 Welcome to our session on Fund to Mission Open Access Monograph Model at the University of Michigan Press Progress Report. I'm Kristen Tordowski, the Director of Sales, Marketing, and Outreach of Michigan Publishing, and this is my colleague Charles Watkinson, who is the Director of University of Michigan Press and a UL at Michigan Libraries. I do want to give a shout out to a few members who helped make this presentation possible who aren't here today. Charla Lair from Lyrasys, who was an exceptional part of our team, as well as Emma Vichello, who is our Library Relations Manager at U of M Press. And with that, Charles, why don't you take us away? Very good. Well, it's very good to see you all. I'm Charles Watkinson, and it's so strange not to look at you through a sort of a square shape. We thought we might bring our own squares just so we didn't feel freaked out by seeing you all in person, but it's very nice to see you. And today what we want to do is we want to talk about the Fund to Mission Open Access monograph model and place it in context. So I'm going to do a little contextualization. Kristen will take over when it gets to the hard butt of the financiers. Then we'll talk a little bit about what we've learned, and we'll leave you with some unanswered questions and hopefully have a discussion. And just to say that, as Cliff said, all of these slides will show up on the recording, but if you want to click on the links, there's a bit.ly link down at the bottom, ump-cnif21. So it was interesting as Cliff talked about innovation of necessity, and whether those innovations will still stay around. Back in 2020, in March, so long ago, so many of the publishers working with libraries decided then at that point to make their content free to read for a limited time. And that was the situation at University of Michigan Press. We left the office on March 17th, and on the 18th we turned off the restrictions on our own University of Michigan Press e-book collection, making the books there free to read but not to download. And what we saw was this, which was basically a quadrupling of usage of our monographic collection and a real spread across the globe of where that usage was coming from. And this was a nice experience because for years as monograph publishers, we've labored under the narrative that the things that we worked so hard on aren't used, but as soon as the access restrictions were turned off, we found unexpected use all over the globe. And we did have a little pop-up survey, which just bugged somebody who started to read a monograph and asked them to give a little bit of information about who they were and what they were doing with it. And we had a lot of responses from that, which illustrated that this was not just bots, this was people experiencing materials in real ways. And what was interesting about that was the idea of the educated lay reader. It actually became a reality. I had one example which was, I am a retired judge and I loved French literature as an undergraduate and now I can deep dive into it again. It's like, oh my gosh, you exist. You are an educated lay reader. So our challenge now is, how do we take that experience which energised us so much and make this experience permanent? Because as of the end of August 2020, we turned off the access to that collection. And what we've been trying to do since then and as many other publishers have been trying to do is work out whether we have a business model which allows us to make all these works free to read and in fact, more than free to read, open access for reuse in perpetuity. This is just a very sketchy, no, sort of loosely sketched rather, picture of illustrating some of the models for open access monographs that seem to have risen to the surface. So over on the left hand side, parent institution owners of presses have found ways to support open access and there are examples like UCL Press, Amherst College Press, Lever Press, University of Westminster Press, University of Florence Press. So these are models where the parent institution funds the whole enterprise. Down below that, library collections budgets are paying for initiatives such as the MIT Press direct to open model opening the future from Central European University Press and Liverpool University Press. And I put knowledge unlatched in this bucket even though it's a little bit different. D20 and opening the future are what I think we've come to call incentivized open access where they use their collections of backlist titles, their legacy materials as a reward to libraries for supporting open access front lists. But knowledge unlatched has a slightly different model as we know. But it still comes out of the library collections budget. And then authors and their funders are paying under existing book processing charge models, the ones that are popular with commercial publishers, as well as funding from the towards the open monograph ecosystem model in the States from the Dutch Research Foundation, NWO from the Austrian Science Fund from the NEH Open Fellowships Program. So these are all models where essentially the author is bringing the money, even if it's not ultimately their personal money that they're bringing. And then of course somewhere in the mix, question mark, question mark, sales of print books, freemium versions, freemium ebook versions, for example, crowd sourcing, etc. But I think these three models have really risen to the surface or essentially three sources of funding. Fund to mission is a hybrid funding model. It depends on all three of those sources. And to be honest, this is the way almost all of these programs are going, that they're depending on multiple sources of revenue to actually make them work. In the case of fund to mission, the three sources that the program is relying on are, first of all, the support from the University of Michigan Provost. And I'll talk a little bit more about that, and Kristen will as well. Secondly, from the library community, and again