Navigating the frontier: research infrastructures, core facilities and a new paradigm at European Universities

Abstract

Research Infrastructures (RI) and Core Facilities (CF) are strong drivers for generating research results and, thus, knowledge at European Universities. In this paper, we provide insight into different features of RI and CF, their organisational structure and governance, funding mechanisms, critical factors for success, and challenges and opportunities associated with implementing and operating these research support structures. Our results are based on a comparative analysis across six European universities from the 4EU + University Alliance. Due to the lack of a clear definition of RI and CF, we provide a variety of indicators and criteria attributed to such facilities and highlight differences between CF and RI in terms of goals and objectives. If establishing Core Facilities is seen as a response to the evolving needs and challenges of researchers, a centralised management and collaborative governance model can provide a practical solution. We explore the legal framework, organisation, access, users and charge rate models at Core Facilities. We also identify several challenges in setting up and maintaining Core Facilities. Special attention is directed towards staff challenges, including introducing the staff category of ‘scientific technical experts’. Finally, we present a Core Facility Manifesto and share our conclusions.

Keywords:

• Research infrastructure
• core facility
• research management
• scientific technical experts
• European universities

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Stephen Darwin, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile

SUBJECTS:

• Career & Lifestyle Development
• Communication Studies
• Technical Communication
• Tourism, Hospitality and Events
• Facilities Management
• Cities & Infrastructure

1. Introduction

The main aim of our work is to provide an understanding of different approaches to Research Infrastructures (RI) and Core Facilities (CF) at European universities, using the 4EU + University Alliance as a benchmark, which includes Heidelberg University (HU), University of Milan (UM), University of Warsaw (UW), Charles University (CU), Sorbonne University (SU) and the University of Copenhagen (UCPH). Our results build upon research developed within the Horizon 2020-funded project TRAIN4EU+ (H2020-IBA-SwafS-Support-1-2020). TRAIN4EU + is part of the research and innovation (R&I) endeavour within the 4EU + University Alliance, part of the European Universities initiative funded by the European Commission (European Commission, 2021).

The infrastructure facilities assessed for this particular study include CF and RI facilities from all above-mentioned Universities. The facilities were categorised according to their scientific domain (e.g. life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences and humanities) and mapped based on a specially developed questionnaire, which is described further under ‘Materials and Methods’. Particularly Core Facilities in life sciences, such as UNITECH facilities at the University of Milan or Technology Platforms in Life Sciences (HMLS) at Heidelberg University, as well as CeNT/CNBCh at Warsaw University displayed a significantly advanced degree of management. Other facilities, which were also included, showed promising models and features, which were taken under consideration for this study. A full list of assessed facilities can be found in the Annex.

There is no doubt that CFs and RIs have a common matrix, namely that of serving scientists in their research projects. RIs have a more consolidated history in the European landscape while CFs are relatively new. Our work focuses on CFs but with the most consolidated RIs as inspiration. Therefore, in the continuation and up to section 3, CF and RI can be treated interchangeably.

In research institutions and research-intensive universities, establishing Core Facilities can be seen as a response to the evolving needs and challenges of researchers and academic communities. As research becomes more interdisciplinary and technologically advanced, the demand for specialised equipment, expertise, and services increases. Core Facilities provide a practical solution to address these needs with their centralised management and collaborative governance model. They bring together researchers from different disciplines and provide access to shared resources, enabling collaboration, knowledge exchange, and the development of new research methodologies and approaches. Core Facilities create a vibrant university research ecosystem through ongoing interactions and shared practices.

The main research aim is based on the following questions: First, what are the different features of Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities implemented among European Universities? Second, what are the key factors influencing the success and effectiveness of Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities within the University alliance? Third, what are the challenges and opportunities associated with implementing and operating Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities among the partner institutions? Other questions, which are not addressed in this paper, but stress equally important issues suitable for future research, are: What are the similarities and differences in the organisational structure and governance of Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities across different institutions? How do the funding mechanisms and sustainability strategies of Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities vary among Universities? How can the sustainability of Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities at European Universities be achieved?

This paper highlights the key findings of our comparative analyses, outlines the identified factors for success, and provides actionable recommendations to enhance collaboration and optimise the functioning of Core Facilities. We aim to provide a valuable resource to strengthen research infrastructure and management approaches towards their successful implementation and foster effective collaboration among partner institutions and beyond.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Theoretical approach

The theoretical approach underlying the differences and characteristics of Research Infrastructures (RI) and Core Facilities (CF) can be described as collaborative governance with centralised coordination. The authors suggest implementing a new governance paradigm as a potential approach to address collaborative academic governance while ensuring accountable management through effective leadership. This approach emphasises the efficient utilisation and management of resources in the academic and research environment. It recognizes the importance of collaboration, sharing, and coordination inside and among universities, researchers, industry partners, and funding agencies.

Collaborative governance (Poteete, 2010) of shared resources (Ostrom, 1990), highlights the involvement of multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes related to resource management and allocation. These stakeholders include researchers, policymakers, industry representatives, and the public. The approach acknowledges that effective resource management requires cooperation, coordination, and shared responsibility among different actors, while also ensuring efficient resource allocation, standardised procedures, and effective coordination among various stakeholders (Ostrom, 1990) (Poteete, 2010). This combined model aims to balance inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in decision-making while maintaining operational efficiency and effectiveness in the management of Core Facilities.

The combined model of collaborative governance and centralised management in core facilities aligns with the theory of practice (Schatzki, 2002), emphasising the social dynamics and interactions among actors involved in managing shared resources. Although Schatzki’s theory does not focus specifically on Core Facilities, it highlights features useful for our study. This model recognises that the practices and norms surrounding the governance of Core Facilities in our use case are also shaped by the interactions, collaborations, and negotiations among stakeholders. It acknowledges that the management of core facilities is not solely based on predefined rules and regulations but is shaped by the participants’ ongoing practices and social interactions. By incorporating collaborative governance, this model acknowledges the importance of shared decision-making, collective learning, and mutual accountability in shaping the techniques and management of core facilities. At the same time, the centralised management aspect ensures efficient coordination, resource allocation, and adherence to standardised procedures, enabling effective implementation of collaborative practices within the core facility setting.

The theory of practice emphasises that the emergence of Core Facilities is not a one-time event but an ongoing process shaped by the interactions and negotiations among various stakeholders. Researchers and institutions engage with Core Facilities and develop shared understandings, norms, and routines for accessing and utilising the facility’s resources. Over time, these practices become embedded in the organisational culture and contribute to the identity and functioning of the Core Facility. Additionally, external factors such as funding structures, policy frameworks, and research trends influence the emergence of Core Facilities as universities seek to adapt to changing contexts and enhance their research capacities.

