 John Claude's answer to Sally's question, they're actually set us up beautifully for the next panel session, which is where I wanted to stop at that point. Could I ask our panellists to come up onto the platform now? There should be five of you. Right, thank you. We're going to our next session now, which is our panellists. Dame Janet Finch commented that the one thing that she got out of chairing the Finch committee was that she's become a noun. She's yet to become a verb. We look forward to that. We do have the panel now to build on that, and I thought John Claude's answer to Sally's question at the end there really did introduce very nicely the theme on this. In the spirit of John Claude's suggestion that we should upend the author, I'm not going to do the usual thing of introducing them. I'm going to ask them to introduce themselves. I'm going to ask them just to first of all say very quickly who they are and then give us one or two words as to why they think they're here. That should be very brief because then what we'll do is go to five minutes for everybody to speak to their topic because I want to allow a maximum amount of time before lunch for interaction from the floor. So if we could start from the far end and if you could just quickly say who you are and why you think you were asked to be here. So my name is Calbu. I'm working in Brussels at the European Commission with the vice-president Neely Cruz of the Commission who is responsible for the digital agenda and for ICT related research funding in Europe. As we have heard this morning already a lot, a big part of the reason we are here is the digital revolution and the technologies that we are seeing. We are in the business of producing more of that and that's why we are also in the business of trying to benefit from it and open access obviously is one of the big potential areas for benefiting from it. I guess I'm here because I've been very much involved with the development of the policy statement issued by the Commission last year regarding open access to scientific information. The Commission has set out its own approach to open access when it comes to its own role as a research funder. The Commission is a very large research funder in Europe with a new programme, over 70 billion from 2014 to 2020, which will be covered by an open access requirement. And also a recommendation to Member States as to our conviction that they should think about these questions too and essentially do not necessarily in the same way, in similar ways as was done in the UK with a Finch group to have a thought about what this all implies and what should be done about this. So develop open access policies requirements and so on. So I was very close to that, I continue to be close to that and I guess that's why I'm here. Thank you, thank you very much. My name is Sally Hardy. I'm the Chief Executive of the Regional Studies Association, not a commercial publisher I would add now. I've spoken quite a bit at conferences recently about open access in relation to journal publishing and how that will impact on learned societies and what the potential consequences are for learned societies in terms of the way in which we add to research ecology. And I think I've been invited here to broaden that reflection and to take into account open access monographs, what difference might that make, where can the learned societies make a difference both in our work with our commercial publishing partners but also with our members and the wider community. And I hope in my five minute statement that I'll be able to make some reflections on where I think the learned societies might begin to make those contributions and why I think we've been quite slow to engage in that process. It was quite telling for me, I think there's only five people on the list of participants that own up to being from a learned society. Of course others of you may be masquerading under your institutional affiliations. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Kim Hackett, I'm from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. And I'm here today I think, well firstly in the place of David Sweeney who wasn't able to attend. But mainly because HFK at the moment are currently developing our policy intentions regarding open access and the next research excellent framework. Not the current ref that's happening at the moment but the one thereafter. So we've been consulting and working dialogue with the sector on how we can introduce that requirement and really to say a bit about how monographs fit into that today. Thank you. So I'm Robert Gatti, I'm an economist up at Trinity College. But the reason I'm here I think is because with a group of other academics up there we started up an open access publishing company, open book publishers. Pretty much because we agree with absolutely everything that the previous speaker said and we were frustrated by moaning to ourselves about it and frustrated with the existing publishing environment that was just denying the developments that were possible in humanities and social sciences. So we thought damn it let's do it. So that's what we've done. And I guess that's why. Thank you. I'm Philippe Grun. I've been asked to provide an awful first perspective on open access monographs in the social science and humanities. Well, in the line of the previous talk by Jean Claude I usually say more that I'm a writer than an author. Actually in French I even say I'm an écrivain, someone who does the act of writing because we have such a stupid sacralisation of the notion of écrivain and author. But I try to move away from it. So I'm going to do whatever I've been asked to do. And basically the main topic would be to try to convince you that if we want to build something that makes sense in terms of writing and publishing open access monograph. We will face challenges that have nothing to do with the usual thing we consider as challenges like less public money or piracy or whatever. Right. Thank you. Great introductions. Now what I'm going to do is ask each of you to speak for just five minutes. Now we have to do this in the right order because otherwise you'll end up with the wrong slides. And I think that will mess up content a little bit too much for all of you. Although it could be a challenge of course to speak to the wrong slides in the spirit of what Jean Claude said earlier. But let's not let's not do that. So Rupert that means you've got to start. Well that's easy because I know you can come up here. I go up there. All right. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You might have to prompt me five minutes. I tend to burble sometimes. So yeah I didn't come in with any slides but I think the issue and it's very rare that I've had to come up and speak after somebody who's so eloquently said pretty much all that I wanted to say. You know we are in a stage where dissemination of knowledge is possible on a scale which was unimaginable even 30 years ago. And we're stuck in a system which was determined 30 years ago. And so we're right at a point where we can transform the way that we disseminate our knowledge that we generate that our knowledge that the humanities and social sciences can interact and engage with society. And right now as the abstract for the whole conference said we're in a situation where monographs have gone from dissemination of 2000. Sounds quite a lot when you look at it now at about 200. But 2000 is still tiny and it's good when you've got a melt metal. But when you don't have to melt any metal, when you don't have to pack things on horses over mountains, when you can do it digitally it's pathetic. And now we're in a situation where we can engage with the full globe, where we can disseminate any ideas that we do have, good, bad, whatever. We can put them out there and get people to engage with them. At a broader level the humanities and social sciences are having to fight for this funding stream to prove our relevance. And how can we prove our relevance when our primary and most important output is being printed 200 times and being given access to maybe 500 people. And then we claim we're meaningful. We can't do that. And so we've got to sort of front up and say there is another way of doing it. We also are no longer restricted to paper. There are different ways of engaging and more important ways of engaging. And paper will remain, I'm sure, one important outlet, but there's lots of other ways as well. And so we can't get fixated in that. The final thing, if I've still got a couple of minutes, is that as was stated previously, the dissemination process is a very small end point of the whole research process. But it's critical. I say to all my students it's no good you knowing that. Unless you can tell people that's what knowledge is for. And right now the bit where we tell people is bound up in a book and it's constrained access by publishers through a payment system. And so we are paying for the dissemination process by putting money done to be a reader. And so we are paying by denying access to knowledge. And so I think we need to think all the time that whatever we're proposing, if we've got this payment to read model down, then we are saying, guess what, Africa, we're not interested. Guess what, everybody who's not got an academic position, you'll never understand. And that's not where we can and should be. So it's a real, real social damage that's being done, I think, by restricting ourselves to the book and by having a payment mechanism for the reader to access what the ideas that we're putting out. Thank you. Hello. So having us to be here basically because I do write open access monographs in the social science and the humanities. But I must first put a disclaimer. The three of them have been written after I left academia. And when I actually, when I was an academic researcher, I didn't feel any real search to write monographs. And that maybe tells something that is there are lots of things that do qualify content wise. Two of them were peer reviewed classically that come from outside of the academia. So I would like to start by, sorry, by a few hard facts, what I call hard facts are facts that won't disappear even when you hate them. So I think basically the social science and humanities and are, they are just the same than any other domain in which people think about stuff, write stuff and try to make it available to readers. And what we experience is that with the birth of the information technology and the internet and the capability building it has made possible, there we are more interesting people who are in a position to write stuff and make it available to others, much more than before. And even the, let's say the filters that define monographs in the social science and humanities, they are not enough to prevent this fact from existing also there. Reading time or attention time more generally is not increasing. And even if access is made easier, it is severely constrained. And the result is a simple consequence is that the average audience is strongly diminishing. You know, in the US there are five times more published titles of books per year than there were 20 years ago, and this will keep going. However, in that situation, some small audience or middle audience books matter, of course it would be stupid to say that all of them matter. And we have a challenge in trying to make them unknowledge, to assist more of them to exist. So what I'm trying to do is to try to learn a bit from the experience of my last book written with a contribution of my daughter, Suzanne, who was published by Amsterdam University Press and distributed for the open access version by the OAPN platform. This is a book we published in four channels, a paper book, both print run and that's basically because there I was a stupid order and I think we could have gone only for print on demand. But commercially books, and I will come back to that because they are the stupidest thing that I have seen here in this domain, a free to