we'll talk a little bit more about that. And thirdly, from that author side funding. So it's really a three-legged stool of a model. And here are some value propositions for each of those stakeholders. So for the University of Michigan Provost, when you invest in fund to mission, you are supporting multi-institutional infrastructure for the humanities. So what I mean by that is really that University Press has wrestled for quite a long time with the particular problem that they are of an institution. But the people that they publish are fundamentally almost all outside the institution. By that I mean that 5% of most University Press publications actually come from faculty at their own institution. And the majority of the beneficiaries of faculty from outside that institution, or independent scholars, etc. So that makes it very hard to make a case to university administration based on local benefit to faculty. So rather than making that case, what we're trying to do with fund to mission is make the case that, hey, Provost, you invest in the sciences in lots of multi-institutional infrastructure. This is a map of internet too, for example. So here are a lot of institutions investing in an infrastructure that actually depends on institutional nodes, but is actually providing benefit for the whole network. So back in the early part of this year, I and my colleague Melissa Pitts, who's the director of the University of British Columbia Press, made this argument around the idea that if you think about the nodal organization of University Presses around the country, you will see a very, very similar picture of a network of institutions with University Presses passing manuscripts between each other, depending on disciplinary expertise, for example. And rather than thinking of just that local benefit, let's think about the provostial, let's frame this in terms of provostial investment in the network for the benefit of everybody in the network. And so far that kind of thinking seems to be resonating. I will say also that this really links into a number of interviews with authors and conversations around the idea that when scholars write monographs, they're really interested in the process. It's a way of thinking through their research. In many ways, a monograph could be seen as a lab for a humanist, a way of thinking through their work. So you can see the sort of analogy that's being made there. So secondly, the proposition to the libraries. The libraries are purchasing quality open access content in these models, and these are purchase models. They're essentially saying, keep on purchasing our collection. You will find that the benefit doesn't just accrue to your own institution, but with open access, it accrues to your own institution and every other institution. So purchase away, keep purchasing, please. And you're purchasing open access content, but with Fund to Mission, you're also supporting an open source ecosystem. And so it's a double benefit. You're getting both things for the price of one. And the University of Michigan Press e-book collection is based on the Fulcrum platform, which back in 2015, we received funding to build from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. And that platform is really focused on the data that is associated with humanity's scholarship being linked into a book-like form. So essentially, it's built on repository architecture. It's built on San Vera Fedora data repository architecture. And then layered over the top of that repository is an EPUB reader, epub.js, an open source EPUB reader, and attached to that of various modular tools for doing different types of things within the EPUB. So able player for playing video and audio, leaflet for maps and interactive models. So basically, it's an entirely open source system. And then it feeds into and links with other open source software systems. So you can see here kind of an aspirational model. We're not quite there yet. But the idea being that, well, maybe one could use, and we are starting to use Janeway from Birkbeck College as a way of ingesting manuscripts, materials, and reviewing them. Editoria not so much using, but it was at one stage a good option for a production workflow. Fulcrum has an annotation layer with hypothesis, and it's looking increasingly likely we'll have an authentication level of layer for individuals with humanities commons. And then there are reading experiences on the Fulcrum platform itself, but also with the Palace project, simply E as was, the Rebus reader. So you can see how everything kind of connects. And there is a flow of money happening here. So for example, some of the money that comes in from the investments libraries make flows back into the hypothesis program as we pay fees. So anyhow, a double benefit for library supporters. And then finally for authors, for authors the book-like thing is so important for promotion and tenure and just for satisfaction. You know, you have a thing and you can hold it and it can go to conferences and you can show it to people. In the old days it could go to conferences and you could show it to people, hopefully again. But what is exciting is it can be both and, right? It's a print book done through print on demand and then there is also this supercharged open member of the network, right? By taking an open access work, the work, the book can be fully part of this network of activity and interaction and links. And here's an example, for example, here of how these books can support inclusive learning. This is a multimedia text for understanding music through the lens of the migrations and the spread of musical traditions which has done very well for us recently, a totally open access book, winner of the American Musicological Association 2021 Teaching Award. These books can really push public engagement. This is reported, I think we'll hear later this week that this is the most engaged with book of the year according to Outmetric and their tracking, thinking