Cadmore media player playing video What Researchers and Librarians Want Publishers to Know about the OA Mandate Compliance Process
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:
What Researchers and Librarians Want Publishers to Know about the OA Mandate Compliance Process
Description:
What Researchers and Librarians Want Publishers to Know about the OA Mandate Compliance Process
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/b15f04f6-0b1a-4bd2-843b-5a45afbfd768/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H59M10S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/b15f04f6-0b1a-4bd2-843b-5a45afbfd768
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/b15f04f6-0b1a-4bd2-843b-5a45afbfd768/session_1c___what_researchers_and_librarians_want_publishers.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=CQe3cZnPE9XmRXw4z7U0r8S%2F24keMHRq0X46yRmSr38%3D&st=2025-04-29T19%3A46%3A53Z&se=2025-04-29T21%3A51%3A53Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-12-03T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
OK I think we're going to go ahead and get started. I'm Jocelyn Dawson. I'm the director of journals at the University of Pennsylvania Press. And you are here at what researchers and librarians let publishers to know about the compliance process. So thank you for joining us today. Our panelists are curious to know who's in the audience. So if you are a publisher, will you raise your hand.
How about librarian. Benders researchers. There we go. Great while the researchers of the time in so we have more research or perspectives as. Although as publishers, which most of us are, we're often focused on what mandates mean for us, for our systems and for our policies.
And I think most frequently we know what our very important stakeholders think about these things. So I'm really pleased today to have researchers and librarians and one researcher librarian share their thoughts about all the changes in the. So they're going to be discussing how their fields and institutions are addressing the latest challenges and opportunities around.
And I'm going to let you each introduce yourselves and share your title and all sort of your bios here and you can read more about their experience. So is. Part of counseling psychology. Down the road. Until Yes.
So Eren, I think since these are biologist. Let's see. And then Lisa. There you are. Hi, everyone. I'm Lisa Janis. I'm a professor and the coordinator for research professional development at the University of Illinois at urbana-champaign library.
All right. Well, I know we're just here a couple slides that give a little bit of an overview of the suitcase question and open access right now to give a little context for our discussion. But we'll try and leave most of our time for conversation and then for your questions. We still have seats up in the front if you want to. And if you have can scoot over the aisle.
That would be great. So the Office, the Uc Office of Science and Technology Policy, I think many of us have been waiting to hear what's going to happen with that policy. It's stalled right now in the budgeting process. So this is a little bit of a TBD for us in the United States. The boats. They are now saying that the plunder or research institutions should still be responsible for open access.
The saline Melinda Gates Foundation had a change in April where they will no longer pay for APCs. The responsibility for those will go to the grantee or their co-authors to the Gates Foundation. They are going to be encouraging their grandkids to put content on a preprint server and they are developing the infrastructure and.
Out by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. We'll say, if the content is going into an open access journal or a hybrid journal that's transitioning to fully. This is a hybrid journal that is not in the middle of a transition. They will not hold. And then we have the Wellcome Trust. So they will pay. If your content is going into an OR journal or an OR platform, they will not pay a subscription.
And I know that there are others that I've left off, but that's a brief overview of what. I also wanted to just quickly mention flavors. Please feel free to come up. We've got three seats here. So flavors are, of course, an important part of the funding question. And the funding landscape for.
I recently worked with a student at my institution to look at different waiver policies across the publishers. Most commonly, publishers are using the researchers, World Bank or research for life status to determine whether that person qualifies for a free or discounted APC. There are two major publishers who shall remain unnamed, who are going to consider waiver requests on a case by case basis.
If the author's not meeting these qualifications and they must demonstrate they have no research funding, there are other exceptions for is the society member. Are they part of an institution that has a transformative agreement. But I think just the point I want to get across is that it's messy and not clear. The waiver policies really differ. Slightly but still differ across publishers.
And I just wanted to point folks to this great article in Science editor left called the failure of APC waiver programs to provide author equity. So if you have time to check this out, I think it really does a nice job of explaining some of the issues around the levers. So with that, I will turn this over to our. And maybe say a little bit about how the.
Other initiatives have impacted your work and researchers. Lindsay and Lisa, if you've seen sort of your grants, start introducing them to that open publisher. So let's start with you. Thank you so much. And I'm going to repeat that there are actually many chairs close to us if you want to wander up. So in my own institution at the University of Illinois at urbana-champaign, we have a number of different programs that are put in place to support faculty sharing their research with the broader public.
