ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	
	
State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	Research	Infrastructures	
	
Written	by:	Ornela	De	Giacomo,	Dariusz	Brzosko,	Jana	Kolar	
Contributors:	David	Berezckey,	Matthias	Girod,	Jürgen	Neuhaus,	Salma	Baghdadi	
	
	
	
	
	
Deliverable	2.1,	Version	3	(03	February	2021)	
ACCELERATE	-	ACCELERATing	Europe’s	Leading	Research	Infrastructures,	EC	grant	No.	731112	
www.accelerate	2020.eu	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
This	work	is	licensed	under	the	Creative	Commons	Attribution	4.0	International	License.	To	view	a	copy	of	
this	license,	visit	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/	or	send	a	letter	to	Creative	Commons,	PO	
Box	1866,	Mountain	View,	CA	94042,	USA.		 	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 2	
 
PROJECT	DELIVERABLE	INFORMATION	SHEET	 1	
STATE	OF	OPEN	ACCESS	PROCEDURES	AT	RESEARCH	INFRASTRUCTURES	 3	
Summary	 3	
Background	 4	
Importance	of	Open	Access	as	a	driver	of	scientific	excellence,	innovation	and	long-term	sustainability	of	a	
Research	Infrastructure	 5	
Open	access	procedures	for	scientific	excellence	 7	
Overview	of	open	access	procedures	in	European	Research	Infrastructures	 7	
Open	access	procedures	of	CERIC-ERIC	 12	
General	access	policy	of	CERIC-ERIC	 12	
Open	Access	under	emergency	conditions:	the	COVID-19	case	 13	
Overview	of	the	different	COVID-19	related	solutions	adopted	in	European	Research	Infrastructures	 15	
COVID-19	dedicated	Open	Access	procedures	of	CERIC-ERIC	 18	
European	projects	that	contributed	to	the	harmonisation	of	access	policies	in	RIs	 19	
Projects	in	FP	7	 19	
Projects	in	H2020	 22	
Conclusions	 24	
Acknowledgements	 25	
Annex	I:	Brief	description	of	the	facilities	consulted	for	the	collection	of	the	excellence-driven	access	
procedures	 26	
Annex	II:	Open	access	procedures	in	European	Research	Infrastructures	 30	
Annex	III:	Questionnaire	1:	Research	Infrastructures	and	COVID-19	related	research	(March	2020)	 37	
Annex	IV:	Questionnaire	2:	Working	practices	of	analytical	facilities	during	the	pandemics	(April	2020)	 42	
Annex	V:	Questionnaire	3:	Evolution	of	operations	at	analytical	facilities	during	and	post	COVID-19	
pandemic	(October	2020) 47 
	
 
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	
State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	Research	Infrastructures	
	
Summary	
Open	 access	 procedures	 are	 crucial	 for	 the	 scientific	 excellence	 of	 the	 facility,	 and	 therefore	 its	
sustainability.	A	 lot	of	progress	has	been	made	in	terms	of	harmonisation	and	standardisation	of	access	
procedures	in	Research	Infrastructures,	yet	there	is	still	room	for	improvement.	Standardisation	has	always	
proved	to	benefit	the	user’s	communities	and	resulted	in	better	use	of	resources.	Although	the	European	
Charter	on	access	was	an	important	milestone,	there	are	real	obstacles	to	the	harmonisation	deriving	from	
the	priorities	of	every	RI	and	the	need	to	respond	to	societal	challenges	in	the	most	effective	way.	This	is	
reflected	in	the	selection	criteria	of	proposals	for	open	access.	It	is	proposed	that	the	Charter,	the	reference	
document	 for	RIs,	 is	updated	 in	 its	definitions,	principles	and	guidelines	 to	become	better	suited	 for	 its	
purpose.	Some	of	the	possible	changes	are	discussed.	
RIs	adapt	to	the	needs	of	users,	incorporating	new	procedures	such	as	the	fast	access	for	macromolecular	
crystallography	 or	 to	 respond	 to	 societal	 challenges,	 as	 seen	 during	 the	 COVID-19	 outbreak.	 From	 the	
information	provided	by	both	the	User	offices	and	the	websites	of	the	facilities	consulted	it	emerges	that	
facilities	 have	 strong	 similarities	 in	 their	 access	procedures.	However,	 differences	become	higher	when	
considering	the	evaluation	processes.	Another	substantial	difference	lies	in	the	number	of	services	provided	
by	facilities	for	remote	access,	which	in	specific	cases	(e.g.	macromolecular	crystallography)		is	associated	
with	an	increase	in	the	productivity	in	terms	of	the	number	of	measurements	performed	and	a	decrease	in	
the	costs,	mostly	related	to	a	more	effective	use	of	time	with	the	help	of	robots	for	sample	handling	and	
focusing	 and	 savings	 in	 travel	 support	 for	 researchers	 coming	 from	 all	 over	 the	 world	 to	 perform	 the	
experiments.		
The	COVID-19	emergency	has	 challenged	 facilities	 in	an	unprecedented	way,	affecting	 their	operations,	
performance	and	procedures.	An	overview	of	these	disruptions	and	the	measures	put	 in	place	by	RIs	to	
cope	with	the	COVID-19	outbreak	were	collected	and	published,	to	allow	facilities	to	share	best	practices	
in	front	of	this	serious	challenge.	A	summary	of	the	most	relevant	findings	is	included	in	this	document.		RIs	
were	forced	to	speed	up	and	apply	remote	access	extensively,	raising	a	series	of	issues	partly	due	to	the	
lack	of	technologies	and	dedicated	funds	to	support	it.	ACCELERATE	partners	have	the	possibility	to	consider	
the	experience	of	these	facilities	for	developing	or	improving	their	policies	and	procedures,	including	the	
most	recent	developments	as	remote	access	and	data	issues.	
The	information	collected	about	facilities	procedures	for	open	access,	in	very	different	formats	(interviews,	
emails,	policies,	etc.)	has	been	summarised	in	a	table	(Annex	II)	to	improve	the	readability	and	allow	for	a	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 4	
 
better	comparison	of	the	different	access	policies	and	solutions	adopted	by	the	RIs	involved.	In	the	same	
way,	the	surveys	used	to	collect	information	about	the	COVID-19	related	services	implemented	by	facilities	
are	included	as	annexes	III,	IV	and	IV.	
	
Background	
Deliverable	 D2.1	was	 originally	 conceived	 as	 a	 report	 from	 a	workgroup	 formed	 by	 the	 RIs	 with	more	
experience	in	access	policies	in	the	ACCELERATE	partnership	namely	the	FRM	II	Neutron	Research	Reactor	
operated	by	the	Technical	University	of	Munich	and	CERIC-ERIC,	in	the	framework	of	task	2.1.	Based	on	the	
knowledge	of	these	two	partners	alone,	the	content	of	such	a	report	would	have	been	limited,	as	well	as	
its	added	value.	For	this	reason,	the	Governing	Board	and	Steering	Committee	of	ACCELERATE	decided	to	
consult	also	some	other	projects	and	RIs	to	deliver	a	more	comprehensive	document,	that	could	reflect	the	
existing	practices	in	open	access	to	RIs,	not	only	among	the	partners	but	also	in	other	well-established	user-
driven	research	institutions.	
The	deliverable	was	originally	due	in	Month	3	but	was	postponed	to	Month	12	in	agreement	and	with	the	
approval	of	the	responsible	project	officer,	Patricia	Postigo-McLaughlin	(correspondence	archived	in	Ares	
(2017)	1066027).	The	extended	deliverable	was	successfully	submitted	in	Month	12	but	after	the	feedback	
received,	the	Governing	Board	decided	to	reopen	it,	with	the	approval	of	the	responsible	project	office,	to	
perform	a	more	structured	and	detailed	analysis	that	resulted	in	a	comparative	table	with	all	the	results	
collected.		
Finally,	 the	deliverable	was	 further	updated	 in	2020	due	 to	 the	COVID-19	pandemics,	 that	affected	 the	
operation	of	RIs,	forcing	them	to	introduce	new	procedures	for	access	that	included	remote	access	(in	a	
wide	sense,	ranging	from	sample	mailing	to	fully	automated	measurements)	and	preferential	access	(fast	
track)	 for	the	COVID-19	related	research.	The	pandemic	and	the	 increasing	emphasis	on	open	access	to	
data	challenged	the	existing	policies	in	RIs.	It	can	be	expected	that	most	RIs	will	modify	their	access	policies	
this	year	and	the	ones	to	come,	to	adapt	to	these	challenges.		The	fast	reply	of	RIs,	introducing	new	access	
policies	 and	 procedures	 in	 reply	 to	 the	 emergency	 was	 considered	 an	 unprecedented	 event	 worth	
documenting.	With	the	occasion,	some	information	was	updated,	for	example	regarding	projects.	Previous	
versions	of	this	document	can	be	retrieved	in	the	ACCELERATE	website1.	
                                            
1	ACCELERATE	project,	http://www.accelrate2020.eu/	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 5	
 
Importance	of	Open	Access	as	a	driver	of	scientific	excellence,	innovation	and	long-term	
sustainability	of	a	Research	Infrastructure	
There	is	a	general	agreement	amongst	the	research	community	and	policymakers,	that	open	access	plays	a	
fundamental	role	in	scientific	excellence	and	innovation,	allowing	the	best	use	of	research	infrastructures	
and	the	transfer	of	knowledge.	
In	 2008,	 the	 Report	 of	 the	 ERA	 Expert	 Group2	highlighted	 open	 access	 as	 a	 key	 process	 in	world-class	
research	infrastructures:	“The	existence	of,	and	access	to,	leading	research	infrastructures	is	and	will	remain	
a	 key	 determinant	 of	 Europe’s	 competitiveness	 in	 both	 basic	 and	 applied	 research.”	 The	 same	 report	
recommended	that	RIs	should	be	open	to	all	 interested	researchers,	based	on	the	selection	of	 the	best	
proposals	 evaluated	 on	 their	 scientific	 excellence	 by	 international	 ‘peer-review’.	 The	 need	 to	 establish	
effective	 access	 mechanisms	 was	 recognised	 as	 a	 priority	 and	 the	 expert	 group	 suggested	 that	 Large	
Research	 Infrastructures	 develop	 general	 guidelines	 describing	 various	 access	models,	 since	 they	 share	
some	common	challenges	and	problems.	The	European	Charter	for	Access	to	Research	Infrastructures3	(in	
the	following	Charter),	published	in	2016	by	the	European	Commission,	addresses	this	issue	proposing	non-
regulatory	 principles	 and	 guidelines	 for	 access	 and	 related	 services.	 The	 Charter	 also	 contains	 the	
definitions	 of	 several	 terms	 that	 have	 been	 used	 in	 widely	 different	 contexts	 (e.g.	 users,	 user	 access,	
research	infrastructure).	Adherence	to	it	has	also	become	mandatory	for	the	transnational	access	activities	
funded	by	the	European	Commission.	The	Charter	acknowledges	how	excellence-driven	access	“enables	
collaborative	 research	 and	 technological	 development	 efforts	 across	 geographical	 and	 disciplinary	
boundaries”	 and	 proposes	 three	 different	 Access	 modes,	 i.e.	 `excellence-driven`,	 `market-driven`	 and	
`wide`.	However,	as	discussed	later	in	this	document,	other	modalities	of	access	are	necessary	and	actually	
can	boost	the	excellence	of	the	research	infrastructure,	and	allow	it	to	deliver	a	fast	response	to	a	societal	
challenge	or	help	to	reinforce	the	ERA.		
The	Commission	working	document	on	Long-term	Sustainability	of	Research	Infrastructures4	published	in	
September	2017	sets	 the	basis	 for	an	action	plan,	yet	 to	be	elaborated.	The	 first	part	of	 the	document	
provides	an	overview	of	 the	most	 important	elements	contributing	to	 long-term	sustainability.	Ensuring	
scientific	excellence	is	one	of	the	key	points.	On	this	topic,	the	action	plan	suggests	some	actions,	related	
to	access	and	access	procedures,	for	the	RIs	to	remain	at	the	forefront	of	scientific	excellence:	
                                            
2	Report	of	the	ERA	Expert	Group	-	https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/ri_era-expert-group-0308_en.pdf	
3	European	charter	for	access	to	Research	infrastructures	-	
https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/2016_charterforaccessto-ris.pdf	
4	Commission	working	document	on	Long	-	term	sustainability	of	Research	Infrastructures	-	
https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/swd-infrastructures_323-2017.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 6	
 
1. “Simplify	and	harmonise	access	by	encouraging	European	RI	to	put	in	place	transparent	access	
policies,	in	line	with	the	definitions,	principles	and	guidelines	of	the	European	Charter	for	Access	to	
Research	Infrastructures;	
2. Promote	the	“excellence-driven	access	mode”,	as	defined	by	the	Charter,	as	a	requirement	for	
funding	the	access	to	RIs;	
3. Encourage	RI	to	put	in	place	multidisciplinary	support	mechanisms,	including	training	modules	to	
broaden	the	user	base;	
4. Whenever	possible,	guarantee	that	a	share	of	Excellence-driven	access	is	to	be	granted	to	the	best	
research	projects	regardless	of	their	origin	and	affiliation”	
Likewise,	 the	 OECD	 policy	 paper	 “Strengthening	 the	 Effectiveness	 and	 Sustainability	 of	 Research	
Infrastructures”5	defines	sustainability	as	“the	capacity	for	a	research	infrastructure	to	remain	operative,	
effective	and	competitive	over	its	expected	lifetime”	and	identifies	the	high	level	of	competitiveness	as	one	
of	 the	 main	 challenges.	 In	 particular,	 this	 refers	 to	 the	 development	 of	 the	 infrastructure	 but	 also	 to	
“ensuring	reliability	in	terms	of	access	and	services,	and	assistance	to	users”.		
The	 Charter	 has	 since	 become	 the	 reference	 for	 research	 infrastructures	 and	 is	 a	 requirement	 for	 the	
transnational	 funding	 in	 the	 calls	 under	Horizon	 2020	 and	Horizon	 Europe.6	A	 recently	 published	 ESFRI	
White	Paper7	states	that	RIs	based	on	physical	or	remote	access	should	continue	to	offer	services	on	an	
excellence	basis	in	line	with	the	Charter.	
Despite	of	being	a	reference	for	RIs,	the	Charter	could	benefit	from	an	update.	A	recent	opinion8	issued	by	
one	of	the	ACCELERATE	partners,	highlights	the	most	urgent	updates	necessary	in	the	definition,	principles	
and	guidelines	of	the	Charter,	to	make	it	more	specific	and	at	the	same	time,	comprehensive	of	the	existing	
and	required	access	practices	to	address	societal	challenges	more	efficiently.	
Due	 to	 its	 relevance,	 open	 access	 has	 been	 extensively	 discussed	 and	 RIs	 devote	 significant	 efforts	 to	
improving	 their	procedures	 following	 the	 recommendations	 from	expert	groups	and	 the	 feedback	 from	
users,	both	academic	and	commercial.	In	the	following,	the	practices	of	the	RIs	and	the	ones	developed	in	
                                            
5	“Strengthening	the	effectiveness	and	sustainability	of	Research	Infrastructures”,	OECD	SCIENCE,	TECHNOLOGY	AND	INDUSTRY	-	
POLICY	PAPERS,	December	2017	No.	48	
6	Horizon	Europe	-	Work	Programme	2021-2022	Research	Infrastructures,	draft,	December	2020.	
7	https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/White_paper_ESFRI-final.pdf	
8	Jana	Kolar,	&	Ornela	De	Giacomo.	(2021).	Applicability	and	challenges	related	to	the	Charter	for	Open	Access	to	Research	
Infrastructures.	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4475208	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 7	
 
the	response	of	the	COVID-19	outbreak	are	reviewed,	followed	by	an	overview	of	the	EU	co-funded	projects	
that	have	further	contributed	to	the	harmonisation	of	access	procedures	to	RIs.		
	
