Cadmore media player playing video Where to Start? Talking with Authors About 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:
Where to Start? Talking with Authors About Open Access
Description:
Where to Start? Talking with Authors About Open Access
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/c90b0928-5e18-4aa5-ada6-75eb41075f2f/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T01H03M37S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/c90b0928-5e18-4aa5-ada6-75eb41075f2f
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/c90b0928-5e18-4aa5-ada6-75eb41075f2f/SSP2025 5-30 1100 - Session 4A.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=H4ua8nWy9itKpD4LdToKq%2B%2BIxwtDY7D6IClKv8sgw9c%3D&st=2025-12-05T19%3A21%3A04Z&se=2025-12-05T21%3A26%3A04Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2025-08-15T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Amen good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. Is the sound OK too loud or good. OK thank you for joining our session today. Where to start talking with authors about open access. We're really delighted to see all of you here. Just a reminder of the SSP code of conduct. If you need a refresher, there's the QR code. But I feel like you've made it this far.
So just a little while longer and you can misbehave as much as you like elsewhere. But we're thank you again for joining us. This is our core values. Just a reminder of that for SSP community adaptability integrity and inclusivity. So I'm very excited to introduce our panelists today. So I'm going to start off by doing that just to let you all know who is here Philip Arnold, Professor in the Department of religion at Syracuse University.
Danielle foster Lucier professor of music at the Ohio State University. Annie Johnson, associate University librarian for publishing at the University of Delaware. Aaron Smith, assistant professor of music theory at Oberlin College and conservatory. And my name is Sarah McKee. I'm with the American Council of learned societies, where I run an initiative called amplifying humanistic scholarship for those who may not be familiar.
Acls is a consortium of 81 scholarly societies in the humanities and social sciences. So here's our session overview for today. And as you see, we have assembled a panel of authors which is a little bit unusual as we've been talking about this morning. But you may remember, if you were at the opening plenary yesterday morning, someone from the audience actually noted the absence of researchers on the panel, which then prompted a brief conversation about the importance of including authors in discussions about the direction of scholarly publishing.
And it's true that conferences like this one tend to focus on professionals in the scholarly communications landscape and don't always create space for the authors, despite their actually being key stakeholders in this shared endeavor as actually the writers of the content that we're all working with. So we hope that this session is one step toward expanding the circle to include more scholars and researchers.
And I'm truly grateful to our panelists for taking the time to join us and to share their experiences and recommendations with us. So in this session, we'll hear from Danielle, Phil, and Aaron, three humanities authors with experience in open publishing and open access publishing across different models in the humanities, specifically 1 through the tone program for open access monographs, 1 through the path to open book pilot and 1 through the open access journal of a scholarly society.
Also joining the conversation is Annie, a librarian with extensive expertise in open access who will share experiences and offer suggestions for successful engagement with authors across disciplines. And finally, we really hope to foster a dialogue today with all of you about your own conversations and experiences with authors who are navigating the options for open access publishing.
So why are your authors choosing to publish oa? What questions or concerns are arising for them. And have you observed changes in authors perspectives or knowledge of OA over the last several years. So while you're thinking about those stories from your own experiences, I'll tell you a little about each of the open access models represented here. And then we'll turn over to our panelists. So the tome initiative was a pilot open access subvention model for monographs that ran from 2017 to 2022.
22 it was a collaboration of the Association of University Presses, the Association of Research libraries and the Association of American Universities, and included around 20 AAU members that provided open access subventions for books written by their own faculty, and they paid those subventions directly to University presses. So more than 150 books, including Daniels, were published as open access over the course of the pilot, and although the program itself has ended, some of those institutions continue to provide tome like subventions to their faculty.
The path to open initiative, hosted by JSTOR, aims to open 1,000 books over the course of a multi-year pilot. The first 100 books were selected in 2023, and since that time, 600 more books have been added to the collection, which is available exclusively through JSTOR to participating libraries. Each title flips to open three years after its copyright date, so those first 100 titles, which includes Phil's book, will begin flipping just months from now in 2026.
Acls manages a community advisory committee of librarian, publisher and scholar representatives, including Danielle, who's kind of pulling double duty for us here today. And to date, we have about 50 University presses and more than 240 libraries around the world participating in the program. Music theory online, founded in 1993, is one of the earliest fully open access journals, and I'm fairly certain that it's the first open access journal published by an ACLS member society.
It's supported entirely by the Society for music theory without article processing charges, and publishes research and scholarship in music theory, music analysis and related disciplines, including an article from Erin in June 2024. So here we have three distinct models that brought these three authors into open access publishing for the first time. So I'll turn it over now to Danielle to share her experiences with us.
Thank you so much, Sarah. Hi, everybody. Oops That's the wrong way. Let me go forward. There we go. OK my book, music on the move, was published in 2020 by the University of Michigan Press. As Sarah said, funded by the tome initiative through the Ohio State University libraries and Ohio State, is one of the institutions that has continued to provide these subventions after the end of tome.
That is justified to the legislature as a way to reduce the cost of college for all Ohioans. And it's working. So my book music on the move is sort of an odd duck. It grew out of an undergraduate general education course on music, migration and mediation. But I started writing readings for the students that integrated the scholarly literature. And so it's sort of morphed into a quasi research project for me.
That work was also fueled by another grant from the libraries that was aimed at reducing the cost, of course, materials. This writing generally over the course of years as I taught this course, started to look like a book. So Mary Francis, who was then at Michigan, asked me to think about publishing it because the first audience was students. This book retains some features.
It's not a textbook, but it's a course book or a usable in courses book. It's a teachable book as well as integrating research. So it's hovering on the edge of almost not a monograph. But it does. It's meant to be accessible not only through open access, but breaking down the jargon that is usually around both music studies and globalization studies.
The thing that moved me towards open access at first was the possibility of digital publication. Michigan was wonderful in allowing us to build maps that move. So this is a map of the Romani migration into Europe. Oh, sorry, that didn't work. OK, we're going to try this again. Showing change over time. There's a slider that the reader can manipulate.
And the book does contain multimedia objects. Audio, video and some videos that are me pointing to things in the audio to say to people, listen here. Listen to this. Building those cool digital features and getting the copyright permissions taken care of took me about an extra year, so I think that would have been a challenge had I been on a tenure clock.
This was a post a post promotion project for me and so I could afford it. And it was really, really worth it. I will also add that not all universities welcome open publication or digital publication for promotion purposes, and so that is a possible hazard for authors along the way. Again, it wasn't a concern for me. I could have gotten promoted on this book at Ohio State.
Now after having been through this process. This was 2020. For me, the reach of this book has been the big win of open access, more than the digital transformation of my work. My prior paper books circulated, sold in the low 100s. Or one of them got to 1,000. They were getting used through libraries. They were important in the field.
The royalties I got back was about a cart of groceries per year. So that's what I gave up. What I got was this global reach, and that has been extraordinary. It doesn't hurt to drop a book in June of 20, which is when the libraries are closed. The course adoption was instantaneous. But other kinds of adoption have also come into play.
And this has really changed how I think about scholarly communication. I'm still a little shocked by the splash that this book made in my field. It got a Teaching Award. It's also getting cited in the research literature. So again, it's hovering on this edge of being both a research book and a teaching book. And it was really a career changing experience for me to have global reach to tens of thousands of readers.
So this is a scholarly book and a teachable book meant to be read by non-specialists. And I think there's a lot of power in reaching public readers and students with accessible perspectives about scholarship. Both the press and I have gotten feedback telling us that the book is in use in prison education programs. The people doing this teaching told us they don't have the money to buy multiple copies of books, and they don't want to break copy copyright by photocopying books, but they can print off PDFs of this book and it's fine.
So they do, and they're using it. They need engaging materials that are accessible to them. This feedback reinforced for me that giving away our work for free matters, and the accessibility of language also matters. The reading level of the book is important. Paywalled scholarship is sort of a small conversation, just us among scholars, but open access can be everybody, as the economics of the professoriate are changing.
I think open access and readability are going to matter more. Fewer faculty in the arts and humanities are being paid to do research as part of their jobs, which reduces the readership of specialized books. More faculty are being hired to deliver the curriculum. Fewer are being hired to change the curriculum. Again, reducing the readership. So more and more, the PhDs in the humanities are entering fields all over the place, which means those researchers may or may not have access to academic libraries.
They may be closed out of the conversation for all of these situations that reduce our readership. If we want our work to be read and used, open access is a really important consideration, as the path to open missions suggests. We need bibliodiversity, and that includes books that can reach wide publics as well as scholars. I think both kinds advance scholarship and both support our flourishing.
Thank you. Their arrows clicking this. And it's doing it's doing that. Oh, OK. I need to go back. Yeah oh I see. OK, good. Thank you.
Nice to be with you today. My name is Philip Arnold. I'm a professor of religion, Native American Indigenous studies at Syracuse University. The founding director of the Great Law of Peace center and the president of the Indigenous values initiative, and also API for a doctrine of Christian discovery research project. I'm here with my wife, Sandra bigtree, who is a citizen of the Mohawk nation.
She is my fellow instigator. And we have created a kind of collaborative research team in upstate New York that collaborates closely with the Haudenosaunee or their better known or more popularly known as the Iroquois Six Nations Iroquois. I have to tell you a little bit about where we are because we're right in the heartland of the Haudenosaunee, in Onondaga Nation territory that is essentially the capital of the Six Nations Confederacy.