about Cliff's points about those numbers being a little bit dangerous. But anyhow, this is coronavirus politics. This has been very substantially discussed around the world. And then academic innovation. And this is the best e-product of 2021 from the Association of American Publishers. And this is the first peer-reviewed rap album. So in this case, the scholar chose that they really wanted to articulate their scholarship on the experience of African American masculinity through the form of an album while still getting the benefits of a book-like thing for their scholarly career at University of Virginia. So I just wanted to test the internet here. And so just to see what that looks like. So this is A.D. Carson's album. So something that's happening here, you can see this is Abel Player playing inside an EPAP wrapper. And if you click on this particular work, you can see that here it's gone to the repository underneath. So this particular track has its own citable link. It is an independent entity on the network. Here's coronavirus politics just while we're here. And here is the Outmetric button showing the use of this particular work. What was interesting here is that it really did get a lot of exposure in sort of hot spots of the pandemic. So Brazil, for example, showed up very markedly at one stage. And then with Music on the Move, this is, again, Abel Player. And you'll notice that we chose tools that are very, very much accessible tools. So the transcript and the software itself. This also has interactive maps using leaflet. So this is the Transatlantic Slave Trade. And you can see the numbers moving across there. So just to basically show that this is not incredible rocket science. This is not incredibly super-duper innovative. But for the scholars who are using it, it feels good. And it feels like the sort of things they want to do with their scholarship. So I'm going to pass over now to Kristen for how does Fund to Mission work. Excellent. So Charles has talked a lot about the interconnectedness of the humanities and how we're hoping to build on that and really bring it to the surface. And he's also touched on a great deal of the fact that open in its many forms, open source, open data, open access underpins a lot of the work we do at Michigan. Which is what led us to ultimately create this Fund to Mission, I don't know, initiative, I suppose you would say. So we'll really quickly go through the basics for those of you who want some more information about it. We call it Fund to Mission, as you might guess, because we want to emphasize the fact that this is mission oriented. That is a lot of what Michigan Publishing does. We are a non-for-profit. And so the mission is everything, essentially. And what the mission is, in this case, is converting 75% of our monographs to open access by 2023. This is a tiered move. So for our first year, for 2021, we had a goal of 25% open access, or sorry, 20% open access. For 2022, a goal of 50% open access. And then for 2023, a goal of 75% open access. We'll get into the reasons it had to be a tiered change rather than all at once a little later on. But this is what we found worked for us. And as Charles mentioned, this support comes from three different sources. It comes from our provost, it comes from the libraries, and it comes from authors or other funding bodies, even though no author ever actually has to pay money to make their monograph or their book-like object open. If they happen to have grant funding and would like to donate it to the cause of open access, we support that. So who benefits from all of this? Charles touched on the provost and how they benefit already through the way open access and a fund mission project increases the university's reach and reputation as well as contributes to this broader infrastructure. So I don't know if we've talked much about what Michigan Publishing actually is, but we aren't just the University of Michigan Press. We also, you know, I'm the marketing manager for our institutional repository, and I am the marketing manager for Michigan Publishing Services, which oversees the Fulcrum open source platform. So all of these fit together, and this is, fund mission is just one more part of that infrastructure. Now libraries benefit in a slightly different way, as one might guess. So broadly speaking, they benefit from an increased access to these titles that many of them wouldn't have as well as readership globally. And the funders themselves get to see that the research that they've put money into gets an expanded reach and authors that they support flourish. Now digging a little deeper into benefits for supporting libraries, Charles mentioned the fact that incentivized open access programs exist. And in a lot of ways, ours is also an incentivized program. So by, we've talked to the numbers a little, but in addition to, you know, getting 50% OA titles in 2022, 75% in 2023, institutions who sign on to the program also get term access to our 1600 backlist titles. We're continually digitizing titles, and in fact, most of them have already been digitized. It's just figuring out how to get them onto the platform with permissions signed off that's actually the real barrier. If people have permissions workflows or systems in place that are wonderful that they would like to recommend, please do let us know. And of course, authors also benefit from supporting innovative digital scholarship and really supporting the fulcrum platform, which I think is one of the greatest benefits of the Fund to Mission program. So that brings us to funding options, and I'm just going to really briefly go over this, but essentially we've set it up where people have different ways that they can support the program. They can support a single year of the Fund to Mission program, or they can support a full transitional collection, which is that period of moving from 25% OA to 75% open access. Along with that, they could purchase a backlist bundle so that that term access