Open	access	procedures	for	scientific	excellence	
The	number	of	projects	and	initiatives	that	have	dealt	with	and	are	still	working	towards	the	harmonisation	
and/or	standardisation	of	access	procedures	in	research	infrastructures	give	an	idea	of	the	complexity	but	
at	the	same	time,	the	importance	of	this	topic.	The	Charter	made	a	significant	contribution	in	this	respect,	
reaching	consensus	 from	most	RIs	 in	a	 series	of	definitions,	principles	and	promoting	good	practices	as	
guidelines.	 	Although	there	have	been	important	 improvements	 in	alignment	over	the	last	fifteen	years,	
facility	managers	prefer	to	have	full	autonomy	on	some	access	procedures,	especially	those	reflecting	their	
mission	and	objectives.	A	good	example	is	proposal	evaluation.	From	the	projects	analysed	in	this	report,	
only	NFFA	and	LASERLAB	managed	to	have	a	centralised	review	panel,	and	facilities	accept	the	proposals	
selected	 by	 these	 panels	 without	 further	 evaluation,	 for	 an	 amount	 of	 access	 time	 previously	 agreed	
between	the	facility	and	the	project.	While	projects	may	choose	to	have	more	than	one	evaluation	panel,	
this	is	not	the	case	for	ERICs.	CERIC-ERIC	started	offering	open	access	in	2014,	with	a	first	test	call	in	March	
that	 year.	 Facilities	 declare	 their	 time	 commitment	 annually	 and	 CERIC	 proposals	 are	 scheduled	 in	 the	
Partner	Facilities	according	to	the	scientific	merit,	as	established	by	CERIC’s	review	panel.	This	is	likely	the	
approach	that	ELI-ERIC	and	ESS	ERIC	will	adopt.	The	main	condition	for	establishing	a	centralised	evaluation	
panel	is	trust:	facilities	need	to	be	convinced	that	the	evaluation	panel	set	up	by	the	infrastructure	or	project	
is	selecting	the	best	proposals,	since	many	of	the	outputs	of	the	infrastructure	depend	on	it,	affecting	its	
sustainability.	For	this	reason,	we	decided	to	focus	on	this	critical	topic	starting	from	the	experience	of	well-
established	 infrastructures.	ACCELERATE	partners	will	use	 this	 information	 for	 improving	or	establishing	
their	evaluation	procedures	and	all	RIs	are	invited	to	use	it	and	contact	the	authors	to	propose	modifications	
or	upgrades.	
Overview	of	open	access	procedures	in	European	Research	Infrastructures	 
The	chapter	provides	an	overview	of	the	access	policies	of	the	RIs,	which	have	responded	to	the	Accelerate	
survey:	ALBA,	ASTRID2,	DESY,	Diamond	Light	Source,	Elettra	Sincrotrone	Trieste,	European	XFEL,	FELIX,	HZB,	
ISIS,	LLB	–	CEA,	INFN-LNF	(DAFNE-Light),	MLZ	(for	FRMII),	PSI,	and	SOLEIL	Synchrotron.9	It	is	limited	to	the	
policies	ruling	the	excellence-driven	access.	Market-driven	access	has	completely	different	procedures	than	
                                            
9	For	a	brief	description	of	the	facilities	see	Annex	1,	page	18	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 8	
 
the	selection	based	on	scientific	quality.	With	some	exceptions,	 the	scientific	quality	of	a	market-driven	
access	project	does	not	influence	the	possibility	to	get	access	time.		
Type	of	submission	(call	with	a	deadline,	open	submission,	fast	track)	
Most	of	the	RIs	issue	two	calls	for	proposals	per	year,	for	short	or	long-term	projects.	This	is	a	common	
practice,	which	reflects	the	compromise	between	the	time	the	user	has	to	wait	from	the	application	to	the	
experiment,	and	the	need	to	have	a	sufficiently	high	number	of	proposals	to	select	the	best	ones.	Some	
have	 developed	 specific	 access	 procedures	 for	 particular	 experiments.	 As	 an	 example,	 SOLEIL	 has,	 in	
addition	 to	 the	 regular	 calls,	 one	 call	 per	 year	 for	 long	 term	 projects	 (up	 to	 2	 years)	 on	 some	 of	 the	
instruments,	 and	 the	 Swiss	 light	 source	 at	 the	 PSI	 has,	 besides	 the	 regular	 two	 calls,	 another	 two	 for	
Macromolecular	Crystallography	(MX).	Facilities	offering	macromolecular	crystallography	usually	offer	the	
possibility	of	continuous	submission	with	the	allocation	of	time	shortly	after	the	evaluation.	In	addition	to	
the	regular	one	or	two	calls	per	year,	most	facilities	have	fast	access	on	a	limited	set	of	beamlines,	also	
using	continuous	submission.	The	need	to	adopt	Fast	access	can	be	driven	by	different	factors,	amongst	
which	we	could	cite:		
• Nature	 of	 the	 samples:	 their	 preparation	 is	 challenging	 and	 their	 lifetime	 is	 brief	 (e.g.	 protein	
crystallography)	
• Feasibility	tests:	many	facilities	provide	access	for	very	short	experiments	aimed	at	assessing	the	
feasibility,	 intended	 as	 the	 suitability	 of	 the	 technique	 to	 study	 a	 particular	 phenomenon,	 the	
suitability	of	the	sample,	its	preparation	method	and	sample	environment,	etc.	
• Societal	challenges:	the	COVID-19	pandemic	has	proved	the	suitability	of	fast	access	to	contribute	
to	the	research	in	this	area.	
Fast	access	will	be	discussed	in	more	detail	later	in	this	document.			
Evaluation	procedures	
Once	the	call	closes,	proposals	go	through	an	evaluation.	Most	facilities	perform	a	technical	evaluation	to	
determine	the	feasibility	of	a	proposal	followed	by	a	scientific	evaluation.	In	a	couple	of	facilities,	the	order	
is	inverted,	or	both	evaluations	run	in	parallel.	In	addition,	a	safety	assessment	is	performed	through	the	
submission	of	a	signed	form.	EUROPEAN	XFEL	performs	the	technical	evaluation,	the	safety	checks	and	the	
scientific	evaluation	in	parallel,	but	the	technical	evaluation	and	safety	checks	must	be	ready	at	least	10	
days	before	the	meeting	of	the	Scientific	review	panel,	for	them	to	take	into	consideration	the	input	from	
the	other	evaluations.	Astrid2	have	consultations	between	beamline	scientists	and	users	before	or	during	
the	submission	process	to	ensure	the	feasibility	and	safety	of	the	proposals,	making	the	technical	evaluation	
not	necessary,	with	the	possibility	to	have	technical	comments	during	the	other	stages	of	the	evaluation	
process.	ISIS,	on	the	other	hand,	runs	a	preliminary	safety	assessment	during	the	submission	phase	and	a	
more	detailed	one	before	the	beginning	of	the	measurements.	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 9	
 
The	scientific	evaluation	process	is	quite	similar	in	all	the	facilities;	however,	every	facility	has	a	particularity,	
that	makes	 it	 different	 from	 the	 others.	 Reviewers	 are	 asked	 to	 perform	 a	 scientific	 evaluation	 of	 the	
proposals	 assigned	 to	 them	 and	 to	 give	 feedback	 assigning	 a	 score	 and	 writing	 comments	 and	
recommendations,	taking	into	account	different	evaluation	criteria.	The	process	ends	with	a	ranking	of	the	
most	promising	proposals,	delivered	to	the	management	of	the	facility.	The	way	the	ranking	is	created	and	
the	specific	criteria	that	are	taken	into	account	changes	from	one	facility	to	another.		
The	evaluation	criteria	are	established	by	the	management	of	 the	facility	according	to	 its	priorities	and	
objectives.	According	to	the	Charter,	the	excellence-driven	mode	should	be	exclusively	dependent	on	the	
scientific	excellence,	originality,	quality	and	technical	and	ethical	feasibility	of	a	proposal	evaluated	through	
peer-review	conducted	by	internal	or	external	experts.	Although	all	RIs	pursue	scientific	excellence	as	the	
main	goal,	some	may	decide	to	promote	young/new	users,	weigh	the	level	of	potential	contribution	to	an	
active	field	of	science	or	an	experimental	technique,	or	outreach	to	new	countries,	which	don’t	have	similar	
RIs.	They	may	also	consider	the	output	of	the	principal	investigator/group,	indirectly	penalising	young	users.	
Various	sub-criteria	may	be	included	as	a	part	of	the	excellence	score.	They	may	also	be	used	to	decide	
between	equally	ranked	proposals.		
This	is	one	of	the	reasons	why	an	institution	may	be	reluctant	to	entrust	the	evaluation	process	to	another	
entity	(e.g.	use	of	a	single	review	panel	for	all	synchrotrons).		
Internal	and	external	experts	can	be	involved	in	the	peer-review	process.	Evaluators	are	in	most	cases	
independent	experts	to	avoid	conflicts	of	interest,	but	some	facilities	prefer	to	have	also	personnel	of	the	
facility	involved	in	the	evaluation.	Evaluators	are	usually	divided	into	groups	or	panels	according	to	their	
expertise	in	a	scientific	discipline	or	technique.	The	number	of	these	groups	may	change	but	goes	from	4	
to	9	in	the	facilities	surveyed.	The	number	of	reviewers	in	each	group	depends	on	many	factors;	e.g.	the	
number	of	required	evaluations	per	proposal,	the	total	number	of	proposals	received	by	the	facility,	the	
number	of	instruments,	etc.	A	review	panel	can	easily	contain	60-80	members,	making	it	challenging	for	
facilities	to	find	such	a	high	number	of	independent	experts	without	conflict	of	interest	since	many	of	them	
are	still	users	of	at	least	one	facility.	
In	addition	to	the	differences	in	evaluation	criteria,	RIs	adopt	different	scoring	to	select	the	best	proposals.	
Some	facilities	(DESY,	Elettra,	PSI,	Diamond	and	ISIS)	use	a	numeric	rating	that	may	vary	from	0-5,	1-5	or	0-
10,	while	others	(HZB-BESSY,	ASTRID2,	LLB-CEA,	ALBA,	FELIX)	use	a	classification	according	to	the	scheduling	
priority.	In	this	scale,	a	letter	defines	the	proposals	to	be	scheduled	(A,	A+),	the	following	letter	defines	the	
reserve	list	(B)	and	a	third	one	indicates	proposals	that	should	not	be	scheduled	(C),	with	slight	variations	
amongst	facilities.	SOLEIL’s	score	system	is	quite	different	from	those	of	the	other	facilities,	with	all	 the	
members	of	one	of	the	6	review	panels	allowed	to	grade	all	the	proposals	they	feel	competent	about,	but	
only	2	or	3	referees	with	a	spokesperson	are	assigned	by	the	chairperson	to	give	a	short	report	on	each	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 10	
 
proposal	 and	 a	 grade	 between	 1	 to	 9	 according	 to	 4	 criteria:	 1-scientific	 interest;	 2-originality;	 3-clear	
presentation	of	the	theme	and	4-feasibility.		The	score	given	by	a	member	of	the	review	panel	not	assigned	
to	 the	proposal	 is	weighted	differently.	Then,	 the	 final	grade	 is	assigned	during	a	 face	 to	 face	meeting.	
JÜLICH	uses	a	numeric	 rating	with	proposals	 scored	8	or	more	 that	must	 get	beamtime,	 and	proposals	
scored	5	or	less	that	must	not	get	it,	with	a	waiting	list	for	the	proposals	scored	between	5	and	8.	After	one	
or	more	 evaluators	 have	 assigned	 a	 score,	 the	 final	 score	 is	 decided	 either	 by	 average	or	 by	 a	 plenary	
discussion.	Some	facilities	(e.g.	Elettra)	apply	normalisation	to	the	score	that	corrects	the	bias	introduced	
by	the	personal	preference	of	evaluators	to	use	the	full	scale	available	or	only	a	very	restricted	part	of	it.	
The	 scope	 of	 the	 normalisation	 is	 to	make	 proposals’	 scores	 comparable	 if	 two	 or	more	 subpanels	 of	
reviewers	serve	an	instrument	or	beam-line.	After	each	review	panel	meeting,	the	chairman	produces	a	
report	for	the	facility	management	with	comments,	concerns	and	recommendations.	The	outcome	is	then	
used	as	a	basis	for	the	final	allocation	supervised	by	the	facility	management.		
Proposals	received	outside	the	two	regular	annual	calls	frequently	follow	a	different	procedure,	conditioned	
by	the	need	to	allow	a	more	immediate	access,	for	example,	proposals	are	assigned	to	a	single	evaluator	
(internal	or	external)	or	the	score	is	calculated	as	the	average	of	the	ones	assigned	by	more	evaluators,	but	
there	is	no	discussion	among	them	e.g.	due	to	the	need	to	provide	a	fast	reply.		
At	the	end	of	the	evaluation	process,	users	are	notified	about	the	results	of	the	evaluation.	For	those	who	
are	granted	time,	all	the	facilities	require	an	access	request	that	has	to	be	approved	for	the	users	to	enter	
the	selected	facility.	
Time	dedicated	to	open	calls	
Most	of	the	facilities	have	no	or	limited	scheduling	constraints	mostly	related	to	maintenance	and	internal	
research,	with	no	quotas	per	country.	LLB-CEA	has	no	internal	research	time	and	75%	of	available	time	is	
given	 to	 the	 committees,	 whereas	 the	 rest	 is	 used	 for	 fast	 access,	 alignment,	 maintenance	 or	 failure	
proposals.	Astrid2	has	several	two-week	shutdown	periods	and	some	machine/physics/development	weeks	
scheduled	throughout	the	year.	SOLEIL	uses	65	to	80	%	of	the	beamtime	to	allocate	proposals	submitted	to	
the	review	panel,	and	the	rest	for	in-house	research.	The	EUROPEAN	XFEL	had	previously	assigned	80%	of	
beamtime	for	users	and	the	rest	for	maintenance	or	in-house	research	and	just	a	small	5%	for	industrial	
users,	but	now	they	try	to	use	100%	of	the	beamtime	for	users.	ALBA	and	Elettra	give	on	average	70%	of	
the	beamtime	to	users	and	the	rest	 to	commissioning	or	 in-house	research.	Diamond	 is	 in	 line	with	the	
other	RIs,	offering	80%	of	the	available	time	to	users	with	the	remaining	20%	for	 in-house	research	and	
commissioning.	
Additional	access	channels	
In	addition	to	the	regular	calls	for	excellence-based	and	market-based	access,	most	facilities	have	additional	
access	channels,	that	serve	a	specific	purpose.	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 11	
 
In	 the	 last	 20	 years,	 fast-track	 access	 to	 macromolecular	 crystallography	 beamlines	 has	 become	
widespread.	While	this	kind	of	fast	track	still	conforms	to	the	principle	of	excellence-based	access,	the	fast	
nature	and	the	rolling	procedure	involves	the	selection	of	the	best	proposals	in	a	smaller	group,	according	
to	the	time	of	 their	submission.	The	 implementation	of	 the	excellence-based	fast	 track	access	 for	other	
disciplines	has	been	proposed	but	so	far	until	COVID-19	appeared,	it	wasn’t	as	compelling	for	any	of	them	
as	it	was	for	macromolecular	crystallography,	due	to	the	nature	of	the	samples.	
Moreover,	fast	track	access	is	delivered	by	many	facilities	for	other	kinds	of	purposes,	not	exactly	in	line	
with	 the	Charter	excellence-driven	mode.	The	 fast	 track	 can	be	 functional	 for	 researchers	preparing	an	
experiment	and	trying	to	assess	whether	a	given	technique	or	instrument	will	deliver	the	expected	results,	
or	whether	 the	 samples	 are	 prepared	 properly.	 This	 kind	 of	 access	 involves	 short	 slots	 (0-48	 hours)	 of	
instrument	time	and	it	serves	the	purpose	of	improving	the	quality	of	the	proposals	submitted	to	the	facility,	
removing	the	uncertainties	about	the	feasibility,	appropriateness	of	the	samples,	etc.	This	allows	reviewers	
to	make	informed	decisions	and	substantially	reduces	the	time	wasted	in	experiments	that	may	not	achieve	
the	expected	results	for	the	reasons	mentioned	above.	Although	this	kind	of	access	does	not	fit	into	the	
definition	 of	 excellence-based	 access,	 its	 contribution	 to	more	 efficient	 use	 of	 the	 beamtime	 and	 as	 a	
consequence,	to	better	outputs	is	well	known.		
Another	kind	of	 fast	track	access	adopted	by	some	facilities	 in	a	more	or	 less	official	way	(sometimes	 it	
happens	 through	 direct	 contact	 with	 the	 beamline	 scientists	 and	 not	 through	 an	 official	 proposal	
submission)	is	the	fast	access	for	experiments	that	are	complete	but,	for	some	reason,	a	very	limited	part	
of	it	needs	to	be	repeated,	or	additional	information	needs	to	be	provided	for	some	specific	reason.	This	is	
common	during	the	submission	of	papers	to	scientific	journals.	In	the	review	process,	evaluators	may	ask	
for	 supplementary	measures	 to	 confirm	 a	 hypothesis	 or	 e.g.	 to	 repeat	 some	measures	 under	 different	
conditions.	In	this	case,	the	fast	access	allows	providing	the	additional	information	needed	to	proceed	with	
the	review	and	achieve	the	publication	of	a	paper.	Again,	this	kind	of	access	undoubtedly	contributes	to	the	
scientific	 excellence,	 considering	 that	 in	 most	 cases,	 it	 is	 measured	 by	 the	 number	 and	 quality	 of	 the	
publications	produced,	although	it	is	not	peer-reviewed,	or	more	accurately,	it	is	decided	internally	by	the	
instrument	or	facility	manager.	
In	the	times	of	COVID-19,	most	RIs	have	set-up	priority	access	for	COVID-19	related	research,	in	response	
to	a	societal	challenge.	This	topic	will	be	addressed	in	detail	later	in	the	document	but	it	is	important	to	
mention	that	the	pandemic	disrupted	the	regular	operations	and	the	only	way	to	deal	with	it	was	to	think	
outside	the	box.	
Finally,	Research	Infrastructures	have	been	called	to	contribute	to	the	European	Research	Area	and	to	the	
EU	priorities,	such	as	the	Green	Deal	or	as	previously	mentioned,	the	fight	against	the	spread	of	COVID-19.	
To	respond	to	these	challenges,	they	may	need	to	adapt	their	access	procedures,	for	example	prioritising	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 12	
 