2.2. Methodology: comparative case study analysis

We conducted a comparative case study analysis to answer research questions and enhance collaboration and optimise the functioning of Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities within the 4EU + Alliance. During the analysis, a specific definition of research infrastructure, provided by the European Commission was used (European Commission, 2020). Additionally, a typology of RI and CF facilities, which were subsequently mapped out at the participating universities, was worked out, providing a distinction between CF and RI, as well as scientific domains (TRAIN4EU 101016674, 2022). Subsequently, a case study of research infrastructure facilities was conducted, based on the definition and typology. First, RI/CFs from each partner institution within the 4EU + alliance were identified and selected. A full list of the facilities can be found in the Annex. This sampling was diverse enough to capture the range of research infrastructures, core facility types, and functions across the Alliance. Next, in-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders involved in the management and operation of the selected Core Facilities. For these, a specially developed questionnaire was used, which can be found in the Annex. These stakeholders included facility directors, staff members, researchers, and administrators. The interviews provided valuable insights into the organisational structure, governance, funding mechanisms, sustainability strategies, collaboration efforts, and success indicators of the research infrastructures and core facilities. Relevant data and documents related to the core facilities were collected, including organisational charts, funding models, collaboration agreements, and reports. This information provided a comprehensive understanding of the context and operations research infrastructure of Core Facilities in particular (TRAIN4EU 101016674, 2021) (TRAIN4EU 101016674, 2022).

The collected data were then analysed using a comparative case study approach, which helped to identify critical factors influencing the success and effectiveness of the Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities (Yin, 2017). The analysis identified similarities, differences, patterns, and trends among the RI and CFs. Based on the analysis, key factors influencing the success and effectiveness of the Core Facilities were identified and cross-verified with RI/CF literature. These factors included effective governance structures, sustainable funding models, strong collaboration networks, and clear success indicators. Challenges and opportunities associated with implementing and operating Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities were also explored. This exploration involved considering factors such as resource constraints, coordination issues, and opportunities for innovation and improvement.

Understanding the collected factors and determining the challenges involved can help form strategies to enhance collaboration and optimise the functioning of the Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities at research institutions and across university alliances.

3. Results

3.1. Definitions for research infrastructures and differences between CF and RI

While the term ‘Research Infrastructure’ is rather unspecific within the setting of research-focused institutions, it can be used to define a dedicated, shared structure. However, the term Research Infrastructure shows a diverse and ambivalent description in such a context, where a globally and uniformly accepted definition does not exist. Instead, a set of characteristics is put forward by the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) (ESFRI, 2018), the European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) (European Commission, 2020) and the European Commission (EC) (see box below). Within the portfolio of RI facilities, Core Facilities conduct a distinct group, which are mainly, but not exclusively, located in the scientific fields of the life sciences and natural sciences. Our comparative analysis within TRAIN4EU + has shown that recently European Universities have experienced an increase in Core Facilities in general, including in traditionally underrepresented fields such as social sciences and humanities (SSH). However, they remain marginalised in these scientific areas.

Box: Definition of ‘Research Infrastructures’ (European Commission, 2020).

Research Infrastructures are Facilities that provide resources and services for research communities to conduct research and foster innovation.

They can be used beyond research, e.g. for education or public services, and they may be single-sited, distributed, or virtual.

They include

-major scientific equipment or sets of instruments

-collections, archives or scientific data

-computing systems and communication networks

-any other research and innovation infrastructure of a unique nature which is open to external users

There are also no universally applied definitions for Core Facilities. Kivinen et al. describe them as ‘an integral part of the research landscape as providers of centralised access to technological resources and expertise – such as equipment, databases, materials and organism collections, know-how, and other research-sustaining resources. The centralised operational model, spanning both physical and virtual sites, allows Core Facilities to pool finances and invest in expensive technologies and skilled staff with relevant expertise. In contrast to large research infrastructures supported at the regional, national or international level, Core Facilities are primarily supported by their host institution whom they primarily serve. By providing technological services and expertise and through their support of research and the training of scientists, Core Facilities and their staff have a strong impact on the scientific performance and output of their host organisation (Kivinen et al., 2022)’.

Similarly, a general definition of Core Facilities at the NIH highlights the shared use and cost recovery aspect (National Institutes of Health (NIH), 2022): ‘Core facilities are centralised shared research resources that provide access to instruments, technologies, services, as well as expert consultation and other services to scientific and clinical investigators. Institutions establish core facilities, including the corresponding costing structure of the facility, to provide required services to users generally, with all or a portion of the cost of these services charged to users’ accounts. The typical core facility is a discrete unit within an institution and may have dedicated personnel, equipment, and space for operations. In general, core facilities recover their cost, or a portion of their cost, of providing service in the form of user fees that are charged to an investigator’s funds’.

For our purposes and based on comparing existing structures at six different European universities, we implemented a set of criteria for our analysis of RI facilities and CF: (Table 1). Our mapping analysis included classifying facilities by type, scientific field and category (TRAIN4EU 101016674, 2021) (TRAIN4EU 101016674, 2022). We concluded that Core Facilities can be considered the better-organised entities within the research infrastructure environments of our partner universities. Other RI facilities at our universities, not explicitly set up and classified as Core Facilities, do not yet demonstrate the same amount of integral administrative organisation and unique characteristics as Core Facilities, which allows the latter to serve as a valuable basis for analysis of research infrastructure facilities as a whole. Our focus in the following sections thus mainly lies on Core Facilities while only referring to large Research Infrastructures (such as CERN) for comparative purposes.

Table 1. Criteria for research infrastructure and core facilities in TRAIN4EU±.

Criteria
- Facility equipped for comprehensive research and development
- Centralisation of resources, technology, instruments
- Specialised and sophisticated equipment, personnel, location
- Service for host institution’s researchers and external customers
- Funding provided by user fees as well as institutional funds or third-party funders or any combination of these
- Recognised by funders (public and third-party) as research facilities
- Accessibility and the possibility of sharing instruments
- Clear rules and access regulations

Based on all these characteristics and definitions and supported by other relevant reports conducted so far, we can list five features of Core Facilities (Table 2). Significantly, CFs differ from the normal Research Laboratories present in the Universities. Research Laboratories are managed by their Principal Investigators; they offer services via collaborations to a limited group of researchers and are sometimes under the supervision of the Department, while the Core Managers manage the CFs and serve the entire scientific community of the Institution.

Table 2. Features of Core Facilities (Bai, 2021).