We have an institutional mandate for many years with an institutional repository in the right. I think we are all watching to see what happens, primarily with the Nelson memo and on the federal agencies and what some of those mandates will start to look like as they kind of come into force. So I thought I would also just speak a little bit to my own research as a faculty member as well as a librarian and active research agenda and had a number of grants in the last year.
And so prior to the mandates with my most recent Institute for museum and Library Services grant, my co-pi and I made a personal commitment to ensure that our scholarship was freely available to the broader public for reading access. And then also some of the grant outputs were also themselves licensed because it was creating an educational curriculum. And so that curriculum is freely and fully available on the OSF repository sites.
But we did not write into our grant any funds. And so we have availed ourselves and we've taken a broad notion of public access. So we have put up manuscripts as preprints, and that's sort of a public access version. And then we have published those articles in the journals that we feel are most appropriate, not from an impact factor perspective, but from the perspective of the audience we're trying to reach with each of these pieces.
So we have some scholarly outputs from that grant that are aimed at academic librarians. So we want those in the journals that are read by practitioners, things like college and Research Libraries and the Journal of academic librarianship. We also have some outputs that were aimed at educators, and so we sought to present and publish those through the alliance and the assist conferences and the related things there.
So we're trying to think about how to make things publicly available, but at the same time needing to also think about who is the intended primary audience and where do they get this information, which is probably not the preprint server is probably when it shows up in the regular workflows of the conferences that go into the lake. And as I said, we also had this unique thing that we have these educational curricular teacher guides, videos, et cetera.
And those we have all licensed for reuse for manuscripts that are not necessarily put the same kind of licensing on that. We have chosen the cc-by AMC license because we feel that these should be freely available for use, but that if you are going to make capital out of it, then we want to have a conversation because it was invested in for the broader good. So this is the decisions we've made that are both about being open, but also about thinking about reuse and the like.
All of us could probably be contended and argues with. But I think the most important thing I could say is that Kyle and I had a conversation before we got the grant about how we were going to do this and how we were going to execute a strategy on it, but then informed how we wrote the grant budget. I'm not sure that's something most researchers, in fact, I'm pretty confident it's not so.
After I. Just Yeah.
Just for the next session. Whoever wants to dive in first. That's what we heard from all of you. So does your library or institution offer support for publishing. I know it's a little already. So what are the processes like and what departments does that support look.
Don't Thank you. Not the.
So So I think it's important that I say that I don't do this actual work of my institution. I'm not part of the collection unit. I don't set our policies. I'm not an open access librarian or scholarly communications librarian. So the context for me doing here is that I study this industry. And as many of that I write for the scholarly kitchen and do analysis there.
So the thing I add to this is maybe a bigger picture on how libraries are engaging with more generally as opposed to my own institution. Because while I think it's absolutely the case that many librarians were somewhat agreeing with some of those statements that were made at and transformative agreements at the same time, I would note that we are signing them in greater and greater number.
And so I think it's interesting for us to think about, what is a transformative agreement supposed to transform. And so if you think that it's supposed to transform the industry, we made a whole lot of them. The law journals will slip because we're not going to switch your journal for 2470 articles. It has to get to a scale. But if you think that's what a transformation the transformers agreement does is transform the library's budget from supporting reading to supporting publishing.
So that is what's happening. But most recently in a not the most recent brief from Clark Esposito, but a one before that there was a discussion about really what transformative transform is, your own publishing output as an institution. And it is absolutely the case that they are highly effective in that we can see European countries where those country level outputs for certain publishers is over 95% is now being published version of record open access.
So there's a lot of angst around transformative romance, but there's no doubt that they are a huge driver of things being published open. And they also address some of what Lindsay was talking about, which is she has to put in her budget, but I'm going to have to say $10,000 towards APC was and I have a 20 $200,000 grant, which in education is probably a big one, like the chemists and the physicists in the room will be like 200,000.
But that's not for social sciences. So that's 5% of our budget. Well, if the library was transformative, agreements will cover that. That's $10,000 she can use to do other research activities. So there's also this sort of institutional looks, I think, across things of what is the best way. And even if Lindsay gets that money, is there some way eventually that we can aggregate that money so that we spend it collectively and are able to get discounts?
So maybe her $10,000 actually canceled was $12,000 of value. So there's a lot that's still churning here. But in Europe, we've seen these national policies and national funders and the rest will have a national mandate, a federal mandate. So we have higher Ed organized at the state level. And so there's a real mismatch, an inability to really align, which is why libraries end up having much more sort of differential policies in the US than Europe.
And that's an important distinction and it might even come out. I'm curious, Lindsay, if yours I don't know how much you interact with scholars in Europe, but if you feel that there's a different conversation happening globally depending where people are doing their research and you may not have these colleagues, I don't want to put you on the spot, but. The one is that.
