 Hi Al, hello and welcome to the webinar sharing academic research, the role of institutional repositories hosted by the Cushing University Library. Today we have 362 registrations, so it really reflects the strong interest and timeliness of this piece of work. So my name is Janice Chan, I'm the manager of the research and copyright team here at Cushing University Library. I and my colleague Petra Jumbell will be moderating the webinar today. If I can actually advance my slide, I'm not using my own equipment today, sorry. So I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we are hosting this webinar today, the Wajap people of the Nongla Nation. I recognise their continuing connection to country and pay my respect to their elders, past and present, and I extend that respect to the First Nations people on the call today. So we are in the Cameroon season in Wajap country, the campus ground is covered in yellow and red flowers. That's a photo that I took on my walk to the office yesterday, is absolutely beautiful, is privileged to live and work on this beautiful land. So just a bit of housekeeping from me. A reminder that this webinar is being recorded, the recording will be shared with people who have registered via Eventbrite. During the webinar, you are welcome to share your thoughts in the chat with other participants. If you'd like to ask the presenter a question, please use the Q&A panel. If you can't see the Q&A panel, you can access it by clicking on the three dots at the bottom right corner of your screen, next to the chat icon. And I think that's everything. So I'm just going to introduce you to our presenter today. Neve Crickley is a librarian researcher with a background in software test management. Her goal is to enable other researchers to share their work as widely as possible. Her recent research topics include open access in the humanities, arts and social sciences, the visibility of creative practice research outputs and graded to chat. And technical documentation for the open access ebook usage project. So Neve, are you ready? Yes, Kaya, everyone. So take it away. Sorry, I just stopped sharing. Okay, can you see my beautiful photo of Lake Gulalal? Can you see my slides? Yes. Great. Okay. So this is Lake Gulalal. This is a research site that I live on Waduk Nongrobucha. And I also acknowledge the traditional owners who have paid for this land over many, many years and I say Yankah to the custodians. So most of you know already what repositories are, but we'll just start by having a common definition. So researchers create a huge variety of outputs during their research and sometimes they save them to digital archives called repositories. In the journal articles and books, it's art, reports, code, data. So they can be institutional and only accept research outputs from that specific research organization. They can be subject specific, like bioarchive for the life sciences, or they can be completely general use for everyone like Sonodo. And throughout the presentation, sometimes I'll say IRs instead of institutional repositories. So their digital archives used to share, preserve and count research outputs. And the preservation part is about keeping them safe and we'll touch on that later. And the counting in IRs is for research evaluation activities like the Australian version is excellence in research for Australia. So let's have a look first of all at this role of sharing and how IRs enable open access by making research visible to the world. So we'll do a bit of research and shopping first. Research outputs, they're not just for researchers, they're for anyone who wants to read them. So we'll have a look at some neurology research people, your friend, your GP, your physio, they might want to access this kind of research. Some researchers work for universities that can afford subscriptions to all of these journals. And there's also unaffiliated researchers who aren't attached to a particular university and they don't have subscriptions. So this first article would cost us almost €40. It's paywalled. We'll pop another one in. It's not even an article. It's an editorial for $39. Let's buy a third one. It will cost us $25 for online only access. And we'll buy a fourth one at almost €40. And that's what people are expected to pay to access the latest research about important topics. And it's not just science, it's education research, charities, industry needs access to all of these amazing research outputs. So this is where institutional repositories come in. So here's an example where the University of Burn has, they've got the repository set up, the researcher has put something in there. And because of this whole invisible infrastructure, open metadata about these research outputs and all of the different systems reading and sharing that metadata and the people who make it happen, we can read this one for free. And here's another example from the University of Central Lancashire where you can read it for free instead of paying £30 sterling. So on to our research project. We wanted to find out what Australian library leaders and repository managers and researchers think about repositories. And this is including IRs and third party repositories. So we had two parts to this project. First of all, we spoke to 25 people. So throughout the presentation, I will call the library leaders L1 to L12. The repository managers are M1 to M10 and the three researchers are all from Curtin University and there are one to R3. So in Australian academic libraries, the leaders have the title of university librarian or director of a library or similar titles. And we would have loved to talk to more people. There was a lot of interest in