Instruct-ERIC Access Policy and Procedures

Version: 3.4

Date: 5 January 2024

The terms for proposal submission are available to view here.

1. Introduction

The aim of Instruct-ERIC is to encourage the integrative use of technology and methodologies in structural biology. Access may be requested by users for series of services/technologies necessary for their project. However, applications for individual Instruct-ERIC services/technologies are also encouraged when the user's local facilities can provide the other techniques required. User access is one of the key activities of Instruct-ERIC and access regulations are collected in this Instruct-ERIC access policy (according to Art. 25 of the Statutes) which should be read in conjunction with the Instruct-ERIC Statutes (2017/C 230/01).

In managing the Access provision for Instruct-ERIC, there are three main levels of organisation and responsibility:

1. The role of the Executive Committee with respect to User access is to consider the Access Policy as prepared by the Access Committee and forward to Instruct-ERIC Council for approval.

2. The role of the Access Committee with respect to User access is to define the Access Policy, to approve access proposals, to supervise the review process performed by Instruct-ERIC moderators and reviewers, to resolve issues arising between centres and users with respect to Access provision, and monitor Access metrics.

3. The role of the Instruct-ERIC Hub with respect to User access is to implement the Access Policy to manage the peer review process, collect metrics and to provide support to users and facilities.

Key functions are performed by Moderators, Reviewers, and the Selection Panel who receive and handle the Instruct-ERIC user access proposals. Involvement of Moderators and Reviewers in the review process is managed by Instruct-ERIC Hub with oversight of the Access Committee.

1. The Moderators receive proposals through ARIA, check eligibility criteria, and decide whether it is suitable for scientific review. They will also inform the user of their proposal outcome after panel selection.

2. The Reviewers are experts in their discipline who are registered in ARIA and allocated to a list visible to the Moderator. They review projects against predefined criteria and provide quantitative scores and a comment (see Annex 3).

3. The Selection Panel comprise experienced scientists from Instruct Centres. The selection panel makes a decision to approve or reject access proposals based upon the available budget, and reviewer’s scores using predefined scoring thresholds (Annex 3).

2. Definition of access

Types of Access: Access typically involves the visit of a User to single or multiple services/technologies present at single or multiple Instruct-ERIC centres (referred to in the Statutes as “Instruct Centres”), as detailed in the Instruct-ERIC catalogue; this catalogue comprises a structured hierarchical presentation of the machines and methods available to users at each centre and is accessible on the Instruct-ERIC website. In some cases, remote access is possible whereby a User sends samples to a facility and then performs experimental steps via the network or receives results (e.g. images) following an experiment or discusses results with the service/technology staff. Visits should take place within one year of the proposal approval.

Access Unit definition: The standard Unit of Access is defined as one day of work at the service/technology. Deviations from this definition are discouraged in order to unify metrics for reporting. If alternative Unit definitions are used locally, these should be converted to day-equivalents for reporting purposes.

3. Eligibility for access

Instruct-ERIC accepts proposals from any user for access to Instruct-ERIC infrastructure. Resources made available, financial and in-kind, by the Instruct Centre and the Instruct Hub to support the requested access vary depending on the different kind of user. Each Centre has the final decision on whether to accept an Instruct-approved user.

Academic and pre-competitive research

Users from an Instruct-ERIC Member: Instruct-ERIC will contribute to the access costs for users from Instruct-ERIC member for academic and industrial pre-competitive research that will be published. Users from teams in the same locality as the service/technology (e.g. centre, institute, city) may submit proposals for funded access, but no User travel costs will be refunded. Users from the same group/team running the service/technology are not eligible. In case of financial support, results of access projects must be published
Users from outside the Instruct-ERIC Membership: Users from non-members will not receive Instruct-ERIC funding unless specifically agreed or through an MOU or other agreement, and may be charged an academic fee for access by the Instruct-ERIC Centre for academic or industrial pre-competitive research according to their local rules. Academic fees may also be charged to non-commercial users requesting access through an Intergovernmental Organisation that is not located in one of the Members. Under normal circumstances, non-member affiliates (e.g. those established under MOUs) are expected to pay for their user travel and subsistence costs.

Proprietary research

Academic and industry researchers: For Proprietary research where Users own the outcome of the work and there is no requirement to publish, a commercial fee will be charged. Any agreements or contracts necessary for the service will be established between the user and the Instruct-ERIC Centre according to local Institutional rules.

