Legal aspects of access to and reuse of scientific information in Greece

LEGAL ASPECTS OF ACCESS TO AND REUSE OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN GREECE A KR21 REPORT SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION UNIT, HEAL-LINK, 2025 ii Authors: Athanasia Salamoura (ORCID: 0000-0002-5173-8588), Despoina Gkogkou (ORCID: 0000-0001-5120-8192) Supervisor: Giannis Tsakonas (ORCID: 0000-0002-8786-9440) Funding The publication is issued as part of the Knowledge Rights 21 project, funded by Arcadia – a family charitable foundation. The Knowledge Rights 21 (KR21) programme is managed by IFLA, in partnership with LIBER and SPARC Europe. www.knowledgerights21.org, www.arcadiafund.org.uk Copyright information This publication is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. You are free to share, copy and redistribute this material in any medium or format, and adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. Legal disclaimer The information in this report is provided “as is,” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. Neither the contributors of the report nor the organizations involved shall bear liability for damages of any kind, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials, subject to any liability which is mandatory due to applicable law. Note Greek names and references, except Law titles, have been transliterated according to the ALA-LC Romanization standard, using the Transliteration Service of the National Library of Greece (https://transliteration.nlg.gr). Law titles have been translated in English to relate with European legislation, where available. iii Table of Contents List of Figures .......................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ........................................................................................................... iv Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 2. The profile of Greek research............................................................................. 3 3. Legislation in Greece affecting research ........................................................... 6 3.1. National laws ........................................................................................... 6 3.2. Policy initiatives .................................................................................... 10 3.3. Legal definition of the rightsholder ....................................................... 10 3.4. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 11 4. Exploring perceptions and opinions on enablers and barriers ....................... 12 4.1. The problem of accessing information and data .................................. 12 4.2. Perceptions and opinions of Greek researchers .................................. 13 4.2.1. Description of the sample ............................................................. 14 4.2.2. Access and Re-use enabling and prohibiting factors ................... 15 4.2.3. Harmonization & regional necessities .......................................... 19 4.2.4. Partnership between Public and Private Stakeholders ................ 20 4.2.5. Academic freedom and Legal certainty ........................................ 22 4.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 25 5. Recommendations ........................................................................................... 27 References ............................................................................................................ 29 Appendix ............................................................................................................... 31 iv List of Figures Figure 1: Respondents by organization type ........................................................ 14 Figure 2: Respondents by scientific field ............................................................. 14 Figure 3: Familiarity with legislation and policies ................................................ 15 Figure 4: The importance of finding information compared to the frequency of not being able to access it. .......................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: The most common barriers to accessing information .......................... 17 Figure 6: The most common barriers to sharing information .............................. 19 Figure 7: Perception of the conditions of research abroad. ................................. 19 Figure 8: Perceived reasons of the different research contexts .......................... 20 Figure 9: Distribution of scores for the easiness to collaborate in PPPs by organization type ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 10: Distribution of scores for easiness to share and reuse information by organization type. .................................................................................................. 21 Figure 11: Distribution of scores for certainty to reuse information/data by organization type. .................................................................................................. 22 Figure 12: Distribution of scores for certainty to share information/data by organization type. .................................................................................................. 23 Figure 13: Alternative measures to improve the context ..................................... 23 List of Tables Table 1: European and National legislation affecting research ............................. 