share PDF and an augmented edition site. Here are the figures for, I mean, my books sort of live long, which means they live slow also. So this is an ongoing process, but basically you could see that about 500 copies have been sold, which, let's say by standards of this domain, look like a middle, rather than small, but 3,000 downloads have occurred on the OAPN site, which is amazingly low. So the first lesson is if I do it myself like I did for the second book, the one you saw before, and I am myself promoting the downloads, I will have five times more downloads. So the first lesson is open access publishers or publishers in general, they don't know how to promote free access on the internet. It's not easier to have many people access for free a book that it is to have many people access it by paying. But the other interesting thing is the augmented edition site of a book had 10,000 unique visitors, which looks like a more interesting figure. Another interesting thing is several of my books have been translated in several languages for one, and this is something which is incredibly encouraged by open access. None of these translations would have existed without open access. Now a few words before I leave the floor on the augmented edition. This is in it, we have what you should find actually. I also run a company that does annotation tools and websites, collaborative websites. So we wanted that to be a kind of window of a know how. So basically you find all the software code that was used in the study, all the data sets. You can comment chapter by chapter. You see an example here. You can run interactive media of the interactive models on the site. And basically what do you see is well over 10,000 unique visitors. About only 5% will invest in the real interactive facilities that is the data sets source code. Which goes back to the number of people who were seriously interested in reading the book. The most innovative aspect is maybe the running of interactive models because it's really developing a new involved relationship of readers in the substance of what is told in the book. We were very much stimulated by an example of a book on fiscal reform and fiscal policy by Thomas Piketty, Cami, Saez and Landais. Give a look if you have time and thanks for your attention. Thank you. As I already mentioned, the commission has a double role as a research funder and as a research policy maker. Speaking as a research funder first, I can report that in Horizon 2020, which is the next framework programme for research of the European Union, there will be, depending on how you count, between 700 million and 1.5, 1.6 billion for the humanities and social science research funding for seven years. So it's roughly 200 million a year. That's a substantial part of money and obviously, as I mentioned already, we're looking for open access to the results of that funding. Now the commission is rather agnostic when it comes to what the results are and so it's not really in contradiction necessarily with what John Claude explained this morning. So I think it would be very open if people came with new ways of doing that but obviously this is a programme that is based on paying out the money to those who do the research and if those who do the research decide that they need to write books or papers or journal articles, they are going to do that. And we are there to first of all tell them that you would like to see the results in open access. We are also there to tell them how to do open access and for those who haven't followed this policy debate mainly last year, a little bit in the interaction between the Finch discussion to use it as a noun again and our policy announcement in July, which came slightly afterwards. Our position in that is, let's say, a balanced one. The commission always wants to be balanced for those of you who have ever visited a policy event. You have heard this term before. We are basically in the middle, we have said that we are very much in favour of green. We like self-repository of authors. However, we are not against gold. So if people want to do that, they can do it and they can even get the money reimbursed inside the project funding that they have. Now, I was interested in the beginning about John Clos' discussion about the collaboration aspect and this argument that we need to get away perhaps more than we have in the past from the single author. Obviously, the European research programmes, they are about collaboration. They are actually about forced collaboration because you need partners from several countries in these projects. So often there is already the first question that they have and how do they bring together the results. This brings me to another problem in the end. So you have project reports, you have outcomes of this and of course you have individual researchers or groups of researchers publishing about the results. You may also have the odd or not so odd PhD student working away on their thesis as part of such a funded project which then comes much later. Obviously, we want to have all of the outcomes covered by the open access mandate that is going to be there which raises the question of what to do when projects are over. What about this funding element? Because we really want to be balanced on this. We don't want to just say, well, we agree in gold but by the way now your project is over so there is no money anymore. So to give you a state of play currently, we are studying the way possibilities of how to do that without however going as far as I think some announcements in the UK have thought us, the UK would go. Namely of somehow saying that every comma will have money for what's going to be done there. It's obvious that this amount of money is not available and especially not known today. It's not known, cannot be budgeted for and therefore by definition it's not available but we are working very actively on setting up such an instrument that would allow to catch those cases where really the outcome comes after the