Frequently Asked Questions - Open Science II Mini-Projects

For the text fields in the form, the following character limits apply:

• Project title: 500 characters
• Statutory representative: 250 characters
• Other fields: large text fields with hundreds of thousands of characters

From a practical perspective, however, if you enter, for example, 40,000 characters, the application will generate successfully, but it will produce many difficult‑to‑read pages. Therefore, we recommend entering approximately 4,000 characters in the text fields, and if you need a more extensive description, also include the complete text as an attachment (as stated in the Methodology for Applicants and Participating Institutions, Section 4.10).

Yes.

Yes, provided the minimum and maximum duration of the Mini‑project as defined by the Call is respected.

The determining factor is which institution will own the output and draw the funds. If it is not CU, the applicant must register under the other employer and apply as an external applicant.

The outputs of the 1st Call must be linked to the planned outputs and/or supported activities of the Open Science II project and must substantially extend the planned outputs and/or supported activities of the OS II project. It is necessary to base these on Annex No. 7 of the Call – Annex 7 – Extract from the Feasibility Study, where the project’s activities and outputs are described. The outputs submitted under this Call must build on or extend these outputs/activities. At the same time, the planned outputs must correspond to the Output Catalogue.

The 2nd Call will no longer include the requirement for continuity with the outputs and/or supported activities of the Open Science II project. However, the outputs will still need to correspond to the Output Catalogue.

In simple terms, the difference between the 1st and 2nd Call is that Mini-projects under the 1st Call must demonstrate “links between the output and the planned outputs and/or supported activities of the Open Science II project,” whereas Mini-projects under the 2nd Call do not need to prove such a “link.”

Yes, the Output Catalogue will be identical for both Calls.

The number of outputs within a single Mini‑project is not limited by this Call. However, it is necessary to comply with the maximum total amount of eligible expenditures for the Mini‑project.

The outputs of the 1st Call must be linked to the planned outputs and/or supported activities of the Open Science II project and must substantially extend the planned outputs and/or supported activities of the OS II project. It is necessary to base these on Annex No. 7 of the Call – Annex 7 – Extract from the Feasibility Study, where the project’s activities and outputs are described. The outputs submitted under this Call must build on or extend these outputs/activities. At the same time, the planned outputs must correspond to the Output Catalogue.

No. One schedule is submitted, but with separate sheets for each output.

Yes, a separate calculator is required for each output. Therefore, for example, if four outputs are planned within a single Mini‑project, four separate annexes/calculators must be attached.

No. There may be only one Request for an Opinion for each Mini‑project, with the relevant section of the Request for an Opinion form duplicated for each individual output, as well as the sections concerning the relevant disciplinary/thematic cluster of the planned outputs and the assignment of the given output to the corresponding output type from the Output Catalogue.

In Annex 7 of the Call.

Unfortunately, an ELN cannot be classified independently according to the Output Catalogue. However, if the Mini‑project includes a planned output of a “dataset” (meeting the FAIR principles), for which the implementation of an ELN would be a prerequisite, the ELN could be incorporated under this planned output.

The explanatory note in the Request for an Opinion form states: “The applicant must list 1-3 criteria for the functionality/scope of the output and then provide a brief description of these in relation to the characteristics of the output type in the Output Catalogue.”

The essence is very simple: the Output Catalogue contains only general characteristics of output types. The functionality/scope criteria of the planned output, defined by the applicant, should take the form of a brief specification of these general characteristics in relation to the planned output.

Therefore, no template is available (the basic framework is represented by the general characteristics of the output types in the Output Catalogue, which will be very briefly specified for individual planned outputs).

The NDI requirements are defined in the Methodology for Applicants and Participating Institutions, specifically:

• In Chapter 2:
  • National Data Infrastructure (NDI): Federated distributed data infrastructure for the needs of the EOSC in the Czech Republic built in connection with the European EOSC data infrastructure. It incorporates, in particular, the National Repository Platform, repositories of research and domain clusters and the National Metadata Directory. The design of the NDI concept is based on the framework architecture for the implementation of the EOSC in the Czech Republic and also on the outputs of the work of the EOSC Working Groups supervised by the CC EOSC in the Czech Republic.
  • NDI Open Access: For the purposes of this document, NDI Open Access means that the NDI infrastructure is made available under clearly formulated non-discriminatory conditions to any researcher, research group or institution, or even to interested members of the public, in accordance with the licensing conditions. There are number of open access models depending on the nature of the repository within the NDI or specific datasets, but in general, all researchers have the opportunity to utilise the NDI infrastructure under clearly defined non-discriminatory conditions. In accordance with the EOSC principles, non-commercial access is free of charge at the level of specific end users/researchers.

• In Chapter 4.7 - NDI requirements are defined in the following documents:
  • NDI Architecture: https://www.eosc.cz/media/3517655/eosc_architektura-implementace.pdf
  • Conditions for creating new and modifying existing repositories: https://www.eosc.cz/media/3812767/podminky-vytvareni-novych-a-uprava-stavajicich-repozitaru-v30.pdf

No, the Request for Opinion does not include any calculations, costs, or financial information.

No.

No. The Request for Opinion must bear a valid electronic signature of the statutory representative; no alternative signature method is acceptable under the given conditions.

Yes, it will be, and it will be available on this website.