8 v Abbreviations EIS: European Innovation Scoreboard EKT: National Documentation Center ELIDEK: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (Hellēniko Hidryma Ereunas & Kainotomias) ERA: European Research Area ERC: European Research Council ESETEK: National Council for Research, Technology and Innovation (Ethniko Symvoulio Ereunas, Technologias kai Kainotomias) GGEK: General Secretariat for Research and Innovation (Genikē Grammateia Ereunas kai Kainotomias) HE: Higher Education HEI: Higher Education Institutions HOSI: Hellenic Open Science Initiative NRI: National Research Infrastructure PAKEK: Panepistēmiako Kentro Ereunas kai Kainotomias (University Centers of Research and Innovation) PPP: Public-Private Partnerships R&D: Research and Development R&I: Research and Innovation RFO: Research Funding Organization RPO: Research Performing Organization SPR: Secondary Publishing Right vi 1 1. Introduction Research and Innovation are key instruments for the expansion of our scientific knowledge, the improvement of living conditions and social, cultural, and economic growth. For countries like Greece that still experience the effects of the fiscal shrinking of the previous decade, research and innovation are also a necessity for the social stability and cohesion. The effects of fiscal measures have been quite evident at the regional level and Greece is a country that has lived with the consequences of mass outward migration of its productive (wo)manpower.1 As stated in the Letta [1] and Draghi [2] reports, freedom of knowledge circulation in the European Union is a prerequisite of common growth and development. We hypothesize that revising the legal framework and maximizing legal flows of information in order to deliver on this freedom would make it possible to improve the research environment. If Greek researchers can conduct their work in parity to their peers in other countries, this will reduce the incentive to move away. This report has been commissioned by the Knowledge Rights 21 National Coordinator for Greece, Giorgos Glossiotis, in the frame of the 2025 Annual Plan. The study has been conducted by the Scholarly Communication Unit (henceforth EESC, from the abbreviation of the mixed alphabet of “Epistēmonikē Epikoinōnēsē Scholarly Communication”, https://scholarly.heal-link.gr) of the Hellenic Academic Libraries Link (HEAL-Link, https://www.heal-link.gr), the consortium of Greek academic libraries. EESC operates from the Library and Information Center of the University of Patras, Greece, as a branch of HEAL-Link. According to the statutes of the consortium, its aim is “...to inform the Greek academic community about issues of Open Access and Open Science, to provide support on the actions of these topics, to monitor the international developments, and to promote all beneficial measures – technical, legal or political nature – for the wide provision of research content.” The aim of the report is twofold: first, to summarize the current legislative framework for research and innovation in Greece and outline the challenges it represents to an open system of knowledge circulation. The second aim is to provide to all interested stakeholders evidence of the obstacles and the perceptions that Greek researchers face when attempting to access and to reuse information for research purposes. The scope of the report is open access to scientific publications (as a manifestation of the research intellect of the country), to data (as primary products that feed research processes), and to infrastructures (as the computing mechanisms that allow storage, preservation, operation, and dissemination of research outputs). The report is divided into four parts. First, we establish a profile of the Greek research system and relate this to that of other European countries. The comparative assessment of these figures indicates some areas where reform to 1 The World Population Review (https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/greece) provides a score of 4.1 to Greece in the Human Flight and Brain Drain Index, a number constantly rising from 2018. According to its report 46 people migrate daily, although no one can conclude for reasons related to this study. 2 policies and legislation could be beneficial for research. Second, we explore the main Laws, which come from many sources, that govern the activities for research in the country. Third, we report the main findings of a survey that EESC conducted in the spring of 2025 to help us understand how the Greek researchers perceive aspects of openness in accessing and reusing research assets in a lawful way. Finally, we provide some recommendations addressed both to the main research stakeholders and to their research libraries. 9 N. 4957, FEK Α’ 141/2022. New horizons in Higher Education Institutions: strengthening the quality, functionality and connection of HEIs with society and other provisions Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (Text with EEA relevance) Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 (Data Act) (Text with EEA relevance) Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (Text with EEA relevance) N. 5099, FEK Α’ 48/2024. Adoption of measures for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC ("Digital Services Act") and other provisions of the Ministry of Digital Governance Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on European data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act) (Text with EEA relevance) N. 5188, FEK Α’ 49/2025. Measures implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/868 (data governance act) - Designation of a competent authority for the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/903 (Interoperable Europe Regulation) - Electronic application "mystreet" - Arrangements for the promotion of digital transformation and other provisions. data governance act) What is missing from the current legislation are instruments concerned specifically with access to and reuse of information. For instance, the concept of Secondary Publishing Rights (SPRs), which refers to “the rights of researchers and their employers to reuse a work after the first publication of a formal version; in this case to republish it on an infrastructure that by its nature (public and not-forprofit) is coherent with the (public) nature of the funding source” [12], is entirely absent. However, currently, there are eight European countries that have an SPR and the latest countries that have joined this movement are Slovenia and Bulgaria, 10 aiming to strengthen the position of the authors to reuse information that they have intellectually and otherwise produced with public funds and for non-forprofit purposes. 