R&D requires a review, a method, a real involvement of the staff and a social dialogue worthy of the name

Date	Time	Topic	Trainer	Location
30.06.2020	17:30 – 19:30	General introduction to the tests Verbal and Abstract Reasoning Methodology /Test	Frédéric Maillet	Zoom – webinar
02.07.2020	17:30 – 19:30	Numerical Reasoning Methodology /Test	Fréderic Maillet	Zoom - webinar

JRC EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD - OUR PERPLEXITIES REMAIN


We draw your attention to the recently created JRC Editorial Review Board. Several of our members have expressed concerns about the need for such a board and the scope of its Terms of Reference. While agreeing that the JRC must ensure the highest quality possible for its publications, it has not been demonstrated that there is really currently a serious problem that needs to be resolved in this way.

See our original post in Connected for further details: Connected

R&D Ispra sent a note asking for clarification to the Acting DG C. Vitcheva. See here: R&D Note

We recently received this reply to our note: Reply from the DG

We appreciate the further explanations received, but remain not fully convinced about the scope and utility of the project. For example, the concern about increasing bureaucracy - it is stated that the 'Editorial Review Board will have to set up its own new process', but this is easier said than done.

We welcome any further comments you may have, and will transmit them to the DG in a meeting soon.

R&D Ispra

Brussels, 2nd December 2019

OPEN REPLY TO THE LETTER OF R&D ISPRA

Dear Mr. Selvagio, dear Mr. Kenny,

Thank you for your letter of 25 October 2019 with your observations regarding the JRC Editorial Review Board.

The decision to set up the review board was discussed and taken by the JRC senior management in the senior management meeting of December 2018. As Acting Director General, I remain supportive of this initiative and would like to ensure continuity with regard to the decisions taken by the JRC senior managers. Therefore, I am prepared to go forward with the initiative, to make the excellence we have earned with our peer-reviewed scientific articles the norm for all our publications.

Nonetheless, I recognise some of your concerns. They were expressed earlier during the JRC Scientific Integrity Road Show in 2018/2019 where they were largely discussed with Heads of Unit, project leaders and work package leaders. Let me take the opportunity of your letter to resolve remaining misunderstandings about the work of the Editorial Review Board.

Firstly, the review board will implement an open and transparent process uniformly applied across the JRC. All official writing on results from the JRC’s Work Programme will pass through the board, which is best practice among organisations with which we like to be compared. The board will distinguish scientific articles that will be published in peer-reviewed journals and scientific or technical reports published by the JRC using the logo of the European Commission. These two broadly different categories of publications have different responsibilities and for the scientific articles, the review by the board will be relatively light and quick. The toughest task is in the second category, where improvement is necessary and the most visible results are expected. In the new context and in view of the high ambition stated by Vice-President Sefcovic, the JRC wider and more strategic involvement as well as the expected higher visibility of our policy relevant work will justify enhanced effort in ensuring not only scientific excellence but also top quality and best policy relevance of this second type of publications.

Secondly, our decision to create this board is based on favourable cost-benefit considerations, but it will be of paramount importance to closely follow the operation of the Editorial Review Board. Refinement of the review process and evaluation of the performance after the first year is included in the Terms of Reference as a major task of the board and we will of course publish the findings of these assessments in the JRC.

Finally, attached to this letter you could find additional points to the specific concerns expressed in your letter, drafted by the Chief Scientist and the Advisor for Evaluation and Scientific Integrity, who also prepared the terms of Reference together with the Scientific Committee. I am also available for further discussion if you would find it necessary.

Kind regards

Charlina VITCHEVA
Ref. Ares(2019)7415333 - 02/12/2019


JRC Editorial Review Board - Answers to questions raised by R&D Ispra (25.10.2019)

- Our scientific excellence has been demonstrated, the need for an editorial board has not.

For a number of years now bibliometric analyses demonstrate the scientific excellence of the JRC based on our publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals (around 800 per year). About a further 2000 manuscripts go out as JRC publication with a Commission logo, but without any systematic, harmonised assessment process. It has long been a concern for senior management that these reports differ greatly in quality to say the least. This has weighed heavily in the decision to follow the best practices of organisations comparable to ours, i.e. to set up an editorial review board that has substantive insight into all our publications and that can guarantee their good quality.