4. Financing of User Access

Instruct-ERIC contributes to the “Access Cost” of user projects to a predefined limit as stated in Annex 1 (“Access Contribution Table”) where no other support is available. The Access Cost has two components:

“Support Cost”: This is contributed from Instruct-ERIC funds administered through the Instruct Hub to the Instruct centre upon invoice and covers the direct costs of the machine/method used during the access. Typically, this is a contribution towards consumables and daily instrument costs. The amount of the Support Cost is detailed in Annex 1.
“User Travel Costs”: This is contributed from Instruct-ERIC funds administered through the Instruct Hub to the user upon production of valid receipts once all reporting steps have been completed. Typically, this is a contribution towards travel and accommodation during the user visit to the Instruct centre or shipping costs. The amount of the User Travel Cost is detailed in Annex 1. Under normal circumstances, users from non-members are expected to pay for their travel and subsistence costs.

Multiples (and fractions) of units may be scheduled and can be charged accordingly. In all cases, the amount of funding available from Instruct-ERIC is defined before work commences according to the Instruct-ERIC Access Cost (Annex 1); in cases where the costs of access required by the Instruct-ERIC Centre are in excess of the Instruct-ERIC support available, the user may be asked to cover the extra costs by the centre concerned or may request Extended Access. Visits should take place within one year of the proposal approval.

Disclosure of Access Costs: The cost of a standard Unit of Access for each machine/method for academic users from members will be stated in the appendix to the Service Level Agreement. For users performing proprietary research, commercial (non-academic) rates will applied. These will not be published and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis with the individual centre providing access.

Procedure for financing of Support costs: To receive Instruct-ERIC funds for access, each Centre should invoice Instruct-ERIC for the costs of access as stated in the Appendix to the Service Level Agreement up to the Access Cost Cap per technology (see annex 1). Instruct-ERIC may ask for justification of costs claimed. Where the Support Costs exceed the Instruct-ERIC contribution (see Annex 1), the Centre can decide to recover the difference directly from the user via its own mechanisms.

5. Responsibilities

Online presentation: The Instruct-ERIC Centres agree to maintain an up-to-date profile in ARIA including the catalogue of services/technologies and machines/methods therein. The Instruct Access Committee should be notified of Substitutions/additions of the machines/methods offered in the catalogue.

Instrumentation status: The Instruct-ERIC Centres agree to communicate with the Instruct-ERIC Hub on long term breakdown of instrumentation that affects access provision.

Health and safety: Health and safety issues are the responsibility of the Instruct-ERIC Centre hosting the access (complying with its Institutional rules). The Centre is responsible for workplace insurances, safety training and sample authorisation (e.g. handling of hazardous samples, clearance for working with genetically modified organisms or samples). The User is responsible for all necessary personal insurances and should comply with all local rules and regulations.

Ethical considerations: Ethical issues are the responsibility of the Instruct-ERIC Centre (complying with its Institutional rules). The user is required to declare in the project proposal if there are ethical concerns that should be considered. The Centre must then decide whether it is able to perform the requested access taking into account local rules and regulations.

Handling of Users’ personal data: Each Centre is required to manage its Instruct-ERIC user data in a manner compliant with all necessary regulations, including those of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Instruct Hub will be responsible for additional user data collected during proposal handling and user reporting.

Reporting: Instruct-ERIC Centres are committed to keep a record of access provision and to report/keep updated access provision data in the access management system adopted by Instruct-ERIC (ARIA). They commit also to maintain updated access provision, and to use the management system adopted by Instruct-ERIC in order to allow the Access Committee to monitor the access provision through metrics/statistics.

User satisfaction: In order to evaluate the quality of access provision, users are required to fill in a post-access online questionnaire detailing their experience and the outcome of the access visit(s). The Centre is also required to complete the online report on the access visit(s). These will be reviewed by the Access Committee and by the Hub with the aim of maintaining and/or improving the level of service.

Publications and dissemination: Instruct-ERIC has a policy to publish data arising from non-proprietary research undertaken using Instruct-ERIC infrastructure. In published material, the User should acknowledge the use of Instruct-ERIC infrastructure, expertise and resource contributions using the following text: “This work benefited from access to the [Name of Institute or facility], an Instruct-ERIC centre. Financial support was provided by Instruct-ERIC (PID XXX)], [funding source 2] and [funding source 3]."

6. Revision of this access policy

The Access Policy will be reviewed by the Access Committee annually with matters arising being communicated to the Executive Committee for consideration and action.

Annexes

1. Contribution amounts for academic and Industrial pre-competitive research

The access model allows for a cap of per visit according to technology, which may comprise multiple units (days) making up one defined experiment or data collection. This can be split between the following costs:

1. Support costs. The centre can claim up to cap indicated in the current contribution table at the time of approval for the technology requested.

2. Travel and accommodation. If there is no other support available, a contribution towards travel and accommodation can be paid to the researcher of up to €400. No subsistence costs will be contributed by Instruct. New for access approved from 2024 onwards: The travel and accommodation cap is raised to € 450 for physical visits if you do not travel by air. This is part of Instruct's commitment to limit our environmental impact.