this project, but we were limited by our full-time equivalent project length of four months. So the second separate part of this project was a university website review. And again, we needed to bound our scope. So we picked the 39 Australian members of the Council of Australian University Librarians and basically went through all of their websites. It was all publicly available information and we will go through that in a bit as well. So the project report is finished just last week. It's under review, so I hope to get that out in the next few weeks to everyone so everyone can read it. There's a lot in there. So I'm just going to pull out a few of the highlights for this presentation. And the reason there's so much in there is really thanks to the generosity of the participants and sharing their experiences. So when I talk about findings from focus groups and interviews, I'm not going to mention any specific repository platforms because that would be identifying. And in some quotes in the presentation and the report, I've actually removed participant identifiers completely just to keep them de-identified in case they could be identified by their processes or their team sizes or their platforms. So we'll have a look at what came out of the website review first. And this was all publicly available information. So we can see that fig share anti-space at the bottom of the chart. They're quite popular across these 39 Australian coal universities. And there's actually 57 institutional repositories across these 39 universities. And we can see EPRINCE and PURE have quite a few instances. And then we've got a whole cluster of less-used repository platforms in there. So looking at the spread, we've got 23 universities running one institutional repository, 14 are running two, and two universities are running three institutional repositories. But it looks like they are both legacy repositories that they've just kept live. And this is just an extract from the report. So the other criteria you can look at for each of those universities are what research management software are they using? What advice are they offering at third-party repositories to their researchers? And how are they populating their repositories as well? So first of all we'll look at what the researchers told us. So I found participants by looking for curtain-affiliated researchers who had already used third-party repositories. And in the transcripts and in the report, I don't identify any of these repositories. I asked the researchers about how they're using third-party repositories and what's the reasons for choosing them over the institutional repositories. So some of the positives from using third-party repositories were that they find them really easy to use. They can basically put what they want to in there rather than an institutional repository which might not allow certain types of content. They like that they can get digital object identifiers really easily and quickly because that's not always the case in institutional repositories. And some of the negatives were when they were sharing data and code, they were concerned that people just wouldn't find it. So while they are saving it, they're not always sure that people will come across it. And they're concerned about commercial repositories. And that came out in conversations with library leaders and repository managers as well. And researchers also thought that some repositories just saved too many versions of the one thing. And it could be difficult to know which one to cite. One thing that was generated during those three interviews was that two of the researchers brought up trust. And I didn't ask any questions directly about this so it just came out. The researcher one felt that third-party repositories would be actually more reliable than an institutional repository. And R1 said, I have some trust issues that a university would in the long term be thinking about 50 years down the track of maintaining the institutional archives to the same degree as third-party ones might. And there's a lot more on researcher perspective in the report, including how they feel about open research practices and also researcher suggestions of other types of research outputs that they would like to share in the future. So we'll move on to library leader and repository managers. So this was three focus groups with 12 library leaders, roughly three to five in each one, and interviews with 10 repository managers. So I spoke to them about the services they're offering, the challenges they face, how they feel about open research, their thoughts on read and publish agreements, their feelings about third-party repositories, and what plans they have for the future as well. So this was asking participants about their team sizes. And this one was really difficult to estimate. As you know, each university has a really different dynamic in the library, the research office, IT, how they support the repository. So participants were asked to estimate the total full-time equivalent for staff who support researchers with getting their outputs into a repository. And they were asked to think about roles like copyright, repository teams, research data management, research outputs, scholarly comms, digital preservation, IT staff, and era support. So the huge variance in the answers, we can see the teams run from one to three staff to five university who have over 10 staff doing various functions in the repository. So one of the other themes that they talked about was that the repository is not seen as a destination for some of the repository managers. They really see it as an indexing source, especially for Google. So this is a real acknowledgement that