that I talked about no longer was termed for that institution, but they truly had perpetual access to those approximately 1,600 titles published between 2012 and 2020. If you really want to know, the pricing is available on the website linked there, and I think we have the link written out elsewhere in the presentation. Again, I'm not going to read through the pricing. You all, well, you can, it is available on the screen or in the presentation. I will just note that we were very conscious as we created the pricing of the fact that equity in pricing is not a thing that always happens, and we wanted to make sure that all institutions, even if they were on the smaller side or didn't have a lot of funding, had the option to participate in funding an OA program, because often what you see is it's a lot of ARLs, it's a lot of larger state schools that have the money to put into programs. What does that mean if smaller institutions don't have the option to participate? What does it mean if the only thought leaders or not thought leaders, but money leaders are the big schools? How does that change the system? It was something we were conscious of. And that brings us to where the money goes. So I will very kindly ignore most of the commercial publisher section right there, but I will just say that for Michigan Publishing, we really wanted this to be a reinvestment in the publishing that we did at a university press. Like Cliff said earlier on today, consolidation is happening more and more and more. And it seems like, okay, what is a way to make open access in smaller academic publishers continue to exist and give that equity and diversity of thought and publications that might not otherwise exist? It's also an investment in the open source community. And I know most of our friends at MIT and Pucknam and Liverpool, we all focus on editorial quality. Just because the book is going open access does not mean in any way changes its peer review process or the way it's sent out for awards or marketed. That all continues. And we've touched on this a little bit, but it also supports this broader web of consortial, library, publisher connection. Because we, lyricists, they hate when I say this, I'm sorry if you're in the room, lyricists essentially acts as our sales agent for fund to mission, which means they help us manage the back end and reach out to libraries and make those connections. So that's an easier process for libraries to engage with the product. And honestly, because we're a staff of 40 that can't really manage all of the libraries who sign on. So that's a great partnership for us. So we're going to talk a little bit more about the fund to mission progress. Thank you, Kristen. Staff wise, Kristen is a staff of three to actually get all of this done. So lyricists is really essential for our work. I'm going to start with the parent institution. So how's it gone talking to the parent institution about their payment, their contribution? So lots of words on this slide, but just to say that we went to the provost in last year, for last year's budget with a business case, for essentially increasing the continuing base support that she provides the press. So every year for the last decade or so, the provost's office has contributed around $600,000 per year to support the University of Michigan press, which is about 20% of the total cost of the press. That's fairly standard for university presses. I think the average is about 15%. Some presses don't receive any money, but the majority do receive some. For FY22, so that is from July 1st, 21 to the end of June 22, we requested an additional $400,000 in base support, so continuing support for fund to mission. And the provost gave us $400,000 in one-time support and an invitation to resubmit for FY23. So that's the process that we're in at the moment, and that budget request will go in in January. And what she said with the response was that we appreciated the thoughtfulness of the business plan. However, initial discussions with academic leadership suggest there is a need for additional development to realize a long-term sustainable strategic solution that aligns with the priorities of schools and colleges. We encourage discussions with key deans in this area as you develop a long-term sustainable strategy. So one of the things we've been doing over the past few weeks is going door-to-door with the key deans and talking about what we're trying to achieve. And what's been really interesting is just how much the deans have known about the press, which is a bit of a surprise to me, and also how the directions that their faculty members are moving with their scholarship is extremely aligned with the direction that we're moving with this kind of support. And that would include deans in areas like public health, social work, areas that maybe may seem tangential, often to the sort of humanities and qualitative social science approach that pressors take. Ultimately, Paul Courant, who many of you will be familiar with, who was probably a unique combination of provost at one stage, dean of libraries, and director of the University of Michigan Press at one point, has always made this point that a million dollars a year to sustain a press may seem like a lot of money to a big research university, but a million dollars a year to support the publication of faculty work in humanities is a drop in the bucket relative to the total expenditure on humanities faculty at that same university. So this is not a huge amount of money. It doesn't mean that we're not paying attention to its spending very carefully. And also, of course, this is what is regularly spent on a startup package for one assistant chemistry professor, so in the broader scheme of things. Over to Kristen for how the library community has reacted. Sure. So we've seen a lot of great library support. I'm going to go down the numbers of that a little later. But before I dive into that, I want to share our library website and something