-infrastructure 
requirements  at  an  early  stage.  In  the  Netherlands,  the  National  Roadmap  for  Large 
Research  Infrastructures  (LRI)  lists  the  planning  of  IT  infrastructure  as  one  of  the  “basic 
conditions” for all LRI proposals and encourages RIs to collaborate with SURF (the national 
IT centre) for the provision of this infrastructure: “It is important to demonstrate that there is 
a realistic plan for the deployment of IT resources (hardware, software, and data) and the 
necessary  expertise.  Proper  arrangements  should  in  addition  be  made  to  ensure  that 
externally  required  capacity  (such  as  from  SURF),  is  available  and  committed.”76  Other 
countries,  like  Finland  and  the  Czech  Republic,  have  chosen  to  list  their  national  IT 
infrastructure in their national roadmap for RIs, presenting it as a cross-cutting infrastructure 
supporting all RIs with advanced computing, data management and network capabilities. 

While e-infrastructures may offer RIs from all disciplines open access to the advanced digital 
capabilities,  resources,  and  expertise  they  need  to  collaborate  and  to  carry  out  data-  and 
computing-intensive  science,  persistent  identifiers  and  repositories  are  among  the  critical 
services  that  RIs  will  need  to  improve  FAIR  data  management  practices.  Together  with 
policies, data management plans, and standards, they form the essential components of the 
FAIR ecosystem.  

The  European  Commission’s  Expert  Group  on  FAIR  data  underlines 
the 
implementation  of  a  FAIR  ecosystem  also  necessitates  a  number  of  data  services  and 
technical  components  to  be  in  place  in  the  broader  ecosystem  that  enables  FAIR.  The 
realisation  of  FAIR  data  relies  on,  at  minimum,  the  following  essential  components: 
policies,  Data  Management  Plans,  identifiers,  standards  and  repositories.  The  Expert 
Group  recommends 
funders  should  support  research 
communities to adopt and coordinate data standards and mechanisms for FAIR sharing, 
as well as making strategic investments in technology, services and tools to support FAIR 
data in a coordinated, interoperable and cross-disciplinary way. 

that  Member  States  and 

that 

76Dutch Research Council (NOW), National Roadmap for Large Research Infrastructures, 2021, February 
2022, 

68 

 
 
 
 
The key components of a FAIR ecosystem 

Figure 22: Key components of a FAIR ecosystem 

Box 9: The key components of a FAIR ecosystem 
Source: EC Expert Group on FAIR Data, Turning FAIR into Reality, 2018 

A persistent identifier (PID) is a long-lasting reference to a digital resource. It is a label which 
gives a unique name to an entity: a person, place, or thing. Unlike URLs, which may break, 
a persistent identifier reliably points to a digital entity.77 PIDs are assigned to many aspects 
of  the  ecosystem  including data,  software,  institutions,  researchers,  funders,  projects,  and 
instruments. 

The use of PIDs by RIs – for research data and software – is often seen as one of the critical 
actions which underpins effective data sharing, together with the use of metadata and open 
formats.  PIDs  come  under  different  types  (e.g.  DOI,  URN)  and  are  relatively  easy  to 
implement. 

At the European level, organisations like DataCite78 and EUDAT79 can help RIs to implement 
a PID infrastructure. The EUDAT service (B2Handle) allows data providers to register and 
mint  PIDs,  which  can  be  integrated  within  data  repositories  and  other  data  management 
platforms: this service is operated by GRNET. 

Repositories are critical for storing and managing data and metadata; they also offer services 
to  support  access  and  reuse.  They  may  also  take  responsibility  for  long-term  data 
stewardship by curating data and metadata – and making data FAIR. 

Some repositories will have deep domain knowledge and offer services to specific research 
communities, playing a key role in the provision and preservation of FAIR data. Others have 
a more generic collection policy and may offer stewardship services based on geography or 
institution. 

The EC Expert Group on FAIR data recommends that researchers use domain repositories 
where they exist; and generic repositories where there is no relevant disciplinary repository 
available or where the generalist repository provides a specific service that is not available in 

77 https://support.orcid.org/hc/en-us/articles/360006971013-What-are-persistent-identifiers-PIDs- 
78 https://datacite.org 
79 https://eudat.eu 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
relevant  disciplinary  repositories  (such  as  linking  the  data  to  a  publication).  Researchers 
should also preferably deposit in certified repositories.80 

One of the key questions for RIs is whether they should invest time and effort in building their 
own domain-specific repository – to deposit the data they generate and/or encourage their 
users to deposit their data in this repository. Or whether they should rely on a generic solution 
provided by a third party. 

In many disciplines, there exist trusted thematic repositories. These have a long record of 
managing and curating valuable research data, sometimes from multiple sub-domains, and 
to which RIs may point for depositing data. 

For example, in the biomolecular domain, ELIXIR recommends 12 databases/repositories for 
the deposition of experimental data.81 

In the social sciences, CESSDA lists over 40 trusted domain repositories which are relevant 
to  its  field  of  research.  Some  of  these  repositories  are  directly  managed  and  curated  by 
CESSDA  members  and  form  the  CESSDA  archives.  These  archives  satisfy  strict 
requirements regarding data quality and trustworthiness, and they conform to international 
standards  of  data  documentation  and  accessibility.82  In  Greece,  the  Greek  Research 
Infrastructure  for  Social  Sciences  (So.Da.Net)  is  the  local  CESSDA  node  providing  a 
depositing service for archiving and disseminating Greek social science data. 

Building a thematic repository takes time and requires expertise and long-term investment. 
Collaboration  with  national  e-Infrastructures  may  provide  some  opportunities  for  RIs  to 
leverage IT expertise and capabilities to operate the repository and enhance it with additional 
services. 

When no thematic repository is available, RIs can decide to point to generic repositories. A 
few generic repositories provide services at European level and can host data coming from 
all  disciplines.83  Some  RIshave  selected  these  repositories  as  their  default  repository  for 
storing some of their data. Several Member States have also chosen to develop their own 
national multidisciplinary repository. 

In France, Research Data Gouv84 was created as part of the second plan for OS, with funding 
from the French National Fund for Open Science (FNSO)85. The project involves research 
organisations  and  universities  and  is  steered  by  the  Ministry  of  Higher  Education  and 
Research. It aims to provide a sovereign, multidisciplinary data repository to complement the 
national and European infrastructures already used by some scientific disciplines. 

Currently  under  development,  and  hosted  by  INRAE,  Research  Data  Gouv  is  expected  to 
offer a catalogue that signposts users to data hosted on other trustworthy sites, and a single 
location to promote visibility for all French research data. 

In  terms  of  funding,  Research  Data  Gouv  is  expected  to  receive  €7m  of  funding  from  the 
French  National  Fund  for  Open  Science  for  the  first  three  years.  This  investment  will  be 

80 EC Expert Group on FAIR Data, Turning FAIR into Reality, op.cit. 
81 https://elixir-europe.org/platforms/data/elixir-deposition-databases 
82 https://dmeg.cessda.eu/Data-Management-Expert-Guide/7.-Discover/Data-repositories-as-data-resources 
83 For example, Zenodo and B2share. 
84See: https://recherche.data.gouv.fr/en 
85See: https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/national-fund-for-open-science/  

70 

 
 
divided  between  the  development  of  the  data  repository  and  registry  and  setting  up  data 
management clusters as close as possible to researchers all over France. 

In Finland, Fairdata86 provides a series of services for the storage, discoverability and long-
term  preservation  of  research  materials  and  associated metadata,  as  well  as  support  and 
advisory services for digital preservation. The scope is significantly broader, especially with 
the inclusion of long-term preservation services, and so is the overall budget. The services 
are funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and are operated by CSC, the 
Finnish national IT Centre for Science.87 

The HELIX initiative,88 a joint effort from Athena RC and GRNET to provide a multidisciplinary 
repository service for Greek scientists, bears some similarities with the French and Finnish 
initiatives.  HELIX  positions  itself  as  “an  integral  building  block  for  all  national  research 
infrastructures, offering its services in a horizontal manner to thematic and domain-specific 
infrastructures  and  communities.”89  The  project  was  funded  by  the  ESIF  through  the 
‘Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation’ Operational Programme and received 
around €3.8m of funding to develop its activities for the period 2018-2022. 