impact	 over	 excellence.	 As	mentioned	 earlier,	 the	 Charter	 should	 be	 reviewed	 to	 consider	 this	 natural	
evolution,	since	most	EU	documents	promote	its	adoption	by	RIs,	leaving	out	any	possibility	for	them	to	
adapt	and	implement	the	most	efficient	access	to	respond	to	these	challenges.	
Remote	access	
As	a	consequence	of	the	increase	in	the	automation	of	beamlines,	several	facilities	have	developed,	or	are	
developing,	 “remote	 access”.	 In	 this	modality	 of	 access,	 users	 send	 their	 samples	 to	 the	 facility,	 to	 be	
analysed	with	the	support	of	the	beamline	personnel.	In	the	most	advanced	facilities,	samples	are	handled	
by	 robots	and	calibration,	measurements	and	data	analysis	are	managed	by	 the	user	 remotely	 through	
virtual	 interfaces,	 often	 in	 real-time.	 Diamond,	 for	 instance,	 has	 developed	 a	 series	 of	 policies	 and	
procedures,	that	apply	to	a	restricted	number	of	instruments/beamlines,	that	allow	to	measure	samples	
sent	by	the	users	and	to	access	the	results	of	the	measurements	remotely	via	a	Data	Collection	Software	
developed	appositely	for	these	purposes.	
Open	access	procedures	of	CERIC-ERIC	
General	access	policy	of	CERIC-ERIC	
One	of	the	strengths	of	CERIC	is	to	offer	the	possibility	to	submit	multi-technique	proposals:	a	user	with	a	
complex	problem	can	ask	for	up	to	five	complementary	techniques	with	a	single	description	of	the	scientific	
motivation	 (single	 proposal).	 Diversely	 to	 the	 conventional	 single	 instrument	 proposals,	 where	 the	
innovative	approach	or	the	full	exploitation	of	the	cutting-edge	instrumentation	is	crucial,	the	score	of	a	
multi-technique	proposal	should	reflect	predominantly	the	importance	of	the	scientific	case.	Therefore,	a	
project	with	a	high	scientific	relevance	may	get	time	despite	requiring	a	standard	(not	highly	innovative)	
measurement	in	one	of	the	instruments.	Reviewers	are	asked	to	consider	the	scientific	relevance	of	the	
science	behind	the	proposal,	but	also	to	assess	whether	a	sophisticated	facility	like	a	synchrotron	or	neutron	
reactor	is	needed	to	achieve	those	results,	or	whether	they	can	be	achieved	with	conventional	laboratory	
instruments,	making	 the	 use	 of	 large-scale	 facilities	 unnecessary.	 This	 dual	 character	 of	 the	 evaluation	
makes	it	rather	complex,	and	the	subjectivity	of	reviewers	can	become	even	more	pronounced.		
Since	CERIC	was	originally	 conceived	 to	provide	access	 for	multi-technique	proposals,	 the	choice	of	 the	
proper	complementary	techniques	was	one	of	the	evaluation	criteria.	It	was	thus	decided	that	the	best	way	
to	 reflect	 this	 was	 by	 calculating	 the	 final	 score	 of	 the	 proposal	 as	 the	 average	 of	 the	 score	 in	 each	
instrument.	The	scoring	scale	goes	 from	1	 (excellent,	 responding	 to	all	 scientific	 relevance	criteria)	 to	5	
(unfeasible,	or	the	use	of	large-scale	facilities	is	not	duly	justified).	In	the	past,	it	was	proposed	to	remove	
the	instruments	with	the	worse	score	from	consideration	in	the	final	score.	It	was	implemented	during	one	
call,	but	abandoned,	because	it	led	to	many	single-instrument	proposals,	denaturing	the	scope	of	CERIC.			
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 13	
 
After	a	 full	year	of	operation,	 some	facilities	asked	 to	extend	the	open	access	also	 to	single	 instrument	
proposals.	These	facilities	had	instruments	that	were	otherwise	not	offered	to	external	users	in	open	access.	
The	inclusion	of	these	instruments,	offered	also	for	single	technique	proposals	but	in	open	access	based	on	
peer-review,	optimised	their	use	and	increased	the	scientific	output	of	these	facilities.	As	a	consequence,	
CERIC	 modified	 its	 access	 policy,	 in	 a	 way	 to	 require	 a	 multi-technique	 proposal,	 in	 the	 case	 of	 the	
instruments	that	already	had	their	own	channels	for	open	access,	and	single	or	multi-technique	for	those	
instruments	that	offer	open	access	only	through	CERIC	calls.		
In	2019,	in	reply	to	the	requests	received	by	some	users,	and	the	advice	from	the	International	Scientific	
and	Technical	Advisory	Committee	(ISTAC),	CERIC	implemented	a	“fast	access”	pilot	for	some	instruments.	
The	pilot	is	dedicated	to	feasibility	studies,	with	a	maximum	access	time	of	48	hours.	It	was	proposed	that	
the	fast	access	may	also	extend	to	additional	cases	(e.g.	macromolecular	crystallography)	but	this	option	is	
still	under	consideration	since	the	scope	of	CERIC	is	to	offer	services	that	are	complementary	to	the	ones	
already	offered	by	its	participating	RIs.	An	additional	pilot,	proposed	to	support	outreach	to	countries	with	
a	 less	 developed	 user	 community,	 was	 implemented	 in	 the	 last	 call.	 The	 outreach	 pilot	 foresees	 that	
scientists	 (potential	 users)	 are	 trained	 through	 targeted	 programs.	 The	 application	 for	 beamtime	 takes	
place	through	the	regular	calls	for	proposals	but	part	of	the	time	of	the	facilities	is	allocated	preferentially	
to	these	proposals.	Being	a	young	institution,	CERIC	is	always	open	to	feedback	from	users	and	suggestions	
from	ISTAC	or	other	experts,	to	improve	its	services.	
CERIC	 has	 scheduling	 constraints	 linked	 to	 the	 time	 committed	 by	 the	 Representing	 Entities.	 Some	
infrastructures	dedicate	to	CERIC	on	average	10%	of	the	users	dedicated	time,	while	some	others	provide	
enough	time	to	schedule	100%	of	the	highly	ranked	proposals	(30-40%	of	the	user’s	time).	
	
Open	Access	under	emergency	conditions:	the	COVID-19	case	
The	access	policies	in	place	in	the	different	RIs	allow	to	operate	correctly	under	normal	circumstances,	but	
the	pandemic	situation	of	2020	showed	that	they	were	inappropriate	under	particular	emergencies.	Since	
then,	many	facilities’	operations	were	disrupted	to	the	point	of	shutting	down	partially	or	even	completely	
for	a	some	time,	according	to	the	impact	of	the	COVID-19	in	the	different	countries.	Before	the	pandemic,	
the	majority	of	the	user-based	operations	of	RIs	were	focused	on	physical	access	by	researchers	travelling	
all	over	the	world	to	reach	the	best	facilities	to	perform	their	experiments.	The	travel	restrictions	introduced	
by	the	countries	from	the	beginning	of	the	COVID-19	pandemic	have	forced	the	RIs	to	adapt	their	access	
procedures	and	 in	many	cases	 to	develop	new	ones,	 to	allow	 them	to	maintain	 their	operations	at	 the	
highest	possible	level.	In	conjunction	with	the	new	Access	Policies,	a	major	focus	has	been	also	put	on	the	
development	of	new	technologies	to	overcome	the	necessity	for	users	to	be	present	during	the	experiments	
and	to	allow	their	input	during	the	measurements	as	well	as	during	the	analysis	of	the	data.	In	response	to	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 14	
 
the	pandemic,	 several	 research	 infrastructures	have	set	up	specific	 services,	 such	as	 remote	access	and	
rapid	or	fast	track	access	for	specific	projects	related	to	the	COVID-19	related	research.	
To	 help	 RIs	 to	 deal	 with	 the	 crisis	 benefitting	 from	 the	 best	 practices	 put	 in	 place	 by	 other	 RIs,	 the	
ACCELERATE	partnership	teamed	up	with	ERF	(The	Association	of	European-Level	of	Research	Infrastructure	
Facilities)	and	develop	three	surveys	that	were	submitted	to	most	analytical	RIs	in	Europe.		
The	first	survey,	launched	in	March,	served	to	collect	the	various	approaches	and	solutions	developed	by	
RIs	in	response	to	the	COVID-19	pandemic	and	to	share	this	information	on	a	webpage.10	The	aim	of	the	
immediate	publication	was	 twofold:	 to	 serve	as	an	 inspiration	 to	other	Research	 infrastructures	 for	 the	
implementation	of	similar	initiatives	and	to	inform	researchers	about	the	various	opportunities	and	special	
programmes	set-up	by	infrastructures,	from	which	they	could	benefit.	This	page	was	widely	advertised	in	
all	the	relevant	websites	and	initiatives	to	achieve	the	widest	visibility.		
The	 second	 survey	was	 launched	 in	 April	 2020	 and	 it	 focused	 on	 the	 safety	 and	 operational	measures	
introduced	to	allow	the	highest	possible	level	of	operation	of	facilities	but	ensuring	the	safety	of	the	staff	
and	researchers.11		
The	third	survey	instead	was	launched	in	October	2020	to	collect	any	updates	from	RIs	after	six	months	of	
operation	under	the	conditions	 imposed	by	the	pandemic.12	From	the	moment	 it	became	clear	 that	 the	
pandemic	would	be	long	lasting,	many	facilities	reflected	on	how	to	provide	the	most	effective	and	resilient	
services	in	a	world	where	COVID-19	would	continue	to	be	present	and	perhaps	return	in	successive	waves.	
The	experiences	of	 these	months,	with	 increased	provision	of	 remote	access,	drastically	 reduced	 travel	
possibilities	for	staff	and	users,	and	the	widespread	development	of	home	office	may	lead	to	permanent	
changes	 of	 operations,	 and	 to	 new	 standards	 for	 operations	 and	 access	 independent	 from	 pandemic	
considerations.			
An	overview	of	the	questions	posed	to	infrastructures	with	each	questionnaire	and	the	list	of	respondents	
is	available	as	Annexes	III,	IV	and	V.	In	the	following	section	we	summarise	the	main	results	and	conclusions.	
                                            
10	https://erf-aisbl.eu/research-infrastructures-offer-for-research-on-covid-19/	
11	Jana	Kolar,	Andrew	Harrison,	&	Florian	Gliksohn.	(2020,	May	6).	ERF's	Review	of	Working	Practices	of	Analytical	Facilities	During	
the	Pandemic.	Zenodo.	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3795660	
12	Jana	Kolar,	Andrew	Harrison,	&	Florian	Gliksohn.	(2021).	Effect	of	the	COVID-19	Pandemic	on	the	Working	Practices	of	
Analytical	Facilities	II.	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4423107	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 15	
 
Overview	of	the	different	COVID-19	related	solutions	adopted	in	European	Research	Infrastructures	
COVID-19	disrupted	operations	
Most	 of	 the	 RIs	 surveyed	 were	 forced	 to	 adapt	 the	 operations	 of	 their	 laboratories	 according	 to	 the	
emergency	in	terms	of	external	users,	staff	and	instruments/end-stations/beamlines	running.	The	majority	
of	the	RIs	reduced	the	number	of	staff	on-site	in	a	range	of	40%	to	80%	compared	to	pre-COVID-19	levels.	
On	 the	 contrary,	 the	 majority	 of	 the	 RIs	 in	 operation	 decided	 to	 keep	 100%	 of	 instruments/end-
stations/beamlines	running	during	the	pandemic	with	a	significant	reduction	of	external	users	allowed	to	
enter	the	laboratories	with	services	largely	dedicated	to	COVID-19	research.	Only	a	few	managed	to	keep	
the	flow	of	external	users	at	the	same	level	as	in	the	pre-COVID-19	period.	To	be	noted	that	many	of	the	
surveyed	institutions	were	at	some	point	(during	the	first	wave)	forced	to	stop	completely	any	user-based	
operations	and	focus	only	on	internal	research.	Some	infrastructures	needed	to	go	further	and	shut	down	
all	operations,	to	guarantee	the	safety	of	the	staff.	
Impact	on	the	excellence-access	mode	
Some	of	 the	 facilities	have	 set	up	 remote	access	procedures	with	a	 sample	mail-in	process	but	usually,	
roughly	20%	of	the	programmed	measurements	have	been	conducted	using	it.	A	good	number	of	facilities	
have	 been	 using	 sample	mail-in	 procedures	 to	 perform	 some	more	 complex	 remote	 user	 experiments	
assisted	 by	 local	 scientists/staff	 with	 a	 few	 of	 them,	 such	 as	 Centro	 de	 Láseres	 Pulsados,	 Laboratoire	
d’Optique	Appliquée,	European	XFEL	and	BNC,	on	the	totality	of	the	planned	experiments.	The	majority	of	
the	RIs	have	set	up	a	hybrid	access	mode,	that	allows	some	external	users	on-site	during	the	measurements	
while	the	rest	of	the	team	follows	through	remote	connections.	In	the	case	of	HZB,	100%	of	the	planned	
experiments	use	the	hybrid	method.		
Requirements,	opportunities	and	issues	linked	to	remote	access	to	facilities	
Regarding	 the	measures	 introduced	 to	assist	 remote	access,	almost	all	of	 the	 responding	 facilities	have	
created	 or	 improved	 their	 IT	 resources	 for	 data	 sharing,	 Remote	 analysis	 in	 real-time,	 Webcams	 and	
microphones	 for	 video	 conferences	 and	 remote	 control	 of	 the	 data	 acquisition	 systems.	 Some	 of	 the	
facilities	have	been	providing	custom	solutions	based	on	the	singular	needs	of	the	users.		
The	highest	impact	on	the	regular	operations	was	due	to	the	travel	restrictions,	that	prevented	researchers	
from	reaching	the	facilities.	Moreover,	also	the	impossibility	of	the	users	to	prepare	samples	due	to	the	
limited	operations	of	their	institutions	played	a	major	role.		This	remains	true	during	the	second	survey	in	
October,	where	the	relative	importance	of	the	impossibility	to	prepare	the	samples	grows	higher.	
Among	the	issues	reported	by	the	facilities	with	remote	access	during	the	pandemic	emergency,	the	most	
prominent	 are	 the	 increased	 workload	 on	 the	 beamline/instrument	 scientists,	 reduced	 training	
opportunities	 for	users	and	experiments	being	too	complex	to	be	able	to	provide	a	high-quality	remote	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 16	
 