that we've been really conscious of, which is accountability and making our data as transparent as possible, because the idea of open access, at least to us, is that it is a moral ethical approach that you are taking. So with that, you have a duty to show people what is being done with the money and what their support is actually going to do. So with that, we created a website that really, especially as we exit out this first year, is going to have a breakdown of the numbers and show those. Wait for that in January or February while we wrap up our finances for the year. But it also has a really innovative dashboard that is a Kibana dashboard taken out of our partnership with OAEBU and their data work. And it really can show where these open access titles are being used, because that's often one of the barriers to either authors or scholars being concerned about making their titles OA is, okay, what's actually going on with this content. And so if we pop down to the actual numbers a little bit. Okay, we'll do library supporters, that's fine. So as you can see here, I'm not going to read through them, but we have supporters from what we call all of our different tiers. Our tiers are based on Carnegie classes. I did the math, it's about 27% of our supporters come from tiers one through three. So these would be community colleges, small liberal arts colleges and specialist schools. And then approximately 72 to 73% of our supporters come from tiers four and tiers five. So these are your ARLs, your big research institutions. And the way those numbers break down in terms of actual money is shown on the screen of how many institutions and how much funding is committed. So you can see a grand total of 69 current subscribers. Bringing in almost $320,000. I will give the disclaimer that we just changed the math this morning, so I'm hoping it's accurate. But as of right now, I think this is correct. So 320,000 sounds like a nice chunk of change, especially when our original goal to bring in money was $250,000 per year to support fund to mission. So what actually happens to that money? And I'm going to walk us through the example of the 2022 collection, 50% open access, A, because it's simple math and B, because the numbers for 2021 were so influx that I thought trying to give true examples was going to be a little much. So like I said, 2022, we publish 80 titles, 50% of them are open access, therefore 40 titles will be open access. We have a goal of 250,000 net revenue from libraries going to this transitional collection. So given the 250,000 number, we actually need to bring in $400,000. And let me walk through why that is. So what happens to $400,000? That means we only get to keep 250 of it. So starting with $400,000, like we mentioned, we work with Lyrasys. They do excellent work for us, and they deserve to be paid for their labor. Lyrasys gets a commission of 15% from us. Our platform, Fulcrum, also gets a 15% fee from us. Now, as we've mentioned in this presentation, that 15% is being pushed back into Michigan publishing programs in that it's going to Fulcrum, but it's going to different line items essentially. It's going to develop that open source software rather than going into making the titles themselves open access. So already that brings us down about 30%, and we only have $280,000 left to play with. As a reminder, 50% OA, 50% not OA in the 2020 collection. So taking that 280,000 number and half, we keep a full 50% of it to turn back to OA, $140,000. But that other 50%, the other 140,000, royalties still have to get paid for out to authors because their titles are being sold. They've signed contracts with us that say we get X% royalty on the paid titles. The royalty amount does differ slightly from depending on the bulk of titles purchased, but for ease of math, I just said 5% here, so we have to take off approximately $7,000. And that brings the total for that half of the money down to $133,000. So if we add 140,000 plus 133,000, that brings us to 273,000 or slightly above that 250 net number that we were hoping for. There are some other fees that go into here that our director of finances would be ashamed of me for not mentioning, but essentially this is the super simple math of what it takes for us to keep around $250,000. So this brings us to the question of how did we get to 250,000 was the number we needed to keep and what is up with that? So what is up with that is a few years ago we worked with a consultant called Kimberly Schmelzinger who worked with us to figure out what does it cost for us to actually produce a monograph? And the answer that she came up with was that for us it costs approximately 21,000 to 22,000 for us to produce a single monograph. That's slightly higher than I've seen in other surveys and analyses, but I also know that Kim is producing, I think, another bit of research on this shortly, which may have surprising results on the cost going up for people. But if we multiply that $80,000 by $22,000, or sorry, 80 titles by $22,000, that brings us to approximately $1.65 million for us to run our monograph program. So how do we get to $1.65 million? Well, like Charles said, our provost has consistently given us $600,000 annually, and we have that one-time $400,000 annual amount. We also have title subventions. This comes from authors, from grant-giving institutions, from other locations, and those account for approximately $270,000. And then we have library investments, and that library investment line is what I brought down from that earlier chart. This is the $273,000. This is what we're getting from those 69 institutions who have paid money, essentially. And then we have other revenue. This could be from print sales. This could be from other subventions or grants. It is essentially the bucket of, we know other money comes from somewhere that we're going to put into this program. It's just a bit messy what that is. And altogether, those do bring us to approximately $1.65 million. And now I'm going