It's so refreshing that you don't know. But before the grand scheme, so. Grand there was a little bit it's enough to do with you budget.
So it's a property. Despite being a self-professed. It's so it's.
Let's see if I can do the same for those of us who've never been on a grant. So what are some trade offs that you might have to make if you do have a large agency that has to come out of that.
So I feel like we addressed a lot of this question already, but I just wanted to give folks a chance. If there was anything else you wanted to say about whether there is a library obligation to help researchers publish open. And if you have thoughts about where the libraries could be strategically. Thank you.
And You don't have to.
The So I'm going to try and bring this back to Jocelyn's question about the ethical obligation to institutions and libraries.
But I'm going to start with institutions that are under mandates. Then what is the institution's responsibility to its faculty. So, I mean, it's interesting that you mentioned the indirect cost rate. And what you can as a researcher say I wish I had that money. But on the other hand, you do like the electricity is running. So what is the indirect cost that the government is paying in those cases.
And particularly interested in this actually helping one of the consulting firms that helps figure out how much is the library's resources supports sponsored research as part of the institutional process of negotiating that indirect cost rates. You mentioned your 52% on research. There's different indirect cost rates for different things. Our institutions actually much lower than that.
But it still comes and what is that supposed to do for historically, it's supposed to pay for buildings as part of what it pays for and the facilities and then some sort of other resources. So the libraries is part of what the institution says will support research. Now, different question than whether the institution directs any of that money back to the library. But it's an interesting question, I think.
And what's particularly interesting, as I'm sure that you in some ways just invoke the University of California shared payer model for open access. I'm quite confident unless you. Yeah so this notion that there should be this sort of sharing between the institution and the grant. So I'm going to say that it gets tricky because so obviously, first of all, the mandate is on the grant getter.
And as much as we talk about the principal investigator, as the person who has the grant, the grant is actually to the institution. So if I leave my institution, my institution is still on the hook for that grant. Now, usually institutions negotiate with the next institution and the grant moves with the eye. If you change jobs. But it doesn't have to.
It's less your institution, the institution. We might negotiate and say, look, I'm leaving this project. I need a new pi at this institution. So it's the institution that's under the mandate for public access under the Nelson memo. Now, institutions are under a lot of mandates when they get grants. You have to pay a fair living. You have to pay fair wages.
A researcher can't be like really like, the minimum wage in my state. I'll just pay less, right. No, the institution has to say no, you may not budget that way. So the institution actually has an open access mandate. Now, there's a lot of grants, though. The institution involves a lot of that OK, figure it out. And so I think what's coming for librarians, said Nelson memo. And what's coming at us soon is a whole bunch of researchers that are going to have a mandate that they've not experienced before and that honestly, they are going to be thrown into something that is actually fairly well developed in the industry, in libraries, but they have no knowledge of it.
And so they're just going to be faced with a rock face of how do I manage this. So it is the compliance, the compliance pieces in the Office of Research. But where's the support piece, I think is the question. And I think this goes to what Erin was just saying in cetera, which is that the librarians might be subsidize itself as supporting the institutions compliance efforts by working with PIs and by contracting with publishers for certain pathways.
Et cetera. To help PIs manage that so that they are can report compliance to our grants offices so that the grants offices can also then report compliance to the funding agencies. So what the library, I think the institution has an obligation to its faculty, although I would point out that institutions in theory have obligations to their faculty to support their travel and dissemination.
And if they don't have grants and I'm sure Lynn's going to have quite a bit of our own money disseminating our research over the time. But when it comes to a grant, there's a legal obligation there that if libraries thought about themselves as serving the institution's needs here, it was probably was more like support and working with the Ise. But it might mean that many institutions that we are seeing to our grants office look, if we pay list rack rates on APCs, we're going to pay $3,000 for APC.
But if we strike an agreement with the publishers, we can at least drive down the cost for articles equivalent to 2,600. If we can save $400 off the rack rate of an APC because of our bulk buying, which is something libraries are really good at and have been for a long time, then I can see how our institution would find value in the library doing by being able to decrease the costs while maintaining the value.
But we are still going to get into this to the side where people publish. And that's an extra difficult question here. One question that I want to make sure that we have time to address is whether if you could advise the publishers in this room to make publishing easier for all involved. Do you have any pieces of advice you'd like to share.
Passing away. That's another panelist.
And OK. He OK.
? I think. In diversity. I think we have. It's So that sense of.