service.	The	October	survey	looked	deeper	into	the	specific	issues	raised	by	remote	access,	amongst	which	
facilities	cite	a	high	or	moderate	decrease	of	the	efficiency	(10/15),	higher	or	moderately	higher	amount	of	
time	needed	to	perform	the	experiments	(15/25),	experiments	being	too	complex	to	be	able	to	provide	a	
high-quality	remote	service	(high	and	medium	relevance	21/27),	lower	user	engagement		(high	and	medium	
relevance	 10/26),	 the	 workload	 on	 the	 beamline/instrument	 scientists	 is	 too	 high	 (high	 and	 medium	
relevance	23/27)	and	reduced	training	opportunities	for	users	(high	and	medium	relevance	21/27).		
In	terms	of	resources	allocated	to	facilitate	remote	access,	the	majority	of	the	respondent	RIs	did	not	have	
access	to	additional	funding	but	mostly	relied	on	the	reallocation	of	internal	resources,	the	only	reported	
exception	being	HZB,	who	benefitted	from	a	European	grant.		
In	terms	of	use	of	remote	Access	in	the	pre	and	post-COVID-19	periods,	the	share	of	remote	access	before	
the	pandemic	was	close	to	20%	of	the	total	performed	experiments	(only	in	few	cases	up	to	40%),	but	during	
the	COVID-19	emergency	it	has	roughly	duplicated,	resulting	in	a	total	of	40%	of	experiments	performed	
remotely	in	relation	to	the	total	of	all	the	proposals	granted	access.	In	the	case	of	Diamond,	European	XFEL,	
Physikalisch-Technische	Bundesanstait	and	ISIS	the	share	of	remotely	performed	experiments	raised	to	80%	
of	 the	 total	 accesses.	 For	 BNC	 and	 Laboratoire	 d’Optique	 Appliquée	 even	 to	 100%	 meaning	 that	
experiments	 during	 the	 pandemic	were	 done	 exclusively	 in	 remote	 access.	We	would	 see	 in	 the	 third	
questionnaire	that	after	six	months,	the	share	of	remote	access	in	most	facilities	is	as	high	as	60%.	
Almost	all	the	RIs	reported	that	business	travels	dropped	down	to	usually	20-40%	in	comparison	to	the	pre-
COVID-19	period.	In	many	cases	business	trips	are	not	allowed	at	all.		
It	 is	clear	that	the	current	pandemic	will	have	 long-ranging	consequences	on	the	delivery	of	services	by	
analytical	facilities	to	their	users.	When	asked	about	the	future	of	remote	access	after	the	COVID-19	period,	
most	RIs	identified	the	main	advantages	of	remote	access	in	the	decrease	of	environmental	impact	mainly	
due	to	the	reduction	of	users	traveling	to	reach	the	facilities.	Only	some	of	the	interviewed	facilities	think	
remote	access	will	be	an	additional	and	alternative	service	to	the	regular	access	after	the	pandemic.	
The	second	and	third	questionnaires	were	focused	on	the	safety	measurements	put	in	place	by	RIs	during	
the	COVID-19	period.	Facilities	that	replied	to	the	first	questionnaire	made	it	clear	that	most	procedures	
were	in	continuous	evolution,	as	the	situation	was,	and	no	one	could	see	how	it	would	develop.	This	is	why,	
after	a	first	questionnaire	about	the	measurements	put	in	place	that	surveyed	the	most	widely	adopted	
practices,	we	proposed	a	second	“update”	to	follow	up	on	what	practices	the	facilities	found	more	effective	
and	sustainable,	since	at	this	point	it	was	clear	that	the	pandemic	would	last	for	more	than	one	year.	The	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 17	
 
third	questionnaire	was	analyses	in	detail	in	a	paper13,	however,	some	of	the	most	important	highlights	will	
be	mentioned	here.	
At	the	beginning	of	the	pandemic,	almost	all	(23/27)	of	responding	institutions	reported	having	established	
dedicated	COVID-19	safety	protocols.	Often,	they	were	disseminated	to	staff	through	email,	although	some	
institutions	have	published	them	on	their	web	pages,	or	both.	Widespread	–	although	remarkably	diverse	
–	preventative	measures	have	been	adopted	since	the	April	survey.	The	main	measures	introduced	were	
those	promoted	by	the	World	Health	Organization,	such	as	the	use	of	protective	masks,	social	distancing,	
use	of	hand	disinfectants,	gloves	for	shared	surfaces,	hygienic	training	and	new	protocols	for	canteens	as	
well	as	business	travel	restrictions	and	the	need	for	negative	SWAB	test	results	by	external	users	accessing	
the	laboratories.	In	October,	most	RIs	have	worked	out	how	to	put	in	place	best-practice	protocols	and	have	
implemented	 them.	 The	 most	 common	 planned	 development	 to	 enhance	 safety	 in	 the	 future	 is	 the	
widespread	 use	 of	 testing	 for	 staff	 and	 users.	 However,	 one-third	 of	 all	 respondents	 have	 no	 plans	 to	
enhance	safety	measures	further,	and	only	a	third	indicated	plans	to	introduce	measures	that	are	not	yet	
in	force,	suggesting	a	high	degree	of	satisfaction	with	current	measures. 
In	most	cases,	only	approved	staff	could	enter	the	facilities	in	April,	while	an	authorisation	was	needed	for	
the	 rest.	 	 This	 situation	 did	 not	 change	 significantly	 during	 the	 year.	 Regarding	 the	 prospective	 for	 the	
future,	 in	 April	 only	 a	 few	 institutions	 were	 considering	 reducing	 the	 staff	 on-site	 and	 increasing	 the	
resources	dedicated	to	remote	access.	In	fact,	the	survey	in	October	confirmed	this	position.	The	level	of	
operation	of	facilities	and	the	number	of	instruments	available,	compared	to	pre-COVID	19	is	rather	high	
(mostly	80	to	100%)	and	almost	half	of	the	facilities	(9/20)	maintained	the	average	presence	of	staff	from	
80%	to	100%.		
Most	of	 the	 facilities	had	put	 in	place	special	measures	 in	 support	of	home	working	already	 in	April.	 In	
general,	they	focus	on	providing	the	staff	with	home	office	tools,	access	to	the	internet	and	safety	guidelines	
and	 health	 recommendations	 are	 regularly	 communicated	 to	 the	 staff.	 EU	 countries	 have	 issued	
instructions	to	employers	and	several	of	the	RI	report	that	they	adhere	to	the	national	guidelines.	Also,	few	
facilities	provide	psychological	support.		
	
                                            
13	Jana	Kolar,	Andrew	Harrison,	&	Florian	Gliksohn.	(2021).	Effect	of	the	COVID-19	Pandemic	on	the	Working	Practices	of	
Analytical	Facilities	II.	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4431748	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 18	
 
COVID-19	dedicated	Open	Access	procedures	of	CERIC-ERIC	
Like	 the	majority	 of	 the	 other	 RIs	 in	 Europe,	 CERIC	 decided	 to	 adapt	 its	 access	 policies	 in	 reply	 to	 the	
pandemic	emergency	with	two	major	measures,	setting	up	of	a	new	Fast-Track	open	access	dedicated	to	
COVID-19	studies	and	extending	the	“remotisation”	process	with	a	reallocation	of	the	internal	resources	as	
well	as	from	the	EU	project	PaNOSC,	
The	number	of	experiments	performed	 in	2020	decreased	significantly	 in	comparison	to	previous	years,	
due	to	the	travel	restrictions	adopted	by	countries,	both	nationally	and	internationally,	in	addition	to	the	
restrictions	on	business	travels	 imposed	by	some	Research	Organisations	on	their	personnel.	Moreover,	
researchers	were	 invited	 to	work	 from	home,	 being	 unable	 to	 access	 their	 laboratories	 to	 prepare	 the	
samples.		
A	significant	number	of	the	experiments	performed	were	conducted	remotely	(40%	of	the	total),	with	users	
shipping	samples	and	participating	in	the	measurements	remotely.	However,	several	of	the	experiments	
(60%)	were	not	suitable	for	this	kind	of	access	due	to	the	complex	nature	of	the	experiments.		
Activities	to	support	remote	access	
In	order	to	maintain	its	level	of	operation,	and	to	accommodate	external	researchers’	demand	to	perform	
their	experiments	remotely,	CERIC	developed	dedicated	procedures	for	remote	access	with	specific	tools	
facilitating	samples	shipment,	such	as	automatic	dedicated	solutions	for	the	front-end	forms	for	the	logistic	
organization	of	the	shipments,	and	virtual	connections	to	allow	a	real-time	interaction	of	researchers	with	
the	personnel	and	instruments	of	the	facilities	during	the	measurements,	and	later	for	the	analysis	of	the	
data	acquired.			
COVID-19	Fast	Track	
Using	the	experience	acquired	during	the	development	and	implementation	of	the	Accelerate	Fast-Track	
Access	pilot,	during	the	first	weeks	of	the	COVID-19	emergency,	CERIC	has	set	up	a	priority	Fast	Track	Access	
to	its	most	relevant	instruments	for	COVID-19	related	experiments.	Featuring	a	continuous	submission,	the	
evaluation	procedure	is	simplified	through	internal	feasibility	and	excellence	review,	and	the	scheduling	is	
granted	within	1	month	from	the	submission	of	the	proposal.	Users	are	encouraged	to	contact	the	facilities	
and	discuss	their	projects	in	advance	with	the	scientific	personnel	before	submitting	their	proposal.		
The	regular	submission	and	evaluation	procedure	that	usually	takes	approximately	3	months,	was	deemed	
inappropriate	to	deal	with	this	emergency.	
To	allow	the	fastest	exploitation	and	dissemination	of	the	results,	a	reduced	embargo	period	was	set	for	
the	raw	data	obtained	through	this	access,	limited	to	6	months	from	the	end	of	the	measurements.		
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 19	
 
Due	to	the	lack	of	the	necessary	bio-safety	accreditation	in	the	CERIC	facilities,	only	samples	guaranteed	as	
non-harmful	and	with	no	ability	to	cause	or	transfer	viral	infection	were	accepted	for	research.	
After	10	months	of	operations	(March	2020	–	December	2020),	CERIC	has	received	10	proposals	from	which	
9	have	been	positively	evaluated	and	performed.	The	COVID-19	Fast	Track	Access	 is	 still	ongoing	and	 is	
planned	to	be	offered	to	the	global	research	community	until	it	will	no	longer	be	necessary,	based	on	the	
demand.		
	
European	projects	that	contributed	to	the	harmonisation	of	access	policies	in	RIs	
In	the	previous	Framework	programmes	the	European	Commission	has	funded	several	coordination	and	
support	actions	in	which	the	core	activity	was	providing	transnational	access	to	Research	Infrastructures.	
Some	projects	included	work	packages	that	focused	on	access	policies	aiming	at	the	standardisation	and	
harmonisation	 of	 procedures	 among	 similar	 facilities.	 This	 is	 a	 request	 that	 comes	 from	 the	 users’	
community,	where	users	normally	need	to	use	several	facilities	for	their	research	purposes	and	“learning”	
how	to	get	access	to	a	set	of	infrastructures	may	become	challenging.	We	contacted	some	of	these	projects	
funded	during	 the	 last	 two	programming	 periods	 (FP7	 and	H2020)	 that	 contributed	 significantly	 to	 the	
harmonisation	of	access	procedures	amongst	European	RIs.	The	following	section	presents	an	overview	of	
their	main	achievements.	
Projects	in	FP	7	
BioStruct-X	
BioStruct-X	 brought	 together	 19	 European	 research	 organisations	 from	 11	 EU	member	 and	 associated	
states	 to	 build	 a	 broad	 platform	 of	 infrastructures	 addressing	 all	 stages	 of	 biological	 structure	
determination,	from	protein	production	of	sufficient	quantity	and	quality	for	structure	analysis,	to	sample	
production	and	data	collection	by	a	variety	of	X-ray	methods	(macromolecular	crystallography,	Small-Angle	
X-ray	Scattering	(SWAXS),	X-ray	imaging).		
BioStruct-X	was	a	successful	example	of	access	to	multiple	methods	through	a	unified	portal	and	with	a	
centralised	review	panel.	The	portal	offered	a	standardized	proposal	form	(developed	by	the	project)	for	
submission	 of	 single	 projects	 or	 BAG	 (block	 application	 group)	 applications.	 The	 user	 could	 choose	 the	
facility.	Facilities	could	choose	either	to	accept	the	evaluation	of	BioStruct-X	or	propose	to	include	these	
proposals	in	their	usual	review	processes.	
BioStruct-X	had	its	follow	up	in	INSTRUCT-X,	and	the	community	was	successful	in	finding	a	long-term	
solution	for	providing	integrated	access,	that	is	INSTRUCT-ERIC.	
Website:	https://www.biostruct-x.eu/		
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 20	
 
CALIPSO	
This	 project	 comprised	 a	 consortium	 of	 20	 synchrotrons	 and	 Free-Electron	 Lasers.	 The	 work	 of	
standardisation	 and	 harmonisation	was	 centred	 on	 the	 development	 of	 the	web	 portal	wayforlight.eu,	
which	incorporated	a	database	developed	in	a	previous	I3	CSA	(FP6,	ELISA).	The	database	in	wayforlight.org	
was	further	developed	and,	at	present,	it	allows	to	search	and	compare	all	photon-based	instruments	in	
the	EU	and	 some	outside	 the	EU	 (e.g.	 SESAME).	CALIPSO	developed	a	 standardised	proposal	 form	 that	
allows	the	transfer	of	a	series	of	basic	contents	to	all	the	facilities	where	the	user	wants	to	apply	for,	and	
specific	 contents	are	completed	at	 the	 facility’s	user	office.	This	multiple-application	process	was	made	
easier	also	by	 the	 implementation	of	a	 single	sign-on	software	called	Umbrella,	which	 is	 still	 viable	and	
allows	to	login	to	the	CALIPSO	portal,	as	well	as	to	all	the	Virtual	User	Offices,	through	a	single	username	
and	password.	After	submission,	the	proposal	is	transferred	to	the	selected	facility	and	processed	according	
to	each	facility’s	procedures	(no	single	evaluation	panel).	In	line	with	the	scope	of	this	project,	CALIPSO’s	
user	 survey	 showed	 that	 a	 significant	 number	 of	 users	 asked	 for	 more	 standardised	 and	 transparent	
evaluation	procedures	and	criteria.			
CALIPSO	made	big	steps	towards	standardisation	and	harmonisation.	The	main	results	of	the	project	in	this	
regard	are	integrating	parts	of	the	wayforlight	portal14		and	some	of	the	solutions	developed	(e.g.	umbrella)	
are	still	in	use	at	the	date	of	publication	of	this	report.	
WAYFORLIGHT	portal	http://www.wayforlight.eu/eng/home.aspx	
	
IRUVX-PP	
This	preparatory	phase	was	meant	to	create	the	consortium	of	Free	electron	lasers	in	Europe	(EuroFEL).	A	
full	work	package	was	dedicated	to	users:	The	IRUVX-PP	Work	Package	2	aimed,	“among	other,	at	defining,	
(1)	an	Access	Policy,	and	(2)	tools	and	procedures	allowing	for	a	common,	transparent	and	optimised	user	
access	to	the	distributed	FEL	facilities	within	the	EuroFEL	consortium”.		WP2	produced	the	Deliverable	D2.3:	
Review	of	Access	Policies	and	Panels.	This	deliverable	shows	a	nice	overview	of	the	main	characteristics	of	
access	 policies	 in	 eight	 European	 large	 research	 infrastructures.	 Unfortunately,	 the	 deliverable	 is	 not	
available	publicly	but	any	project	dealing	with	access	procedures	will	surely	find	this	document	very	useful.	
In	addition,	an	Expert’s	 report	was	published	called	“Handbook	 for	FEL	users”.	This	document	 is	mainly	
focused	on	FLASH	since	 it	was	the	only	facility	 in	operation	but	reports	also	on	proposal	evaluation	and	
                                            
14 http://www.calipso.wayforlight.eu/	
	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 21	
 
includes	 the	 opinion	 of	 three	 experts	 on	 the	 advantages	 and	 drawbacks	 of	 access	 procedures.	 What	
emerges	is	that	while	some	procedures	are	almost	identical	(call	for	proposals,	submission,	allocation	of	
time,	etc.)	the	main	differences	reside	in	the	evaluation	process.	Although	this	WP	made	a	good	preparatory	
work	for	the	harmonisation	of	access	in	FELs,	developing	the	first	“standard	proposal	form”	that	inspired	a	
similar	approach	in	CALIPSO,	there	was	no	convergence	to	a	single	policy	for	access	to	FELs.	Nevertheless,	
discussions	led	to	the	development	of	the	Umbrella	system,	further	developed	by	the	PanData	and	CRISP	
projects,	used	at	present	mainly	by	the	photon	community	thanks	to	the	deployment	by	CALIPSO.				
Website:	www.iruvx.eu	
	
LASERLAB-EUROPE	
The	Integrated	Initiative	of	European	Laser	Research	Infrastructures	brings	together	35	leading	institutions	
in	laser-based	inter-disciplinary	research	from	18	countries.	Together	with	associate	partners,	LASERLAB-
EUROPE	covers	the	majority	of	European	member	states.	24	laboratories	offer	access	to	their	facilities	for	
research	teams	from	Europe	and	beyond,	kindly	supported	by	EC	funding.	
One	of	its	objectives	is	to	offer	transnational	access	to	top-quality	laser	research	facilities	in	a	highly	co-
ordinated	fashion	for	the	benefit	of	the	European	research	community.	The	consortium	achieved	this	goal	
through	 the	 development	 of	 an	 access	 policy.	 The	 latter	 has	 only	 global	 objectives	 and	 EU	 resources	
(number	 of	 access	 days,	 total	 access	 funds)	 for	 the	 whole	 network	 and	 not	 for	 individual	 facilities.	
LASERLAB-EUROPE	 accounts	 only	 for	 10%-20%	of	 the	 beamtime	 available	 in	 these	 facilities.	 It	must	 be	
mentioned	that	this	project	(and	its	predecessors	in	FP6	and	5,	LASERNET)	managed	to	develop	from	scratch	
an	access	policy	and	develop	all	the	necessary	tools	to	offer	open	access	to	facilities	that	traditionally	did	
not	provide	it.	They	were	the	first	clear	example	of	centralised	access	to	a	distributed	infrastructure,	with	
a	single-entry	point	for	users	and	a	unique	proposal	review	panel.		
Website:	https://www.laserlab-europe.eu/	
	