3.2. Policy initiatives Scholarly practices, as mentioned above, are primarily based on the disciplinespecific codes and conventions, which create social/moral obligations and rights. The role of contractual agreements in shaping these practices cannot be ignored, especially when one considers that they are tied up with invisible constructs, such as professional and/or social assessment, limit options, and steer decisions to specific ‘privileged’ outlets. There are potential institutional policy measures that can be taken in order to counterbalance the harmful effect of excessive application of intellectual property regulation. However, in no Greek academic or research institutions is there a policy that includes strong rights retention provisions, as exist in other countries, nor does any RFO participates in the emblematic PlanS [13], which also promotes such provisions. For reference, rights retention refers to measures in institutional policies “…promoting the practice of retaining sufficient rights for academic works of institutions’ employees to make the work immediately openly accessible and reusable” [14]. The “Digital Transformation Bible 2020-2025” is the first step towards creating a supportive context for policy interventions. The “Bible” explicitly mentions areas of Open Science where there is a need for investment, such as the reinforcement of the national research network, the upgrade of national, thematic and institutional repositories and e-journals, open access to research infrastructures, and free availability and reuse of publicly funded research data, etc. [15] In this context, the Hellenic Open Science Initiative (HOSI, https://www.hellenicopenscience.gr/) has been established as a bottom-up approach, serving to introduce measures that promote openness in research and innovation. HOSI has published its Open Science Policy, which proposes main policy axes and implementation tools, and which is addressed to policy makers, RFOs, and RPOs [16]. The axes address the adoption of the policy, open access, research data, open software, and open infrastructures. However, the policy has not been implemented and according to several Open Science benchmarks, such as the ones provided by the Council for National Open Science Coordination [17] and OpenAIRE [18], the development and implementation of policies across RPOs is limited. 3.3. Legal definition of the rightsholder In order to implement legislative measures in the research sector -either laws or policiesit is important to define who is the rightsholder, given that works are very frequently co-created in an environment that enjoys many degrees of freedom (and therefore ambiguity). Art 8 of Law 2121/93 defines that “the economic rights 11 in works created by employees under any work related to the public sector or a legal entity of public law in execution of their duties is ipso jure transferred to the employer, unless provided otherwise by contract.” However, in research and academia there are conditions that complicate the precise definition of a “dependent” research output (a product of an activity in the broad range of work) or a “service” (a product of a clearly ordered activity). Art. 65 of Law 4864/2021 is one of the few points in the research legislation that mentions “dependent and service inventions” in the context of patents and allocates ownership rights over intellectual property on outputs that were created in the context of a spin-off company. These terms are defined by internal regulation, which has provisions about the types of compensation that researchers enjoy. Should these not be defined, then the provisions of Law 1753/1987 on the Industrial Property Organization govern the output. In the provisions of art. 6 of this Law it is stated that patents that constitute service inventions are 100% owned by the respective institutions, while for dependent ones there is a 60/40% division for the researchers and their institutions. 3.4. Conclusions In conclusion, the law for Intellectual Property does not take particular account of the specifics of the conditions under which research is conducted, but does create particular difficulties for research carried out through partnerships. This potentially has an impact on the competitiveness of Greek research, and so the rates of growth and development in the country. On the other hand, laws for research mainly lay the foundations and the structure of the ecosystem, rather than establishing instruments that can in principle facilitate research exposure and use. In practice, the Greek state has not taken any measures to regulate the scientific production of its citizens and claim returns on its own public investments. For instance, the country does not have legislation that provides SPRs to its authors, while institutions have not introduced rights retention policies, despite these being tools that would reduce legal uncertainty and engage authors with much more open practices. There is no top-down approach, which belies an awkwardness in managing these issues. Instead, regulation is mainly governed by two other “forces,” namely the contractual agreements between authors and publishers, and scholarly conventions and practices, which are primarily based on the ethics of each discipline. 12 4. Exploring perceptions and opinions on enablers and barriers 4.1. The problem of accessing information and data The academic and research communities have long struggled with issues surrounding access to information and data. A mix of market dominance by a group of publishers, constrained finances and weak institutional negotiating power have limited the ability of researchers to access timely the scientific information that they need and has been produced by their peers. As a result, researchers live in a context of inequalities, which does not support a common approach to European growth. It is not within the scope of this report to outline how the market of scholarly communication and research information works, but it has to be noted that there is growing concern that copyright and contract law are enabling disputable market practices, even at the extreme edge of anti-trust, that prevent researchers from conducting effective research and risk public investments and taxpayers’ money [19]. The problem of accessing available scientific knowledge is a global one. Even in wealthy economies, like the US, with high budgets and increased purchasing power, researchers are facing barriers to knowledge. According to the 2021 version of the survey by Ithaka S+R, a growing share of researchers in recent years find themselves unable to access the specific resources they need, leading them either to look for other versions that can be found freely, or simply to give up and