Features of core facilities
Management
CFs are often managed centrally by the office of research and receive oversight from the senior research officer, a structure necessitated by multiple factors, including economic constraints, increasing research costs, and the need to maximize the value and accessibility of research facilities. Ideally, managers of research cores submit a detailed report that includes critical financial metrics to the office of research or another administrative body periodically, e.g. quarterly, semi-annually or annually. This distinguishes them from most research labs managed discretely by their principal investigators, sometimes under departmental supervision.
Expertise
Compared to traditional research labs that rely on graduate students and technicians, Core Facilities typically recruit managers and scientific technical experts with engineering or PhD training to provide highly specialised services to a broad community of researchers.
Instrumentation
Core Facilities contain advanced equipment such as NMR and cryo-EM for shared use across an academic department, academic institution, or beyond that are financially difficult, if not impossible, for individual investigators to obtain and maintain, as opposed to essential instruments for day-to-day research in traditional research labs.
User
Sharing is the central feature of all research cores. In many places, they are also called ‘shared core facilities’, highlighting their accessibility to researchers across different academic departments, schools, and sometimes institutions. This is opposed to traditional labs usually used by people affiliated with one research group or department.
Fee
Most research cores operate under the fee-for-service model, meaning users are charged service fees based on instrument service time, sample processing, and other services provided. A multi-tier rate structure is adopted, which charges external users (especially those from for-profit sectors) more than internal university users. A substantial share of these fees is derived from research funding.

Our comparative analyses revealed the lack of proper description for the highly skilled and crucial personnel driving the success of RI and CF. This staff is often called operational staff, technicians, staff scientists, postdocs, or engineers. None of these descriptions represents well the level of responsibilities, research and know-how carried by this staff group. We, therefore, introduce the staff category of scientific technical experts. The scientific technical experts are present at most RI and CF. They conduct research and technical and administrative tasks and contribute to further developing the RI and CF. They are often appointed as managers of the facilities. Their contribution to the work of the facilities is thus both scientific and administrative. Their employment is often funded through third-party or other short- or middle-term funding categories and frequently lacks long-term contracts.

While the vision and mission of Large Research Infrastructures (such as CERN) are driven by a specific scientific objective or challenge addressed by European and international scientific communities, those of a Core Facility are focused primarily on research resources, technological services and funding and technological demands from local academic researchers. This vision is achieved by managing and developing high-quality technological collaborative spaces and platforms that provide researchers with facilitated access to cost-effective and state-of-the-art equipment, services and expert staff. These spaces are open to both internal researchers and external users, public or private. This approach fosters interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research to promote its innovative potential and impact research efficiency.

Strategies and goals are crucial elements to activate the mission and achieve the vision of any initiative. The strategy at RIs is ‘to establish, develop and operate excellent research facilities of pan-European relevance’ employing the primary goal of ‘providing transnational access to unique and high-quality facilities, technologies, resources, expertise, innovative tools and services’ (Ministry of University and Research (MUR), 2021). By analogy, the strategy at CFs is ‘to manage and develop high-quality technological collaborative spaces and platforms’ employing the primary goal of ‘pooling and sharing the most advanced technological resources to provide facilitated access to cost-effective and state-of-the-art equipment, services and expert staff’ (European Commission, 2021).

When implementing the strategy, several specific goals and objectives can be identified (Table 3).

Table 3. Strategy and goal statements for Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities.

	Research infrastructure	Core facility
Drive	Specific scientific questions or challenges addressed by European and international scientific communities	Technological resources, technological services and financial demands from academic researchers
Vision	To find solutions to scientific questions to help tackle societal challenges	To provide shared resources for optimal research conditions
Mission	To support the scientific communities to perform frontier research to answer scientific questions and tackle emerging challenges that society is facing at the European and global level	To support the researchers on campus to perform the optimal design of studies and projects by fostering interdisciplinary research and cooperation among disciplines and sectors
Strategy	To establish, develop and operate world-class research facilities of pan-European relevance available to European scientists and technology developers, typically through peer review of competitive proposals	To manage and develop high-quality technological collaborative capabilities (spaces and human capital) accessible to researchers
Goals	To coordinate and manage unique and high-quality facilities, technologies, resources, expertise, innovative tools and services; To provide open access to a wide range of users from academia and industry across various research fields and sectors.	To pool and share cost-effective and state-of-the-art equipment, services and expert staff; To facilitate access to a wide range of researchers from the public and private research and development sectors.
Objectives	To increase the number of cutting-edge equipment, expertise and facilities; To improve and optimise scientific development into practical, innovative solutions; To engage with public funding agencies, charities and policymakers with tailored actions to help improve the research and innovation ecosystem; To provide training, education and mentoring.	To identify, implement and maintain high-quality services based on cutting-edge instrumentation; To upgrade the state-of-the-art equipment portfolio; To select and instruct dedicated and high-qualified human resources; To train laboratory managers and operators, including prospective personnel; To facilitate access for a wide range of researchers from the public and private research and development sectors.

A key element to define the potential of an RI is the access policy which is divided into physical, remote and virtual (ESFRI, 2020). The most widespread RIs are those with physical and remote access which however both provide for competitive or agreed access.

On the contrary, a key element to define the potential of a CF is the free access policy, regardless of whether access is physical or remote. There is no evidence of the existence of virtual excess CFs precisely because they have a highly technological drive.

Consider that Table 3 adapts well to RIs based on physical or remote access (the most widespread), while virtual RIs have compatible goals and objectives, but have unlimited resources and therefore give the possibility of free access.

3.2. Legal framework and organisation

The European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) (European Council, 2009) is the legal framework several European Research Infrastructures adopt. It has been designed to facilitate the establishment and operation of Research Infrastructures with the involvement of several European countries. It complements national and inter-governmental schemes, providing a common legal framework based on Article 1872 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Official Journal of the European Union, 2012). In contrast, Core Facilities are not legally independent entities because operations for running the facility are regulated by specific rules and guidelines in the legal framework of a University or an academic Research Performing Organisation (RPO) (Donzelli, 2020–2022). Nevertheless, an internal structure such as the affiliated department, the shareholders (users/members) having rights and obligations, and governing bodies can be identified.

Despite the different legal frameworks adopted, each statute in a given CF should indicate and describe the government bodies and the structure within the organisation. It is essential to have a decision-making body that decides on the strategic orientations of the Core Facility, defines strategic and financial planning in agreement with the strategic objectives established by the academic bodies and defines the services and the activities.

It is crucial to have an executive body which organises and coordinates all the activities and operative bodies of the Core Facilities, which are labs or platforms where scientific technical experts who operate daily collaborate with the executive coordinator in the management of rooms, instrumentation and research progress and provide extensive support to researchers.

3.3. Access, users and charge rates

Research Infrastructures are facilities and resources used by the science community to conduct research and foster innovation through transnational access to their services. The Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures (European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2016) sets out principles and guidelines as a reference when defining policies for providing access to conduct research, undertake experimental development, provide education and training and deliver services. Access to the RI with physical or remote access is often granted on a competitive basis.

Core Facilities provide open access to pay-per-use services. They should define the access in terms of access units, state the specific access mode, clarify the conditions for access, describe the processes and interactions involved in the access and elaborate on the support measures facilitating the access. Access to CF should not be on a competitive basis.

