 So, hello everyone and welcome to our first event of our copyright for open science series. In this in this pen today we're going to focus on the European context of copyright reform for open science. And it's moderated by our legal counsel program was have us. And I'm going to get you started with some quick housekeeping notes so as you were just alerted this session will be recorded. After our session will make the recording publicly available and it will be sent to all registrants. So during the discussions we kindly ask you to keep your cameras and microphones off to avoid any noise. But once we get to the Q&A, you're free to unmute and turn on your camera if you would like. And also, please put any comments thoughts or questions you have on the chat, and we will make sure to address them. If you're tweeting about the session you can use the copyright see for OS and tag opener. Feel free to do that if you would like and with those quick notes I'd like to give the floor to Prodromost quick to quickly introduce our speakers for today. Thank you. Thank you very much Athena and thank you everyone for being with us tonight. It's our privilege to be amongst the distinguished colleagues that we have with us today to talk about an issue which run this something we keep discussing I think in different guys for the past 20 years, which is how can we truly have open science what is the kind of legislative framework that we need to have in order to achieve that. And the impetus for our discussion today has been a series of legal instruments new legal instruments that we have in Europe, which try to support open science and open access in different forms. The question we very frequently discuss is to what extent are these new instruments, relevant or how to what extent can they truly support open science, or to what extent do we need a more substantial copyright reform, especially in the area of limitations and exceptions. I would also like to say that this series started as a result of discussions we had as open air with John Woodlinsky in the context of how limitations and the limitations and exception system could be reformed. This model is one of the things we may be discussing today, but don't forget that this is the first one in a series of webinars where we're going to be focusing on the European context, whereas in our next webinar. Our focus is going to be the Americas and the United Systems United States system in particular. And finally, we conclude the series with a meeting which is going to be about the global perspective. In relation to the same thing. So without further ado, I would like you, I would like to share with you and introduce you to our speakers so I'll go very quickly and just give you just a glimpse of who they are and what they do they have quite lengthy CV so I'm trying to be, I would ask them to forgive me for being so succinct about what they have. And I'll start with Alea Lopez de San Roman, and Alea is a legal and policy officer at the European Commission's directorate for research and innovation. She works in the open science unit where she contributes to the development and implementation of the EU policy on open science with a focus on an EU copyright and data legislative framework fit for research and open access to scientific results. So, hi Alea. We also have together with us Ignacy La Bastida, who has a PhD in physics from the University of Barcelona. I didn't know that about you Ignacy. He's the head of the office for the dissemination of knowledge and the research support unit at the cry library of the same university and he's currently chairing the information and open access policy group at the Leroux, and the board of Spark Europe. And that is also very well known for his work with Creative Commons he's initiated the project in back in 2003 and he's one of the leading figures of the movement in the past two decades. And we have also the great honor to have with us, Professor Caso Roberto Caso, who is a co director of Trento low tech group and associate professor of comparative private law and University of Trento faculty of law, where he teaches civil law comparative intellectual property law comparative privacy law copyright law and arts and copyrights. He's also an editor of publications in the field of intellectual property privacy contract and tort law, and also president of the Italian Association for the promotion of open science. Moving to the industry we have, we have the great pleasure to have two leading figures with us with us we have Rod Cookson, and what runs I w a publishing, which is one of the first lens society publishers to complete transition is to open access using both subscribe to open an APC model. He's a director of OASBA as council member of society's publishers coalition, and a member of the Royal Society's Publishing Board and has previously served as director of al PSP. So, great to have you with us rods. And then I moved to Roger van Zvadenberg, and I hope that's a pronounced your name correctly Roger and Roger for Pluto journals 21 international so in social science journals into open access in January 2021. And as he says, and I'll read his statement during 2021 99% of the money promised by Pluto intermediaries knowledge and last was collected, doing only 33% of the money promised was collected. Pluto journals future is now uncertain open access for SSH journals is clearly a hit or miss business at the heart of the problem is occupied so Roger we will return to this to your statement later, and finally last but not least. My good friend Thomas Margoni, who is a research professor of intellectual property law at the faculty of law and criminology k 11 and a member of the board board of directors of the center of IT and IP law, and Thomas's research is mostly on the concentration of the relationship between law data and technology, and he's kind of focusing on changes in the creation access transformation distribution of knowledge and information brought by technologies like the internet and the artificial intelligence. So, why it's a distinguished set of people with us tonight. And I'll start with Alia, and I'll pose again the question that I mentioned at the beginning. We've seen a lot of legislative activity in Europe over the past five years but with great intensity. It's been the last couple of years. And I'm wondering, to what extent do you think this legislative activity actually contributes to resolving some resolving some of the issues that open science stakeholders face. Alia to you. Thank you very much for the most good afternoon, everyone. A pleasure to be here to talk about open science and copyright. So indeed, there are many. It's quite broad to talk about legislation that has an impact on open science open access and also about copyright legislation. It is useful indeed from the European Commission, as you know, open science is a key priority. And we have been pushing in many fronts towards open science, also in the legislative front of course. So for example if we take concrete areas of concrete examples as a funder we have many hats as a funder. We have this Horizon Europe, the funding program for research and innovation that currently has 95.5 billion. We have the obligations that we impose legally on our beneficiaries to provide immediate open access to the publications that results from their actions under CC by license so this is a concrete example of how legal obligations that they have really contribute to open access we have a very good uptake of these open access mandate. We also have recommendations that we formulated to the member states on how they should manage the scientific information included open access to publications and research data. In 2018, and we engage with the member states in reporting and monitoring how they are evolving and developing open access policies and strategies at the national level. And also another example for example of legislation that has contributed to advance open access is the article 10 in the open data directive in 2019, in which for publicly funded research data member states have an obligation to have an open access policy to open access by default, always allowing for exceptions is what we call as open as possible as close as necessary, and then to articulate and articulate national action plans. And this data, when publicly funded and publicly available via repositories shall be reusable for commercial and non commercial policies. So those are three concrete examples, our policy to our beneficiary as a funder the 2018 recommendation non binding but still a legal