have to rely on second-best options [20]. This shows that researchers have to compromise when it comes to material to support their research; they get what they can, not what they need. A pan-European survey by the European Commission [21] has confirmed what is already well-known in the world of researchers: approximately 80% of researchers have been confronted with a lack of access to research outputs due to the lack of subscriptions and more than 60% due to other kinds of paywalls. Similarly, to their US peers, European researchers either look for free versions of the same resource or give up. Researchers mention also that there are “Legal uncertainties and administrative overhead associated with copyright, both restricted and Open Access” and they do not feel confident “about fair use (the right to use a copyrighted work under certain conditions without permission of the copyright owner) and the risk of copyright infringement.” These indicate that copyright legislation is creating more ambiguity than clarity about what researchers can do. The current landscape, instead of being straightforward, requires complex and delicate decisions, based on expert knowledge that researchers neither possess, nor should need to, given their other responsibilities. Other previous surveys have indeed provided evidence that researchers are not well equipped with legal knowledge about their rights. In Italy, researchers have poor knowledge about copyright, and they do not exercise their republishing rights because of legal uncertainty [22]. Awareness of attempts to change the legislative framework (see Lege Gallo in 2018) is exceptionally low, while the main approach for publishing is fee-based, either as restricted access 13 (and therefore subscriptions) or as Gold OA. In Greece, researchers find it difficult to publish OA due to the high cost, while the third most important reason why they do not upload their works in institutional repositories is the feeling of uncertainty about whether it is allowed [23]. Finally, a study by Erickson and Stobo (2024) focuses in particular on researchers’ experience of Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) applied by publishers and vendors ostensibly to protect their copyrights. The study however underlines that this is often done so clumsily that institutions and individual researchers would prefer to avoid acquiring material protected by TPMs than trying to circumvent them. Both the legal uncertainty and the problematic servicing of their claims by rightsholders deter them from doing so. 4.2. Perceptions and opinions of Greek researchers In order to understand whether similar phenomena are encountered in the Greek environment, we conducted a survey among Greek researchers. We addressed a call for participation to all possible types of organizations that conduct research, both public and private. The survey was designed to be anonymous, short, and targeted, so that there would be a wide representation. Our experience shows that while knowledge might differ (and in the case of matters pertaining to intellectual property might be very low), the overall perception of a situation is often much more widely shared. The survey, which can be found in the Appendix, was administered digitally, through the Open-Source platform FormBricks, and consisted of the following parts: • Section 1 – Description of the sample: Type of institution, Scientific field, Familiarity with policies and legislation. • Section 2 – Areas of evidence: o 2a. Access and Re-use enabling and prohibiting factors. o 2b. Harmonization & regional necessities. o 2c. Partnership with Private Industries. o 2d. Academic freedom and Legal certainty. The survey was distributed in May 2025, lasted three weeks and received 346 full responses in total. It is unclear how many total recipients there were, but this represents 65.77% of the total responses started. There were also 180 unfinished responses (34.23%). These have not been used in our study, even though to a great degree they were usable up to section 2c. In several of the graphs below we opt for presenting the singular replies of respondents as units, rather than as aggregated rates and scores. Since many of the questions were rating ones, this creates the problem of the visibility of identical responses. To address this and design the visualizations, data are handled with the jittering technique. Aggregated scores have been used when the respondents could select multiple choices. Where possible, inferential statistics have been used to identify differences among the groups of respondents. 14 4.2.1. Description of the sample The majority of the respondents were from academic institutions (76.9%), followed by research centers (15.9%). Only three respondents came from startups and spin-off companies, while nine came from industry & enterprise. One of the respondents that mentioned “Other” came from an incubator of start-up companies, while the rest stated that are generally researchers from the public and the private sectors. Figure 1: Respondents by organization type. We followed the classification of scientific fields that the EESC uses in other surveys and reports. This scheme classifies researchers into seven broad categories, namely Natural Sciences, Economics & Management, Humanities, Environmental Sciences, Engineering & Technology, Health Sciences and Social Sciences. Figure 2: Respondents by scientific field. The largest single share of respondents came from the Engineering & Technology field (23%). Second were respondents from Humanities and Social 15 Sciences. Most of the respondents from these two fields (who combined represent 35% of the replies) came from academic institutions. The two respondents from start-ups were working in the fields of Environmental Sciences and Engineering & Technology, while the one from a spin-off was working on Health Sciences. Six out of the nine participants from industry were from the Engineering & Technology field. Participants in the survey seemed to be relatively familiar with the policies of their institutions. This was the case across all types of organizations at averages that range between 48.3 and 55.3% of respondents reporting such familiarity. Awareness of legislative requirements follows, with national laws being known by 90 respondents and European laws by 85. European legislation is known among participants in research centers at a rate of 21%, whereas the national legislation is known by 19.26% of the respondents in academic institutions. Funders’ policies were the least well-known, although this cannot be considered as a prerequisite for all kinds of researchers, especially to those from the Humanities and Social Sciences, who have few funders. These were complemented by six responses of “Other” types of policies, which referred mostly to sectoral ones, such as those implemented in projects and networks in which respondents take part. Figure 3: Familiarity with legislation and policies. 