people are using Google and Google Scholar to find the research. And that's where repositories need to make sure they're represented and indexed in there. So this awareness that the institutional repository is not a destination, it's actually influenced the level of customization that they're willing to do in the institutional repository. And one of the participants feels it's not a destination. No, we're not going to customize it. Another repository manager really wants their IR to be invisible rather than a destination. And they said the key is that would just be invisible infrastructure for the majority of people rather than thinking about it as a place where people go to see it. And I did ask specific questions about digital preservation. And this is really the planned activities of keeping multiple copies, keeping what you have safe, actively monitoring file integrity and file format obsolescence as well, checking that things can still be read. So library leaders and repository managers were asked what kind of digital preservation activities their IRs support. Only one has formal digital preservation activities in place. Many of the participants rely on their IR, university IT or cloud-based storage to do kind of automatic digital preservation rather than planned active digital preservation. But they did acknowledge that this is a gap and some of them really want to revisit this in their future plans as well. And another theme that we spoke about was that there's huge benefits to considering a hosted repository rather than running it, installing it within the university. Many IR platforms offer hosted repositories now via directly from the vendors or from service providers and all of the software and research output files are hosted and stored outside of the university. And three library leaders and three repository managers spoke really positively about their move to hosted IRs and they shared lots of benefits such as less infrastructure management, no upgrades to manage, minimal downtime, and their staff have been freed up to work on other activities. The one repository manager feels that they can really focus on the collection now that the infrastructure is taken care of and another benefit for the same participant is not needing library staff to be technical experts anymore because they said it just sits there and it runs and I don't have to have anyone who knows how that works. And two other library leaders who've moved to hosted IRs have changed their focus and freed up staff so that they don't have to manage the infrastructure and a third library leader is focused on improving their service. So we'll look at the challenges next. I asked library leaders and repository managers about the challenges they face in getting their repository to be everything they wanted to be and this was a bit overwhelming and confronting. I didn't expect to have so many challenges recounted and it really surprised me as an ex software test manager and someone who has worked for vendors and worked for clients. IRs are really complex and challenging. So we'll have a look at, can't cover all of the challenges so we'll have a look at some of the technical challenges researcher engagement and resourcing. So generally the repository is integrated with other systems and platforms especially research management systems, academic profiles then they're harvested by Google, Google Scholar, Trove, on Paywall and WorldCat and all of these pieces have to work to have a fully functioning repository. So many of the library leaders and repository managers I spoke to had all experienced challenges with these integrations. M4 said that it's more complicated than we thought it's a very complex piece of work and I'm not sure that people realise how complicated the metadata mechanics stuff is and two repository managers and two library leaders shared how the customisation that they've already made to the repositories has turned into a challenge for the future and they're keeping this in mind for the future. And they have said we've been really careful about minimising the amount of tweaking of products that we do to make it exactly the way we would want it to work. So the second category of challenges was engagement and engaging researchers with institutional repositories as you all know is challenging, especially data submission. So L11 shared that they feel this is very low understanding of what research data management is about, let alone research output. And three university libraries that run more than one repository also find it challenging to explain to the researchers which research output types go in which repository. And they said one of our problems as an institution is explaining when things should go into the first IR and when things should go into the second IR. So our third category of challenges is resourcing and M4 shared the challenge of balancing repository needs with available resources which is a problem that everyone's facing. And M4 says we're just trying to be pragmatic I guess and ballads all those things as best we can in an environment that is pretty constrained. And challenges in working with the research office were also noted by two library leaders. And some of this was due to a lack of ownership of workflows and a lack of clarity about who was responsible for what. And they said we check the metadata, they check the quality of the metadata, they're thinking that we've done a whole end life cycle process and it is a bit unclear who is responsible for what. So we know that institutional repositories enable universities to share the work of their researchers openly and in some cases they can be an integral part of a university wide open