Cadmore media player playing video New Directions in Open Access
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
New Directions in Open Access
Description:
New Directions in Open Access
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/3726c253-b6b0-42b7-91bd-d6a2cdad7417/thumbnails/3726c253-b6b0-42b7-91bd-d6a2cdad7417.png
Duration:
T01H32M36S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/3726c253-b6b0-42b7-91bd-d6a2cdad7417
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/3726c253-b6b0-42b7-91bd-d6a2cdad7417/new_directions_in_open_access_2022 (1440p).mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=DIBdN%2FUuubTZeWWSmHczCPX9a3%2BE%2Bap1ABGR9wStA%2FE%3D&st=2024-11-20T06%3A19%3A59Z&se=2024-11-20T08%3A24%3A59Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-04-10T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Welcome back, everyone. I hope you had a nice lunch. I hope everybody's excited. That was a great morning. And we're happy to meet the second half of the day. I'm Heather Staines. You know me probably from my day job at Delta bank, where I'm a senior strategy consultant.
But for today, I am actually Dean Staines honored to be among the founding faculty of the open access University. So this is a little bit about how our session is going to go today. Let me see if I can get the clicker going. That's not working. Am I holding it the wrong way?
OK got it. Clicker won't work in pre-interview everyone. Instructions associate dean to help you. Write the arrow is not working either. I'm a typical dean. I'm like, very bad with technology. Let me try that. OK OK, perfect. So you may have noticed from the agenda that we have a super sized session.
We have a lot to cover for you today. First, I want to talk a little bit about the background for this session. And to do that, I'm going to bring in my co planner, Deena cameras. Deena, can you unmute yourself? Howdy and we can see you. Dina is an editor for reviews journals at Springer nature, and we planned this session together.
Dina, I want to say a few words about how we came up with the format. Sure well, my history is that my career started in abstracting and indexing with biological abstracts, and then through all the acquisitions and mergers and various different roles, basically in indexing, facilitation and content curation. But all during that time, I had very little exposure directly to changes in the field, though I was aware of the transitions, obviously from print to electronic and other advances.
Unfortunately, my roles did not really afford me opportunities to engage directly with the community and with stakeholders. So last year I found myself needing to make a career pivot. And I joined SSP and participated in the mentorship program. And my mentor recommended me to join the a committee and network and make connections directly with the people in scholarly publishing.
So I did so and ended up on the education committee for New Directions. And here I am. Great so so Dina signed up to help plan the session, but she told me on our first call that she actually, because of the area she'd been working in, she didn't really know that much about it way. So we thought, well, what if you're coming here and you don't have a background in Aurora or and there's so much to cover that of an education.
So the format for this session was shamelessly stolen. Some of you may remember back in the seventies, a comedian called Don novello, whose character, father Guido sarducci, had a bit he used to do called the Five Minute University. Now I'm not going to play it for you. Didn't age well. And I don't want to do an Italian accent because I can't do that.
But the premise behind that was you pay him $20 and he will teach you everything that you will remember five years after you graduate. So we're playing off of that today to give you the five minute. OK, University. So we're going to start with our presenters. They're going to do five minute presentations, just about 5 minutes.
Then we're going to do a brief section of roundtable, and then we're going to open it up for you guys. So we hope that you will enjoy the Five Minute University. So this is our course, track curriculum for 2022. We're going to start out with history 101, which I will be presenting. Then we'll move into geology 201 metals and gemstones, which will be presented by Meredith willson to my right. Next up will be sociology 301, echoed in the global content arena by Sara Rui.
We'll have a quick check in with you at that time. And then the second semester will kick off with biology 400 with Mariana Garcia and then followed on by Sara for setting who's going to do business 502 graduate level only licenses and other legalities. And finally, our closer today will be Bill Moran, and he is going to do the capstone project in sustainability.
So welcome to the five the a five Minute University. Not to be confused with the Open University in the UK. Also a pioneer in remote learning founded in 1969. We've just been founded this year, but we have a long, fruitful path ahead of us, as you will see. Now, before I joined the administration, I was a historian, and I'm expected to provide some background today.
I'm a firm believer that you can better understand where we are now if we figure out where we have been before. So here's my history 101 one. This is not meant to be comprehensive. If there is a milestone missing on one of these slides. You can tell me later. But we're limited in time. So we're going to give it a shot.
So a publishing overview, it didn't want to start with the beginning of the journal. Back was way far back, so I thought I would start just after World War two. So a lot of the research that happened during World War two meant governments were becoming heavily involved in science, which meant universities were getting a lot of money from governments. Publishers were starting to launch journals.
So before that, journals had largely been the purview of societies, as many of you will know. Pergamon press kind of a famous milestone in this area in 1959 had 40 journals, but by 1965 had 150 journals. That may sound small compared to what we're looking at today. This was tremendous growth at that time, just to put it into context. At that time, Elsevier only had 10 journals and it would take them 10 more years to get to 100.
So the access to research for the faculty shifted from individual subscribers to institutional libraries. So that changed. Who did the purchasing? The librarians were involved purchasing on behalf of their faculty, so the reader became more disconnected from the publisher. Probably didn't think about the publisher at all.
Sad to say. But fast forward a little bit to the 70s where you publish becomes more important. A little something called the impact factor was introduced and publishers really started to build themselves up as brands. So in 1974, for example, you have Cell press launching and that like war of the worlds icon there at the bottom like that came up with impact factor. I'm not really sure why, but looks pretty scary.
So in the seventies, on into the eighties, journal prices were increasing. They doubled between 1975 and 1985. And this was a problem for the libraries because once you start buying stuff, it's kind of hard to not buy it. 1991 now, Elsevier has 1,000 journals, including 400 that they got from pergamon. So then you probably heard the term the cereals crisis.
So the cereals were becoming more and more expensive. Remember, this is still in print. So the complaints about what could you buy if you had to spend all this money on journals started pretty far back then in the 90s. Journals are starting to move online, provides a lot greater access to faculty, but infrastructure for online provision of journals, it's quite expensive.
As we know, 1998, the big deal hits. Researchers can get access to even more the pricing for those big deals, largely based on the sprint, the spend that they had in place for print. Now the birth of open access is often put at 2002 with the Budapest open Access Initiative. However, we know that there was a lot of open content that existed before that archive from 1991, PubMed from 1997, and biomed central, which launched in 2000.
Now we see the era of the commercial publishers getting involved in a way who will be the largest publisher. Let's see, I was at Springer when Springer bought biomed central back in 2008. I also had some conversations with Elsevier around that time where they said that they would indeed become the largest away publisher. Some people were skeptical. I don't know.
We have a big organization. You have some efficiencies you can build on. Governments are getting involved more. We see mandates and attempts at mandates. So when I first gave this presentation to an editorial board back in the spring, it only had this first point here. The 2013 STP memo. Now we all hear at the Holdren memo and in the UK side of things, the higher education funding council for English research excellence framework, or hevc, also in 2013, as well as the EU horizon 2020, launching in 2016.
Universities and libraries get involved with declarations like Dora. Funders get more involved again, more mandates. Coalition as planned is coming along in 2018. Transformative agreements called by some the bigger deal. What I like to refer to as business model bingo. Not to designate the business models at all, but just to say how hard it can be to keep track of them. 2020 push for global equity movement beyond the APC.
We'll be hearing about that in a later course today and just a few scant weeks ago. I can still say weeks because we're not the 25th yet, the STP or Nelson memo. Now we're in early days, yet there is an increased focus on the data. Scholarship is more than the articles robust metadata and identifiers. Machines are now jumping into the game.
And so we're moving from open access to open science, open scholarship, which was always the objective. One more slide. Where where the guidance office what the guidance office is hearing or what can you do with a degree in history anyway, which I think I heard in my life more than probably a lot of you. So with my degree in history, I'm involved in identifying areas for new journal launches and tracking launches and deals, looking at uptake of owa by subject area, setting of benchmarking of apks, looking at publisher subject and impact, looking at decisions around licenses and write retention strategies, regional uptake of owa and access to content involving equity and inclusion and portfolio based modeling around OCP memo criteria.
So you can do a lot as a historian in oai, so I Thank you for taking this course. Just a few links that Delta think might hope that you're interested in. Our next webinar on market size trends will be on October 25. Registration is open now and we will be at some upcoming conferences if you want to find us there. So that is history 101. And I will hand you over to our first additional speaker besides me.
Meredith so I am thrilled to have Professor Wilson on this panel as we've presented together before. Renowned in her field, I'm told that Dr. Indiana Jones has been referred to as the Meredith Wilson of archaeology. Professor Wilson is joining us fresh off her most recent book tour. All that glitters is not gold.
She'll present her class geology 201 metals and gemstones. Take it away, Professor Wilson. Wow Thank you, dean, for that introduction. Welcome I'm Professor Wilson, and you're in the room for geology 201. So take a look at your schedules and make sure you're in the right place. So welcome to your 5 Minute open access University.
In this course, we're going to build upon some of the history of open access that you learned in your history, 101 class, which outlined the timeline of how open access, as we know it came to be. Next, in your studies, we want to introduce you to the subject of geology and more specifically, that of the metals and gemstones that you'll hear about throughout your education at the University.
So with that, let's begin with some definitions. You will hear folks talk a lot about green open access. At first blush, you might think that this model is the most sustainable given its color. While this model, of course, does not require the payment of fees on the part of scholars and authors or the payment of fees on behalf of funders or libraries, it does require effort on the part of librarians to manage the trusted repository for articles on campus and can suffer from end user discoverability issues.
You'll learn throughout your time at this University that many of the standard models have their strengths and weaknesses, not unlike the gemstones and metals that they are named after, and each one both solves as well as replicates some of the issues in open scholarship. So you'll also learn about bronze open access. This model requires no fee, so that's good, like green and is available on the publisher's website instead of in the institutional repository.
However, no license applies and access could be rescinded by the publisher at any time. Since there's no license, oftentimes in users can only read the articles and not reuse them or cite them in their own work. There's also generally not consensus among geologists on if this model even represents a true form of open access. So next we have gold.
This model requires the payment of an article level fee paid by either the author or the library. Unlike bronze, which we just spoke about, the same licensing issues do not apply. Unfortunately, though, this model has major issues with transparency, as libraries often do not have visibility into what the actual publishing costs are for publishers. And the spend is difficult to predict, as APC fees can range from several to several thousand dollars per article.
You will learn further into your studies here how this model also presents workflow issues for libraries, as many simply do not have the staff members required to process all of the many individual invoices that come in. Also, you will hear your professors talk about issues of equity with this model. As often, social science and Humanities Research is not funded on grants the same way that science research typically is.
Finally, we have diamond, which is sometimes known as platinum. The key features of this model include no article level charges by at all and funding by societies, although questions remain about the long term preservation and also regarding extending this model out to disciplines other than the humanities. This model is sometimes called subscribe to open. You might recall in the dean's remarks in your previous class that she mentioned some of those other adjacent models.
So where does this leave us? Concluding thoughts. None of the gemstones that you learned about in geology 201 function as a silver bullet for libraries and publishers. Because there's no one size fits all model, it's difficult to implement any of the models we described in this course. The difficulties with implementing standard gemstone include the fact that the historical annual increase on the subscription model for journal packages has encroached on the library's operating budget and therefore libraries ability to hire staff.
Unfortunately, the very model that libraries are trying to reckon with, the standard big deal with annual fee increase every year is the very thing that has made it arduous for libraries to move away from due to staff and infrastructure constraints. You may also hear other faculty discuss the concept of the transformative agreement. While there is no consensus on what this means, although it typically means gold away, please see my book, all that glitters, is not gold.
Libraries need to be very clear about what is actually transforming other than what they are paying for. It is not open access that is transforming within these agreements, but rather where the money is coming from. There's also issues of equity present in the geomorphology of this course. We know that disproportionately research that is from social sciences and the humanities is not funded in the same way that STEM content is.
And lastly, as we head towards the future, the role of consortia will become more important for libraries as a way to stretch budgets, expand administrative support, ideate and test new and emerging models for open access. So for your final assignment in this course, I'd love to have you submit your field notebook for review. In your notes, I'll be looking for your observations on the gemstones, including the role that consortia can or should play.
Observations could include, but are not limited to designing creative and new models of zoa with our publisher partners. How to negotiate open access deals without the benefit of country or state mandates. Although this could be changing with that new memo, as you learned about in your introductory course, further encroachment of vendors earlier and earlier into the research process and the adjacent conversations in the field regarding data sets and preprints, and also managing the ever more complicated and bespoke models with limited staff to do this work.
Thank you. I can't wait for your introduction. You can stay. You can stay. So next up is Professor Sara Rui. Prior to her appointment at the university, professor Rui has spent much time traveling the globe. In fact, she brings it with her everywhere to broaden awareness of equity and inclusion and to guide us all to a more equitable future.
She has an additional role guiding the University football team, which unfortunately isn't very successful to date as the offensive line refuses as a matter of principle to block access to any one. Professor Rui will present her renowned course, equity in the global content arena. We're not going to talk about the football team. All right.
Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you're all well. I'm super excited to kind of walk you through a deep dive with a humanities lean to talk about equity in this context. To start, I like to just kind of frame the conversation. I think the conversations around equity can be really overwhelming because it can feel like a very big issue that each one of us as individuals can struggle to sort of figure out what our piece is and all of this.
So rather than starting at the kind of global or transnational level or reflecting at the institution or organization that we're at or even the communities we serve, I often think it's useful to start thinking about ourselves as individuals. There, it becomes easier to think about relationships of power, and from then you can extrapolate outwards. So if you go back to the famous quote and I'm giving my HOA from this, but from aladdin, where Jafar turns to Aladdin and says, remember the golden rule, whoever has the gold power makes the rules.
That's really the orientation you should take when reflecting on equity and the questions of equity. So reflecting on myself, where do I sit within my organization, within my role, within scholarly communications? What is my relationship to power? Once you start having that conversation, then you can start to have some of the more macro conversations.
So the reason we sort of have to think about power is because fundamentally, right, we work in an organization that has gatekeepers, right? And gatekeeping is kind of critical to what we do. So it's important to think through how are the gates that we're creating, allowing certain things to pass, and who's creating those gates. So when you do that, there's kind of bodies of thought that have reflected on this over time.
And the kind of major folks who always you'll have to pardon me as a failed humanities academic, I have to go here. So the old white men who thought about power, you know, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Aristotle, they're reflecting on brute force, right? When when a small group of people monopolize brute force, there are consequences for the rest of us. And that's not super fun as we move beyond that is actually the technical term.