Establishing national, multidisciplinary repositories is not a trivial task and should be carefully 
planned, including how they relate to and complement other existing repositories. As for any 
research data repository which aims to cater for researcher’s data over a long period, long-
term commitment and clear  mandates from the funders  are critical for building confidence 
from the users and sustaining data services. 

6.1.4.  Training & skills 

Open science practices require systemic change, which can take several years. In addition 
to  making  strategic  investments  in  infrastructure  and  tools  to  support  FAIR  data  in  a 
coordinated,  interoperable,  and  cross-disciplinary  way,  it  is  critical  to  invest  in  skills  and 
training, targeting both researchers and data managers operating at research facilities. 

In its final report, the EC Expert Group on FAIR data highlighted the necessity to work on 
skills and capacity building. It also recommends developing new data scientists, embedded 
in  research  projects,  and  data  stewards  who  will  ensure the  management  and  curation  of 
FAIR data.90 

In many countries where an active  OS programme has been put in place,  Member States 
and  funders  have  chosen  to  address  that  aspect  by  working  on  education  curricula  and 
research assessment.91 

While these changes target primarily individual researchers, some measures also target staff 
at research infrastructures. The Second French Open Science Plan is the most explicit on 
this topic, by encouraging infrastructures “to recruit professionals responsible for processing, 
quality checking, describing and preserving data”. 

86See: https://www.fairdata.fi/en/ 
87Other countries such as Ireland have also committed to developing a national shared data storage service 
for active data. According to the National Action Plan for Open Research 2022-2030, the objective is to start 
with a pilot for a small number of research groups, with the aim to grow it into a national service. 
88See: https://hellenicdataservice.gr/main/ 
89Ibid 
90EC Expert Group on FAIR Data, Turning FAIR into Reality, op.cit. 
91See for example Ireland, France, and Finland. 

71 

 
 
Some  disciplines  have  made  great progress  already  in the  sharing  and  reuse  of  research 
data,  and  they  benefit  from  active  European  networks  providing  training  and  examples  of 
best practices to follow. 

In  Greece,  research  infrastructures  can  also  rely  on  a  solid  network  of  experts  on  open 
access – in particular, through the OpenAIRE network – and infrastructure – via GRNET, to 
support them in their digital and FAIR strategies. 

6.2. Overview of proposed actions to meet the PSF recommendations 

The  panel’s  recommendations  for  OS  and  digitalisation  are  designed  to  facilitate  the 
development  of  OS  practices  and  FAIR  data  management  within  the  Greek  research 
infrastructure ecosystem. The recommendations do not address the full spectrum of OS, but 
instead target the elements that are most relevant to RIs and will help them to improve their 
OS  practices  and  contribution  to  the  OS  agenda.  The  recommendations  are  structured  in 
three main lines of action. 

Support the 
development of the  
Hellenic Open 
Science Initiative 
(HOSI)

Give mandate to HOSI 
to oversee the 
implementation of the 
Open Science agenda 
in Greece 
Revise HOSI 
governance to include 
more effective steering 
from stakeholders
Support HOSI 
financially to be able to 
effectively coordinate 
discussions and 
activities

Incentivise Research 
Infrastructures to 
support FAIR data 
and contribute to the 
Open Science agenda

Ensure availability of 
clear access policies
Make data 
management plans 
(DMPs) mandatory
Make a contribution to 
Open Science a 
performance criterion

Strengthen the 
technical 
infrastructure and 
support collaboration 
between horizontal 
and thematic 
infrastructures

Assess e-infrastructure 
needs at proposal 
preparation stage and 
during operation

Develop the Greek 
EOSC node

Figure 23: Main lines of action of the implementation plan 3 

6.2.1.  Support and develop HOSI as the Greek forum for open science, where policy 

and technical developments are being discussed and overseen 

The  PSF  panel  recommends  supporting  and  developing  the  HOSI  as  a  key  vehicle  for 
discussing, agreeing, and overseeing the future policy and technical developments that are 
needed to foster open science practices in the Greek research ecosystem. The draft national 
plan  for  open  science,  currently  being  discussed  by  the  Greek  authorities,  includes  many 
relevant  ideas  for  improving  open  science  practices.  This  plan  could  form  the  basis  for  a 
thorough  action  plan,  whose  implementation  details  could  be  discussed,  agreed,  and 
monitored within HOSI, with the support of the relevant ministries and authorities. A number 
of actions must be taken to reform the current structure of HOSI, so as to ensure it has the 
means to effectively play this role (see actions 1, 2, and 3). 

72 

 
 
 
6.2.2. 

Incentivise NRIs to support FAIR data and contribute to the open science 
agenda 

A  successful  open  science strategy  cannot  only  rely  on  the  goodwill  of  research  facilities. 
NRIs should be incentivised to provide FAIR data through clear requirements set as part of 
the national roadmap selection process and  through continuous evaluation and monitoring 
(see actions 4, 5 and 6). 

6.2.3.  Strengthen the technical infrastructure and support collaboration between 

thematic and horizontal infrastructures and services 

Open science increasingly relies on the use of digital technologies, for accessing, analysing, 
sharing  and  preserving  research  data.  This  calls  for  greater  collaboration  between  all 
stakeholders,  in  particular  RIs  and  e-Infrastructures.  However,  progress  is  not  only  about 
developing technical solutions, but also about defining the right organisational, collaboration 
and business model required to ensure a sustainable collaboration (see actions 7 and 8). 

6.3. Description of the proposed actions 

Action 3.1: 
HOSI 
Mandate  

Action 
owner(s)  

Give mandate to HOSI to oversee the implementation of the Open 
Science agenda in Greece 

GSRI, Ministry of Digital Governance, MERAS 

Timeframe 

Q3 2023 / Q4 2026 

Resources 

Regulatory/administrative measures 

Description of 
the action 

HOSI  should  be  given  a  clear  mandate  from  the  relevant  Greek  authorities  to 
oversee  the  implementation  of  the  Open  Science  agenda  in  Greece.  We 
recommend  following  the  Finnish  example,  where  the  research  community  has 
been entrusted to draft open science policies and implement them locally. This will 
ensure maximum participation from the stakeholders: ultimately, they are the ones 
responsible for implementing the actions. In such a model, an efficient monitoring 
system should be put in place, in order to follow the implementation of the agreed 
policies. Such a system will help the stakeholders to monitor their own open science 
activities and compare their situation with others; it may also be used by the funding 
authorities to assess the contribution to the Open Science agenda of the research 
community and its organisations. We recommend that such a monitoring system be 
developed by the research community itself, as part of HOSI, via the creation of a 
separate Expert Group on Monitoring. 

Q3 2023: Decision from Greek authorities on HOSI role and mandate. 

Q4 2023: Revised national plan for open science agreed by HOSI. 

Milestones 

Q1 2024: Expert Group on Monitoring established. 

Q1 2025: First assessment of OS policies implementation in Greece. 

73 

 
 
Action 3.2: 
HOSI 
Governance 

Revise HOSI Governance to include more effective steering from 
stakeholders 

Action owner(s) 

HOSI, GSRI 

Timeframe 

Q3 2023 / Q3 2024 

Resources 

Regulatory/administrative measures 

Description of 
the action 

The governing and management structure of HOSI should be revised to 
include more effective steering from stakeholders and stronger leadership. In 
particular, we recommend to: 

a)  Enlarge the steering group to include universities and research funders 
(such as GSRI). This will ensure a wider stakeholder base for HOSI 
and maximise its outreach. It is essential that all stakeholders who are 
expected to have a role to play in the development of open science in 
research and education are represented in the initiative and participate 
in  the  definition  of  the  policies  that  will  ultimately  impact  them. 
Representatives  should  have  a  certain  level  of  seniority  and  a 
capability to make decisions on behalf of their organisation. 

b)  Appoint  a  national  coordinator  who  is  entrusted  to  coordinate  HOSI 

activities and is supported by a dedicated Secretariat.  

c)  Set up new Expert Groups on priority topics (starting with Monitoring). 
The  establishment  of  Expert  Groups  is  a  means  to  increase  the 
participation  of  the  wider  community  in  the  work  of  HOSI  and  will 
strengthen its capacity of action. 