4.2.2. Access and Re-use: enabling and prohibiting factors In order to understand the situation that they can be in, we asked our sample two questions: “How important is it to have access to digital information (ejournals, ebooks, datasets, etc.) for your research?” (a scale of 1-5) and “How frequent is it to need access to scientific information, but you it is impossible?” (a scale of 17). Higher rates in both would signify an urgency; a situation that appears often and affects severely a critical operation. The results of these two questions are combined in Figure 4. 16 Having access to scientific information is very important for all. Researchers from academic institutions value access at an average of 4.85 (out of five). They were closely followed by their colleagues in research centers with an average of 4.84. All the responses from spin-offs and start-ups were highest, but the lowest average was from enterprise & industry, see 4.72. The few responses with low scores (below 4) came from health scientists in universities. Figure 4: The importance of finding information compared to the frequency of not being able to access it. Being unable to access information when needed is a quite frequent phenomenon. All scientific fields recorded average rates above the middle of the scale with Humanities having a score of 5.4 and Health 5.04 (out of seven). The lowest score was from Environmental Scientists with 3.59. In terms of organization types, researchers from enterprise & industry and the generic “other” reported the average rates with 4.67 and 5, respectively. In the two most populated groups, universities and research centers, these average rates were 4.64 and 4.25, respectively. A subsequent focused on the kind of barriers that they most often encountered. Respondents had several options that reflected financial, technical, and legal constraints, given our acknowledgement that the problems in accessing information cannot necessarily be attributed to any one factor. Figure 5 shows the replies to this, excluding two replies for “Other” and one for “None”. Financial barriers, in the form of paywalls around protected information, are the most common. These are consistently reported across all scientific fields. The option of non-central systems (i.e., a lack of centralized and transparent points of reference for accessing content), was the second most favored one, followed by options for the limits and the relevance of material and systems. These were suggested 17 mostly by researchers from the Humanities with the two replies for “Other” barriers referring to issues associated with software and equipment and came from the Engineering & Technology and the Economics & Management fields. Figure 5: The most common barriers to accessing information. We then asked participants a similar pair of questions regarding the sharing of information: “How important is it for your research to share your own work?” and “How frequently you want to share your scientific information with peers/students, but you cannot?” The need to share scientific information is stronger in research centers and in enterprise & industry, with an average of 4.67 each, followed by academic institutions with 4.61. The scientific disciplines that most reported needing to share scientific information were Natural and Health Sciences, with an average of 4.71 and 4.68 respectively (out of five), while the lowest average was recorded for Economics & Management, at 4.31. 18 Researchers from academic institutions replied that they are frequently unable to share with an average of 3.9 (out of seven) while their peers from research centers had an average of 3.31. A higher average rate, 4.31, was observed for those in “Other” organizations. Researchers in Health Sciences had an average of 4.3, followed by those in Social Sciences with 4.13, whereas researchers in Economics & Management were the only ones below the middle of the scale, at 3.31. Respondents also answered a question about the barriers they meet in sharing information. Figure 6 displays those most regularly identified as prohibiting factors, excluding eight replies for “Other”, four for “None” and one for “Do not Know”. The contracts that researchers sign with publishers are the most frequent factors. Other factors that prohibit the sharing of information are the lack of Open Licensing options, the lack of clear information, and legal uncertainty. Six out of the eight responses for “Other” mentioned financial factors, including the costs of OA, which are generally unattainable for many authors, especially for those that are not covered by open access agreements. 25 If the resources are not there, the legitimate result cannot be achieved, which I personally consider dangerous! One of the participants from the field of Engineering & Technology doubted the sincerity of motives regarding the dissemination of information. “ Both access to information (e.g., publishing houses, libraries, organizations issuing guidelines/regulations) and dissemination of information (conferences, open access journals, patents, etc.) have purely financial limitations. Of course, if the research subject is promising for commercial exploitation, dissemination is not particularly important or is done ostensibly in order to satisfy the relevant requirements of the funding program. A researcher from the Environmental Sciences, while applauding open access, asked for measures to ensure data protection: “ Written consent from copyright owners for the use of their data in research should be applied, and the metadata of the data should be made public, not the data itself. It is to be noted that, given that data itself is not subject copyright, the last statement arguably underlines the need for further legal literacy in this space. 