It's not super fun when a small group of people controls violence. Now, when we get past World War two and we're reflecting on huge amounts of violence imposed on lots of people, philosophers like Fusco and a rent start thinking about systems of power, right? So things that are not visible, but that we all feed into every day as a function of our jobs, as a function of our identities that we bring, things like that.
Once you move beyond reflections on concrete force to invisible power structures, you start having individuals reflecting on how does the identity that I bring impact my ability to engage with systems of power. So audre Lorde famously spoke to you. You can't use the tools of the master to undo the master's house. Judith Butler is one of the first thinkers to reflect on the transition from second to third wave feminism, which is bringing a lot of the conversations we're having now around trans the trans community to light.
So this is kind of one way to think about the evolution of power from brute force to systems that we can see to then think about, well, how does that work within our industries and within our own organizations? So the really interesting thing about this is despite these arguably being theorists, you look at in a humanities or social science context, COVID really brought home in ways that I think other crises haven't, that these are absolutely things we have to be thinking about when we're trying to think about concrete outcomes.
And it was really exciting when I was putting this presentation together that see that to see that researchers in the context of health equity have been reflecting on this for a really long time, which makes sense, right? I mean, if you're trying to understand why we have vaccines, we have a certain set of networks to provide outcomes. Why are outcomes for the Black community so radically different from the White community?
Write the question of systems impacting our ability to access resources becomes super obvious. So in this case, it was really fun to see. You know, you have a bunch of health researchers out of the University of Liverpool reflecting on Marxist approaches to power to think about why health policy outcomes have been the way they've been since COVID came out. And if you reflect on their work, they state articulating the architecture of.
Our within an institution as an important step in understanding the dynamics, actions and decisions that create inequities. And if just get rid of all the words around health and policy, we are describing every situation, every organization or institution in which we're a part. And this is where a lot of the conversation around equity can start, even if it's at a macro level within your own team or at excuse me, at a level or if it's at a macro level at your organization.
So if we're talking about equity, we sort of need to know what it means. So I'm going to rely on some illustrations. The conversation around equality versus equity really started in the 70s and the context of understanding the impact of race on early childhood education. So a lot of the use of cartoons, I think is both useful just for anyone to understand the issues at stake.
But it also speaks to the audiences that were reflecting on this at the time. So simply understood if we're defining terms, equality is just treating everyone the same, right? So evenly distributed tools and assistance. The folks on the left all have the same box to see over the fence to watch the game. Equity is about providing aid according to context custom tools that identify and address inequalities.
Right? so for the experience of the small person in the purple shirt who's hunched over looks super sad in this. In this illustration, the box doesn't help. The box barely helps the person in the red shirt and the person in the blue shirt doesn't need it. So at a very basic level, this is the difference between equality and equity and why the conversation post George Floyd has really emphasis emphasized the word equity.
You're not really going to move the needle if equality is the place where you're starting from. So if I can belabor the metaphor, since that's what we're doing for the next hour and a half, the baseball game is really the entire research enterprise, whatever it means to create and disseminate knowledge. However you understand that the fence is anything that's blocking that right. The gentleman on the left is very likely a well funded, English speaking, global North trained, global North housed researcher at a well resourced institution from a highly respected pedigree of researchers that came before him.
This is everybody else. Maybe you're from the global South. Maybe English isn't your first language, you do regionally or locally focused research. You're focusing on indigenous communities. You live in a country with different socioeconomic opportunity. That's everybody else, right? What?
the boxes on the right are systemic change. They're they're the actions we can take within our organizations and within the industry to actually recognize the difference between the person and the purple shirt and the person in the blue shirt. And note on the other side of the screen, the person in the blue shirt doesn't have a box. They don't need one. So this is really about looking at folks from the context that they bring.
And getting back to our earlier conversation about bringing your whole self into your work. When we create spaces where our teams can bring their whole selves to their work, whatever that means, and I think that's a fraught term, then we can start to figure out what are the boxes teams need and don't need. But when people are forced to hide away aspects of that whole self, the equity thing becomes really hard.
All right, so let's belabor more pictures. Scholarly communications is the tree apples are all the things we want, right? We want to read papers. We want to publish papers. We want to access and reuse data. We want to read about the peer review history. We want to see how the work's been used. We want to discover content.
We want to discover all the content. It's linked to all of these sort of open science behaviors we want, right? The tree leans one way for a lot of people. There is a community for whom grabbing that Apple is never going to be terribly difficult. The joists and the ladders are all the things that we very consciously can do individually within our organizations and as organizations within a larger ecosystem to fundamentally shift the way that tree balances.
That could be business models, that could be hiring practices, that could be how we constitute editorial boards, that could be redefining what it means to do peer review, that could be enforcing certain behaviors with authors so that we have better metadata. Right it can range from the inspiring to the somewhat mundane. But all of those things shift the tree.
So all of us can grab a bite at the Apple with a similar experience. And that if you're looking at equality, equity, justice is kind of the end of the spectrum we want to get to there. So in terms of concrete things your organizations can do, it's really thinking about the services and products you provide. Do they reflect the communities they're meant to serve?
If you're producing content that has to be paid for, how much of it has to be paid for? And by whom are the communities that are paying the ones you want paying for them? If there are. If you are concretely looking at. At journal content is gold away. Really the only way that you can make open access happen? And how is your organization constituted?
What does the leadership look like? What do the perspectives the organization is bringing in look like? And I can't stress this enough. If you're going to make equity core to your business, it has to start at the highest levels. It has to be endorsed and committed to at the highest levels. And it's got to be in every single person's objectives, every single person's kpis, deliverables, success criteria, bonuses should be reliant on those kinds of metrics.
So fundamentally, I think the biggest threat to this work is performative gestures that don't have any accountability. When we're talking about a workforce that is increasingly competitive, that that has a very different set of expectations. Folks want to work at organizations where these are real and substantive commitments, not just externally, but internally. So it's sort of a sad thing to say, but I tend to say if you're not going to do it for real dope, don't bother, because it's kind of worse if you do it and it's not without accountability.
So with that, I have an extensive reading list that I can provide to you offline. It's all required reading, by the way. And with that I'll see you at the next football game where we will also lose because we let everyone on the field. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, professor ruhi. Don't forget your globe on the way out.
So next we have we're at the end of our first semester and we have a midterm for you. So there's no there's no prize. Education itself is the goal. Midterm question one question from each class. History 101. What was the name of the first STP memo? B yep, nobody for the dole check memo midterm question 2 from geology.
And I you had a field notebook so that's she's a tough professor she's got a lot of work that she requires. Essay question why might diamond journals be deposited in digital preservation initiatives at a lower rate than journals publish under other models? Something that's close to my heart to think about? Or does Greenaway content come with a higher administrative burden than other models? How might that Impact Ride scale availability, availability?
And finally, midterm question 3 from sociology. What are the areas for examining equity within your organization, business models, accessibility, organizational makeup or all of the above? So we want everyone to pass the class. So right now we have don't get up. It's a 32nd spring break. Stay in your seats. But we do want to we do want to check in with our student, Dina, to see how she's doing.
Dina, are you still with us? Dena, can you unmute? Hopefully oh, sorry about that. I hope you were paying attention. Oh, it's not spring break anymore. Oh, well, I think we got a few more seconds, but hang with us. We're going to be moving into the second semester.
Thanks, Dina. I'm ready. All righty. A little Hamlet. We're in a class for Dina there. She couldn't be here with us today, but we wanted to make sure she was a part of the team. So welcome back to campus. Just a quick reminder of your second semester courses will be taught by the professors to my left.
As I'm sure you know, students at OU are assigned to cohorts named after C license types. Many of these cohorts undertook spring break service projects. We'd particularly like to Thank the CSA or share bears, as they call themselves, for their spring break service project to share produce grown on campus with local schools and senior centers. They must have been very efficient to get that done during the time allotted to them in our brief spring break.
Next, we'll move on to our next course. We'll learn about the biological interaction of organisms from Professor Garcia. When the University was founded, Dr. Garcia was tapped for her creative ideas around identifying a mascot. Unfortunately, her first suggestion, which received the highest number of students votes. The transformers was not available due to trademark issues.
Another top choice, the koala believed to be the only animal with in its name. Now, I've already thought of more since I came over here this morning. Like the boa constrictor. Not very so, but motivated. Funny slide was recently scooped up by Columbia College in South Carolina. And who would want to mess with anyone who would make a mean looking koala like that on their logo?
So we settled on unlucky the unlocked padlock of 0 fame. If you are skilled with a sewing machine, contact me after the session because we do still need a costume for our mascot. So now I will hand over to Professor Garcia for her course biology 401. Some biotic transformations. Yeah Yeah.
So Oh. So good afternoon, students. Thank you for joining us today on this class. We are going to learn about symbiotic transformations. So remember, remember your biology classes? And one of the first things that we need to do is go through some definitions. So what is symbiosis? Well, it is usually defined as a close and sustained relationship between two different species of organism.
And here we have a classic example. Algae and fungi come together to form a lichen. Lichens have conquered the world. They can grow in very harsh environments where none of the other species could have survived along. So they both benefit from the close relationship. However, not all symbiotic relationships are beneficial, and although some biologists disagree about that, we are adopting the broadest definition.
So as I mentioned, not all symbiotic relationships are equal. They exist in a continuum from parasitism to mutualism in parasitism. One of the partners benefit while the other is harmed in commensal is one species benefit, while the relationship is neutral for the other.
No harm. No benefit. Finally, we have mutualism the ideal state where both species benefit. In the examples here we have mammals and fleas, for example. In the middle we have sharks and us. And finally, we have clownfish and anemone. Where both benefit from the relationships. But one thing that is common to all of them is that they are profoundly affected by changes in the environment.
Un it is undeniable. We have heard that again and again and again that we are all going through a profound environmental change in the scholarly communication ecosystem as a whole. We are moving from a very traditional structure to one that is a lot more open and community engaged. However, we are not there yet.
Yes, we are here in the middle in this transitional space with the storm and the tornadoes and all the messy things that come with them. And this environmental shift is disrupting well-established partnerships between organisms. For example, let's imagine that we have two different organisms, libraries and publishers.
These two species used to have very straightforward, symbiotic relationships stable. Easy to understand, although not always beneficial. But the environmental disruption is forcing these organisms to rethink their partnerships. So every one of these relationships is under scrutiny now. Big publishers, small publishers, old relationships, new relationships.
Which is a lot of work and a bit scary for both sides. So it is not a surprise that some organisms are reporting that they are feeling a bit lost on the libraries and on the publishers as well. But we are changing. We have to we are adapting. We are evolving. And new models of relationships have been created and are in the process of being tested and evaluated.
However, nothing is permanent. New and better models continue to appear. Some are more popular than others. Some are more equitable than others. Some of the new models, for example, read and publish agreements, are very popular. Some of the upcoming models are getting more like Subscribe to open. We have also a lot of different collective action models coming.
Each one with its own names. Yes, the bingo. The bingo thing. And we also have membership models, for example. In the end, what I want to remark is it will be the task of each library and publisher to decide where their partnership lives in that symbiotic spectrum. And they need to decide if they want to stick with the model that they currently have, or they need to find a new one that allows both of them to move forward.
So that's my message for today. Think about which type of symbiotic relationships are you are going to go into pursue in your new partnership. Thank you. Thank you so much, Professor Garcia. I know I learned a lot in that session. Next, we will hear from Professor for setting. When it comes to her classes, Dr. f, as she's known by her adoring students, is all business.
But you may not know that she oversees many intramural activities for our students. Dr. f is particularly valued by the students who enjoy a cappella singing. This year's championship, this year's champions, the buckeyes, brought down the house with their rendition of nsync's classic bye bye bye. Dr. f will present her graduate level class business 502 licenses and other legalities.
Thank you, heather, for that humor. Hi, everyone. Welcome to business 502. In this seminar, we are going to be discussing open access licenses in the context of risk management. I'm Sarah presenting. I am a librarian on assignment here at the open access University.
And I just wanted to mention that I will be speaking from the librarian perspective, taking off my professor hat for a second and speaking from my own experience at a research intensive institution, and also my work with consortia in North America. And that is certainly not the only perspective, but it is mine. So as we know from previous courses, there are many different theories and practices at play aiming to transform scholarly communication.
But there's no single open access, license agreement or model language that all stakeholders agree on. Yet, unlike subscription models that have been around and negotiated for decades, open access models differ wildly from publisher to publisher, and institutions also want only very different outcomes from these agreements. Some open access agreements ask institutions to move away from extremely efficient business models, ones that have been honed and negotiated over years and into new agreements that have real operational obstacles.
Open access licenses focus mainly on commercial terms, but embedded in the financial aspects are also who is responsible for paying assessing, administering and communicating about the cost and the performance of the deal. This creates not only financial but also some operational risk. So in this course, we're going to think about contextualizing licenses and identifying and mitigating operational risks. Thinking about negotiating licenses as a risk management process may help us to ask new questions about how much risk and institution is willing to take on and what elements of an open access license they may want to negotiate.
The end goal of a license agreement, as we all know, is to have a document that governs risk for both parties. So the first few steps of the process is to establish the institutional context that the license will be operating in and identify which goal or outcome of the agreement might create some risk and which is most important to pursue and therefore mitigate. Unlike subscription models, this is not the same or even similar for every institution.
Contextualizing the license for negotiation can sometimes be like a game of jenga, depending on which risk, you're trying to mitigate and which one is important to your institution, whether it's financial, strategic, legal or operational. Pulling one piece could topple your whole system, and toppling the system is not necessarily the goal of open access or transitional agreements, but changing and evolving the system is so for institutions who are extremely risk adverse, it becomes very difficult to prioritize which risk to manage in order to move forward.
But operational risks stand out as those that are especially high and also especially difficult to mitigate if the system is changing constantly. So as we think about operational risks, we can lean on some risk mitigation principles to understand which open access deals might be more or less difficult to implement and manage long term. The first thing that we know is that a theory cannot be risk managed.
Therefore, the institution is going to require a lot of data and information about how the model performs in practice in order to move forward. Information gathering and analysis is incredibly time consuming. And as was pointed out earlier, this morning, our staff don't always have the skills right now, but they will. Sometimes this information gathering and analysts process can be the deal breaker or the deal delay or.
