 So, good morning, everyone. My name is Linda and young, and I am a program officer here at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine with the board on chemical sciences and technology. One of the roles I have here is coordinating the chemical sciences round table, which is the long standing standing activity within the board. Today we gather to discuss a familiar topic on public access, open access, data management and sharing. There has been a lot of update in recent years. And we will learn from our speakers today about those different challenges and opportunities presented in this field in particular to the chemistry and chemical engineering community. And we'll learn together how to navigate this new landscape in light of the updated Office of Science and Technologies policy on public access and their mandate. Before we go on, I wanted to share a bit of a housekeeping rules for those participating online. During the Q&A, I encourage you to ask your questions in the chat box or if you'd like to raise your hand, please do so and we'll spotlight you. For those participating in person, if you have questions, please go to either one of the microphones on the side of the aisles. And if you have a follow up comment to one of the questions are one of our moderators, either Jake or Leah will come to you. So the point is to make this workshop as engaging as possible. Next, I would like to express our gratitude to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. Their generous support of the chemical sciences round table has made this workshop and all of our activities possible. I also want to take a moment to give a special thanks to our workshop planning committee. Dr. Jake Yesen, Ms. Leah McEwen, Mr. Michael Forster and Dr. Rob Moleska. Their tireless efforts spent by our planning team these last few months have been instrumental in shaping today's event and ensuring its success. So right now I'll take a moment to introduce all of our planning committee members. So Dr. Yesen, Dr. Jake Yesen joined the staff of Science Magazine in 2004, making this his 20th year with science. In his current role, Dr. Yesen is an editor at the journal where he oversees the editorial group handling all research content of the physical sciences. Before his time at science, he did his postdoc research in ultrafast spectroscopy at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics. And then shortly after, he worked as a National Research Council Fellow at NIST. Dr. Yesen earned his PhD in chemistry from UC Berkeley in 2001 with a focus on at the interface of synthetic organometallic chemistry and vibrational spectroscopy. Ms. Leah McEwen, she is the chemistry librarian at Cornell University where she has served in this role for over 25 years. Ms. McEwen has served as both Secretary and Program Chair for the ACS Division of Chemical Information and on the ACS Joint Board Council Committee on Publishing Ethics and Chemical Safety. She is a founding chair of the Research Data Alliance Chemistry Research Data Interest Group. Ms. McEwen holds a Master's in Library Information Science from Emporia State University and a Master's in Nutritional Biochemistry from Cornell. I will introduce Ms. Leah McEwen tomorrow with her other credentials. Mr. Michael Forster is a recently retired publishing industry executive in his previous roles. He served as the senior level with Elsevier, Wiley and IEEE. In those capacities, he was responsible for journals, books, databases, publishing technology platforms and software development activities. Some of his notable achievements include deploying searchable chemistry and online journal articles and automation of chemical taxonomy. Mr. Forster has served as Chair of Chorus with the Board of Crossref and GlobalSpec and has been on the committees of the STM Association and AAPPSP. He is also engaged directly with the White House OSTP on open access issues. Last but certainly not least, Dr. Rob Moleska. Dr. Rob Moleska is a professor of chemistry at Michigan State University where he also began his independent career. Next year will mark his 30th year at MSU. His research group is interested in the invention of green reactions from organic synthesis and the total synthesis of natural products. Honors bestowed on Dr. Moleska includes being named a fellow of ACS and AAAS. He has received numerous awards and I'll highlight a few here. He has received awards from Merck Technology Collaboration Award, the EPA 2008 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award, and has also been recognized as Mentor of the Year from the MSU chapter of the National Society for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers. Dr. Moleska currently chairs the ACS Publication Committee and the CNEN editorial board. He earned his PhD in 1992 under direction of Leah Paquette. Finally, I want to thank the National Academy staff, Darlene Grove, Kay Wims and Eric Edkins. Your invaluable support in helping with the administrative and logistical operations for this workshop made all the difference. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your immense contribution. At this moment, I invite Dr. Moleska to the stage who will introduce our keynote speaker. Thank you. Thanks, Linda. It is my distinct pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker, Dr. Amiriam Zaringa-Hollam, who comes to us from the White House. Dr. Zaringa-Hollam is the Assistant Director of Public Access and Research Policy at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and I think she'll be telling us a little bit more about her role there as part of her keynote address. Prior to that experience, the doctor Zaringa-Hollam was at the National Library of Medicine, and prior to that she earned her PhD in microbiology from the Rockefeller University in 2017. I'll keep my introduction short because I think we are all here and excited that we do have Amiriam here to tell us about the Biden-Harris mandate