 Mae'r prydyniad yma yn ymddiol, y cyfnod yn bwysigol, y llyfr yn ymddiol, y llyfr yn ymddiol, y llyfr yn ymddiol, ac ymddiol. Dwi'n meddwl am 5 propozytio o'r prydyniad sy'n meddwl i'r rhan o'r 20 yma. Yn ymddiol, ac yn ymddiol. Fy oedd y cyfnod. Y rhan o'r llyfr yn ymddiol, ymddiol yn deitra. Fy oedd ymddiol. Fy oedd y cyfnod yma, y 2015, y cyfnod ymddiol yn ymddiol sy'n meddwl sy'n meddwl i'r 1980. Felly mae'r ffordd. Crosig ymddiol ymddiol ymddiol ymddiol i'r cyfnod o'r prydyniad ymddiol i'r llyfr yn ymddiol. Felly, ymddiol ymddiol, mae'n cyfnod o'r gros yn 2004 ac yn ymddiol i'r gros yn ymddiol i'r llyfr yn ymddiol. Mae'r ffordd yn ymddiol sy'n meddwl i'r gros yn ymddiol i'r llyfr yn ymddiol. Felly mae'r ffordd? Mae'n ffordd yn ymddiol ymddiol sy'n meddwl yn ymddiol ymddiol ac mae'r cyfnod o'r prydyniad ymddiol yn ymddiol sy'n meddwl sy'n meddwl i'r prydyniad yn ymddiol i'r 1980. Yn 2011, ymddiol ymddiol i'r Bryshys Llyfr sy'n meddwl i'r ymddiol ymddiliol sy'n meddwl i'r prydyniad o'r ymddiol ymddiol ymddiol sy'n meddwl i'r prydyniad ac mae'r 60% yn ymddiol fyddiol. Mae gennych i ddechryd y broses gwiaid iddyn nhw mewn ymddiol i'r ffordd ac yn ymddiol mae'r ffordd ac mae'r ffordd ymddiol yn ymddiol sy'n meddwl i'r catalogau oherwydd byddwn yn ymddiol ac yn ymddiol sy'n meddwl i'r pinellau ymddiol a'r ffordd ydy'r cyfnodd amser. Mae hyn yn ei wneud, os ydy'r clyfion ebookau, yn y clyfodd o'i bwrdd yna, ond y cyfnodd o'r cyfrifiadau ar gyfer ddweud yn ei ystod ond ei fod yn ei ddweud yn y clyfodd o'r cyfrifiadau'r cyfrifiadau. Mae y clyfodd yna yn gweithio'r cyfrifiadau, ond mae ydych yn ei ddylch yn ei ddweud, ond mae'r cyfrifiadau wedi'u ddefnyddio'r cyfrifiadau yna. The situation for journals is very different. That same outsour report suggested that only a tiny fraction of journals would be print only by 2017 and over 80% would be digital only. I'm sure we'd all concur with this and might even be surprised that print is surviving in parallel format by as much as 20%. My third proposition concerns the business model for scholarly outputs, the move from pay to read to pay to publish. The Finch report in 2012, a milestone for scholarly communications in the UK, declared unequivocally that the research communications system is in a period of transition towards open access, that this is a shift from reader pays to author pays, so it was talking about gold open access. As we've heard, our UK introduced the requirement for outputs to be made open access and provided funding for article processing charges, suggesting that within five years 75% would be author pays. So, where are we? Well, as Rowley said, we just don't know whether we've reached that 75% goal, but let's review what we do know. UK's two monitoring reports of 2015 and December 2017 show that the take up of gold has grown from around only 12% in 2012 to 30% in 2016, the last full year of data. However, the report notes that 30% in gold means that around two thirds remain in subscription journals. Green OA has gained ground, also as we can see from the figures. So, from the point of view of accessibility, most research outputs do get into the public domain over time. To complete the gold OA picture, we also know that RCUK are the biggest funder of APCs and that three publishers dominate this market, Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. And of those 30% gold OA articles, a little more than half are published in the so-called hybrid journals. If we look at the pattern that leads, we see an even stronger commitment to green OA than this national picture. So, I think we can probably conclude that author pays does not yet dominate, that we've been instead transitioned to a very mixed economy in which the majority of spending on research information continues to be through subscriptions. So, have we or are we seeing disruption in the traditional model of scholarly publishing? I think rather that over the past few years publishers have been adapting rather than embracing open access. Indeed, last summer we saw publishers react sharply against the proposal for a UK scholarly communications licence which will once adopted facilitate the management of green open access in UK universities. Nevertheless, open access will undoubtedly gain ground as authors increasingly focus on REF. We've seen publishers adapt by allowing repository postings of author accepted manuscripts protecting their interest in the copy of record. Some, including Emerald and Sage, have even removed embargo periods for many journals. Fewer predictions have been made about the research data side of open science, which is of course extremely important. However, we know that activity in this area is growing and that libraries are taking a lead developing infrastructure and supporting with advice. Moving on to the management of print collections. The RLUK strategy in 2014 included an aspiration that