instrument and the 2019 open data directive of how legislation on our side has helped to advance open science in different areas open access mainly to scientific publications and fair research data. Are you are muted program. Yeah, sorry for that. And do you see changes in the or the, the new rules let's say in relation to copyright limitations and exceptions particularly in relation to text and data mining, helping in the same direction. So the changes in which so with regard to the copyright in the DSM directive. I would say that it's still early so, as we know it was adopted in 2019 to be implementing transpose at the national level by June if I remember correctly 2021. We know some member states are still in the position in the process of transposition so I would say it's still early to to talk about the effect on effects we can see some trends maybe, but it's still premature. So that is what I would say in that regard. And I'll pass now to Ignacy. To tell us what is your perspective from, from, from a library from the library science to what extent what are the kinds of reforms you would see as essential in order to support open science as it happens today. Okay, hello, everyone. Thanks for the invitation and hello pro, you know, for many years as you said before, with all the creative commons project with Thomas also. Let me put not just the library had let me put the university and one of the problems we're facing nowadays. You mentioned all these legislative actions or activities from the commission. Sometimes we've seen from the point of view of the university that other digits not just research are making changes, especially for data that also affects universities. For instance with repositories or this kind of platforms when they try to put some conditions to other, let's say players that are sharing or using our data that sometimes make for us more difficult. And we always are trying to ask for exceptions for research exceptions for research performance organization, etc. So that's one of the things that I would like to stress that sometimes where there are some changes in the law that are thinking for more commercial players sometimes it affects. Also university design something that it's for us it's complicated saying that from the point of view of open science. I think from the university perspective is that I think I just mentioned it is when we have like a struggle between. I mean we would like to share all our knowledge more quickly, etc. But we are always in this struggling because we have by using copyright when we publish, we have these conditions of the publishers, but on the other hand we have the funders with these requirements. And that's why many universities nowadays are discussing about how we could retain the rights and be compliant with both things so trying to figure out how we can use copyright in a way that we can. On one hand, follow the publication system but on the other hand comply with the requirements of being open and just in the first moment of publication so I think the. It's not like we need an radical reform of copyright is that I think we need to use copyright in in such a different way or to try to figure out how to use it properly to make the publication system or sustainable and be able and to at the same moment share our knowledge. And of course we have been struggling with the license for many years nowadays, but still we have a lot of misunderstandings misuses of the license that makes things also complicated. And, and of course from the point of view of an institution also, I think we need also clarification from who owns the copyright who can decide which is the license or the others. There are some disabilities that like more one license than the others. So, all these things is the issues that I think we need to, to manage and to find some balances to make what we want at the end that is open open science or not just open access for publications but also for data and any output that comes from the research. Thank you. Thanks, Nancy and I would return to this discussion about copyright retention, which I think is an interesting topic and interesting model in the second round of questions. So thanks for this point, which is how I would I would rephrase that my question to be to what extent can we use the copyright system and the other legislative instruments we have particularly the open data directive to see something which makes sense and is usable for open science stakeholders. And with this thing in mind, I will go and pass the floor to roads to tell us what it means from a side of a publisher to actually be active in the area of open science and what would you see as your major obstacle and your biggest opportunity in terms of the current legislative framework in Europe. Thanks. Thanks for dramas. Yeah, that's it. That's really helpful introduction from Ignacy and that layer. I think I'd start by talking about how copyright works at the moment and how that that looks from the perspective of a scientific publisher. We are a learning society publisher, IWA publishing, we're very mission focused. That's our primary responsibility. In the world we operate. There are two legacy ways that we have generated money to sustain the journals we publish. You know, one is obviously subscriptions where you know copyright is the foundation. The subscription model is based on the idea that libraries pay for time limited geographically limited access to journals. And the sort of relatively more recent idea is the idea of the APC and open access where the commercial value of the copyright in an article is paid for to enable it to become open access. Those are both quite good models for generating lucrative commercial publishing businesses and that kind of is the function they have served over years. They're good for all publishers generally in that they're fairly durable, they persist year to year so they provide a basis for long term planning, which is very important. What they are not so good at is providing a basis for purely open science, which I think is where we're interested in in going with the discussion. So my publishing house and also Roger van Zannenberg who's who's on this call has had a similar experiment has has got 15 journals we publish five of those were open access by two years ago. And we decided to make the remaining 10 journals open access using a model called subscribe to open. And that is a rather different philosophical approach to subscriptions or AP APCs. And with subscribe to open what we have done is we've gone to university libraries, asked them to keep supporting us and said in exchange if enough of them support us will make those 10 journals open access with no fees for authors to publish and no fees for readers to read. So it's completely equitable open access. It's, you know, it's a collective active system. So it's, it's very, it's very good in terms of being part of the community is very good in terms of enabling scientific discourse. The entire point, the design of the subscription system is that it interrupts access. If you don't pay, you don't get access. So it's completely out of kilter with how researchers want to work and how researchers do work. And the APC system, you know, has virtues in that it creates a lot of open content but again, it's very good for those who have funding to pay APCs is not very good for those who don't so it's a, again by design, in equitable system. And subscribe to open gets past both of those those questions. And in our experience has been a very good, very good model, and I can talk a little bit more about the detail of our experience where copyright comes into it is we still have a legal framework where the value generated within our business is typically from either renting copyright material, the subscription, or paying APCs to get outright ownership as it were or, you know, freeing material. Whereas what we think will be much more helpful would be if groups of libraries if groups of funders could come together and agree mechanisms for funding, socially useful publishing for having criteria for deciding where revenue should be allocated. And support models like the subscribe to a model that we we pursue, which we think is much better aligned with the research community and give those kind of emerging models which sit rather differently via the copyright to subscriptions and to APCs and enable those models to become really really strong, long term methods for many publishers in scientific research to publish journals, and perhaps books in future. Now, I'll be sent to these different models