4.3. Conclusions The results of this study highlight the difficulties encountered in accessing information: despite the content supplied by HEAL-Link, which is the main provider of scholarly information to all academic and research institutes, the resources available are neither enough nor entirely relevant. Furthermore, information overload and the disparity of resources and infrastructures create uncertainty as to where and how to address questions, either concerning access or publishing. As the academic and research environment expands and the indicators of production rise, researchers need wide access to information on a variety of topics. Innovation cannot be driven only by the traditional fields but lies also in the needs of novel and multidisciplinary knowledge domains. One researcher mentioned that “In the field of graphic design as well as those of 2D animation, 3D animation, and gaming, there are few sources and research at this stage is in its infancy.” Accessing and sharing information are two sides of the same coin and are essential to the progress of science and research. The results show that barriers to both of these lie mainly in financial and legal factors, both rooted in publishers’ practices. The respondents mention a frequent need to be able to access the right information, but to be unable to do so. This underlines problems with the current model of subscribed content that is provided by scientific publishers through the libraries, at a time that the library sector in Greece is ageing and shrinking, leaving some universities and research centers to run their libraries with as few as one person. Systems that are supposed to support the circulation of information are not able to fulfil this role, and in the absence of credible advice on how it is best 26 to retrieve, use, publish, and reuse information (and short of reforms to bring greater simplicity), researchers find themselves unable to manage these tasks effectively. Sharing information is also affected by publishers’ practices, namely contracts of exclusivity. Authors cannot reuse their own material even for reasons that relate to elementary exceptions, such as research and education, but must rely on the terms of the publishers to allow this after embargo periods and in ways that are not favored in scholarly practices. As they benefit from transformative agreements signed by HEAL-Link and other open access opportunities, they now have as their priority the kind of publications that are supported by article processing charges, another financially based parameter. It is well known however that Gold Open Access raises many concerns about sustainability, despite the large investments. In a limited market, like Greece, which tends to underprivilege fields such as Social Sciences and Humanities, it further enhances inequalities. Having the ability to share information may still be an option but comes at a high cost that is out of the reach of many. Participants stated a preference in policies; they are familiar with and appreciate them as a condition that can make a difference in the research environment, as they do in other countries. However, at the same time, we see that policies are few, weak and are not exercised consistently and confidently. As noted, none of the RPOs and RFOs are implementing Rights Retention policies that explicitly ask for the keeping of intellectual property rights in a way that secure a good record of their production and enable future reuse. Participants did not appreciate the lengthy procedures and the complex logistics around research management. This pervasive lack of faith in the system's credibility and its commitment to meritocracy is a significant concern. Respondents suggest that a more equitable system of rewards and compelling incentives could be a key factor in improving the situation. Specifically, the processes for selecting research funding have been marred by various issues, and it is crucial that proper rewards are fundamentally based on meritocracy. As in other reports of the EESC, it is reconfirmed that a great amount of workforce for support and orientation for researchers is missing. Researchers need technologically, scholarly, and legally savvy support staff that will guide them to take the best decisions. The same personnel could also monitor the implementation of policies, but just are not there in the numbers needed. Participants from enterprise & industry seem to face difficulties in collaborating with their public institutions’ peers. This is confirmed by the country’s EIS profile and the weak linkages between the private and the public sectors. Currently there is no clear overview of the private sector’s perceptions about openness, which in many cases is associated with economic activity in cutting-edge products and markets [25]. Much more certainty is needed to find the proper balance between openness that will further develop knowledge and protection that will give an advantage. 27 5. Recommendations We group the recommendations according to some principles that should characterize the research ecosystem of Greece. Clarity: The State has to take initiatives to establish practices that maximize the free circulation of knowledge inside and outside of the country. An outwardlooking culture and internationalization are key drivers the policies in the academic and research domains, but practices around the management of research outputs are currently do not contribute to this. The existence and implementation of top-down policies and/or legislation should not be seen as a factor that limits academic freedom, rather than as an instrument that coordinates the best possible availability and reuse of knowledge. Furthermore, reforming copyright laws around research (both for uses and outputs) in order to align them with research policy goals (including the strengthening of partnerships) could also help give clarity and reassurance. Determination: The current European framework is providing a first-class opportunity for Greece to update its approach and to transform into a country that favors openness and fosters innovation. Visionary