The practical implications of the sentences above, which once again establish a difference between RIs and CFs, can be summarized as follows:

• The RI with European funds launches a call to which scientists can apply by proposing excellent research projects to be developed with the support of the RI. The project proposal will establish the types of access, physical or remote, useful for research purposes;

• The CF is absolutely free to host scientists who have won competitive research projects or who want to independently develop projects and have the possibility of reimbursing the CF for the expenses incurred, possibly using the relevant research funds obtained.

Reservation to physical access the CF is frequently made through an online system according to the level of autonomy in operations defined here below:

• Level 1: autonomous use – Trained users can use the facility instrumentation alone. The technicians manage the booking and ensure the proper equipment functioning and access to laboratory rooms. The technicians also ensure that the users know the laboratory safety measures.

• Level 2: supervised use – The users need support from CF staff to use the facility. The technicians train users to use the equipment by themselves.

• Level 3: full service – The users need assistance from scientists or technicians in different experiment phases (design, set-up, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation). This level requires a project feasibility evaluation and sometimes the CF director’s approval.

Especially during the COVID period, CFs have implemented remote access in order to guarantee the services of the facilities. Although this aspect is not fundamental in the construction of a CF, which has more the vocation of a place where scientists can physically meet and develop common projects, certainly having to implement virtual access has made data management an element to be considered more. This aspect should be taken into consideration if you want to build a CF with prominent remote access.

There may be a priority list to access facilities and services given to internal academic users over external users, either public or private. No selection based on a merit peer review is usually undertaken according to the ‘first come, first served’ rule. A feasibility evaluation may be provided.

Service prices are determined based on users’ typology: if internal, applied rates are lower than that for external users – non-profit and for-profit – and according to specific and public rates. Rates may be fixed or based on an hourly basic fee and additional costs, depending on the service mode and user autonomy (self-service versus full service).

3.4. Outcome of comparison across six research-intensive universities

A comparison of Core Facilities and Research Infrastructure within the 4EU + Alliance partner institutions showcases similarities and differences at various levels.

Employing highly skilled staff with specialised expertise, the facilities provide researchers with various technical services. Advanced equipment is housed in these facilities and shared among academic departments and institutions, granting access to cutting-edge technology that individual researchers may otherwise struggle to obtain and maintain. The Core Facilities emphasise sharing and collaboration, enabling researchers from different disciplines and institutions to utilise their resources. Operating on a fee-for-service model, they charge users based on service usage, generating funding for their sustainability. By offering cost-effective access to state-of-the-art resources, Core Facilities enhance research collaboration, promote interdisciplinary studies, and contribute to the overall scientific advancement within the 4EU + alliance partner institutions. The findings substantiate the theoretical approach to the governance of the commons, as Core Facilities within the 4EU + alliance exemplify a shared understanding of the significance of pooling resources and expertise. Simultaneously, the variations in services, equipment availability, and access policies reflect the diverse needs and priorities of the institutions. This alignment with the theory of practice highlights how the institutions adapt their Core Facilities to meet their specific research requirements while embracing the common objective of collaboration and resource sharing.

The organisational structure and governance of Research Infrastructures, especially Core Facilities within the 4EU + alliance, exhibit a combination of centralised and decentralised models, reflecting contextual factors and institutional preferences. Some institutions adopt a centralised model with a central Core Facility management unit overseeing various specialised teams. In contrast, others follow a decentralised model with individual departments or research groups managing their facilities. These variations allow partner institutions to tailor their Core Facility management to their needs and priorities. The centralised model ensures coordination and standardisation, emphasising the typical good and efficient resource allocation, while the decentralised model provides greater autonomy and flexibility to individual departments or research groups. Both models have benefits and trade-offs, and organisational structure and governance choice depend on contextual factors and institutional preferences. The comparison indicates that the emerging role of Core Facilities in European universities aligns with the principles of the governance of the commons and that the new praxis is being developed as Core Facilities embrace collaboration, resource sharing, and adaptation to local contexts, contributing to enhanced research capabilities and the collective advancement of the members of the 4EU + alliance.

Regarding funding mechanisms and sustainability strategies, it is evident that Research Infrastructures and specifically Core Facilities face challenges in securing stable funding and seeking sustainable sources. Some Core Facilities rely on institutional funding or support from research grants, while others explore fee-for-service models or external collaborations with industry partners. Funding choices are influenced by institutional priorities, available resources, and the nature of research conducted within the facilities. Sustainability strategies often involve a combination of diversified funding sources, strategic partnerships, and long-term planning to ensure continued operation and support.

The comparison provided insights into the key factors influencing the success and effectiveness of Research Infrastructures, especially the 4EU + Core Facilities. Adequate funding and resources are essential for sustaining Core Facilities, and the findings support the idea that resource availability plays a significant role in their success. Strong leadership and management, clear communication channels, and stakeholder engagement are crucial for effective coordination and collaboration, reflecting the principles of collective (often by a scientific board) decision-making and shared responsibility emphasised by the governance of the commons. Furthermore, the findings highlight the importance of a supportive institutional culture that values research infrastructure and interdisciplinary collaboration, aligning with the theory of practice’s emphasis on organisational effectiveness’s social and cultural aspects (Antonacopoulou, 2008). These factors enable Core Facilities to meet evolving research needs, foster interdisciplinary collaborations, and contribute to research excellence. Joint initiatives such as shared access to specialised equipment, expertise exchange programs, and collaborative research projects enhance resource utilisation and research capabilities within universities and partner institutions.

4. Core facilities: challenges and opportunities

In European universities, organising research and developing infrastructure using Core Facilities is becoming increasingly common. This approach is not new and is based on the shared resources model that has been present in Anglo-Saxon universities for several decades. Core Facilities are designed to provide a centralised set of instruments and services to internal and external entities, enabling innovation through easily accessible shared resources. One of the primary benefits of this approach is that it allows for better management of research time and resources, including centralised instrumentation and improved quality control and technology development procedures.

While clear economies of scale are associated with this approach, it is crucial to ensure that academic Core Facilities should not become mercantile enterprises that overshadow their academic mission of increasing scientific knowledge. Core Facilities must be developed in complete symbiosis with the academic community to avoid this, considering their sustainable development while remaining true to their scientific inspiration. It is also essential to ensure that core facilities have dedicated public funding and can contribute to the university’s teaching, research, and socio-economic mission.

4.1. Management challenges

Bringing the Core Facility culture to the university is similar to introducing new societal-scientific practices/or changing a well-known process. There is a need to follow organisational change models and cooperate in multidisciplinary teams, including management, communication, sociology, social psychology and specialists, to introduce and enroot this model. Establishing a new societal practice, such as a Core Facility culture, can be complex and challenging. According to Theodore Schatzki’s theory of social practices (Schatzki, 2002), practice is not just individual action, but a coordinated set of activities, rules, and understandings shared among a group. To establish a new academic practice, it may be helpful to take the following steps:

4.1.1. Needs identification

The first step in establishing a new practice is to identify a need, urgency, or opportunity that the practice can address. This could involve conducting research or gathering input from various stakeholders to understand the challenges and opportunities of using the shared resources instead of building a self-sufficient laboratory by the individual scientific group leader.