and I understand that we have you're suggesting something in principle, your approach I would say it's very similar to Ignasi's in the sense that what you're advocating is not radical legal reform but instead being truly innovative in the way we are actually deploying the existing system right. Yeah. Yeah, and I think, you know, there may be sort of genuinely differently constructed futures that result from changes in the legal framework now which take perhaps decades to fully come to fruition. And I think there are, there are shorter term changes that can be affected by using money which is already being spent by universities and by funders and using that money in a more collectively useful way a more constructive way to produce good open access outcomes. Now, a move research publishing significantly further forward significantly quicker than it's moving at the present time so yeah, I think that's, that's very much in the same space as Ignasi's comments. Many thanks, Rod. And I'll keep this time element I'll return to this in the second round. And now I'll pass the floor to Roger and Roger when, when I read the statement you were very clear that you think copyright lies at the heart of the problem. Do you think we can cope with it? Can we develop innovative business models that actually in licensing models or contractual arrangements or funding agreements that can help us tweak the problem and manage somehow to go ahead or do we need copyright reform? Thank you very much indeed for asking me onto this panel. I've been a publisher now for 45 years and therefore I've been using copyright all that time. Copyright is basically commodifies production of writing and artworks and allows both the author to sell his work or her work without losing basic ownership and it allows publishers to act and that is in the pre-digital age. So copyright originates before the digital age came about. Digital communication alters commodification of an author's work and especially in open access. Open access makes commodification nearly worthless. It turns the old mechanisms on its head. When a publication of any kind is open, it hugely increases the readership and what happens is a mega loss of income. So these two things suddenly become opposing each other, which is totally unusual in any form of capitalist organization. When an increase in demand, you expect to get an increase in income. The exact opposite happens in open access. And that has been our experience so far. There are particular circumstances to our experience, which might make it unusual. And that is why I personally became very much in favor of John Mozenski's proposals because they take a look at the entire copyright situation and try and alter it in its totality. And that seems to me the way to go about this. So that small publishers in particularly in the social sciences and the humanities aren't faced with a nearly impossible situation, which is what they are at the moment. Thank you very much. Many thanks, Roger. And I'm really glad that you're bringing John Wolenski's proposal on the table and I see Professor Wolenski's with us tonight as well. I'm really glad to see him in the participants. And since, as I said before, he was the reason why we started this whole series. Roger, can you further elaborate on why do you think the model proposed by John is one which it makes sense. It's a solution. What are the constituent elements of such a statutory license? Well, that's what it suggests that makes sense for a publisher. The proposal puts responsibility onto the libraries for this for defining which, in our case, which journals should be accepted into open access and therefore provides security of payment. And this is one of the most difficult issues is the security of the future, going into open access. It's possible to take a small number of journals into open access and keep the majority on the old platform. And that gives many publishers security, but it has been so slow and so diverse and there's been so many different models of open access, because the system is chaotic. And it's very hard is this question of commodification and open access takes commodification, removes commodification and make something public. And that is what is so very important in this whole movement. And that's why I think John Williams should be supported in every possible way. And with this, with this tonal pass to our legal scholar scholars initially to Roberto to ask him pretty much the same question to what extent do you think we need to go for a more active reform of the corporate right system or to work with the existing system in order to devise licensing or contractual models to address the issues we are facing in the open science context and I'll also bring forward again the point made by by rods that this is a time question as well. So how fast can we be, even if we wish practically to have a legal reform. It may be a good cause and necessary, but indeed we need to do something now. And in that sense, we need to think how we develop our funders and licensing models. Roberto. Thank you. Thank you so much, Prodromos. Let me start with the with the joke. All I want for Christmas is more academic freedom and academic autonomy. I think this is the most important issue in the field of open science because we are, we are facing a giant contradiction. On the, on the one end that we, we face an expanding regime of intellectual property, not only at copyright low level but also for example, at the patent low level. On the other end that we, we, we are trying to expand the legislation about open science. For example, in the field of copyright law and in the field of data regulation. In the, in the next years, I think we have to solve this contradiction. And I think it is important to, to focus our attention on the publications in terms of academic freedom and academic autonomy. From this point of view, I think a good example of radical reform at European Union copyright law level could be the introduction of a right to open publication. I am talking about a right to open publication because because we are talking now about the secondary publication right but probably framing this right in terms of secondary publication right is not the correct way to frame the issue. Because if we talk about a secondary publication right probably we, we, we are talking about a sort of exception or limitations to copyright. For example, this is the way of framing the issues by Christine Angelopoulos in the in the last study about about the matter. But I'm thinking a radical reform in terms of a right of author, no subject to the legislation framework of exception and limitations, for example, the three step test. If, if we can reason about the right to open publication in terms of a sort of moral right, because it's a pillar of academic freedom and academic autonomy. Probably this is the correct way to imagine a reform of copyright law in favor of academic freedom and academic autonomy. Because, historically, the, the idea of the ownership of the copyright on the scientific articles books and etc, was in effect one of the fundamental piece of academic freedom. This is only a example, obviously, because we are all conscious that the reform also at copyright level also a radical reform of copyright law. It's not sufficient. It is not sufficient to reach a real open access and open science system. We are, we are talking about also the control of infrastructure, we are talking about also the control of data by university and research institutions, we are talking about also the research assessment reform. I, I, I think European Union Commission is working very well because, because European Union Commission is working on the infrastructure public infrastructure is working on the research assessment reform, but at the national level. The patchwork is very, very complex and the situation in each state member is very different. For example, in Italy, we don't have an effective open access and open science policies. We, we have a national plan in for the for fostering open science in Italy but we don't have any effective tools in order to implement this plan. Thank you very much Roberto and I'm really glad that we, we have on the table, a pretty radical proposal I would say, and just to summarize what you, you've said, so you're suggesting to have a positive right to open that is granted to the authors as a more a form of a right as an expression of academic freedom and not to rely on secondary publishing through a limitations and exception system which frankly wouldn't work because it would be