Q3/2024: 50% of the Greek universities have joined HOSI. 

Milestones  

Q1/2024: new terms of reference clarifying the role of the different 
management bodies are approved. 

Q1/2024: new Expert Groups have been established. 

Action 3.3: 
HOSI 
Funding 

Support HOSI financially to be able to effectively coordinate 
discussion and activities 

Action 
owner(s) 

GSRI 

Timeframe 

Q3 2023 / Q1 2024  

Resources 

Funding measures 

Description of 
the action 

HOSI should be supported financially to be able to effectively coordinate discussion 
and activities. We recommend allocating at least 2 FTE to support the work of the 
coordinating organisation. We suggest investigating the possibility to earmark the 
corresponding budget from the next NRI programme, as a transversal activity of 
the programme. We also advise GSRI to investigate the possibility to require from 

74 

 
 
Action 3.3: 
HOSI 
Funding 

Support HOSI financially to be able to effectively coordinate 
discussion and activities 

all  NRI-funded projects  that  they  allocate  experts’  time  to  HOSI  activities  (e.g. a 
contribution to Expert Groups) and include a specific task and budget for it in their 
proposal and work plan. The task, which could be similar for all projects, could be 
entitled ‘Liaison with HOSI and contribution to Open Science’. The panel estimates 
that  a  contribution  between  0.3  and  0.5  FTE  per  RI  would  suffice  to  effectively 
contribute to HOSI activities. Nonetheless this should not preclude submission of 
higher amounts. 

Milestones 

Q3 2023: funding of HOSI has been agreed at GSRI level. 

Action 3.4: 
NRI Access 
Policies 

Action 
owner(s) 

NRIs should develop and make available clear access policies 

NRIs, GSRI, HOSI 

Timeframe  

Q3 2023 / Q2 2024 

Resources 

Regulatory/administrative measures 

Description of 
the action 

NRIs  should  be  asked  to  specify  their  access  and  usage  policies  at  proposal 
preparation stage and make them visible to their users during their operation. This 
recommendation  echoes  the  Greek  national  plan  for  open  science  under 
preparation,  a  plan  recommending  that  “access  policies  (to  national  research 
infrastructures,  e-Infrastructures,  and  digital  services)  are  clearly  stipulated, 
documented,  and  are  publicly  available  to  all,  without  discrimination”.  We 
recommend that such access policies are described in any application for funding, 
with a commitment from NRIs to publish these policies on their website so they are 
visible to any visitor of the site.  

These policies should include information access units, access modes, terms and 
conditions,  support,  and  data  management  policies,  etc.  When  access  to  the 
infrastructure or its services is restricted, justifications should be provided by the 
relevant NRI. HOSI should review periodically how this recommendation has been 
implemented across the NRI ecosystem. 

Milestones 

Q1 2024: access policies are available on more than 70% of NRIs’ public websites. 

75 

 
 
  
Action 3.5: NRI 
Data 
Management 
Plan 

NRIs should submit a data management plan as part of the 
application process 

Action owner(s) 

NRIs, GSRI 

Timeframe 

Q3-4 2023 

Resources 

Regulatory/administrative measures 

Description of the 
action 

NRIs  should  be  required  to  submit  a  data  management  plan  as  part  of  the 
application  process.  This  DMP  should  include  information  details  about 
procedures and resources needed for data collection, documentation, access, 
sharing,  storage,  and  long-term  preservation,  etc.  At  the  initial  stage,  we 
recommend 
for  Data 
Management  Plans  template  developed  by  Science  Europe92  and  includes 
this template in the upcoming call. In a later stage, a HOSI Expert Group on 
DMP  could  be established  to further define  the  scope of  DMPs  and related 
requirements for Greek NRIs, and to establish guidelines for supporting NRIs 
in writing and implementing their data management plans. 

the  Core  requirements 

that  GSRI  duplicates 

Milestones 

Q3 2023: requirement to specify DMP is part of the NRI application call. 

Action 3.6: 
NRI OS 
Assessment 

NRIs’ contribution to Open Science should become a performance 
criterion 

Action owner(s)   GSRI, HOSI 

Timeframe 

Q3 2023 / Q4 2025 

Resources 

Regulatory/administrative measures 

Description of 
the action 

NRIs should describe how they contribute to the Open Science agenda and this 
contribution should become a metric (or KPI) for measuring a NRI’s scientific case 
(as  part  of  the  application  process)  and  effective  performance  (as  part  of  the 
regular reviews and discussion between the NRI and GSRI). Examples of metrics 
could  include  e.g.  measures  to  FAIRify  data,  use  of  certified  repositories, 
publishing  guidelines 
in  HOSI  expert  groups, 
implementation  of  HOSI  recommendations,  training,  etc.  The  list  of  criteria  for 
measuring performances should be jointly discussed and validated within HOSI 
(e.g. via the Expert Group on Monitoring). 

for  users,  participation 

Milestones 

Q3 2023: requirement to specify OS contribution is part of the NRI application 
call. 

92See;  https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/urspcz0a/se-rdm-template-1-core-requirements-for-data-
management-plans.docx 

76 

 
 
 
 
Action 3.7: 
NRI e-Infra 
needs 

Action 
owner(s) 

Assess e-Infra needs at proposal preparation stage and during 
operation 

GSRI, GRNET, ATHENA RC, HOSI 

Timeframe 

Q3 2023 / Q4 2025 

Resources 

Regulatory/administrative measures 

Description of 
the action 

NRIs  e-Infra  needs  should  be  assessed  at  application  preparation  stage.  We 
recommend  introducing  a  specific  section  on  ‘e-needs’  following  the  ESFRI 
template (see above implementation plan), where NRIs should describe the types 
of e-Infrastructure (computing, data management, etc.) services and resources that 
they  will  need  to  pursue  and  develop  their  activities.  This  section  should  be 
elaborated  in  collaboration  with  relevant  e-Infrastructure  providers,  e.g.  GRNET 
and ATHENA RC. Specific attention should be paid to services that support open 
science practices, e.g. PIDs and other data management services. NRIs should be 
encouraged to discuss with GRNET prior to submitting their request for funding, so 
as to encourage dialogue and agreements between NRIs and GRNET over the use 
of e-Infrastructure resources. Proper arrangements must be made to ensure that 
externally  required  capacity  is  available  and  committed.  For  some  services,  this 
might require the participation of e-Infrastructure providers in the actual proposals 
and projects. GSRI should also encourage the NRIs to maintain these plans and 
roadmaps for the required e-Infrastructure, in collaboration with GRNET and other 
relevant e-Infrastructures. NRIs and GRNET should increasingly work together on 
piloting and prototyping new functionalities and services, in order to help refine the 
definition  of  the  e-Infrastructure  requirements  for  the  NRIs  and  corresponding 
roadmaps for their implementation. 

Milestones 

Q3 2023: requirement to describe ‘e-needs’ is part of the NRI application call. 

Action 3.8: 
EOSC 

Action 
owner(s) 

Support the development of the Greek EOSC node 

GSRI, GRNET, ATHENA RC, HOSI 

Timeframe 

Q3 2023 / Q4 2025 

Resources 

Funding, regulatory/administrative measures 

Description 
of the action 

The development and operation of national e-Infrastructure supporting RI needs is 
of critical importance. The panel recommends strengthening the development of a 
Greek EOSC node relying on GRNET infrastructure capacity and on the expertise 
of the wider Greek open science and research community. The Greek EOSC node 
should provide a  set of digital services  (computing,  storage,  persistent  identifiers, 
repositories,  etc.)  that  support  open  science  and  the  digitalisation  of  research 
infrastructures.  We suggest establishing a new Expert Group, as part of HOSI, to 
plan and oversee the development of the node and raise awareness of EOSC and 
open  science  activities  across  the  whole  Greek  research  community.  The 
development  of  the  Greek  EOSC  node  will  require  significant  and  long-term 

77 

 
  
Action 3.8: 
EOSC 

Support the development of the Greek EOSC node 

investment, which cannot be fully covered by the upcoming NRI call. Therefore, we 
suggest exploring other ways of funding this activity, separately from the RI budget. 
However, it is important that the collaboration with e-Infrastructures and the national 
EOSC node is clearly seen as a requirement for all RIs (see recommendation #7 
about urging NRIs to discuss with GRNET and other e-Infrastructure providers, prior 
to submitting their request for funding). 

