I was expecting that after I click on the "Download your results" button, I would get some kind of advice or verdict, based on what boxes I have ticked off. However, it is only a copy of the checklist with the ticked off boxes. If you think that this copy is useful for authors in some way, then the button should be renamed into something like "Download a copy of your checklist".

So, what is a modest amount of datasets by South Korean standards?

Could you explain in what ways book metrics are different from journal citation metrics?

Same year as the University of Tromsø (as it was then called), see, for example, Frantsvåg (2010), https://journals.lub.lu.se/sciecominfo/article/view/4764.

Are there any examples of OSIs in Croatia having been privatised or commercialised?

What makes an OSI more prone to privatisation/commercialisation? E.g. can we say that an OSI with a national user base (the users are within one country) stands a lower risk of being privatised than an OSI with an international user base?

Jadranka, could you give examples of such countries and the respective OS initiatives/infrastructures?

What are examples of such binary/discriminatory criteria?

Does TU Delft have its own OA journal publishing platform that you would like to try this on? And if yes, have you started with experimenting on review workflows?

Does TU Delft have an RDM policy at the moment?

What is your motivation for using resources on advocating for a practice that has no legal effect?

Public Knowledge Project. OJS - Open Journal Systems. OMP - Open Monograph Press.

Episciences seems to be a good example of this.