too limited. So, in order to secure things you would go for a contract or a license. And I think Roberto's point is a very interesting one I think it relates to what Roger mentioned before. And, and perhaps in, we will have the opportunity there in this panel or or another one in the second one to have the opportunity to compare this proposal to john's proposal. And because this is also requires legal reform to see what are the, the commonalities between between the two. But I'll take the my inspiration from Roberto to pass to Thomas. And one of the, of the things that's Roberto was saying is precisely that we have all this legislation that happens at the European level and it's very positive, but it's still extremely fragmented at the national level, and he doesn't necessarily have neither the policy elements there, nor the legal ones. What is your experience to what extent do you see the, the different legal reforms happening initially festival if they are adequate or not. And secondly, how do you see that at the European level do you see this trickling down to the member states, or is it still something which is very much happens at the union level, and the results are still far away from the national legal systems. Thomas, of course, thank you for the invitation for having me. I thank you less for the question how am I supposed to answer that if I was able to offer you a convincing answer I think that I don't know, I would win the famous $1 million price right. I was hoping I was hoping this panel would be that that's not the, not tonight, perhaps it happens next time. So, I think that there are a number of elements that you know emerged from the previous discussion, which I will use to try to answer your question. One, I think is, you know, the academic publishing industry, and probably the mistake is to use the singular it seems to me that there is no one single model and it seems to me that the examples that you have, we have just heard from and Roger are, you know, are not the kind of evil academic publishing that many of us have been hearing of or speaking about in the last years right. And here of course it's it's a first distinction to make. You know, one thing is if you're talking to someone who's trying to, you know, develop a sustainable model where they're willing to give up this famous concept of control that property right should afford you in a way that that you know is trying to achieve some sort of more equitable I think you said rather solution now of course if the terms of the of the of the debate are these you could approach the problem from a certain angle. If you're talking to a different type of, you know, publishing industry that have. How do we say less willingness to commit on this changing market and social dynamics and technological dynamics then of course the question, the terms of the questions that are different right so I think that this is the first element to consider, because if the situation is multifaceted then probably there is no, or it is less likely that one solution would fit all problems. This doesn't really lead us to any specific proposal at least in my, you know, rough notes that I've taken but I think that this is one aspect that I have heard so far. Then should we save the publishers because of course the trend that we have seen in in in the recent debate is one that perhaps want to avoid the question because of course is a difficult and tricky question but if the argument as it goes is that technology and and social development have led to a situation where the role of the publisher is not as clear as it was, you know, 2040 years ago, when there was a clear need for a medium that conveyed knowledge so the printing of the copy and the distribution of the copy, because if we go back in time that was the only way in which we, we could have access to knowledge and there is some interesting work made on the history of scholarly publishing that shows how back in time, the interest of the first publishing and learn societies was in distributing more and they didn't really care about if someone made copies they wanted to retain a different type of control that had much more to do with the quality and the prestige of the publication and much less with the reproduction of the individual copy. Right now of course the internet and digital technologies as in many other areas of the creative industries have put this paradigm under a considerable stress. So the question and I think that's the question that many of us and that john but also Jean-Claude Guedon have asked is the right question, what is what space is left for commercial academic publishing, because if we don't ask this question, we can, you know, go around the term of our of our enquire as much as we want but there is, there cannot be a legal solution to a problem that we are not able to define correctly, right. And just to be clear, I do think that there is some space left but is a space that is very different from the one that that's at least a certain you know type B industry publishing is occupying right now. So if we decide to save the publishing industry, and there are certainly, you know, a second aspect here to consider that the publishing industry is not only different depending on the nature of the of the of the firm so to speak behind them, but also on the field where publishing is done hard and stem sciences may follow different type of incentives than social and humanities to run a diamond open access journal in the legal field has a cost of 1000 to 1000 years here. And JP tech does that, and that there is no need really for any form of commercial funding that goes beyond a small grant from a science foundation. This model probably however cannot be borrowed in in stems where you know the kind of analysis and review and editing that is done by the publisher is of a different nature. And maybe also another aspect that that can can be considered in our assessment. So I don't want to speak too long but just very briefly around the right exceptions and type of publications I think that probably the best way to, you know, for the law to adjust to this. The very multifaceted environment is to have a multifaceted approach. So we need the secondary publication rights, we need first publication rights, we need exceptions and we need rights, and they will work at different levels, and in different moments, and depending on different competencies going back to your initial I don't think that the commission does a instead of be because, or only because they think that a is a correct or opportune or right and be is not. Sometimes is a matter of what kind of attributions of power does the European Union have, and what other types of attribution of power remains with Member States and therefore it's legally impossible for the commission to enter into a specific sector where they don't have competence. Right. And that would, for example, have an impact on a strategy of, you know, University retains exclusive or an exclusive license or of their researchers that may work differently in different Member States and therefore it would be impossible for you to harmonize it. So also depending on how on the specific solution that we identify, there may be a need to adjust the specific tool to the type of competence that either Member States or the European Union have. I have a couple of other notes, but I keep them for my round. Thank you very much. Now that has been quite rich, but I'll take, I understand from your point, it was good that I left you at the end because you made a kind of a synthesis of the different opinions we heard and positions. I didn't know what else to say. That was pretty good. So I think this is this you pose however the real question which is what kind of publishing, do we need or what kind of publishing, and you mentioned commercial publishing. Do we need for the open science here? So I'll start my second round paraphrasing slightly your question and asking Alia what would you see from your perspective as sustainable as a sustainable model for publishing in the open science era so if let's forget for for a time being the specifics, the mechanics of how we actually resolve open science questions and how we can support open science and go to the cracks of the matter. How what would be the some constituent elements of a sustainable open science publishing model today from from what you see in terms of the Commission's initiatives in policy what are the elements there. Well that is a very broad question sustainability in the system I think, but indeed there can be some elements so also