NMI3		
The	aim	of	the	Integrated	Infrastructure	Initiative	for	Neutron	Scattering	and	Muon	Spectroscopy	(NMI3)	
was	 to	 facilitate	 the	Pan-European	coordination	of	neutron	scattering	and	muon	spectroscopy	 research	
activities,	by	integrating	all	the	research	infrastructures	in	these	fields	within	the	European	Research	Area.	
NMI3	was	a	consortium	of	18	partner	organisations	from	12	countries,	including	8	facilities,	opening	the	
way	for	a	more	concerted,	and	thus	more	efficient,	use	of	the	existing	infrastructure;	the	ultimate	aim	being	
a	more	strategic	approach	to	future	developments	and	increased	European	competitiveness	in	this	area.	In	
WP5	 Integrated	 User	 Access	 a	 single	 entry	 point	 for	 all	 participating	 neutron	 and	 muon	 facilities	 was	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 22	
 
developed.	 An	 ‘Integrated	User	 Access	 (IUA)’	 Networking	 Activity	was	 launched	 to	 develop	 ideas	 for	 a	
framework	 to	 structure	 and	 harmonize	 an	 integrated	 access	 format	 to	 European	 national	 neutron	 and	
muon	facilities	for	the	scientific	users.	The	project	achieved	to	contribute	to	the	harmonisation	of	access	
procedures	 in	 Neutron	 sources	 through	 these	 main	 tasks:	 development	 of	 a	 general	 integrated	 user	
registration;	 harmonized	 proposal	 forms	 and	 templates;	 Web-based	 proposal	 peer-review	 process;	
platforms	for	cross-source	independent	beamtime	access.	
NMI3	also	conducted	surveys	among	active	neutron	users	and	neutron	reviewers.	One	survey	showed	that	
58%	of	the	users	would	have	liked	that	one	of	their	rejected	proposal	was	transferred	to	another	facility.	
42%	of	the	users	would	favour	a	joint	neutron	evaluation	panel	while	34%	would	be	against.	24%	remain	
uncertain.	Among	the	reviewers	only	24%	would	appreciate	a	common	review	panel	while	28%	reject	the	
idea.	The	majority	of	48%	remains	uncertain.		
Website:	http://nmi3.eu/	
	
Projects	in	H2020	
CALIPSOplus	/	LEAPS	
The	WP	2	in	CALIPSOplus	is	working	on	a	further	harmonization	of	access	to	synchrotrons	and	FELs	towards	
a	more	extensive	deployment	of	the	Wayforlight	portal	and	coordinated	deadlines	for	calls	for	proposals.	
The	evaluation	system	remains	unchanged	from	CALIPSO	(FP7).		
The	League	of	European	Accelerator-based	Photon	Sources	(LEAPS)	initiative	will	set	up	a	workgroup	that	
will	assist	in	the	developments	of	CALIPSOplus	and	will	discuss	the	possibilities	of	more	harmonisation	and	
transparency	 in	 the	 evaluation	 process.	 An	 attempt	 to	 form	 a	 single	 centralised	 review	 panel	 was	
unanimously	rejected.	
Website:	http://www.calipsoplus.eu/	
	
The	European	Cluster	of	Advanced	Laser	Light	Sources	(EUCALL)	
EUCALL	 is	a	network	of	 leading	 large-scale	user	 facilities	 for	 free-electron	 laser,	synchrotron	and	optical	
laser	radiation	and	their	users.	Under	EUCALL,	they	work	together	on	their	common	methodologies	and	
research	 opportunities,	 and	 develop	 tools	 to	 sustain	 this	 interaction	 in	 the	 future.	 EUCALL	 involves	 11	
partners	 from	nine	 countries	 as	well	 as	 the	 networks	 LASERLAB	 Europe	 and	 FELs	 of	 Europe	 during	 the	
project	period	2015	to	2018.	Regarding	access	procedures,	EUCALL	organised	in	2017	the	workshop	User	
Access	Policies	at	Advanced	Laser	Light	Sources	and	Innovation	Potential	of	Advanced	Laser	Light	Sources	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 23	
 
that	 brought	 together	 representatives	 from	many	 large	 research	 infrastructures	 and	were	 an	 excellent	
opportunity	for	the	exchange	of	good	practices	and	procedures.	
Website:	https://www.eucall.eu/	
Workshop	User	Access	Policies	at	Advanced	Laser	Light	Sources	
	
NFFA	
The	NFFA	project	provides	coordinated	free	and	open	access	to	an	advanced	distributed	infrastructure	to	
perform	 growth,	 nano-lithography,	 nano-characterization,	 theory	 and	 simulation	 and	 fine-analysis	 with	
synchrotron,	 FEL	and	neutron	 radiation	 sources.	 The	users	access	 includes	 several	 “installations”	and	 is	
coordinated	 through	a	 single-entry	point	portal	 that	 activates	an	advanced	user-infrastructure	dialogue	
(Technical	Liaison	Network	-	TLNet)	to	build	up	a	personalized	access	programme	with	an	increasing	return	
on	science	and	innovation	production.	The	TLNet	tasks	are	the	assessment	of	the	technical	feasibility	of	the	
proposals	and	their	assignment	to	the	best-suited	instruments	according	to	their	technical	requirements	
and	 availability.	 After	 the	 TLNet	 evaluation,	 the	 proposal	 is	 submitted	 to	 an	 independent	 and	 external	
Access	Review	Panel	(ARP)	for	the	scientific	evaluation.	The	ARP	consists	of	twelve	experts	in	nanoscience	
that	cover	all	necessary	competences	foreseen	by	the	NFFA	access	programme.	The	scientific	evaluation	is	
based	on	scientific	merit	(evaluated	in	terms	of	scientific	relevance	for	nanoscience,	appropriateness	of	the	
experimental/theoretical	programme	and	expected	impact	of	the	results),	demonstration	of	the	need	for	
the	use	of	the	NFFA	infrastructure,	 innovation	potential	and	industry	 interest	as	added	value.	 In	case	of	
competition	between	projects	at	an	equal	level	of	scientific	ranking,	a	preference	is	given	to	projects	with	
female	 proponent(s)	 or	 user	 groups	 who	 are	 new	 to	 the	 specific	 NFFA	 installations	 or	 are	 working	 in	
countries	where	no	equivalent	research	infrastructure	exists.	The	set	up	and	implementation	of	the	TA	and	
evaluation	procedures	are	summarised	in	a	project	deliverable15.		
Website:	http://www.nffa.eu	
	
                                            
15 Deliverable	D1.3:		http://www.nffa.eu/outcomes/deliverables/		
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 24	
 
Conclusions	
Open	 access	 procedures	 are	 crucial	 for	 the	 scientific	 excellence	 of	 the	 facility,	 and	 therefore	 its	
sustainability.	A	 lot	of	progress	has	been	made	in	terms	of	harmonisation	and	standardisation	of	access	
procedures	in	Research	Infrastructures,	yet	there	is	still	room	for	improvement.	The	European	Charter	on	
access	 could	 play	 a	 more	 prominent	 role	 if	 updated	 in	 its	 definitions,	 principles	 and	 guidelines,	
acknowledging	RIs	adapt	to	the	needs	of	users,	incorporating	new	procedures	such	as	the	fast	access	for	
macromolecular	 crystallography	 or	 to	 respond	 to	 societal	 challenges,	 as	 seen	 during	 the	 COVID-19	
outbreak.		
The	COVID-19	emergency	has	 challenged	 facilities	 in	an	unprecedented	way,	affecting	 their	 operations,	
performance	 and	procedures.	Although	 remote	 access	 seems	 to	be	 the	most	 efficient	 tool	 to	maintain	
operations,	there	are	a	series	of	issues	related	to	it.	The	WHO	monitors	yearly	and	produces	a	list	of	the	
most	dangerous	pathogens	in	terms	of	their	capacity	to	generate	a	pandemic.	If,	as	states	by	specialists,	
pandemics	will	be	more	frequent	in	the	future,	we	need	to	do	our	best	to	be	prepared.	Remote	access	could	
offer	 a	 good	 solution	 in	 case	of	 an	emergency,	however	 to	be	more	widely	applied,	 consistent	 funding	
should	be	invested	in	it.	
	
	
	 	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs		 	 25	
 
Acknowledgements	
	
The	ACCELERATE	partners	would	 like	 to	 thank	 the	User	Offices	of	 the	 following	RIs	and	 the	FP7/H2020	
project	coordinators	for	their	valuable	contribution	sharing	their	good	practices	and	previous	experience:	
RIs:	ALBA	Synchrotron,	ASTRID2,	DESY,	Diamond	Light	Source,	Elettra	Sincrotrone	Trieste,	ESRF,	European	
XFEL,	FELIX,	HZB	BESSY	II,	ISIS,	LLB	–	CEA,	INFN-LNF,	KIT,	MLZ,	PSI,	SOLEIL	Synchrotron	
Projects:	 BioStruct-X,	 BrightnESS,	 CALIPSO,	 CALIPSOplus,	 ELI-TRANS,	 EUCALL,	 INSTRUCT-X,	 IRUVX,	
LASERLAB	Europe,	NFFA,	NMI3		
and	the	EC	for	funding	the	ACCELERATE	project	and	allowing	us	to	extend	the	scope	of	this	deliverable	in	
reply	to	the	pandemic.	
	
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	I	 	  
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	
26	
Annex	I:	Brief	description	of	the	facilities	consulted	for	the	collection	of	the	excellence-
driven	access	procedures	
	
Alba	Synchrotron	(ALBA)	
ALBA	is	a	Synchrotron	Light	facility	located	near	Barcelona/Spain	with	a	complex	of	electron	accelerators	
which	allows	the	visualization	of	the	atomic	structure	of	matter	as	well	as	the	study	of	its	properties.	The	
facility	has	eight	operational	beamlines	comprising	soft	and	hard	X-rays,	devoted	to	biosciences,	condensed	
matter	(magnetic	and	electronic	properties,	nanoscience)	and	materials	science.	
https://www.cells.es	
ASTRID2	
ASTRID2	 at	 the	 Department	 of	 Physics	 and	 Astronomy,	 Aarhus	 University,	 Denmark,	 is	 a	 low	 energy	
synchrotron	 light	source	used	for	research	within	medicine,	molecular	and	cell	biology,	nanotechnology	
and	atomic	and	molecular	physics.	A	wide	range	of	spectroscopic	methods	from	the	infrared	to	soft	x-rays	
are	used	across	the	6	beam	lines,	with	access	to	the	facilities	available	to	academic	and	 industrial	users	
worldwide.	
www.isa.au.dk	
Deutsches	Elektronen-Synchrotron	(DESY)	
DESY	is	one	of	the	largest	research	centres	in	Germany	and	is	involved	in	many	national	and	international	
projects.	The	research	activities	focus	on	three	areas:	Accelerators,	photon	science	and	particle	and	
astroparticle	physics.	Moreover,	DESY	operates	the	synchrotron	radiation	source	PETRA	III	and	the	X-ray	
laser	FLASH	for	scientific	users	from	academia	and	industry.	
PETRA	III	at	DESY	is	one	of	the	brightest	storage-ring-based	X-ray	radiation	sources	in	the	world.	The	
portfolio	of	currently	20	beamlines	encompasses	key	instrumental	and	methodological	capabilities	that	
enable	high-resolution	diffraction	and	inelastic	spectroscopy,	correlation	spectroscopy	and	imaging	with	
coherent	X-rays,	or	high-resolution	X-ray	microscopy	and	nano-analysis.	Typical	applications	are	for	
instance	investigations	of	solar	cells,	catalysts,	and	batteries	under	working	conditions.	
FLASH	at	DESY,	the	world's	first	free-electron	laser	in	the	soft	X-ray	range,	generates	extremely	intense	and	
ultrashort	pulsed	laser	flashes.	At	present	two	FEL	lines	are	being	operated	in	parallel	with	independent	
photon	beam	parameters	for	user	experiments.	Typical	applications	are	pump-probe	experiments	for	the	
investigations	of	processes	on	atomic	time	scales	 like	photocatalytic	chemical	reactions	or	 light	 induced	
switching	of	conductivity	or	magnetization.	http://www.desy.de	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	I	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
27	
DIAMOND	Light	Source	
The	DIAMOND	Light	Source	is	the	UK’s	national	third-generation	synchrotron	located	at	the	Harwell	Science	
and	Innovation	Campus	in	Oxfordshire	that	has	been	designed	to	produce	very	intense	beams	of	X-rays,	
infrared	and	ultraviolet	light.	The	facility	provides	a	medium	energy	source	supporting	a	very	wide	range	of	
applications.	 The	 synchrotron	 is	 free	 at	 the	 point	 of	 access	 through	 a	 competitive	 application	 process,	
provided	that	the	results	are	in	the	public	domain.	
http://www.diamond.ac.uk/Home.html	
Elettra	Sincrotrone	Trieste	S.C.p.A	
Elettra	Sincrotrone	Trieste	is	a	multidisciplinary	international	research	center	of	excellence,	specialized	in	
generating	 high	 quality	 synchrotron	 and	 free-electron	 laser	 light	 and	 applying	 it	 in	 materials	 and	 life	
sciences.	Its	mission	is	to	promote	cultural,	social	and	economic	growth.	The	main	assets	of	the	research	
centre	are	two	advanced	light	sources,	the	electron	storage	ring	Elettra	and	the	free-electron	laser	(FEL)	
FERMI,	continuously	(H24)	operated	supplying	light	of	the	selected	"colour"	and	quality	to	more	than	30	
experimental	stations.	These	facilities	enable	the	international	community	of	researchers	from	academy	
and	industry	to	characterize	structure	and	function	of	matter	with	sensitivity	down	to	molecular	and	atomic	
levels,	to	pattern	and	nanofabricate	new	structures	and	devices,	and	to	develop	new	processes.	Every	year	
scientists	and	engineers	from	more	than	50	different	countries	compete	by	submitting	proposals	to	access	
and	use	time	on	these	stations.		
http://www.elettra.eu	
European	XFEL	
The	construction	and	operation	of	the	European	XFEL	facility	has	been	entrusted	to	a	non-profit	limited	
liability	company	under	German	law,	the	European	X-Ray	Free-Electron	Laser	Facility	GmbH	(European	
XFEL	GmbH),	that	has	international	shareholders.	The	shareholders	are	designated	by	the	governments	of	
the	international	partners	who	commit	themselves	in	an	intergovernmental	convention	to	support	the	
construction	and	operation	of	the	European	XFEL.	Denmark,	France,	Germany,	Hungary,	Italy,	Poland,	
Russia,	Slovakia,	Spain,	Sweden,	and	Switzerland	participated	in	the	construction	and	operation	of	the	
European	XFEL.	The	United	Kingdom	is	in	the	process	of	joining	as	the	twelfth	member	state.	The	Facility	
is	based	in	Schenefeld,	Germany.	
Research	 currently	 being	done	at	 X-ray	 FELs	 is	 already	breaking	new	ground,	with	 studies	 across	many	
disciplines:	 determining	 structures	 of	 molecules	 critical	 to	 biology,	 watching	 ultrafast	 energy	 transfers	
within	molecules,	probing	the	characteristics	of	extreme	states	of	matter,	and	observing	the	behaviour	of	
electrons	within	complex	molecules.	The	European	XFEL	started	Early	User	operation	in	September	2017	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	I	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
28	
and	with	 its	 special	 characteristics	 of	 ultrashort	 pulses	 and	 ultrahigh	 brilliance,	 it	 is	 expected	 that	 new	
opportunities	in	many	areas	of	research	will	be	created.		
https://www.xfel.eu	
FELIX	Laboratory	
The	FELIX	Laboratory	at	Radboud	University	in	the	Netherlands	exploits	intense,	short-pulsed	infrared	and	
THz	 free	 electron	 lasers	 that	 are	 used	 for	 research	 of	matter	 both	 by	 in-house	 as	well	 as	 national	 and	
international	external	users.	The	 four	 lasers	FELIX-1,	FELIX-2,	FELICE	and	FLARE	each	produce	 their	own	
range	of	wavelengths	and	together,	they	provide	a	tuning	range	between	3	and	1500	µm.	
http://www.ru.nl/felix/	
Helmholtz	Zentrum	Berlin	(HZB)	
The	 HZB	 facility	 in	 Germany	 conduct	 research	 on	 complex	 systems	 of	 materials.	 The	BESSY	 II	 photon	
source	in	Berlin-Adlershof	with	its	46	beamlines	is	highly	suited	for	analysing	thin-film	materials.	With	its	
emphasis	on	vacuum	ultraviolet	radiations	(VUV)	and	soft	X-ray	emissions,	 it	offers	 ideal	capabilities	for	
investigating	thin	films	as	well	as	boundary	surfaces.	Further	the	HZB	operates	the	BER	II	neutron	reactor	
located	in	Berlin-Wannsee.	The	BER	II	comprises	9	different	neutron	instruments.		
https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de	
Istituto	Nazionale	di	Fisica	–	Laboratori	Nazionali	di	Frascati	(LNF.INFN)	
INFN	is	the	Italian	National	Institute	for	the	study	of	Nuclear	and	Sub-nuclear	Physics	with	accelerators	and	
the	 Frascati	 National	 Laboratory	 (LNF)	 is	 the	 largest	 INFN	 laboratory.	 	 	 INFN-LNF	 operates	 the	 DAΦNE	
storage	ring	and	DAΦNE	-	Light	synchrotron	radiation	facility	with	three	operational	beamlines	and	two	
under	commissioning.			
http://w3.lnf.infn.it	
ISIS	Neutron	and	Muon	Source	
ISIS	Neutron	and	Muon	Source	is	based	at	the	STFC	Rutherford	Appleton	Laboratory	in	Oxfordshire	and	is	a	
world-leading	 centre	 for	 research	 in	 the	 physical	 and	 life	 sciences.	 With	 over	 30	 neutron	 and	 muon	
instruments	the	ISIS	allows	an	international	community	of	more	than	3000	scientists	to	study	materials	at	
the	atomic	level	
https://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	I	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
29	
JÜLICH	Forschungszentrum	
The	JÜLICH	Forschungszentrum	is	a	German	located	interdisciplinary	research	institution	and	member	of	
the	Helmholtz	Association.	JÜLICH	has	ten	research	 institutes	with	over	60	sub-institutes	working	 in	the	
areas	of	energy	and	climate	research,	bio-	and	geosciences,	medicine	and	neuroscience,	complex	systems,	
simulation	science,	and	nanotechnology.	
http://www.fz-juelich.de	
Laboratoire	Léon	Brillouin	(LLB	–	CEA)	
The	French	Laboratoire	Léon	Brilloin	uses	neutron	beams	produced	by	the	Orphée	research	reactor	to	
perform	neutron	scattering	experiments	for	fundamental	and	applied	research.	The	scientific	activities	of	
the	laboratory	can	be	classified	in	three	fields:	physical-chemistry,	structural	and	phase	transition	studies,	
magnetism	and	superconductivity.	
http://www-llb.cea.fr	
Paul	Scherrer	Institute	(PSI)	
The	Paul	Scherrer	Institute	-	located	in	Villigen/CH	-	is	the	largest	research	institute	for	natural	and	
engineering	sciences	in	Switzerland.	The	institute	performs	research	in	three	main	subject	areas:	Matter	
and	Material,	Energy	and	Environment,	Human	Health.	PSI	operates	five	large	scale	facilities,	the	Swiss	
Light	Source	(SLS)	–	a	3rd	generation	synchrotron,	the	spallation	neutron	source	SINQ,	the	Swiss	muon	
source	SμS,	a	meson	factory	for	particle	physics	and	the	X-ray	free	electron	laser	facility	SwissFEL,	which	
just	started	pilot	user	operation	by	the	end	of	2017.	All	PSI	user	facilities	offer	open	access	to	external	
academic	and	industrial	users	worldwide	via	one	single	entry	point,	operated	by	the	PSI	User	Office.					
https://www.psi.ch	
Soleil	Synchrotron	(SOLEIL)	
SOLEIL	is	the	French	National	Synchrotron	Light	Source	to	matter	analysis	down	to	the	atomic	scale.	SOLEIL’s	
29	 Beamlines	 cover	fundamental	 research	needs	 in	 physics,	 chemistry,	 material	 sciences,	 life	 sciences,	
earth	sciences,	and	atmospheric	sciences.	It	offers	the	use	of	a	wide	range	of	spectroscopic	methods	from	
infrared	to	X-rays,	and	structural	methods	such	as	X-ray	diffraction	and	diffusion.			
https://www.synchrotron-soleil.fr	
	