Milestones 

Q1 2024: Expert Group on EOSC established. 

7.  Cross-cutting conclusions and recommendations 

Table 10: Proposed actions 

The Greek network of national research infrastructures (NRI) that was launched during the 
period 2014-2020 is to be followed by a second round of investment during 2021-2027. By 
encouraging  enhanced  co-operation  (‘clustering’)  within  the  Greek  R&I  system,  the  NRI 
programme  provides  a  foundation  for  long-term  sustainability  of  NRIs  through  improving 
accessibility to their infrastructures, equipment and research data and reinforcing the quality 
and effectiveness of their services to users.   

The review of the state of the art in Europe and Greece for the three topics addressed by this 
report suggest that the Greek research infrastructure policy is moving in the right direction 
and that the planned policy interventions are in line with practice in other, well performing, 
EU Member States (the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, etc.).  If the three implementation 
plans set out in this report are executed in a timely manner, this should further help to keep 
Greece amongst the front runners in the EU and will contribute to the European Research 
Areas (ERA) policy agenda Action 8 to ‘strengthen sustainability, accessibility and resilience 
of research infrastructures in the ERA’, as well as reinforcing Greek performance on Action 
1 on ‘open sharing of knowledge and re-use of research outputs through the development of 
the European Open Science Cloud.  

There remain a number of issues that were not addressed in detail in this report given the 
agreed  scope.    These  will  require  due  attention  in  the  coming  years  by  the  Greek  NRI 
stakeholders and government bodies.  

The  funding  of  Greek  research  infrastructures  depends  on  public  sector  resources  and 
notably funding provided through EU programmes and financial instruments (including ESIF, 
the EIB, the R&I FP and more recently the RRF). While there has been a sustained increases 
in Greek public R&D expenditure (rising to 0.76% of GDP in 2021, which is equivalent to the 
EU average)93,  the  public  funding  is largely  secured  through  ESIF funding  rather  than  the 
national budget.  Post-2027, there is no guarantee that EU funding to Greece will be of the 
same order of magnitude as it is (e.g. if Ukraine and Moldova accede to the EU there will be 
a reallocation of ESIF funding to the newcomers).   

Over the coming 3-5 years, there is a need for the development of a research infrastructure 
funding scenario that gradually scales up national budgetary means made available to the 
Greek R&I institutions.  The example of the Czech Republic, where a more balanced mix of 

93See: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/w/DDN-20230804-2  

78 

 
 
 
national and ESIF funding is used to fund R&I investments may be a useful ‘learning case’ 
for the Greek authorities to study in order to develop in time for the next period a sustainable 
public sector funding framework.   

This  multi-annual  financial  plan  for  NRIs  should  be  a  core  element  of  the  future  national 
research infrastructure roadmap, which should take as a starting point the existing landscape 
(NRIs and other RIs operating in Greece), to define Greek RI needs to a 2030 plus horizon 
(as  was  recommended  in  the  previous  PSF  Country  Report).    It  is  not sufficient  to  list  the 
selected  NRIs  as  a  ‘roadmap’  but  rather  see  them  as  a  core  element  of  a  developing  RI 
landscape that should be designed to contribute to meeting the needs of Greek researchers, 
innovation and technology development and societal challenges.  

Such a plan should also take account of the need to encourage energy saving and efficiency 
measures by the NRIs as well as means to ensure stable supply of equipment and materials 
for the operations of the NRIs94.  Indeed, the contribution of the NRIs to improving Greek (and 
EU)  ‘technological  sovereignty’  should  be  considered.  The  European  Parliament  (STOA, 
2021) has defined technological sovereignty ‘as the ability for Europe to develop, provide, 
protect,  and  retain  critical  technologies  required  for  the  welfare  of  European  citizens  and 
prosperity  of  businesses,  and  the  ability  to  act  and  decide  independently  in  a  globalised 
environment’.  A  low  importance  given  to  IP  protection  may  hinder  NRI  sustainability  and 
should be addressed through action to support NRIs to develop appropriate policies. 

Moreover, as underlined by the European Commission’s 2023 country Report on Greece 
(EC, 2023a), cooperation between public research bodies and the private sector is insufficient 
to effectively support knowledge and technology transfer. In particular, public expenditure on 
R&D financed by business enterprise (5.12% of total public expenditure of R&D in 2020) is 
lagging behind the EU average (7.45%). Hence, additional options for leveraging increased 
private co-investment in NRIs should be explored (see the example of Flanders in  

Box 1Error! Reference source not found., see also Bucar et al, 2023). This may include 
further consideration of the form of legal entity adopted over time by NRI so as to facilitate 
public-private partnerships in research and technology infrastructures. 

The report has underlined the need for a broader awareness of the potential contribution of 
NRIs  to  supporting  policy  implementation  across  various  government  ministries  and  the 
public  sector.    The  adoption  of  a  ‘whole  of  government’  approach  by  involving  a  group  of 
stakeholders  ministries  in  steering  the  NRI development  may  help  to  ensure  better  buy  in 
(joint-investments, etc.) and uptake of NRI services.  NRIs should be encouraged to develop 
stakeholder engagement strategies that address a broad range of users and  contribute to 
addressing societal challenges faced by Greece.  

94See: https://www.esfri.eu/latest-esfri-news/esfri-report-energy-supply-challenges-ris  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

Academy of Finland (2023) FIRI 2023: Roadmap Research Infrastructures 2021-2024 and 
International  Memberships.  Available  at:  https://www.aka.fi/en/research-funding/apply-for-
funding/calls-for-applications/apply-now2/firi-2023-roadmap-research-infrastructures-
20212024-and-international-memberships/  

Academy of Finland (2020) Strategy for National Research Infrastructures in Finland 2020-
2030. 
https://www.aka.fi/en/about-us/decision-making-bodies/firi-
committee/strategy-for-national-research-infrastructures-in-finland-20202030/  

Available 

at: 

Antonella Calvia Goetz, ‘Sustainability Issues in funding research infrastructure’, presentation 
at  Symposium  on  European  Funding  Instruments  for  the  development  of  Research 
Infrastructures, Madrid, 19 April 2016. 

Auranen,  O.,  &  Nieminen,  M.  (2010).  University  research  funding  and  publication 
performance an international comparison. Research Policy, 39: 822- 834. Lepori, B., van den 
Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J., van der Meulen, B 
(2007). Comparing the evolution of national policies: what patterns of change?, Science and 
Public Policy, 34(6), 372-388. 