I think a topic we are all discussing now is equity how to bring more equity. Diversity is a key element in it from the European Commission, we are supporting for example institutional publishing and publishing in open access, trying to diversify also the publishing system, also a way in which there are not only restrictions to read but also restrictions to publish, and then in the long term, as Thomas was mentioned, mentioning this is multifaceted there are so many aspects that need to be taken into account in order to talk about the sustainable publishing system. So, I would say and also bring in Italy a bit back to the discussion today about copyright, how can this contribute, and I think also linked to what Thomas was mentioned before about the different options indeed that many different options that are being brought and also on the side of the European Commission by the research and innovation stakeholders, the actors, the legal experts, what can be done in order to push for open science and open access from different fronts and in different ways. And indeed there are many solutions so here they have been mentioned to the proposal indeed by John Wilinski, Roberto was also making reference to the secondary publication right. Now we can say how already five member states in the European Union, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium, if I'm correct have already introduced so, and have some positive experiences with them and they have been calls by scholars and Professor such as Roberto Casso, Julia Dore, but also liver research libraries or the Ali academies this week about the possible introduction but the calls about an introduction at the U level, or such a right and different indeed right retention strategies that were mentioned here, and that funders have been positioned themselves with regard to those strategies, both at the funders level and institutional level so. Also there it's multifaceted different approach approaches that have been developed, trying to address different issues. And on our side we are considering that so I was mentioning before in my first intervention different legislative approaches that we have had to legislative or legal approaches to open access and open science but also now we are working as part of the European research area agenda. So this European research area is this ambition to create a single market for research for the free circulation of knowledge in the EU that now has a legal basis in the Treaty of the functioning of the European Union. So there we are trying to identify which barriers and challenges there are for access and reuse of publications and data in copyright and data and digital legislation, and on the basis of this identification to propose in consultation and coordination of course with other relevant services in the commission possible legislative and non-legislative measures to address them. And it's very interesting how we are analyzing and examining the many initiatives, each of them addressing different things and hopefully the solutions to them will bring a more sustainable publishing and I could not only say publishing but scholarly communication system, which is much broader, much comprehensive, also more challenging. But I think this is where open science sits in a broader picture. Very much. I think from you pretty much covered extremely wide area of things happening right now. I think the legal basis for the European research area is the most important development we had the recent years, and it's certainly something which will allow this kind of a European space for knowledge to flow more effectively and efficiently and I think it's more about scholarly communication than just publishing. And we as open air will be there trying to also amplify the message and also convey different developments happening in the area. This is really important. I think that's one of the key developments. Starting again from that point that Alia mentioned, and going back to you Ignacy, you mentioned the copyright retention by the universities as a possible strategy before. To what extent do you think this could lead to sustainable, let's say, scholarly communication, open scholarly communication. I always say that at the end, nothing is free. So I think from the point of view of institutions I think we are committed to sustain the scholarly communication system. I mean, we are committed to share our knowledge. Let me say that in open science is not the academic knowledge is the everyone's knowledge. I mean, we also participate with citizens, we have a lot of citizens science projects and also we have to take care about that how to deal with this, because I think sometimes when we talk about open science, we forgot that open science doesn't mean only science created in the kidding me. So saying that, I think that the problem here is that we are discussing, like we were discussing years ago about the record industry. I mean, we have a problem. We have a problem of a business model. And I think this is a huge problem that we need to find how to manage it. And I think what it what is we're going to a system that is not affordable for institutions is not affordable for researchers is a problem of equity. So, at the end, why we are looking for all these solutions, why we are looking to for preprints why we are looking for publishing platforms, because at the end, we're going back what we were wanted we wanted to share knowledge we want to explain our colleagues which our goal which our output, etc. So I think it's, I think we have a problem if we keep sustaining one industry that is asking for things that are impossible. And as Roberto was saying, the academic freedom is that I can choose as a physicist for 30 years the physicists have chosen to use archive to say, These are my results. In fact, they don't need publishers. They publish there. The question, and I think Roberto and others have mentioned is that how we assess the research how we assess the quality and be careful because if the quality is not as assess anymore as the proxy that we have been using the past. The publishing system is in danger. Because researchers have seen that they need to explain the results quickly. They need to share the results quickly. So if publishers keep saying, Okay, this, if you want to publish the result, you need to pay $10,000. The researchers will say, No, I will go to other places. The problem of copyright is not the problem of academic freedom. It's a problem of a system that is failing is falling apart. And I think we need to, if we want something sustainable. I think what Rod was mentioning about the subscribe to open models like john, we need to sit together and think which is a sustainable of course we want services for peer review we want services of a dating. And we have to build together this service in an equity system affordable system and sustainable system. If not, everything will fail. Of course, one size doesn't fit all and not all publishers work in the same way. I'll go very quickly to Roger. After your point Ignacy about the publishing system falling apart. Does it or or is it still there lingering not allowing new types of publishing to come out there. Yeah, thank you. Can I make a distinction between book publishing and journal publishing. I have been involved in both book publishing. You invest in a book and 1824 months before you get any money in journal publishing exactly the opposite. You invest your money before you actually publish the journal, and that has been the, the historical way. So the cash flow of both are very different. And journals to my surprise when I took first came in 12 years ago were extremely profitable comparative to books, and this was scholarly publishing. And sustainability is absolutely at the center of both books and journals and sustainability comes about from having security of knowing where your income is coming from. And so, this is again why I turned back to John Willink is way of the handling this through the libraries, it would give journal publishing a open possibilities are being open. And secondly, it would provide a sustainable solution to a problem which particularly social science publishers, when they go open don't have, or in my experience don't have at this moment. Thank you very much Roger and I think this is again important to emphasize that's not all publishers are the same, not all types of publishing are the same. And we need to see how this actually work but still reform may be required in order to be able to allow these different models to flourish. So, getting getting