to talk really briefly about authors, because I think this is one of the most interesting facets of why we've had to make this a transitional collection rather than all of a sudden snapping our fingers and making everything open access. So I'm not going to read these quotes precisely, but I am going to say that we walked through and looked at numbers. And as a lot of folks in this room know, STEM has an established history of being OA. The humanities, not so much. This has to do with the difference in funding. This has to do with the fact that, you know, humanities and social sciences have a monograph rather than a article culture. And that really does make a difference in how things can be funded. And I do want to highlight the SuperFarm chart from sort of a meta-synthesis of different OA percentages by discipline. That first column there, it cut it off, but it is OA in all of its forms, including hybrid and et cetera, all through platinum. And the second column is gold OA. Now, as you can see from the extracted note on the side, the authors of this noted that figures for the humanities and arts were not included due to their underrepresentation. So it was so hard to pull together data on these that they couldn't do the breakdown in the same way that they did for the sciences. I know Cliff mentioned biomedical research in his presentation earlier, and, you know, yeah, they have 58.5% OA according to this study. But if you look in that gold OA column, the arts only have 2.4% OA. And, you know, for us, that's a big deal. We published a ton in the performing arts and the scholars. So what do we do to make OA more interesting for these folks, more worthwhile? How do we get them the money to make their content open access? That's one of our big questions. And I will just toss out there. If people are doing studies on how COVID and the pandemic have changed these numbers, I would be super interested to hear that because the most recent meta-analyses I could find in 2018-2019, and I know that so much has changed in the past few years. And I do want to flag some other facet of disciplinary variation. And maybe I should have called this slide something different because really what we found is that demographics also differ by who is able to publish open access. Often because they hold less high roles as professors or because they have been in the system longer either because exiting for healthcare or other issues, women often are less likely to publish an OA as journals as our scholars of color. So this isn't disciplinary, but it is a difference and it is an equity issue. So it's something we think about as well. Who are the authors we're publishing? How are the ways we can support people who maybe wouldn't have access to OA otherwise and give them that access? And that is a really interesting article or study that I show on the screen. So if folks want to dive in, I highly recommend it. But that's all a very dour look at open access when really what we've seen is overwhelming amounts of author enthusiasm for this. I think our acquisitions team in particular was really concerned about what we would see when we started this push for open access because 10 years ago you heard horror stories of scholars just not trusting OA journals or thinking that it meant that their scholarship wouldn't be taken seriously. But as you can see from the quotes on the screen, our authors are so excited for the most part and think that OA millions, their titles are going to reach a broader audience, that this is something that is going to enrich their education, their scholarship because they'll now be able to have conversations all over the globe and see new things from it. And in particular, I just loved some of these extracts from emails that I anonymized. But essentially, you know, there was this author who was super interested in copyright and Creative Commons and had done all of this research on it as an undergrad. But, you know, they were in the humanities and they thought this is never going to happen for me. I'm not even going to try because it seems really hard and I'm tired. But aren't we all? But it came through and they were thrilled. But I will say this author enthusiasm is very discipline specific. You know, there are some disciplines that are less entrenched in... Well, entrenched isn't the right word. There are some disciplines that are more flexible in terms of OA than others. And that's one of the reasons we've had to have this tiered approach to open access, is we want to get our scholars on board. We can't turn their books away if they don't want their books to be made OA. And so, for, you know, classics in particular has been one that we've really struggled with because there is not broadly speaking as much of an interest in it. And so, you have to have conversations with people and say, yeah, no, this is going to be great for you. I do want to give one slight classics example, though, that is an exception that proves the rule, I suppose, which is we recently published this project, this GABI database. GABI is a city in ancient Roman Republic, theoretically where Romulus and Remus were educated, so it's really fun. This is an example of a humanity's open access database with 3D modeling of these archeological sites and these depictions of different interpretations of the past. But it was a huge project to get on board, and I think one of the more complicated ones that we've dealt with. But this shows the variation. So a project like that is very different than a project like a peer-reviewed rap album, or even just a more standard open access monograph. So it's quite the project to figure out all of the ways that open access can support authors in different fields. And I think we're excited to continue that journey. So this is, thank you, Kristin. This is really for the benefit of the slides later. So here are the links to various bits of information about what we've been talking about. So we're going to leave here with some