D2.1	Annex	II
Number	of	regular	Calls Fast	Track Other Industry Type	of	evaluations Comments
ALBA
2 calls per year
(1 call for year:
BAG MX: for Macromolecular 
crystallography)
YES
Rapid access ('Call for 
continuous access at MX) : 
limited number of projects.
NO YES
- Safety evaluation
- Technical evaluation
- Scientific evaluation
N/A
ASTRID2 1 call per year
Limited number of 
proposals outside of the 
main call, and time is set 
aside on some beam lines 
for this to allow more 
immediate access to the 
facility
NO
Only very few (1) 
projects/proposals per year.
Scientific evaluation
Consultations between beam line 
scientists and users take place before or 
during the proposal submission process in 
order to ensure that what is proposed is 
technically possible and safe, so technical 
evaluation by the panel is generally not 
needed, however may be commented on.
DESY 2 Calls per year N/A NO N/A
- technical feasibility
- safety check
- compliance with DESY 
mission (peacefulness)
- Scientific evaluation: 
PETRA III and FLASH
Written comments are visible to PRP 
members (external reviewers)
DIAMOND 2 Calls per year
YES
restricted to some 
instruments
NO N/A
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
ELETTRA 2 Calls per year NO
Macromolecular 
Chrystallograpy monthly 
calls
Yes, through ILO
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
- Safety check
Technical evaluation at the facility,  
comments are visible to PRP members 
(external reviewers)
EUROPEAN	XFEL
At present only regular access, 
aiming at allocation periods / year 
in the longer term. Other access 
options to be defined.
To be defined NO N/A
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
- Safety check
(All in parallel)
Technical feasibility and safety checks in 
parallel, these results being available 
about ten days before the meeting of our 
review body (Proposal Review Panels). 
Scientific review phase starts at the same 
time of the technical feasibility and safety 
checks but longer time is allowed for in 
order to take into consideration also the 
input about the other technical/safety 
evaluations.
FELIX 2 Calls per year N/A NO N/A
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
FACILITY
KIND	OF	ACCESS	PROVIDED KIND	OF	EVALUATIONS	PERFORMED
D2.1	Annex	II
Number	of	regular	Calls Fast	Track Other Industry Type	of	evaluations Comments
FACILITY
KIND	OF	ACCESS	PROVIDED KIND	OF	EVALUATIONS	PERFORMED
HZB-BESSY N/A N/A NO N/A
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
INF.INFN
2 Calls for proposals per year
(short and long term proposals)
N/A NO N/A
- Technical feasibility
- Scientific evaluation
(In the experimental proposal there is a 
form that the main proposer must fill and 
sign concerning safety information on 
samples, a cross check is also performed 
during the proposal technical evaluation).
A User Selection Panel that performs a 
scientific evaluation
ISIS
2 calls per year
(deadlines in April and October)
YES
‘Xpress’ access, for very 
small amounts of 
beamtime, when users can 
send samples in to get a 
quick crystal structure or 
for a single measurement 
– these are just given a 
technical assessment
YES
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
(All in parallel)
Initial safety info at time of proposal, but a 
more detailed Experiment Risk 
Assessment is done before the 
experiment is run.
JUELICH 2 Calls per year N/A N/A N/A
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
- Safety check
if during the technical evaluation the 
instrument scientists finds something 
suspicious she/he sends the proposal for 
the safety/radiation protection check 
beforehand.
LLB	-	CEA
2 calls per year 
(1st Mai, 1st November)
YES
(limited to 1 day beam time 
per request)
NO YES
- Technical evaulation
- Scientifi evaluation
- Safety check
Scientific evaluation by independent 
external committees (4 differents : 
diffraction, soft matter, inelastic, material 
science)
PSI-Particle	Physics	facilities 1 Call per year NO NO N/A
- Technical evaulation
- Scientific evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
PSI-SINQ	(neutron	source) 2 Calls per year YES X+N powder diffraction
typically short-term contracts on 
single campaigns
- Technical evaulation
- Scientific evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
PSI-SLS	(synchrotron	light	
source)
4 Calls per year (2x MX, 2x non-
MX)
YES
Mail-In, X+N powder 
diffraction
various models: long-term 
contracts and short-term 
contracts on single campaigns
- Technical evaulation
- Scientific evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
D2.1	Annex	II
Number	of	regular	Calls Fast	Track Other Industry Type	of	evaluations Comments
FACILITY
KIND	OF	ACCESS	PROVIDED KIND	OF	EVALUATIONS	PERFORMED
PSI-SµS	(muon	source) 2 Calls per year YES NO
typically short-term contracts on 
single campaigns
- Technical evaulation
- Scientific evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
PSI-SwissFEL	(X-ray	FEL) 2 Calls per year YES NO
typically short-term contracts on 
single campaigns
- Technical evaulation
- Scientific evaluation
- Safety check
N/A
SOLEIL
 2 calls per year.
(1 call per year for:
BAG MX – BioSAXS: for 
Macromolecular crystallography 
experiments on PROXIMA 1 
and/or PROXIMA 2A, and/or for 
Small Angle X-ray Scattering 
experiment on SWING.
BAG NON MX – BioSAXS: for 
other fields if the beamline offers 
this access mode)
YES
(Rapid access: A very 
limited number of projects 
may be accepted as rapid 
access for urgent work)
NO N/A
Technical assessment
Scientific reviewing
Safety assessment
N/A
D2.1	Annex	II
PEER	REVIEW	PANEL EVALUATORS	PER	PROPOSAL KIND	OF	EVALUATION EVALUATION	PROCEDURE PROPOSALS	SCORES SCHEDULING	CONSTRAINS
ALBA
The	panel	is	formed	by	international	experts	
(external	to	ALBA).
At least two referees per 
proposal. 
The panel meeting is 
hold in ALBA where 
face-to-face 
discussions are 
performed
Once the call is closed, submitted 
proposals will go through an evaluation 
procedure based on:
    - Technical feasibility
    - Scientific merit, assessed by 
international experts
    - Previous record at ALBA
    - Availability of resources required
Each referee gives a score before coming to 
ALBA and after discussion during the panel 
meeting in ALBA (face-to-face) they have to 
agree on a score (not necessarily the average).
A+ (awarded beamtime), A (waiting list), B 
(failed proposals).
On average 70% of Beamline Days 
are dedicated to users (rest of the 
days: commissioning, in house, 
propriety).
ASTRID2
The review panel consists of 7-8 people 
coming from the facility, other departments 
at the university and also from outside the 
university and abroad.
One reviewer per proposal. Face to face.
Each proposal is reviewed in depth by 
the reviewer and briefly presented and 
discussed by all in the panel at the 
meeting.
Proposals received outside of the 
annual call to allow for more immediate 
access, are sent to one of the panel 
members for approval of allocation of 
beam time.
Each proposal is graded by the reviewer on a 
sliding scale from “A” where the proposal must 
be given the beam time requested, to “E” where 
the proposal should not be given time, in a 
similar way to other facilities. Beam time 
assigned to the proposals receiving  B, C and D 
will be dependent upon the number of 
proposals and how much time is available for a 
particular beam line, with priority given to those 
with the higher grades.
We have several two week 
shutdown periods during the course 
of the year, and there are machine 
physics/development weeks 
scheduled throughout the year. 
Users are made aware of the outline 
of the schedule as early as possible 
(several months in advance). Beam 
time is allocated in coordination with 
the users in order to try and 
accommodate their scheduling 
requirements as much as possible.
DESY
Project	review	panel	(PRP):	
PETRA	III:
-	PRPs	are	field-specific,	not	beamline-specific
-	At	present	~70	reviewers	for	approx.	450	-	500	
proposals
-	Each	PRP	coordinated	by	DESY/HZG	secretary
FLASH:
-		One	PRP	for	all	proposals
-	At	present	10	reviewers	for	approx.	30-50	
proposals
-	For	each	proposal	one	lead	reviewer	(prepares	
discussion;	final	comment)
PETRA III:
- 3 reviewers per proposal: 
approx. 20-25 proposals per 
reviewer
FLASH:
- 3-4 reviewers per proposal: 
approx. 10-15 proposals per 
reviewer
N/A N/A ratings from 1-5 N/A
DIAMOND
Panels are organised by technique or 
beamlines, from 6 up to 11 or 12 evaluators 
depending the technique. Mostly external 
reviewers
2 reviewers per proposal 
aiming to have no more than 
25 reviews per reviewer. 
Face to face 
discussions per panel.
Proposals are individually scored by 
reviewers before the panel meeting. In 
the panel meetings the proposals get 
ranked. No scores are shared with 
users.
Each refree gives a score between 1 and 5, 
where 5 is the highest score.
Each instrument aims to offer 80% 
of the available time.  Internal = in 
house and commissioning share the 
other 20%.  No quotas.
FACILITY
SCIENTIFIC	EVALUATION
D2.1	Annex	II
PEER	REVIEW	PANEL EVALUATORS	PER	PROPOSAL KIND	OF	EVALUATION EVALUATION	PROCEDURE PROPOSALS	SCORES SCHEDULING	CONSTRAINS
FACILITY
SCIENTIFIC	EVALUATION
ELETTRA
Panels are organised by technique or 
beamlines, 7 sub-panels
 from 2 up to 3 evaluators 
depending the technique. All 
external reviewers
All evaluators remote, 
chairs of subpanels 
meet face to face
Technical evaluation, if feasible then 
goes to scientific evaluation. Evaluators 
assign a score and send comments, the 
chairs decide the ranking and allocation 
of time
the scale goes from 1 to 5, the scores are 
normalised by evaluator and averaged. Chairs 
of subpanels meet face to face to decide the 
final score, usually changed only for proposals 
near the cutoff
From the beamtime available, 30% 
goes to internal research. The 
rmaining 70% is for external 
researchers. Some beamlines of 
property of external partners have a 
quota for national users, usually 
35% of the total available time.
EUROPEAN	XFEL The	scientific	reviews	are	uniquely	taken	care	of	
by	external	experts	
Usually three reviewers per 
proposals are appointed.
According to PRCs 
and the number of 
proposals to evaluate, 
one day or two days 
meetings for the 
reviewing process are 
organised.
The reviewers can access the proposals 
assigned to them to review by the 
Chairperson of the relevant PRP 
through our user portal.
Evaluators are requested to provide a 
brief report and score the proposals. At 
the PRP meeting, the results are 
discussed and a common approach is 
found about a final result, including final 
comments by the panel and a final 
score. The outcome is then used as 
basis for the final allocation supervised 
by the European XFEL management.
Every reviewer gives a score and a comment. 
Scores are averaged for information in the user 
portal but the PRPs have freedom give a 
different score in the final discussions – with 
respect to the other proposals. There are plans 
for normalization but so far not implemented.
In principle, out of the beamtime 
delivered to our facility 80% is for 
user operation (now ‘early user 
operation), 15% for maintenance, in-
house research and upgrades, 5% 
as management contingency for 
industrial users or for proposals of 
exceptional scientific value needing 
fast access. But at present, in the 
current allocation period, we try and 
give 100% of beamtime to users
FELIX
International external advisory committee 
with min. 5 experts in the various fields
min. 2 evaluators per proposal
In general face to face 
but occasionally 
remote evaluation / 
written procedure
N/A
Categeories A, B and C - min. 2 evaluators, 
preferable all
Most of the beam time allocated 
without any constraints, a small 
fraction of the beam time is 
reserved as “director’s discretion"
HZB-BESSY N/A
2	external	evaluators	per	
proposal	(in	case	of	disagreement	
sometimes	3)
On-line/off-line first, 
followed by face-to-
face meeting
N/A Averaged ranking, grades A+ to C-
Different quota for joint labs, 
beamlines run by external facilities, 
in house, no country quotas (except 
for a Russian-German-Beamline)
INF.INFN
The	User	Selection	panel	is	formed	
by	5	members:		4	external	and	1	internal	chosen	
on	the	basis	of	their	recognized	experience	and	
these	members	are	all	appointed	by	the	LNF	
Director.
At	least	3	evaluators	per	proposal
Remote and then face-
to-face
The USP members
 are asked  to consider are the following 
aspects: relevance, innovation, quality 
of the research, level of potential 
contribution to an active field of science 
or an instrument/experimental technique 
and necessity for a 
synchrotron/FEL. From this evaluation 
of the proposals a scientific priority list is 
achieved that states which proposals 
are accepted and which ones are 
rejected.
N/A N/A
D2.1	Annex	II
PEER	REVIEW	PANEL EVALUATORS	PER	PROPOSAL KIND	OF	EVALUATION EVALUATION	PROCEDURE PROPOSALS	SCORES SCHEDULING	CONSTRAINS
FACILITY
SCIENTIFIC	EVALUATION
ISIS
9 Facility Access Panels.  Each has around 
10 external experts, and they review all the 
proposals submitted in their area.  They 
meet physically twice per year.
 There are two principle 
evaluators assigned to each 
proposal, but any of the panel 
members can comment before 
a final score is reached.
Face-to-face 
discussion
Panels hear the views of the two 
principle evaluators and discuss the 
proposal.  The panel reaches 
agreement on the final score - each 
proposal is scored from 1-10, with also 
R-reject but resubmission possible and 
X-reject with resubmission not possible 
as options.  All proposals are ranked per 
instrument according to their score, and 
allocated appropriate time up to the 
number of days available on each 
instrument.  Panels are encouraged to 
take publication record from previous 
beamtime allocations into account when 
reviewing proposals.
Scoring 1 (very poor) to 10 (outstanding). 
 Proposals can also be scored R – rejection but 
resubmission welcome, or X – rejection for 
technical reasons, no resubmission allowed. 
 Each panel produces a single score for each 
proposal.
We have no time allocated for 
internal research, and do not apply 
country quotas.  Time is allowed for 
instrument calibration (normally 1-2 
days per instrument at the start of 
each run cycle) and for 
commissioning of new equipment 
e.g. new detectors, cryostats, etc.
JUELICH
7 review panels, each has a variable 
number of members, one chairperson and 
one secretary.
All reviewers are external
Each review panel has its own 
way: at the MLZ we have either 
2, or, 3 or even 5 reviewers per 
proposal.
Face-to-face 
discussion
The User Office distributes the 
proposals to the review panels and 
discusses with the review panel 
secretaries for fine tuning
proposals are scored by each reviewer.
average score is calculated and discussed.
final scores after the discussion are 
>8 proposal MUST get beam time
between 5 and 8 proposal COULD get beam 
time if enough beam time is available
<5 proposal MUST NOT get beam time.
One missing experimental report yields to a 
penalty of 0.25 point, the penalties are applied 
after the scientific evaluation
no country balance.
1/3 and 2/3 of the available beam 
time is devoted to internal and 
external proposals, respectively
LLB	-	CEA N/A
2	external	evaluators	per	
proposal
Face to face, but 
possibility of remote 
that finish by a face to 
face between the 
president of the 
committee and the LLB 
organizer
N/A
graded A, B or C (A : beam time 
allocated, B on the reserve list, C will not be 
done).
To obtain it some of our committees go through 
the attribution of scores to each beam time 
request
No internal time, 75% of 
available beam time given to the 
committees, the rest being allocated 
to fast access, alignment, 
maintenance, failure and B 
proposals. No quotas per countries. 
Scheduling of experiment done by 
dialog between local contact, 
instrument responsible and 
proposer.
PSI-Particle	Physics	facilities 13	memberrs,	alla	extarnal 6 face-to-face
if technically feasible and safety 
approved, only scientific ranking, no 
further balancing
very few new proposals per year therefore final 
ranking is agreed upon during face-to-face 
meeting
May-December, 1 cycle per year
PSI-SINQ	(neutron	source) 16	members,	all	extranal 2
face-to-face and (only 
exceptionally) remote
if technically feasible and safety 
approved, only scientific ranking, no 
further balancing
score system 0-10
scores by each referee in advance and then 
agreement on one final score in a meeting
May-December, 2 cycles per year
PSI-SLS	(synchrotron	light	
source)
MX:	9	members,	non-MX	49	members,	all	
external
MX: 2; non-MX: 3
MX: Remote and non-
MX: face-to-face
if technically feasible and safety 
approved, only scientific ranking, no 
further balancing
score system 0-5
scores by each referee in advance and then 
agreement on one final score in a meeting
all over the year except shutdowns, 
2 cycles per year
D2.1	Annex	II
PEER	REVIEW	PANEL EVALUATORS	PER	PROPOSAL KIND	OF	EVALUATION EVALUATION	PROCEDURE PROPOSALS	SCORES SCHEDULING	CONSTRAINS
FACILITY
SCIENTIFIC	EVALUATION
PSI-SµS	(muon	source) 12	members,	all	extarnal 2
face-to-face and (only 
exceptionally) remote
if technically feasible and safety 
approved, only scientific ranking, no 
further balancing
score system 0-10
scores by each referee in advance and then 
agreement on one final score in a meeting
May-December, 2 cycles per year
PSI-SwissFEL	(X-ray	FEL) 12	members,	all	external 3 face-to-face
if technically feasible and safety 
approved, only scientific ranking, no 
further balancing
score system 0-5
scores by each referee in advance and then 
agreement on one final score in a meeting
all over the year except shutdowns, 
2 cycles per year
SOLEIL
Six Review panels which cover the following 
area:
1. Diluted matter
2. Electronic and magnetic properties of 
matter - Surfaces and Interfaces
3. Matter and material properties: Structure, 
Organisation, Characterisation, Elaboration
4. Chemistry and physico-chemistry - 
Reactivity in situ - Soft matter
5. Biology - Health
6. Ancient materials - Environment and 
Earth
Scientific peer review panel members are 
nominated by SOLEIL board of directors. 
They serve for a fixed period of 2 years, 
possibly renewable. 
Each review panel comprises a sufficiently 
large number of members to cover the main 
sub-areas of its discipline.
All members can grade all the 
proposals for which they feel 
competent. Further, 2 or 3 
referees, and among them one 
spokesperson, are assigned by 
the chairperson to give a short 
report on each proposal.
Face to face Meeting 
takes place twice a 
year, in the second 
half of April and in the 
second half of 
November. 
After each panel meeting, the chairman 
produces a report for the SOLEIL 
management. This report:
- Comments on the quality and scope of 
the proposals received
- Points out any areas of concern
- Recommends any potential 
improvements to either the beamlines 
covered by the panel or the allocation 
process.
Proposals ranking and grading are done online. 
The average grade of each proposal is 
calculated on the basis of the number of 
members which have given an evaluation:
The referees give a grade between 1 to 9 to the 
proposal according to 4 criteria: 1/ scientific 
interest; 2/ originality; 3/ Clear presentation of 
the theme; 4/ feasibility; after having been 
evaluated or informed of their technical 
feasibility.
The grade has a 2,5 coefficient.
If a member (not the referee assigned) reads 
the proposal and gives a grade, the grade has a 
coefficient of 1.
Then, the review panel members after 
discussions rank the proposals and assign each 
proposal a final grade (during the face to face 
meeting). The final ranking allows classifying 
proposals and gives priority order for adjusting 
demand to offer.
They adjust the amount of requested beamtime 
if necessary. They recommend the allocation of 
beamtime on the most appropriate beamline. 
The decisions are taken by SOLEIL Board of 
Directors.
65 to 80 % of the beamtime is 
allocated to proposals submitted to 
Peer Review Committees (PRCs) 
evaluation. 
20% for in house research.
No quotas per countries; only on the 
basis of the scientific merit.
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	III	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
37	
Annex	III:	Questionnaire	1:	Research	Infrastructures	and	COVID-19	related	research	
(March	2020)	
	