back to you, but in relation to the same question, to what extent kind of achieve sustainability in the current context in the current time to go back to your point. I love how big this topic is, it's almost nothing is there's not in scope for almost. It's crazily crazily big. Fantastic points been raised by lots of people I agree with what you were saying in I see at the end there. And Thomas one of your points, you know, the, and you just said very similar thing project. The publishers are somewhat different, you know, there are kind of some publishers tend to behave in similar ways to other publishers there are definite groups of publishers who behave differently to other publishers. So, one of the things I wanted to talk about was what I would phrase researched focus publishing, and certainly for a publisher like us for a learning society publisher. That's what we're interested in. And that is, is publishing, you know, research publishing which is about what facilitates scientific communication that's the sort of primary role of it. And the characteristics, you know, I would attribute to research focus publishing. Publications that are free for authors and free for readers as a first point. So, fair for everyone. And they should be equitable models, you know, the point that equity has come up many times and I has been making this various people have been making this, they should be trustworthy. You know, this is very important. They should be good science, there's an awful lot of indifferent science published there's kind of salami slicing as there's not very good papers, we do want the good science to be visible and to be found. They should be rapid so the research gets out into the community quickly, and they should be affordable, you know, that's what researched focus publishing looks like for me. And I say there's various forms of this that already exists. I'm in open access we've talked about is, is definitely in that research focus publishing model, preprint service, and subscribe to open you know that's a, that those are all models that fit that description. So, some of what's happening in terms of how open access is being rolled out in practical terms is different. And a lot of what's going on with libraries at the moment is they're signing something called read and publish transformative agreements with publishers, very often very big publishers, and essentially, they will say, be spending a large amount of money with a large publisher, and they will turn that spend, which has been for access to journals into an open access fund for the university, and it will cover the equivalent APCs for that university that universities researchers to publish open access. So it's kind of replicating the APC model, and it brings in the iniquity that's within the APC model. And I think for me it also reproduces some of the, the market power that exists with big research publishers at the moment. It's, you know, we, you know, we're a 14 person team at IWA publishing. We have just signed the fourth read and publish agreement we have with Australia and New Zealand with call. Each one of them takes months of discussion to finalize the agreement usually take years to get to the point where you can sign them. If you have a staff of 7,000 people around the planet. And that is what's happening and, and that's rational because libraries have spent lots of money with big publishers and they want that money to deliver open access and this is the immediate way to do it. But one of the, the concerns is that it replicates the the market dynamics of where we've been for 20 years, you know, which is about big publishers having a lot of negotiating power and not necessarily compatible goals to what the research community has. So one of the things I think is missing from that picture is, is equity and how equity actually gets gets brought into the equation. And a different group to anything we've talked about so far that I'm, I'm involved in is a group of North American librarians who are working on something called library partnership, which is essentially trying to formalize what does equity look like and how can you evaluate publishers in terms of equity and it's meant to be a tool to help librarians make decisions. So they have, they have budgets to spend they want to do the right thing by the university. They want to get value for money. Very often they have specific remits to deliver open access so to spend more money on open resources this is very normal for many universities in Europe and in North America now. There are no options to deliver equity but no mechanism for really understanding what that looks like in practice. So this is an attempt to give a tool to librarians that helps them bring those equity decisions in. And I think if you bring the equity dimension in that kind of research focus publishing makes much more sense, and it's much more compatible with with the library community, and it provides a much better basis for moving forward. So just a little bit about some things I've already mentioned. We're having a very good experience with subscribe to open. You know just to give some some quick data. In the first year we have the subscribe to open model on our 10 journals, the, the number of article downloads increased by 109%. The number of recent downloads came from the established countries that we have always worked with so we doubled usage in in the US and we doubled usage in Germany. We had 60% increase in usage in the UK and 60% increase in Canada. And now we're seeing citations in the first year after the change, and we're getting something like two and a half to three times as many citations as the year before the change. We're seeing much better outreach, many more downloads, and in particular we're seeing more downloads in the global south which for us international organization that really doesn't matter to us. So we're doing much better job of research publishing, you know so we're kind of delivering on the on the message here. What we like about S2O is it's a perennial model, it keeps going forward as long as we can get libraries to support us. And we can bring somebody in from other sources. It works. One of the, the challenges you have with for instance, diamond open access is that it really does depend on short term funding. So even if there's a genuine commitment, if that commitment ends, then it doesn't become possible to do the diamond open access publishing. And one example of this one cautionary tale is a journal called housing policy debate, which is still a very good journal, it was one of the best journals in the housing field, entirely funded by the Freddie Mac organization in the US, which was very caught up in the 2008 2009 recession had massive reduction in its funding available. And it had been a diamond open access journal for 20 years abruptly stopped because the funding stopped and became a subscription journal, and it's a subscription journal now. And what it was was a brilliant journal but it's, it's quite a good journal now is it's changed its status, and I would be very cautious about the fact that it does, it does still cost quite a lot of money to publish good research and to provide the, the useful filtering that peer review does so that good and verified research is what is disseminated to researchers in easily usable forms in rapid, in rapid time. And to do that, what is needed is go back to what I was saying before a researched focused publishing model, which has genuine long term viability it can keep going it can keep sustaining. And I think echoing points already made. I think to, to help that system become a dominant element of the system, the situation we're in now, rather than the commercial solutions which are more configured around the transformative agreements. And that we need librarians and funders and progressively minded publishers to come together and work out how can we develop systems for generating that kind of that kind of researched focused publishing for enabling it to be funded for making sure that the money that is spent on that system delivers good outcomes of science it delivers equitable outcomes. And there's a basis for that carrying on. I think this is very much the kind of space that the johns proposal is in johns proposal is very much formulated around copyright, but I think they're also practical collaboration mechanisms that can deliver a similar outcome. And perhaps these are two faces of the same solution at different moments in time. I'm sorry that's a very long answer to your question but no no but but it has been quite