project is formally over but we really want the results not to end up in some close publishing setting but we want them to be available too and to allow that we want to be having set up a flexible system. Two other elements perhaps interesting also in light of what Martin said earlier about the stuff and the data and the different kinds of things that we have. We're also looking not only at publications and be they modern or more old fashioned types of publications but also at data, so research data, the underlying information on which the results are based and there we are setting up something we should call the data pilot and basically the idea is here to make sure that we go into the direction of open access to the data too. However in a less let's say forcing way with publications we have already run a pilot as some of you may know since 2008 we think we have enough experience to now conclude that it's time to go to an open access mandate whereas for data it's a bit more early days still. Right now I think tomorrow in Brussels there will be a hearing about this just to explore with the communities of exploring the various interests and concerns about how such a data pilot could run. Obviously our hunch and Vice President Cruz's approach to this is of course the more the better and what you may also know that we are in the business of building the infrastructures that will allow the data to be there to be stored and actually to be accessed. This is more about more than about just buying cheap storage. This is about building the systems that allow you to actually work with this data to curate it to keep it alive and useful. Final word then on the monograph in human humanities and social sciences as you may have already gathered from what I've said up to now we have no made no special amends for monograph non monograph in principle the same rules will apply. Obviously the question will then come up how are the costs you know allocated between the two types of very different types of publications. How can these things be planned before normally takes we have heard it a few times already takes longer to write the book. So maybe you're in a larger risk to be behind a project schedule and to be too late in a way. We already discussed this morning a bit possible ways to amend that where you basically decide before that you write a book you commit the money. We would be happy. Our money would flow. Our auditors would be happy. But in the end you could still finalize the manuscript a year two or three years after projects are over. That may be one possibility. As I said we are studying others but necessarily we don't really see a difference between this area and others and there I want to echo what Rupert said earlier in a way. This is research publicly funded. The results should be accessible and obviously when you then go down to the details there may be differences in the way the communities approach this. But from the research funders perspective we don't see the need to make any special arrangements for that apart from the embargo period for self depositing where we have allowed for 12 months. Instead of six for these areas which I think also has seen some examples elsewhere. And with that I spoke 90 seconds too long. I hope you can forgive me. Thank you. So thank you very much. I've been asked to talk about how learned societies will support monograph authors as they transition to open access. And when I was preparing I found it quite difficult to engage with partly because it's difficult to speak on behalf of the learning societies. Because we're really not very homogenous. But I'll give it to you from my perspective. The second reason is that not many of my chief executive officer colleagues have engaged with this fully yet. We've been very slow to do this. So with those two caveats I'm going to share my thoughts. Let me put books in perspective for you from a regional studies association point of view. Our annual income is around a million pounds. Of that books in terms of editorial expenses and royalties come in at 4,000 pounds. That's 0.5% of our income comes from books. By contrast our journals programme contributes 501% and I think the RSA case is not untypical. Now is that good enough? No of course it isn't. Our book series is important to us. We publish with Routledge. It's growing. We have more manuscripts coming in. There's clearly an appetite to both to both write them. And in our series sales are stable growing in some areas on some of our paperback books. So what do we need to do as a society? I suppose I see three types of activity for us. Firstly an advisory role where we inform our members about the changes and the implications that there might be for them. The role of an advocate for our members. And finally I think there's a collective role for the learned societies where we might pose questions on issues that would have a more general resonance in the wider community. So I see a kind of three stage thing. So first I'm going to quickly talk about playing the role of an advocate for our members. And in doing this it will be important for learned societies to recognise that open access is not even across global territories. It's rolling out in slightly different ways around the world. And our responses need to be nuanced. So if we look at three kind of themes. Funding, pricing and publishing formats they seem core. So how will funding mechanisms work? How will funding be divided between journal APCs and book APCs? How will we be sure that our members get access to those funds in whatever kind of society we work? What about pricing? We're beginning to see offers come through now to the market. So Palgrave are offering £11,000. Springer, €15,000. Manchester University Press have come in at £5,900 for up to 80,000 words and then a sliding scale. Intech are charging by the chapter. There's a multitude of different models. So from a learned society point of view are those prices equitable? Do they apply across all disciplines? If