we could achieve for the long tail of low use, high volume print collections. The efficiency gains we'd all enjoyed through the collective approach to the management of journal collections. This fitted like a glove with the GIST National Monograph Strategy to build a distributed national research collection. A concept which has been around since the 1990s when retrospective cataloging projects aimed at full disclosure of the research riches of UK libraries. More recently, law condensy and others have encouraged us to manage our library collections above campus. So it was with optimism that the White Rose Consortium, the libraries of the universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York contracted with OCLC to use the Green Glass Collection analysis tool to enable us to move towards a shared print collection. The tool duly sucked in our catalogue data and applied its algorithm. I expected large overlaps and had visions of tall piles of books leaving our overcrowded stores. The reality was a little different. The analysis confirmed by later sampling and manual checking showed that of the two million or so titles loaded, 83% were held by one library only, and 75.5% of the University of Leeds titles were unique within the White Rose libraries. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the consortium has moved away from the aim of one shared print collection. We will continue to work together using Green Glass and the COPAC Collection Management tool to categorise our collections, which Leeds, of course, has pioneered, and collaborate with each other over holdings. However, for the moment, the day-to-day management of our collections will remain very much at campus level. I do continue to dream of those piles of books leaving my stores, but I think that will only be achieved through national initiatives. My final prediction is around physical libraries. I remember in the 1990s being told that as information migrated from print to digital, so library websites would replace the need for physical study space. In the 2000s, however, we began reimagining our physical libraries, responding first to problem-based learning, and more recently to flipped classroom pedagogy, and we have learnt that our readers certainly do vote with their feet when it comes to quality space. Between 2014 and 2017, the University of Leeds invested around £52 million in a new-build undergraduate library, the Laidlaw Library, and the refurbishment of our largest campus library, the Edward Boyle Library. The return on investment has been remarkable. The number of library visits has grown by 33%, and more significantly, the number of visits per enrolled student has increased by around 27%. So, in summary, as we head towards 2020, our libraries continue to be custodians of rich and extensive print collections, complemented by electronic journals, databases and repositories. We continue to manage, generally speaking, at campus level, our staff playing important roles within the research information life cycle, supporting open access, providing new data and digital preservation services. This reflects the developing emphasis, as we've heard, on data-driven research. Most visibly, our libraries have morphed from havens of tranquility to vibrant social spaces where staff are on hand to support students, increasingly from outside of the UK, become independent researchers using new styles of learning and pedagogy across all disciplines from classics to computing. So, libraries are in great shape, valued by our institutions and by our individual users. But we must beware complacency, and having looked back, we must now consider the future. We've seen the danger of predictions, so please treat my remaining remarks as observations, comments on the possibilities open to us, rather than speculations on what the future looks like. Unsurprisingly, our relationship with publishers remains critical and in some areas problematic. I'm sure we all feel grateful for the negotiations that JISC and the content strategy group take forward on our behalf. We continue to spend very large sums on information content, around 40% of the total budget for the library at Leeds, and this budget has been focused for some time on journal subscriptions. We've continued to see volatility in these subscription costs, associated in part with inflation and in part with currency fluctuations. And we are seeing increasing complexity in information resources spending, packages, individual subscriptions, ebooks, archival access, APCs. As we've explored before, it's difficult to identify where competition works in this marketplace. So should it be regulated? Should the relationship be between content supplier and UK higher education, rather than individual institutions? As the sector struggles to find a stable business model for ebooks and to integrate APCs with subscriptions, perhaps now