Bučar, M., Gerdina, O., & Brečko, B.. (2023). Cooperation of ESFRI Research Infrastructures 
(Landmarks) with Industry. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8205249  

Danish  Agency  for  Higher  Education  and  Science  (2021)  Danish  Roadmap  for  Research 
Infrastructures.  Available  at:  https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2020/filer/danish-roadmap-for-
research-infrastructure-2020.pdf 

Danish e-Infrastructure Cooperation (DeiC) (2021) National strategy for data management 
based on the FAIR principles. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48715/ea59-tp35 

Dutch  Research  Council  (NOW)  (2022)  National  Roadmap 
Infrastructures. 
files/National%20Roadmap%20for%20Large-
scale%20Research%20Infrastructure%202021_0.pdf  

Available 

at: 

for  Large  Research 
https://www.nwo.nl/sites/nwo/files/media-

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2016), European 
charter  of  access  for  research  infrastructures:  principles  and  guidelines  for  access  and 
related services. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/524573 

European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Research  and  Innovation  (2018),  Turning 
FAIR  into  Reality.  Final  Report  and  Action  Plan  from  the  European  Commission’s  Expert 
Group on FAIR data. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/1524 

European  Commission  (2022)  Support  to  Greece  for  policies  developing  research 
infrastructures  and  the  R&I  ecosystem  :  final  report,  Publications  Office  of  the  European 
Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/972551   

European Commission (2023a) Commission Staff Working Document 2023 Country Report 
– Greece accompanying the recommendation for a  Council Recommendation on the 2023 
National Reform Programme of Greece and delivering a Council opinion on the 2023 Stability 
Programme of Greece {COM(2023) 608 final} 

80 

 
European  Commission  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture, 
Jongbloed, B., McGrath, C., Boer, H., et al., (2023) Final report of the study on the state and 
effectiveness  of  national  funding  systems  of  higher  education  to  support  the  European 
universities 
the  European  Union, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/885757 

I,  Publications  Office  of 

initiative.  Volume 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Hollanders,  H., 
(2023) European Innovation Scoreboard 2023, Publications Office of the European Union, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/119961  

ERIC Forum Implementation Project, Report and proposal for a model sustainability plan for 
ERICS, 
2022  
https://www.eric-forum.eu/wp-content/uploads/ERICForum_Deliverable-4.4_Final_v2.pdf 

Deliverable 

Package 

Work 

4.4, 

– 

4 

ESFRI (2019a) Strategy Report on Research Infrastructures, Roadmap 2021, Public Guide. 
Available 
at: 
https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/ESFRI_Roadmap2021_Public_Guide_Public.pdf  

ESFRI  (2019b)  Strategy  Report  on  Research  Infrastructures,  Roadmap  2021,  Proposal 
Submission 
at: 
https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/ESFRI_Roadmap2021_Proposal_Submission_Questi
onnaire_Public_2.pdf  

Questionnaire. 

Available 

ESFRI (2019c) Report of the working group on monitoring of research infrastructures 
performance. Available at: 
https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/ESFRI_WG_Monitoring_Report.pdf  

ESFRI (2023b) ESFRI Landmark Monitoring 2022-2024, First Batch Report.  Available at : 
https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/ESFRI_Monitoring_Report_First_Batch_2022.pdf  

French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (2021) Second French Open 
Science  Plan.  Generalising  Open  Science 
in  France  2021-2024.  Available  at: 
https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Second_French_Plan-for-Open-
Science_web.pdf  

Griniece, E. Angelis, J., Reid, A, Vignetti, S., Catalano, J., Helman, A., Barberis Rami, M., 
Kroll,  H.  (2020).  Guidebook  for  Socio-Economic  Impact  Assessment  of  Research 
Infrastructures. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3950043  

Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 
41(2), 251-261. 

Kaiser, L.,  Neu,  M.,  Teernstra,  F.,  (2021)  State  Aid  on  R&D&I  –  The  Right  Way.  A  report 
: 
for  RDOs.  Available  at 
analysing  and  clarifying  State  Aid  Rules 
https://www.earto.eu/wp-content/uploads/EARTO-Report-on-State-Aid-on-RDI-The-Right-
Way-Final.pdf  

in  R&D&I 

Kebapci,  H.,  Von  Wendland,  B.,  Kaymaktchiyski,  S.,  (2020)  State  Aid  Rules  in  Research, 
Development & Innovation.  Addressing Knowledge and Awareness Gaps among Research 
and Knowledge Dissemination Organisations. Decision Tree, Kaiser, L. (Ed.), Neu, M. (Ed.), 
Teernstra,  F.  (Ed.),  Nicolaides,  P.  (Ed.),  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg. doi:10.2760/675525 

81 

 
ISBN 978-92-76-25081-4, doi:10.2760/675525, JRC122304 Kolar, J., Lutz, G, Angelieva, K., 
Angelis, J., Brecko, B., Chamberlain, M., Guittet, E., Karayannis, F., Plaskan, J., Ryan, M., 
Sobczak, D., & Wenzel-Constabel, P. (2023). ESFRI Policy Brief on Assessment of Impact 
of Research Infrastructures. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8091633  

Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, 
J., van der Meulen, B (2007). Comparing the evolution of national policies: what patterns of 
change?, Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372-388. 

research 

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports of the Slovak Republic (2021) Roadmap 
of 
Infrastructures  –  SK  VI  Roadmap  2020-2030.  Available  at: 
https://www.minedu.sk/data/files/11490_roadmap-of-research-infrastructures-sk-vi-
roadmap-2020-2030-eng.pdf  

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2019) Roadmap of large Research Infrastructures 
of  the  Czech  Republic  for  the  years  2016-2022.  Available  at:  https://www.vyzkumne-
infrastruktury.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Aktualizace-Cestovn%C3%AD-mapy-
2019_en.pdf  

OECD (2010), Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education 
Institutions: Workshop Proceedings, OECD Publishing, Paris, 
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264094611-en. 

OECD (2020), Optimising the operation and use of national research infrastructures. OECD 
Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, nº91, OECD Publishing, Paris. 
https://doi.org/10.1787/23074957 

Open Science Coordination in Finland, Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (2022) 
Monitoring Model for Open Science and Research – Principles and Practices: 
https://edition.fi/tsv/catalog/view/238/182/865-4  

Pissarides, C., Vayanos, D., Vettas, N., Megir, C. (2020), Development Plan for the Greek 
Economy, Final Report. (In Greek). Available from https://www.government.gov.gr/schedio-
anaptixis-gia-tin-elliniki-ikonomia/  

Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of 24th June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund 
and on the Cohesion Fund. OJ of the EU, L231 of 30 June 2021. 

Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 
establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. 

Regulations  (EU)  No  1290/2013  and  (EU)  No  1291/2013  (Text  with  EEA  relevance).  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj 

Steen,  J.  v.,  2012.  ‘Modes  of  Public  Funding  of  Research  and  Development:  Towards 
Internationally  Comparable  Indicators’,  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Working 
Papers, 2012/04, OECD Publishing. 

STOA (2021) Key enabling technologies for Europe's technological sovereignty. European 
Parliament, Brussels. doi: 10.2861/24482, available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2021)697184).  

82 

 
Zacharewicz, T., B. Lepori, E. Reale, and K. Jonkers. (2019). Performance-Based Research 
Funding in EU Member States—a Comparative Assessment. Science and Public Policy 46 
(1): 105-15. 

83 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Interviewees/participants in meetings 

National Research Infrastructure representatives 

•  Dr. Dimitrios KLETSAS, An Open-Access Research Infrastructure of Chemical Biology and 

Target-Based Screening Technologies for Human and Animal Health, Agriculture and the 
Environment (OPENSCREEN-GR) 

•  Dr. Panagiotis KONSTANTOPOULOS, Greek Infrastructure for Digital Arts, Humanities and 

Language Research and Innovation (APOLLONIS) 

•  Mrs. Despina MICHOU, National Digital Infrastructures for Research (HELIX) 
•  Dr. Georgios DRAKATOS, HeLlenic Plate Observing System (HELPOS) 
•  Prof. Charalambos SAVAKIS, Managing and Analyzing Biological Data (ELIXIR-GR) 
•  Prof. Constantinos MATHIOPOULOS, Synthetic Biology: From omics technologies to 

genomic engineering (OMIC-ENGINE) 

•  Prof. Zisis SAMARAS, Centre of Excellence for Future Vehicle Environmental Performance 

(FuveP) 