and open access and fair data. Amiriam? I appreciate the instructions here. Big green button advances slide, so we'll see how I do. Good morning all. Again, my name is Amiriam Zaringa-Hollam, and I am the Assistant Director for Public Access and Research Policy at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP. So for those of you who may not be familiar, OSTP's mission includes providing science and technology advice to the Executive Office of the President and working with our federal partners and with Congress to create bold visions, advise policies, and effective equitable programs for science and technology. My work at OSTP centers on advancing the Biden-Harris administration's priorities and commitments to providing public access to data, publications, and the other important products of the nation's taxpayer funded research and innovation enterprise. And to do so in a way that really strengthens scientific integrity, bolsters public trust, promotes innovation, increases participation in the research enterprise, and advances equitable outcomes for all. I told you that this might not work in my hands. Okay, there we go. So I would like to ground my remarks before we dive into public access. In our US government-wide definition for open science, which was released in January of 2023 to kick off the federal year of open science, which I'll talk more about towards the end of my remarks. The National Science and Technology Council's subcommittee on open science or the SOS, as you may hear me call it, which is made up of representatives from research agencies across the federal government put their heads together leading up to 2023 to come up with this official definition. Collectively, we've defined open science as the principle and practice of making research products and processes available to all, respecting diverse cultures, maintaining security and privacy, and fostering collaborations, reproducibility, and equity. So this definition, while it is a sentence, is doing a whole lot of work bringing together and weaving together a number of the administration's priorities around advancing a vision for science and for research more broadly. So it first leads with this commitment to enhancing access to the products and processes of research, which is consistent with all of the definitions of open science that we came across as we developed this definition. It's inclusive, noting that these research must research outputs must be made equitably available to all, whether we are thinking about researchers students policymakers community advocates professors small business owners, or other members of the broader public. The definition also notes the need to respect for members of this open science enterprise to respect diverse cultures in their pursuit, instilling a sense of curiosity and humility while reinforcing that inclusive spirit. It also underscores the need for considerations around security and privacy when making decisions around what can and should be shared broadly. And it ends by looking towards our desired outcomes for open science. Namely, opening up more opportunities for collaborations with diverse stakeholders diverse communities across the recent across all of society, enhancing reproducibility by increasing access to data, and the tools underlying research findings and supporting equitable access to those findings and the outcomes that are based on them. Now if we look to the administration's aspirations from curbing greenhouse gas emissions to reducing social inequalities to ending cancer as we know it all while driving equitable outcomes for all across our nation bolstering public trust and strengthening our decision making abilities. These are really complex and multifaceted challenges that require a diverse and collaborative knowledge base. And so advancing open science policies is really critical to realizing these aspirations and delivering on our commitment to ensure that all of America can participate in contribute to and benefit from science and technology innovation. Oh, okay. So again, one of the central pillars for open science as we've defined it we lead with the principle and practice of making research products and processes available to all. So this brings us to a related concept that's really embedded in this definition, which is public access. And that refers to the free availability of federally funded scholarly materials, including data and publications to the American public. The basic principle that underlies OSTP's approach to public access is this that research funded by the people should be freely and immediately available to the people. There's been a lot of really great progress over the last decade towards this ultimate goal. As I was coming down down here this morning. I think that we are just about at the 11 year anniversary of the 2013 OSTP public access memo, which was issued in February of 2013 to federal agencies with over 100 million in research at $100 million in annual research and development expenditures. We asked them to develop plans to increase public access to publications and data. The memo was a really unprecedented and transformative policy that catalyzed a strong public access movement across the nation and around the world. In the last decade or 11 years, all of the agencies covered by that 2013 memo have developed and implemented their public access plans and federally funded researchers have worked in turn to come into compliance with these plants and policies. The result has been increased public access to the results of federally funded research with specific focus on access to scholarly publications and digital data resulting from such research. And some agencies have gone further implementing policies to increase access to other research outputs beyond those explicitly mentioned in that 2013 memo, including scientific software and models. This move towards greater public access has further facilitated the growth of new technologies