[SPARTA - bodies.ethics-committee] D7.1 rejection issue

Dear Ethics Committee members, As discussed in today’s Executive Board, we submit you the case concerning D7.1 which has been rejected by the European Commission because “the sources […] are not properly referenced”. The deliverable editor has proposed to proceed as follows: * some quotation marks (in Italics font) have been lost in the edition process -> solution: we will use the quotation marks “” besides italics in all the quoted texts. * in some cases the report reflects the taxonomies and techniques analysed too literally -> solution: we will mark the quoted text and try to reduce the size of the quotation as much as possible. * some parts contain inputs from SPARTA partners that were too literal from their own papers -> solution: we will mark the quoted text and provide the self-reference For your support, please find here (password: “SPARTA-830892") https://filesender.renater.fr/?s=download&token=ca439a45-5e69-4c5a-95ff… the report generated by a similarity checker (scribbr.com). Please note some limitations: * elements such as the disclaimer, documents titles in the text and in the bibliography, quotations of GDPR articles in Chapter 4, … are highlighted; * the PDF version points to the domain but not directly to the document but we can retrieve the information on the tool website if you give up a list of the references you are interested in (though in general I found they were referenced just before or after in the deliverable content). More generally, the project officer asked us to revise our internal quality review process to avoid such an event to happen again; we would be happy to receive your feedback on this (systematically using a similarity checker has been mentioned during the Executive Board for instance). Thanks in advance for handling this sensitive case. Best regards, -- Thibaud Antignac CEA List