- The overwhelming structure of the JERB is incompatible with resources at the JRC and would lead to additional delays

“Quality comes at a price”. Enhancing the overall quality of JRC authored publications requires some resources. The review task of the chief editor, the members and the reviewers will add not more than a few days of work to the total effort for each publication (for review work on articles for peer-reviewed journals this will on average be less than a day). This should be compared to benefits like, a uniform application of publication and quality criteria; a quality distribution with a lower spread and skewed towards excellence; building an even stronger reputation as reliable source of information.
Regarding delays, the editorial board is designed to handle papers for submission in peer-reviewed journals more quickly than within the PUBSY workflow. In addition, the procedure includes a fast track for urgent publications.

- Pubsy can take care of quality issues; don’t create a parallel redundant system

PUBSY is a repository and workflow system that cannot emulate or substitute a tailor-made editorial review based on human intelligence. Submission of a paper to the Review Board will replace the PUBSY workflow for the publications in question. The Editorial Review Board will have to set up its own new process.

- The political sensitivity should be assessed before the manuscript is prepared.

Political sensitivity changes with the issues of the day and should not be confused with, for example, dealing with sensitive information. It should interfere as little as possible with our work, but as part of a political organisation, we cannot ignore it. The Editorial Review Board works closely with and reports directly to the Director General, an ideal position to identify possible political sensitivity. This will allow us to flag sensitivity at the right time and to prepare and inform the political layer accordingly

Yours faithfully, Gianfranco Selvagio President, R&D Ispra	Robert Kenny Political Secretary, R&D Ispra

       
The 2014 Reform

This report of the Court of Auditors confirms in all respects the critical analyses that R&D and the Common Front of trade unions have defended throughout the process of adopting the Reform: 

“Big savings” at the expense of the staff

R&D welcomes the audit work carried out by the Court of Auditors on the consequences of the 2014 reform for the staff of the European Commission and underlines the scope of the analyses and conclusions, which tie in with our statements and positions.
The situation is serious and worrying. More than ever, it is necessary to mobilize in order to defend the European civil service.  R&D urges the new Commission to realise the need to act as soon as possible in the face of a critical and deleterious situation.  
read

 More Catholic than the Pope!

 The 2014 reform has brought substantial savings to the European budget (€ 4.2 billion over the 2014-2020 period), with staff reductions of 5%, freeze on salaries and pensions and a revision of the Staff Regulations. The Court of Auditors recognises that these savings go beyond the amounts initially agreed: 55% more savings compared to what has been “required” by the Staff Members! In the long term, they will increase further due to changes in the retirement age, the career structure, the blocking of careers of administrators and the peril on our pension scheme.

At the time, despite its commitments, the Commission proved incapable of restraining the eagerness of the Member States to go beyond its reform proposals and, during the negotiations, under the pretext of always saving more money, the bidding at the expense of the staff has begun. 

The emptiness of the Commission's promises to defend its proposal … 

 As in the even more disastrous Reform 2004, the report of the Court of Auditors once again demonstrates the emptiness of the promises of the Commission to control the procedure of adoption of the statutory amendments through a "credible and limited" proposal that it solemnly undertakes to defend before the Council and the EP so that it is not made worse, or even to withdraw it if it were distorted!
Don't fool yourselves: there are no tiny reforms, limited reforms or surgical reforms!

The results of the last two Reforms show that the Commission has neither the genuine will nor the political capacity to master the adoption process of a Staff Regulations reform. And its proposal systemically comes out diverted and aggravated by Member States increasingly greedy for savings, especially when those can be made at the expense of the staff of the institutions, all categories combined, that they stigmatize as much as they envy!  

This is confirmed by the Commission's replies published in the above mentioned report. In particular, the Commission acknowledges that it cannot make an impact assessment prior to submitting a proposal to amend the Staff Regulations and that it has no control over the reform procedure, by confirming that it is entirely in the hands of the co-legislators.

In these circumstances, R&D hopes that from now on everyone has finally understood that it is irresponsible to engage in "tiny reform" proposals aiming at "surgical and controlled" modifications of our Staff Regulations only limited to the aspects that would be covered by the proposal. This is giving a stick to be beaten with.