Generate revenue. And of any kind of process. And particularly in the context of the Navy position, open positions open in a way that meets one's mandates that I think one of the things that is difficulty is where certain things are currently in the workflows often means that researchers inadvertently make decisions as they're submitting a manuscript, et cetera.
And at the time it becomes obvious that there's going to be an issue or a problem with compliance or all the way down the process. And I don't have a really good way of saying, well, here's exactly how we should re-engineer this. And there's a lot of complexity in this, et cetera. But I do think it is possible to imagine a world also in which some of the compliance, which actually ultimately ends up involving a publisher, involves some better workflows between institutions, those manuscript submission process.
And it's going to be really complicated because there's only authors with only single author things. Then there was only one institution involved. But we just see this and it's causing a lot of manual work for publishers. I to where it's like it really matters who's the corresponding author, because currently all the funding is, in most cases with very few exceptions, is all triggered by the corresponding author.
But the mandates aren't only on the corresponding author. You might have mandates from Europe and the US operating on one particular mandate manuscript. So somehow or another I think and I think it's going to be it's always metadata all the way down, a lot better control of the metadata on an article manuscript, who's the funder, which institutions are at play. Who are the funders?
Which institutions are at play. What is the mandate regime for that particular grant. Because these regimes can even change over time. The evidence talks about open data mandates, which will come next, right. And somehow or another, we need technology to work better for us on that then controlled metadata. So it was mentioned before that I will mention orchid and currently the chair of the board, knowing that the persistent identifier for people is just one part of this, we need far better uptake on the persistent identifier for research organizations.
So for those of you not familiar with that, please go talk to them. And these involve projects across DataCite and California Digital Library. All of these metadata pieces and this controlled persistent identifiers needs to be way upstream in the manuscript submission process. I'm really talking to the publishers here. I know because we need to have it so authors don't have to think about this stuff.
Like having the millions of authors in the world needs to know that they have to declare x, y, or z things. I mean, I'm a scholar. I'm a researcher like we do our best, but in the mode, we're focused on our research and getting it published, not on my God, I need a persistent identifier. What's that. Like, these things are slow to be automated and happen, but it has to happen a lot more upstream in the process.
And I will say I just one of the weakest technologies in our industry right now as far as publishing is the manuscript management systems. Just got snaps from the researcher on the panel, so this is not a good experience. And so whoever's building the next manuscript submission system needs to have much better metadata is et cetera all upstream in the.
And the same for Mike, so we can have some questions from the audience. Yeah see, I have a few more questions that I'd love to ask our panelists, but I want to make sure that you all have time to ask your questions. So if you have a question, I'd like to ask you to introduce yourself and name your institution before you ask your question.
My name is Ron Matthews. I'm not a publisher. I'm writing a brochure. University of Oklahoma faculty excellence. And I want to come back to your point that Lindsay made, because our agency rate is the same, 52% of course. Exceptions but it's interesting.
I never thought about the extent to which. Institutions are re-evaluating the allocation of that and coordinating that with libraries. Things like better funding for subvention funds. But now no one knows any see what's happening in terms of empowering institutions to revisit their agency was not just frozen but thinking about this kind of.
So the process of getting your indirect cost rate set for your institution is far more complicated than I had realized until I started working with partners on this library cost comment. So there's a lot of Federal Regulations about how you make your proposal to the federal government of what your indirect cost rate should be.
But it is a negotiation in most cases where the federal government, then the agency that you're negotiating with that is your lead agency for setting the indirect cost rates and sort of disagreeing with et cetera. So even if the institution costs out, say, a 60% indirect cost rate, that does not mean that the agency. They're negotiating with will be like, OK, it's 60% And so it is a negotiation with the agency.
So I don't think it's so and it's on a set cycle. So part of the process that I'm working with the team partners, there's library side of setting your indirect cost rate. There's a fee based model and then there's a library cost model. And so what we're looking at in that process is what we used to cost out as research supports. Is that the way we should understand the research support libraries provide.
And are there other ways within the federal government's costing rules to demonstrate greater support for research in that way. So I'm just I am not the lead on this. I am one of their outside subject matter experts for this to look at this question. But it's still not like. And then here's the part that the library will get right. It's still going to that institutional overall.
So it was a very, very complex process of negotiating that indirect cost rate. And did you have anything that you want to add. The question from the audience. I'm on Amazon. I'm a scholarly communications person. In response, I often get questions about whether or not the library has rooms for researchers to publish open access.
And I'm using both of those. But also, I feel our responsibility. I run the institutional repository, so in that way I can help them get their publications out there and be available. Maybe not the final published version, but I feel like that's more of my responsibility to help them. What are some other things like in a similar vein that you think that we could take on that could help alleviate some of the difficulties for the researchers.