And it's also where thousands of years ago Excuse me. Something called the Great Law of Peace in English was founded at Onondaga lake. It's a protocol that has influenced Western democracy, the women's movement, because the Haudenosaunee are matrilineal. And also the Onondaga Nation are you could say they're very, very insular for very specific reasons.
So they do not accept federal funding. They don't have a Bureau of Indian Affairs government. They travel on their own passports. So in other words, they're a very traditional group of people, very small nation just South of Syracuse. But Sandy and I were instrumental in creating the Great Law of Peace center, which tells the story of the founding of the great law from the point of view of the Haudenosaunee.
Now, this is all important. It's intrinsically important, I would say, but it's also important for you to understand why open access publishing is so critical in Native American Indigenous studies. And there are various kinds of methodological orientations that we follow between the universities and colleges in our region in relationship to the Onondaga and the Haudenosaunee.
I'll get to that. But it's basically called the two row wampum methodology, which I talk about in my book. But I'll move on here. So we have a number of different projects. One is to map what's called as the doctrine of Christian discovery. It's essentially you've heard about it before in various guises, manifest destiny or other kinds of frameworks, kind of mythic historical frameworks that we've been working on that have to do directly with religion.
And so one of the things we're trying to do is gather up online all of the different colonial documents that justified land taking and the enslavement of Indigenous peoples in Africa, et cetera. And we got a major Luce grant to do much of this work. And Luce requires that everything be open access, any publications that we but we were leaning that way anyway.
So right now we're involved in creating an online archive, working with, for example, the National Archives in London, who have a trove of colonial documents that. So we're trying to put all that together. Now, how do we make that accessible to Indigenous communities that oftentimes, are working on their phones or things like that. So these are the so we're trying to develop a resource that is very usable on land claims or environmental issues or whatever people are working on in their nations and communities.
So Sandy and I have a podcast called mapping the doctrine of discovery that has gone up exponentially. Our Indigenous values initiative kind of undergirds all of this. Then we have a number of different things, probably things you haven't heard of before. The sullivan-clinton campaign, which was essentially George Washington's attack on the Haudenosaunee in 1779.
And so all of these the 250 celebration is coming up. We have all of these events that are happening right now that we're also trying to connect with. And then, of course, the American Indian law alliance, which does a lot of the United Nations work at around Indigenous issues, and we're the fiscal sponsor. That is IVI is this fiscal sponsor. I'm going to be a little cryptic because there's a lot of information I want to try to get out.
So if you have questions, don't hesitate. So for our work in promoting Indigenous values and the values part, we couldn't really. So religion wasn't a category that we could really collaborate around for a variety of reasons, which I can talk about, but values, of course, we could. So we worked closely with the Chiefs council at Onondaga, individual leaders at Onondaga to develop a kind of values approach.
And that's what we've done at the center. And the primary value at the center is Sukarno. It means peace, but it means peace when human beings are in proper relationship to the natural world. And so that idea of peace is involved in their daily greetings with one another. When is The Daily greeting. I'm thankful that you are well and so is that piece of peace is in the idea of wellness as well.
Anyway, so that's one of the values. That's an example of that. We operate on free prior and informed consent. This is part of the UN frameworks. So anything we do has to be vetted. It's a complicated process. And we have to be free and open source. All of our publications from as I said, the Luce grant Creative Commons copyright, which is or copyleft, this was put together by much of this put together by my another collaborative former student is Adam Brett, who I want to mention here as well.
And then something that he is calling minimal computing ontology, a kind of rubric that has been developed. So minimal computing ontology, it's an argument that argues for transformative digital scholarship, which is minimal in design, has to be accessible, like I said, on a phone or in other formats, like over the phone lines, minimal maintenance.
We want things to be on available for a very long time and then minimal obsolescence. And then we're very attentive to environmental impacts because Indigenous peoples are very focused on what are the costs of open access online formulations, right. And maximum justice. So my book, The urgency of Indigenous values is here. This is what we talk about oftentimes in the course of our work.
So this is kind of a side. But, AI uses it up incredible amounts of electricity of power. What are the consequences of this. I mean, I know all of us are probably aware of all this, but it's consequences to water particularly are vexing for Indigenous peoples and the Onondaga Nation in particular. I will skip to the bottom. But as Onondaga faithkeeper Oren Lyons, he has warned in the UN, the ice is melting in the North.
So one of the values of publishing is we have to be attentive to its impact online. So, so this has been a conversation among Indigenous peoples for at least 40 years. Maximum justice, free, prior, and informed consent. And then we're building materials through our research organization, through the schanoes center, through IVI for the general public.
So accessibility is not just for the deaf or hard of hearing, but it's also getting information out to the people who have no technologies to get it right. So eliminating that paywall is very important for us. Various formats. Very interested in Danielle's book. You the variety of formats, maps, interactive maps, for example, are very helpful.
So all of this goes to supporting Indigenous nations and their communities and frankly, their survival during very precarious times, and it also gives researchers and enlarges our research reach. So we have now collaborators in Spain or in the UK around the world. So our reach has really been exponential. So we've recently published a couple of different traditional journals.
The most recent is cross currents. That's about 70 years old. And we had to insist that it be an open access publication special issue. So we had to pay for that. But I think that this was a kind of new revelation for them. This is, as I said, my book. So we developed what we call the two row wampum method, which is and two row wampum is a specific thing.
It had to do with agreement between the Dutch and the Haudenosaunee in 1613. And I can talk much more about it, but it's a protocol that we developed at the center. Very important. I can't be perceived as an academic, as a white academic working with Indigenous peoples, as making money off my book, even though, as Danielle says the money that we get from publishing these books is minuscule, but there is the perception that we're making a lot of money, or the press is making a lot of money.
So there is this kind of issue of Justice or equitable use of the information that we get right. Part of our work has to do with challenging Christian nationalism, et cetera. So how are those resources going to be utilized, and how can we direct those materials in very specific ways. And they did a very JSTOR did a very good path to open article that had to do with Su, Syracuse University and our director at the press, Catherine Cox, who I want to also lift up here, who has been transformative at our University in terms of getting us into the open access world.
So, yeah, and so this is just a summation. So we find that this process of and this orientation into open access, which is kind of new to me, but it has been liberative and we've been able to create a kind of scholarly community across the world. And for example, Indigenous peoples in Scandinavia or Africa have been able to join our research group.
So thank you very much. Just pulling up my script one moment. I have to keep a script or else I'll talk at you for 20 minutes and none of you want that, so. All right. OK oh.
Hello, everyone. So my name is Erin Smith. I'm an assistant professor of music theory at Oberlin College and conservatory. For those of you who are not familiar, music theory is a relatively small field, and it mostly gets a reputation for taking students who love playing music and making them label chords and Mozart sonatas instead.
I mentioned this mostly because we're going to get into how this impacts scholarship. But I'm happy to report also that reputation is getting a little less and less warranted every year, with more different types of music and more different ways of studying those different types of music as we go forward. So like music theory previously used to only be music like this, and now it isn't, which is very exciting and also poses challenges for those of us who are trying to publish in it.
So before music theory online and other journals like it, the way you would illustrate your point, your point in a music theory article was to include sheet music as examples that can still be done online. Of course, there's plentiful sheet music online, which is great, but I'm mostly a scholar of pop music since the year 2000, and most of that music was written by songwriters and singers and producers in a studio with no sheet music involved until after the fact, if they were trying to sell sheet music to other people.
So I have what boils down to two options. I can either find after the fact transcriptions like I mentioned of that music, or I can transcribe it myself, or I can find a way to publish that lets me use audio examples. Personally, I think that in an age where we can allow readers of our music research to hear the music we're talking about in real time with one click, I'm not really sure why I would choose any other medium to publish an online format, and short makes music theory research so much more accessible without people having to go track down their own recordings or go to a library and check out the CeeDee or the LP and play it for themselves and try to fast forward to the right moment, or get their own copies of a score, or slide around to find the right timestamps.
They can just click. And there it is. So I've been lucky enough to be surrounded by online open access scholarship actually, since the beginning of my career, which is still in its infancy, I would say while I was a graduate student, our graduate student run music theory journal, which is called integral, the Journal of Applied musical thought. Is that right.
Now I'm questioning myself. It's called integral. Oh, yeah, it's right there. Fantastic it went online open access while I was a graduate student. So I was not part of the leadership of that. But I got to witness the impact and the discussions that were going into it by some of the senior graduate students at the time.
And what I saw was that it boosted the visibility of a lot of our articles. It made a huge impact on the number of submissions the journal received, and it generally boosted the status of this journal in terms of how it was perceived in the field. That was the first time I'd ever heard of a journal being completely free for anyone to read, and it made a really positive impression on me.
At the end of graduate school, I published a video essay on flat two being associated with hotness in post 2000 pop music, which if you look into that a little bit will hear it everywhere. It's really fun. But I published that through the Society for music theory's videocast journal, sometimes called SMTV. If you Google that will get Shin Megami Tensei 5, which is not the same thing.
So you need to put music theory after it if you want to find that. Anyway, it's a recently established open access video journal. That was also a really positive experience. I really liked that I could send it to anyone. I could send it to my family members. People were able to find it who were not in my discipline, and that means a lot.
So when it was time to publish my first print article, I decided to submit to music theory online, not only because it's actually become one of our field's most prestigious journals, despite the fact that it's free. And people have reservations about that initially, but also because I wanted anyone to be able to see my article, just like they had with my video essay. And I wanted people to as I said, I want them to be able to click and hear my examples.