research strategy. So there were real success stories shared where the repository had support. And L9 commented that the repository can't stand alone, it needs to be within the fold of an open research strategy in the agenda of the institution. And M10 showed that the repository is just the only way that we can make university authored material open access. So we see this real support for some of the repositories in the interviews, but it's not the case for everyone. And one of the participants commented, I do wonder sometimes if we didn't have a repository, would anyone notice? Lots of university libraries already fund open initiatives and participants were asked about how they did this, were they thinking about doing more in the future? Some would like to invest more, but they just don't have the budget to do it. And the support of these open initiatives is really important to financially sustain and protect non-commercial open infrastructure and services. And one library leader had an interesting twist on this and they cautioned that their potential support for open initiatives could be reduced because of read and publish agreements and money going towards that. So we'll talk a little bit more about read and publish. I asked the library leaders and repository managers what they thought about these read and publish agreements negotiated by CALL that mostly took effect this year and many felt that they reflect really well on the library and that they've encouraged conversations about open research, so lots of positive feedback. And one repository manager actually thought that the read and publish agreements might impact their collection scope in the future. And M4s have shared, for our repository I suspect it means shifting our focus to the non-traditional research outputs and things that are uniquely of our organisation that no one else is going to be responsible for. And a few negative perceptions. Some felt that R&Ps are really complex to explain to researchers. There's so many conditions and variations and many library leaders and repository managers felt that they just need more time to see the impact of read and publish agreements on their repository. And one repository manager cautioned university leaders that read and publish agreements while they do provide some articles as open access, they're not a replacement for institutional repositories. And M4 commented, I think that's kind of a failure on the part of some university leaders to take the repository and make it critical infrastructure and a critical service on the support of research outcomes. We will have a look at what our participants thought about third-party repository. So we looked earlier at what researchers think and this is what library leaders and repository managers think. So we talked earlier about subject-specific, like bio-archive and general third-party repositories like Zenodo. So some universities are being really open about third-party repositories. They're acknowledging that researchers are using them. They're giving official advice on, even in some cases, which ones to use and you can see that a bit more in the desk review, what kind of advice they're offering. Some universities are requesting that researchers who do use third-party repositories give their metadata to the institutional repository so that the library can get it there and that sums up well by M8 when they said, think about the repository as a place where all of this gets linked together. And looking at the first quote from M9, some library leaders and repository managers actually think that third-party repositories are better for some researchers. So they're very accepting of that. And some universities spoke about how they're already harvesting metadata from these third-party repositories back into their institutional repository. And others are planning to look more into this area. And something that came through in talking to researchers and library leaders and repository managers was a real concern about commercialization of these third-party repositories. And, for example, M1 is concerned that publishers will really try and get into this space and try and make further profit from research outputs. And M4 says, publishers, they recognize the monetary and interest value of having a DOI minting service. And we look at what plans repository managers have for the future. And this was also quite a big section. Some of them have really big plans and they really want to do a lot to their repositories. So some are considering a move to a bigger collection scope and M5 would like to widen the scope of their repository beyond just era-reportable research outputs. And M5 says, I like this vision of our repository being something which holds an enormous amount as opposed to only things that are reportable for era and the open access versions of those same publications. And some other library leaders, they just want their repository to be for anything open. And L1 says, not just for research, it's their repository for anything open. And we can see that move to more of a researcher-centric focus than an era-centric focus. And participants were asked what kind of research output types would they consider collecting in the future in their institutional repositories. And we can see a list here. And interestingly, when researchers were asked the same question about what they would like to put in repositories but weren't right now, they also mentioned reports and educational resources because they already have them. They're just not quite sure where they can share them. So in the focus groups with the three groups with the library leaders, they all raised potential topics for future conversations that