The negotiations notably with the Council resemble more a “social butchery” than a robotic microsurgery theatre!

Indeed, as confirmed by the case law, once a reform proposal is made, the Commission effectively loses control of the process; the co-legislators are in no way restrained by the original proposal and can modify it with the greed they are known for.
In particular, once the Commission makes the proposal, our Staff Regulations are in the hands of the co-legislators who are legally free to:
- not only make worse the proposal of the Commission in all aspects that are covered by it,
- but also add many other aspects that, as in 2014, are not covered by the original proposal,
- or even include measures that are expressly excluded by the Commission on the basis of a detailed motivation justifying their non-inclusion in the proposal.

In short, when the Commission decides to open the Staff Regulations for tiny reforms it knows perfectly well that it puts the finger in the infernal gear, which will certainly devour the finger, the hand and the arm ... of the staff!
 
Disastrous consequences

 As the Court of Auditors confirms, the short-term vision of the Member States during the negotiation of the 2014 reform is disastrous as regards its consequences:
- ageing of the workforce (the average age of the staff is 48 years and increases by 6 months each year),
- reduced recruitment opportunities, and hence, reduced generational renewal (number of recruitments halved between 2013 and 2017),
- job insecurity with massive and increasing use of contract agents and long-term impact on the knowledge management and the business continuity,
- increasingly unfavourable conditions of employment, with the "burn out" but also the "bore-out",
- net and continuous decrease in the purchasing power since 2003, while other national civil services have seen their purchasing power corrected upwards, which is measured by the absence of certain nationalities in EPSO competitions,
- increased working hours and workload,
- decreased leave rights, in particular in the delegations of the European Union,
- blocked careers, compromised prospects for promotion, …

The final result: reduced attractiveness of our civil service!

All this, as the Commission acknowledges belatedly in its communication of “Shaping the Future of Europe: Attracting, Retaining and Developing the Best Talents to Work in the European Public Administration”(link), , has had the effect of reducing the attractiveness of the European Union as an employer at a time when it is already struggling to attract sufficient staff from a number of Member States. This results in long-lasting and significant geographical imbalances. To this end, the Alliance, of which R&D is a member, has supported this initiative to restore the attractiveness of the European civil service while making reservations and proposing solutions (link)
In addition, the increase in daily work pressure has created specific problems that could lead to burn-outs as well as harassment situations. The Court of Accounts also observes more and more absences due to sick leave. 

Not to mention the retirement age of 66, which is among the highest in the EU.

As confirmed by the Court of Auditors, the Commission is less and less perceived as an organization that cares about the well-being of its staff!

And what about staff satisfaction? The Court of Auditors recognizes that the Commission is less and less perceived as an organization that cares about the well-being of its staff and that there are growing concerns about the workload.
Too much focused on petty accounting and financial aspects, the Commission refuses to detect and correct the negative effects of the successive reforms it has brought about with a false political naivety.

Increased politicization of the civil service

While the Commission is the guardian of our Staff Regulations, it nevertheless seems to want to further weaken the principles on which it is based. Thus, it instrumentalises it in favour of its growing politicization, notably in terms of recruitment and appointment, and this especially for the benefit of cabinet members, giving rise to critics from colleagues, supervisory bodies, other institutions, the press and citizens

It is time to open our eyes 

R&D maintains its positions! R&D has denounced blatant situations of dissatisfaction and recurring problems (staff surveys, alarming situation in agencies ...), fight against harassment whose existence in the institution is, however, absolutely not recognized (almost no case detected and punished by the administration!), failure to take into account the opinion of the staff in the choice of a number of Directors General to impose open space (except for themselves, obviously)...

All this gives rise to a confidence crisis that must be ended by concrete and visible acts and not empty slogans in defending the indefensible.
So many files on the table that urgently require a new approach. It will be the action that R&D, on the basis of this report of the Court of Auditors justified by figures, will undertake with the new Commission. Whether it likes it or not.

Cristiano Sebastiani,
President
   
  
R&D  AT YOUR SERVICE
Phone .: +39 0332 78 9645
Email: Rd.ispra@gmail.com

 BECOME A MEMBER
 Please fill in our online membership form: link