I'll just. One the disagreements, but.
And these. So And also in common with other libraries.
Not enough. I think that's all we have time for. I'm sorry. I want to make sure everyone gets a seat at lunch.
Please feel free to bring your question to the panelists after. Thank you so much for being here. And let's give our panelists a big round of applause.
Segment:0 .
OK I think we're going to go ahead and get started. I'm Jocelyn Dawson. I'm the director of journals at the University of Pennsylvania Press. And you are here at what researchers and librarians let publishers to know about the compliance process. So thank you for joining us today. Our panelists are curious to know who's in the audience. So if you are a publisher, will you raise your hand.
How about librarian. Benders researchers. There we go. Great while the researchers of the time in so we have more research or perspectives as. Although as publishers, which most of us are, we're often focused on what mandates mean for us, for our systems and for our policies.
And I think most frequently we know what our very important stakeholders think about these things. So I'm really pleased today to have researchers and librarians and one researcher librarian share their thoughts about all the changes in the. So they're going to be discussing how their fields and institutions are addressing the latest challenges and opportunities around.
And I'm going to let you each introduce yourselves and share your title and all sort of your bios here and you can read more about their experience. So is. Part of counseling psychology. Down the road. Until Yes.
So Eren, I think since these are biologist. Let's see. And then Lisa. There you are. Hi, everyone. I'm Lisa Janis. I'm a professor and the coordinator for research professional development at the University of Illinois at urbana-champaign library.
All right. Well, I know we're just here a couple slides that give a little bit of an overview of the suitcase question and open access right now to give a little context for our discussion. But we'll try and leave most of our time for conversation and then for your questions. We still have seats up in the front if you want to. And if you have can scoot over the aisle.
That would be great. So the Office, the Uc Office of Science and Technology Policy, I think many of us have been waiting to hear what's going to happen with that policy. It's stalled right now in the budgeting process. So this is a little bit of a TBD for us in the United States. The boats. They are now saying that the plunder or research institutions should still be responsible for open access.
The saline Melinda Gates Foundation had a change in April where they will no longer pay for APCs. The responsibility for those will go to the grantee or their co-authors to the Gates Foundation. They are going to be encouraging their grandkids to put content on a preprint server and they are developing the infrastructure and.
Out by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. We'll say, if the content is going into an open access journal or a hybrid journal that's transitioning to fully. This is a hybrid journal that is not in the middle of a transition. They will not hold. And then we have the Wellcome Trust. So they will pay. If your content is going into an OR journal or an OR platform, they will not pay a subscription.
And I know that there are others that I've left off, but that's a brief overview of what. I also wanted to just quickly mention flavors. Please feel free to come up. We've got three seats here. So flavors are, of course, an important part of the funding question. And the funding landscape for.
I recently worked with a student at my institution to look at different waiver policies across the publishers. Most commonly, publishers are using the researchers, World Bank or research for life status to determine whether that person qualifies for a free or discounted APC. There are two major publishers who shall remain unnamed, who are going to consider waiver requests on a case by case basis.
If the author's not meeting these qualifications and they must demonstrate they have no research funding, there are other exceptions for is the society member. Are they part of an institution that has a transformative agreement. But I think just the point I want to get across is that it's messy and not clear. The waiver policies really differ. Slightly but still differ across publishers.
And I just wanted to point folks to this great article in Science editor left called the failure of APC waiver programs to provide author equity. So if you have time to check this out, I think it really does a nice job of explaining some of the issues around the levers. So with that, I will turn this over to our. And maybe say a little bit about how the.
Other initiatives have impacted your work and researchers. Lindsay and Lisa, if you've seen sort of your grants, start introducing them to that open publisher. So let's start with you. Thank you so much. And I'm going to repeat that there are actually many chairs close to us if you want to wander up. So in my own institution at the University of Illinois at urbana-champaign, we have a number of different programs that are put in place to support faculty sharing their research with the broader public.
We have an institutional mandate for many years with an institutional repository in the right. I think we are all watching to see what happens, primarily with the Nelson memo and on the federal agencies and what some of those mandates will start to look like as they kind of come into force. So I thought I would also just speak a little bit to my own research as a faculty member as well as a librarian and active research agenda and had a number of grants in the last year.
And so prior to the mandates with my most recent Institute for museum and Library Services grant, my co-pi and I made a personal commitment to ensure that our scholarship was freely available to the broader public for reading access. And then also some of the grant outputs were also themselves licensed because it was creating an educational curriculum. And so that curriculum is freely and fully available on the OSF repository sites.