we're not having right now. So really, there was a real feeling that there's lots of things that the community as a whole is not talking about. So these were in kind of two areas. One was the role of publishers and the other one was a national approach to institutional repositories and open access. So one library leader feels that just hasn't been enough discussion on the impact of read and publish agreements. And they said they're going to have a very deep impact on what we do in libraries and that's the conversation we're not having. So I think it is going to have an impact whether or not we can manage the conversations to ensure that impact is not too negative is another thing. And another library leader questioned why we are still relying on publishers to share knowledge. And they said, why do we still rely on that traditional journal publishing to share knowledge if the point is to disseminate knowledge? So the other area of conversations was national approach to repositories and open access. And we've seen a lot of talk about this this year. In 2021, the Australian Chief Scientist Kathy Foley announced the need for an open access strategy for Australia and a proposed model has already been shared and there's a further detailed plan to come. And some library leaders spoke about the impact of the Chief Scientist's interest in open access and how it could impact repositories and that hasn't really been figured out. And two library leaders felt there's still more conversations to be had about open access and open research and especially the scope of research outputs that we're going to collect in repositories. And one of them said, is the day of the article over? Is it more for non-traditional outputs? Is it more for data? There's a lot of unanswered questions from the library leaders but great starting points for conversations. So one of the things I love about research is the opportunity to give somebody back to the community that you're working with. Earlier we explored the many challenges faced by library leaders and repository managers and running their institutional repositories. So I flipped all of these challenges into suggestions and suggestions for any universities considering a new institutional repository. So first of all we look at suggestions for vendors. Some of the library leaders and repository managers had a big wish list of things that don't work or just aren't there in institutional repositories and things that they mentioned included link checking, control vocabularies to enable link data, better configuration of organizational groups, collection management metadata, more granularity in rights management and better statistics for both researchers and the administrators of repositories about how many, what is the access and downloads for research outputs. And as we mentioned earlier, integration with research management systems is really challenging. So if vendors can share success stories or previous lines that have managed to get things working together, that could really help future users. Connected PIDs. So PIDs are persistent identifiers like digital object identifiers and participants in this project spoke about wanting to improve discoverability in their repositories by using linked PIDs. And this really echoes the report commissioned by the ARDC that came out recently called Incentives to Invest in Identifiers. And in the report, they recommended that infrastructure providers, so we could see repository vendors as these, so they recommend that five priority PIDs are harnessed for people, institutions, projects, research outputs and grants. So this shows how these repository managers are really forward thinking and wanting to get to this point of having connected PIDs. So next we'll look at suggestions for universities if they're looking for a new repository. And I've included this in a checklist format in the report, so it's quite easy to access. So in terms of planning, the two suggestions, that the library should be a stakeholder when planning any new research systems, when changing workflows significantly, doing upgrades, because not all library leaders and repository managers were considered in these big changes. And the ones that were stakeholders had way better outcomes. And the second planning suggestion is consult researchers. And some universities spoke about how they've done this and especially creative practice researchers because they have really different needs from repositories. They have very different research outputs and they want things to look, it's important how things look in repositories. So for infrastructure and integration, that consider the benefits of hosted repositories because it's less infrastructure management, no upgrades to manage minimal downtime and it can free up staff. And integration is really essential. So ask potential vendors for case studies of other universities who have achieved integration with your combination of systems and that would really give you confidence when you're selecting your repository and prioritise indexing. So people are going to access the repository via search results in Google and Google Scholar and just consider that you might not come to the home page of the repository and we know that indexing can be a pain point for some repositories. And the last category of suggestions for universities looking for a new repository is functionality. So future proof that I are with connected pids. So ask your vendor, do they support orchid? Do they support funding schemes and equipment identifiers? Because that's where repositories are really able to shine and link everything together. And customisation really carefully consider how much you want to