So I want to show you a little bit about how that worked out. My article is about prosodic dissonance, which is a term that I coined to describe conflict between the prosodic linguistic features and the musical rendition of text. So if this had been a print article, my opening example would have just looked like this and I would have just read that definition to you. Well, in Article form, Katy Perry's song unconditionally from 2014 has a discrepancy between where the musical accent lands and where the stress accent happens in the speech at the start of the chorus.
So that could work well for readers. They could go find the song. You could track down the chorus at the timestamp that I mark for you in the article, and then you could work through the sentences that I just read to you and the content of the slide. But this is so much easier. I have an audio example I would like to play for you. Listen to how the word unconditionally sounds like it's pronounced in this song.
I'm unconditionally, unconditionally, I will love you unconditionally. There is no fear. I love this excerpt because it sounds like if you're listening to it, it sounds like she's pronouncing it as unconditional or unconditionally.
And I don't have to explain all of the technical jargon or anything to get that across to you. Anyone who's heard that song, and in fact, the Twitter response to this song's release would also illustrate that. So that is what I'm talking about. When I say prosodic dissonance, it becomes a lot easier to go through in the article and tease out all the individual factors that contribute to that, sounding emphasis on the wrong syllable, and it becomes more accessible to everyone.
So in short, the reason that online open access initially mattered to me was because of the affordances that come from a digital format, particularly for my field, which has been entirely focused on sound since its founding, and until 1993 had been surviving entirely off of visual representations of sound instead of the sound itself. But since publishing that article, I've actually found even more reasons to be incredibly pro open access as a junior scholar early in my career.
The first of these is that out of the blue, a professor of songwriting at Berklee College of Music, Ben camp, reached out to me to talk about my article. Songwriting and music theory departments do not usually talk to each other at most schools, so this is not a common occurrence. And we definitely don't tend to use the same articles or journals or books. This resulted in US having two fantastic Zoom chats that resulted in them coming to my pop music theory class to talk about songwriting, and me going to their lyric writing class to talk about my article.
That is real, tangible, professional development for me and someone new in my network. And it's also really meaningful in making fields less siloed from one another in music academia. And they absolutely would not have found my article if it wasn't freely accessible in a Google search. The second thing that happened is that in November, the YouTuber Adam Neely, who has 1.8 million subscribers and is probably the closest you can come to being famous for talking about music theory.
Talked about my article in his video about songs, pronunciations of the phrase stuck in the middle, and this video got a million views. So like my article, someone randomly found it and talked about it in a YouTube video. That doesn't happen for if I were to publish it behind a paywall, none of this would have been possible without open access. I'm currently on the board of a regional music theory journal, theory and practice, which is by the music theory society of New York State, and it recently went online open access.
And I'm feeling really optimistic about what this will do for our readership and for music theory not just being its own little corner of academia, but being something that intersects with people who are making music, people who are listening to music, and also all of the other disciplines of music, academia more broadly. I genuinely do feel like this is the future of scholarship and especially of music scholarship, a discipline so focused on sound.
Yeah, definitely the future of my scholarship. So I'll pass it on Good Morning everyone. As Sarah mentioned, my name is Annie Johnson. I'm associate University librarian at the University of Delaware library, museums and press, and it's been so wonderful getting to hear from my faculty colleagues about their experiences publishing open access. And I'm glad to be here today to give you my perspective on conversations I've had with faculty.
And just a little caveat, I think it's maybe a little bit obvious given the orientation of this panel, but I'm going to be focusing on talking to faculty about open access books, and really in particular humanities and social sciences faculty. So first, a little bit about me. I am here offering the librarian perspective, but I actually occupy a little bit of a unique place in libraries in that I've always worked for libraries and University presses.
Some of you may know that an increasing number of University Presses now report up through libraries, and that has been my experience. So I have always worked as an advocate and an educator around open access to faculty, but also as an editor and a publisher of open access scholarship. And these are just a few of the areas of open access that I've been involved in. I've helped to make backlist titles.
Oh, I've worked extensively around open educational resources. And I've also most recently worked on frontlist titles as well. So some common questions from faculty that I hear about open access. And these really haven't changed over the years that I've been doing this work. The first is just what does it mean to make something open access.
We've heard from some faculty members who are doing really cool digital scholarship related projects. Some faculty are really excited about that opportunity and others are not excited about that opportunity. And so explaining to them that open access doesn't have to mean a fancy digital project, but it can literally be just a PDF or an EPUB of your book that we're making available online.
And that actually puts some people's mind at ease. It's not necessarily more work for the faculty member. A related question is, can I publish open access and still have a print copy of my book available. And this still comes up, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Print is very important. And so they're always thrilled to learn that, yes, you can have a print book.
You can charge money for it. And you can also have an open access version as well. Third, will this cost me or my institution any money. This is again an IT depends type of question. It could be that your press is covering the costs through a grant or subvention. It could be that the author is going to be expected to contribute to some of the costs. And I always talk to faculty members about approaching their department, approaching their library to see what costs they can cover.
And then finally, how are Creative Commons licenses related to copyright and which license should I choose. A lot of confusion around Creative Commons licenses. A lot of confusion about the fact that Creative Commons licenses don't replace copyright, but they sit alongside copyright. And in general, I think whether it's by libraries or presses, we need to do more kind of education with faculty about what those licenses mean and what the implications are for choosing a different license for their publication.
I also wanted to add in some questions that I don't really hear from faculty, but I kind of wish that I did. And I hope that as open access publishing becomes more prevalent in the humanities and social sciences. I do hear these questions or we do hear these questions. The first is just if I want to publish, oh, do I have to publish my book with a certain press.
We know that there are certain University presses and other presses that are known for publishing open access, but that doesn't mean that other presses aren't open to the idea either. So I always tell faculty members, if you have a book that you think belongs with the list of a certain press, even if they've never published open access before, ask them. It doesn't hurt to say, hey, is this something you could make possible.
Because presses generally want to hear from authors about what they're looking for. A second question that I think about a lot, but I'm not sure if authors do, is how does my presses oh, platform choice impact my book. And it really does. So we've got JSTOR, we've got fulcrum manifold, maybe some other platform. There's lots out there, and it really makes a difference in terms of how people can access these books, what kind of analytics you're getting as an author.
So I think that's another important question to ask. And then finally, should I be thinking about Creative Commons licenses for the images in my book as well. Generally, when we're talking about open access books, we're talking about Creative Commons licenses for the text. Not necessarily the images in open educational resources that's a little bit different. There's more of an emphasis on openly licensed images as well. So I think that if faculty members are really concerned about making sure that their book is fully open, they should also be considering the images that they're using and how they can make those open as well.
Finally, I just want to acknowledge our present moment in which I think open access scholarship is more important than ever. However, I am personally, I am worried about where we're going to find the funding for open access books. The tome initiative, has sunset, the Mellon and NIH, who also provided funding for open access books.
Those initiatives are no longer going on and library budgets continue to shrink. At University of Delaware, we had to cut our collections budget by over $3.5 million last year. So we have less and less money to play with. And it's concerning. So where's that money going to come from. I am not sure. But I do know that I think we need to have more conversations like this where we have not only publishers and librarians who are very aware of the costs.
Open access is free to read, but it's not free to produce. We all know that with faculty members who are maybe a little bit less, aware of the costs that are involved in producing this work. So thanks very much. And I'll turn it back over to Sarah. Thank you. Thank you, Annie, and thanks to everyone on the panel for sharing your really remarkable scholarship.
And the reason I think it's really interesting to hear that digital affordances, I think for all for two of you, at least, the way in. And then also like dealing with a particular community was a really important aspect of it. So just keeping that in mind is, I think, helpful for those of us who think at scale a lot of time about, what it means for these individual books.
And so, I'd love to open it up now for if you have questions, of course, for the individual panelists, you're welcome to do that. There's a microphone in the center aisle. We invite you to come to that. And also just to if you have your own stories or experiences around working with authors, like a great story about an open access project. We would actually love to hear that and really start to make that a part of our conversation on a more regular basis.
So I'll ask that and then if not, I have some discussion questions for the panel to get us started. So yeah. Any questions to begin. Yes John. Yeah Please go to the mic so we can all hear. Thank you. Hi thank you.
Good to see you all. I want to pick up on Annie's sobering last comment about money. And it strikes me that the missing piece of the equation in the finances here is the authors the benefit to the authors host institution. And so while I want to be vehement about not setting up a model where its author pays to publish, I still think that's the authors host institution is the one getting a huge free ride in this equation, because the University Press is probably losing $10,000 to $15,000 to publish the book, and everybody else is sort of struggling, but the author's home institution gets this huge benefit.
And so I've wondered whether there's can model and how practical that might seem at your particular institutions. So I'm just curious whether that is something that should be explored, or is it just too fraught because of the only authors from certain institutions will get published kind of approach. Is this on.
Yay thank you. This is so interesting and so fraught. I agree with you that the benefit to the institution is huge. I live in a red state and work under in a State University with a red legislature. The challenge on the one hand, as I acknowledged, they understand that the cost of college is real and that we should reduce the cost of instructional materials.
That's the argument that has won so far with support for open access that it makes the textbook free for students. They understand that part. The funding for research in the arts and humanities, the research in terms of funding for individual faculty, say, for a research trip, for a conference presentation that still exists at some universities and it's gone away at other universities altogether, so that people are paying out of pocket to do the research that is required by their employer.
I find this mind blowing, but there it is in that situation, it's pretty hard to get the University to pay for the publishing part. They're just not paying for any of it. I don't know how to solve this one, but it's a problem right now. I just had one thing that we've recently had success with some of our non humanities and social sciences departments in getting their support, in helping us pay for open access agreements with publishers in their areas.