that enable rapid data and publication sharing. I think I may be on. No, this is the right slide. Yes. So these developments in the public access space over those last 10 years 11 years put across the research enterprise put OSTP in a really excellent position to evaluate where we've come from where we might go and what we need to get us there. In other words, how could we build on this foundation to expand the American public's access to federally funded research and development ecosystem and to ensure that it is open, equitable and secure. There were a number of opportunities for us to improve on that 2013 guidance to help us better realize our basic guiding principles around public access and open science. So on August 25 2022 OSTP issued a memorandum on ensuring free immediate and equitable access to federally funded research. The memo builds on and strengthens that 2013 guidance in a few key ways, including by ensuring free and immediate public access to scholarly publications, eliminating the optional 12 month publication embargo from public access to publications resulting from federally funded research. Importantly, this is not a pay to publish policy. Agencies are best positioned to decide what are the appropriate practices for their research communities and how to provide guidance to ensure author choice, including the option of depositing an author accepted manuscript into an agency designated repository. Additionally, there was a real opportunity to strengthen the 2013 memos guidance around increasing access to data by requiring that data underlying peer reviewed articles be made frequent be made freely and immediately available upon publication. And by requiring other scientific data not associated with publication be made available within a reasonable timeframe. To be clear, we define scientific data in the memo as in a little footnote as the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as a sufficient quality to validate and replicate research findings. So sharing that data those data that underlie research findings can help us improve transparency, facilitate reproducibility and enable researchers to build on those findings to drive new discoveries or applications. I'll pause here for a moment to note that whenever we're making decisions around openness, including openness of data, we must take measures to protect privacy and security. Rather than take the view of openness and security as somehow being in tension with one another, that we have to sacrifice openness in order to preserve security. We see them as interwoven that decisions around openness must always take into account security and other protections around privacy. They are not separate meant to be sort of dealt by separate shops. And we note in the 2022 public access memo that openness is fundamental security is essential and freedom and integrity are crucial. And so the intention of OSTP provisions, for example, or providing around requiring data management and sharing plans at the outset of a project are aimed precisely at this prompting researchers to consider what their research goals are. The data that they'll be generating or acquiring to meet those goals, what specific implications or considerations attached to those data, and how they should be managed or shared. What policies may govern how those data are managed and whether and how they should be shared. So this is just a one example of how we see openness and security as working hand in hand with one another. The 2022 public access memo also includes a section, section four if you want to get super technical about it. That outlines provisions for ensuring scientific and research integrity. Section four of the memo leads by noting that public access policies that deliver transparent, open, secure and free communication of federally funded research and activities in an expeditious manner are an important tool to uphold scientific and research integrity. Our mechanism for facilitating and building this transparency and accountability is through the use of persistent digital identifiers or PIDs as you may hear me sort of slip into the acronym for. And these are standardized unique identification tags that can be associated with individuals organizations, documents, software data publications. And we also include provisions around sharing appropriate metadata to link them all together. All of these aspects together throughout the research lifecycle. The inner linkages facilitated through persistent identifiers and metadata can help us identify which federal agencies supported what investments. Who did that research, the extent to which peer review was conducted, how different research outputs connect to one another and so on. This systematic tracking and linking of taxpayer funded research throughout the research lifecycle can help us further promote trust transparency and accountability, while also creating avenues for tracking and rewarding the reuse and impact of research outputs. So again, another way in which we see security transparency really working hand in hand with openness. So I've just outlined OSTP is core expectations of public access policies for publications data persistent identifiers and metadata. These are sections three and four of the memo. Importantly, OSTP hasn't prescribed specific routes for implementing these expectations, recognizing once again that agencies are best positioned to translate these policies. These expectations into policies and practices that worked that work best for their research communities, building on their experience over the years with implementing again that 2013 memo and various other related policies. While individual agencies or departments are developing policies for their specific context coordination across agencies is really critical to the success of our public access guidance. Coordinated efforts ensure that policies are aligned that agencies are sharing best practices and resources, and that we are