change the repository because it can make it difficult to maintain an upgrade for getting it to look really nice right now. So consider minimal customisation of the repository. And the last functionality suggestion is check that any potential repository you're thinking about supports privacy of specific metadata and files within one research output. So I'll give you two use cases for this. One is the ability to make a part of a creative practice research output public but a research statement private within one DOI. And the ability to make administrative note metadata private for repository staff but not visible to anyone else. So we can sum these up in an ancient Irish repository proverb hosted kids save time and configure carefully. So we'll wrap it all up. We've seen how the role of the institutional repository is changing and the IRS discussed with participants really varied widely in their collection scope and how much mediation and curation they had. So we've seen how some universities are moving from collecting just irreportable research outputs to collecting everything that researchers want to deposit. And some universities are moving from mediated deposit and curation to instant DOI and unmediated publication. So it's just I was really surprised by the huge range of how everyone was doing things differently. There was no uniformity in how the repository was set up. It was everyone was just so different and that was only from the 17 universities that I spoke to. So some of the factors that have contributed to these changes are a change in research management systems. The institutional repository used to be the source of truth for publication metadata and that's changed. Now it's the research management system that pulls from multiple sources and grabs all that metadata from all over the place and that's the source of truth now. And one university feels that the engagement and impact agenda could increase the scope of research outputs being collected to be not just irreportable and things that they were thinking of was even collecting even more reports and working papers to show how universities are really engaging and impacting on their communities that they work with. And moving to hosted IR has enabled some universities to focus more on value and service instead of just infrastructure management. And the other one is read and publish agreements which we could see as impacting the type of research outputs to collecting research that's really unique to an institution. So we'll try and sum up everything and answer our question. What is the role of institutional repositories in Australia? So we've seen how the repository can be an integral part of the university-wide open research strategy and it's sometimes the only way to share research outputs with open access. Some universities are really acknowledging and accepting that the researchers do use third party repositories and the teams are already incorporating metadata and links for those researchers back into their repositories. And the scope of what a repository collects is widening for some universities with more of a researcher-centric focus. As we've seen, running an IR can be extremely challenging and the invisible work of all of the repository teams should be recognised and acknowledged. So I just want to say some thank yous. Thank you to Amanda Ballinger who came up with the idea for this project earlier this year. Thank you to Curtin University for funding it. Thank you to my project team, Janice Chan, Julie Clift and Professor Lucy Montgomery, but especially to all of the participants who are extremely busy people, but they generously gave their time and shared their experiences with me. And I've just put two DOIs up here. So one is for the question guides, which anyone can reuse if they want to talk to their researchers or look more, talking to anyone at any levels. And there's also de-identified transcripts from the researcher interviews. And later today I will have these slides online as well. And I'm ready for questions if there are any. Thank you. Thank you so much, Niamh. There are applause. Thank you. And there are quite a few comments and questions in the chat. And we do have a couple of questions in the Q&A at the moment. So I will start with those. If anyone else have any other questions, please feel free to place them in the Q&A panel. So Niamh, we've got your first question. It's a long one. So let's see how we go. So with the White House and NHMRC mandates allowing repository-based OA, what do you think is the likelihood of total commercialization of repositories within about five years where in-house library repositories are replaced by subscription-based repository as a service aggressively marketed by the same data analytics companies that brought out ILMSs? So journal database publishers, cetacea managers, and other parts of the library workflow. That's really terrifying. And I wouldn't be surprised. Here we are in Open Access Week once again talking about Open Access. That it's still not here. Publishers have co-opted it and turned it into very successfully marketed it as Gold Open Access being equivalent to Open Access. And that's pretty common across all of the researchers I've spoken to in previous research. So nothing surprises me anymore. And it's just so much effort that all of the people attending all of these webinars put in to trying to keep the infrastructure open. But I think there was a real desire, especially among the library leaders, they do want to invest more in these open initiatives that could provide a counterbalance to that kind of aggressive commercialization. So I guess it could come down to money and investment and what are