Librarians are increasingly interested in working at the consortia level to begin to solve some of those problems. We also that the mitigation plan must consider the entire system in order to be successful. Libraries sit within a complex, scholarly communication system, and obviously we are not the only players. And this means that unlike a transactional subscription model, if the library is to manage the open access agreement, they must come to it prepared with staff, vision and infrastructure to lead, coordinate and communicate effectively within the wider system.
And last risk mitigation is impossible if the system is too complex. We know that open access, the landscape of open access is immensely complex. Therefore, risk mitigation is not fully possible. So your assignment today is to discuss how the open access agreement you've been given or perhaps one that you've written, could actually be operationalized by a library.
Considerations might include the staff finances, current infrastructure, campus vision and communication system. And stakeholder buy in, not to mention the scalability of an institution having to manage multiple agreements at the same time. There's no right or wrong answers here. Instead, there are many possibilities and potential opportunities.
So get to it. And good luck. Thank you so much. Finally, as all of our students here at open access University do, you'll participate in a Capstone project overseen by Professor emeritus Bill Moran. I understand professor Morant led exchange students to Europe for a whirlwind tour of various capitals.
While there, the group completed a service project to remove padlocks left by couples as symbols of their love from historic bridges. As part of the project, in the spirit of reuse and remix, Bill's group will create a community art project called unlock your potential. The project Bill will present for us today is environmental sciences 600 capstone sustainability.
Thank you, Heather. So one of the things I do want to say is first, we just had a wellness class this morning. So for those of you, when you get to an hour that want to stretch, because I don't know if you heard this, you should be moving every hour. Right and we learned some Chair Yoga moves. So if you want that later, I'm available for that.
But also very proud of our institution, if you noticed. The panel. Usually it's the other way around. I am around a lot of people like me. And that's what we strive for here at our institution. So should be proud of that. Now, jumping into this capstone, capstone is going to be really tough on this as we bring everything together.
But we can do it. And how we're going to do it is we're going to look at everything that we talked about today. You learned in the past year or so. And look at a case study. Maybe that's the best way to do this. So let's dive in. And the capstone. We're going to talk about sustainability in the three pillars of sustainability.
Some people may think there's five, which it can be, but we're going to look at three and we're going to look at social impact. Why do you do what you do? Economic viability. How do you fund what you do? Capacity to deliver now and in the future. What really supports what you do? So let's look at.
Social we heard some about social before, but why do you do what you do? And I think for all of you as students and in organizations, it's really important to think about publishing models that should align with the mission. Public access does not equal open access. And that's brought up, as you heard before. It's more about the scientific enterprise.
It's open science. It's data sharing. It's all of that. Just not access collaboration amongst researchers. And another important voice that we need to hear from more is researchers. So researchers really need a voice. Are they aware? Are we having those conversations?
So encourage all of you when you're at your institutions or your organizations, to have those conversations with researchers and get their feedback. And a possible sustainable goal is we can maintain quality peer review and continue to address equity concerns and give a voice to researchers and universities. Now, I said a case study and we're going to look at it as luck will have it.
Institution that's right down the block where I sometimes work part time for science. So let's look at what they're doing. And at science the pathways to maintain quality for both our subscription journals through green owa zero day and our goal though a journal and also it's important for developing countries, what we're doing there is looking at well, how do we do this.
And how do we do this in a way that's automated? So automatic waivers may be one way for developing countries. And as you heard before from Sara, it's important that we also start to reflect this and not just talk about external, but internal editorial boards, reviewers moving towards diversity and equity. OK now we go on to the next model, economic or pillar economic viability.
How do you fund what you do? And we heard this before. My esteemed colleagues had said, this one model does not fit all. So what is that sustainable goal? Decide on a model that works for your organization, you heard about transformative agreements, gold zero, a domino, a green zero zero day embargo, but always keep in mind, avoid high apks.
They perpetuate inequities. Hello apks on the other hand, incentivize volume. We all know this. We've heard predatory journals, so we have to be careful. Avoid quantity for profits only. Reach out to funders and collaborate, have those discussions. We heard of some of the other models that may work here and you can have those conversations to see if that will work for your organization.
Some of the funders. Most importantly, diversify your revenues. You have to think about this for the future. Meetings, webinars. Custom publishing, educational events. It's another category that should be up there partner journals. Can you work with other societies and come together? And maybe there is a collaboration can do that way.
So capacity to deliver. How do we do this? What supports what you do? And under this I have adaptive capacity flexibility as the model may change. We already know OSTP gave guidance. Guidance right. The words are not like from the Holdren memo where it's must, recommends, should, right.
So that's going to change. So we need flexibility as that changes. Collaborative capacity partners that share your mission. And I think that's very important for every one here. As you're going out into the world, you want to work with others who have the same values, same mission as your organization that you're going to be in. Technological capacity build by our collaboration.
We very well this is from our previous discussions in our other classes. Now it's a sustainable goal here. Collaborate with others on the tools that will be needed now and in the future. For example, we know the switchboard is trying to do a lot here and reaching out to others to ask, well, how can we help. And other tools to help with opening access?
So if we bring these together. And we optimize the scientific enterprise, not just one variable, which is reader access, but keep in mind equity is important. Many scientists cannot afford APCs example in underfunded fields in low and middle income countries. Quality matters. Excellent peer review.
I everybody here realizes and you've gone through this in your finance courses and accounting courses, excellent peer review and curation are expensive. Acceptance targets based on revenue goals are wrong. You know this from having your classes with the editors and the editors. When you ask them, well, could you just raise that a little bit more and take a little bit more? And they're not going to do that.
Because your editor is not going to go back and say, hey, you know, that paper I thought was so-so. You got to take that. And the one you never thought about before, you got to look at that now. So so. So that's not going to happen. Again it shouldn't happen. Choisne for profit only is not in line with our mission.
Does the science enterprise need more journals or papers? It's another question to ask. And if I wrap his whole up. Excuse me. Granola is zero day embargo. That's one approach that science is taking. So let's look at what they're doing, opening up the app versus the VR version of record.
And author accepted manuscript. It's an approach that may not work for others. Another important piece here is brand. We heard that in the beginning. The brand is also important because when you're thinking about your mission and you developing and you're lining trying to align your mission, the brand is crucial. So you want to always keep that in mind how you want the research community to perceive you.
Increase the value of your content brand is connected to quality versus quantity. So with that. That's going into next one. Sorry about that. So with that. Thank you for your time.
OK, we're bringing it home. Man, I wish the stretchy thing. We would've known about that earlier. We could totally work that in. So final exam. Question number one from biology 400, what do we call a symbiotic relationship where both partners benefit? Right awesome.
You guys are doing well. Final exam question 2 from business 502 open access agreements present the same level of risk to all institutions. And note provide a brief paragraph of explanation for your answer in your blue books. And final exam question three environmental sciences 600, of which two of the following are not a pillar of sustainability?
Man, you guys are rough critics. It's Washington commanders anyway. Extra credit. By what calendar date must all federally funded research papers implement? The recently announced 82022 STP memo provisions fill in the date. But you guys are on your game.
All right, graduation. I want to bring Deena back. Are you still with us, deena? So I'm ready. Got my hat. Okey dokey. All right, I'm turning the page in my notes. Congratulations, Dina.
You may now move your tassel. A round of applause for Dina. And Dina is our valedictorian. Can you say a few words? I will. I prepared my valedictorian speech right here. Firstly, I would like to Thank my professors here at OhioLINK University.
Without whose impassioned instruction I would not have been able to graduate with honors would not have learned to differentiate the many forms and gems of a way, nor been made aware of the various outstanding equity and diversity issues or benefits and drawbacks for both publishers and academic institutions and authors, as well as the virtues of transformative and alternate agreements.
We still have a long way along the road to develop the potential of open access, and I am excited to be part of this dynamic time in scholarly publishing. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll ask our esteemed panelists to step back into their day roles for a few kickoff questions.
And then we'll turn the mic over to the audience just in case you missed it. And to dispel their professor persona, I'm going to ask them quick to just give one sentence on what they're doing in their day jobs. And we'll start on the end with Sarah. Are you a strategic partner? Oh, sorry. Hello hi, everyone.
Sarah Hi. I managed strategic partnerships for class in 2019. We started engaging with the library community and we've launched three non APC based business models trying to experiment with different equity questions that we're solving with each one. Hey, everybody. Meredith Wilson. I serve as the head of scholarly resources for Boston University libraries, musc on the executive committee of neuro, which is the Northeast research libraries consortium.
So wonderful group that I get to serve on with Sarah for getting down at the other end of the table. And last year, we actually successfully negotiated the first ever open access agreement with Elsevier. Yes, Marianna, Hello. My name is Mariana Garcia, and I'm in my day to day life. I'm a scholarly communication librarian at the University of Rochester. I come with a background in the sciences, and I was a science subject librarian for many, many years.
Actually, only last April, I became the full time scholarly communication librarian. So I come from with a perspective that is not really very common, no collection background, business background. I come from the trenches, from the people that work with the researchers, with the students, and I'm very excited about advancing open access at my institution.
And I currently provide advice about a transitional agreement. I really like that word a lot more. The transformational agreements or transformative agreements. Transitional they are all transitional. We we are changing. We don't need to stick with what we have today. We we can invent new ways. New ways of doing things. Sarah hi, I'm Sarah presenting.
I am the associate director of acquisitions and collection services at Stanford University libraries. And I'm also, as Meredith mentioned, the chair of the program counsel at neural, where I'm involved in a whole lot of negotiations with large publishers like Springer Nature or we're working on building creative models for open access agreements that don't involve APIs.
Hi, everyone. Bill Moran. I'm the publisher for science and the science family of journals. And he only works there part time. I'm kidding. I again, I want to thank our panelists before we go into questions and say that it was really fun to put this together and they were so game to get on board.
And three librarians and two publishers and folks that spanned from coast to coast was really exciting to work with this group. And big Thank you to Heather for making it all happen and committing to the bit. My son time from the University of Maine we re-use it open access University. So questions for I'm going to ask the question to all of our speakers.
So since we initially planned this session, the STP memo was released in August. I know some of you referred to it in your presentations, but I want to give you the opportunity to tell us a little bit about the questions you've been hearing from your organizations and others at similar organizations. And I'm going to start on this end with bill, and then we'll run through to my right.
Sure thanks, Heather. So we're actually and you heard me say this before the OSTP memo. The language as far as guidance, recommend recommends and so on. We're in alignment. We feel that the policy and the recommendations align with what we're trying to do tomorrow. If some of you haven't seen it, we'll actually have an editorial coming out in science which actually directs this.
So with that, we're OK, we'll be really short. We're having a directors meeting on Monday to talk about this very thing. And I think for us, a lot of the questions are around infrastructure and preservation. Coming from hearing researchers and students talk about the influence of the OCP memo, they are focusing a lot more on the data aspects right now than the public machine aspects.
Those those for them are more far reaching and important right now, the open science or open scholarship part. And they are having a lot of discussions about the multidisciplinary nature of this memo and how it affects different disciplines differently, how researchers from different disciplines are different, completely unprepared sometimes for some of the recommendations of the memo.
So its researchers are aware and they are thinking about how this is going to change their lives in the next few years. We have a few years. So I think. I'll just echo some of what Sarah said. We're having conversations at my institution about the infrastructure piece of this memo as well. It kind of goes back to some of what we talked about in my class.
Right like, who's going to manage the I.r.? How is that going to happen? Where is that going to come from? And then also, you know, librarians, especially those of us that work in collections and school are constantly negotiating multiple multiyear agreements at any point. I have several that are sort of like mid cycle right now where I'm working to negotiate ones that are going to start a year or two from now.
And the five year deal is already off the table because they're not sure what this memo is going to mean. So it's affecting already just in the last few weeks, some of the negotiations that I'm in thinks. No specific impact on other than being really excited that to see the announcement, we were also really pleased about the emphasis on the data component because that's obviously something that's been a priority for us and we're glad to see some teeth there.
Yeah, great. And I'll add adult. I think we're having lots and lots of conversations, as you might imagine. I mean, we've been in the space for quite some time now and have successfully worked with many, many organizations to kick off or continue their strategies. Our big thing is measured response like don't panic know, we've all been in this space for a long time and we're going to find our way through.
I'm really conscious that when plan s was announced several years ago, a lot of the terms that you heard in the presentations today, they didn't exist, the business models didn't exist. And I have to think that in the next few years, there's going to be lots of new models, new terms, and we'll rerun the Five Minute University to kind of update. You guys can go back and get your master's if that works. I'm going to ask the panel one more question and then I want to make sure that you have the opportunity to get your questions in.
I'm going to start with Sarah really this time. I know that when we were putting this session together, you noted that in the history section, I should make sure that I ended on the open science open scholarship note, and I would love it if you could say a little bit about why that's so important. And then we're going to hand down the line. So you guys can get your responses ready as well. Yeah, I thought it was really important to everyone that open access is not the end.
It is the tiny first step to the open science future that is outlined in the UNESCO open science recommendation that came out in 2021. It's an essential first step. It can't be the final step. And we're spending a lot of energy and agita around just figuring how to do one this one tiny part when there is so much more that is that awaits us on that. So just remembering that this is a beginning of the process, it's not easy, but we should be.
I like when I was at last week, someone raised the framing that we really want to think about where we want to be in the next 5 to 15 years. When thinking about the moves that we're making now and remembering that the open science outcome is the one we want, not open access. I'll just say general plus 1 to everything that we just mentioned. And also, I think as we're sort of going through that process of thinking what the next five, ten, 15 years look like as a community that we remember where we are actually in community with each other.
I think this gets lost in these conversations a lot. I mean, part of what has made the work that Sarah, f and I and others get to do at all. So exciting is that we've really rolled out what we call the neural playbook, right? Which is a co-creative non adversarial way to negotiate with publishers, because we are aware that libraries survival and really ultimately the research enterprise.
Right is mutually tied up in the survival of publishers. Right that's a mutual relationship. Can I just ask Meredith, I you guys took a different approach when you negotiated the agreement. And it may not be clear to everyone the different approach, but could just say quickly how you guys did it. Yeah, I'll also just say to that, it's the model that we use for all of the different publisher negotiations that Elsevier.
So Sarah, f if you want to also chime in on this as well. Yeah so basically we read it on project management principles, which I know is not that exciting, but librarians aren't always used to working in those ways and we really emphasize the creative model. So we kind of say right out of the gate, we're not interested in replicating the issues with the various gemstones. Right which you learned about at your time in this University.