avoiding any duplication of effort. The public access effort really in this way is a whole of government endeavor a whole of government commitment to facilitate this coordination were using that National Science and Technology Council subcommittee on open science. The very same subcommittee that came up with that definition of open science that I led with and historically that the subcommittee or the SOS as you may again hear me call it has historically coordinated on all matters related to open science, including public access for many years now. More than 20 agencies have been working over the years to assist OSTP in advancing policies that promote access to federally funded research. And since the 2022 memos release, we've been glad to welcome the newly covered agencies like the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Social Security Administration and the Census Bureau. The 2022 memo provides a really long list, or maybe not such a long list, depending on how you look at it, an exciting list of tasks that the subcommittee has now been undertaking in this coordination effort. And so I'll note three highlights in this list. So coordinating to reduce redundancy and policies and practices, especially for public access repositories. Some agencies already have formal agreements to assist one another with article deposition. Another is deliberating on measures and practices to reduce inequities in the production and of an access to federally funded research publications and data. And then developing procedures and practices that continue to lower the barriers to comply with public access policy guidance. So here you can see a graphic with a summary of the timeline for implementation of this memo. OSTP continues to work closely with agencies throughout this process and again to facilitate interagency coordination through the subcommittee. So you can see that along the, we'll call it the X-axis here. And as you can see here, there are sort of two different timelines for agencies depending on their research and development budgets. Agencies with more than 100 million in annual research and development expenditures who were originally subject to the 2013 memo submitted their public access plans to OSTP and OMB in February of last year, specifically addressing how they'll make publications and scientific data freely and immediately available. All of the newly covered agencies, specifically those with less than 100 million in annual research and development expenditures were given more time to develop their public access plans. Given that they were sort of newer to this formal public access effort, although certainly have experience in making different aspects of their research publicly available. They submitted their plans for our review in August of 2023 and we've been continuing to work with them and the longer time agencies to develop their plans into policies. The agency public access policies themselves, which may require interagency feedback, public comment and more time to develop will be published by December 31, 2024, and go into effect by December 31, 2025. I know a lot of dates to remember. December 31, 2024 is also the day that a second plan to comply with the research and scientific integrity provisions around persistent identifiers and metadata are due. The remainder of the timeline provides for updates to policies to implement the persistent identifier and metadata provisions in section four, which go into effect by December 31, 2027. It is laid out to give you a sense of where we are, although it is not a perfect to scale graphic. While OSTP hasn't required that agencies make their plans for public access policy updates publicly available, a number of agencies have voluntarily posted their plans providing opportunities for public comment or other forms of engagement. You can find these plans listed on the newly redesigned refreshed science.gov and will continue to update this page as as plans roll in. Of course, realizing the potential for public access and open science more broadly requires considerations around infrastructure, research culture, incentive structures, responsible communications, funding opportunities and more. So on the heels of the release of the public access policy, OSTP announced 2023 as a year of. Since we released a fact sheet highlighting a sampling of our achievements over the last year over 2023, which I've broken out into five broad buckets that are not all all encompassing but I think give you a good sense of what we've been up to. So first, of course, policy development to advance the practice of open science and ensure that the benefits of government, government supported research can extend to all. And I've talked quite a bit about that with the implementation of the public access memo. We also have infrastructure developments or enhancements that enable that access in a manner that is equitable and secure. We've also been coordinating around opportunities for training and capacity development to promote a workforce that can contribute to an advanced open research. Opportunities for community engagement to broaden participation in open science and promoting incentives for advancing open research practices so that this important work is rewarded and recognized. So I've spoken again quite a bit about that first sort of bucket or pillar and so I'll spend the remainder of my time focusing on these last four over here. Thank you. So robust accessible and secure infrastructures are incredibly important for ensuring that the research products that we're seeking to make available can actually be discovered, accessed, and used by diverse user communities. Of course, agencies have a long standing commitment to developing supporting and strengthening the in for these infrastructures that predates 2023. Still, this last year, saw some some exciting developments, including the launch of the Department of Energy's persistent identifiers at Oste resource, which is a really