4.1.2. Developing a shared vision

Once a need or opportunity has been identified, it is important to develop a shared understanding among stakeholders of what the practice entails, its purpose, and the expected outcomes (i.e. a vision). Quite an incentive is to spend less on equipment and more on salaries.

4.1.3. Community building

Building a community around the new practice can be important for promoting buy-in and engagement from stakeholders. This could involve identifying key champions or advocates for the practice, hosting workshops or training sessions, and providing ongoing support and guidance to Core Facility users.

4.1.4. Rules and guidelines

Developing clear and consistent rules and guidelines for the practice can help ensure it is implemented effectively and consistently. This may involve establishing standard operating procedures, quality control measures, and other policies and guidelines. In the case of establishing a Core Facility, it is essential to provide reliable and honest practices, inter alia transparent queuing system.

4.1.5. Evaluation

Finally, it is vital to monitor and evaluate the practice over time to identify areas for improvement and ensure that it continues to meet the needs of stakeholders. This could involve conducting regular evaluations, gathering user feedback, assessing externally available services, and making necessary adjustments. The Core Facility Stakeholders‘Council is often established to monitor and evaluate.

By following these steps and engaging stakeholders across disciplines and functions, it may be possible to establish a new societal practice, such as using a Core Facility in research that promotes collaboration, enhances research and education, and contributes to the broader goals of the academic institution.

4.2. Setting up a core facility

To begin setting up a centralised Core Facility, the first step is to identify potential users and their required techniques, which can then inform the selection of system hardware, software, and accessories. Considering future needs and system flexibility for possible upgrades is vital before final purchasing decisions. The physical location and size of the facility are also important considerations, with a geographically central area with easy access is ideal.

Once the decision to create a Core Facility has been made, its organisation and administration must be defined. This includes determining who will be ultimately responsible for supervision and proposing, formulating, and approving the rules for facility use. Guidelines for the daily functioning and use of the facility should be established to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts between diverse users from different disciplines. A proposed list of topics should be circulated for review and comments, and the final document should be reviewed and approved at a specific level with jurisdiction over all groups that will use the Core Facility (Diamond, 2000).

Establishing a Core Facility requires a multi-faceted approach involving cooperation from various stakeholders, including leadership, multidisciplinary teams, users, and technical support staff. By working together and addressing the various challenges and opportunities involved in implementing a Core Facility, institutions can promote collaboration, enhance research and education, and ensure the long-term success of shared facilities.

4.3. Custom-made/tailored service approach in Core Facilities

Achieving a custom-made or tailored service approach in Core Facilities or a shared resource environment can be complex. Resources and services are typically designed to be shared and standardised across multiple users. However, when employees develop strong relationships with users, it is crucial to understand their unique needs and preferences. This may include providing personalised consulting services, organising user meetings, and establishing regular communication channels to gather feedback and resolve issues. The Core Facility should offer flexible service options. Service options can help meet users’ unique needs, such as workflows or protocols, providing specialised training or support, or offering custom analytics services, including data analytics.

In turn, users’ inspiration will show further development directions and help make decisions about investing in new equipment, technologies or staff training. Expertise can help ensure the Core Facility has the skills and knowledge to deliver services tailored to one’s needs. Achieving a custom or tailored approach to services in a shared resource environment requires a combination of strategies that prioritise user engagement, agility and expertise. By working closely with users and investing in staff training and expertise, Core Facilities and shared resources can also deliver high-quality services tailored to individual user needs.

4.4. Staff challenges

In research-intensive universities, it is common for multiple researchers and laboratories to share research equipment, facilities and staff. In some fields, such as biology, chemistry, physics & astronomy or biomedical sciences, centralised management of essential resources is becoming necessary. Providing access to state-of-the-art equipment requires suitable personnel at the management and technical levels. The research in the USA shows that in recent years, the coordinated management of Core Facilities by the office of the Chief Research Officer (CRO) has dramatically increased due to rising research costs, economic constraints, the desire to maximise research efficiency, the mandate to improve research transparency, expensive equipment being quickly outdated, and the competitive landscape of global research and development (Carter, 2019). While many surveys and studies have been conducted on the use and management of Core Facilities, the primary focus has been on principal facility managers, professionals, users, faculty and students (Kos-Braun, 2020). The research demonstrated the perceived value of Core Facilities through improved access to advanced equipment and analytics, expertise, cost and efficiency savings, and increased collaboration opportunities (Kos-Braun, 2020). The costs of new technology and the lack of sustainable financing are fundamental challenges and threats to basic facilities.

For European Universities, that is a lesson to be learned. New academic roles need to be developed. A science manager or Master in Science Administration or Public Administration (MSA; MPA) requires unique skills and involves managing the administrative and operational aspects of scientific research programs, projects, and facilities. MSAs/MPAs should work in research institutions, universities, government agencies, and private companies to oversee and coordinate scientific research and development. Science managers are responsible for supervising research strategy and projects, managing budgets, hiring and training staff, negotiating contracts and partnerships, ensuring regulatory compliance, and promoting the dissemination of research results. They also play a crucial role in facilitating communication and collaboration between researchers, administrators, and external stakeholders. To receive an MSA/MPA, individuals typically need to have a strong background in a scientific discipline and several years of experience in research and project management or have some background in management and several years of experience in the innovation ecosystem. Many universities and institutions offer graduate/postgraduate level programs in science administration or related fields to provide the necessary training and skills for this role. As Turpen (2016) underline:

The dual nature of a core facility (research laboratory and small business) can create tension within the facility if not handled appropriately. The laboratory component is nearly always managed by scientists with expertise in the relevant technologies, but the business component is sometimes handled by the core director or manager or a department administrator with no special experience in core administration or perhaps managed by a business administrator who is familiar with the institution’s accounting and business practices. (Turpen, 2016)

The other group of crucial importance in Core Facilities are the above-mentioned and introduced scientific technical experts who are professionals working in laboratory settings and assisting scientists and researchers in defining and conducting experiments, collecting data, and analysing results. They are responsible for managing and maintaining the equipment and instruments in the Core Facility and providing training and support to researchers who use the facility, and improve performance by building the organisational memory on R&D infrastructures. They have diverse specialisations in fields such as biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and life and environmental science. Scientific technical experts typically hold a degree (often a PhD) in a related field and have experience working in a laboratory environment. A group of scientific technical experts can form the corps of operators. This group often cooperates with researchers lacking the resources or expertise to perform specific experiments or analyses independently.