But we're interested in creating new to market models that are going to be mutually sustainable. Sarah, anything else you want to say about that, putting her on the spot? I think you're going to be back for me doing that too often. She does that to me in meetings all the time. Well, as you can see, even from our little back and forth, I think what we've built with neural is a community of 30 research institutions who talk to one another all of the time and are very committed to thinking about different ways for us to work toward better relationships with publishers, relationships that are based on mutualism that are not necessarily dictated right by our authors or our research institutions, are not just dictated by publishers, but are somewhere in the middle.
And I hope that by us just modeling that behavior by continuing to do things together. And to show up to meetings over and over and over, that that we'll get there. And over and over, I think there's one other thing that I'll say also to you, which is that, you know, we're also we got really clear in about 2020, 2021 or so that we were kind of each of our local institutions of the 30 core libraries that are in this group are at different parts in the journey with their fluency and their views on the different open access models.
And so it became really clear to us, I think right out of the gate that sort of the standard sort of goal, the APC model was not going to work because there's so much heterogeneity within those 30 different member institutions. And so I think the thing that could have really been our downfall like that heterogeneity was that was the thing that actually helped us like ideate some really interesting things and like I love that work.
It's the best part of my job is getting to work with those folks and it's a lot of fun. Arianna well, to two aspects. One is in relationship of what we see, you know, coming down the pike. And it also deals with infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure, not only within the library but at the institutional level for the support of that openness scholarship that everybody's aiming to.
We are not ready. Many institutions are not ready, and we will have to get ready very, very quickly. So infrastructure is a big issue. Also addressing another topic where you talk about trust, the rebuilding trust between publishers and librarians. We are we both have to change and we need to move together in a place where we can still work together and is part of rebuilding that trust.
That I think is going to be more difficult because many librarians do not really understand the challenges that publishers go through their daily processes. And the opposite is also true. Yes, I believe some publishers or maybe I don't know how many, but some do not really understand what are the challenges at the institutional level for librarians and the lack of support, the lack of knowledge, institutional?
No, they should try to move forward some of these ideas and processes. So I think we need to know each other a lot more and trust each other a lot more. Great, though. Sure so this is really to echo what Sarah was saying, because it's more about open science and open science and relates to the infrastructure. I remember eight years ago, nine years ago, I first moved into the role of publisher being an esp event, roundtable discussions.
They were all librarians and some other publishers were there. I walked through the room and I was called Bill come here, and the discussion was, can you take the data and house the data? And right away the question was, yes, we can answer it. Yes, we could, but it will cost, right? So with that, every librarian and whoever was there said no, but University of Indiana right at the time was creating these repositories.
So there was this big push. And the reason I'm bringing all this up is because NSF at the same time said, well, we're going to host it, we're going to house it. But I still think a lot of that infrastructure I would envision will come from the agencies to put that data there. Otherwise, it's going to be kept behind a wall and a lot of money is going to be made with it. And we don't require we actually need you to open up your data.
So we require the author to do that. So I think that's really important. And back to OCP real quick is there's supposed to be a consultancy period. So I do hope that happens. And I would say everybody keep your eyes and ears open for that. Do we have questions from our audience. And Jordan's going to run the mic.
Let's give Bob a break and Alison. Yeah so I have a 101 question. So moving beyond open access to the end goal that you've articulated or highlighted of open science. I mean, my inadequate understanding of open science is that the data is available, that it can be that the work can be built upon.
What does open science mean in the context of humanities scholarship, which is not data driven generally? I'll just take a quick stab. Not claiming to be an open science expert, but this is where I think and I'll tweet this out. The UNESCO recommendation on open science is really a nice place to start, and we should understand science is understood really, really broadly.
They're very intentionally defining it as basically anything that generates knowledge. So this is not specific to STEM by any means, but I won't. Somebody else wants to talk for a second. Let me just pull up what I wanted to and I can talk about the because yes, we are aware of, as I mentioned, of the disciplinary differences and sometimes even about concepts, what is data for a human is and.
Well, a lot of things can be considered data. Yes your corpus part of the text corpus. I'm not a humanist, so I come from a background science background. So I'm having to learn a lot right now. And it also it's about opening the here. Perhaps the open access part is going to be even more relevant because it's about opening the discourse, opening the information that is being created to a community, to a larger community instead of just the, you know, few authorities on the field on this particular topic.
It's also about opening artifacts. So if you are doing your research on particular primary documents, those documents perhaps should be also open so the community can have access and you have open ground. Yes, it's about open galleries and libraries and archives and museums, and there is a lot happening in that part as well. So I love the term open scholarship because it's less exclusionary in a sense than open science.
But it's true that the UNESCO document describes open sciences as evolving humanities and social sciences as well. They use the term, I think, because it's traditional or it started first, but it's inclusive in the document. Yeah, the definition that they use that I really like, I'm just going to go ahead and read. Open science is defined as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaboration and sharing information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge, creation, evaluation and communication beyond the traditional scientific community.
So agreeing that the word science probably could be broadened. It's really speaking to not just the objects, not the data that informs the objects, but all the networks that inform how you create the knowledge as well. I can add some of you were here yesterday for and we have a question from Sofia over here in just a second. Some of you were here yesterday for a nice plus, and we had a lunchtime speaker.
And I'm not going to put her on the spot to say something now. But if you want to find her during the break, Ana, an idea who's sitting here, could you put your hand up on us. So they can find you during the break? She talked about when she was doing her dissertation and we commiserated afterwards when I was doing my dissertation, you know, pre-digital. You just you kept your stuff in a box until you moved enough time.
And you're like, do I really need this now and then, you know, you kind of chucked it. And we were wishing that we would even have the opportunity to decide what was our data, because that wasn't really an option in those days. And you could to hear about her working with her ants, which is fascinating. Oh, let's just say to you, heather, that text and data mining has also become I mean, I'm sure you all are hearing this, too, like an increasingly important use case for textual resources, particularly from the social sciences and the humanities.
Know we have a collection of digitized archival newspaper articles right from York Times. Et cetera, Boston globe, what have you. And people aren't reading those articles. They don't want to do that. Right they want to do MDM. And so I think there's still science, right, happening in the social sciences.
OK I'd just like to offer a provocative question and picking up on Sarah. Picking up on your nestico, picking up on the early offering or the carrot that was offered in openness, open access, original discussions was the last mile, getting the science into the hands of the public, getting the hands of the policymakers. Plain language, understanding of science.
Who's going to carry that last mile? Because quite honestly, we who we support, our stakeholders, which are the researchers and adjacent researchers and we make open access, makes research available to an adjacent research community. But nobody's really carrying that last mile to getting into the hands of those who pay the taxes, the public, the policymakers, where it really needs to be.
And that's the provocative question. Who's it going to be? My suggestion to the answer is with AI and semantic, semantic extraction and other things, and we can use AI to actually start summarizing science in plain language. The AI constructs to be able to digest large amounts of information and machine written summaries is reality today.
And so I as the closure to my provocative question, I'll suggest to the publishers that we really need to start thinking about how we use technologies to fill that last mile and to fulfill the mandate of openness getting into the hands of the public. Donald, let me be provocative back at you, if I may. I think we just need to make this stuff open first, like cross that bridge. I will say that my husband's a special Ed teacher, and at least once a week he's like, is there any publisher that does special Ed peer reviewed research that I can access?
Like, he literally cannot get his hands on the stuff that he needs to do his work because he hits the paywall. And so he is plus have it was like plus has it that the main place is x publisher, I keep hitting a paywall. So the like that's so important and that's coming and that's there. And once you start talking about non native English content, I think that's critical.
But right now, like the practitioners know where to go, Google is doing it for them. They just can't read it when they get there. So my provocative turn around is like, let's make it open first and then let's and then the next piece I think is what you were saying. But please. Yeah, I mean, I think sometimes as an industry, we really love to chase the shiny, right?
And the shiny is some of these technological advances that you're talking about. But, you know, like, let's work on getting rid of the paywall. There it is. You know, so so we actually do something along the lines of what you're talking about. We have a product called side pack and we do this. But the concentration is really. Yes, it's open to the public in that way.
But I can tell you right now, my mother or father is not really reading that, and that's the concern. So it's there and the usage isn't that high because we concentrate on because we also are a little unique where we have news and we have this one page summary that we offer. And then in regards to I, one of the things I would say is, especially in some of the scientific terms, it's not there yet.
And if you're talking about going from character based language and doing translations, it's not at all there. It's really going to get confusing. But maybe in the future, if I may, I have someone that comes from South America, so it speaks three languages, all three badly. So I really value, for example, the idea of translations or allowing people from the region sometimes where the research is made to have access to that.
I put a lot of faith in future advances, in artificial intelligence, for example, to let us have easier translations and more automatic translations. So that the research can reach those populations. But I also see a lot of change in institutional research, in institutional values and mission community engaged research is becoming more and more important in the University environment, and it's actually coming more from the social sciences then, and it's percolating into the sciences right now.
So I see that changing at the level of the researchers, researchers searching for communities. So they can work together, they can do their science and give back to the community and explain to the community. So it's changing at the level of the researchers. They might be the ones doing that type of translation in the future as well. Sophie, Thank you very much. First, Thank you all professors, for your wonderful talks.
I'm honored to be a student at the open access University. I don't actually know how to ask this question, so I'm just going to read off some of the notes that I've been taking. But I would love your thoughts on what I consider from a publishing perspective. I'm a publisher at liebert, Inc. I oversee a portfolio of journals, and whenever I have conversations about open access or launching a new open access journal at my institution, we're talking about a business model.
Open access is always referred to, at least at the publisher, a business model. And what I'm so grateful to hear from the librarians at the University is that open access is actually a mission driven movement. And so I'm wondering, or you can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but this is how I see it from my perspective and also why there's probably a lot of turmoil when it comes to figuring out what exactly open access is, what it means, and where it will move towards.
And so I'd love your thoughts on how we can align those two pieces in order to really make significant change as a scholarly publishing community. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that comment. It hits on something that I myself am really struggling with as well.
Thinking about open access as a philosophy and as a goal that we want to move toward and yet only being presented with business models for me to say yes or no to. Essentially is how it's operating currently. And so I'm not sure how to bridge that. My my only suggestion at this point is that we have to stop thinking, I think about the profit aspects of publishing.
If we're thinking about it as a mission driven, let's give access to people who need it and want it in order to make the world a better place. Right we have to take out the profit aspects of the discussion, especially for working with non-profit institutions. Right in our authors are nonprofit workers. Right? and so that's where I really see the disconnect between this philosophy and mission and the business models that we're looking at.
And I know that's not entirely helpful in terms of bridging the gap, but I hope we can have a conversation about it. And I hope that we can think about these concepts like mutualism and building trust in order to have productive conversations around that. I'll also say it's also a licensing issue, too, right? So that's sort of like the other prong of the stool, right? It's a philosophical movement, I think, as you put it.
It's also a business model right on the publisher side. But it's a licensing philosophy process on the library side as well. Right because some of these sort of existent models have really poor licensing terms in terms of privacy, being able to reuse the content. These are all things that regardless of if it's an agreement or it's a standard subscription agreement, librarians are very interested in protecting privacy rights of their patrons, very interested in things being able to be reused sort of broadly.
So there's that, you know, I just mine and Sara s colleague, Lindsay cronk, who's assistant dean, associate dean over at University of Rochester, says all the time, you know, and I think she's right that this just doesn't have to be a cage match. And so I think the more that we can think about being creative together, the closer we're going to get to some of the future that Sarah was talking about.
So, Marianna. Well, one of you pointed the finger exactly at the problem. We we talk about open models and sometimes we are talking about completely different things depending we are coming from. I'm I was. I two months ago, I joined the spark as the IPO for open models.
And basically I'm not here as this park member. I'm Mia from the University of Rochester. But basically my role is to untangle what do we understand by open models. And I have a huge spreadsheet. Now and it has more than 60 different definitions of terms. And some are business related, some are revenue related, some are access related. Some apply only to journals, some apply only to articles.
And so it's really the wild West. So we need to understand that when we say open models, what exactly do you mean by those open? They are open by themselves. They relate to open things. So yes, it's messy, but we are working on it. Yeah about 1 minute I'm going to go to Bill and then I'm going to let Sarah have the last word. Yeah, so you're absolutely right.
It's just a shifting of a model for the author pays right. And the other one is author access or an institution pays. And that's such a complicated issue also, right? Because the provost's, indirect, direct costs, are they having those conversations at that level? Some of them aren't. And that's an issue. So globally, is that happening? And we're looking at China, what's going to happen there?
That's the big unknown. There's a lot of talk there. Who's going to pay for this? I'm going to steal one second back to that question, because it really sparked up something about the provocative question. This is not a publisher issue right now. I'm going to talk about a asked about five years ago brought in a guy named Rick Weiss from the Washington Post.
And he developed something called sideline. And it's about misinformation because what his role is, he has a source and he gives if the Washington post, New York Times calls him up, he has experts that he says you should talk to them. And he also works with journals on how to quote if it's a preprint, write how you source that, the difference between those. So he does a lot of work in that area.
So I'm glad you brought that up because it sparked it up. And it's I think for all of us, it's really important with misinformation to be aware of that. So Thanks. Great Sarah, real quick, I tried to distill. So when oneplus launched community action publishing in 2020, I would try to distill what do we do? Because that was we had an idea.
We went to a bunch of publishers, this was pre-covid and said, do you want to publishers? I'm sorry. We went a bunch of libraries and consortia and said, do you want to play? And we'd never been in this space. And we knew we were asking for new money. And so the thinking was, well, how are we even going to do this?
This is there's no way that there's going to be any uptake. And if I had so I'm distilled it down into five things. The first was we had a shared understanding of our destination, what we agreed we were going to get to, that it was acceptable for both of us. That was the first. From there, we had to be incredibly transparent around the financials, which we were and which we shared. We had to do a lot of education libraries.
We cannot expect libraries to understand how much submissions platforms cost, how much of journals platforms cost, how many people we support through peer review networks. Right? there was a lot of mutual education that happened. We had to have ongoing and constant feedback. I mean, I will tell you, if you want to get through, put through your paces, put do a deal with MIT libraries and have Courtney sit you down and ask you question by question by question.
And I see some of you salespeople nodding your heads because you've done that before. You walk out of that and you can answer every question that's been given to you. And then you have to have honest communication. When the ask is just impossible, you say. You are my partner and friend. We cannot do that. Here's why.