not, what's the justification for that? Is it because of increased typesetting costs because of the type of content? I wonder whether we might be seeing the days of more expensive books in the areas like economics and business studies coming to an end and I think that would be a very good thing. What about publishing formats? A number of models are appearing. There are models where you make the plain HTML version that can't be printed freely available. So that's your open access and then you buy. You have the option to buy your hardback, your paperback and your e-version or your PDF. It's possible to buy premium e-books with enhanced navigation, search facilities and multimedia content. But which model is best? Does there need to be a single best model? Perhaps there's advantage in having a complex offer which allows authors to choose from a wide number of options that might suit their audiences better. Another area where we might support our members is through advising them on what's happening, developments with open access monograph publishing. In preparing, I was very struck, for example, on a different culture and attitude to licensing in the books world, the journals world. In books, CC Buy seems to be promoted as a unilaterally good thing. If you look at the Palgrave and the Springer websites, CC Buy is beautifully displayed as excellent. John Claude, I'm sure, would totally agree with that. But we know from various surveys and the OAPN survey most recently that many authors have reservations about that. They're worried about the way in which their content might be used. And they do feel a sense of ownership and wanting to protect that. I think the associations have a role and a responsibility to their members in getting these issues out and making sure that they know what these licences are, what they mean, what the implications are. For example, on the Palgrave site, they quite openly say that if you're going to publish your book CC Buy, please don't plan to include third party materials because it's A, likely to cost you a lot more money, or B, you're not going to get permission for it. What kind of world is that that we're living in? We really need to make sure that our constituent members understand these issues. Finally, I imagine that as with open access journals, there will be a kind of engagement by the learned societies in the debate. And what I would like to see is quite a number of issues being raised by the societies, which will have this broader resonance where we can engage in discussions with academics, with the commercial publishers and with the funders, and quite a number of issues immediately spring to mind. So green or gold open access publishing from monographs. There's a real push to gold, but does it have to be that way? And if it's green, what's an appropriate embargo? And does that vary by subject area? Not all publishers are offering discounts to developing countries. Springer is because it's funded externally, but Palgray isn't, and they're completely open about that on their website. How do we feel about that as a community? How do we ensure a publishing environment which avoids a breakout of predatory publishers? And I refer you to Beall's list here of predatory publishers. We know that there are publishers that would sacrifice quality just for the money. What about peer review? Absolutely critical question for the learned societies, I suggest. Do we need a debate about new forms of peer review? Or are we confident in our existing systems? If we use sales as a proxy for quality at the moment, will publishers be able to upgrade their portals in order to allow the measurement of downloads and page views? We know it's being done in some of the pilot projects at the moment. But if so, for the smaller publishers, how will they fund that? What about marketing? This was raised earlier. Access is one thing, but readership is something else. Now, I think the OAPN results show that if you do make monographs open access, there are more downloads and views. But how do we know that? What will be the incentive for marketing in a world where the publishers have all the money up front? And is it right that we push all of that back onto the academics? That's not their primary purpose. How will membership schemes work and will they be ethical? What about VAT? That will have a big impact. Not very interesting. I can't stand VAT myself. I find it very confusing. But it is an important issue in open access publishing and online publishing. Finally, can the publishers make this model work and will it be sustainable? And what will happen to incomes, to organisations like the Learned Societies? Journal's income is absolutely critical for my society, but anything that damages the societies will have an impact down the line on research ecology. So, I think I've raised more questions than I've answered. The move to open access publishing has gone with dazzling speed and not a little controversy in journals. In open access monographs, it's been almost silent from my perspective, but the societies really do need to engage, not only in terms of our advocacy and advice roles, but also practically, could I make our older publications open access? How would I go about doing that? How would that be funded? It seems to me this conference is very timely in raising a number of very, very important issues for the societies. Thank you. Hello. I'm going to start off just by giving an overview of the benefits of open access generally, which underpin our policy objective. And they are, as is well known, increased efficiency in the research process in having research findings freely available and accessible online, with all the potential for text and data mining tools developing, and for public understanding in being able to freely access publicly funded research findings. So, as a council, we want those benefits to apply to research in all disciplines, and for open access, therefore, extend all output types for which it's reasonably achievable to do