Why not ask directly in Twitter and with surveys via official EU channels or programs like the Marie Curie fellows?

I agree with Lluis's comment. This type of survey should be conducted either by the official EU channels or by a neutral 3rd party. Having Elsevier manage this survey could lead to too much bias. As well as survey respondents being unwilling to participate or provide Elsevier with their information. Using the same question issued through multiple channels would be ideal.

figshare is also producing annual surveys

Do not limit surveys to those organised by entities having clear conflict of interest on this topic.

Elsevier has a strong negative image in connection with open science in the research community. Researchers may be unwilling to participate.

If I read this correctly, this indicator is intended to be a follow-up to the previous Elsevier-led survey. Can the consortium assure us that Elsevier will have no part in the design, dissemination, data-collection, or analysis of this round of the survey. If not, it would contradict Paul Hofheinz’ recent public statement that: “Elsevier ... is a subcontractor to the project, having agreed to provide data. For the record, Elsevier has no involvement in defining, building or controlling any of the indicators that make up the Open Science Monitor, which the consortium is contracted to produc

get rid of Elsevier ! There data are fake : - "it is critical to understand that the Journal Impact Factor has a number of well-documented deficiencies as a tool for research assessment" SanFrancisco Declaration - ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics Cenyu Shen and Bo-Christer Björk BMC Medicine201513:230 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 - https://openarchiv.hypotheses.... - https://openarchiv.hypotheses....

Carry out your own independent survey or at least perform a systematic review of all survey research on researcher data sharing views