•  Dr. Apostolos LINARDIS & Dr. Dimitra KONDYLI, SoDaNet in Action (SoDaNet) 
•  Dr. Athanassios MACHIAS, Coordinator of PHILIA 
•  Dr. Georgios DRAKATOS, Coordinator of HELPOS 
•  Dr. Leonidas PERIVOLIOTIS, Coordinator of HIMIOFoTS 
•  Georgios AGGELOPOULOS, the Coordinator of INVALOR 
•  Dr. Panagiotis KASAPIDIS on behalf of the Coordinator of CMBR 
•  Prof. Nikos MICHALOPOULOS, Coordinator of PANACEA 
•  Dr. Eleni PAPAIOANNOU on behalf of the Coordinator of PROMETHEUS 
•  Giorgos KOLLIAS, Coordinator of INFRAFRONTIER-PHENOTYPOS 
•  Evangelia CHRYSSINA, Coordinator of INSPIRED 
•  Dimitrios KLETSAS, Coordinator of OPENSCREEN-GR 
•  Charalambos SAVAKIS, Coordinator of ELIXIR-GR 
•  Petros SFIKAKIS, Coordinator of pMED 
•  Nektarios TAVERNARAKIS, Coordinator of BIOIMAGING-GR 
•  Dr. Sissy KOLYVA, on behalf of the Coordinator of BBMRI-GR 
•  Dr. Constantin TAMVAKOPOULOS, Coordinator EATRIS GR 
•  Dr. Vassilios KILIKOGLOU, Coordinator of INNOVATION.EL 
•  Dr. Sotirios CHARISSOPOULOS, Coordinator of CALIBRA 
•  Prof. Demetrios ANGLOS, Coordinator of HELLAS-CH 
•  Prof. Constantinos FOUNDAS, Coordinator of Detector Development and Technologies for 

High Energy Physics 

•  Panagiotis KONSTANTOPOULOS, Coordinator of APOLLONIS 
•  Dimitra KONDYLI, Coordinator of So.Da.Net / CESSDA_GR 
•  Prof. Amalia POLYDOROPOUOU, Coordinator of EN.I.R.I.S.S.T. 
•  Prof. Alexios-Leandros SKALTSOUNIS, on behalf of the Coordinator of PLANTUP 
•  Prof. Georgios THEODORIDIS, Coordinator of FoodOmicsGR 
•  Prof. Maria KANELLAKI, Coordinator of Food Innovation RI 
•  Prof. Constantinos MATHIOPOULOS, Coordinator of OMIC-ENGINE 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Managing Authority of the Operational Programme ‘Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship & 
Innovation’ 
•  Dr. Aggeliki FETSI 
•  Mrs. Eleni KRITIKOU 
•  Mr. Efthimios KOUTROUKIS 
•  Mr. Minas DIAKOLIOS 
•  Mrs. Eleni ZOGGOU 
•  Mrs. Sophia LIAPA 
•  Mrs. Eleni PAPADOPOULOU 
•  Georgios MARGARITIS 
•  Dr. Emmanouel KALOGERIS 
•  Evangelia VAVASSI 

Lia OLLANDEZOU, HEAL-Link Consortium (Hellenic Academic Libraries Link) 

Representatives of selected organisations 
•  Stefanos KOLLIAS, National Infrastructures for Research and Technology (GRNET) 
•  Ognjen PRNJAT, National Infrastructures for Research and Technology (GRNET) 
•  Kostas KOUMANTAROS, National Infrastructures for Research and Technology (GRNET) 
•  Evangelia D. CHRYSINA, National Hellenic Research Foundation (NHRF) 
•  Elli PAPADOPOULOU, Hellenic Open Science Initiative (HOSI) 
•  Spiros ATHANASIOU, Hellenic Open Science Initiative (HOSI) 
• 
•  Vangelis Karkaletsis, NCSR Demokritos 
•  Dimosthenis SARIGIANNIS, President & General Director, NHRF 
•  Yannis IOANNIDIS, former Greek ESFRI delegate 
•  Prof. Spyros ANASTASIADIS, Greek ESFRI delegate 
•  Dr. Paraskevi SACHINI, Director of NDC 
•  Prof. Ioannis EMIRIS, President & General Director, ‘Athena’ RC 
•  Dr. Vangelis KARKALETSIS, NCSR Demokritos 
•  Prof. Dimosthenis SARIGIANNIS, President & General Director, NHRF 
•  Prof. Yannis IOANNIDIS, Greek ESFRI delegate 
•  Dr. Paraskevi SACHINI, Director of NDC 

General Secretariat for Research and Innovation (GSRI) 
•  Mrs. Iro ANASTASOPOULOU, Cabinet officer of the Deputy Minister of Development and 

Investments 

•  Dr. Agni SPILIOTI, Head of the Planning and Programming of Policy Actions for RTDI 

Directorate 

•  Dr. Antonios GYPAKIS, Head of the Policy Planning Department 
•  Dr. Efthimios SAKELLARIOU, Policy Officer of Dept. of the Policy Planning Department 
•  Mr. Vasileios GOGGOLIDIS, Head of the Innovation Action Planning Department 
•  Dr. Maria CHRISTOULA, Head of International Scientific and Technological Cooperation 

Directorate 

•  Dr. Petros SAMPATAKOS, Officer of the of International Scientific and Technological 

Cooperation Directorate 

•  Mrs. Argyro KARAHALIOU, Officer of the of International Scientific and Technological 

Cooperation Directorate - Greek ESFRI delegate 

•  Dr. Fenia Adamidou, Head of the General Secretary for Research and Innovation Cabinet 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
Policy-makers 
•  Mrs. Evaggelia SOFOULI, Head of Directorate for Research and Technology Bodies 

Supervision (Recovery and Resilience Fund) 

•  Prof. Serko HAROUTOUNIAN, Chairman ELGO “DIMITRA”, Ministry of Agriculture 
•  Mr. Panagiotis CHATZINIKOLAOU, CEO ELGO “DIMITRA”, Ministry of Agriculture 
•  Prof. Periklis Mitkas, President of The Hellenic Authority for Higher Education 
•  Dr Nikos Mouravlianski, Ministry of Digital Transformation 
•  Prof Spyridon ARTAVANIS-TSAKONAS, President of the National Council for Research, 

Technology, and Innovation (NCRTI) 

•  Dr. Aristos DOXIADIS, Vice-President of National Council for Research, Technology, and 

Innovation (NCRTI) 

•  Dr. Katerina Kouravelou, Hellenic Foundation for Research, and Innovation (HFRI) 

PSF Open Expert Panel 
•  Alasdair REID 
• 
Thomas ZACHAREWICZ 
•  Damien LECARPENTIER 
•  George STROGYLOPOULOS 
•  Susana ELENA-PEREZ 

DG R&I, European Commission 
•  Vladimir MANOLOV 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Greek NRIs funded during the 2014-2020 period 

National Research 
Infrastructure  

NRI full title  

# of 
partners  

Approved 
Budget (€)  

Website  

Food Innovation 

Infrastructure on Food Bioprocessing Development and Innovation Exploitation  

FoodOmicsGR 

A consortium for comprehensive molecular characterisation of food products  

OMIC-ENGINE 

Synthetic Biology: from omics technologies to genomic engineering  

PLANT-UP 

FuVEP 

Upgrading the Plant Capital  

Centre of Excellence for Future Vehicle Environmental Performance  

PROMETHEUS 

A Research Infrastructure for the Integrated Energy Chain  

CMBR 

HELPOS 

HIMIOFoTS 

INVALOR 

PANACEA 

RePHIL 

BBMRI-GR 

BIOIMAGING-GR 

EATRIS-GR 

ELIXIR-GR 

INFRAFRONTIER 

INSPIRED 

OPENSCREEN-GR 

Centre for the study and sustainable exploitation of Marine Biological Resources  

Hellenic Plate Observing System  

Hellenic Integrated Marine and Inland Water Observing Forecasting and Offshore 
Technology System  
Research Infrastructure for Waste Valorisation and Sustainable Management of 
Resources  

Panhellenic infrastructure for atmospheric composition and climate change  

Hellenic Research Fleet / reconstruction of the research vessel PHILIA  

Strategic expansion of the Greek Biobanking Infrastructure  

A Greek Research Infrastructure for Visualising and Monitoring Fundamental 
Biological Processes  
Infrastructure for preclinical and early-phase clinical development of drugs, 
therapeutics and biomedical devices  