so. Furthermore, sharing some of the ideas already discussed today, we share the view that open access for monographs actually offers an opportunity to develop a sustainable model and also for it to respond to the changing environment of scholarly communications. So, following on from that, it's our policy objective to encourage an increased proportion of research outputs to be published in open access form. So, to achieve that, we've announced an intention to introduce an open access requirement into the next research excellence framework after the 2014 exercise, and that's the UK-wide research assessment on which we base our allocation of funding. So, we set out our initial thoughts on how we'd introduced this requirement in a letter in February and sorted advice on that, on those initial thoughts, and it's that advice I wanted to discuss with you today, really, and in particular, the advice that we received on monographs. We think this advice offers quite a significant resource to us at the moment in terms of increasing our understanding on the feasibility of open access and to get a sense of the different perspectives that exist in the sector at the moment and the varying concerns that are held by different groups. What the advice did show and demonstrate was a widespread support for the principles of open access, which I don't think many people disagree with. With regard to monographs, the advice underlined the value of monographs for research in the humanities and social sciences, and that's something that's been a little bit questioned today, something that came through strongly in the advice that we received. But advice also echoing what we've heard about concerns about the current model for publishing monographs is ascribed as being broken and offering low economic return. Therefore, a number of respondents expressed a view that there's a need for a sustainable open access model, often with a view that Hefke should encourage and support developing work on this. But similarly, there were concerns that the developing models would need to ensure that the UK reputation for a search in these disciplines is maintained through the high standards, through keeping the high standards of peer review and editing that currently underpin the quality of research in these output types. But that reflects a more widely held concern in the advice relating to the timing of our policy intentions and the stage of development of open access monograph models. A number of respondents did highlight the number of new initiatives often enthusiastically with a great deal of optimism about their potential which is great. But many also highlighted the quite early stage of some of these developments suggesting that they're not going to be advanced enough to make open access for the post 2014 Ref feasible even with an appropriate notice period before the requirement applied and especially in view of the different publication times between monographs as compared with journals. So in summary the majority view expressed was that it was at this stage not appropriate to introduce a requirement for open access for monographs into the next Ref. The advice also highlighted the different range of positions from researchers, publishers, funders and their specific concerns and issues which we'll need to address going forward and gather evidence where possible to inform further policy development. So just to summarise the next steps of what we're doing we sought that advice to feed into the development of a formal consultation on open access in the next Ref and that consultation is due to be launched in a few weeks time. In developing those proposals we have taken account of the advice that we received including on those outputs for which it's appropriate to expect open access publication. So for monographs in the meantime as mentioned it's clear that there are a number of views and concerns to address supported by a number of calls for further work to be done and we don't have the answers at this stage to address those concerns that have been raised in the responses more widely. But we think it's important now that we all work together to gather the evidence on monograph publishing, explore the future of workable sustainable models that will maintain the high standards and increase accessibility. So we're just at the very beginning sages of some work that we're hoping to take forward in partnership with other funders to gather evidence and explore the possibilities working with key representatives from the different interested groups. So we're looking forward to exploring these issues and we'll of course report on these in due course. Thank you all our panellists. It's now open for comments and points from the floor and what I'd like you to do if you could just introduce yourself and keep the comments or questions relatively brief because we haven't got that much time and then I'll ask members of the panel to respond. So who'd like to start off? Yes, yes. Can I see somebody? We're back. Sorry, sorry. Got a light in my eye here. Please go ahead. And also because it clearly raises so many practical problems but one of the ideas that I've heard floating around about green is that learned societies might be a better place for the repositories to be than the repositories that currently exist in HEIs. Partly because then it would be much easier and more obvious to go to the subject concerned. Now then of course there would be a funding problem and I think the funding problem is one that we might encourage Hefsey and other people to be thinking about. Thank you. Let's start with you Sally on that then because it starts in with learned societies in green. It's a very interesting question and I would very much like to explore green book publishing as well. The commercial publishers seem to have moved firmly down the gold route and that's for very understandable reasons. There isn't very much to be read on green but there is some material if you look closely for it. Embargos would be a