But we did not write into our grant any funds. And so we have availed ourselves and we've taken a broad notion of public access. So we have put up manuscripts as preprints, and that's sort of a public access version. And then we have published those articles in the journals that we feel are most appropriate, not from an impact factor perspective, but from the perspective of the audience we're trying to reach with each of these pieces.
So we have some scholarly outputs from that grant that are aimed at academic librarians. So we want those in the journals that are read by practitioners, things like college and Research Libraries and the Journal of academic librarianship. We also have some outputs that were aimed at educators, and so we sought to present and publish those through the alliance and the assist conferences and the related things there.
So we're trying to think about how to make things publicly available, but at the same time needing to also think about who is the intended primary audience and where do they get this information, which is probably not the preprint server is probably when it shows up in the regular workflows of the conferences that go into the lake. And as I said, we also had this unique thing that we have these educational curricular teacher guides, videos, et cetera.
And those we have all licensed for reuse for manuscripts that are not necessarily put the same kind of licensing on that. We have chosen the cc-by AMC license because we feel that these should be freely available for use, but that if you are going to make capital out of it, then we want to have a conversation because it was invested in for the broader good. So this is the decisions we've made that are both about being open, but also about thinking about reuse and the like.
All of us could probably be contended and argues with. But I think the most important thing I could say is that Kyle and I had a conversation before we got the grant about how we were going to do this and how we were going to execute a strategy on it, but then informed how we wrote the grant budget. I'm not sure that's something most researchers, in fact, I'm pretty confident it's not so.
After I. Just Yeah.
Just for the next session. Whoever wants to dive in first. That's what we heard from all of you. So does your library or institution offer support for publishing. I know it's a little already. So what are the processes like and what departments does that support look.
Don't Thank you. Not the.
So So I think it's important that I say that I don't do this actual work of my institution. I'm not part of the collection unit. I don't set our policies. I'm not an open access librarian or scholarly communications librarian. So the context for me doing here is that I study this industry. And as many of that I write for the scholarly kitchen and do analysis there.
So the thing I add to this is maybe a bigger picture on how libraries are engaging with more generally as opposed to my own institution. Because while I think it's absolutely the case that many librarians were somewhat agreeing with some of those statements that were made at and transformative agreements at the same time, I would note that we are signing them in greater and greater number.
And so I think it's interesting for us to think about, what is a transformative agreement supposed to transform. And so if you think that it's supposed to transform the industry, we made a whole lot of them. The law journals will slip because we're not going to switch your journal for 2470 articles. It has to get to a scale. But if you think that's what a transformation the transformers agreement does is transform the library's budget from supporting reading to supporting publishing.
So that is what's happening. But most recently in a not the most recent brief from Clark Esposito, but a one before that there was a discussion about really what transformative transform is, your own publishing output as an institution. And it is absolutely the case that they are highly effective in that we can see European countries where those country level outputs for certain publishers is over 95% is now being published version of record open access.
So there's a lot of angst around transformative romance, but there's no doubt that they are a huge driver of things being published open. And they also address some of what Lindsay was talking about, which is she has to put in her budget, but I'm going to have to say $10,000 towards APC was and I have a 20 $200,000 grant, which in education is probably a big one, like the chemists and the physicists in the room will be like 200,000.
But that's not for social sciences. So that's 5% of our budget. Well, if the library was transformative, agreements will cover that. That's $10,000 she can use to do other research activities. So there's also this sort of institutional looks, I think, across things of what is the best way. And even if Lindsay gets that money, is there some way eventually that we can aggregate that money so that we spend it collectively and are able to get discounts?
So maybe her $10,000 actually canceled was $12,000 of value. So there's a lot that's still churning here. But in Europe, we've seen these national policies and national funders and the rest will have a national mandate, a federal mandate. So we have higher Ed organized at the state level. And so there's a real mismatch, an inability to really align, which is why libraries end up having much more sort of differential policies in the US than Europe.
And that's an important distinction and it might even come out. I'm curious, Lindsay, if yours I don't know how much you interact with scholars in Europe, but if you feel that there's a different conversation happening globally depending where people are doing their research and you may not have these colleagues, I don't want to put you on the spot, but. The one is that.
It's so refreshing that you don't know. But before the grand scheme, so. Grand there was a little bit it's enough to do with you budget.
So it's a property. Despite being a self-professed. It's so it's.
Let's see if I can do the same for those of us who've never been on a grant. So what are some trade offs that you might have to make if you do have a large agency that has to come out of that.