However, establishing a corps of scientific technical experts can be challenging due to no direct financing schemes targeted towards the permanent employment of scientific technical experts. Moreover, this career path is sometimes undervalued due to insufficient academic recognition. Finally, only a few education paths exist for core facility staff. At the European level, the Ritrain Plus (The Research Infrastructure Training Programme Plus), the MSCA-COFUND-2019 project ARISE (Career Accelerator for Research Infrastructure Scientists), and the EMBO Core Facility Fellowships have recently developed support structures towards education support for Core Facility staff scientists, complemented by regional and national, community-based associations (e.g. ABRF, CTLS, NICO) that provide support on selective topics.

Ritrain Plus (https://ritrainplus.eu/) is an example of an EU-funded Horizon 2020 project aimed at improving and professionalising the training of managerial and leadership staff in research infrastructures (RIs). For the first time, the project brings together research infrastructures, core facilities, business management Schools and European universities in a new innovative concept to transform the access and empowerment of human resources for national and international scientific facilities in Europe. The project is settling the ground for establishing a European School for Management of Research Infrastructures (ESMRI), a dedicated sustainable training organisation capable of addressing, through a long-term business model, specialised training courses and workshops to meet the needs for professional skills on issues related to governance, management, organisation, financial, socio-economic impact analysis, and internationalisation of Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities.

4.5. Other challenges

The European Commission has provided increasing financial support for developing and implementing RIs of various sizes ranging from large-scale, single-sited facilities and distributed infrastructures of pan-European relevance to mid-size national facilities over the years. This has been realised by offering dedicated funding opportunities under the EU Research Framework Programmes and the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) since the 2nd Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP2) when the concept of Transnational Access (TA) was first introduced. Significant investments were provided under FP6, FP7 and FP8 (H2020) that, in addition to TA, introduced new actions, including Networking Activities (NA) and Joint Research Activities (JRA), forming the Integrated Infrastructures Initiatives (I3), aiming at improving the quality of access offered in a field (European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2020). As Horizon Europe started, further funding opportunities for Research Infrastructures have been planned, including specific measures adopted to develop the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) (European Commission, n.d.).

National investments are also crucial to support different RI types and stages of RI development. National roadmaps, alignment and harmonisation of efforts from Member States, Associated Countries and the European Commission are needed to optimise the implementation and construction process of pan-European RIs.

Therefore, Funding for RIs is very high and comes from national and international funders. On the contrary, there are very few incentives towards establishing CFs, and the value of sharing expertise and equipment via CFs is only slowly being recognized by research institutions and funders alike. The biggest challenge for Core Facilities is the lack of funding, followed closely by a lack of staff (Kos-Braun, 2020; Lilley, 2011). One reason may be that equipment and research funding are often provided to individual researchers. In most cases, this leads to selecting equipment guided by a single and particular research interest. The equipment is then assigned to a specific research group, preventing its use by many and the formation of Core Facilities (Ferrando-May, 2016). Another reason may be the lack of visibility of the value provided via Core Facilities and the difficulties in appreciating the return on investment. As in corporate research & development (R&D) areas, profit generation is not the main focus in Core Facilities, and a return on investment cannot be easily measured. A high return on investment is instead characterised by the research results achieved (quality of results, knowledge gain, local know-how, publications, technological advancements) and their effects on the local research area. The broad and quality-assured availability of the latest technologies and their further development directly affect high-ranking publications and the acquisition of third-party funding. This is particularly true for Junior Research Group Leaders (JRGL), who have access to expert knowledge and equipment via Core Facilities not available in the respective research group or at the institute. In this respect, Core Facilities provide an advantage in attracting promising scientists and enable especially junior research groups to carry out ambitious research programs and to test and substantiate scientific questions with complex methods, despite temporary contracts and limited equipment.

4.6. Socio-economic impact

Core Facilities can have a significant economic impact as a link between industry and science. These facilities provide researchers with scientific services and access to specialised equipment, expertise and training. This way, they can help accelerate research and development, leading to discoveries, innovations and commercial applications. They create a platform for cooperation between academic scientists and industrial partners. In addition, they can be a source of income for academic institutions, which can be reinvested in research and development or other institutional initiatives. However, profit cannot become their primary goal.

There are also potential barriers to the success of a Core Facility as a link between industry and science. One of the challenges is the operation and maintenance costs, which can be significant. This can make it difficult for smaller institutions or businesses to access their needed services. Another challenge is effective communication and collaboration between academic researchers and industrial partners. While, as mentioned above, a centralised laboratory setup can facilitate these interactions, bridging the gap between academia and industry can still be challenging, especially when aligning research priorities and goals. Core Facilities can serve as a crucial connection between industry and science, creating a significant economic impact. However, the success of these facilities depends on various factors, such as adequate funding and efficient communication and collaboration between stakeholders. By addressing these challenges, Core Facilities can maintain their essential role in promoting research and innovation, ultimately contributing to the growth and development of the economy.

Core Facilities and industry relations are only a particular part of the academia–industry relationship and should always be analysed in this context. The connection between academia and industry can be complex, leading to difficulties in collaborating and translating scientific discoveries into practical applications. Academia and industry have different priorities and timelines. The academy focuses on advancing knowledge and publishing research, while the industry is driven by profit and commercialization. These differences can create conflicts and make it difficult to find common ground. Academia and industry often have different cultures, languages ​​and expectations. Academics may see the sector as for-profit and commercial, while the industry may see academia as slow and bureaucratic. This lack of understanding can lead to misunderstandings and mistrust. Another issue is intellectual property (IP), which is vital in cooperation between academia and industry. Scientists may want to publish their findings, while companies may want to protect their IP. These differences can create legal and ethical issues that are difficult to resolve. Academia and industry may have different funding sources and constraints. The academy relies on grants and government funding, while the industry is based on investors and profits. This difference can create challenges when it comes to resource allocation and investment. Collaboration between academia and industry can be subject to regulatory hurdles that delay or block progress. These may include issues related to human research and ethical considerations.

Nonetheless, university-industry relations can be successful when both parties clearly understand their goals and expectations and can communicate effectively. When academia and industry work together on a research project, they can use their strengths to achieve a common goal. Academia can bring scientific knowledge, while industry can provide funding, resources and focus on application. Academia can licence its technology or intellectual property to companies for commercialization, providing revenue streams for universities and promoting innovation in the marketplace. Industry can provide internships and training programs for students and researchers that can provide valuable hands-on experience and help them develop skills that are in demand in the labour market. Consulting and contract research also remain an area of ​​cooperation; scientists can provide consulting services or contract research to companies, providing knowledge and problem-solving capabilities. Successful university-industry relationships depend on trust, open communication, and a willingness to collaborate and share resources. When both sides benefit from a relationship, it can lead to innovation, economic growth, and advances in science and technology. Beyond the immediate economic impact, Core Facilities are often of service to society at large. This can be identified through services provided to the public sector or direct services to the broader interested public (e.g. language databases). Particularly in the field(s) of Social Sciences and Humanities, the potential to directly influence the industrial or other commercial sector(s) is lower compared to LRIs in the industrial sectors.