is the time for a fresh look at the whole landscape. And I'd really like Mark Warport to take note of that one. With print continuing to hold its own, space inevitably continues to be an issue. And if we are to continue to explore collaborative collection management, then we need to address the issues surfaced by the White Rose Green Glass project around the quality of catalogue data. I suspect many of us still have collections which have only card catalogues, and even many of our electronic records reflect their early manual incarnations. Of course, improving the quality of our records would make our collections more visible and more accessible to potential users. It could also make possible collection management at national level. But as I say this, I am also aware of how unattractive cataloguing is to potential funders. It was hard enough in the 1990s to secure funds when that investment brought a step change. It's going to be even more difficult in the current funding landscape to make the case for improving records that already exist. That should not stop us. We live in a world of big data, as we've heard. Let's explore the possible paybacks in terms of smarter libraries. We also live in the world of Alexa. Let's raise our aspirations to catalogues and databases that can be interrogated by voice, that integrate GPS data, directing readers to convenient geographical locations that allow readers to play with library data, perhaps integrating with their own personal systems. Let's try and imagine a future unbounded by the limits of older technologies and put libraries in the centre of knowledge production in all discipline. Challenges are also on the horizon around open access. Hep C has indicated that in future refs, submitted monographs will have to be open access. A number of publishers including several university presses are investing in this area. Later in this conference, you're going to hear from Kate Petherbridge about the White Rose University Press, whose first open access monographs will be published this summer. What are the opportunities? In March 2016, the AHRC published a report by Jeffrey Crosick and Patricia Krasinska on understanding the value of arts and culture. Indeed, we heard from Jeff Crosick himself at the DC conference last year. The conclusions based on deep research are wide-ranging and deserve consideration in full. However, I think the takeaway for those of us curating archives, manuscripts and rare books is that the importance of cultural enrichment to individuals and therefore in turn to communities more broadly. They talk of the importance of the arts in producing reflective individuals, engaged citizens in promoting positive health outcomes. They describe the instrumental role arts can play in urban regeneration or in bringing together nations following conflict. Put this alongside an increasing emphasis in arts and humanities on longer larger grant funding and one can see how our special collections librarians and archivists could play active roles as expert partners linking collections, telling their stories, enabling the synthesis of ideas into a bigger picture. Crosick, Krasinska and others have emphasised the potential of the digital as both an art form in itself but also in adding value to other formats. We know we have many challenges in curating and collecting digital collections but there is a developing field of digital humanities in which the technology can provide a new platform for exploring our collections both print and electronic. I was enormously privileged recently to contribute to the just welcome funded UK Medical Heritage Library which produced over 15 million pages of digitised content. The project included a discovery layer in which readers can use a number of visualisation tools to explore the collection including finding images of parts of the body within the digitised books relating the geographical location of a published work with hospitals and medical schools. Working with researchers to develop tools that exploit both metadata and digitised content could potentially provide one of the key components of collaborative collection management. The UK Medical Heritage Library drew its contents from 10 libraries and allowed some post-project collection edits. In conclusion the future of libraries is undoubtedly bright. We are an enabler in the development of students as independent learners. Our information resources continue to fuel the engine of research and our services have become integral to the research information life cycle. But we could do so much more. In an increasingly digital environment let us also seize the myriad opportunities to build new electronic collections as well as use technology to celebrate, exploit and simply enjoy the rich manuscript and archive resources that have long been at the heart of our exceptional research libraries. Thank you very much.