And I kind of at first I thought, oh, is this a good way to approach it. But now I'm kind of coming around to it because I think so. For example, our computer science department has helped with the cost of us subscribing to ACM open. And as that is really useful because they have buy in and they understand the costs they're invested in it and they're going to help us promote it. And so I wonder if again, that's a way we can think of it.
Now, I know departments and colleges have varying amounts of money, and yes, maybe the humanities departments might not have the same amount of funds as some other departments. But I do like that buy in. I also just wanted to chime in. I work at a small private college. I am very fortunate to have access to a lot of internal grants, even as some of my colleagues are losing access to things like federal grants for arts and humanities.
I have many colleagues in the field who work at other small private institutions or public institutions that have very different approaches to what the University will or will not fund. And so I guess my concern is I like the idea of having support for open access come from the institution, because the institution also benefits from it. But my concern is that the universities that have the means to do that would result in the only open access scholarship coming from the most privileged institutions and the wealthiest institutions.
And I'm not really sure how to reconcile that because I don't think, for example, my spouse works at an institution that's having a lot more financial trouble than mine. I don't think it would be fair to say that he should have to pay open access out of pocket for his publication, when I wouldn't have to pay for it. I mean, nothing is fair, really, but I think that is one of the things that feels particularly fraught to me, in addition to what Danielle was saying.
So my name is Charles Watkins, and I'm the director of University of Michigan Press, and I'm the person who says it's more a comment than a question, but it is a question actually in there. So just in terms of emerging questions, to Annie's point that we're hearing is what are the implications for AI crawling of publishing my work, open access and the comment bit is what I say in response is, hey, all of the books are being sucked in without authorization.
It actually probably doesn't matter if your book is open access or restricted access, the same thing is happening. Maybe there's a slight advantage to an AI crawler to be able to easily locate a copy, but if you have any sort of Creative Commons license on there, there is some restriction on what can be done with it. Even if it's a cc-by, there should be some attribution, which there never is with the commercial AI crawlers.
But I just wondered how you would answer that concern, which is emerging from more and more authors. Yeah thank you. I think so much depends on who the author is and how they're situated with respect to the ecosystem. An independent scholar who is hoping to earn royalties will feel differently about this than I feel.
I have a secure position with tenure, and I can afford to think that the money doesn't matter to me. The rights matter, the copying matters. And I think authors, I certainly had a very dim understanding of what a Creative Commons license means. You all had to explain that to me. I do think making letting knowledge circulate more widely is really good for society right now.
So that piece is for me out front moving me ahead. But I can see where someone who is more precarious than I am would potentially feel differently. I mean, I don't have an answer, but I have another question. I mean, what kind of knowledge is being generated through the AI crawlers? I mean, are they actually using our ideas or are they just creating more a different kind of ecosystem altogether.
So I don't know where we are with that. I just wanted to put that in there. It strikes me that open access can be maybe the solution to this kind of concern. Because if it doesn't matter, if I am looking to get money from my book and then suddenly I can't get money from my book because it's just people are just getting the information from AI.
Anyway, I feel like that sort of mirrors what we've been seeing in the last two decades in the music industry, where everyone is now listening to music for free. And so there's more incentive for musicians to share their music for free, because then at least it's coming directly from them. And it's not like going to some. The money's not going to some giant corporation.
So I think maybe using that as an argument of hey, your work's going to be out there anywhere anyway, why not publish open access and then people will go directly to you to find it. And then it's also, I think, maybe easier for the eye crawlers to at least link to it in a way that people might be more likely to click to it. And then if you have more people who have published open access, then we have broader support in the academic community and perhaps more broadly politically, if I'm being an optimist for regulating how AI uses open access scholarship, because now there is more of it.
It doesn't seem like a niche issue anymore. Just some initial thoughts. That's good. Hi there. I'm a managing editor for The blood journal. So I am. I am a scientist myself. And I have been an author as a scientist.
And now I'm in publishing science, and I've learned a lot from this discussion. I didn't expect it would be focused on the humanities, but I couldn't. I couldn't get myself to leave. It was very enlightening. I also have a brother who's a professional scientist, so I am familiar with some of your issues at Oberlin. My question to you is, if you wouldn't mind educating a science publisher briefly, we scientists and scientific publishers face the issue of public access versus open access, and I'm constantly getting questions from scientists about this.
And this is the only way that I've learned the difference, despite having benefited from NIH research at some point. So public access for scientific for scientists who publish in scientific publishers means that you're required to publish or to make your material publicly available. It doesn't necessarily mean open access and applying a copyright license, it just means putting it somewhere where the public can get it.
So is there some pressure like that in your fields where your funder, whether it's the institution or some other funding agency, forces you to make things public. And if there is, do you like that movement. Yeah So I would like to hear more about public versus open.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction there but the Luce Foundation the grant required that all of our publications from our conferences and such be open access, and so they supplied funding for some of the journal dedicated journal issues that we created to make them open access. But yeah, I don't know can someone speak about public and.
Yeah thank you. Yeah so humanities research in general is not as heavily funded by external funders as science research. So in general, faculty aren't relying on big federal grants to do their research. So there haven't been the same push for public access as there has been in the sciences. Now with the Nelson memorandum, the NIH and NEA had come up with public access policies.
However, kind of remains to be seen at this point. What is going to happen with those policies and how those will impact scholarship. But again, that federally funded humanities scholarship is just such a small percentage of the overall humanities scholarship that's published out there. So it's not as big of a big of an issue in general for these scholars.
Did anyone have a response to how do you feel about that if it were to happen in the humanities. Like, how would you feel about that. Would you see that as a positive move, or would you or do you think your colleagues would resist that in some way. I mean, maybe this is naive, but I would love more people seeing my work any time.
I'm not. I'm a music theorist. I'm not in this for the money anyway. No one is going to try to hire me as a private music theory consultant or something like. To me, I would be. I don't think that I would even feel it as pressure to try to make my research publicly accessible, because I want my research to be as publicly accessible as possible.
And if open access is the easiest way to do that without just making my own website and putting all my stuff up all the better. I'm not sure that is exactly what you're asking, but yeah, the National Endowment for the Humanities has not required books to be open access. I think because they understand that they are supporting the publishing ecosystem. I think they get that.
And of course, now they're under terrible circumstances. There are foundations that are more conservative. I think it's Guggenheim that specifically says they will not fund the production of digital objects. They want a paper book. And so there are parts of the ecosystem that are more or less willing to move or have different ideas about what they're aiming for. Dumbarton Oaks, for example.
They will publish Dumbarton Oaks. Thank you. Hi there. My name is David. I am a. I work for a society publisher that puts out a number of peer reviewed journals, so I'm coming from that aspect. Later this year, we're going to be moving to a hybrid.
Oh process. And as we've been describing this to people, we are finding a lot of authors and not just European, I mean, not just US based authors, even some from Europe who are quite horrified by the entire idea of oh, they say, wait, you're going to charge me for publication. Isn't that predatory? How can you be this unethical.
So as authors who at one time or another had never heard of. Oh, I'm interested to how would you go about educating authors to let them understand that open access is when done correctly, is a legitimate path to publishing and something that they should that authors don't necessarily need to be afraid of.
OK sorry, I hadn't quite gotten my thoughts together yet. I mean, I think it's tricky, is the short answer. One reason that I was able to publish oh, twice is because I have a professional society that supports that. I didn't have to pay to have my own scholarship published. And frankly, if I'd had to I couldn't have because I was just coming out of graduate school, I would not have had the means to. So probably what I would have chosen is to do another journal that didn't require that, or to not publish open access or some other alternative.
So I think it's tricky because the money has to come from somewhere, and I think there is a deep sense of unfairness from the author of like, why should I have to pay for people to get my work. I could just give people my work. I just don't have a way of doing it. I think there's a lot of frustration by authors and I've heard this from some of my colleagues about the idea of publishing open access, and that's maybe what one of the earlier questions was getting at of like, shouldn't this be on the host institution.
And this is kind of a very related problem to what we've all been talking about, where just end up with the cost responsibility bouncing around to different places, and everyone can come up with a fairly valid argument about why it shouldn't be their responsibility. So I don't have a solution, just that I think you can emphasize why open access is important and why it's beneficial to the scholar, but I think if we're looking for ways to convince them that.
It is worth it for them to pay the money. That's tougher because that's a very individual choice and not everyone can. Yeah, I would add that I think people in faculty roles have a very limited understanding of money flows. Often University budgets are not transparent. They have no idea what money is, where or how that works. Publishing also is they feel like it's a black box in ways that are surprising to me.
When an author is negotiating with a press, they have no idea what the business is actually that's going on in that press, what the constraints are, they have no idea what costs money or they haven't imagined it yet. So I think they don't know that peer review costs human time there. The time of someone to manage that process, the technology to manage that process, all of these things, helping them see that those costs have to be borne is a good idea.
Because I think they may not be able to see it just from where they sit otherwise. Thank you. Yeah so I was convinced by my grad students, essentially. I mean, I'm a full professor. And so, I could afford to play around with publishing different formats and things. And then path to open came along. And that really encouraged me to think about other venues other ways of getting information out.
And I'm at a different kind of stage in my career. So that enabled me to do things that I maybe wouldn't have done as an assistant. So I think, yeah, those things factor in. But path to open has been very convincing to me. Yes, thank you and thank you to all of you for these wonderful questions. Yes, and path to open does provide a means by which authors don't have to pay anything.