Right and we came out the other end of that with something that people wanted to participate in. We're excited to participate in cross price points that worked at with a pandemic. I don't know how we did that, but we did. We did it because we did it together. We co-created that. So those are the $5 I would say. Sounds easy.
It was a lot of work, but if you're willing to do that, I don't see a library that isn't willing to have that conversation. All right. Thanks again to our speakers. I think we're coming up on a break. I'm not sure how.
Segment:0 .
Welcome back, everyone. I hope you had a nice lunch. I hope everybody's excited. That was a great morning. And we're happy to meet the second half of the day. I'm Heather Staines. You know me probably from my day job at Delta bank, where I'm a senior strategy consultant.
But for today, I am actually Dean Staines honored to be among the founding faculty of the open access University. So this is a little bit about how our session is going to go today. Let me see if I can get the clicker going. That's not working. Am I holding it the wrong way?
OK got it. Clicker won't work in pre-interview everyone. Instructions associate dean to help you. Write the arrow is not working either. I'm a typical dean. I'm like, very bad with technology. Let me try that. OK OK, perfect. So you may have noticed from the agenda that we have a super sized session.
We have a lot to cover for you today. First, I want to talk a little bit about the background for this session. And to do that, I'm going to bring in my co planner, Deena cameras. Deena, can you unmute yourself? Howdy and we can see you. Dina is an editor for reviews journals at Springer nature, and we planned this session together.
Dina, I want to say a few words about how we came up with the format. Sure well, my history is that my career started in abstracting and indexing with biological abstracts, and then through all the acquisitions and mergers and various different roles, basically in indexing, facilitation and content curation. But all during that time, I had very little exposure directly to changes in the field, though I was aware of the transitions, obviously from print to electronic and other advances.
Unfortunately, my roles did not really afford me opportunities to engage directly with the community and with stakeholders. So last year I found myself needing to make a career pivot. And I joined SSP and participated in the mentorship program. And my mentor recommended me to join the a committee and network and make connections directly with the people in scholarly publishing.
So I did so and ended up on the education committee for New Directions. And here I am. Great so so Dina signed up to help plan the session, but she told me on our first call that she actually, because of the area she'd been working in, she didn't really know that much about it way. So we thought, well, what if you're coming here and you don't have a background in Aurora or and there's so much to cover that of an education.
So the format for this session was shamelessly stolen. Some of you may remember back in the seventies, a comedian called Don novello, whose character, father Guido sarducci, had a bit he used to do called the Five Minute University. Now I'm not going to play it for you. Didn't age well. And I don't want to do an Italian accent because I can't do that.
But the premise behind that was you pay him $20 and he will teach you everything that you will remember five years after you graduate. So we're playing off of that today to give you the five minute. OK, University. So we're going to start with our presenters. They're going to do five minute presentations, just about 5 minutes.
Then we're going to do a brief section of roundtable, and then we're going to open it up for you guys. So we hope that you will enjoy the Five Minute University. So this is our course, track curriculum for 2022. We're going to start out with history 101, which I will be presenting. Then we'll move into geology 201 metals and gemstones, which will be presented by Meredith willson to my right. Next up will be sociology 301, echoed in the global content arena by Sara Rui.
We'll have a quick check in with you at that time. And then the second semester will kick off with biology 400 with Mariana Garcia and then followed on by Sara for setting who's going to do business 502 graduate level only licenses and other legalities. And finally, our closer today will be Bill Moran, and he is going to do the capstone project in sustainability.
So welcome to the five the a five Minute University. Not to be confused with the Open University in the UK. Also a pioneer in remote learning founded in 1969. We've just been founded this year, but we have a long, fruitful path ahead of us, as you will see. Now, before I joined the administration, I was a historian, and I'm expected to provide some background today.
I'm a firm believer that you can better understand where we are now if we figure out where we have been before. So here's my history 101 one. This is not meant to be comprehensive. If there is a milestone missing on one of these slides. You can tell me later. But we're limited in time. So we're going to give it a shot.
So a publishing overview, it didn't want to start with the beginning of the journal. Back was way far back, so I thought I would start just after World War two. So a lot of the research that happened during World War two meant governments were becoming heavily involved in science, which meant universities were getting a lot of money from governments. Publishers were starting to launch journals.
So before that, journals had largely been the purview of societies, as many of you will know. Pergamon press kind of a famous milestone in this area in 1959 had 40 journals, but by 1965 had 150 journals. That may sound small compared to what we're looking at today. This was tremendous growth at that time, just to put it into context. At that time, Elsevier only had 10 journals and it would take them 10 more years to get to 100.
So the access to research for the faculty shifted from individual subscribers to institutional libraries. So that changed. Who did the purchasing? The librarians were involved purchasing on behalf of their faculty, so the reader became more disconnected from the publisher. Probably didn't think about the publisher at all.
Sad to say. But fast forward a little bit to the 70s where you publish becomes more important. A little something called the impact factor was introduced and publishers really started to build themselves up as brands. So in 1974, for example, you have Cell press launching and that like war of the worlds icon there at the bottom like that came up with impact factor. I'm not really sure why, but looks pretty scary.
So in the seventies, on into the eighties, journal prices were increasing. They doubled between 1975 and 1985. And this was a problem for the libraries because once you start buying stuff, it's kind of hard to not buy it. 1991 now, Elsevier has 1,000 journals, including 400 that they got from pergamon. So then you probably heard the term the cereals crisis.
So the cereals were becoming more and more expensive. Remember, this is still in print. So the complaints about what could you buy if you had to spend all this money on journals started pretty far back then in the 90s. Journals are starting to move online, provides a lot greater access to faculty, but infrastructure for online provision of journals, it's quite expensive.
As we know, 1998, the big deal hits. Researchers can get access to even more the pricing for those big deals, largely based on the sprint, the spend that they had in place for print. Now the birth of open access is often put at 2002 with the Budapest open Access Initiative. However, we know that there was a lot of open content that existed before that archive from 1991, PubMed from 1997, and biomed central, which launched in 2000.
Now we see the era of the commercial publishers getting involved in a way who will be the largest publisher. Let's see, I was at Springer when Springer bought biomed central back in 2008. I also had some conversations with Elsevier around that time where they said that they would indeed become the largest away publisher. Some people were skeptical. I don't know.
We have a big organization. You have some efficiencies you can build on. Governments are getting involved more. We see mandates and attempts at mandates. So when I first gave this presentation to an editorial board back in the spring, it only had this first point here. The 2013 STP memo. Now we all hear at the Holdren memo and in the UK side of things, the higher education funding council for English research excellence framework, or hevc, also in 2013, as well as the EU horizon 2020, launching in 2016.
Universities and libraries get involved with declarations like Dora. Funders get more involved again, more mandates. Coalition as planned is coming along in 2018. Transformative agreements called by some the bigger deal. What I like to refer to as business model bingo. Not to designate the business models at all, but just to say how hard it can be to keep track of them. 2020 push for global equity movement beyond the APC.
We'll be hearing about that in a later course today and just a few scant weeks ago. I can still say weeks because we're not the 25th yet, the STP or Nelson memo. Now we're in early days, yet there is an increased focus on the data. Scholarship is more than the articles robust metadata and identifiers. Machines are now jumping into the game.
And so we're moving from open access to open science, open scholarship, which was always the objective. One more slide. Where where the guidance office what the guidance office is hearing or what can you do with a degree in history anyway, which I think I heard in my life more than probably a lot of you. So with my degree in history, I'm involved in identifying areas for new journal launches and tracking launches and deals, looking at uptake of owa by subject area, setting of benchmarking of apks, looking at publisher subject and impact, looking at decisions around licenses and write retention strategies, regional uptake of owa and access to content involving equity and inclusion and portfolio based modeling around OCP memo criteria.
So you can do a lot as a historian in oai, so I Thank you for taking this course. Just a few links that Delta think might hope that you're interested in. Our next webinar on market size trends will be on October 25. Registration is open now and we will be at some upcoming conferences if you want to find us there. So that is history 101. And I will hand you over to our first additional speaker besides me.
Meredith so I am thrilled to have Professor Wilson on this panel as we've presented together before. Renowned in her field, I'm told that Dr. Indiana Jones has been referred to as the Meredith Wilson of archaeology. Professor Wilson is joining us fresh off her most recent book tour. All that glitters is not gold.
She'll present her class geology 201 metals and gemstones. Take it away, Professor Wilson. Wow Thank you, dean, for that introduction. Welcome I'm Professor Wilson, and you're in the room for geology 201. So take a look at your schedules and make sure you're in the right place. So welcome to your 5 Minute open access University.
In this course, we're going to build upon some of the history of open access that you learned in your history, 101 class, which outlined the timeline of how open access, as we know it came to be. Next, in your studies, we want to introduce you to the subject of geology and more specifically, that of the metals and gemstones that you'll hear about throughout your education at the University.
So with that, let's begin with some definitions. You will hear folks talk a lot about green open access. At first blush, you might think that this model is the most sustainable given its color. While this model, of course, does not require the payment of fees on the part of scholars and authors or the payment of fees on behalf of funders or libraries, it does require effort on the part of librarians to manage the trusted repository for articles on campus and can suffer from end user discoverability issues.
You'll learn throughout your time at this University that many of the standard models have their strengths and weaknesses, not unlike the gemstones and metals that they are named after, and each one both solves as well as replicates some of the issues in open scholarship. So you'll also learn about bronze open access. This model requires no fee, so that's good, like green and is available on the publisher's website instead of in the institutional repository.
However, no license applies and access could be rescinded by the publisher at any time. Since there's no license, oftentimes in users can only read the articles and not reuse them or cite them in their own work. There's also generally not consensus among geologists on if this model even represents a true form of open access. So next we have gold.
This model requires the payment of an article level fee paid by either the author or the library. Unlike bronze, which we just spoke about, the same licensing issues do not apply. Unfortunately, though, this model has major issues with transparency, as libraries often do not have visibility into what the actual publishing costs are for publishers. And the spend is difficult to predict, as APC fees can range from several to several thousand dollars per article.
You will learn further into your studies here how this model also presents workflow issues for libraries, as many simply do not have the staff members required to process all of the many individual invoices that come in. Also, you will hear your professors talk about issues of equity with this model. As often, social science and Humanities Research is not funded on grants the same way that science research typically is.
Finally, we have diamond, which is sometimes known as platinum. The key features of this model include no article level charges by at all and funding by societies, although questions remain about the long term preservation and also regarding extending this model out to disciplines other than the humanities. This model is sometimes called subscribe to open. You might recall in the dean's remarks in your previous class that she mentioned some of those other adjacent models.
So where does this leave us? Concluding thoughts. None of the gemstones that you learned about in geology 201 function as a silver bullet for libraries and publishers. Because there's no one size fits all model, it's difficult to implement any of the models we described in this course. The difficulties with implementing standard gemstone include the fact that the historical annual increase on the subscription model for journal packages has encroached on the library's operating budget and therefore libraries ability to hire staff.
Unfortunately, the very model that libraries are trying to reckon with, the standard big deal with annual fee increase every year is the very thing that has made it arduous for libraries to move away from due to staff and infrastructure constraints. You may also hear other faculty discuss the concept of the transformative agreement. While there is no consensus on what this means, although it typically means gold away, please see my book, all that glitters, is not gold.
Libraries need to be very clear about what is actually transforming other than what they are paying for. It is not open access that is transforming within these agreements, but rather where the money is coming from. There's also issues of equity present in the geomorphology of this course. We know that disproportionately research that is from social sciences and the humanities is not funded in the same way that STEM content is.
And lastly, as we head towards the future, the role of consortia will become more important for libraries as a way to stretch budgets, expand administrative support, ideate and test new and emerging models for open access. So for your final assignment in this course, I'd love to have you submit your field notebook for review. In your notes, I'll be looking for your observations on the gemstones, including the role that consortia can or should play.
Observations could include, but are not limited to designing creative and new models of zoa with our publisher partners. How to negotiate open access deals without the benefit of country or state mandates. Although this could be changing with that new memo, as you learned about in your introductory course, further encroachment of vendors earlier and earlier into the research process and the adjacent conversations in the field regarding data sets and preprints, and also managing the ever more complicated and bespoke models with limited staff to do this work.
Thank you. I can't wait for your introduction. You can stay. You can stay. So next up is Professor Sara Rui. Prior to her appointment at the university, professor Rui has spent much time traveling the globe. In fact, she brings it with her everywhere to broaden awareness of equity and inclusion and to guide us all to a more equitable future.
She has an additional role guiding the University football team, which unfortunately isn't very successful to date as the offensive line refuses as a matter of principle to block access to any one. Professor Rui will present her renowned course, equity in the global content arena. We're not going to talk about the football team. All right.
Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you're all well. I'm super excited to kind of walk you through a deep dive with a humanities lean to talk about equity in this context. To start, I like to just kind of frame the conversation. I think the conversations around equity can be really overwhelming because it can feel like a very big issue that each one of us as individuals can struggle to sort of figure out what our piece is and all of this.
So rather than starting at the kind of global or transnational level or reflecting at the institution or organization that we're at or even the communities we serve, I often think it's useful to start thinking about ourselves as individuals. There, it becomes easier to think about relationships of power, and from then you can extrapolate outwards. So if you go back to the famous quote and I'm giving my HOA from this, but from aladdin, where Jafar turns to Aladdin and says, remember the golden rule, whoever has the gold power makes the rules.
That's really the orientation you should take when reflecting on equity and the questions of equity. So reflecting on myself, where do I sit within my organization, within my role, within scholarly communications? What is my relationship to power? Once you start having that conversation, then you can start to have some of the more macro conversations.
So the reason we sort of have to think about power is because fundamentally, right, we work in an organization that has gatekeepers, right? And gatekeeping is kind of critical to what we do. So it's important to think through how are the gates that we're creating, allowing certain things to pass, and who's creating those gates. So when you do that, there's kind of bodies of thought that have reflected on this over time.
And the kind of major folks who always you'll have to pardon me as a failed humanities academic, I have to go here. So the old white men who thought about power, you know, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Aristotle, they're reflecting on brute force, right? When when a small group of people monopolize brute force, there are consequences for the rest of us. And that's not super fun as we move beyond that is actually the technical term.
It's not super fun when a small group of people controls violence. Now, when we get past World War two and we're reflecting on huge amounts of violence imposed on lots of people, philosophers like Fusco and a rent start thinking about systems of power, right? So things that are not visible, but that we all feed into every day as a function of our jobs, as a function of our identities that we bring, things like that.