universities prepared to provide as a balance? Meanwhile, with the other hand, they're still feeding subscription money to publishers and buying back their own metadata for things that they've already created. So yeah, I'm terrified by that suggestion. So I really don't know. I've learned over my past few years that there's no simple answers to these. But I think we're seeing lives in the right direction. Yeah, I actually have a question myself when you were talking about the researchers' perspective about third-party repositories, because I wonder if there were any concerns around subject repositories of third-party repositories being bought out by commercial vendors as well or for profit organizations. Were there any comments on that? Yeah, so I've covered a bit more in the report. There was that fear of commercialization. And I actually didn't ask any questions about that. It really came out organically. They do have, I guess, trust in those long-standing third-party discipline repositories because they've been around for so long and they're quite integrated in their communities. But I think they also do have that fear that they could just get commercialized as well. Yeah, okay, sorry. And another question. If indexation in Google or a Google scholar seems so important, what is the purpose of research data Australia? I'm not sure if this is something that you can answer, Nief, but do you want to have a go? I did talk to at least one of the researchers about research data Australia. And I asked them if they ever looked for things there. If it was a destination, would they go there to look for things? And they were aware of it, which is great, but they said they wouldn't. But if it is also harvested in the same way, then it will appear. All of these things are just sources because of that information-seeking behavior that we see. In all of the examples I used at the start of my presentation, I was using Google scholar and Google because I like to stay logged out of my subscription so I can see what's actually happening and see what's not free and what is free and use that on paywall extension as well. So I can see that little green padlock when I know that things are free. So yeah, I would. It was tricky to find three researchers. We had hoped to find five across different study areas, but as you know, researchers are really busy and it is just one more demand on their time. So it was great to find three who are already sharing openly as they were exactly the right people to speak to and they had really good insights. Okay, so I'm just going through the chat now. So if anyone has questions, please put them in the Q&A. That will make it easier for us. Okay, so let's try this one. So is there a distinction between repository, data, OA, et cetera, types in the report? So I think that's about whether you have distinction. Yeah, so in the report, there is a really, really long table at the end of it with that little sample that I had, so I'll just open it so you can see one of them. And I have split it where I find multiple repository I've said. I've given a link to each one and said which platforms are running as well. So I've said there's scope also. So if we look at ANU, for example, in this slide, you can see they have two repositories. One is open research. The other one is ANU data comments, which just accepts data. And where I couldn't figure out what this platform was, I've just said unknown. Some of them it was really obvious. Some of them I just had to look in the page source metadata. Some people I presented at conferences, but everything in that desk review is publicly available and there was no mix of what participants told me going into that website review. So, yeah, I did find it quite surprising how many universities are already running two repositories. And I think that's really come out of the fact that their existing repository just couldn't meet all their needs for what they wanted to do. So the solution was to get another repository and split the scope of research I put in some cases that is getting messy as well. Yeah, I did wonder about that and whether there were comments about, you know, why institutions have chosen to have all the outputs in one repository or separate, but I think it might be a natural cause there. So there are a few questions about your report. So I think you've already mentioned that it's being finalized and it will be made available. So, yeah. So just watch out for some tweets maybe. I don't know. How are we going to announce these things? I thought we could share the DOI via the registration list for this event so we can send everyone the DOI in our institutional repository, which I've already minted, so it's reserved. So, yeah, when that's ready in the next few weeks, we will be able to share it. Excellent. So let's go to another question. So this might be also an interesting one. So thinking we have inter-library loan system we all share, it would be great if we had an open access repository for all our consortium. So were there any comments on that? Yeah, there was a little bit of chat about that idea of shared repository infrastructure. You know, but who would pay for it and what would it collect? So I'm not sure. I think people just need to get on and do what they're going to do. But one of the things that really struck me was that support of the higher levels of those vice-chancellors, that seemed to be a real success factor in how the repositories were funded, how they were valued, how they were visible, and people spoke about having that support and being able to do what they needed to do and then the repository really came central to the whole university rather than a dumping ground