comprehensive. I think it's as we reaching the conclusion of the, of the workshop today it also gives us some leads to the next one, where we're going to have the opportunity to discuss johns proposal a bit more, as well as in the third one, where we're going to to discuss the different options that we have been offered collectively. But I need to pass now to Roberto and Roberto also you talked about the, the risks, you wrote about the risk of big deals with publishers and what it would mean for open access. And also I need I see that you have also this discussion with Thomas Hartman. Thank you for your question. In relation to the US policy the Biden model. John has also responded to, to the same threads. Can you tell us a few things about what do you think about the thought this is more the next seminar, but to what extent do you think we can learn from the White House policy or STP one, which actually was issued recently and what does it mean what can we learn out of this. Is there anything at all. I think we can learn about something about the zero embargo policy. John Willisky is discussing these, these policy option. From my point of view is, is very. Very natural thinking about zero embargo policy because I, I don't understand what is the rationale of, of an embargo period. I receive a public funding from, from the state of from the public sector as a researcher I have to publish immediately my research output, because I have an obligation to the public in this sense and at the same time I don't know for a scientific article at a monetary compensation from the publisher. So the, the novel rationale of copyright link that to the, the idea of an autonomy, granted by the market and autonomy of the author granted by the market doesn't work in the, in the scientific sector, in particular for the scientific articles. So I think, as also the document mentioned by Alea before, I think the if we are thinking for example, about a right to open scientific publication we, we have to frame this right in terms of a zero embargo because they end up at the same time we have to frame the right in terms of the right to publish with the open licenses. And if we, if we are in a capitalistic system based on the market, the market will decide what will be the best and sustainable model. We don't have to discuss a lot about the best model because we have, we have to guide the system in, in, in, in a direction in a certain direction. The most important thing is from the university and researcher sector is to discuss the sustainability of the our system. And from this perspective, these current system is not sustainable as many speakers said before me. And why this, when you talk about our system, sorry, Alberto, when you talk about our system, our system, our current system based on the big deals and okay, and then transformative agreements in particular transformative agreements as for example, the, the Aliya documents said is not sustainable because the idea was at the beginning of the story, reducing the cost, but we are not reducing the cost of the, the, the agreements at at the same time, we, we are not reducing the monopoly power. And this is the, the most important problem because this monopoly power is linked not to into a publishing system in a strict sense, but in, in, it is linked to data analytics business model, completely different from the traditional publishing system. And so, from my point of view that the most important thing to discuss is this, this one from the, the perspective of researchers and researchers institutions university, the most important point is about the sustainability money, economic sustainability of our system but also the, from the point of view of, of academic freedom, freedom and autonomy. In fact, there is a discussion in these, in these last years about, about the academic freedom and autonomy, for example, the famous statement of Karen makes former rector of University of Amsterdam one year ago about the risk linked to the, the growing power of commercial entities, linked to the communication, communication system inside the science sector. Thank you very much Roberto and I just going back to the questions that were mentioned were posted on the chat box and I'll open now the floor to even more questions from the audience. The, the question of supporting open science is not just a question of legislative measures or business models, but is also a question of infrastructures and practices. And as Enric Wolf, if I pronounce the name correctly, mentions the cost of such infrastructure can be immense. And especially when the practice are not practices, in terms of how we perform open science and not at least somehow standardized or we don't have the capability between different systems. We can't, we tend to have a lot of costs that someone has at the end of the day to pay. So going to this question and asking Alia, to what extent do you see infrastructures infrastructure policies in Europe to, to be the way the way we see these kinds of questions of the kind of issues. To what extent do we see the infrastructure question as something that can be resolved by the different European policies. We have sustainable effort for more than two decades on this question. Alia, can you hear me. Does it work now. Okay, sorry, because I was having some, some problems so I missed the last part for the most you were asking about research infrastructures. Yeah, in the sense of research infrastructure supporting open science to what extent do we see this being something which has a cost, and to what extent can this cost be supported in different ways through European policies. And if I understand also right the question set by Enric Wolf in relation to copyright metadata in particular. So we have this question. And I don't know if Enrique would like to further elaborate on this position he made initially. So even public domain material is still has if I understand the point correctly, it still has a cost and somehow this is to be addressed. Yes, I think it is suggested from from metadata copyright that to support the construction of multiple data is to open and apply new scenarios and construction data factor market. According to you categories and levels will go to enhance the development of utilization of the value of data. But I see the requirement of metadata is to be enforced. I don't know if you would like to make a statement or respond to Ricky's point. If I may, bro, I think, yeah, I think when Enrique just pointed out here and you mentioned with infrastructure is also key. We need to build the open science. We need also to have open infrastructures built and ruled by the community. So by all the stakeholders. And, and I think, and somebody mentioned before the library needs to spend or has a budget. I think we have to go beyond the library. And this all this issue of open science is not the library business is a whole if now I'm taking the institutional height for me is a whole for the institution. I mean, research is always been understood as also publication is a part of research. So we cannot rely just in the past, only with the library and say well this is library budget. No, this is research budget. And I think we need to take this into account. If we want to support open science, all the institution, especially sometimes we forget that this is research. And therefore we need to to commit to have all these open infrastructures because the case that Ricky was mentioning if we have metadata you mentioned public domain. We also need to put all these tools in infrastructures that we can manage that we can keep and also that can be sustainable. We focus before in the sustainability of this publishing system but of course we need to make all these infrastructures sustainable because if not also will miss this idea of keeping the open science and all these things in an open way. And also of course we don't have time now but we can also discuss about open education and other open things that makes at the end, all the ecosystem of the open science we might say also open knowledge. I would also like to pass the floor. I don't know if Thomas Hartman wants to actually ask a question the same way and Ricky does. We discussed a bit before this kind of question to what extent we learn from the what kind we learned from the USDP zero embargo policy and Roberta was quite gave quite an extensive answer to that but I was wondering whether Thomas Hartman would like to make a further comment or question. Yes, not. Yes, sorry. I don't know what happened. I lost the connection, but now I'm back. Now with