serious issue there. How long do you embargo a book for? I think that would be quite tricky. Your point on repositories is very interesting and a little bit scary because running a repository is an absolutely non-trivial task. I really don't think that it would be realistic for many humanities and social science learned societies to engage in that even with additional funding. I really think that I struggle to see how my organisation would manage to run a repository in a way that would make it helpful to the global research community if I'm honest. Thanks Sally. Other comments on green. I had some experience with let's say my first book which was published by Fayyar. It's a subsidiary of the Lagarde Arachet books. There was a six month embargo and it was sought a kind of green model because I was allowed to distribute it on a designated site. Though it was under a creative common license which meant it went everywhere after and the main lesson I learned is from the angle of synergy between access to the open access version and sales the proper embargo duration is zero which means that let's say the distinction between green and gold in the domain of books I think is probably a mistaken one in the sense that if you have an embargo of zero it means the only question is who takes responsibility for distributing the open access version. But I'm pretty sure that's not how most publishers will see it because they have internalized the idea that people don't buy stuff that they can get for free even if it's not the same thing and as a result they will ask for longer and longer embargoes and so my suggestion would be maybe to to forget about this distinction I mean it has spared monographs up to now so maybe we should keep it like that thank you thank you in the same line I think the discussion that's going on right now is still very much stuck on the idea that there is a fixed monograph even if we take the monograph as the end product of a certain process maybe there would be a role for learned societies as well in helping promote the manuscripts ahead of things promoting the communities around these manuscripts and working in terms of repositories working with libraries I think there's a natural fit there and then when the the manuscript reaches some sort of viable plateau intellectually speaking then something like a publication could take place which would not necessarily stop the evolution of that text but would show that this is a long-term service document that can be perhaps commercialised sold whatever but then we go into a different realm and we have a neat distinction between the intellectual effort and the economic sphere would you like to comment on that? I agree wholeheartedly I think one of the problems that we've got is the debate is exactly this rigidity and I think the green gold the issue of an embargo period is really critical here if you're going to realise the potential of open access I mean it's not even the potential of open access open access is a piece in a puzzle of digital dissemination it's a really critical piece but it's only a piece and you can't disseminate knowledge you can't do, you can't realise the potential of digital dissemination without having the text available for people to interact with and so an embargo period of anything is a nonsense because you're denying the very process of dissemination which is so critical to where we should be going so this green gold distinction I think is damaging because it forces one back into a fixed package and that this thing comes out as a fate to complete something that's there with a full stop and a bound cover on it and that's what we call gold and we put it somewhere else and call green I think there is a real role for institutional repositories in exactly the same way that there's a process there that is capable of storing the disseminated work of an institution or a university for academic societies in being people to help facilitate identification and encouragement of good research and putting it up there I really really really pull my hair out at academic societies that say I rely on the money that the role of the societies I'm not sure when the role of the societies stepped in to be a union representative for its participants it used to be about disseminating knowledge to get out there and letting society access it and I think we can really focus that and bring it down and bring the societies back to play a central role in that Thank you, now Sally wants to respond to that but I'm not but I'm not going to let her because Carl you gave us initially I'm not going to let her I won't be able to stop her eventually but Carl you gave us some very very large numbers at the beginning that you're going to give us all so how are you going to match your and Kim how are you going to match your funding models to something that everybody seems to think is a good thing how can you make your funding models make it possible for the sort of vision that Rupert's talking about there First a clarification the reason we are talking about green is not about embargoes in the context of green is not that we want this text to stay close for 6 months or 12 obviously not you have to see in the context of research funder going out and telling the recipients of the money what they can do and you can imagine that right now everybody knows the figures they're not very large of spontaneous making open access of research publications by the authors that's the only reason we're talking about mandates now and going from zero basically to 100 and saying everything needs to be open on day one is not just people will say well it's great because that's the only way that makes sense I was a little bit what Rupert said we had a lot of debate in Brussels not to call it lobbying around this and I think it makes sense if you talk about a transition system because there will be researchers somebody called them conservative earlier especially the young ones and you cannot just ignore all of that they are there, they