To receive Instruct funds for access consumables, each Centre should invoice Instruct-ERIC for consumable costs. Instruct may ask for justification for costs claimed.

The contribution is calculated on the number of units (1 unit = 1 day of access) times the unit cost up to the maximum cap per technology per visit.

2. Application procedure

The user is required to submit their proposal through the ARIA system. This comprises sequential steps:

Selection of Services/Technologies: In this step the applicant builds the research plan by selecting the service technologies from the Instruct-ERIC catalogue which will be required to undertake the research.
Context and Objectives: Describes the background and rationale to the project as well as the expected impact of the research.
Research Programme and Methodology: Describes the work planned which should have elements that are ambitious and innovative or tackle difficult problems with a fresh approach. Routine service access is not normally acceptable.
Ethical considerations: Are there ethical considerations to declare that may impact the ability of the Instruct-ERIC centre to perform the requested access (yes/no).
Safety considerations: Are there safety considerations to declare that may impact the ability of the Instruct-ERIC centre to perform the requested access (yes/no).
Background and current results: Proposal should contain sufficient preliminary data to show that the experiments work is feasible: e.g. that material is of sufficient quality and quantity for requested technologies; that there is data supporting the scientific approach; that there are no safety or ethical issues preventing access.
Relevant publications: The publications should provide information on potential impact of the work and the likelihood of success, i.e. provide preliminary data or information that allows the reviewers to judge if the work is feasible and of a suitable scope.
Research Team: Choose which scientists will be involved in the proposal. This includes any scientist who will be performing a visit. The user profile in ARIA will be the reviewer’s main source of information about the applicant and the team.
Principal Investigator (PI): Instruct-ERIC considers a principal investigator to be a scientist eligible by their institution to apply for grants. The system will send an automatic message to the PI for authorisation of the proposal.
Team members: In addition to the applicant, indicate other members of the home institution that will be part of the research. Only scientists mentioned in this session will be eligible to access the Instruct-ERIC centres if the proposal is approved.
Excluded Reviewers: Reviewers that may have conflict of interest can be named and will be excluded from review requests.

3. Evaluation procedures:

Moderator assesses the proposal for scientific eligibility based upon its alignment with Instruct-ERIC’s mission of integrated structural biology. Proposals are then evaluated by three reviewers and must be accepted by the facility(ies) nominated in the proposal.
The Selection Panel makes a final decision on the proposal. The acceptance of a proposal is without prejudice to the right of a facility to decline access. All facilities have a local right of veto for access without justification.
Evaluation criteria: Reviewers score each proposal according to the following criteria and score guides:
Field and scope of research (score 1= suitable field of study; 0 = not suitable for Instruct-ERIC: threshold = 1/1). The subject category of the proposal should fall within structural cell biology. This may include some functional work that may or may not be undertaken at an Instruct-ERIC Centre.
Impact of the research (score 3 = high impact; 2 = moderate impact; 1 = low impact; 0 = not worthy of Instruct-ERIC support; where impact score = 1: threshold=2/3). In many cases, the work proposed will be part of an existing experimental project which has been scientifically peer-reviewed by an external national or international funding body. It is not the intention of Instruct-ERIC to duplicate this review process. However, an evaluation of the impact of the proposed work will help to prioritise proposals in cases where facility capacity or funding might be limited. 
Preliminary data and Plan B (score 3 = good preliminary data available and plan B in place; score 2 = some further data needed, plan B in place; score 1 = some further data needed and no plan B; score 0 = data not provided or not sufficient: threshold = 2/3. Proposals should contain sufficient preliminary data to show that the experimental work is feasible: e.g. that material is of sufficient quality and quantity for requested technologies; that there is data supporting the scientific approach; that there are no safety or ethical issues preventing access. Where a multi-visit project is proposed, some flexibility in the approach to take account of poor outcome should be included. The Reviewer should make a judgement about whether the nominated facility location(s) is optimal for the objectives and may offer advice on other choices.
Strengths and weaknesses (score 1 = balance on strengths; score 0 = balance on weaknesses: threshold = 1/1) The strengths and weaknesses of the proposal should be evaluated, including a judgement on whether the facility requested are optimal for achieving the best experimental outcome. Suggestions on other facilities or approaches may be made.
Approval or Rejection of proposal. Maximum score = 8; Threshold score for acceptance = 6; Revision required = scores 3-5; Rejected = scores 0-2. The Moderator will make the reviewers’ comments available to the proposer when feedback on the decision is given.
Proposal Approval: The Selection Panel makes the final decision on whether the proposal is rejected or approved based upon the scores from the reviewers. The user receives this decision via the ARIA system together with comments from the reviewers. The Access Committee monitors the Access metrics, and discusses issues arising with individual proposals when requested by the Moderator.