Once you move beyond reflections on concrete force to invisible power structures, you start having individuals reflecting on how does the identity that I bring impact my ability to engage with systems of power. So audre Lorde famously spoke to you. You can't use the tools of the master to undo the master's house. Judith Butler is one of the first thinkers to reflect on the transition from second to third wave feminism, which is bringing a lot of the conversations we're having now around trans the trans community to light.
So this is kind of one way to think about the evolution of power from brute force to systems that we can see to then think about, well, how does that work within our industries and within our own organizations? So the really interesting thing about this is despite these arguably being theorists, you look at in a humanities or social science context, COVID really brought home in ways that I think other crises haven't, that these are absolutely things we have to be thinking about when we're trying to think about concrete outcomes.
And it was really exciting when I was putting this presentation together that see that to see that researchers in the context of health equity have been reflecting on this for a really long time, which makes sense, right? I mean, if you're trying to understand why we have vaccines, we have a certain set of networks to provide outcomes. Why are outcomes for the Black community so radically different from the White community?
Write the question of systems impacting our ability to access resources becomes super obvious. So in this case, it was really fun to see. You know, you have a bunch of health researchers out of the University of Liverpool reflecting on Marxist approaches to power to think about why health policy outcomes have been the way they've been since COVID came out. And if you reflect on their work, they state articulating the architecture of.
Our within an institution as an important step in understanding the dynamics, actions and decisions that create inequities. And if just get rid of all the words around health and policy, we are describing every situation, every organization or institution in which we're a part. And this is where a lot of the conversation around equity can start, even if it's at a macro level within your own team or at excuse me, at a level or if it's at a macro level at your organization.
So if we're talking about equity, we sort of need to know what it means. So I'm going to rely on some illustrations. The conversation around equality versus equity really started in the 70s and the context of understanding the impact of race on early childhood education. So a lot of the use of cartoons, I think is both useful just for anyone to understand the issues at stake.
But it also speaks to the audiences that were reflecting on this at the time. So simply understood if we're defining terms, equality is just treating everyone the same, right? So evenly distributed tools and assistance. The folks on the left all have the same box to see over the fence to watch the game. Equity is about providing aid according to context custom tools that identify and address inequalities.
Right? so for the experience of the small person in the purple shirt who's hunched over looks super sad in this. In this illustration, the box doesn't help. The box barely helps the person in the red shirt and the person in the blue shirt doesn't need it. So at a very basic level, this is the difference between equality and equity and why the conversation post George Floyd has really emphasis emphasized the word equity.
You're not really going to move the needle if equality is the place where you're starting from. So if I can belabor the metaphor, since that's what we're doing for the next hour and a half, the baseball game is really the entire research enterprise, whatever it means to create and disseminate knowledge. However you understand that the fence is anything that's blocking that right. The gentleman on the left is very likely a well funded, English speaking, global North trained, global North housed researcher at a well resourced institution from a highly respected pedigree of researchers that came before him.
This is everybody else. Maybe you're from the global South. Maybe English isn't your first language, you do regionally or locally focused research. You're focusing on indigenous communities. You live in a country with different socioeconomic opportunity. That's everybody else, right? What?
the boxes on the right are systemic change. They're they're the actions we can take within our organizations and within the industry to actually recognize the difference between the person and the purple shirt and the person in the blue shirt. And note on the other side of the screen, the person in the blue shirt doesn't have a box. They don't need one. So this is really about looking at folks from the context that they bring.
And getting back to our earlier conversation about bringing your whole self into your work. When we create spaces where our teams can bring their whole selves to their work, whatever that means, and I think that's a fraught term, then we can start to figure out what are the boxes teams need and don't need. But when people are forced to hide away aspects of that whole self, the equity thing becomes really hard.
All right, so let's belabor more pictures. Scholarly communications is the tree apples are all the things we want, right? We want to read papers. We want to publish papers. We want to access and reuse data. We want to read about the peer review history. We want to see how the work's been used. We want to discover content.
We want to discover all the content. It's linked to all of these sort of open science behaviors we want, right? The tree leans one way for a lot of people. There is a community for whom grabbing that Apple is never going to be terribly difficult. The joists and the ladders are all the things that we very consciously can do individually within our organizations and as organizations within a larger ecosystem to fundamentally shift the way that tree balances.
That could be business models, that could be hiring practices, that could be how we constitute editorial boards, that could be redefining what it means to do peer review, that could be enforcing certain behaviors with authors so that we have better metadata. Right it can range from the inspiring to the somewhat mundane. But all of those things shift the tree.
So all of us can grab a bite at the Apple with a similar experience. And that if you're looking at equality, equity, justice is kind of the end of the spectrum we want to get to there. So in terms of concrete things your organizations can do, it's really thinking about the services and products you provide. Do they reflect the communities they're meant to serve?
If you're producing content that has to be paid for, how much of it has to be paid for? And by whom are the communities that are paying the ones you want paying for them? If there are. If you are concretely looking at. At journal content is gold away. Really the only way that you can make open access happen? And how is your organization constituted?
What does the leadership look like? What do the perspectives the organization is bringing in look like? And I can't stress this enough. If you're going to make equity core to your business, it has to start at the highest levels. It has to be endorsed and committed to at the highest levels. And it's got to be in every single person's objectives, every single person's kpis, deliverables, success criteria, bonuses should be reliant on those kinds of metrics.
So fundamentally, I think the biggest threat to this work is performative gestures that don't have any accountability. When we're talking about a workforce that is increasingly competitive, that that has a very different set of expectations. Folks want to work at organizations where these are real and substantive commitments, not just externally, but internally. So it's sort of a sad thing to say, but I tend to say if you're not going to do it for real dope, don't bother, because it's kind of worse if you do it and it's not without accountability.
So with that, I have an extensive reading list that I can provide to you offline. It's all required reading, by the way. And with that I'll see you at the next football game where we will also lose because we let everyone on the field. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, professor ruhi. Don't forget your globe on the way out.
So next we have we're at the end of our first semester and we have a midterm for you. So there's no there's no prize. Education itself is the goal. Midterm question one question from each class. History 101. What was the name of the first STP memo? B yep, nobody for the dole check memo midterm question 2 from geology.
And I you had a field notebook so that's she's a tough professor she's got a lot of work that she requires. Essay question why might diamond journals be deposited in digital preservation initiatives at a lower rate than journals publish under other models? Something that's close to my heart to think about? Or does Greenaway content come with a higher administrative burden than other models? How might that Impact Ride scale availability, availability?
And finally, midterm question 3 from sociology. What are the areas for examining equity within your organization, business models, accessibility, organizational makeup or all of the above? So we want everyone to pass the class. So right now we have don't get up. It's a 32nd spring break. Stay in your seats. But we do want to we do want to check in with our student, Dina, to see how she's doing.
Dina, are you still with us? Dena, can you unmute? Hopefully oh, sorry about that. I hope you were paying attention. Oh, it's not spring break anymore. Oh, well, I think we got a few more seconds, but hang with us. We're going to be moving into the second semester.
Thanks, Dina. I'm ready. All righty. A little Hamlet. We're in a class for Dina there. She couldn't be here with us today, but we wanted to make sure she was a part of the team. So welcome back to campus. Just a quick reminder of your second semester courses will be taught by the professors to my left.
As I'm sure you know, students at OU are assigned to cohorts named after C license types. Many of these cohorts undertook spring break service projects. We'd particularly like to Thank the CSA or share bears, as they call themselves, for their spring break service project to share produce grown on campus with local schools and senior centers. They must have been very efficient to get that done during the time allotted to them in our brief spring break.
Next, we'll move on to our next course. We'll learn about the biological interaction of organisms from Professor Garcia. When the University was founded, Dr. Garcia was tapped for her creative ideas around identifying a mascot. Unfortunately, her first suggestion, which received the highest number of students votes. The transformers was not available due to trademark issues.
Another top choice, the koala believed to be the only animal with in its name. Now, I've already thought of more since I came over here this morning. Like the boa constrictor. Not very so, but motivated. Funny slide was recently scooped up by Columbia College in South Carolina. And who would want to mess with anyone who would make a mean looking koala like that on their logo?
So we settled on unlucky the unlocked padlock of 0 fame. If you are skilled with a sewing machine, contact me after the session because we do still need a costume for our mascot. So now I will hand over to Professor Garcia for her course biology 401. Some biotic transformations. Yeah Yeah.
So Oh. So good afternoon, students. Thank you for joining us today on this class. We are going to learn about symbiotic transformations. So remember, remember your biology classes? And one of the first things that we need to do is go through some definitions. So what is symbiosis? Well, it is usually defined as a close and sustained relationship between two different species of organism.
And here we have a classic example. Algae and fungi come together to form a lichen. Lichens have conquered the world. They can grow in very harsh environments where none of the other species could have survived along. So they both benefit from the close relationship. However, not all symbiotic relationships are beneficial, and although some biologists disagree about that, we are adopting the broadest definition.
So as I mentioned, not all symbiotic relationships are equal. They exist in a continuum from parasitism to mutualism in parasitism. One of the partners benefit while the other is harmed in commensal is one species benefit, while the relationship is neutral for the other.
No harm. No benefit. Finally, we have mutualism the ideal state where both species benefit. In the examples here we have mammals and fleas, for example. In the middle we have sharks and us. And finally, we have clownfish and anemone. Where both benefit from the relationships. But one thing that is common to all of them is that they are profoundly affected by changes in the environment.
Un it is undeniable. We have heard that again and again and again that we are all going through a profound environmental change in the scholarly communication ecosystem as a whole. We are moving from a very traditional structure to one that is a lot more open and community engaged. However, we are not there yet.
Yes, we are here in the middle in this transitional space with the storm and the tornadoes and all the messy things that come with them. And this environmental shift is disrupting well-established partnerships between organisms. For example, let's imagine that we have two different organisms, libraries and publishers.
These two species used to have very straightforward, symbiotic relationships stable. Easy to understand, although not always beneficial. But the environmental disruption is forcing these organisms to rethink their partnerships. So every one of these relationships is under scrutiny now. Big publishers, small publishers, old relationships, new relationships.
Which is a lot of work and a bit scary for both sides. So it is not a surprise that some organisms are reporting that they are feeling a bit lost on the libraries and on the publishers as well. But we are changing. We have to we are adapting. We are evolving. And new models of relationships have been created and are in the process of being tested and evaluated.
However, nothing is permanent. New and better models continue to appear. Some are more popular than others. Some are more equitable than others. Some of the new models, for example, read and publish agreements, are very popular. Some of the upcoming models are getting more like Subscribe to open. We have also a lot of different collective action models coming.
Each one with its own names. Yes, the bingo. The bingo thing. And we also have membership models, for example. In the end, what I want to remark is it will be the task of each library and publisher to decide where their partnership lives in that symbiotic spectrum. And they need to decide if they want to stick with the model that they currently have, or they need to find a new one that allows both of them to move forward.
So that's my message for today. Think about which type of symbiotic relationships are you are going to go into pursue in your new partnership. Thank you. Thank you so much, Professor Garcia. I know I learned a lot in that session. Next, we will hear from Professor for setting. When it comes to her classes, Dr. f, as she's known by her adoring students, is all business.
But you may not know that she oversees many intramural activities for our students. Dr. f is particularly valued by the students who enjoy a cappella singing. This year's championship, this year's champions, the buckeyes, brought down the house with their rendition of nsync's classic bye bye bye. Dr. f will present her graduate level class business 502 licenses and other legalities.
Thank you, heather, for that humor. Hi, everyone. Welcome to business 502. In this seminar, we are going to be discussing open access licenses in the context of risk management. I'm Sarah presenting. I am a librarian on assignment here at the open access University.
And I just wanted to mention that I will be speaking from the librarian perspective, taking off my professor hat for a second and speaking from my own experience at a research intensive institution, and also my work with consortia in North America. And that is certainly not the only perspective, but it is mine. So as we know from previous courses, there are many different theories and practices at play aiming to transform scholarly communication.
But there's no single open access, license agreement or model language that all stakeholders agree on. Yet, unlike subscription models that have been around and negotiated for decades, open access models differ wildly from publisher to publisher, and institutions also want only very different outcomes from these agreements. Some open access agreements ask institutions to move away from extremely efficient business models, ones that have been honed and negotiated over years and into new agreements that have real operational obstacles.
Open access licenses focus mainly on commercial terms, but embedded in the financial aspects are also who is responsible for paying assessing, administering and communicating about the cost and the performance of the deal. This creates not only financial but also some operational risk. So in this course, we're going to think about contextualizing licenses and identifying and mitigating operational risks. Thinking about negotiating licenses as a risk management process may help us to ask new questions about how much risk and institution is willing to take on and what elements of an open access license they may want to negotiate.
The end goal of a license agreement, as we all know, is to have a document that governs risk for both parties. So the first few steps of the process is to establish the institutional context that the license will be operating in and identify which goal or outcome of the agreement might create some risk and which is most important to pursue and therefore mitigate. Unlike subscription models, this is not the same or even similar for every institution.
Contextualizing the license for negotiation can sometimes be like a game of jenga, depending on which risk, you're trying to mitigate and which one is important to your institution, whether it's financial, strategic, legal or operational. Pulling one piece could topple your whole system, and toppling the system is not necessarily the goal of open access or transitional agreements, but changing and evolving the system is so for institutions who are extremely risk adverse, it becomes very difficult to prioritize which risk to manage in order to move forward.
But operational risks stand out as those that are especially high and also especially difficult to mitigate if the system is changing constantly. So as we think about operational risks, we can lean on some risk mitigation principles to understand which open access deals might be more or less difficult to implement and manage long term. The first thing that we know is that a theory cannot be risk managed.
Therefore, the institution is going to require a lot of data and information about how the model performs in practice in order to move forward. Information gathering and analysis is incredibly time consuming. And as was pointed out earlier, this morning, our staff don't always have the skills right now, but they will. Sometimes this information gathering and analysts process can be the deal breaker or the deal delay or.
Librarians are increasingly interested in working at the consortia level to begin to solve some of those problems. We also that the mitigation plan must consider the entire system in order to be successful. Libraries sit within a complex, scholarly communication system, and obviously we are not the only players. And this means that unlike a transactional subscription model, if the library is to manage the open access agreement, they must come to it prepared with staff, vision and infrastructure to lead, coordinate and communicate effectively within the wider system.