for research outputs. Yeah. So, okay, so there's another question here. Is there any work or aspiration to have IRs interoperable? Yes, so there's a whole project run out of core, I think, Kathleen Shearer. And that's looking at next-generation repositories, trying to come up with a standard for getting those interactions and getting those connections. So they're already, they just got another load of funding a few months ago. So that could impact the vendors because they're going to be proposing a new standard of how repositories can work better and share better. And we're especially looking at things like linking papers to data and getting that right. And it's actually already embedded in the metadata for research outputs, like when I was sharing, when I was minting a DOI for the report, I was able to specify this report is linked to these question guides and these transcripts, so it's possible. It can all be in there. It's just about the repositories, making it easy to see that and making it visible. Yeah, so there is currently some interesting discussion around open access in the chat. So I might actually mention this and you might want to comment on this, too, Ni. So we need to stop thinking about open access as being about publishers. It's not, it's about researchers. It's about research and researchers. It's about people and planet, and we need to support and sustain infrastructure, which focuses on that and not the profit-driven needs of publisher. And that sort of leads us to thinking about the ranking system and the incentive for researchers to publish and all of those things. So what are your thoughts on this? Yeah, I agree completely, and I think that might be the way out of this mess is to attack it on different fronts. And yeah, it is really ironic that with one-hand universities are paying for these subscriptions and on the other hand, they're trying to fund open infrastructure and trying to link into their higher strategy goals of sharing with communities, which is impossible if that paywall research and just going for gold open access is going to keep continuing. But I also understand the pressures on researchers and I'm an independent researcher so I've had the privilege of being picky and I've only published in a diamond journal where it's free, I don't have to pay and I've published with Bala as a conference because they share all of their conference proceedings but I'm not trying to get a promotion at a university with all of my weighted publications so that's the other part is that we can't expect researchers to just radically change the behaviors when universities are clearly saying if you want to be promoted, publish in these places. So I think it's really mixed messaging from universities and that's kind of sustaining the broken system as it is. Yeah, interesting. So I think we will go back to the chat and go through that discussion together and it is actually quite interesting. So there's another question in the Q&A. Is there Karen at the time across the sector to hold call research repository community events? So that might be a question for the community actually. I know there used to be... I found a few papers from repository days as they were really useful in my previous research. I think everyone's just quite stretched at the moment trying to make things work. So I think it's always difficult to do that future planning when you're just trying to survive at the moment. Yeah, I think this will be a question that we would go back to Cole and ask. So I do have one question as well around Pitch. So persistent identifiers. It sounded like some repository managers and library leaders have talked about integration and taking advantage of Pitch. Were there any comments or discussion around how they're going to do that? Are they going to be managed by the library? For example, or other areas? I think some of the... Beyond? Well, there was quite a bit of talk about it and I think some of it is really dependent on what your repository offers and how it does that linking. How well it does it, how it can harvest things from other places and how well it displays it as well. And we did have one repository manager comment that they didn't even have true orchid integration. I think that's the case at Curtin. We just don't have true orchid integration with our current repository. So there's other people who have this as well. And that's an amazing unique identifier that should be at the core of linking researchers with all of their things. And this isn't new. I think I presented about this in 2018 when I was on my prac at Curtin. It's always been there. It's just about... But it's not just having the infrastructure and the ability to put it in. It's the people as well who are going to curate this metadata because it's not automatic just yet. It hasn't reached that point. It is going to be a bit of work before it becomes that ideal picture of the background plumbling and all of those things. But it will be interesting to actually learn more about how others are going to achieve that. So we have two minutes left. There were a lot of discussions in the chat. So I think what we'll do is we'll wrap this up, please. Do you have any final thoughts you'd like to share with the audience? No, I just want to thank everyone again because it was a real privilege to share all of these experiences and really tap into what some of those library leaders, repository managers and researchers are thinking. It's kind of research I love. So thank you again to Curtin for the opportunity to work on it. Fantastic. Yeah, thanks, Neith. Thanks everyone for attending. So watch out for that email for a link to the recording and a link to the report.