unanswered questions that we have internally, with the hope that in the last 15 minutes or so we can have maybe a bit more of a conversation. Big question for us and all of the programs, of course, is what will happen to library support after the three-year transition, especially will that support move from venture capital to continuation funds? And that's a big question. How can we make it easier for smaller institutions to support fund to mission? What role might consortia play in coordinating their support? We'll support for a North American university press remain focused on North America. You may have noticed that all those institutions are essentially in either the U.S. and Canada. And we just, and I know this is true of MIT as well, we just are failing to bridge the Atlantic in terms of getting support from outside the U.S. Even though, outside North America, even though when we looked at usage, actually the majority of individual usage actually comes from outside the U.S. and Canada. Can fund to mission scale to other university presses? Of course, that's a crucial question. Now, I believe it definitely can. Maybe not all provosts are able to give $400,000, but they're all able to give more to their university presses. And there is a potential scalable model here. Will we ever reach an 100% open access front list? Again, Kristen's point about some disciplines not necessarily fitting well with open access. And we've guaranteed we'll provide that restricted access harbor for those disciplines. And then we aren't dependent on print sales in this model. And I think the conversation about what happens to print sales when a book is open access is incredibly difficult to predict, and so that's why we haven't made any presumption. But there are books where if we could price them at the right point, I think we could sell a bunch of print copies, and that's money for reinvestment. So that's all from us, and we would be delighted to hear your other questions and contributions of various sorts from the floor. Thank you. And I see there is a mic up there. And if you could say who you are and where you're from, even though I know that, Craig. I'm Craig Van Dyke from the Clocks Archive. Thank you very much for the presentation. I'm curious of the 80 books or 40 books. To what degree are they more or less straight monographs that we would recognize as print books versus highly enhanced, such that they might not have a print sale component? I would say the vast majority at this stage are more traditional monographs, but there are definitely examples within this of more enhanced things that you can't quite replicate. This series isn't for 2022, but we have a forthcoming series about tabletopic games, which is going to have, you know, videos integrated on the Fulcrum platform and interviews that we're hoping to have up there as well. And it's the sort of interactivity that you can't quite replicate for the print. And I think we're still grappling with what that means to sell a print book of something where there is this supplementary material online. And I know people do that with textbooks all the time, but this is different. And so we're still playing with that and learning, I think. I know that, you know, a couple of years ago, we came to CNI and did a presentation which was very focused on the problems for titles like that around discovery and very much with Craig's question in mind, preservation. And I actually don't feel as concerned any more about that because of some of the initiatives that have flourished since then. COX has been very involved in a project led by New York University Libraries, which has involved Fulcrum and Manifold and some of the other platforms, at ways of replicably classifying these enhanced works and providing workflows for deposit. And that involves clocks and portico, particularly. And then discovery, I mean, open access discovery used to be such a problem, but I think we're seeing substantial solutions now. Several of the aggregation platforms, JSTOR being a notable one, have really improved discovery an awful lot and now platforms like ProQuest and EBSCO are catching up. So thank you Craig. I mean, the preservation of these enhanced works as they gradually slowly increase in number, I think is very, very important. And I think for once we're kind of getting out ahead of that, which is exciting. I see another known entity moving towards the microphone, but this known entity is going to introduce itself. John Lippincott, C&I Emerita. I'm curious about the role of royalties and a lot of authors or potential authors have grandiose ideas of what royalties they may receive and we know that's pie in the sky. For most instances, but not for textbooks. And in the humanities, many monographs are used as textbooks in at least upper level, even undergraduate classes. And I wonder two things. One, do you get pushback from authors who are hoping that their monograph will be used as a textbook? And secondly, do you think that will impede the adoption of the model by some presses that have more of a textbook focus? Sure. So I'll get us started with that. And first I want to give some background, which is that we have two categories of textbook at Michigan. One of them is a very traditional textbook that is written to be a textbook. These are English language teaching books that are, you know, written with that in mind. But the other ones fall into that bucket that you're describing, and we call those adoptable titles, where we anticipate that humanities courses, especially upper level graduate courses, will adopt these titles to teach. The adoptable titles do fall into our Fund to Mission collection. They can be part of those 40 open access titles, whereas our traditional textbooks, the English language teaching ones, are outside of that collection. And you'll notice we were very careful about putting our scholarly monographs when we talk about Fund to Mission, textbooks being a different beast. I will say