Managing and Analysing Biological Data  

The Greek Research Infrastructure for Molecular and Behavioural Phenotyping of 
biological model organisms for chronic degenerative diseases  
The National Research Infrastructures on Integrated Structural Biology, Drug 
Screening Efforts and Drug target functional characterisation  
An Open-Access Research Infrastructure of Chemical Biology and Target-Based 
Screening Technologies for Human and Animal Health, Agriculture and the 
Environment  

pMedGR 

The Greek Research Infrastructure for Personalised Medicine  

INNOVATION.EL 

National Infrastructure in Nanotechnology, Advanced Materials and Micro / 
Nanoelectronics  

DeTANeT 

Detector Development and Technologies for High Energy Physics  

6 

8 

9 

7 

3 

2 

7 

8 

7 

7 

14 

2 

9 

11 

7 

17 

3 

14 

7 

3 

7 

3 

3,000,000  

https://www.foodinnovations.gr/   

2,998,998  

http://foodomics.gr/   

4,000,000  

https://www.omicengine.com/   

3,865,625  

http://plant-up.com   

3,662,591  

https://fuvep.com   

3,680,263  

4,000,000  

https://cmbr.hcmr.gr/   

3,965,844  

3,991,975  

https://www.himiofots.gr   

3,899,713  

https://www.invalor.org/   

3,999,950  

https://panacea-ri.gr   

3,133,006  

https://www.rephil.eu   

497,000  

http://biobank.bioacademy.gr/   

4,000,000  

https://bioimaging.g   

499,000  

http://htri.gr/   

3,991,000  

https://www.elixir-greece.org/   

4,000,000  

https://www.infrafrontier.gr/   

3,819,000  

https://www.inspired-ris.gr/   

3,025,00  

https://openscreen.bio.demokritos.gr/   

4,000,000  

https://www.precisionmedicine.gr   

4,000,000  

https://innovation-el.net   

500,000  

87 

 
  
  
  
National Research 
Infrastructure  

NRI full title  

# of 
partners  

Approved 
Budget (€)  

Website  

CALIBRA 

HELLAS-CH 

APOLLONIS 

ENIRISST 

HELIX: 

SoDaNet 

Cluster of Accelerator Laboratories for Ion Beam Research  

The HiPER, ELI and LASERLAB Europe Synergy & IPERION-CH  

National Infrastructure for Digital Arts, Humanities and Language Research and 
Innovation  
Intelligent Research Infrastructure for Shipping, Supply chain, Transport and 
Logistics  

National Digital Infrastructures for Research  

CESSDA_GR - The Greek RI for social sciences  

1 

12 

11 

11 

3 

7 

3,422,200  

http://www.inp.demokritos.gr/calibra   

3,997,016  

https://hellasch.iesl.forth.gr  

4,000,000  

https://apollonis-infrastructure.gr/   

2,974,891  

https://www.enirisst.gr/   

3,859,823  

https://hellenicdataservice.gr/main/   

1,066,340  

https://sodanet.gr/   

Table 11: Greek NRIs funded during the 2014-2020 period 
Source: PSF Country Report Greece (EC, 2022) 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Table of obligatory KPIs for NRIs 2021-2027 

Category 

Indicator(s) 

Detailed indicators 

Periodicity 

Research 
Infrastructure 
usage 

Usage of the NRI 

Training and 
education 

Number of students using 
and being trained at the 
NRI 

For NRIs providing access to facilities/equipment: 

•  Number of requests for use received and granted.  

• 

Total annual usage hours by users external to NRI consortium 
partners as % of total available usage hours. 

Broken down by academic users, business users (and other user types 
depending on the NRI) and whether Greek or internationally located. 

For resource/data NRIs one or more of the following : 

• 

number of registered users of collections or data services, 

•  Number of downloads of datasets or digital resources. 

Broken down by academic users, business users (and other user types 
depending on the NRI) and whether Greek or internationally located. 
Number of masters and PhD students who have been trained at or performed 
some of their studies/research at the NRI.  Each student should only be 
counted once per year (not per access). The indicator can also further 
quantified by the number of training hours at the NRI provided (per student). 

Data should be broken down by: 

•  Masters / PHD / others (e.g. short courses for industrial researchers). 

•  Distinguishing between students funded/hosted by NRI consortium 

partners and external to NRI students  

• 

by nationality (Greek or international). 

Total income generated broken down by source: 

Annually plus cumulative over 3-5 years period (depending 
on length of grant). 

Targets set for the KPI may evolve over time – e.g. in year 
1 a lower number of users, rising year-on-year, etc. 

Annually plus cumulative over 3-5 years period (depending 
on length of grant) 

Income 

Income generated by the 
NRI additional to ERDF 
grant 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

grant (e.g. Horizon Europe, other national or regional programmes, 
etc.),  

Annually plus cumulative over 3-5 years period (depending 
on length of grant).   

charitable donation,  

payment for services provided 

intellectual property licence payments, etc.),  

others (to specify). 

Ideally, this KPI should be framed within a financial plan 
indicating how the NRI will raise increasing levels of 
additional revenue over the lifetime of the ERDF funded 
project. 

89 

 
Category 

Indicator(s) 

Detailed indicators 

Periodicity 

Publications 

Number of publications 
acknowledging 
use/services provided by 
the NRI 

Open Science 

Number of publicly 
accessible datasets used 
externally 

By type of organisation providing the funding: public, private, NGO, etc.  
Where funding is provided by business, categorise by  the relevant S3 priority. 

By share of income from Greece, other EU Member States’, EU level 
programmes (Horizon Europe, etc.) or non-EU countries. 

Number of publications based on research performed using facilities and 
(digital) resources provided by the NRI. 

Distinguishing between publications authored by researchers of the NRI 
consortium partners and external researchers. 

Over time this indicator can be further refined, e.g. to track the percentage of 
open access publications, the percentage of publications in the top (10%) cited 
publications in the same field and the percentage of publications co-published 
with industry. 

Number of data sets produced as a result of researchers using the NRI that 
are subsequently accessed by other users. 

For date NRIs, number of datasets (digital objects), metadata, software, etc. 
made available to users, 

For NRIs that do not yet have publicly accessible datasets, alternative 
indicators may be used that measure progress towards making open research 
data available. 

Table 12. Obligatory KPIs for NRIs 2021-2027 

Annually plus cumulative over 3-5 years period (depending 
on length of grant). 

Assumes that the NRI has in place a requirement for users 
to cite usage/services of NRI and/or monitoring in place of 
publications by users.  This may provide a basis for a 
bibliometric analysis but only after a sufficient time period (5 
years) 

Annually plus cumulative over 3-5 years period (depending 
on length of grant 

90 

 
 
 
Annex 4: Indicative template for periodic reporting by 
NRIs 

This  template  is  provided  as  a  possible  framework  that  could  be  used  by  the  NRIs  for 
preparing an annual or periodic (mid-term, final) report.  

1. NRI identity card 

NRI full name 

Insert name 

Date NRI created 

Coordinator  

Insert date 

Institution 

Coordinator contact 

Name and email 

Partner institutions 

List of institutions (including where relevant industry partners) 

NRI website  

Provide a web site URL 

Member of ESFRI RI or other 
international RI 

If yes – indicate which one(s) and from what date 

Mission / objectives 

Short description of the expected contribution of the NRI to 
research, education, economic and sustainable development 
goals. 

Main facilities, equipment and 
services provided 

List of core facilities, services etc. – this can be done by 
pointing to an available catalogue of services. 

Funding received to date 

Indicate amount by period 

2. Governance structure and management procedures 

Table 13. NRI identity card 

This section should provide an overview of the NRI’s governance and management structures 
and highlight actions taken to ensure effective strategic and operational management. 

•  Governance and strategic management 

An  organisational  chart  should  be  included  highlighting  the  main  governance  bodies  and 
management  structure.    Discuss  the  contribution  of  these  governance  bodies  to  the  NRIs 
strategic planning, etc. and annual planning and reporting procedures. 

•  Operational and financial management. 

Describe the management arrangements put in place to ensure an effective functioning of the 
NRI including measures taken to improve long-term financial sustainability (cost minimisation, 
e.g. energy, and coverage, revenue generation, etc.).  Highlight any challenges or issues arising 
since the last report and solutions proposed.   