And last risk mitigation is impossible if the system is too complex. We know that open access, the landscape of open access is immensely complex. Therefore, risk mitigation is not fully possible. So your assignment today is to discuss how the open access agreement you've been given or perhaps one that you've written, could actually be operationalized by a library.
Considerations might include the staff finances, current infrastructure, campus vision and communication system. And stakeholder buy in, not to mention the scalability of an institution having to manage multiple agreements at the same time. There's no right or wrong answers here. Instead, there are many possibilities and potential opportunities.
So get to it. And good luck. Thank you so much. Finally, as all of our students here at open access University do, you'll participate in a Capstone project overseen by Professor emeritus Bill Moran. I understand professor Morant led exchange students to Europe for a whirlwind tour of various capitals.
While there, the group completed a service project to remove padlocks left by couples as symbols of their love from historic bridges. As part of the project, in the spirit of reuse and remix, Bill's group will create a community art project called unlock your potential. The project Bill will present for us today is environmental sciences 600 capstone sustainability.
Thank you, Heather. So one of the things I do want to say is first, we just had a wellness class this morning. So for those of you, when you get to an hour that want to stretch, because I don't know if you heard this, you should be moving every hour. Right and we learned some Chair Yoga moves. So if you want that later, I'm available for that.
But also very proud of our institution, if you noticed. The panel. Usually it's the other way around. I am around a lot of people like me. And that's what we strive for here at our institution. So should be proud of that. Now, jumping into this capstone, capstone is going to be really tough on this as we bring everything together.
But we can do it. And how we're going to do it is we're going to look at everything that we talked about today. You learned in the past year or so. And look at a case study. Maybe that's the best way to do this. So let's dive in. And the capstone. We're going to talk about sustainability in the three pillars of sustainability.
Some people may think there's five, which it can be, but we're going to look at three and we're going to look at social impact. Why do you do what you do? Economic viability. How do you fund what you do? Capacity to deliver now and in the future. What really supports what you do? So let's look at.
Social we heard some about social before, but why do you do what you do? And I think for all of you as students and in organizations, it's really important to think about publishing models that should align with the mission. Public access does not equal open access. And that's brought up, as you heard before. It's more about the scientific enterprise.
It's open science. It's data sharing. It's all of that. Just not access collaboration amongst researchers. And another important voice that we need to hear from more is researchers. So researchers really need a voice. Are they aware? Are we having those conversations?
So encourage all of you when you're at your institutions or your organizations, to have those conversations with researchers and get their feedback. And a possible sustainable goal is we can maintain quality peer review and continue to address equity concerns and give a voice to researchers and universities. Now, I said a case study and we're going to look at it as luck will have it.
Institution that's right down the block where I sometimes work part time for science. So let's look at what they're doing. And at science the pathways to maintain quality for both our subscription journals through green owa zero day and our goal though a journal and also it's important for developing countries, what we're doing there is looking at well, how do we do this.
And how do we do this in a way that's automated? So automatic waivers may be one way for developing countries. And as you heard before from Sara, it's important that we also start to reflect this and not just talk about external, but internal editorial boards, reviewers moving towards diversity and equity. OK now we go on to the next model, economic or pillar economic viability.
How do you fund what you do? And we heard this before. My esteemed colleagues had said, this one model does not fit all. So what is that sustainable goal? Decide on a model that works for your organization, you heard about transformative agreements, gold zero, a domino, a green zero zero day embargo, but always keep in mind, avoid high apks.
They perpetuate inequities. Hello apks on the other hand, incentivize volume. We all know this. We've heard predatory journals, so we have to be careful. Avoid quantity for profits only. Reach out to funders and collaborate, have those discussions. We heard of some of the other models that may work here and you can have those conversations to see if that will work for your organization.
Some of the funders. Most importantly, diversify your revenues. You have to think about this for the future. Meetings, webinars. Custom publishing, educational events. It's another category that should be up there partner journals. Can you work with other societies and come together? And maybe there is a collaboration can do that way.
So capacity to deliver. How do we do this? What supports what you do? And under this I have adaptive capacity flexibility as the model may change. We already know OSTP gave guidance. Guidance right. The words are not like from the Holdren memo where it's must, recommends, should, right.
So that's going to change. So we need flexibility as that changes. Collaborative capacity partners that share your mission. And I think that's very important for every one here. As you're going out into the world, you want to work with others who have the same values, same mission as your organization that you're going to be in. Technological capacity build by our collaboration.
We very well this is from our previous discussions in our other classes. Now it's a sustainable goal here. Collaborate with others on the tools that will be needed now and in the future. For example, we know the switchboard is trying to do a lot here and reaching out to others to ask, well, how can we help. And other tools to help with opening access?
So if we bring these together. And we optimize the scientific enterprise, not just one variable, which is reader access, but keep in mind equity is important. Many scientists cannot afford APCs example in underfunded fields in low and middle income countries. Quality matters. Excellent peer review.
I everybody here realizes and you've gone through this in your finance courses and accounting courses, excellent peer review and curation are expensive. Acceptance targets based on revenue goals are wrong. You know this from having your classes with the editors and the editors. When you ask them, well, could you just raise that a little bit more and take a little bit more? And they're not going to do that.
Because your editor is not going to go back and say, hey, you know, that paper I thought was so-so. You got to take that. And the one you never thought about before, you got to look at that now. So so. So that's not going to happen. Again it shouldn't happen. Choisne for profit only is not in line with our mission.
Does the science enterprise need more journals or papers? It's another question to ask. And if I wrap his whole up. Excuse me. Granola is zero day embargo. That's one approach that science is taking. So let's look at what they're doing, opening up the app versus the VR version of record.
And author accepted manuscript. It's an approach that may not work for others. Another important piece here is brand. We heard that in the beginning. The brand is also important because when you're thinking about your mission and you developing and you're lining trying to align your mission, the brand is crucial. So you want to always keep that in mind how you want the research community to perceive you.
Increase the value of your content brand is connected to quality versus quantity. So with that. That's going into next one. Sorry about that. So with that. Thank you for your time.
OK, we're bringing it home. Man, I wish the stretchy thing. We would've known about that earlier. We could totally work that in. So final exam. Question number one from biology 400, what do we call a symbiotic relationship where both partners benefit? Right awesome.
You guys are doing well. Final exam question 2 from business 502 open access agreements present the same level of risk to all institutions. And note provide a brief paragraph of explanation for your answer in your blue books. And final exam question three environmental sciences 600, of which two of the following are not a pillar of sustainability?
Man, you guys are rough critics. It's Washington commanders anyway. Extra credit. By what calendar date must all federally funded research papers implement? The recently announced 82022 STP memo provisions fill in the date. But you guys are on your game.
All right, graduation. I want to bring Deena back. Are you still with us, deena? So I'm ready. Got my hat. Okey dokey. All right, I'm turning the page in my notes. Congratulations, Dina.
You may now move your tassel. A round of applause for Dina. And Dina is our valedictorian. Can you say a few words? I will. I prepared my valedictorian speech right here. Firstly, I would like to Thank my professors here at OhioLINK University.
Without whose impassioned instruction I would not have been able to graduate with honors would not have learned to differentiate the many forms and gems of a way, nor been made aware of the various outstanding equity and diversity issues or benefits and drawbacks for both publishers and academic institutions and authors, as well as the virtues of transformative and alternate agreements.
We still have a long way along the road to develop the potential of open access, and I am excited to be part of this dynamic time in scholarly publishing. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll ask our esteemed panelists to step back into their day roles for a few kickoff questions.
And then we'll turn the mic over to the audience just in case you missed it. And to dispel their professor persona, I'm going to ask them quick to just give one sentence on what they're doing in their day jobs. And we'll start on the end with Sarah. Are you a strategic partner? Oh, sorry. Hello hi, everyone.
Sarah Hi. I managed strategic partnerships for class in 2019. We started engaging with the library community and we've launched three non APC based business models trying to experiment with different equity questions that we're solving with each one. Hey, everybody. Meredith Wilson. I serve as the head of scholarly resources for Boston University libraries, musc on the executive committee of neuro, which is the Northeast research libraries consortium.
So wonderful group that I get to serve on with Sarah for getting down at the other end of the table. And last year, we actually successfully negotiated the first ever open access agreement with Elsevier. Yes, Marianna, Hello. My name is Mariana Garcia, and I'm in my day to day life. I'm a scholarly communication librarian at the University of Rochester. I come with a background in the sciences, and I was a science subject librarian for many, many years.
Actually, only last April, I became the full time scholarly communication librarian. So I come from with a perspective that is not really very common, no collection background, business background. I come from the trenches, from the people that work with the researchers, with the students, and I'm very excited about advancing open access at my institution.
And I currently provide advice about a transitional agreement. I really like that word a lot more. The transformational agreements or transformative agreements. Transitional they are all transitional. We we are changing. We don't need to stick with what we have today. We we can invent new ways. New ways of doing things. Sarah hi, I'm Sarah presenting.
I am the associate director of acquisitions and collection services at Stanford University libraries. And I'm also, as Meredith mentioned, the chair of the program counsel at neural, where I'm involved in a whole lot of negotiations with large publishers like Springer Nature or we're working on building creative models for open access agreements that don't involve APIs.
Hi, everyone. Bill Moran. I'm the publisher for science and the science family of journals. And he only works there part time. I'm kidding. I again, I want to thank our panelists before we go into questions and say that it was really fun to put this together and they were so game to get on board.
And three librarians and two publishers and folks that spanned from coast to coast was really exciting to work with this group. And big Thank you to Heather for making it all happen and committing to the bit. My son time from the University of Maine we re-use it open access University. So questions for I'm going to ask the question to all of our speakers.
So since we initially planned this session, the STP memo was released in August. I know some of you referred to it in your presentations, but I want to give you the opportunity to tell us a little bit about the questions you've been hearing from your organizations and others at similar organizations. And I'm going to start on this end with bill, and then we'll run through to my right.
Sure thanks, Heather. So we're actually and you heard me say this before the OSTP memo. The language as far as guidance, recommend recommends and so on. We're in alignment. We feel that the policy and the recommendations align with what we're trying to do tomorrow. If some of you haven't seen it, we'll actually have an editorial coming out in science which actually directs this.
So with that, we're OK, we'll be really short. We're having a directors meeting on Monday to talk about this very thing. And I think for us, a lot of the questions are around infrastructure and preservation. Coming from hearing researchers and students talk about the influence of the OCP memo, they are focusing a lot more on the data aspects right now than the public machine aspects.
Those those for them are more far reaching and important right now, the open science or open scholarship part. And they are having a lot of discussions about the multidisciplinary nature of this memo and how it affects different disciplines differently, how researchers from different disciplines are different, completely unprepared sometimes for some of the recommendations of the memo.
So its researchers are aware and they are thinking about how this is going to change their lives in the next few years. We have a few years. So I think. I'll just echo some of what Sarah said. We're having conversations at my institution about the infrastructure piece of this memo as well. It kind of goes back to some of what we talked about in my class.
Right like, who's going to manage the I.r.? How is that going to happen? Where is that going to come from? And then also, you know, librarians, especially those of us that work in collections and school are constantly negotiating multiple multiyear agreements at any point. I have several that are sort of like mid cycle right now where I'm working to negotiate ones that are going to start a year or two from now.
And the five year deal is already off the table because they're not sure what this memo is going to mean. So it's affecting already just in the last few weeks, some of the negotiations that I'm in thinks. No specific impact on other than being really excited that to see the announcement, we were also really pleased about the emphasis on the data component because that's obviously something that's been a priority for us and we're glad to see some teeth there.
Yeah, great. And I'll add adult. I think we're having lots and lots of conversations, as you might imagine. I mean, we've been in the space for quite some time now and have successfully worked with many, many organizations to kick off or continue their strategies. Our big thing is measured response like don't panic know, we've all been in this space for a long time and we're going to find our way through.
I'm really conscious that when plan s was announced several years ago, a lot of the terms that you heard in the presentations today, they didn't exist, the business models didn't exist. And I have to think that in the next few years, there's going to be lots of new models, new terms, and we'll rerun the Five Minute University to kind of update. You guys can go back and get your master's if that works. I'm going to ask the panel one more question and then I want to make sure that you have the opportunity to get your questions in.
I'm going to start with Sarah really this time. I know that when we were putting this session together, you noted that in the history section, I should make sure that I ended on the open science open scholarship note, and I would love it if you could say a little bit about why that's so important. And then we're going to hand down the line. So you guys can get your responses ready as well. Yeah, I thought it was really important to everyone that open access is not the end.
It is the tiny first step to the open science future that is outlined in the UNESCO open science recommendation that came out in 2021. It's an essential first step. It can't be the final step. And we're spending a lot of energy and agita around just figuring how to do one this one tiny part when there is so much more that is that awaits us on that. So just remembering that this is a beginning of the process, it's not easy, but we should be.
I like when I was at last week, someone raised the framing that we really want to think about where we want to be in the next 5 to 15 years. When thinking about the moves that we're making now and remembering that the open science outcome is the one we want, not open access. I'll just say general plus 1 to everything that we just mentioned. And also, I think as we're sort of going through that process of thinking what the next five, ten, 15 years look like as a community that we remember where we are actually in community with each other.
I think this gets lost in these conversations a lot. I mean, part of what has made the work that Sarah, f and I and others get to do at all. So exciting is that we've really rolled out what we call the neural playbook, right? Which is a co-creative non adversarial way to negotiate with publishers, because we are aware that libraries survival and really ultimately the research enterprise.
Right is mutually tied up in the survival of publishers. Right that's a mutual relationship. Can I just ask Meredith, I you guys took a different approach when you negotiated the agreement. And it may not be clear to everyone the different approach, but could just say quickly how you guys did it. Yeah, I'll also just say to that, it's the model that we use for all of the different publisher negotiations that Elsevier.
So Sarah, f if you want to also chime in on this as well. Yeah so basically we read it on project management principles, which I know is not that exciting, but librarians aren't always used to working in those ways and we really emphasize the creative model. So we kind of say right out of the gate, we're not interested in replicating the issues with the various gemstones. Right which you learned about at your time in this University.
But we're interested in creating new to market models that are going to be mutually sustainable. Sarah, anything else you want to say about that, putting her on the spot? I think you're going to be back for me doing that too often. She does that to me in meetings all the time. Well, as you can see, even from our little back and forth, I think what we've built with neural is a community of 30 research institutions who talk to one another all of the time and are very committed to thinking about different ways for us to work toward better relationships with publishers, relationships that are based on mutualism that are not necessarily dictated right by our authors or our research institutions, are not just dictated by publishers, but are somewhere in the middle.