convenient one stop shop for researchers and federal agencies and other members of this enterprise to learn about the PID services that DOE provides, as well as better understand persistent identifiers more broadly. This is especially important, given OSTP's expectations around the use of persistent identifiers moving forward so is a really wonderful resource to have out there now. The National Science Foundation also invested $12 and a half million into their findable accessible interoperable and reusable open science research coordination networks, or their pharaohs RCN program. The cohort of 10 three year multi institutional projects kicked off in 2023 to build and enhance national coordination among the research community, including around standard development, big data infrastructure, data system connection, educational opportunities and pathways for collaboration. Accessing using and responsibly contributing to openly available research outputs also requires open science skill building. In December, NASA's transform to open science program release their open science 101 curriculum introducing those beginning their open science journey to important definitions tools and resources and providing participants at all levels with recommendations on best practices. It's been really wonderful seeing already communities of practice sprouting up within the government and beyond to take this training, discuss what they're learning and put those learnings into action. 2023 also saw some really exciting developments in the National Institute for Standards and Technologies effort to develop the NIST research data framework or RDAF. I'm fairly certain that you will hear more about the RDAF later today and hope I'm not stealing anyone's thunder. But it is this really comprehensive resource that maps the research data landscape and provides a dynamic guide for various communities to understand best practices costs and benefits for research data management and dissemination. The framework was developed with extensive community engagement over the years, including a request for information that went out over the summer, and a workshop that was hosted at the academies in this very room in September. And while we're now firmly in 2024. I do want to celebrate that version 2.0 of the framework was released a few weeks ago, which is now, you know, now you can all explore. And it's just a little hint that while 2023 is over, open science continues. So for our policies and practices to really benefit all engagement also had to be a really central theme for the year, not only engaging with those who have been longtime members of the open science community but also with communities who may be more unfamiliar with open science and looking for opportunities to join. These activities include continuing long standing programs like the US geological surveys community for data integration, which is a community of practice working to grow USGS is knowledge and capacity and scientific data and information management and integration, as well as understanding the needs of those who would like to become more active in the open science space. So over the summer, OSTP hosted a series of four listening sessions on advancing a future of open science with the early career researcher community as well as communities that support early career researchers. And a number of key themes emerged from from those sessions, including that early career researchers have a really important place at the forefront of the movement towards open science. That a future of equitable open science requires recognizing and addressing uneven access to open science infrastructure expertise training and funding, and that rewarding sharing of research outputs beyond publications, like scientific data is critical to incentivizing open practices and public access policies. NSF built the National Science Foundation built on these sessions by organizing a webinar over the summer around how public access can advance equity and learning in partnership with the American Association of the advancement of science for the advancement of public access policies. And that webinar featured panelists from DOE, including Brian Hitson, NASA, NSF, and NIH as well as OSTP who provided overviews of their updated public access plans. And there were also additional panels to provide the perspectives of the researcher and publisher communities. I realized that I am running low on time so I'll just kind of summarize this final pillar so advancing adoption of open science requires that we recognize and reward those who are leading the way. So, in addition to creating funding opportunities and investments in the various activities that I touched on late earlier. We've also thought about how to spotlight stories of open science success. So in September, we launched the OSTP year of open science recognition challenge, inviting researchers, community scientists, educators, innovators and other members of the broader public to share stories of how they've advanced equitable open science. And we got some really great responses and are kind of working through working through those now to name some champions of open science. And more recently, a number of agency representatives participated in a NASA funded workshop hosted by Florida International University, and the Higher Education Learning Initiative for Open Scholarship or Helios. And the workshop can convened higher education leaders, along with funders to discuss a collective action strategy for embedding open science and scholarship within academia. So, this is just a snapshot of what we've done across the government since the release of the 2022 public access memo and even before that, and throughout this 2023 year of open science. I'm really excited to continue on our government wide commitments to advancing the infrastructures capacity and engagements needed to realize a more open, equitable and secure research enterprise. As we move from