Nevertheless, depending on scientific disciplines, several types of commercial activities can benefit from the technology developed and the data resources themselves. Full commercial utilisation of the language data may conflict with the limitations stemming from contracts with text providers and copyright restrictions that do not allow corpus data to be used for commercial purposes in their original, full-text format. On the general level, Core Facilities contribute to macro-/regional development and the shift towards economically sustainable growth and an economy not based on fossil fuels and overconsumption of natural resources. Education is an inseparable part of the mission of Core Facilities based at universities, where they provide compliance with FAIR standards of data management making the data ‘findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable’. New technologies and user applications developed with the help of Core Facilities have a significant impact on crucial health research (e.g. cancer therapy) or historical research of substantial societal relevance (e.g. holocaust database of LINDAT aggregating databases of victims, oral history, collection descriptions, document metadata and other resources). Core Facilities of linguistic domains enable analysing how the media present recent topics of interest and thus provide resistance towards fake news, spreading misinformation and other forms of hybrid warfare. Core Facilities also provide important services in preserving cultural heritage and widening storage and data management possibilities for creative and cultural industries.

5. Discussion

The analysis of case studies in our study allows us to identify key factors determining the successful implementation of a Research Infrastructure or a Core Facility.

One key factor is managing and developing high-quality technological collaborative capabilities, including space, instrumentation and services (immobile resources) and human capital (mobile resources). Whether these capabilities are pre-existing in the creation of the Core Facility or newly acquired, developed or exploited, a commitment must be in place to coordinate and expand them according to internal scientific needs. Identifying, implementing and maintaining high-quality services based on cutting-edge instrumentation run in parallel with the selection and exploitation of dedicated and highly qualified human resources that shall be trained and constantly updated. As Meder et al. (2016) point out:

Finding the balance between service and research and sizing the core facility correctly is key to any operation, as is effective communication of the facilities’ portfolios to scientists. Strategies have to be developed and implemented for attracting and keeping highly trained staff members, for backing-up machine parks, for implementing emerging technologies and for replacing technologies that have become outdated or commodities. Sustainable costing and pricing models need to be established and adequate funding schemes need to be identified. Last but not least, regularly monitoring and evaluating the core facility’s performance is a challenge on its own, as performance indicators are not yet well established. (Meder et al., 2016)

Our analyses fully support this statement. The continuous upgrade of the state-of-the-art equipment portfolio, on one side, and the constant training of instrumentation managers and operators on the other side is the winning formula to foster frontier science at an institutional level. This includes training and recruiting personnel that drive the success of the Core Facility as scientific technical experts, providing their expertise at the interface with research investigators at diverse University Departments.

Another key factor is fostering interdisciplinary research and cooperation with internal and external collaborators, including the industry. Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities provide services and consultancy primarily to internal academic researchers. Cores’ valuable equipment, scientific knowledge and technical guidance can also be accessible to a wide range of researchers from the public and private research and development sectors. Sharing cutting-edge instrumentation and resources in shared spaces or organised in advanced technology-based laboratories paves the way to optimise the management of know-how and competencies transversal to disciplinary research and R&D sectors and creates a collaborative workspace. Indeed, Research Infrastructures and especially Core Facilities represent collaboration platforms for users from diverse groups, fields and sectors of research and development. Joint interdisciplinary collaboration fosters dialogue and exchanges between scientists from different disciplines, thus accelerating the maturation of novel ideas that are the source of scientific breakthroughs and shall have a great technological impact.

6. Core facility Manifesto

As stated before, a Core Facility is a shared resource centre within an institution or organisation that provides specialised services, expertise, equipment and support to researchers, students and staff. To ensure the success and sustainability of Core Facilities, it is vital to establish a clear and concise Core Facility Manifesto that defines its objectives, tasks and responsibilities.

A Core Facility is dedicated to facilitating high-quality research and education by providing a broad range of users inside and outside the university with access to cutting-edge technology and expertise. To achieve this mission, the Core Facility offers a suite of standard services and is also available to provide specialised services upon request from users with specific needs.

A Core Facility operates based on transparent rules and procedures that users must follow when using the infrastructure, such as planning the use of equipment, submitting samples and following safety guidelines.

A Core Facility maintains quality control measures to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of the laboratory results. It provides training and education opportunities for users to promote best practices and improve their skills and knowledge.

A Core Facility has competent personnel at the managerial and executive levels to carry out its tasks fully. These staff take necessary actions to ensure the long-term sustainability of the laboratory, including equipment maintenance, technology updates, and securing funding. Core Facility maintains clear communication between core staff and users, such as regular updates on equipment availability, training opportunities, and changes to policies and procedures.

A well-managed Core Facility can bring several benefits to researchers and institutions, including:

• Aggregated information on scientific instruments or tools: CFs can provide a centralised source of information about available research infrastructure, equipment and services within an institution, allowing researchers to identify and access the resources they need more quickly.

• Cost Savings: By pooling resources and sharing equipment and services, CFs can help institutions save on research expenses. This can be particularly beneficial for smaller research groups or individual researchers who may not have the means to purchase and maintain expensive equipment. The establishment of Core Facilities has clear financial advantages: (1) Expensive acquisitions can be used optimally, and user fees can be charged, which significantly increases the efficiency of personnel and equipment; and (2) Core Facilities can attract third-party funding for technology provision and further development.

• Streamlined information flow: Combining qualified technical service, project consulting by experienced scientists in the individual facilities, and technology-related training in workshops and courses, the core facilities are essential links between the researchers of various disciplines.

• Streamlined process management: CFs can help standardise and streamline research processes and procedures, reducing duplication of effort and increasing efficiency.

• Standardised Procedures: CFs can establish standard protocols and procedures for using and maintaining equipment, ensuring consistent and reliable testing across laboratories and research groups.

• Enhanced Quality Control: By providing technical expertise and training, CF can help ensure that research is conducted to high standards and that data is reliable and reproducible.

• Overall, a well-managed Core Facility can benefit its users and the institution, including access to specialised equipment and expertise, cost savings, increased productivity, and collaboration and networking opportunities. These benefits can be reinforced by (1) an open access policy of the facility, allowing the use of the Core Facility by external researchers, and by (2) bundling efforts across universities/institutions for establishing Core Facilities (joint Facility). The latter is more complex to set-up and requires collaborative agreements between the legal entities.

7. Outcome and lessons learned

In summary, our research found that Research Infrastructures and particularly Core Facilities provide cutting-edge technology and state-of-the-art instrumentation and services to various researchers, thus denoting their strong commitment to scientific research. They declare to aggregate and merge technological resources and knowledge for which cost, operational investment, and expertise are most efficiently and effectively supported as a shared resource. In other words, they implement high-quality services in terms of the most advanced instrumentation and qualified expertise that otherwise would not be available to any single researcher or group. In doing so, they are willing to promote interdisciplinary research and foster scientific innovation and long-term sustainability at their institution.