are in the process of already writing something and then tell them well it needs to be open from day one so forget about all of those journals who now and not only without impact maybe from the UK debate have now chosen to demand embargo periods that are longer than 12 months or longer than 6 months you just tell them sorry forget about this publication opportunities that's what we don't want so we want to leave it open to be reasonable to make it possible for people to get both to be available in open access and publish in the journal of the dream if they can call it like that and the best possible one that they can get into leaving alone the whole debate about should be such a thing as a good and a bad journal and whether that is the past or the future but you see in a way a research fund has also a conservative place because it's about putting money out for something that politicians have decided is important and so you cannot then stop putting out all of that and say well I don't believe in the journal anymore because then you just become irrelevant and so maybe this situates a bit this is a sketch one last comment if I may on this there are some people that explain very convincing terms to authors and nobody can stop them from making their results available on day one for free for everyone so I like this idea I like people doing that but there are only so many instruments you have to actually take this tool and actually do it and so that's the reason why we mention embargo without meaning that they have to keep it closed far from it Thank you another four coming back to Sally Kim would you say that one of the reasons why in your consultation were you were unenthusiastic about moving to open access for monographs because they were thinking in their minds where am I going to find £10,000 Not so clearly I think that's part of the reason and certainly from the humanities and social sciences that is a concern for open access more generally not just for monographs but mainly because there wasn't confidence that there had been a workable model demonstrated yet through which they'd be able to meet the requirement Well thank you that's really gratifying that people in the academic community think that there's no problem with finding £10,000 and are only in fact limited by their concerns about the business model so Sally all of your members have no problem with finding £10,000 but are concerned about the business model is that fair? I'm going to come back to Rupert's comments directly I knew you would Thank you Perhaps I slightly misrepresented our position or perhaps you've chosen to poke a little mischief at us I do feel obliged to defend the role of societies We very much are about building communities in the way that Jean-Claude suggested so where are many academic papers first showcased they're showcased either within research networks or at conferences and events that are organised by the academic societies where is a lot of that research then built and grown it's through our newsletters and our magazines and then into our journals so of course we do play absolutely pivotal role in the development of knowledge and the exchange of knowledge we're also engaged in the generation of new knowledge through our research funding programmes and many learned societies have small but important research funding programmes we fund £160,000 worth of early career grants in £10,000 slots so we are actively engaged in that and critically we have a very large knowledge exchange activity which sees us running research led seminars within the palace of Westminster at least once and often very many more times a year where the partners for the open days for DG Regio looking at regional policy across Europe working with practitioners and policymakers where it's the academics that are showcasing their work now this is part of what the learned societies do around the growth of knowledge and the exchange of knowledge which I'm sure you agree is terribly important and that does need to be funded so if a part of what I'm doing is saying let's make sure that in the development of open access monographs we build models that are economically sustainable then a little bit of me is not ashamed of that but we believe in the quality of the work that we do and that work does need to be funded in some way Thank you Just an additional point I couldn't agree more with what Jean-Claude has said and Rupert and other people about the importance of having a platform which is also some form of production and post publishing production of future work but that only increases the challenges of finding funding this is it's clear that let's say today there are very few projects that can have few MIT books in the natural science and the two examples I mentioned mine and Piketty's book that can afford putting that in place and they do it by mobilising resources that are not generalisable so I think really if I have a message to my former let's say not my former colleague but the colleague of the organisation for which I used to work is do consider the financing of putting in place these platforms open access based but with additional real innovation in functionality and sharing of the platforms between people because this is really a work we cannot afford I mean I'm sure there would be many flavours of it but we cannot afford to have each small publisher developing this they won't succeed in it and so you have some big experiments I know Lucy Montgomery is here maybe she will speak a bit about what's happening in China on which she has supervised great work in China you have grass root efforts that I mean big efforts at developing these new forms of platform for post publishing reviews for bettering the content after this is this is the process we are going to see also with players like Piol J but it should be that's where let's say public policy and society efforts should target their low means thank you we are out of time could you thank the panel very much for their round of applause