policy making is strongly supported by the Draghi and Letta reports, as well as several other EU developments, such as the upcoming ERA Act and conclusions of the Council of European Union, that together constitute a framework of which other countries take advantage of in order to build competitiveness. Confidence would be supported by RPOs and RFOs introducing and implementing Open Science policies that focus on benefits to the research community, rather than any other third party. There is convincing evidence about the value of Rights Retention policies from other countries that could pave the way for Greek organizations to do the same. The State needs to invest in and improve the research support environment with knowledgeable and skilled staff, as well as with modern, interoperable infrastructures that truly digitally transform processes and outcomes. Balance: Central and regional research and innovation councils, as well as all other policy making institutions in this extraordinarily complex system should create opportunities for a dialogue between the public and private sectors so that research flows from and to both ends easily, and as quickly as possible. Protectionism has been proven to be an overly conservative measure that leads to stagnation in the production of new knowledge. With the advancement of Open Science policies that support balanced approaches between openness and security, the research ecosystem can present more opportunities. The legislative framework for science and innovation should incorporate provisions for an SPR, as the bare minimum of independence and legal certainty for authors. This is expected to assist the country in increasing its open access 28 scores (especially the Green one) and provide new opportunities for openness and its benefits. KR21 has developed a model article for SPR for Greece that would strengthen the position of researchers and rebalance fundamental rights and obligations: “ The author of a work in a scientific journal or in a collective volume is entitled to make it available to the public in any definitive edition through any non-profit open access repository immediately after publication, including any thirdparty content, such as images and tables, provided that (a) the research to which the scientific work refers has been covered in whole or in part by public resources; and (b) it is accompanied by an indication of the source and the names of the authors and the publisher, provided that these names are known. Any contrary contractual arrangement is invalid. Investment in Capacity: Research libraries should be placed centrally in the system, as the hubs that bring together expertise, as well as the opinions of all stakeholders, in order to boost capacity. Service development in research libraries should be collaborative with other units and departments, such as Technology Transfer Offices. They should be able to expand the capacity of the research staff through comprehensive training programmes. 29 References 1. Letta, E.: Much more than a market. European Council (2024). 2. Draghi, M.: The future of European competitiveness. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2025). 3. Σουφλέρη, Ι.: Γιατί η Ελλάδα «τρώει» το ερευνητικό δυναμικό της, https://www.tovima.gr/print/society/giati-i-elladacrtroei-to-ereynitikodynamiko-tis/, (2025). 4. Eurostat: Science, technology, and innovation, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/science-technology-innovation/, last accessed 2025/09/13. 5. ΕΚΤ: Βασικοί Δείκτες Έρευνας & Ανάπτυξης για δαπάνες και προσωπικό το 2023 στην Ελλάδα. Εθνικό Κέντρο Τεκμηρίωσης & Ηλεκτρονικού Περιεχομένου (2025). 6. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: She figures 2024 - Greece. (2024). 7. ERC dashboard, https://erc.europa.eu/projects-statistics/erc-dashboard, last accessed 2025/09/13. 8. European Commission: Horizon Dashboard, https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/horizon-dashboard, last accessed 2025/09/13. 9. European innovation scoreboard, https://research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/performance-indicators/europeaninnovation-scoreboard_en, last accessed 2025/09/13. 10. European Commission: ERA Country Report Greece. (2025). 11. European Commission: Support to Greece for policies developing research infrastructures and the R&I ecosystem – Final report. Publications Office of the European Union (2022). https://doi.org/10.2777/972551. 12. Tsakonas, G., Zoutsou, K., Perivolari, M.: Secondary Publishing Rights in Europe: status, challenges & opportunities. Knowledge Rights 21 (2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10798286. 13. Plan S Rights Retention Strategy | Plan S, https://www.coalition-s.org/rightsretention-strategy/, last accessed 2022/11/17. 14. Labastida i Juan, I., Melinščak Zlodi, I., Proudman, V., Treadway, J.: Opening knowledge: Retaining rights and Open Licensing in Europe, https://zenodo.org/record/8084051, (2023). 15. Υπουργείο Ψηφιακής Διακυβέρνησης: Βίβλος Ψηφιακού Μετασχηματισμού 2020-2025. (2021). 16. Athanasiou, S., Amiridis, V., Vasilakaki, N., Gavriilidou, M., Gerasopoulos, E., Dimopoulos, A., Zorba (Zormpa), I., Iliakis, A., Kaklamani, G., Karagiannis, F., Klampanos, I., Kondili, D., Koumantaros, K., Konstantinidis, E., Konstantopoulos, P., Konstantopoulos, S., Lenaki, K., Likiardopoulos, A., Manola, N., Mitropoulou, D., Balatzaras, M., Bamidis, P., Benardou, A., Boukos, N., NINOU, E., Nousias, A., Ntaountaki, M., Oikouta, S., Ollandezou, L., Papadopoulou, E., Papatheodorou, C., Papastamatiou, I., Piperidis, S., Rigakou, V., Speyer, O., Toli, E., Tsiavos, P., Frantzi, A., Frantzi, M., 30 Psomopoulos, F., Chrysina, E.: National plan for Open Science (2025). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14808290. 17. OS policies, https://conosc.org/os-policies/, last accessed 2025/09/13. 18. Papadopoulou, E., Spyrou, K.: OpenAIRE - Greece, https://www.openaire.eu/os-greece, last accessed 2025/09/13. 19. Esteve, A.: Copyright and Open Access to scientific publishing. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 55, 901– 926 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01479-z. 20. Blankstein, M.: Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2021. Ithaka S+R (2022). 21. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Improving access to and reuse of research results, publications and data for scientific purposes – Study to evaluate the effects of the EU copyright framework on research and the effects of potential interventions and to identify and present relevant provisions for research in EU data and digital legislation, with a focus on rights and obligations. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2024). 22. Peruginelli, G., Faro, S.: Survey on the attitudes and awareness of the CNR scientific community on Secondary Publishing Right and authors’ Rights Retention - presentation of results. Zenodo (2024). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10732325. 23. Salamoura, A., Frantzi, M., Tsakonas, G.: H Ανοικτή Πρόσβαση στην Ελλάδα: αντιλήψεις και στάσεις στα ακαδημαϊκά ιδρύματα. Μονάδα Επιστημονικής Επικοινώνησης, Σύνδεσμος Ελληνικών Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών (2025). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14882816. 24. Erickson, K., Stobo, V.: Survey on Technological Protection Measures: impacts for researchers, libraries and archives. Zenodo (2024). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14168677. 25. Owens, B.: What incentives do companies need to publish research? Science. 642, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01926-y. 31 Appendix The questionnaire in Greek. 1. Εργάζεστε σε... Ακαδημαϊκό ίδρυμα, Ερευνητικό κέντρο, Επιχείρηση/Βιομηχανία, Νεοφυή επιχείρηση (start-up), Τεχνοβλαστό (spin-off), Αλλού 2. Θα κατατάσσατε την ερευνητική σας δουλειά στο επιστημονικό πεδίο... Μηχανική & Τεχνολογία, Ανθρωπιστικές Επιστήμες, Κοινωνικές Επιστήμες, Φυσικές Επιστήμες, Επιστήμες της Υγείας, Οικονομικά & Διοίκηση, Περιβαλλοντικές Επιστήμες 3. Με ποιο από τα παρακάτω είστε περισσότερο εξοικειωμένοι/ές; Πολιτική του ιδρύματος/κέντρου, Εθνική νομοθεσία για την έρευνα, Ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία για την έρευνα, Πολιτική του χρηματοδοτικού φορέα, Άλλο 4. Πόσο σημαντικό είναι να έχετε πρόσβαση σε ψηφιακή πληροφορία (ejournals, ebooks, datasets, κλπ.) για την ερευνά σας; Πολύ σημαντικό, Σημαντικό, Ουδέτερο, Ελάχιστο σημαντικό, Καθόλου σημαντικό 5. Πόσο συχνά θέλετε να έχετε πρόσβαση σε επιστημονική πληροφορία, αλλά δεν μπορείτε να έχετε; 1-7 6. Τι είδους εμπόδια συναντάτε; Οικονομικής φύσεως (paywalls), Μη κεντρικά συστήματα, Ελάχιστο υλικό/συστήματα, Μη συναφές υλικό/συστήματα, Τεχνικής φύσεως (technological protection measures), Μη έγκυρό υλικό/συστήματα, Άλλο 7. Πόσο σημαντικό για την ερευνά σας είναι να διαμοιράζεστε το δικό σας έργο; Πολύ σημαντικό, Σημαντικό, Ουδέτερο, Ελάχιστο σημαντικό, Καθόλου σημαντικό 8. Πόσο συχνά θέλετε να διαμοιράζεστε τη δική σας επιστημονική πληροφορία με συνεργάτες/φοιτητές, αλλά δεν μπορείτε; 1-7 9. Ποιος/οι είναι οι αποτρεπτικοί παράγοντες; Τα ιδιωτικά συμφωνητικά με τους εκδότες, Η έλλειψη επιλογών για την ανοικτή αδειοδότηση, Η έλλειψη ξεκάθαρης πληροφόρησης, Η νομική αβεβαιότητα, Η έλλειψη αξιόπιστων συστημάτων, Η νομοθεσία ή η πολιτική του φορέα μου, Άλλος 10. Πόσο καλύτεροι πιστεύετε ότι είναι οι όροι με τους οποίους οι συνεργάτες σας στο εξωτερικό έχουν πρόσβαση και διαμοιράζονται πληροφορία σε σχέση με τους δικούς σας; 32 Πολύ καλύτεροι, Καλύτεροι, Ουδέτεροι, Ελάχιστα καλύτεροι, Καθόλου καλύτεροι 11. Ποιο από τα παρακάτω θεωρείτε ότι τους δίνει πλεονέκτημα; Διαφορές στα κίνητρα και τις επιβραβεύσεις, Διαφορές στις πολιτικές των φορέων εργασίας, Διαφορές στις εθνικές πολιτικές, Διαφορές στην εθνική νομοθεσία, Άλλο 12. Πόσο εύκολο είναι να συνεργαστείτε με έναν ιδιωτικό/δημόσιο φορέα για ερευνητικούς σκοπούς; 1-7 13. Πόσο εύκολο είναι να έχετε πρόσβαση και να διαμοιραστείτε τους ίδιους πληροφοριακούς πόρους με έναν ιδιωτικό/δημόσιο φορέα; 1-7 14. Πόσο σίγουροι/ές είστε να διαμοιραστείτε την πληροφορία που έχετε παράξει; 1-7 15. Πόσο σίγουροι/ές είστε να επαναχρησιμοποιήσετε τις πληροφορίες/δεδομένα που έχετε ανακτήσει; 1-7 16. Ποιό/ά από τα παρακάτω θα αυξήσει την αυτοπεποίθησή σας για δυνατότητες πρόσβασης και επαναχρησιμοποίησης της επιστημονικής πληροφορίας για την ερευνά σας; Εφαρμογή πολιτικών των χρηματοδοτικών φορέων, Εφαρμογή πολιτικών των φορέων εργασίας, Αναθεώρηση της εθνικής νομοθεσίας, Αναθεώρηση της Ευρωπαϊκής νομοθεσίας, Άλλο 33 Executive Summary This report, commissioned by the Knowledge Rights 21 National Coordinator for Greece, explores the state of research and innovation in Greece in relation to the challenges and opportunities for open access to information. The study was conducted by the Scholarly Communication Unit (EESC) of the Hellenic Academic Libraries Link (HEAL-Link) and had two key objectives, namely, to summarize the legislative framework for research and innovation in Greece and its impact on open knowledge circulation and to provide evidence of the difficulties Greek researchers encounter in their access to and reuse of research information. A central finding of the report is the highly fragmented and uncoordinated nature of the current system, which hinders the nation's research potential. Existing legislation, often fragmented and in confusing abundance, fails to adequately address the circulation of scientific information and disregards the conditions of its production and the requirements of collaborative research practices. The survey results reveal that Greek researchers frequently struggle to access timely, sufficient, and relevant information. They also face limitations in sharing information with other stakeholders, including private partners, and express their will for reforms that would align Greece's research environment with international standards. The report underscores the need for a more open and accessible research environment. It stresses the importance of revising the policy and legal framework to promote the free flow of information, enabling Greek researchers to compete effectively on a European and global scale. This includes actions that address the challenges posed by publisher practices and call for adequate support for libraries and information infrastructures. The report also recommends that all key stakeholders implement effective measures to simplify the ecosystem, promote open science policies, support legislative changes, and advance the development of a vibrant and competitive research ecosystem in Greece.