that year of open science and into a future for open science. So I thank you for your attention. I think I'm just one minute over, and I'm happy to, I'm looking forward to the discussion. So we've been asked to move to that end of the table so that we can hear from our online folks. So we'll do that. Okay. Okay, so the floor and the zoom is open for or Q&A. And maybe perhaps I can begin. And you've spoken a lot about equity. And we all agree that that's an important and a driver of what's the open access. But there's two things in terms of equity access to the data to the papers to the publications, but also there's an equity issue on the ability of individuals to contribute to the chemical enterprise, particularly those at under resourced institutions. Can you comment a little bit about how you envision protecting those students students, those students faculty professionals. When it comes to their ability to contribute to the chemical enterprise when things like article processing charges are a reality and peer review is important the roles of society's play is important. And all of this will be impacted by open access. Yeah, that that's a really great question and something that we've discussed quite a bit. I think even before the the 2022 public access memo was released. So, we're doing this in a, in a number of ways, one recognizing that public access is just one piece of the broader sort of research enterprise and that there have been for a long time inequities that have persisted throughout the research enterprise. And so thinking about how, you know, at OSTP, I work quite a bit with our STEM talent team. We're quite a bit with people who are sort of looking at the broader research ecosystem to ensure that equitable opportunities for participation are really that we're, you know, achieving those aspirations are moving towards a path to achieve those aspirations. We're also through the subcommittee on open science paying a lot of attention and monitoring sort of trends within the publishing and sort of data sharing enterprise. With kind of doing this assessment, we released a report to Congress kind of outlining in 2023 November of 2023 outlining some of these considerations and things that we're sort of paying attention to in this landscape. And we also have agencies like for example the National Science Foundation issued a request for information. I believe at the end of last year that closed at the start of this year, looking specifically at the sort of equity implications of public access implementation and how they kind of tie to other things that are happening across that agency and so in our kind of in our agency coordination, we're sharing a lot of the things that we're hearing from the community and trying to think about how we can sort of monitor these trends and create opportunities simultaneously to even that playing field. So there's a lot of moving parts because you know publishing and data sharing is such an important piece but of the of how research is done, but it sort of exists in this broader context of you know who is receiving funding opportunities. What sort of resources are available at different institutions and what is the role that we play as as funders as policymakers in evening that like that playing field. Thanks. Move this a little bit. Can you hear me. Yeah, hi, hi, Mary. I'm Bob Hanish from NIST. First thanks for the shout out about the research data framework, you indeed will hear more about it this afternoon as I led that effort for the past more than a half years. The question is if you would comment on it's actually some of the recent discussions we've had in the SOS about the term immediate immediate access to the data underpinning research results. Yes. Okay, that's the question. That is the question. Yeah, so there's I guess there's two pieces to that one is the data that are your question was specifically on data correct. Yeah, there's the data that are underlying. The scientific publications, and then there's data not associated with scientific publications that we're saying need to be made available on a timeline that is reasonable. And what those timelines look like is very different from I think there's you know disciplinary differences. There's differences in sort of the nature of what the research project is. Is it a longitudinal study for example and you might think about sort of timed data releases. Is it, you know, something that is not exactly time constrained but maybe it's the end of the funding award and so perhaps that's the time that the data need to be released. And so we have not again prescribed a sort of one size fits all because especially with data there isn't that one size fits all approach. Given, you know, data across domains data across research projects and data sort of funded by you know different agencies looks so different. I think that again, not I think I mean that the goal of providing and thinking through data management and sharing plans at the outset can kind of help researchers in collaboration with their program officers or in collaboration with their, you know, institutional resources in collaboration with whoever at the agency is overseeing intramural research can make a plan for what that kind of timeline looks like in collaboration with the with whoever is approving the funding for it. And tools like the research data framework I think give a really good can help us sort of be looking at similar resources and not guidelines because it's not guidance but resources to make those determinations around what timelines look like. And to be honest, I think you know as we continue to mature in public access implementation, there may we different communities may converge on sort of best practices or expectations for their communities that can also serve as a guide. So I think this is a pretty, you know, not to not to provide a cop out answer but it is something that we're continuing to sort of monitor and think about recognizing