And that explains that three year period where it is sort of in a licensed state so that the press can recoup expenses for publishing the book and then it becomes open. So that's a new model that we're trying out. Whereas the tome initiative was to Erin's point, it was 20 pretty well resourced institutions that were participating in tome. And that's it.
So we're figuring this out as we go. But I just want to thank, again, our wonderful panelists for being here today, and to thank all of you and enjoy the rest of your afternoon. Thank you.
Segment:0 .
Amen good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. Is the sound OK too loud or good. OK thank you for joining our session today. Where to start talking with authors about open access. We're really delighted to see all of you here. Just a reminder of the SSP code of conduct. If you need a refresher, there's the QR code. But I feel like you've made it this far.
So just a little while longer and you can misbehave as much as you like elsewhere. But we're thank you again for joining us. This is our core values. Just a reminder of that for SSP community adaptability integrity and inclusivity. So I'm very excited to introduce our panelists today. So I'm going to start off by doing that just to let you all know who is here Philip Arnold, Professor in the Department of religion at Syracuse University.
Danielle foster Lucier professor of music at the Ohio State University. Annie Johnson, associate University librarian for publishing at the University of Delaware. Aaron Smith, assistant professor of music theory at Oberlin College and conservatory. And my name is Sarah McKee. I'm with the American Council of learned societies, where I run an initiative called amplifying humanistic scholarship for those who may not be familiar.
Acls is a consortium of 81 scholarly societies in the humanities and social sciences. So here's our session overview for today. And as you see, we have assembled a panel of authors which is a little bit unusual as we've been talking about this morning. But you may remember, if you were at the opening plenary yesterday morning, someone from the audience actually noted the absence of researchers on the panel, which then prompted a brief conversation about the importance of including authors in discussions about the direction of scholarly publishing.
And it's true that conferences like this one tend to focus on professionals in the scholarly communications landscape and don't always create space for the authors, despite their actually being key stakeholders in this shared endeavor as actually the writers of the content that we're all working with. So we hope that this session is one step toward expanding the circle to include more scholars and researchers.
And I'm truly grateful to our panelists for taking the time to join us and to share their experiences and recommendations with us. So in this session, we'll hear from Danielle, Phil, and Aaron, three humanities authors with experience in open publishing and open access publishing across different models in the humanities, specifically 1 through the tone program for open access monographs, 1 through the path to open book pilot and 1 through the open access journal of a scholarly society.
Also joining the conversation is Annie, a librarian with extensive expertise in open access who will share experiences and offer suggestions for successful engagement with authors across disciplines. And finally, we really hope to foster a dialogue today with all of you about your own conversations and experiences with authors who are navigating the options for open access publishing.
So why are your authors choosing to publish oa? What questions or concerns are arising for them. And have you observed changes in authors perspectives or knowledge of OA over the last several years. So while you're thinking about those stories from your own experiences, I'll tell you a little about each of the open access models represented here. And then we'll turn over to our panelists. So the tome initiative was a pilot open access subvention model for monographs that ran from 2017 to 2022.
22 it was a collaboration of the Association of University Presses, the Association of Research libraries and the Association of American Universities, and included around 20 AAU members that provided open access subventions for books written by their own faculty, and they paid those subventions directly to University presses. So more than 150 books, including Daniels, were published as open access over the course of the pilot, and although the program itself has ended, some of those institutions continue to provide tome like subventions to their faculty.
The path to open initiative, hosted by JSTOR, aims to open 1,000 books over the course of a multi-year pilot. The first 100 books were selected in 2023, and since that time, 600 more books have been added to the collection, which is available exclusively through JSTOR to participating libraries. Each title flips to open three years after its copyright date, so those first 100 titles, which includes Phil's book, will begin flipping just months from now in 2026.
Acls manages a community advisory committee of librarian, publisher and scholar representatives, including Danielle, who's kind of pulling double duty for us here today. And to date, we have about 50 University presses and more than 240 libraries around the world participating in the program. Music theory online, founded in 1993, is one of the earliest fully open access journals, and I'm fairly certain that it's the first open access journal published by an ACLS member society.
It's supported entirely by the Society for music theory without article processing charges, and publishes research and scholarship in music theory, music analysis and related disciplines, including an article from Erin in June 2024. So here we have three distinct models that brought these three authors into open access publishing for the first time. So I'll turn it over now to Danielle to share her experiences with us.
Thank you so much, Sarah. Hi, everybody. Oops That's the wrong way. Let me go forward. There we go. OK my book, music on the move, was published in 2020 by the University of Michigan Press. As Sarah said, funded by the tome initiative through the Ohio State University libraries and Ohio State, is one of the institutions that has continued to provide these subventions after the end of tome.
That is justified to the legislature as a way to reduce the cost of college for all Ohioans. And it's working. So my book music on the move is sort of an odd duck. It grew out of an undergraduate general education course on music, migration and mediation. But I started writing readings for the students that integrated the scholarly literature. And so it's sort of morphed into a quasi research project for me.
That work was also fueled by another grant from the libraries that was aimed at reducing the cost, of course, materials. This writing generally over the course of years as I taught this course, started to look like a book. So Mary Francis, who was then at Michigan, asked me to think about publishing it because the first audience was students. This book retains some features.
It's not a textbook, but it's a course book or a usable in courses book. It's a teachable book as well as integrating research. So it's hovering on the edge of almost not a monograph. But it does. It's meant to be accessible not only through open access, but breaking down the jargon that is usually around both music studies and globalization studies.
The thing that moved me towards open access at first was the possibility of digital publication. Michigan was wonderful in allowing us to build maps that move. So this is a map of the Romani migration into Europe. Oh, sorry, that didn't work. OK, we're going to try this again. Showing change over time. There's a slider that the reader can manipulate.
And the book does contain multimedia objects. Audio, video and some videos that are me pointing to things in the audio to say to people, listen here. Listen to this. Building those cool digital features and getting the copyright permissions taken care of took me about an extra year, so I think that would have been a challenge had I been on a tenure clock.
This was a post a post promotion project for me and so I could afford it. And it was really, really worth it. I will also add that not all universities welcome open publication or digital publication for promotion purposes, and so that is a possible hazard for authors along the way. Again, it wasn't a concern for me. I could have gotten promoted on this book at Ohio State.
Now after having been through this process. This was 2020. For me, the reach of this book has been the big win of open access, more than the digital transformation of my work. My prior paper books circulated, sold in the low 100s. Or one of them got to 1,000. They were getting used through libraries. They were important in the field.
The royalties I got back was about a cart of groceries per year. So that's what I gave up. What I got was this global reach, and that has been extraordinary. It doesn't hurt to drop a book in June of 20, which is when the libraries are closed. The course adoption was instantaneous. But other kinds of adoption have also come into play.
And this has really changed how I think about scholarly communication. I'm still a little shocked by the splash that this book made in my field. It got a Teaching Award. It's also getting cited in the research literature. So again, it's hovering on this edge of being both a research book and a teaching book. And it was really a career changing experience for me to have global reach to tens of thousands of readers.
So this is a scholarly book and a teachable book meant to be read by non-specialists. And I think there's a lot of power in reaching public readers and students with accessible perspectives about scholarship. Both the press and I have gotten feedback telling us that the book is in use in prison education programs. The people doing this teaching told us they don't have the money to buy multiple copies of books, and they don't want to break copy copyright by photocopying books, but they can print off PDFs of this book and it's fine.
So they do, and they're using it. They need engaging materials that are accessible to them. This feedback reinforced for me that giving away our work for free matters, and the accessibility of language also matters. The reading level of the book is important. Paywalled scholarship is sort of a small conversation, just us among scholars, but open access can be everybody, as the economics of the professoriate are changing.
I think open access and readability are going to matter more. Fewer faculty in the arts and humanities are being paid to do research as part of their jobs, which reduces the readership of specialized books. More faculty are being hired to deliver the curriculum. Fewer are being hired to change the curriculum. Again, reducing the readership. So more and more, the PhDs in the humanities are entering fields all over the place, which means those researchers may or may not have access to academic libraries.
They may be closed out of the conversation for all of these situations that reduce our readership. If we want our work to be read and used, open access is a really important consideration, as the path to open missions suggests. We need bibliodiversity, and that includes books that can reach wide publics as well as scholars. I think both kinds advance scholarship and both support our flourishing.
Thank you. Their arrows clicking this. And it's doing it's doing that. Oh, OK. I need to go back. Yeah oh I see. OK, good. Thank you.
Nice to be with you today. My name is Philip Arnold. I'm a professor of religion, Native American Indigenous studies at Syracuse University. The founding director of the Great Law of Peace center and the president of the Indigenous values initiative, and also API for a doctrine of Christian discovery research project. I'm here with my wife, Sandra bigtree, who is a citizen of the Mohawk nation.
She is my fellow instigator. And we have created a kind of collaborative research team in upstate New York that collaborates closely with the Haudenosaunee or their better known or more popularly known as the Iroquois Six Nations Iroquois. I have to tell you a little bit about where we are because we're right in the heartland of the Haudenosaunee, in Onondaga Nation territory that is essentially the capital of the Six Nations Confederacy.
And it's also where thousands of years ago Excuse me. Something called the Great Law of Peace in English was founded at Onondaga lake. It's a protocol that has influenced Western democracy, the women's movement, because the Haudenosaunee are matrilineal. And also the Onondaga Nation are you could say they're very, very insular for very specific reasons.
So they do not accept federal funding. They don't have a Bureau of Indian Affairs government. They travel on their own passports. So in other words, they're a very traditional group of people, very small nation just South of Syracuse. But Sandy and I were instrumental in creating the Great Law of Peace center, which tells the story of the founding of the great law from the point of view of the Haudenosaunee.