So I feel like we addressed a lot of this question already, but I just wanted to give folks a chance. If there was anything else you wanted to say about whether there is a library obligation to help researchers publish open. And if you have thoughts about where the libraries could be strategically. Thank you.
And You don't have to.
The So I'm going to try and bring this back to Jocelyn's question about the ethical obligation to institutions and libraries.
But I'm going to start with institutions that are under mandates. Then what is the institution's responsibility to its faculty. So, I mean, it's interesting that you mentioned the indirect cost rate. And what you can as a researcher say I wish I had that money. But on the other hand, you do like the electricity is running. So what is the indirect cost that the government is paying in those cases.
And particularly interested in this actually helping one of the consulting firms that helps figure out how much is the library's resources supports sponsored research as part of the institutional process of negotiating that indirect cost rates. You mentioned your 52% on research. There's different indirect cost rates for different things. Our institutions actually much lower than that.
But it still comes and what is that supposed to do for historically, it's supposed to pay for buildings as part of what it pays for and the facilities and then some sort of other resources. So the libraries is part of what the institution says will support research. Now, different question than whether the institution directs any of that money back to the library. But it's an interesting question, I think.
And what's particularly interesting, as I'm sure that you in some ways just invoke the University of California shared payer model for open access. I'm quite confident unless you. Yeah so this notion that there should be this sort of sharing between the institution and the grant. So I'm going to say that it gets tricky because so obviously, first of all, the mandate is on the grant getter.
And as much as we talk about the principal investigator, as the person who has the grant, the grant is actually to the institution. So if I leave my institution, my institution is still on the hook for that grant. Now, usually institutions negotiate with the next institution and the grant moves with the eye. If you change jobs. But it doesn't have to.
It's less your institution, the institution. We might negotiate and say, look, I'm leaving this project. I need a new pi at this institution. So it's the institution that's under the mandate for public access under the Nelson memo. Now, institutions are under a lot of mandates when they get grants. You have to pay a fair living. You have to pay fair wages.
A researcher can't be like really like, the minimum wage in my state. I'll just pay less, right. No, the institution has to say no, you may not budget that way. So the institution actually has an open access mandate. Now, there's a lot of grants, though. The institution involves a lot of that OK, figure it out. And so I think what's coming for librarians, said Nelson memo. And what's coming at us soon is a whole bunch of researchers that are going to have a mandate that they've not experienced before and that honestly, they are going to be thrown into something that is actually fairly well developed in the industry, in libraries, but they have no knowledge of it.
And so they're just going to be faced with a rock face of how do I manage this. So it is the compliance, the compliance pieces in the Office of Research. But where's the support piece, I think is the question. And I think this goes to what Erin was just saying in cetera, which is that the librarians might be subsidize itself as supporting the institutions compliance efforts by working with PIs and by contracting with publishers for certain pathways.
Et cetera. To help PIs manage that so that they are can report compliance to our grants offices so that the grants offices can also then report compliance to the funding agencies. So what the library, I think the institution has an obligation to its faculty, although I would point out that institutions in theory have obligations to their faculty to support their travel and dissemination.
And if they don't have grants and I'm sure Lynn's going to have quite a bit of our own money disseminating our research over the time. But when it comes to a grant, there's a legal obligation there that if libraries thought about themselves as serving the institution's needs here, it was probably was more like support and working with the Ise. But it might mean that many institutions that we are seeing to our grants office look, if we pay list rack rates on APCs, we're going to pay $3,000 for APC.
But if we strike an agreement with the publishers, we can at least drive down the cost for articles equivalent to 2,600. If we can save $400 off the rack rate of an APC because of our bulk buying, which is something libraries are really good at and have been for a long time, then I can see how our institution would find value in the library doing by being able to decrease the costs while maintaining the value.
But we are still going to get into this to the side where people publish. And that's an extra difficult question here. One question that I want to make sure that we have time to address is whether if you could advise the publishers in this room to make publishing easier for all involved. Do you have any pieces of advice you'd like to share.
Passing away. That's another panelist.
And OK. He OK.
? I think. In diversity. I think we have. It's So that sense of.
Generate revenue. And of any kind of process. And particularly in the context of the Navy position, open positions open in a way that meets one's mandates that I think one of the things that is difficulty is where certain things are currently in the workflows often means that researchers inadvertently make decisions as they're submitting a manuscript, et cetera.
And at the time it becomes obvious that there's going to be an issue or a problem with compliance or all the way down the process. And I don't have a really good way of saying, well, here's exactly how we should re-engineer this. And there's a lot of complexity in this, et cetera. But I do think it is possible to imagine a world also in which some of the compliance, which actually ultimately ends up involving a publisher, involves some better workflows between institutions, those manuscript submission process.