that immediate may look a bit different in different settings. So thank you. And the discussion continues. Hi, I'm Alejandro strachan from Purdue. Very nice presentation. And I think the, the goal of making the research products available to society, more widely than just a research researchers is terrific and it's very important to our citizens and in our experience, one of the challenges is finding the data right even for researchers, you spend an enormous amount of time collecting the data coming through papers that you need. And so I imagine if you're a small business, or just a citizen who wants to understand what's going on in a certain field you probably don't have can afford the time. And so what are your thoughts what what is being done in order to facilitate access and actually find the ability of the data that folks need. Thank you. Yeah, that is a really great question. So I remember when I was a researcher that I didn't you know quite honestly have as much of an appreciation for things like metadata, because I didn't understand why I needed to sort of enter in all of these fields so my apologies to anyone who's ever tried to reuse my data sets. And since coming to into this space, I've come to realize that things like metadata, good data documentation, really help us tell the story of a data set for reuse for people who may, you know, want to find and reuse it. And so thinking about things like data as a form of scholarly communication was a real shift for me personally, and is something that we've been trying to communicate as we communicate about these scientific data sharing requirements that there is this story that we need to be telling around the data to sort of contextualize it and make it more reusable. In addition, there is, you know that that's the sort of reusability piece, the findability piece is something that you know through again this data management sharing requirement, as well as working with the people at whether it's your program officer or your research supervisor, or your librarians at your institutions to kind of think through proactively. So as you're sort of generating the data, these sorts of considerations that increase the findability of data is something that we're also sort of working on strategies around how do we kind of, you know, build this ecosystem and learn from the kind of past to make that findability and reusability and accessibility and all of those fair pieces. We're actually realizing that that potential. But yeah, your point is very, very well heard. Mary, we do have a zoom question, and that is you refer to some of these listening sessions in terms of soliciting researchers concerns and opportunities. I have those concerns included concerns over IP protection, and how is that being assured. Yeah, so off the top of my head I don't think that IP protections came up in those listening sessions. Excuse me, but that is very much there's within the memo sort of a long list of considerations that may sort of limit the ability to make data, you know, broadly shared IP protections are certainly part of that. And, and I welcome you to sort of look, look at that, but it IP is is a very important thing that we're considering. Hi, I'm Dan Bullock with the triple s at the National Science Foundation. So the guidance given by the OSTP specifically addresses publications and data, but software is kind of this ambiguous thing in between there. So I was wondering if it was the view of the OSTP that, you know, software is actually included as a subset of data or is it its own thing or is it sort of left to the agencies and entities themselves to make that determination. Yeah, so we haven't explicitly required sharing of software different agencies, depending on different domains have also included considerations around software sharing so NASA is an example of that. And so while not explicitly required in the memo agencies have some agencies have moved towards software sharing requirements. So in order to keep on time we're going to have two more questions that I'm going to actually combine from from our zoom audience. And that is with the immediate deposition of data. How do you protect against misinformation or even just that the data have been properly vetted so that they are correct that the data are correct. And this goes to view because if again this goes to this question of immediate availability. And as opposed to having data that have been gone through a stricter peer review process. Is that still going to be maintained to make sure that the data are actually correct and that people aren't getting an idea from the data that actually perhaps are not really truly supported supporting the conclusions that were proposed that in a publication or in a submission. Yeah, so I think that's something that sort of data sharing and the quality of the data and the conclusions that you can draw from the data that sort of a multi stakeholder responsibility of you know the researchers working with their collaborators their institutions the peer review that already goes into the process of publishing a paper. I do also think as somebody who is personally kind of dug into data underlying publications that there is real value and import in being able to sort of look under the hood. And, you know, verify and validate those findings for yourself for broader audiences than just, you know, three people who are tasked with peer review or your group of collaborators. I saw the other day just a really nice quote that open sciences careful science. And so that kind of care that goes into thinking about sort of like do the data support the findings. Am I creating opportunities to collaborate and really vet this beforehand it's something that's going to require you know a number of different sort of stakeholders and communities to collaborate with one another around so. Okay, thank you, Dr is earning a home. Please join me in thanking Miriam for his really important format of talk.