Now, this is all important. It's intrinsically important, I would say, but it's also important for you to understand why open access publishing is so critical in Native American Indigenous studies. And there are various kinds of methodological orientations that we follow between the universities and colleges in our region in relationship to the Onondaga and the Haudenosaunee.
I'll get to that. But it's basically called the two row wampum methodology, which I talk about in my book. But I'll move on here. So we have a number of different projects. One is to map what's called as the doctrine of Christian discovery. It's essentially you've heard about it before in various guises, manifest destiny or other kinds of frameworks, kind of mythic historical frameworks that we've been working on that have to do directly with religion.
And so one of the things we're trying to do is gather up online all of the different colonial documents that justified land taking and the enslavement of Indigenous peoples in Africa, et cetera. And we got a major Luce grant to do much of this work. And Luce requires that everything be open access, any publications that we but we were leaning that way anyway.
So right now we're involved in creating an online archive, working with, for example, the National Archives in London, who have a trove of colonial documents that. So we're trying to put all that together. Now, how do we make that accessible to Indigenous communities that oftentimes, are working on their phones or things like that. So these are the so we're trying to develop a resource that is very usable on land claims or environmental issues or whatever people are working on in their nations and communities.
So Sandy and I have a podcast called mapping the doctrine of discovery that has gone up exponentially. Our Indigenous values initiative kind of undergirds all of this. Then we have a number of different things, probably things you haven't heard of before. The sullivan-clinton campaign, which was essentially George Washington's attack on the Haudenosaunee in 1779.
And so all of these the 250 celebration is coming up. We have all of these events that are happening right now that we're also trying to connect with. And then, of course, the American Indian law alliance, which does a lot of the United Nations work at around Indigenous issues, and we're the fiscal sponsor. That is IVI is this fiscal sponsor. I'm going to be a little cryptic because there's a lot of information I want to try to get out.
So if you have questions, don't hesitate. So for our work in promoting Indigenous values and the values part, we couldn't really. So religion wasn't a category that we could really collaborate around for a variety of reasons, which I can talk about, but values, of course, we could. So we worked closely with the Chiefs council at Onondaga, individual leaders at Onondaga to develop a kind of values approach.
And that's what we've done at the center. And the primary value at the center is Sukarno. It means peace, but it means peace when human beings are in proper relationship to the natural world. And so that idea of peace is involved in their daily greetings with one another. When is The Daily greeting. I'm thankful that you are well and so is that piece of peace is in the idea of wellness as well.
Anyway, so that's one of the values. That's an example of that. We operate on free prior and informed consent. This is part of the UN frameworks. So anything we do has to be vetted. It's a complicated process. And we have to be free and open source. All of our publications from as I said, the Luce grant Creative Commons copyright, which is or copyleft, this was put together by much of this put together by my another collaborative former student is Adam Brett, who I want to mention here as well.
And then something that he is calling minimal computing ontology, a kind of rubric that has been developed. So minimal computing ontology, it's an argument that argues for transformative digital scholarship, which is minimal in design, has to be accessible, like I said, on a phone or in other formats, like over the phone lines, minimal maintenance.
We want things to be on available for a very long time and then minimal obsolescence. And then we're very attentive to environmental impacts because Indigenous peoples are very focused on what are the costs of open access online formulations, right. And maximum justice. So my book, The urgency of Indigenous values is here. This is what we talk about oftentimes in the course of our work.
So this is kind of a side. But, AI uses it up incredible amounts of electricity of power. What are the consequences of this. I mean, I know all of us are probably aware of all this, but it's consequences to water particularly are vexing for Indigenous peoples and the Onondaga Nation in particular. I will skip to the bottom. But as Onondaga faithkeeper Oren Lyons, he has warned in the UN, the ice is melting in the North.
So one of the values of publishing is we have to be attentive to its impact online. So, so this has been a conversation among Indigenous peoples for at least 40 years. Maximum justice, free, prior, and informed consent. And then we're building materials through our research organization, through the schanoes center, through IVI for the general public.
So accessibility is not just for the deaf or hard of hearing, but it's also getting information out to the people who have no technologies to get it right. So eliminating that paywall is very important for us. Various formats. Very interested in Danielle's book. You the variety of formats, maps, interactive maps, for example, are very helpful.
So all of this goes to supporting Indigenous nations and their communities and frankly, their survival during very precarious times, and it also gives researchers and enlarges our research reach. So we have now collaborators in Spain or in the UK around the world. So our reach has really been exponential. So we've recently published a couple of different traditional journals.
The most recent is cross currents. That's about 70 years old. And we had to insist that it be an open access publication special issue. So we had to pay for that. But I think that this was a kind of new revelation for them. This is, as I said, my book. So we developed what we call the two row wampum method, which is and two row wampum is a specific thing.
It had to do with agreement between the Dutch and the Haudenosaunee in 1613. And I can talk much more about it, but it's a protocol that we developed at the center. Very important. I can't be perceived as an academic, as a white academic working with Indigenous peoples, as making money off my book, even though, as Danielle says the money that we get from publishing these books is minuscule, but there is the perception that we're making a lot of money, or the press is making a lot of money.
So there is this kind of issue of Justice or equitable use of the information that we get right. Part of our work has to do with challenging Christian nationalism, et cetera. So how are those resources going to be utilized, and how can we direct those materials in very specific ways. And they did a very JSTOR did a very good path to open article that had to do with Su, Syracuse University and our director at the press, Catherine Cox, who I want to also lift up here, who has been transformative at our University in terms of getting us into the open access world.
So, yeah, and so this is just a summation. So we find that this process of and this orientation into open access, which is kind of new to me, but it has been liberative and we've been able to create a kind of scholarly community across the world. And for example, Indigenous peoples in Scandinavia or Africa have been able to join our research group.
So thank you very much. Just pulling up my script one moment. I have to keep a script or else I'll talk at you for 20 minutes and none of you want that, so. All right. OK oh.
Hello, everyone. So my name is Erin Smith. I'm an assistant professor of music theory at Oberlin College and conservatory. For those of you who are not familiar, music theory is a relatively small field, and it mostly gets a reputation for taking students who love playing music and making them label chords and Mozart sonatas instead.
I mentioned this mostly because we're going to get into how this impacts scholarship. But I'm happy to report also that reputation is getting a little less and less warranted every year, with more different types of music and more different ways of studying those different types of music as we go forward. So like music theory previously used to only be music like this, and now it isn't, which is very exciting and also poses challenges for those of us who are trying to publish in it.
So before music theory online and other journals like it, the way you would illustrate your point, your point in a music theory article was to include sheet music as examples that can still be done online. Of course, there's plentiful sheet music online, which is great, but I'm mostly a scholar of pop music since the year 2000, and most of that music was written by songwriters and singers and producers in a studio with no sheet music involved until after the fact, if they were trying to sell sheet music to other people.
So I have what boils down to two options. I can either find after the fact transcriptions like I mentioned of that music, or I can transcribe it myself, or I can find a way to publish that lets me use audio examples. Personally, I think that in an age where we can allow readers of our music research to hear the music we're talking about in real time with one click, I'm not really sure why I would choose any other medium to publish an online format, and short makes music theory research so much more accessible without people having to go track down their own recordings or go to a library and check out the CeeDee or the LP and play it for themselves and try to fast forward to the right moment, or get their own copies of a score, or slide around to find the right timestamps.
They can just click. And there it is. So I've been lucky enough to be surrounded by online open access scholarship actually, since the beginning of my career, which is still in its infancy, I would say while I was a graduate student, our graduate student run music theory journal, which is called integral, the Journal of Applied musical thought. Is that right.
Now I'm questioning myself. It's called integral. Oh, yeah, it's right there. Fantastic it went online open access while I was a graduate student. So I was not part of the leadership of that. But I got to witness the impact and the discussions that were going into it by some of the senior graduate students at the time.
And what I saw was that it boosted the visibility of a lot of our articles. It made a huge impact on the number of submissions the journal received, and it generally boosted the status of this journal in terms of how it was perceived in the field. That was the first time I'd ever heard of a journal being completely free for anyone to read, and it made a really positive impression on me.
At the end of graduate school, I published a video essay on flat two being associated with hotness in post 2000 pop music, which if you look into that a little bit will hear it everywhere. It's really fun. But I published that through the Society for music theory's videocast journal, sometimes called SMTV. If you Google that will get Shin Megami Tensei 5, which is not the same thing.
So you need to put music theory after it if you want to find that. Anyway, it's a recently established open access video journal. That was also a really positive experience. I really liked that I could send it to anyone. I could send it to my family members. People were able to find it who were not in my discipline, and that means a lot.
So when it was time to publish my first print article, I decided to submit to music theory online, not only because it's actually become one of our field's most prestigious journals, despite the fact that it's free. And people have reservations about that initially, but also because I wanted anyone to be able to see my article, just like they had with my video essay. And I wanted people to as I said, I want them to be able to click and hear my examples.
So I want to show you a little bit about how that worked out. My article is about prosodic dissonance, which is a term that I coined to describe conflict between the prosodic linguistic features and the musical rendition of text. So if this had been a print article, my opening example would have just looked like this and I would have just read that definition to you. Well, in Article form, Katy Perry's song unconditionally from 2014 has a discrepancy between where the musical accent lands and where the stress accent happens in the speech at the start of the chorus.
