Thus, when it comes to brokering at the science-policy-practice interface, the EMN generally acts more as a linking agent that can bring different communities together and enhance the exchange of ideas (e.g., Kislov et al., 2017). To date, there appear to be limits to the EMN's function as a knowledge broker at the science-policy-practice interface. Gluckman et al. (2021) write that successful knowledge brokerage between the scientific community and policy actors requires, among other things, a strategic and thorough synthesis of different sources of research evidence to provide policy actors with wellinformed options for policy design. In addition, they argue that it involves an alignment between the information needs of the policy community and the research evidence synthesis provided. While the EMN arguably takes on some of the characteristics described by Gluckman et al. (2021) through the Ad-hoc query tool (see Text Box 1), the network does not currently broker scientific knowledge by collecting, synthesizing, transforming, and disseminating scientific research. This limitation is also due to the working method of the EMN. As explained above, it is often based on answering common questionnaire templates within relatively short time delays, largely based on input from national network members, without drawing analytical conclusions or synthesizing scientific research. 2.3.1 Room for further development in engaging with academic research While scientific research currently does not play a key role in the EMN outputs, a couple of interviewees suggested that it would be interesting to incorporate more academic research in the EMN outputs, which could also possibly enhance their quality (interviewees 8, 23, & 33; 14 to some extent). One participant, for instance, noted that it would add value if academic researchers collaborated with NCPs to provide more explanatory and analytical conclusions to the national reports. However, they stressed that this should be done at the national level to avoid critical comparisons between Member States, focusing rather on key issues that need more attention at the national level (interviewee 8). Another NCP member believed that it would provide added value to academically analyse the information provided by the NCPs at the EU level, as this would make the analysis sharper and to some extent more policy-relevant (interviewee 33). However, some doubted the feasibility of this, as the EMN’s approach of neutrality without providing sharper analysis or recommendations has been pointed out as one factor that can facilitate engagement with stakeholders (see Part 2.2). In addition, some respondents believed that the EMN could play a bigger role in fostering collaboration between scientific researchers and practitioners or policymakers, especially considering its strategic intermediary position (interviewees 12, 17, 23, & 34). For instance, one stakeholder suggested that it would be great for the EMN to foster collaboration between practitioners, who have expertise from the field, and academics "who are sometimes far removed from real life" to produce a useful, practice-oriented outcome 20