Research	Infrastructures	and	COVID-19	Research	
QUESTIONNAIRE	
	
Institution:	
Brief	publishable	description	of	the	institution	(2	sentences)	
Brief	description	of	the	service	
	
Contact	person's	details	-	To	avoid	sending	email	addresses	over	google	forms,	please	send	contact	person's	
details	to	useroffice@ceric-eric.eu,	or	include	a	website's	link	with	the	contact	person's	details:	
SERVICES:	
• Has	your	RI	set	up	a	specific	service	to	support	research	on	COVID-19?	
o YES	(if	yes,	briefly	describe	the	service	replying	to	the	questions	in	the	boxes	below)	
o NO	
	
What	 stage	 in	 COVID-19	 intervention	 your	 RI	 is	 addressing:	 ie	 basic	 virus	 function/immune	 response;	
epidemiology	 modelling;	 vaccine	 research;	 antibody	 generation	 and	 screening;	 large	 scale	 data	
management,	etc	
• Which	instruments/databases	does	it	involve? 
• How	is	the	proposal	submitted?	(if	a	form	is	published	on	the	website,	please	provide	a	link)	
• Who	evaluates	the	proposal?	(e.g.	peer-review	panel,	facility,	no	evaluation)	
• Is	the	submission	continuous,	or	linked	to	a	deadline?	
• What	is	the	estimated	time	from	the	submission	to	the	access	/	service	provision?	
	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	III	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
38	
ACCESS:	
• Is	 there	 any	 restriction	 as	 to	who	 can	 be	 granted	 access	 (e.g.	 only	 for	members	 in	 the	 case	 of	
consortium-based	RIs)?	
	
• In	the	case	of	analytical	facilities	(access	to	instruments),	does	it	allow:	
o Remote	access	only	
o Remote	and	on-site	access		
	
• Analytical	 Facilities:	 If	 your	 facility	 allows	 remote	 access	 only,	 include	 a	 comment	 (e.g.,	 which	
instruments	are	accessible	only	remotely?)	
	
• Analytical	Facilities:	If	on-site	access	is	allowed,	is	mobility	support	available?	
o YES	
o NO	
	
• Analytical	Facilities:	Are	there	limitations	regarding	the	type	of	samples	(e.g.	pathogens)?	
o YES	
o NO	
	
• Analytical	Facilities:	Are	there	special	requirements	for	shipment	of	the	samples?	
o YES	
o NO	
	
• Analytical	Facilities:	Are	there	specific	requirements	regarding	the	preparation	or	handling	of	the	
samples?	
o YES	
o NO	
	
• All	RIs:	Is	the	service	free	for	non-proprietary	research?	
o YES	
o NO	
	
• All	RIs:	Is	commercial	service	available	at	reduced	prices?	
o YES	
o NO	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	III	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
39	
	
• Please	 provide	 comments	 related	 to	 the	 questions	 above	 (e.g.	 what	 support	 is	 offered	 to	 the	
industry,	if	any,	what	is	the	maximum	biosafety	level	allowed,	what	are	the	specific	requirements	
regarding	the	shipment)	
	
ACCESSIBILITY	OF	THE	PUBLICATION	AND	DATA:	
• Is	there	any	requirement	to	publish	in	open	access	journals?	
o YES	
o NO	
	
• Is	the	data	generated	associated	to	metadata	and	is	it	publicly	available?	
o YES	
o NO	
	
• If	yes,	what	is	the	embargo	period?	
	
• Where	is	the	data	or	metadata	published?	(e.g.	in	the	institution's	catalogue,	in	other	open	data	
repositories,	etc).	
	
• Do	you	have	further	comments	about	data	or	metadata?	
	
PRIVACY	STATEMENT		
By	submitting	this	form,	I	agree	that	my	responses	to	the	questionnaire	will	be	processed	and	used	
for	 the	purpose	of	advertising	 the	services	provided	by	my	 institution	 in	support	of	 research	on	
COVID-19.	I	confirm	that	I'm	entitled	to	give	consent	on	behalf	of	my	institution	for	that	purpose.																																								
The	 questionnaire	 has	 been	 set	 up	 in	 the	 frame	 of	 the	 CERIC-coordinated	 project	 ACCELERATE	
funded	by	the	European	Union	Framework	Programme	for	Research	and	Innovation	Horizon	2020,	
under	grant	agreement	731112.	Responses	to	the	questionnaire	will	be	recorded	and	preserved	by	
CERIC	ERIC	for	financial	auditing	reasons	in	line	with	the	applicable	provisions	of	the	ACCELERATE	
grant	agreement.	
	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	III	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
40	
	
Questionnaire	1:	RIs’	COVID19	services	
41	respondents	(however,	the	ERF	webpage	lists	52	RIs	–	including	COVID-19	services	also	of	RIs’	that	
didn’t	submit	their	information	in	the	questionnaire)	
	
1. ACTRIS	–	Aerosol,	Clouds	and	Trace	Gases	Research	Infrastructure	
2. ALBA	Synchrotron	
3. BBMRI-ERIC	
4. BigOmics	Analytics	
5. CERIC-ERIC	
6. CIEMAT-Plataforma	Solar	de	Almeria	
7. CLARIN	ERIC	
8. DARIAH	ERIC	
9. Deutsches	Elektronen-Synchrotron	DESY	in	Hamburg	(Germany)	
10. Diamond	Light	Source	
11. EATRIS	
12. ECRIN-ERIC	(European	Clinical	Research	Infrastructure)	
13. ELECMI	(Integrated	Infrastructure	of	ELECtron	MIcroscopy	for	materials	Characterization)	
14. Elettra-Sincrotrone	Trieste	S.C.p.A.		
15. ELI	Beamlines	
16. ERINHA	
17. ESRF	(European	Synchrotron	Radiation	Facility)	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	III	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
41	
18. EU-OPENSCREEN	ERIC	
19. Euro-BioImaging	ERIC	
20. European	Spallation	Source	ERIC	
21. EUROPEAN	VIRUS	ARCHIVE	GLOBAL	(EVAG)	
22. European	XFEL	
23. Heinz	Maier-Leibnitz	Zentrum	(MLZ)	
24. Helmholtz	Zentrum	Berlin	für	Materialien	und	Energie	GmbH	
25. INFRAFRONTIER	
26. Infrastructure	for	the	Production	and	Characterization	of	Nanomaterials,	Biomaterials	and	
Systems	in	Biomedicine	(NANBIOSIS)	
27. Institut	Laue	Langevin	
28. Instruct-ERIC	
29. IRTA-CReSA		
30. ISIS	Neutron	and	Muon	Source,	UK	
31. Jülich	Centre	for	Neutron	Science	
32. LifeWatch	ERIC		
33. MAX	IV	Laboratory	
34. METROFOOD-RI	
35. National	Hydrogen	Centre,	CNH2	
36. Paul	Scherrer	Institute	
37. SHARE	ERIC	
38. SIB	Swiss	Institute	of	Bioinformatics	
39. STFC	Central	Laser	Facility,	UK	
40. Synchrotron	SOLEIL	
41. The	Partnership	for	Advanced	Computing	in	Europe	(PRACE)	
	
	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	IV	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
42	
Annex IV: Questionnaire 2: Working practices of analytical facilities during 
the pandemics (April 2020) 
Working	practices	of	analytical	facilities	during	the	pandemics	
QUESTIONNAIRE	
	
The	on-going	pandemic	has	strongly	impacted	the	operations	of	analytical	facilities.	To	protect	their	staff,	
several	 research	 infrastructures	 are	 closed	 for	 operations,	 while	 others	 provide	 only	 limited	 access,	
primarily	focused	on	COVID-19	related	research.	Yet	the	crisis	is	likely	to	last	months	and	many	facilities	will	
consider	restarting	their	services,	albeit	remotely	and	limited	in	scale.	To	assist	RIs	in	this	transition,	we	are	
collecting	the	current	practices	regarding	safety	measures	put	in	place	at	the	facilities.	
To	 this	end,	we	kindly	ask	 the	national	 and	pan-European	 infrastructures	 [1]	 to	 fill	 in	 the	questionnaire	
below.	In	case	of	questions,	please	contact	useroffice@ceric-eric.eu.	
	
[1]	Analytical	(experimental)	facilities,	located	in	Europe,	that	are	open	for	international	users.	
	
This	questionnaire	has	been	set	up	by	the	ERF	and	CERIC	in	the	frame	of	its	EC	project	ACCELERATE,	co-
funded	by	the	European	Union	Framework	Programme	for	Research	and	Innovation	Horizon	2020,	grant	
agreement	731112.	
	
• Institution:	
	
• Contact	person's	details	 -	To	avoid	sending	email	addresses	over	google	 forms,	please	send	contact	
person's	details	to	useroffice@ceric-eric.eu,	or	include	a	website's	link	with	the	contact	person's	details.	
		
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	IV	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
43	
• The	responses	to	this	questionnaire	will	be	analysed	and	may	be	used	for	the	purpose	of	a	summary	/	
analysis	document	published	online.	In	view	of	this,	I	authorize	that	the	institution	is	mentioned	when	
referring	 to	 the	 replies	given	 in	 this	questionnaire	 in	such	summary	/	analysis	document.	 In	case	of	
ticking	‘no’,	the	replies	will	be	anonymized.	
o YES	
o NO	
		
LEVEL	OF	OPERATIONS	AND	ACCESS	
	
• The	facility	has	been	closed	due	to	the	COVID-19	alarm	state:	
o Never	
o A	few	weeks	
o A	few	months		
	
• It	is	currently:	
o In	operation	
o Closed	
		
• If	in	currently	in	operation,	or	about	restart	the	operation,	please	describe	the	type	of	activity:	
o COVID-19	related	research	(remote	users	and	researchers	operating	the	instruments)	
o Research	other	than	COVID-19	related	(remote	users)	
o Research	other	than	COVID-19	related	(researchers	operating	the	instruments)	
o Normal	operation	
	
Provide	further	details.	
	