for the folks who write these ELT books, they are often extremely concerned about their royalties, because unlike with traditional monographs, these are their retirement plan. Like, this is their income. And so I think that is something that we think about for the future. Are there ways that we can flip the textbooks open and still give credit where royalties are due? How does that look for other university presses that have a much larger textbook list than we do? Which is all to say, I don't have a very good answer to your question, but I acknowledge that it is a complicated problem. But Charles, do you have... I certainly don't have an answer. I think it's an excellent question. And I think it's particularly a good question, because one thing we've learned, and I know this is very true of other monograph publishers, is just how much monographs are used as textbooks. I think that's been a big learning, and it means that a number of monograph publishers are now actively interested in learning management systems and connections into learning management systems in a way they've never been before. And of course, it's not the whole book often. It's often a chapter. It's part of an edited collection. So I think it is a very, very good question. Kristen's point about the motivations is very, very important. And it has been interesting with English language teaching lists that if one... You know, the authors really do split down into two groups. I mean, and one group really is very engaged now in open education and affordable education and just works and lives within a different value system than the other group. I think that whole point about crossover into the textbook world and also crossover into the bookstore world is very relevant to the question of disciplines that are being a little bit slower into open access. Classical history is an interesting one, and history in general, of course, is interesting in that that is a discipline where there is often crossover into the pages of the Times Literary Supplement or the New York Review of Books. And there is this strong tradition of a book that will sell to the judge, the educated lay reader. And those are particular dynamics relevant to particular fields that are very, very interesting. So I think it's a great question. And I should say on the royalty side, we'll continue to pay on print sales, but none of the library money we receive does then go into royalty payments for this open access e-book content. I know we have time for probably one other question if anybody has one or another comment. We've got another few minutes. I see one, a question appearing. It's so exciting not to see questions in chat. It is. Thank you, Maggie Farrell from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I'd like you to go back to your conversations with the provost. So my experience in working with provost and presidents is that they want their university press to sit on its own, so to speak, financially. And so I'm really impressed that your provost won is funding $600,000 and willing to consider bringing that up to $1 million. So can you talk a little bit about the politics of working with the provost and perhaps the other deans in the university? Thank you. Thank you, Maggie. The really crucial moment, I think, was actually back in 2014 where my boss James Hilton, the dean of libraries, made a change in the accounting structure of how the university is considered in its... how the university press is considered in the structure, the financial structure of the university, which is most university presses like University of Michigan Press pre-2014 are classified as auxiliary units. And the measure of success is often linked to their financial performance. So that would link them into housing, food services, athletics. And in that frame, a university press looks like a bit of an embarrassment. What James did was he moved the university press into designated status. And designated is also a revenue-related category, but its success is judged on accomplishment, on mission, primarily, and financial performance, secondarily. So it's really financial performance in order to achieve mission. So an example of designated would be executive education, for example, in a business school. And that was a crucial move because it shifts the frame of how the university press's success is evaluated. And if one then thinks of the university press as being part of the mission of the organization, it's very important then to be able to tie it into clear, strategic directions. So, for example, we have been fairly relentless in tying the university press's performance into the diversity, equity, and inclusion mission of the president and provost, the academic innovation mission. So these are all sort of listed and also the faculty public engagement mission. And you can see from those examples how those are the examples that we highlight in talking about the accomplishment on those missions. So I think it really is a shifting of frame and it's particularly possible if one reports into a library as a university press. And I'm saying that because the dean of libraries or the university librarian often has political power in the university that allows those sort of conversations to happen at the highest levels. And it no longer means that the university press is right at the margins, kind of a forgotten unit. It means that it actually can manifest in those larger strategic and political conversations. So that has been part of the building work over the last five plus years by James. And I should say with those meetings of the deans, he's the one who sets those up. So he appears and will do all the talking and then I will sit and try and look presentable. And that's important. I will just comment that I think Charles is underselling himself slightly here but I'll let it go. Well, thank you very much. We are at time. Thank you very much for your attention and let us know if you have any other questions. Thank you.