Mini‑projects will be financed ex‑post. Reimbursement occurs after approval of the Final Report. The detailed procedure is provided in the Methodology for Applicants and Participating Institutions, including the relevant annexes, in particular Annex No. 8, which sets out the conditions between the Mini‑project applicant and Charles University.

The institution pays costs upfront and is reimbursed after submission and approval of the output.

All information is included in the Methodology for Applicants and Participating Institutions and in the Agreement on Cooperation Template, which forms Annex No. 8 of Methodology.

The Methodology for Applicants and Participating Institutions, in Chapter 4.11 Ex‑post financing, state that: “In the case of ex-post financing, the eligible expenses incurred for the realization of the mini-project are reimbursed retroactively to the participating institution. Participating Institutions pay for expenses incurred during the realization of mini-projects from their own resources. When realization is completed, it documents the created output of the mini-project according to the declared method of documentation in the Catalogue of Outputs. Eligible expenses are reimbursed retroactively following approval by CU.”

All documents can be found here.

Logging in via CAS or bank identity works only for internal CU users. If you are not an internal person - that is, you do not have any active employment at CU — and you wish to submit a Mini‑project application, you must first register using the registration form available here: Mini‑projects: Registration for contact persons outside CU. Your registration must then be approved by the grant scheme officer.

After your registration is approved, continue following the procedure described in the IS Věda Manual for the Mini‑projects Open Science II Call.

They must request a new registration.

This is correct. Select a CU workplace.

After the application is created, only the owner/main contact person has editing rights. If it is necessary to grant editing rights to additional persons, we recommend listing all of them as representatives of the contact person. Once they approve their participation in the project, they must also be added under the “Authorized Persons” tab, where their rights will likewise need to be granted.

No, it is available only to EOSC CZ WG members via their SharePoint link.

The main difference is that in the 1st Call the aim is to create outputs that build on the planned outputs and/or supported activities of the Open Science II project and that substantially extend/supplement these planned outputs and/or supported activities. These are outputs with a high level of readiness, discussed and agreed upon within the EOSC Initiative community in the Czech Republic.

In the Open call, this requirement no longer applies.

The eligible activities within the 2nd Call (Open call) will be as follows: the creation of outputs needed to ensure a data‑oriented research environment on the side of the Mini‑project applicant.

No, the group of eligible applicants will remain the same as in the 1st Call, i.e. it will be as follows:

Entities meeting the definition of an organisation for research and knowledge dissemination under the Framework for State Aid for Research, Development and Innovation (2022/C 414/01) with the following legal forms:

• public research institutions;
• public universities;
• other legal entities.

No, it will not.

We assume that in Call No. 2, the Output Catalogue will remain the same as in the current Call and in the Pilot.

The mandatory publicity for Mini‑projects is defined in Chapter 10 of the Methodology for Applicants and Participating Institutions:

• Successful applicants must publish on their websites and social media (if they have them) information about obtaining a mini-project from the Call for mini-projects. The post must contain a statement that the mini-project is being co-financed by the European Union and will be marked with mandatory logos in accordance with the Rules of the OP JAC Call no. 02_24_030 Open Science II - chap. 7.7.3 RAB – general section (EU emblem, mandatory text "Co-funded by the European Union" placed next to the EU emblem and the MEYS logo), which are available at the OP JAK website.

Yes, here.

The implementation and organization of voting will follow the established practices  
of each WG (including the tools used), which may be adjusted for this purpose. The basic framework is defined in the Methodology for Issuing an Opinion of the EOSC CZ WG on Mini‑Projects (can be seen here). 

The vote is preceded by a meeting of the relevant EOSC CZ WG (in person or online),  
at which the applicants present the outputs of individual mini-projects with regard to the evaluation criteria. The meetings for each of the Open Science II Mini-Projects Call must take place separately and within the period (one month) designated for the evaluation  
of outputs.

We can imagine creating some online space (Forms, Slido, etc.) where comments and suggestions on individual requests could be collected prior to the actual vote. The specific setup of this process is up to each EOSC WG based on its usual practice. 

It can be assumed that comments on the criteria will be rare (they would have to arise from discrepancies between the description of the planned output and its summary -  
i.e., the main concrete characteristics of the planned output). 

We recommend that if more than half of the votes are “YES without comments” and participation is at least 30%, the remaining comments should not be discussed further. 

If any comments arise from the Opinion of the EOSC WG, the applicant is obliged to incorporate them into the mini‑project application, and the evaluators will assess whether they have been adequately addressed. 

Any comments are entered in the Request for Opinion of the EOSC CZ WG form (Annex No. 4 Request for Opinion of the EOSC CZ WG) under point 2, in the “NO” option as justification, thus making the WG’s consent conditional. 

A requirement to revise criteria (NO + comment in point 2) does not mean that the overall Opinion is negative; the decisive part is point 1 of the Opinion (point 2 represents  
a reservation with an obligation to modify the application). 

A negative opinion must always be justified. See the form section: 

The planned output does not meet this criterion ……… and this is due to………

The applicant must remove any planned output that was not recommended and submit the application accordingly. All other planned outputs that receive a positive opinion may be included in the mini‑project application. 

This requirement must be interpreted based on the Annex no. 7 of the Call (Annex no. 7 – Extract Key Activities and Main Planned Outputs) where the project activities and outputs are described. Outputs submitted in this Call must build upon or extend those outputs/activities. The applicant must be aware of this condition and reflect the connection, extension, etc., in the description of the planned output.