regard to the US policy so I think indeed is to be welcome and he is very good but as a founder, I think maybe I'm too optimistic about the policy what we have in the European Commission but we have a very ambitious policy so far until we know the details of the US. So what we know until now is public access but we don't know yet about the licenses in the European Commission, we ask not only immediate open access but under open licenses via trusted repositories no matter whether they publish in an open access venue or not but via repositories trust with repositories with sufficient copyright retention to meet the mandate and then that our funding goes to full open access venues when we're in Borsig in APCs. So, yes, I would be interested in knowing more about how this could be a model in many aspects of course but I would say, for the details we have so far, the European Commission policy via Horizon Europe is quite ambitious in that regard. And going to another question by, thank you very much, Alea, by Geron Bosman, what is being asked is whether it's a better question to ask who is organizing the publishing, the publishing instead of what business models we could use to marry commercial publishing with open access. And Geron also suggests seeing what happens with projects like Diamas, so how higher higher education institutions could provide themselves, the platforms and the means for publishing. And I don't know if someone from the panel would like to take this question. Perhaps, Thomas. The question was for a follow up on what Alea said, I mean I think that the right proportion is to say that the American initiative is inspired by what we have in Europe. This doesn't exhaust the question because one thing is to say you have to publish in open access, but as long as you can employ models such as hybrid open access then we know the consequence that this leads to, and then did this kind of short circuit, right, for example, you have very high APCs, which introduce elements of iniquity as it has emerged from what from the previous discussion, etc, etc. So, the problem is not just the corporate reform is a reform that has to touch upon, as we said, all these elements. The infrastructure is important. I think that the conversation that is happening right now in the European Union about digital sovereignty, especially with regard to universities is at the core of this. And, and I'm not sure but I think this was said by Roberto, at least 10 years ago. And if not, I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth, Roberto, but it was when we first noticed that, you know, the email system of universities was switching from the not so good in house version to basically the two major platforms right and we were wondering isn't this exactly what happened decades ago with publishing. So as universities we kind of realized or maybe we were lazy maybe we didn't have enough money maybe is, you know, research is more important. We kind of outsourced our assessment to a business which is the publishing industry. And to a certain extent may even be reasonable but we, we arrived at a level where as a university is university sorry we are unable to assess our own activities if a journal doesn't tell us that we have, you know, this much impact factor. It's a bit of an exaggeration but depending on the country where we are not even so much if you know, and many of us know how academic assessment is performed, but it's also true that the other way let's say the model existing in the UK for example so where we actually assess among peers the scientific output of our universities is very costly because it means that, you know, as the academic body has to dedicate a certain substantial amount of time in reading what others have written which you know you could say is that one of the core objectives of research yes it is. But of course we are at a certain level of specialization that this is not always easy. So if there is a question of costs and this costs if there is enough transparency are certainly costs that may be may very well be paid to an external entity that offers this service. But there needs to be certain requirements certain guarantees that you know this is still done in the core objective of university which is a public interest goal so we cannot pretend that a firm that is driven correctly because a private firm must be driven by private economic incentives. We cannot really pretend that they adopt a different met meter to assess dynamics from the one that drives their economic activity, right. And it is simply doesn't doesn't compute it's self contradictory. And this I think is one of the major questions that we have to to assess and is a question that touches upon all the points that we have made right how to find the right regulatory approach that considers the infrastructure the assessment the models, the added value that at least the publishers that are here today certainly bring. And, and the discards the parts that are not not compatible with this model any longer. I think that's the real question that it's, it's, I think, I think it's the cracks of the of the whole matter. I'll pass and I think this is the, the question is, it has multiple layers as you mentioned Thomas is not just what we say publishing and we black box quite a few things. And we need to see the different layers. I'll pass now to Ignacy and rods for a very quick last comments for you for me to wrap up and close the session. No, just first to you and then she runs. Yeah, very quick one just to answer your own. I fully agree with what he just write in the in the chat. And, and I think was one of the different venues for the future that I mentioned before I mean it maybe if we change the way as Thomas was saying on how we assess how we assess quality of research output. This solution that he is just offering in the chat would be one of the venues of possible winners to disseminate the research output. Thank you very much and what to you. Lovely. Yeah, I was just going to make a final comment so, and I would say we're in an age now of collective solutions and I think that's very different from perhaps two decades ago when that wasn't the case with S2O as a community of practice has formed as a very constructive very collaborative group. It involves lots of librarians, lots of S2O and S2O interested publishers and some funders. It's been a brilliant forum for evolving policy and for solving problems around S2O. And I would suggest if we want to achieve equitable open science, and if we want to move to a system where we have researched focused publications. And we should bring together librarians and funders like the EC, like other funders in Coalition S and progressive publishers and we should sit down sit down together and talk through these issues I think there's a great deal of practical benefits and practical progress towards open science that committee achieved by willing partners who are embedded in the system who have common interest and who work together. I think, you know now is a different moment from where we were at the turn of the millennium where there's a great deal that can be achieved simply by discussing these issues with the right people in the room. Thank you very much Rods and thank you very much everyone for being here. We have had so many different options as to how we can move forward. It's more radical some of them more incremental that's all toward the same direction which is how can we seek reform in different ways in order to support something which is our daily life as academics as publishers as librarians and as universities. So, at this stage I would also like to thank everyone that has participated with questions and by being here, and to remind you that this is only the first in a series of webinars in relation to copyright reform and open science. Indeed, top priority for us as open air, and I hope that we can continue sharing with you with you our thoughts and listen to yours as well. Next seminar is going to be about us. And John Woodlinsky will be there and I'm also very thankful to him for initiating this series and I'm looking forward to see you all and even more in the next webinar. Thanks very much. Thank you. Good night. Thank you everyone. Goodbye. Can you can you announce when is the next stage there for the next seminar. The next seminar will be on the 19th of January. I will share the link here as well for everyone. And this will be sent out to all participants and registrants anyway. So we're looking forward to seeing you there as well. Thank you. Thank you very much everyone. Bye.