So that could work well for readers. They could go find the song. You could track down the chorus at the timestamp that I mark for you in the article, and then you could work through the sentences that I just read to you and the content of the slide. But this is so much easier. I have an audio example I would like to play for you. Listen to how the word unconditionally sounds like it's pronounced in this song.
I'm unconditionally, unconditionally, I will love you unconditionally. There is no fear. I love this excerpt because it sounds like if you're listening to it, it sounds like she's pronouncing it as unconditional or unconditionally.
And I don't have to explain all of the technical jargon or anything to get that across to you. Anyone who's heard that song, and in fact, the Twitter response to this song's release would also illustrate that. So that is what I'm talking about. When I say prosodic dissonance, it becomes a lot easier to go through in the article and tease out all the individual factors that contribute to that, sounding emphasis on the wrong syllable, and it becomes more accessible to everyone.
So in short, the reason that online open access initially mattered to me was because of the affordances that come from a digital format, particularly for my field, which has been entirely focused on sound since its founding, and until 1993 had been surviving entirely off of visual representations of sound instead of the sound itself. But since publishing that article, I've actually found even more reasons to be incredibly pro open access as a junior scholar early in my career.
The first of these is that out of the blue, a professor of songwriting at Berklee College of Music, Ben camp, reached out to me to talk about my article. Songwriting and music theory departments do not usually talk to each other at most schools, so this is not a common occurrence. And we definitely don't tend to use the same articles or journals or books. This resulted in US having two fantastic Zoom chats that resulted in them coming to my pop music theory class to talk about songwriting, and me going to their lyric writing class to talk about my article.
That is real, tangible, professional development for me and someone new in my network. And it's also really meaningful in making fields less siloed from one another in music academia. And they absolutely would not have found my article if it wasn't freely accessible in a Google search. The second thing that happened is that in November, the YouTuber Adam Neely, who has 1.8 million subscribers and is probably the closest you can come to being famous for talking about music theory.
Talked about my article in his video about songs, pronunciations of the phrase stuck in the middle, and this video got a million views. So like my article, someone randomly found it and talked about it in a YouTube video. That doesn't happen for if I were to publish it behind a paywall, none of this would have been possible without open access. I'm currently on the board of a regional music theory journal, theory and practice, which is by the music theory society of New York State, and it recently went online open access.
And I'm feeling really optimistic about what this will do for our readership and for music theory not just being its own little corner of academia, but being something that intersects with people who are making music, people who are listening to music, and also all of the other disciplines of music, academia more broadly. I genuinely do feel like this is the future of scholarship and especially of music scholarship, a discipline so focused on sound.
Yeah, definitely the future of my scholarship. So I'll pass it on Good Morning everyone. As Sarah mentioned, my name is Annie Johnson. I'm associate University librarian at the University of Delaware library, museums and press, and it's been so wonderful getting to hear from my faculty colleagues about their experiences publishing open access. And I'm glad to be here today to give you my perspective on conversations I've had with faculty.
And just a little caveat, I think it's maybe a little bit obvious given the orientation of this panel, but I'm going to be focusing on talking to faculty about open access books, and really in particular humanities and social sciences faculty. So first, a little bit about me. I am here offering the librarian perspective, but I actually occupy a little bit of a unique place in libraries in that I've always worked for libraries and University presses.
Some of you may know that an increasing number of University Presses now report up through libraries, and that has been my experience. So I have always worked as an advocate and an educator around open access to faculty, but also as an editor and a publisher of open access scholarship. And these are just a few of the areas of open access that I've been involved in. I've helped to make backlist titles.
Oh, I've worked extensively around open educational resources. And I've also most recently worked on frontlist titles as well. So some common questions from faculty that I hear about open access. And these really haven't changed over the years that I've been doing this work. The first is just what does it mean to make something open access.
We've heard from some faculty members who are doing really cool digital scholarship related projects. Some faculty are really excited about that opportunity and others are not excited about that opportunity. And so explaining to them that open access doesn't have to mean a fancy digital project, but it can literally be just a PDF or an EPUB of your book that we're making available online.
And that actually puts some people's mind at ease. It's not necessarily more work for the faculty member. A related question is, can I publish open access and still have a print copy of my book available. And this still comes up, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Print is very important. And so they're always thrilled to learn that, yes, you can have a print book.
You can charge money for it. And you can also have an open access version as well. Third, will this cost me or my institution any money. This is again an IT depends type of question. It could be that your press is covering the costs through a grant or subvention. It could be that the author is going to be expected to contribute to some of the costs. And I always talk to faculty members about approaching their department, approaching their library to see what costs they can cover.
And then finally, how are Creative Commons licenses related to copyright and which license should I choose. A lot of confusion around Creative Commons licenses. A lot of confusion about the fact that Creative Commons licenses don't replace copyright, but they sit alongside copyright. And in general, I think whether it's by libraries or presses, we need to do more kind of education with faculty about what those licenses mean and what the implications are for choosing a different license for their publication.
I also wanted to add in some questions that I don't really hear from faculty, but I kind of wish that I did. And I hope that as open access publishing becomes more prevalent in the humanities and social sciences. I do hear these questions or we do hear these questions. The first is just if I want to publish, oh, do I have to publish my book with a certain press.
We know that there are certain University presses and other presses that are known for publishing open access, but that doesn't mean that other presses aren't open to the idea either. So I always tell faculty members, if you have a book that you think belongs with the list of a certain press, even if they've never published open access before, ask them. It doesn't hurt to say, hey, is this something you could make possible.
Because presses generally want to hear from authors about what they're looking for. A second question that I think about a lot, but I'm not sure if authors do, is how does my presses oh, platform choice impact my book. And it really does. So we've got JSTOR, we've got fulcrum manifold, maybe some other platform. There's lots out there, and it really makes a difference in terms of how people can access these books, what kind of analytics you're getting as an author.
So I think that's another important question to ask. And then finally, should I be thinking about Creative Commons licenses for the images in my book as well. Generally, when we're talking about open access books, we're talking about Creative Commons licenses for the text. Not necessarily the images in open educational resources that's a little bit different. There's more of an emphasis on openly licensed images as well. So I think that if faculty members are really concerned about making sure that their book is fully open, they should also be considering the images that they're using and how they can make those open as well.
Finally, I just want to acknowledge our present moment in which I think open access scholarship is more important than ever. However, I am personally, I am worried about where we're going to find the funding for open access books. The tome initiative, has sunset, the Mellon and NIH, who also provided funding for open access books.
Those initiatives are no longer going on and library budgets continue to shrink. At University of Delaware, we had to cut our collections budget by over $3.5 million last year. So we have less and less money to play with. And it's concerning. So where's that money going to come from. I am not sure. But I do know that I think we need to have more conversations like this where we have not only publishers and librarians who are very aware of the costs.
Open access is free to read, but it's not free to produce. We all know that with faculty members who are maybe a little bit less, aware of the costs that are involved in producing this work. So thanks very much. And I'll turn it back over to Sarah. Thank you. Thank you, Annie, and thanks to everyone on the panel for sharing your really remarkable scholarship.
And the reason I think it's really interesting to hear that digital affordances, I think for all for two of you, at least, the way in. And then also like dealing with a particular community was a really important aspect of it. So just keeping that in mind is, I think, helpful for those of us who think at scale a lot of time about, what it means for these individual books.
And so, I'd love to open it up now for if you have questions, of course, for the individual panelists, you're welcome to do that. There's a microphone in the center aisle. We invite you to come to that. And also just to if you have your own stories or experiences around working with authors, like a great story about an open access project. We would actually love to hear that and really start to make that a part of our conversation on a more regular basis.
So I'll ask that and then if not, I have some discussion questions for the panel to get us started. So yeah. Any questions to begin. Yes John. Yeah Please go to the mic so we can all hear. Thank you. Hi thank you.
Good to see you all. I want to pick up on Annie's sobering last comment about money. And it strikes me that the missing piece of the equation in the finances here is the authors the benefit to the authors host institution. And so while I want to be vehement about not setting up a model where its author pays to publish, I still think that's the authors host institution is the one getting a huge free ride in this equation, because the University Press is probably losing $10,000 to $15,000 to publish the book, and everybody else is sort of struggling, but the author's home institution gets this huge benefit.
And so I've wondered whether there's can model and how practical that might seem at your particular institutions. So I'm just curious whether that is something that should be explored, or is it just too fraught because of the only authors from certain institutions will get published kind of approach. Is this on.
Yay thank you. This is so interesting and so fraught. I agree with you that the benefit to the institution is huge. I live in a red state and work under in a State University with a red legislature. The challenge on the one hand, as I acknowledged, they understand that the cost of college is real and that we should reduce the cost of instructional materials.
That's the argument that has won so far with support for open access that it makes the textbook free for students. They understand that part. The funding for research in the arts and humanities, the research in terms of funding for individual faculty, say, for a research trip, for a conference presentation that still exists at some universities and it's gone away at other universities altogether, so that people are paying out of pocket to do the research that is required by their employer.
I find this mind blowing, but there it is in that situation, it's pretty hard to get the University to pay for the publishing part. They're just not paying for any of it. I don't know how to solve this one, but it's a problem right now. I just had one thing that we've recently had success with some of our non humanities and social sciences departments in getting their support, in helping us pay for open access agreements with publishers in their areas.
And I kind of at first I thought, oh, is this a good way to approach it. But now I'm kind of coming around to it because I think so. For example, our computer science department has helped with the cost of us subscribing to ACM open. And as that is really useful because they have buy in and they understand the costs they're invested in it and they're going to help us promote it. And so I wonder if again, that's a way we can think of it.