• Is	the	number	of	beamlines	and	instruments	and	the	staff	reduced?		
o YES	
o NO	
	
If	yes,	please	describe	(e.g.	only	the	beamline	scientist	is	present,	only	half	of	the	instruments	are	running	
per	day).			
• Has	your	facility	put	in	place	measures	to	facilitate	remote	access?		If	yes,	please	comment.	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	IV	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
44	
SAFETY	MEASURES	FOR	STAFF	
• Have	you	established	specific	safety	protocols	for	work	on-site?		
o YES	
o NO	
• If	yes:	
1)	Are	your	safety	protocols	publicly	available?	If	so,	please	provide	the	link		
2)	Who	can	enter	the	facility	(approved	staff,	authorization	for	exceptions?)	
	
3)	Have	staff	who	are	vulnerable	or	who	have	caring	responsibilities	for	vulnerable	people	been	identified?	
o YES	
o NO	
4)	If	yes,	are	they	restricted	with	regard	to	visiting	the	site,	or	are	specific	measures	introduced?	
	
5)	What	is	the	cleaning	regime	for:	
• General	areas:	
• Working	areas:	
• Shared	equipment	and	workstations	(e.g.	keyboard):	
	
6)	Do	you	provide	personal	protection	equipment	(e.g.	masks,	gloves,	clothing)?	Please	provide	details.		
	
7)	 If	any	activity	requires	staff	to	work	closer	than	the	required	distance,	are	mitigating	measures	put	in	
place?		
	
• Have	any	measures	been	either	planned	or	put	in	place	for	safety	and	wellbeing	of	staff	working	from	
home?		
o YES	
o NO	
• If	yes,	please	explain.	
	
In	case	you	are	not	in	operation	or	if	you	are	consider	expanding	the	range	of	access,	what	are	your	
plans/protocols?	 
• Do	you	have	any	further	comments	or	proposals?		
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	IV	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
45	
	
By	submitting	this	form,	I	agree	that	my	responses	to	the	questionnaire	will	be	processed	and	published	in	
a	form	of	a	publicly	available	report	(anonymously,	if	indicated	as	such	in	this	questionnaire).	
	
o YES	
	 	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	IV	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
46	
Questionnaire	2:	Working	practices	of	Analytical	Facilities	during	the	Pandemic		
28	Respondents,	of	which	only	the	following	20	authorised	us	to	disclose	their	identity:	
1. ALBA	Synchrotron	
2. BNC,	Centre	for	Energy	Research	
3. CERIC-ERIC	
4. Coimbra	Laser	LAb	
5. Deutsches	Elektronen-Synchrotron	DESY	in	Hamburg	(Germany)		
6. Diamond	Light	Source	
7. ELI-DC	
8. EPF-Lausanne	
9. FORTH,	Ultraviolet	Laser	Facility	(ULF-FORTH)	
10. Helmholtz	zentrum	Berlin	für	Materialien	und	Energie	
11. Helmholtz-Zentrum	Dresden-Rossendorf	
12. ILL,	Institut	Laue	Langevin	
13. Jülich	Centre	for	Neutron	Science	–	Forschungszentrum	Jülich	GmbH	
14. Laboratoire	pour	l'Utilisation	des	Lasers	Intenses	
15. National	Institute	of	Chemistry	–	NMR	centre,	Slovenia	
16. National	Institute	of	Materials	Physics,	Magurele,	Romania	
17. PHELIX	at	GSI,	Germany	
18. SOLARIS	National	Synchrotron	Radiation	Centre	
19. Synchrotron	SOLEIL	
20. Vilnius	University	Laser	Research	Center	(Lithuania)	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
47	
Annex V: Questionnaire 3: Evolution of operations at analytical facilities 
during and post COVID-19 pandemic (October 2020) 
	
The	 on-going	 COVID-19	 pandemic	 has	 strongly	 impacted	 the	 operations	 of	 analytical	 facilities,	 from	
widespread	closure	or	severely	restricted	operations	at	the	outset	to	ongoing	changes	in	operations	months	
later.	It	is	not	yet	possible	to	predict	with	any	certainty	when	a	complete	return	to	normal	operations	will	
be	possible.	Many	facilities	are	indeed	reflecting	on	how	to	provide	the	most	effective	and	resilient	services	
in	 a	 world	 where	 COVID-19	 will	 continue	 to	 be	 present	 and	 perhaps	 return	 in	 successive	 waves.	 The	
experiences	of	the	past	few	months,	with	increased	provision	of	remote	access,	drastically	reduced	travel	
possibilities	 for	 staff	 and	 users,	 and	 the	 widespread	 development	 of	 home	 office,	 may	 even	 lead	 to	
permanent	 changes	 to	 operations,	 and	 to	 new	 standards	 for	 operations	 and	 access	 independent	 from	
pandemic	considerations.	
ERF	and	CERIC	conducted	a	survey	in	the	Spring	2020	of	the	measures	that	RIs	had	taken	in	the	wake	of	the	
first	wave	of	COVID-19	to	try	to	maintain	operations,	particularly	to	support	research	on	COVID-19.	Much	
has	 been	 learned	 since	 then	 about	 the	nature	of	 the	 virus,	 and	how	 to	work	while	 it	 is	 present	 in	 our	
communities.	As	outlined	above,	our	perspectives	and	mindsets	for	operations	of	RIs	in	post-COVID-19	are	
evolving.	We	believe	it	is	timely	to	carry	out	a	follow-up	survey	to	try	to	capture,	share	and	benefit	from	
these	 changing	 experiences,	 understandings	 and	 plans.	 To	 this	 end,	 we	 invite	 the	 national	 and	 pan-
European	 infrastructures	 [1]	 to	 fill	 in	 the	 questionnaire	 below.	 In	 case	 of	 questions,	 please	 contact	
useroffice@ceric-eric.eu.	
Although	not	a	part	of	this	questionnaire,	respondents	may	find	useful	the	questionnaire	that	Elettra	sent	
to	 their	 beamline	 staff.	 In	 case	 of	 questions	 regarding	 this	 questionnaire,	 please	 contact	
Lisa.vaccari@elettra.eu	or	Andrea.locatteli@elettra.eu.	
This	questionnaire	has	been	set	up	by	ERF	and	CERIC	in	the	frame	of	the	EC	project	ACCELERATE,	co-funded	
by	 the	 European	 Union	 Framework	 Programme	 for	 Research	 and	 Innovation	 Horizon	 2020	 (grant	
agreement	731112),	coordinated	by	CERIC.	
	
[1]	 Analytical	 infrastructures	 that	 are	 open	 to	 international	 users	 and	 include	 national	 infrastructures	 as	 well	 as	
European	networks	and	consortia	of	research	infrastructures.	
● Institution:	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
48	
	
● Contact	details	of	respondent	-	To	avoid	sending	email	addresses	over	google	forms,	please	send	your	
professional	contact	details	to	useroffice@ceric-eric.eu,	or	include	a	website	link	where	the	relevant	
contact	details	are	available.	
	
● The	responses	to	this	questionnaire	will	be	analysed	and	may	be	used	for	the	purpose	of	a	summary	/	
analysis	document	published	online.	 In	 view	of	 this,	 I	 authorize	 that	 the	name	of	my	 institution	be	
mentioned	 when	 referring	 to	 the	 replies	 given	 in	 this	 questionnaire	 in	 such	 summary	 /	 analysis	
document	and	confirm	that	I	am	entitled	to	respond	on	behalf	of	my	institution.	In	case	of	ticking	‘no’,	
your	replies	will	be	used	only	anonymously.	
o YES	
o NO	
	
LEVEL	OF	OPERATIONS	AND	ACCESS	
● Current	state	of	operations	of	your	facility:	
o Fully	operational	(pre-COVID-19	operational	capacity,	with	same	capacity	of	on-site	user	access)	
o Fully	operational	(pre-COVID-19	operational	capacity,	with	modified	access	modes)	
o Reduced	operational	capacity	relative	to	the	pre-COVID-19	period	
o No	operational	capacity	for	external	users	
	
● Please	describe	the	level	of	operations	at	the	level	of	the	facility	(Estimate	in	%	relative	to	pre-COVID-
19	levels:	0	%,	20%,	40%,	60%,	80%,	100%):	
o Average	presence	of	staff	on-site	(estimate	in	%	relative	to	pre-COVID-19	levels)	
o %	of	instruments/end-stations/beamlines	running	
o Current	average	availability	(in	%	relative	to	the	pre-COVID-19	steady	state)		
o Overall	level	(%)	of	external	users	served	compared	to	pre-COVID-19.	
	
• Please	describe	the	level	of	operations	at	the	level	of	the	facility:	(tick	all	appropriate	boxes.	1,	2,	3,	4,	
5,	6,	7)	
o Number	of	days	per	week	the	facility	is	running	
	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
49	
Please,	provide	further	details,	 if	you	consider	relevant,	of	how	operations	have	been	affected	if	
not	covered	in	the	above	points:	 	
	
● Please	indicate	the	type	of	operations	that	are	supported	(tick	all	appropriate	boxes):	
o COVID-19	related	research	(remote	users	and	facility	staff	operating	the	instruments)	
o Research	other	than	COVID-19	related	(remote	users)	
o Research	other	than	COVID-19	related	(facility	staff	operating	the	instruments)	
o Research	 other	 than	 COVID_19	 related	 (users	 in	 presence	 and	 remote	 depending	 on	 travel	
restriction	and	type	of	experiments)	
	
Indicate	 the	main	measures,	 if	 any,	 that	have	been	 introduced	 to	ensure	proper	engagement	 level	and	
productivity	of	the	staff	working	from	home:	
	
CHANGES	IN	OPERATIONS	DUE	TO	COVID-19	
• Please	indicate	the	type	of	user	access	currently	in	place	at	your	facility	(tick	all	appropriate	boxes:	0%,	
20%,	40%,	60%,	80%,	100%):	
o Mail-in	access	for	routine,	automated	measurements.	
● Estimated	share	of	users	served	in	this	mode:	
o Mail-in	for	more	complex	remote	user	experiments	assisted	by	local	scientists/staff	
● Estimated	share	of	users	served	in	this	mode:	
o Limited	user	access	(fewer	users	per	experiment,	others	possibly	electronically):	
● Estimated	share	of	users	served	in	this	mode:	
o Full	user	access	on-site,	as	in	pre-COVID-19	period	
● Estimated	share	of	users	served	in	this	mode:	
	
• Please	indicate	measures	introduced	to	assist	remote	access	(tick	all	the	appropriate	boxes):	
o IT	resources	for	data	sharing	
o Remote	analysis	in	real-time		
o Webcam	and	microphones	for	video	conferences	
o Remote	control	of	the	data	acquisition	system		
o Custom	solutions	
Other:	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
50	
	
• If	 users	 cannot	be	 served	on-site,	what	 are	 the	main	 reasons	 (please	 give	 a	 score	 according	 to	 the	
relevance	low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Our	facility	cannot	serve	all	users	due	to	the	limited	scope	of	operations	
o Users	cannot	prepare	samples,	due	to	limited	operations	of	their	institutions	
o Users	cannot	travel	to	perform	the	experiments	
Other:	
● Have	additional	funds	been	allocated	to	facilitate	remote	access?	(tick	all	appropriate	boxes):		
o No	
o Internal	funds	through	reallocation	of	existing	budget	
o Internal	 funds	 through	 allocation	 following	 increase	 of	 operational	 budget	 (e.g.	 increased	
membership	contributions	/	institutional	funding	due	to	COVID)	
o National	project	funding	
o European	Commission	funding	
o EU	structural	funds	
If	additional	funds	have	been	allocated,	please	indicate	the	approximate	amount.	Enter	"0"	if	your	answer	
to	the	previous	question	is	"no"	or	"figure	not	available"	if	you	are	able	to	provide	an	estimate.	
	
● Please	 describe	 the	 main	 issues	 related	 to	 remote	 access	 (tick	 all	 appropriate	 boxes).	 Please	 also	
express	an	opinion	of	the	severity	of	the	problem,	by	assigning	a	score	of	‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high:	
o Time	allocated	is	generally	used	less	efficiently		(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o When	 the	 experiments	 are	 implemented	 remotely,	 they	 take	 longer	 and	more	 time	 has	 to	 be	
allocated	overall	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Total	available	beamtime	to	be	allocated	is	reduced	(e.g.	no	night	shifts)	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Experiments	are	too	complex	to	provide	a	high-quality	remote	service	at	this	point	(‘low’,	‘medium’	
or	‘high’)	
o Lower	service	quality	due	to	lack	of	personal	contact	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o User	engagement	is	generally	lower	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Workload	on	beamline/instrument	scientist	is	too	high	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Reduced	training	opportunities	of	users	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Other:	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
51	
EXPECTED	MEDIUM	TO	LONG-TERM	CHANGES	IN	OPERATIONS	DUE	TO	COVID-19	
• Estimated	extent	of	remote	access	(Please	tick:	0%,	20%,	40%,	60%,	80%,	100%):	
o				Pre	COVID-19:	________	%	of	all	access	
o Current:	________	%	of	all	access	
o Medium-long	term:	________	%	of	all	access	
	
● What	do	you	anticipate	will	be	 the	main	 reasons	 for	 the	use	of	 remote	access	 in	 the	post-Covid-19	
period?	Please	also	assign	the	relevance	through	a	score	‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’	
o Reducing	the	time	taken	to	perform	an	experiment	enabling	higher	throughput	(‘low’,	‘medium’	
or	‘high’)	
o Decrease	environmental	impact	(e.g.	through	reduced	travel).		(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Additional	or	better	service	to	the	users	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Allowing	a	higher	number	of	users	to	access	each	experiment	(‘low’,	‘medium’	or	‘high’)	
o Other:	
		
SAFETY	MEASURES		
• What	 are	 the	main	 differences	 in	 the	 safety	measures	 since	 you	 first	 introduced	 COVID-19	 related	
measures:	
	
• What	safety	measures	do	you	plan	to	put	in	place	in	the	future? 
• What	safety	measures	would	you	wish	ideally	to	have	in	place	in	the	future?	
	
• Relative	to	the	pre-COVID-19	period,	indicate	the	extent	to	which	staff	are	travelling	(in	terms	of	
number	of	trips),	e.g.	to	do	experiments,	to	attend	events,	etc.):	(please	tick:	0%,	20%,	40%,	60%,	
80%,	100%):	
o domestically:	
o abroad:	
	
• Is	mask	wearing	(tick	the	appropriate	one):	
o mandatory	everywhere	
o mandatory	in	shared	and	common	areas	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
52	
o not	required	at	all,	except	when	the	prescribed	distance	between	people	cannot	be	assured	
o Other	(please	specify)	
	
	
By	submitting	this	form,	I	agree	that	my	responses	to	the	questionnaire	will	be	processed	and	published	in	
a	form	of	a	publicly	available	report.	
o YES	
	
	
	 	
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
53	
	
Questionnaire	3:	Evolution	of	operations	at	analytical	facilities	during	and	post	COVID-19	pandemic	
27	respondents,	of	which	only	the	following	25	authorised	us	to	disclose	their	identity:	
1. ALBA	Synchrotron	
2. Budapest	Neutron	Centre	-	Centre	for	Energy	
3. CEA-DRF-IRAMIS-LIDYL	
4. Centro	de	Laseres	Pulsados	
5. Deutsches	Elektronen-Synchrotron	DESY	in	Hamburg	(Germany)		
6. Diamond	Light	Source	
7. Elettra	Sincrotrone	Trieste	
8. European	XFEL	
9. FELIX	Laboratory	
10. Forschungszentrum	Juelich,	JCNS	
11. FORTH,	Institute	of	Electronic	Structure	and	Laser,	Ultraviolet	Laser	Facility	
12. Heinz	Maier-Leibnitz	Zentrum,	MLZ	
13. Helmholtz-Zentrum	Dresden-Rossendorf	
14. HiLASE	
15. HZB	Helmholtz	Zentrum	Berlin	für	Materialien	und	Energie	HZB	–	BESSY	II	
16. ILL,	Institut	Laue-Langevin	
17. ISA,	Aarhus	University,	Denmark	
18. ISIS	Neutron	&	Muon	Source	
19. Laboratoire	d'Optique	Appliquée	
20. National	Synchrotron	Radiation	Centre	SOLARIS,	Jagiellonian	University	
21. Nuclear	Physics	Institution	of	the	Czech	Academy	of	Sciences	
22. PALS,	Prague	Asterix	Laser	System	
23. PAUL	SCHERRER	INSTITUT	
24. Physikalisch-Technische	Bundesanstalt	
25. Synchrotron	SOLEIL		
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2.1	State	of	Open	Access	procedures	at	RIs	–	Annex	V	 	 	
	
ACCELERATE	has	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	programme	under	
grant	agreement	N.	731112	
	 	 	
 
54