•  Policies  and  practices  for  recruitment,  training,  health  &  safety  gender  equality  and 

scientific ethics. 

91 

 
 
Describe developments in the above policies to ensure the NRI operates in line with required 
research career and other relevant guidelines and good practices. 

•  Environmental policies – discuss action taken to limit or reduce the environmental impact 

of the NRI operations.  

•  Risk  management  and  mitigation  policy  –  present  actions  identified  to  anticipate  and 

mitigate identified risks. 

3. Quality of user access policy 

Box 10: Governance structure and management procedures 

Describe the measures (e.g. catalogue of services, promotional actions) taken to ensure that 
potential users are aware of the NRIs services, equipment, data, training or software resources, 
etc. 

Explain  the  access  procedure  for  users  (single  point  of  access,  assistance  to  users  for 
applications,  registration  procedures,  etc.)  and  how  user  access  is  decided  (scientific 
committee, fee based, etc.). 

Are there specific measures in place to attract younger or female researchers?  

What action has been taken to inform and provide access to users based in other EU Member 
States (and third countries)? 

Comment the KPIs related to usage – including the importance of business/industrial users. 

4. Strategic outlook/position of the NRI in the Greek R&I system 

Box 11: Quality of user access policy 

Discuss the position of the NRI in the Greek R&I system notably in terms of the unique nature 
of the facilities, equipment or data services available.  Highlight areas for possible co-operation 
with other Greek research infrastructures or facilities or other NRI. 

What action has been taken to develop a community of researchers in the scientific field(s) that 
the NRI operates in – e.g. organisation of scientific workshops, etc. – and to develop further a 
broad-based user community 

Discuss the extent of business/industrial interest in the research being carried out at the NRI or 
in the industrial usage of the NRI facilities, equipment, datasets, etc. 

Box 12: Strategic outlook/position of the NRI in the Greek R&I system 
5. European and international collaboration / position of the NRI 

This  section  should  assess  the  progress  made  in  improving  the  European  and  international 
visibility of the NRI. 

• 

Transnational access  

Describe measures taken to encourage use and access for non-Greek researchers to the NRI 
facilities. 

•  Participation to or collaboration with ESFRI Landmarks/ERICs and EOSC 

92 

 
 
 
 
Describe the participation of the NRI (consortium partners) in activities of European level RIs 
including actions related to the EOSC. 

• 

Involvement  of  the  NRI  (consortium  partners)  in  Horizon  Europe  projects  or  other  EU 
programmes  

Present and explain how the NRI is being positioned within EU funded projects or inter-regional 
co-operation in order to promote the NRI’s expertise and services. 

•  Other  international  collaboration  –  e.g.  with  third  (non-EU)  countries  or  international 

organisations, etc. 

Describe any other international collaboration activities with non-EU partners. 

Box 13: European and international collaboration / position of the NRI 
6. Contribution to improving research excellence and education 

•  Contribution to research performance in the field of the NRI  

Explain  the  nature  of  support  provided  to  researchers  and  how  this  has  contributed  to 
enhancing research excellence and research careers in Greece and internationally.  This may 
be illustrated by specific examples.  The contribution to gender equality in research should be 
highlighted.  

•  Education and training of students, researchers and other users 

Describe  briefly  the  progress  made  in  implementing  educational  activities  for  masters  and 
doctoral (PhD) students as well as short-term specialised training provided to researchers and 
other users such as from business.  Highlight impact on gender equality in science.  

•  Activities undertaken to improve research data management and promote open science. 

Give the NRIs data management plan, describe what action the NRI has taken during the period 
to further improve and enhance FAIR data management and open science practices. 

7. Impact on innovation - economy and society 

Box 14: Contribution to improving research excellence and education 

This  section  should  present  the  NRIs  contribution  to  specific  national  priorities,  notably  the 
smart specialisation strategy priorities or other thematic strategies.  This could be based on the 
identification and description of a number of ‘impact pathways’ linked to KPIs or impact cases. 

• 

Innovation and application-related activities and intellectual policy (IP) practices. 

Describe  actions  taken  to  ensure  that  research  carried  out  at  the  NRI  is  translated  into 
commercial or societal applications.  Where possible provide examples or quantify the impact 
through KPIs.  Explain how IP policies are designed to optimise impact. 

•  Contribution to policy development or implementing in specific fields  – e.g. environment, 

health, mobility, energy, etc.  

Describe the contribution of the research carried out at the NRI on specific policy fields and to 
meeting specific national development objectives or contributing to sustainable development 
goals (SDGs). 

Box 15: Impact on innovation - economy and society 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
8. Key performance indicators – progress compared to targets 

KPI  

Target 
value 

2024 
achieved 

2025 
achieved 

2026 
achieved 

2027 
achieved 

*add lines as required 

Table 14: Template of key performance indicators – progress compared to targets 

9. Impact cases 

Annex impact cases illustrating impact of different types – using the impact case template. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5: Indicative template for impact cases 

Title of impact case study: insert an appealing short title 

1.  Media ready summary of the impact (indicative maximum 100 words)  

This section should briefly describe the specific impact elaborated in the impact case study. This 
should be written in a way that it can be read as a stand-alone summary (e.g. placed on a website, 
etc.) and include one or more photos95.  

2.  Type of impact area (select one or more)96 

•  Human resource (training of researchers, new skills, 

• 

• 

• 

Economy and innovation (product and process innovations,  

Societal (including environmental improvements, social well-being, health, etc.) 

Policy (impact on policy including contribution to policy-making, support regulatory change, 
etc.) 

3.   Impact details 

This section should provide a narrative, with supporting evidence, to explain: 

• 

how the research infrastructure services underpinned (made a distinct and material 
contribution to) the impact 

• 

the nature and extent of the impact. 

The following should be provided: 

• 

A clear explanation of the process or means through which the RI services have led to, 
underpinned or made a contribution to the impact. For example, the way in which the RI 
provided specific support to a researcher (research team) to conduct an experiment, or to a 
business for testing products, processes, etc., how the RI supported the dissemination of 
knowledge (e.g. research data management, open science methods), how the RI provided 
training or support to influence users or beneficiaries of the research conducted at the RI, or 
how the RI provided support so that research results came to be exploited, taken up or 
applied. 

•  Details of the beneficiaries – who or what community, group or organisation has benefitted, 

been affected or impacted. 

•  Details of the nature of the impact – how they have benefitted or impacted on specific 

business, societal or public policy developments. 

• 

Evidence or indicators of the extent of the impact described, as appropriate to the case being 
made. 

•  Dates of when these impacts occurred (provide a timeline from the first moment the RI 

provided services to users until the results being reported on were achieved). 

4.  Sources to corroborate the impact (indicative maximum of 5 sources) 

95See for example : https://www.infraportal.org.uk/case-study/energy/3d-vision-camera-system-integrated-
with-ai  
96See: https://ri-paths-tool.eu/en/impact-areas  

95 

 
 
Title of impact case study: insert an appealing short title 

This section should list sources that provide corroboration of specific claims made in the case 
study. Sources provided in this section should not be a substitute for providing clear evidence of 
impact in section 4 but should provide additional material or evidence (e.g. publications, links to 
news articles or policy papers, photos/images).  This could include testimonials from users, etc. 

5.  For further details 

Insert a link to the website of the NRI and the contact details of the person from whom further 
details can be provided. 

Box 16: Indicative template for impact cases 

96 

 
 
 
 
In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 
  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
  at the following standard number: +32 22999696,  
  via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en.NDING 

INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies 
and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European 
countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Building on the findings of the previous PSF Country review, 
this report presents a set of actions designed to enhance the 
long-term sustainability and performance of the Greek 
national research infrastructures, including boosting their 
contribution to open science and research data practices.  
The report develops three implementation plans based on a 
review of good practice at European and national levels and 
sets out a series of practical step-by-step procedures to 
ensure effective public-private investments into Greek 
research infrastructures during the period 2021-2027. 

Studies and reports