Now, I know departments and colleges have varying amounts of money, and yes, maybe the humanities departments might not have the same amount of funds as some other departments. But I do like that buy in. I also just wanted to chime in. I work at a small private college. I am very fortunate to have access to a lot of internal grants, even as some of my colleagues are losing access to things like federal grants for arts and humanities.
I have many colleagues in the field who work at other small private institutions or public institutions that have very different approaches to what the University will or will not fund. And so I guess my concern is I like the idea of having support for open access come from the institution, because the institution also benefits from it. But my concern is that the universities that have the means to do that would result in the only open access scholarship coming from the most privileged institutions and the wealthiest institutions.
And I'm not really sure how to reconcile that because I don't think, for example, my spouse works at an institution that's having a lot more financial trouble than mine. I don't think it would be fair to say that he should have to pay open access out of pocket for his publication, when I wouldn't have to pay for it. I mean, nothing is fair, really, but I think that is one of the things that feels particularly fraught to me, in addition to what Danielle was saying.
So my name is Charles Watkins, and I'm the director of University of Michigan Press, and I'm the person who says it's more a comment than a question, but it is a question actually in there. So just in terms of emerging questions, to Annie's point that we're hearing is what are the implications for AI crawling of publishing my work, open access and the comment bit is what I say in response is, hey, all of the books are being sucked in without authorization.
It actually probably doesn't matter if your book is open access or restricted access, the same thing is happening. Maybe there's a slight advantage to an AI crawler to be able to easily locate a copy, but if you have any sort of Creative Commons license on there, there is some restriction on what can be done with it. Even if it's a cc-by, there should be some attribution, which there never is with the commercial AI crawlers.
But I just wondered how you would answer that concern, which is emerging from more and more authors. Yeah thank you. I think so much depends on who the author is and how they're situated with respect to the ecosystem. An independent scholar who is hoping to earn royalties will feel differently about this than I feel.
I have a secure position with tenure, and I can afford to think that the money doesn't matter to me. The rights matter, the copying matters. And I think authors, I certainly had a very dim understanding of what a Creative Commons license means. You all had to explain that to me. I do think making letting knowledge circulate more widely is really good for society right now.
So that piece is for me out front moving me ahead. But I can see where someone who is more precarious than I am would potentially feel differently. I mean, I don't have an answer, but I have another question. I mean, what kind of knowledge is being generated through the AI crawlers? I mean, are they actually using our ideas or are they just creating more a different kind of ecosystem altogether.
So I don't know where we are with that. I just wanted to put that in there. It strikes me that open access can be maybe the solution to this kind of concern. Because if it doesn't matter, if I am looking to get money from my book and then suddenly I can't get money from my book because it's just people are just getting the information from AI.
Anyway, I feel like that sort of mirrors what we've been seeing in the last two decades in the music industry, where everyone is now listening to music for free. And so there's more incentive for musicians to share their music for free, because then at least it's coming directly from them. And it's not like going to some. The money's not going to some giant corporation.
So I think maybe using that as an argument of hey, your work's going to be out there anywhere anyway, why not publish open access and then people will go directly to you to find it. And then it's also, I think, maybe easier for the eye crawlers to at least link to it in a way that people might be more likely to click to it. And then if you have more people who have published open access, then we have broader support in the academic community and perhaps more broadly politically, if I'm being an optimist for regulating how AI uses open access scholarship, because now there is more of it.
It doesn't seem like a niche issue anymore. Just some initial thoughts. That's good. Hi there. I'm a managing editor for The blood journal. So I am. I am a scientist myself. And I have been an author as a scientist.
And now I'm in publishing science, and I've learned a lot from this discussion. I didn't expect it would be focused on the humanities, but I couldn't. I couldn't get myself to leave. It was very enlightening. I also have a brother who's a professional scientist, so I am familiar with some of your issues at Oberlin. My question to you is, if you wouldn't mind educating a science publisher briefly, we scientists and scientific publishers face the issue of public access versus open access, and I'm constantly getting questions from scientists about this.
And this is the only way that I've learned the difference, despite having benefited from NIH research at some point. So public access for scientific for scientists who publish in scientific publishers means that you're required to publish or to make your material publicly available. It doesn't necessarily mean open access and applying a copyright license, it just means putting it somewhere where the public can get it.
So is there some pressure like that in your fields where your funder, whether it's the institution or some other funding agency, forces you to make things public. And if there is, do you like that movement. Yeah So I would like to hear more about public versus open.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction there but the Luce Foundation the grant required that all of our publications from our conferences and such be open access, and so they supplied funding for some of the journal dedicated journal issues that we created to make them open access. But yeah, I don't know can someone speak about public and.
Yeah thank you. Yeah so humanities research in general is not as heavily funded by external funders as science research. So in general, faculty aren't relying on big federal grants to do their research. So there haven't been the same push for public access as there has been in the sciences. Now with the Nelson memorandum, the NIH and NEA had come up with public access policies.
However, kind of remains to be seen at this point. What is going to happen with those policies and how those will impact scholarship. But again, that federally funded humanities scholarship is just such a small percentage of the overall humanities scholarship that's published out there. So it's not as big of a big of an issue in general for these scholars.
Did anyone have a response to how do you feel about that if it were to happen in the humanities. Like, how would you feel about that. Would you see that as a positive move, or would you or do you think your colleagues would resist that in some way. I mean, maybe this is naive, but I would love more people seeing my work any time.
I'm not. I'm a music theorist. I'm not in this for the money anyway. No one is going to try to hire me as a private music theory consultant or something like. To me, I would be. I don't think that I would even feel it as pressure to try to make my research publicly accessible, because I want my research to be as publicly accessible as possible.
And if open access is the easiest way to do that without just making my own website and putting all my stuff up all the better. I'm not sure that is exactly what you're asking, but yeah, the National Endowment for the Humanities has not required books to be open access. I think because they understand that they are supporting the publishing ecosystem. I think they get that.
And of course, now they're under terrible circumstances. There are foundations that are more conservative. I think it's Guggenheim that specifically says they will not fund the production of digital objects. They want a paper book. And so there are parts of the ecosystem that are more or less willing to move or have different ideas about what they're aiming for. Dumbarton Oaks, for example.
They will publish Dumbarton Oaks. Thank you. Hi there. My name is David. I am a. I work for a society publisher that puts out a number of peer reviewed journals, so I'm coming from that aspect. Later this year, we're going to be moving to a hybrid.
Oh process. And as we've been describing this to people, we are finding a lot of authors and not just European, I mean, not just US based authors, even some from Europe who are quite horrified by the entire idea of oh, they say, wait, you're going to charge me for publication. Isn't that predatory? How can you be this unethical.
So as authors who at one time or another had never heard of. Oh, I'm interested to how would you go about educating authors to let them understand that open access is when done correctly, is a legitimate path to publishing and something that they should that authors don't necessarily need to be afraid of.
OK sorry, I hadn't quite gotten my thoughts together yet. I mean, I think it's tricky, is the short answer. One reason that I was able to publish oh, twice is because I have a professional society that supports that. I didn't have to pay to have my own scholarship published. And frankly, if I'd had to I couldn't have because I was just coming out of graduate school, I would not have had the means to. So probably what I would have chosen is to do another journal that didn't require that, or to not publish open access or some other alternative.
So I think it's tricky because the money has to come from somewhere, and I think there is a deep sense of unfairness from the author of like, why should I have to pay for people to get my work. I could just give people my work. I just don't have a way of doing it. I think there's a lot of frustration by authors and I've heard this from some of my colleagues about the idea of publishing open access, and that's maybe what one of the earlier questions was getting at of like, shouldn't this be on the host institution.
And this is kind of a very related problem to what we've all been talking about, where just end up with the cost responsibility bouncing around to different places, and everyone can come up with a fairly valid argument about why it shouldn't be their responsibility. So I don't have a solution, just that I think you can emphasize why open access is important and why it's beneficial to the scholar, but I think if we're looking for ways to convince them that.
It is worth it for them to pay the money. That's tougher because that's a very individual choice and not everyone can. Yeah, I would add that I think people in faculty roles have a very limited understanding of money flows. Often University budgets are not transparent. They have no idea what money is, where or how that works. Publishing also is they feel like it's a black box in ways that are surprising to me.
When an author is negotiating with a press, they have no idea what the business is actually that's going on in that press, what the constraints are, they have no idea what costs money or they haven't imagined it yet. So I think they don't know that peer review costs human time there. The time of someone to manage that process, the technology to manage that process, all of these things, helping them see that those costs have to be borne is a good idea.
Because I think they may not be able to see it just from where they sit otherwise. Thank you. Yeah so I was convinced by my grad students, essentially. I mean, I'm a full professor. And so, I could afford to play around with publishing different formats and things. And then path to open came along. And that really encouraged me to think about other venues other ways of getting information out.
And I'm at a different kind of stage in my career. So that enabled me to do things that I maybe wouldn't have done as an assistant. So I think, yeah, those things factor in. But path to open has been very convincing to me. Yes, thank you and thank you to all of you for these wonderful questions. Yes, and path to open does provide a means by which authors don't have to pay anything.
And that explains that three year period where it is sort of in a licensed state so that the press can recoup expenses for publishing the book and then it becomes open. So that's a new model that we're trying out. Whereas the tome initiative was to Erin's point, it was 20 pretty well resourced institutions that were participating in tome. And that's it.
So we're figuring this out as we go. But I just want to thank, again, our wonderful panelists for being here today, and to thank all of you and enjoy the rest of your afternoon. Thank you.
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