And it's going to be really complicated because there's only authors with only single author things. Then there was only one institution involved. But we just see this and it's causing a lot of manual work for publishers. I to where it's like it really matters who's the corresponding author, because currently all the funding is, in most cases with very few exceptions, is all triggered by the corresponding author.
But the mandates aren't only on the corresponding author. You might have mandates from Europe and the US operating on one particular mandate manuscript. So somehow or another I think and I think it's going to be it's always metadata all the way down, a lot better control of the metadata on an article manuscript, who's the funder, which institutions are at play. Who are the funders?
Which institutions are at play. What is the mandate regime for that particular grant. Because these regimes can even change over time. The evidence talks about open data mandates, which will come next, right. And somehow or another, we need technology to work better for us on that then controlled metadata. So it was mentioned before that I will mention orchid and currently the chair of the board, knowing that the persistent identifier for people is just one part of this, we need far better uptake on the persistent identifier for research organizations.
So for those of you not familiar with that, please go talk to them. And these involve projects across DataCite and California Digital Library. All of these metadata pieces and this controlled persistent identifiers needs to be way upstream in the manuscript submission process. I'm really talking to the publishers here. I know because we need to have it so authors don't have to think about this stuff.
Like having the millions of authors in the world needs to know that they have to declare x, y, or z things. I mean, I'm a scholar. I'm a researcher like we do our best, but in the mode, we're focused on our research and getting it published, not on my God, I need a persistent identifier. What's that. Like, these things are slow to be automated and happen, but it has to happen a lot more upstream in the process.
And I will say I just one of the weakest technologies in our industry right now as far as publishing is the manuscript management systems. Just got snaps from the researcher on the panel, so this is not a good experience. And so whoever's building the next manuscript submission system needs to have much better metadata is et cetera all upstream in the.
And the same for Mike, so we can have some questions from the audience. Yeah see, I have a few more questions that I'd love to ask our panelists, but I want to make sure that you all have time to ask your questions. So if you have a question, I'd like to ask you to introduce yourself and name your institution before you ask your question.
My name is Ron Matthews. I'm not a publisher. I'm writing a brochure. University of Oklahoma faculty excellence. And I want to come back to your point that Lindsay made, because our agency rate is the same, 52% of course. Exceptions but it's interesting.
I never thought about the extent to which. Institutions are re-evaluating the allocation of that and coordinating that with libraries. Things like better funding for subvention funds. But now no one knows any see what's happening in terms of empowering institutions to revisit their agency was not just frozen but thinking about this kind of.
So the process of getting your indirect cost rate set for your institution is far more complicated than I had realized until I started working with partners on this library cost comment. So there's a lot of Federal Regulations about how you make your proposal to the federal government of what your indirect cost rate should be.
But it is a negotiation in most cases where the federal government, then the agency that you're negotiating with that is your lead agency for setting the indirect cost rates and sort of disagreeing with et cetera. So even if the institution costs out, say, a 60% indirect cost rate, that does not mean that the agency. They're negotiating with will be like, OK, it's 60% And so it is a negotiation with the agency.
So I don't think it's so and it's on a set cycle. So part of the process that I'm working with the team partners, there's library side of setting your indirect cost rate. There's a fee based model and then there's a library cost model. And so what we're looking at in that process is what we used to cost out as research supports. Is that the way we should understand the research support libraries provide.
And are there other ways within the federal government's costing rules to demonstrate greater support for research in that way. So I'm just I am not the lead on this. I am one of their outside subject matter experts for this to look at this question. But it's still not like. And then here's the part that the library will get right. It's still going to that institutional overall.
So it was a very, very complex process of negotiating that indirect cost rate. And did you have anything that you want to add. The question from the audience. I'm on Amazon. I'm a scholarly communications person. In response, I often get questions about whether or not the library has rooms for researchers to publish open access.
And I'm using both of those. But also, I feel our responsibility. I run the institutional repository, so in that way I can help them get their publications out there and be available. Maybe not the final published version, but I feel like that's more of my responsibility to help them. What are some other things like in a similar vein that you think that we could take on that could help alleviate some of the difficulties for the researchers.
I'll just. One the disagreements, but.
And these. So And also in common with other libraries.
Not enough. I think that's all we have time for. I'm sorry. I want to make sure everyone gets a seat at lunch.
Please feel free to bring your question to the panelists after. Thank you so much for being here. And let's give our panelists a big round of applause.
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