In the context of European universities, efforts must be made to develop Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities to foster research, including joint initiatives between Higher Education Institutions (HEI). This includes enhancing collaboration and cooperation in the aforementioned fields and making steps towards shared RI and CF on a European level. It also includes recognising the academic paths of RI and CF personnel for scientific technical experts, providing long-term career options for highly skilled operators, and increasing financial support structures for establishing and maintaining Research Infrastructures and Core Facilities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the European Union’s H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101016674 (Note: The authors are part of the research experts’ consortium of the 4EU + University Alliance, collaborating in the TRAIN4EU + project, which focuses on Research & Innovation activities).

Notes on contributors

Anne Jürgens

Anne Jürgens holds a PhD in Political Science. Research project officer at the 4EU+Office, Heidelberg University. Research interests include democratic transformation processes and European Union policy in Eastern Europe.

Gabriella Tedeschi

Gabriella Tedeschi is Full Professor for Biochemistry at the University of Milan, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science. Research fields include biochemistry, molecular interactions, signal transduction and metabolism.

Gerardo D’Errico

Gerardo D’Errico is Executive Manager in the Research Division at the University of Milan.

Krzysztof Kilian

Krzysztof Kilian is Doctor of Science at the Department of Chemistry, University of Warsaw. Researcher at the Heavy Ion Laboratory at the University of Warsaw. Recent publications include papers on production and processing of radioisotopes and increasing reaction rates of water-soluble porphyrins, University of Warsaw.

Konrad Zawadzki

Konrad Zawadzki is Vice Director of Biological and Chemical Research Centre (CNBCh UW), University of Warsaw. Recent publications include a paper on thedevelopment of a performance appraisal system for the administrative staff of the University of Warsaw.

Ondřej Daniel

Ondřej Daniel holds a PhD in Contemporary Cultural History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague. Assistant Professor at the Institute of World History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague. Research interests include comparative cultural history of European post-socialism, migration and urban/rural divide, popular culture and subcultures.

Andrea Leibfried

Andrea Leibfried holds a PhD in Biology. Scientific Managing Director Heidelberg Molecular Life Sciences (Field of Focus 1) & Core Tech Facilities. Activities include research assessment and/ evaluation of subjects in the life sciences, launching & Executive Editor of an international life science journal management of peer review process,

Gernot Poschet

Gernot Poschet holds a PhD in Molecular Plant Biology and Cell Chemistry. Manager of the Metabolomics Core Technology Platform at Heidelberg University.

Lilian Lau

Lilian Lau holds a PhD in Genetics.Deputy Director of R&I at Sorbonne University.

Nikolaj Helm-Petersen

Nikolaj Helm-Petersen is cand.scient.pol. in Political Science. Senior Consultant at the Research & Information Security, Research Services, University of Copenhagen.

Notes

1 Completed mapping accessible at https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101016674/results.

2 Completed mapping accessible at https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101016674/results.

3 Linked to ‘average number of users’ and a certain time-frame (e.g. 4 years).

Annex 1.

Infrastructure facilities assessed in the study¹

Life sciences

• UM: UNITECHs (COSPECT; NOLIMITS; OMICs).

• HU: Technology Platforms in Life Sciences (HMLS).

• UCPH: Core Facilities in Life Sciences.

• UW: CePT, Centre of Preclinical Research and Technology.

• SU: UMS PASS (Research facility (small scale, consists of 3 core facilities).

Natural sciences

• UM: UNITECHs (INDACO).

• UCPH: cOpenNMR.

• UW: CNBCh, The Organometallic Synthesis Laboratory (LSM).

Facilities at UW CeNT/CNBCh under natural and life sciences

• CeNT/CNBCh The Core Facility for Crystallography and Biophysics & the Laboratory for Structural Research.

• CeNT, The Genomics Core facility (GFC).

• CNBCh, Analytical Expert Centre.

• CNBCh, Laboratory of Microscopy and Electron Spectroscopy (LMiSE).

• CNBCh, The Laboratory of Biologically Active Compounds (LBAC).

Social sciences and humanities

• CU: Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities (LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ).

• HU: Digital Humanities of the Heidelberg University.

• UCPH: DIGHUMLAB is a Danish national, distributed research infrastructure.

• UW: Delab Digital Economy Lab.

• SU: PLEMO-3D Core Facility.

Interdisciplinary research facilities

• UW: Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, (ICM UW).

• SU: SUMMIT (Interdisciplinary, currently focusing on health, engineering, mathematics and applied mathematics, media and communication).

Research support units and management systems

• CU: Department of Science and Research (Rectorate).

• HU: Heidelberg Research Service.

Annex 2.

Questionnaire for mapping analysis.²

General data

• Country.

• Hosting organisation and RI location.

• Type of RI (by TRAIN classification).

• Scientific domain (by TRAIN classification).

• Keywords for identifying the facility in general search option.

Governance structure

• Centralised/decentralised.

Size, equipment, staff and user data

• Size – related to staff members.

  • Academic staff.

  • Technical staff.

  • Administrative staff.

• Description of the facility.

  • Location/space/building/year of establishment/year of full operations (open to all users).

  • Available equipment/service.

• List and description of provided services and pricing policy.

• List of equipment and estimated depreciation/obsolescence of it (life-cycle/estimated period of operation).

• Education and training offered (dedicated workshops/trainings and/or number of master/PhD students using RI).

• Average number of users last 4 years.

  • Per year (total and/or average).

• internal: users of Host University.

• external: users of other universities/academic/NPO institutions (national/international).

• external: industry (national/international).

  • Average rate of usage (per service / per instrument).

  • Workload – percentage of occupation time of the equipment (potential for collaboration or extended usage) per year.

• Booking system in use (centralised/team-specific/software).

Outreach, purpose

• Outreach of RI: Societal challenge(s) addressed; public engagement (descriptive).

• Uniqueness/rarity of facility: nationally and internationally.

• Any existing network facility is embedded in (ESFRI/national roadmap).

Industrial collaboration³

• Commercial activities of RI with business/industry (contract research) – examples.

• Collaboration with industrial partners and proven experience – examples (PPPs/joint grants).

• Involvement of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and/or cooperation with non-academic partners (e.g. SMEs, associations, societies, etc.)

Open access and publication practice

• Accessibility: Open access status and access rules (access restricted to particular users?).

  • Accessibility of facility.

  • Pricing policy (internal versus external users; free access or not).

  • Publication practices (collaborative/credit/co-publication/acknowledgement/mixed-models).

• Open Data practice (data storage, data sharing, data use optimization).

 Funding

• Recognition by funders (public and/or third party) as research facilities.

• Funding practice (sources of revenue and their respective contributions to investments and operational costs).

• Data on planned investments in RI development (personnel/equipment).

• A database of supported RI projects under H2020 (how many submitted/granted in total over the period).