And I hope that by us just modeling that behavior by continuing to do things together. And to show up to meetings over and over and over, that that we'll get there. And over and over, I think there's one other thing that I'll say also to you, which is that, you know, we're also we got really clear in about 2020, 2021 or so that we were kind of each of our local institutions of the 30 core libraries that are in this group are at different parts in the journey with their fluency and their views on the different open access models.
And so it became really clear to us, I think right out of the gate that sort of the standard sort of goal, the APC model was not going to work because there's so much heterogeneity within those 30 different member institutions. And so I think the thing that could have really been our downfall like that heterogeneity was that was the thing that actually helped us like ideate some really interesting things and like I love that work.
It's the best part of my job is getting to work with those folks and it's a lot of fun. Arianna well, to two aspects. One is in relationship of what we see, you know, coming down the pike. And it also deals with infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure, not only within the library but at the institutional level for the support of that openness scholarship that everybody's aiming to.
We are not ready. Many institutions are not ready, and we will have to get ready very, very quickly. So infrastructure is a big issue. Also addressing another topic where you talk about trust, the rebuilding trust between publishers and librarians. We are we both have to change and we need to move together in a place where we can still work together and is part of rebuilding that trust.
That I think is going to be more difficult because many librarians do not really understand the challenges that publishers go through their daily processes. And the opposite is also true. Yes, I believe some publishers or maybe I don't know how many, but some do not really understand what are the challenges at the institutional level for librarians and the lack of support, the lack of knowledge, institutional?
No, they should try to move forward some of these ideas and processes. So I think we need to know each other a lot more and trust each other a lot more. Great, though. Sure so this is really to echo what Sarah was saying, because it's more about open science and open science and relates to the infrastructure. I remember eight years ago, nine years ago, I first moved into the role of publisher being an esp event, roundtable discussions.
They were all librarians and some other publishers were there. I walked through the room and I was called Bill come here, and the discussion was, can you take the data and house the data? And right away the question was, yes, we can answer it. Yes, we could, but it will cost, right? So with that, every librarian and whoever was there said no, but University of Indiana right at the time was creating these repositories.
So there was this big push. And the reason I'm bringing all this up is because NSF at the same time said, well, we're going to host it, we're going to house it. But I still think a lot of that infrastructure I would envision will come from the agencies to put that data there. Otherwise, it's going to be kept behind a wall and a lot of money is going to be made with it. And we don't require we actually need you to open up your data.
So we require the author to do that. So I think that's really important. And back to OCP real quick is there's supposed to be a consultancy period. So I do hope that happens. And I would say everybody keep your eyes and ears open for that. Do we have questions from our audience. And Jordan's going to run the mic.
Let's give Bob a break and Alison. Yeah so I have a 101 question. So moving beyond open access to the end goal that you've articulated or highlighted of open science. I mean, my inadequate understanding of open science is that the data is available, that it can be that the work can be built upon.
What does open science mean in the context of humanities scholarship, which is not data driven generally? I'll just take a quick stab. Not claiming to be an open science expert, but this is where I think and I'll tweet this out. The UNESCO recommendation on open science is really a nice place to start, and we should understand science is understood really, really broadly.
They're very intentionally defining it as basically anything that generates knowledge. So this is not specific to STEM by any means, but I won't. Somebody else wants to talk for a second. Let me just pull up what I wanted to and I can talk about the because yes, we are aware of, as I mentioned, of the disciplinary differences and sometimes even about concepts, what is data for a human is and.
Well, a lot of things can be considered data. Yes your corpus part of the text corpus. I'm not a humanist, so I come from a background science background. So I'm having to learn a lot right now. And it also it's about opening the here. Perhaps the open access part is going to be even more relevant because it's about opening the discourse, opening the information that is being created to a community, to a larger community instead of just the, you know, few authorities on the field on this particular topic.
It's also about opening artifacts. So if you are doing your research on particular primary documents, those documents perhaps should be also open so the community can have access and you have open ground. Yes, it's about open galleries and libraries and archives and museums, and there is a lot happening in that part as well. So I love the term open scholarship because it's less exclusionary in a sense than open science.
But it's true that the UNESCO document describes open sciences as evolving humanities and social sciences as well. They use the term, I think, because it's traditional or it started first, but it's inclusive in the document. Yeah, the definition that they use that I really like, I'm just going to go ahead and read. Open science is defined as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaboration and sharing information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge, creation, evaluation and communication beyond the traditional scientific community.
So agreeing that the word science probably could be broadened. It's really speaking to not just the objects, not the data that informs the objects, but all the networks that inform how you create the knowledge as well. I can add some of you were here yesterday for and we have a question from Sofia over here in just a second. Some of you were here yesterday for a nice plus, and we had a lunchtime speaker.
And I'm not going to put her on the spot to say something now. But if you want to find her during the break, Ana, an idea who's sitting here, could you put your hand up on us. So they can find you during the break? She talked about when she was doing her dissertation and we commiserated afterwards when I was doing my dissertation, you know, pre-digital. You just you kept your stuff in a box until you moved enough time.
And you're like, do I really need this now and then, you know, you kind of chucked it. And we were wishing that we would even have the opportunity to decide what was our data, because that wasn't really an option in those days. And you could to hear about her working with her ants, which is fascinating. Oh, let's just say to you, heather, that text and data mining has also become I mean, I'm sure you all are hearing this, too, like an increasingly important use case for textual resources, particularly from the social sciences and the humanities.
Know we have a collection of digitized archival newspaper articles right from York Times. Et cetera, Boston globe, what have you. And people aren't reading those articles. They don't want to do that. Right they want to do MDM. And so I think there's still science, right, happening in the social sciences.
OK I'd just like to offer a provocative question and picking up on Sarah. Picking up on your nestico, picking up on the early offering or the carrot that was offered in openness, open access, original discussions was the last mile, getting the science into the hands of the public, getting the hands of the policymakers. Plain language, understanding of science.
Who's going to carry that last mile? Because quite honestly, we who we support, our stakeholders, which are the researchers and adjacent researchers and we make open access, makes research available to an adjacent research community. But nobody's really carrying that last mile to getting into the hands of those who pay the taxes, the public, the policymakers, where it really needs to be.
And that's the provocative question. Who's it going to be? My suggestion to the answer is with AI and semantic, semantic extraction and other things, and we can use AI to actually start summarizing science in plain language. The AI constructs to be able to digest large amounts of information and machine written summaries is reality today.
And so I as the closure to my provocative question, I'll suggest to the publishers that we really need to start thinking about how we use technologies to fill that last mile and to fulfill the mandate of openness getting into the hands of the public. Donald, let me be provocative back at you, if I may. I think we just need to make this stuff open first, like cross that bridge. I will say that my husband's a special Ed teacher, and at least once a week he's like, is there any publisher that does special Ed peer reviewed research that I can access?
Like, he literally cannot get his hands on the stuff that he needs to do his work because he hits the paywall. And so he is plus have it was like plus has it that the main place is x publisher, I keep hitting a paywall. So the like that's so important and that's coming and that's there. And once you start talking about non native English content, I think that's critical.
But right now, like the practitioners know where to go, Google is doing it for them. They just can't read it when they get there. So my provocative turn around is like, let's make it open first and then let's and then the next piece I think is what you were saying. But please. Yeah, I mean, I think sometimes as an industry, we really love to chase the shiny, right?
And the shiny is some of these technological advances that you're talking about. But, you know, like, let's work on getting rid of the paywall. There it is. You know, so so we actually do something along the lines of what you're talking about. We have a product called side pack and we do this. But the concentration is really. Yes, it's open to the public in that way.
But I can tell you right now, my mother or father is not really reading that, and that's the concern. So it's there and the usage isn't that high because we concentrate on because we also are a little unique where we have news and we have this one page summary that we offer. And then in regards to I, one of the things I would say is, especially in some of the scientific terms, it's not there yet.
And if you're talking about going from character based language and doing translations, it's not at all there. It's really going to get confusing. But maybe in the future, if I may, I have someone that comes from South America, so it speaks three languages, all three badly. So I really value, for example, the idea of translations or allowing people from the region sometimes where the research is made to have access to that.
I put a lot of faith in future advances, in artificial intelligence, for example, to let us have easier translations and more automatic translations. So that the research can reach those populations. But I also see a lot of change in institutional research, in institutional values and mission community engaged research is becoming more and more important in the University environment, and it's actually coming more from the social sciences then, and it's percolating into the sciences right now.
So I see that changing at the level of the researchers, researchers searching for communities. So they can work together, they can do their science and give back to the community and explain to the community. So it's changing at the level of the researchers. They might be the ones doing that type of translation in the future as well. Sophie, Thank you very much. First, Thank you all professors, for your wonderful talks.
I'm honored to be a student at the open access University. I don't actually know how to ask this question, so I'm just going to read off some of the notes that I've been taking. But I would love your thoughts on what I consider from a publishing perspective. I'm a publisher at liebert, Inc. I oversee a portfolio of journals, and whenever I have conversations about open access or launching a new open access journal at my institution, we're talking about a business model.
Open access is always referred to, at least at the publisher, a business model. And what I'm so grateful to hear from the librarians at the University is that open access is actually a mission driven movement. And so I'm wondering, or you can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but this is how I see it from my perspective and also why there's probably a lot of turmoil when it comes to figuring out what exactly open access is, what it means, and where it will move towards.
And so I'd love your thoughts on how we can align those two pieces in order to really make significant change as a scholarly publishing community. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that comment. It hits on something that I myself am really struggling with as well.
Thinking about open access as a philosophy and as a goal that we want to move toward and yet only being presented with business models for me to say yes or no to. Essentially is how it's operating currently. And so I'm not sure how to bridge that. My my only suggestion at this point is that we have to stop thinking, I think about the profit aspects of publishing.
If we're thinking about it as a mission driven, let's give access to people who need it and want it in order to make the world a better place. Right we have to take out the profit aspects of the discussion, especially for working with non-profit institutions. Right in our authors are nonprofit workers. Right? and so that's where I really see the disconnect between this philosophy and mission and the business models that we're looking at.
And I know that's not entirely helpful in terms of bridging the gap, but I hope we can have a conversation about it. And I hope that we can think about these concepts like mutualism and building trust in order to have productive conversations around that. I'll also say it's also a licensing issue, too, right? So that's sort of like the other prong of the stool, right? It's a philosophical movement, I think, as you put it.
It's also a business model right on the publisher side. But it's a licensing philosophy process on the library side as well. Right because some of these sort of existent models have really poor licensing terms in terms of privacy, being able to reuse the content. These are all things that regardless of if it's an agreement or it's a standard subscription agreement, librarians are very interested in protecting privacy rights of their patrons, very interested in things being able to be reused sort of broadly.
So there's that, you know, I just mine and Sara s colleague, Lindsay cronk, who's assistant dean, associate dean over at University of Rochester, says all the time, you know, and I think she's right that this just doesn't have to be a cage match. And so I think the more that we can think about being creative together, the closer we're going to get to some of the future that Sarah was talking about.
So, Marianna. Well, one of you pointed the finger exactly at the problem. We we talk about open models and sometimes we are talking about completely different things depending we are coming from. I'm I was. I two months ago, I joined the spark as the IPO for open models.
And basically I'm not here as this park member. I'm Mia from the University of Rochester. But basically my role is to untangle what do we understand by open models. And I have a huge spreadsheet. Now and it has more than 60 different definitions of terms. And some are business related, some are revenue related, some are access related. Some apply only to journals, some apply only to articles.
And so it's really the wild West. So we need to understand that when we say open models, what exactly do you mean by those open? They are open by themselves. They relate to open things. So yes, it's messy, but we are working on it. Yeah about 1 minute I'm going to go to Bill and then I'm going to let Sarah have the last word. Yeah, so you're absolutely right.
It's just a shifting of a model for the author pays right. And the other one is author access or an institution pays. And that's such a complicated issue also, right? Because the provost's, indirect, direct costs, are they having those conversations at that level? Some of them aren't. And that's an issue. So globally, is that happening? And we're looking at China, what's going to happen there?
That's the big unknown. There's a lot of talk there. Who's going to pay for this? I'm going to steal one second back to that question, because it really sparked up something about the provocative question. This is not a publisher issue right now. I'm going to talk about a asked about five years ago brought in a guy named Rick Weiss from the Washington Post.
And he developed something called sideline. And it's about misinformation because what his role is, he has a source and he gives if the Washington post, New York Times calls him up, he has experts that he says you should talk to them. And he also works with journals on how to quote if it's a preprint, write how you source that, the difference between those. So he does a lot of work in that area.
So I'm glad you brought that up because it sparked it up. And it's I think for all of us, it's really important with misinformation to be aware of that. So Thanks. Great Sarah, real quick, I tried to distill. So when oneplus launched community action publishing in 2020, I would try to distill what do we do? Because that was we had an idea.
We went to a bunch of publishers, this was pre-covid and said, do you want to publishers? I'm sorry. We went a bunch of libraries and consortia and said, do you want to play? And we'd never been in this space. And we knew we were asking for new money. And so the thinking was, well, how are we even going to do this?
This is there's no way that there's going to be any uptake. And if I had so I'm distilled it down into five things. The first was we had a shared understanding of our destination, what we agreed we were going to get to, that it was acceptable for both of us. That was the first. From there, we had to be incredibly transparent around the financials, which we were and which we shared. We had to do a lot of education libraries.
We cannot expect libraries to understand how much submissions platforms cost, how much of journals platforms cost, how many people we support through peer review networks. Right? there was a lot of mutual education that happened. We had to have ongoing and constant feedback. I mean, I will tell you, if you want to get through, put through your paces, put do a deal with MIT libraries and have Courtney sit you down and ask you question by question by question.
And I see some of you salespeople nodding your heads because you've done that before. You walk out of that and you can answer every question that's been given to you. And then you have to have honest communication. When the ask is just impossible, you say. You are my partner and friend. We cannot do that. Here's why.
Right and we came out the other end of that with something that people wanted to participate in. We're excited to participate in cross price points that worked at with a pandemic. I don't know how we did that, but we did. We did it because we did it together. We co-created that. So those are the $5 I would say. Sounds easy.
It was a lot of work, but if you're willing to do that, I don't see a library that isn't willing to have that conversation. All right. Thanks again to our speakers. I think we're coming up on a break. I'm not sure how.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode