 Okay, I think we'll go ahead and get started. So hello everyone, and welcome to this next session, the first panel session. I'm Lisa Hinchliffe at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and with me is not Tim, Elaine, or Cody, but Sarah Shreys at the University of Arizona. This has been a very evolving panel. At one point I told Diane, whoever walks in the room first, they're gonna be the ones on it. So thank you, Sarah, for being willing to join me here today. I think we have a very great opportunity here today to hear about some of the things that are happening in the publishing industry, particularly as publishers are collaborating with each other, and then for us to attempt a small intimate discussion about how we might wanna respond to it. So please be prepared to come to those microphones when we get to that part. So I'll be doing an introduction to sort of the content, if you will, getting Sarah's perspective as a library leader on some of these things, and then an opportunity for us to discuss. So save the time of the user, current industry initiatives, and future possibilities for libraries. I wanna ground our thinking here today in something that's very familiar to all of us, Reaganathan's five laws of librarianship. The original five, of course, listed at the top in this OCLC report, reordering Reaganathan, and their interpretation and reordering. But either ways, I think we can see the primacy of save the time of the reader in their reordered conception comes to the top. So this notion of the user's time as being valuable, and we wanna expand maybe a little bit beyond just the reader, but thinking generally about the user. The STM Association puts out an annual Tech Trends, and you might say like Tech Trends 24 were not there yet, so they're always looking five years in the future. So this is the 2019 Tech Trends, which was focusing on the user, where the scholarly publishers were saying, this is the kind of things we are hearing that readers or users want. They want, you know, focus on the user. Let me do it my way. Treat me as digitally competent. Show me I can trust you. Prove research integrity. Give me control over my own data, little theme there. Make AI work for me, and make things easy for me. I think we hear this time and time again if we do any kinds of user studies. So I wanna introduce for those who are not as familiar with STM. The STM Association is their ACRL, okay? It's their ARL. It's the Publishing Association of Scholarly Publishers, with their mission being to be a publishing partner in shaping the research communication system of the future. And they have three aims and objectives. Assisting publishers and authors in their activities and disseminating the results of research. Assisting national and international organizations and communication industries. And carrying out the foregoing work of the association in conjunction with the International Publishers Association, National Publisher Associations, and various governmental and professional bodies who are interested in scholarly communications and publishing. So I think this is a very interesting body that I myself was not particularly familiar with until the advent of seamless access in particular, which was then RA-21. STM as an association has a very important committee for us to be aware of, which is the STM Standards and Technology Executive Committee, known as STEC. This committee oversees and coordinates those activities in the areas of standards and technology. So they are often the incubator of ideas of what the publishing industry is paying attention to, what the trends are, and how the industry should respond. They work on areas like research data, linking publications, data privacy, permanent identifiers, identity management, cybersecurity, and resource access. Things that as librarians, we would definitely want to be aware of what is going on. This committee is so important that the chair of STEC is an ex-officio member of the STM board, and this position is currently held by an Elsevier representative. In 2021, STM established what they call an operational arm of STM, which has the aim of operating shared infrastructure services for member publishers and the broader scholarly communications community. This is not necessarily a for-profit, but it is an operational arm, so it will run projects, and those projects have to be self-sustaining. There are four clusters of activities currently. The access cluster, which is where you'll find things like seamless access and get STR. The incubator cluster, which is working with STEC on moving concepts out of STEC into prototypes, pilots, and operational services. When those things become a prototype, a pilot, or an operational service, they move to the access cluster, the project cluster, or the collaboration hub, and we'll talk more about the various projects that STM has going on. So we have an association, we have a committee that is sort of tracking things and coming up with ideas, and now we have an operational arm of STM that develops technologies and will offer production services to members as well as to the broader scholarly communications community. So I'm gonna run through, I think, five or six projects that are currently going on that I think are particularly interesting to the library context. The first of these is seamless access, which is probably something you've heard about before. Seamless access enables single sign-on by helping the user when they land at the publisher platform, not through a library pathway. I work their way back to their institution for the purpose of authentication so they can be authorized to the resources they are entitled to. It's a complicated governance structure with the Coalition for Seamless Access including GANT, Internet2, NISO, and STM. I wanna note that sometimes it gets confused. It is not single sign-on but points the user to their institution's single sign-on. So it is actually a discovery service, but rather than discovering content, it discovers where you are affiliated so that you can log in. It solves the problem, if you will, of people using Google Scholar getting off to a publisher site but not having gone through the library pathway. GetFTR is another one that you might be familiar with and I've tried to, on each of these slides, sort of say like what's the main value add for the user? So GetFTR provides entitlement-based direct-to-full-text links. So what that means is if the user is entitled to the content, in other words they are affiliated with an institution that provides them access, if they click on this smart link, they will go immediately to the full text. One of the commitments and requirements of GetFTR if you are participating publisher or platform is that you send the user directly to either the PDF or the full text HTML. No sending the user to an interstitial page where they then have to figure out where the link is to the PDF or how to get to the full text. If you are participating, your smart URL must resolve to the actual full text. Any of us who have ever run a user focus group, we all know I just want the PDF, I just want the full text. That is what this is intended to do. In many cases, this will then, smart link will not yet be authentication, so the user might actually encounter then seamless access or SAML in order to get authenticated. What GetFTR does though is assures the user that when they click on this link they will receive the full text. One of the challenges here originally, there was some talk that GetFTR would also send you a message, you are not entitled. I am very pleased to say as a member of the GetFTR advisory board that we are not, they have not implemented a you are not entitled as they came to understand that libraries often have alternative sources to the publisher for some articles. So you might need the whole journal if you're getting it, say, from Springer Nature, from the Springer Nature platform, but many of those Springer Nature articles might be in one of our various aggregator databases. At this point, none of the aggregators have signed up to become a target for GetFTR, which is from my perspective a problem for us as librarians, and so we might wish to be speaking to our aggregator community if this is important to us that we can resolve links to the aggregator sites as well. There's also the article sharing framework, which is a slightly different save the time of the user because the user here is slightly different. The user here is actually the author of an article and the platform where they wish to share it. In other words, we're really talking a lot about ResearchGate, academia.edu, a number of other platforms. What the article sharing framework does, it's a set of policies that are deposited with Crossref. Each PDF has embedded in the metadata certain indicators which can be used by the platform to query Crossref, to receive back the appropriate policy which can then be interpreted to the user as, yes, you may upload this, or looks like maybe you can't, are you sure you can, or in some cases I think what we will see eventually is the pressure for the platforms to deny the possibility of upload to people whose PDF metadata says this is not an authorized sharing copy. The article sharing framework is not just about the version of record, it would also be about author accepted manuscripts and other versions of the author should it be able to be identified with a DOI. So the most important piece is that the PDF has a DOI embedded in it as well as a journal article version tag which is the JAV comes from the NISO JAV standard. As a part of this in order for this to work, the publishers all had to agree to a certain set of sharing policies and you can sort of see that you've got three data points, the platform, the DOI, the article, and the article version that come together to then activate a particular sharing policy. This is particularly responding to article 17 of the directive for copyright in Europe. It doesn't only work in that environment though but it responds to this because one of the things in article 17 is platforms are required to pay attention to this kind of information but publishers are required to provide the information for the platforms to pay attention to. Two others that I wanna mention as well, distributed usage logging which facilitates the reporting of syndicated access or other kinds of off publisher platform access. We're all familiar with the counter reports that we get from various journal platform providers saying this many downloads, this many reads and the like but when that PDF of that article migrates off to Mendeley and then it's shared with a research group, those usages were lost in the system and not able to be attributed back to an institution, not able to be put into the cost per use value metric that is so often used in our negotiations. Publishers had many reasons to want to be able to capture that usage and attribute it to an institution. Distributed usage logging enables that through a variety of different data points that then are able to say, okay, all this reading that happened off on Mendeley or in ReadCube or somewhere else, we can track that back. This is similar as well, not the same but similar to what PLOS is doing in order to tell you how many reads are happening of their open access content from people that they believe are affiliated with your institution based on IP registry data. So this particular piece is a little bit in limbo. STM is currently maintaining the public key registry about how the data shall be attributed. Crossref is still supporting the endpoints but Crossref is not supporting the standard any longer or building it out. So there's some work to be done here about where this will go to. As I think we're not be surprised, publishers are very interested in distributed usage logging and this is also important if we see moving to things like Wiley now is providing content on the science direct platform, perhaps a sentence that would have been quite surprising to hear a year ago but with Wiley content syndicated to science direct, Wiley wants to be able to know which institutions are using that data. So it's this kind of use case and then ResearchGate as the publishers increasingly partner with ResearchGate, this is another case of trying to say, okay, who is actually reading this content? Another one that's currently was an STM project and has now moved to NISO for formalization as a standard is the peer review taxonomy which enables transparency and comparison. So what is the peer review process used by a particular journal in some sort of standardized language that we can sort of say, oh, it's that but also comparison then across journal types. In the interest of disclosure also serving on the NISO working group to move this into a standard as publishers are working with this to see if it really encapsulates everything that they are working with. Finally, most hot off the presses and scheduled for launch. So it's publicly known they're working on this but there's no prototype to look at yet is a collaboration hub for research integrity which will detect duplicate submissions and fraudulent papers. The publishers have identified that paper mills are turning out an incredible amount of essentially article for hire manuscripts which are then submitted to journals go through the peer review process and the like. One of the things they've documented is that duplicate submission is often a sign of a paper mill product, paper. And so, but how would you detect duplicate submission? And so this is a platform that publishers will be able to use to basically run sort of like a turn it in kind of situation but saying is there is this a duplicate submission that was submitted somewhere else also issues of fraud. Now this is not actually plagiarism because they don't intend to compete with the turn it in product that is integrated in almost all major publishers which is called authenticate but essentially it's the same product that we have on our campuses turn it in. So we see this kind of acceleration of the publishers partnering together but it's not a brand new thing, right? We have the example of cross ref which enabled persistent cross publisher citation linking. It's amazing to think back that that was a concern about linking citations not about actually getting the full text but and then orchid resolving name ambiguity and providing author identification. So we have some history here but if we look at the last five years we can see massive growth in this kind of publisher collaborative development of infrastructure and then moving this from these sort of one-off projects where like seamless access is its own organization and get FTR is its own organization into this operational arm of STM. There will be some shaking out with these historical things but now seeing the development happening directly with in STM. So one of the things I'll just point out is that save the time of the user here is a number of different users. It's the reader, the one that we're probably most familiar with thinking about within the library but it's also saving the author time, this notion of how can I share things. The editors, I think we can see any number of times where this is gonna save the time of the editor duplicate submission, fraud. The reviewer, because having the same manuscript reviewed by multiple people at once is not a great use of resources. Obviously saving the publisher time and resources and even ultimately saving the library time and resources. So one of the things that I really kind of want to have been wanting to think about and invited Sarah to sort of think about is some of these things might seem like threats to us in the library but they might also be opportunities. For example, Chorus is using the Get FTR technology to monitor public publisher compliance with the public access policy in order to make sure that those manuscripts are opened up. I keep looking at some of these other tools and wondering are there ways we might be used some of these things like the article sharing framework to populate our institutional repositories or others of these technologies from people who are smarter than I am about how some of these things might work. And so implications for libraries of this suite of services. So I'm just gonna first start by asking some questions of the audience because I think one of the reasons I said yes to being on this panel is frankly, I didn't know about some of these initiatives, right? So how many of you feel like you know and understand and could explain what seamless access is, okay? How about Get FTR, article sharing framework, right? So I mean, if you look around the room, these are incredibly impactful for libraries initiatives that I think many of us don't really understand very well. And I think that's sort of one of the initial challenges for us because to answer your question, Lisa, about what we could do to take advantage of these, I think we'd have to understand exactly what's happening sort of behind the scenes there. And so I think that this is, I've been thinking a lot about this area sort of these different initiatives in part because I think we in the library community need to do a better job of, I guess I wanna say is sort of educating ourselves and making sure that we're aware and understand what is going on with some of these initiatives. And it makes me think about some of the work that you, industry analysts, research analysts who work with, so I'm gonna use some of you know, my spouse works for Gartner. And so her job is essentially to talk to CIOs, to talk to the sort of directors in university IT units to say, well okay, this is what's happening in the OPM space or this is what's happening in the learning analytics space. This is what this means for you. These are the implications for you. These are the things you are going to have to think about and make decisions about. And we have that kind of analysis in very small slices of our community. So I would call out just saying that for example, I think that Rebecca Bryant at OCLC Research does this really well for the REM space, for the research information management space. I feel like I can read those reports and really understand what's happening in that industry, who the players are, what's happening in Europe and in the UK and the US and just have a really good grip. This is not something that I think besides what I think that I will say that to give Lisa credit, like Lisa has done I think a really good job of trying to educate the community about some of these initiatives. And so I'll start with just the example of RE21 which is now in Seamless Access. My first awareness of that and I don't know about others of you is when Lisa wrote a piece in the Scholarly Kitchen about this saying, hey, maybe we should be paying attention to this because it'll fundamentally change how we might think about how we provide access to resources for our users. So this is something that may change how we think about using Easy Proxy. This means we actually really need to sit down and talk to our central IT units who handle the SAML and understand what attributes are being released and just sort of have those types of conversations. But I'm not sure, honestly, I would have been aware. And you know, and that's, I think for many of us, it's because we have a lot of different things going on and so it's hard to track some of these initiatives that I, again, I think can fundamentally change the way that we are providing services. They also have real implications, I think around thinking about the privacy issues so the previous panel, I think, was quite apropos as well as earlier last week at the virtual CNI, Kenneth Klinger signs gnarly privacy questions and who will answer them. All of these feel really interconnected and I guess part of my feeling is like, I think we need to, as a community, need to sort of really have some conversations and I'll just note what Cheryl said. Like the community needs to act as a community to have some conversations about what role should we be playing in the development of these initiatives. How do we want to be represented there? Who is representing us there? And can we sort of, can we make sure that we're bringing the knowledge and the deeper understanding of what these initiatives are trying to do so that we're having informed conversations and we understand, not so much, I guess, I mean, we need to understand what's happening for what the publishers are trying to do. I mean, the publishers have their own reasons for trying to push some of these forward, but understanding again, what are the implications for us? Like what's going to happen a year from now, two years from now as a framework sort of really gets up and running and everybody starts taking off on it. So the article sharing framework, like what happens when, if that sort of starts to expand, right, to institutional repositories to, you know, like we need to be thinking about that and sort of just really trying to get ahead of it rather than reacting. So I think many of us were really concerned when, in part because I think we didn't always understand what was happening around RA21 and seamless access, but at that point we were reacting to it and not getting ahead of, you know, trying to say this is where the, this is what's important to the libraries. So I guess that's part of what I would say here. So I think if we could get the lights to come up, whoever is doing that, because I think we'd like to really invite people to sort of have their own, just as a time where we're gonna invite not just questions, but actual comments. You don't even have to pretend it's a question to sort of raise this. And the joking thing that I've actually said is like, so I'm part of seamless access. I'm on the Get FTR advisory board. I'm actually on the Orchid board right now. Not exactly comfortable that somehow or another Lisa Hinchliffe has become the face of libraries to this many industry projects. I mean, I'm enjoying myself and hopefully I'm doing good, but I would like a broader community engaging with these, as you said, in the more proactive way. So we can also talk about any of the five or six particular initiatives and even play through, you know, implications. Like for the peer review taxonomy, turns out maybe the way we've been talking about peer review in our information literacy programs is predominantly double blind peer review is not entirely accurate. So I mean, it could just, it can even have that kind of implication for us better understanding what's happening in the industry. So some brave soul, please start. Hey team, thanks for kicking off this conversation. It's big and muddy and hard. It's something that I'll just share as an observation as president of core, which has seamless access like authentication committee, that is to say, a team of really qualified, really awesome volunteers who have agreed to pay attention to this, they still struggle with the time, the energy to understand exactly those implications that we're supposed to articulate. And then as someone who has periodically attempted to articulate implications, we have a highly volatile community that does feel very defensive on all of these topics. And seems to want to hold to the illusion of control more than they want to accept the reality of where we have come in a subscription access model. And I just think that part of what we're dealing with is a cultural reckoning. And that's the messiest, hardest part because it prevents a clarity of communication about this. My assumptions, feel free to test them. Thanks so much for putting it forward. No, I mean, I really actually agree with that. And so I will say that by people who know me, I sort of grew up professionally in open access and scholarly communication and strongly believe in privacy for users, really believe, spent many, many years as the IR manager. And being involved in sort of open source software and that the community driven infrastructure. And I also feel like, so I have this idealistic side, right? So I get where some folks are coming from. And I'm also pretty immensely practical about the sort of reality of where we are, right? So seamless access is here. It's not going away. And so the things like the work that's happening, for example, around the sort of attribute release work is critically important. We should be, you know, commenting on that and making sure that the libraries are engaged in those conversations. Absolutely. But I do think we are seeing that in the community. I think especially around the issues that the whole last panel was about around privacy and in particular that we're struggling. And then also, you also, I think, have our, I guess I would say, sort of often the immediate response to an industry driven initiative is, we don't trust them, right? And trust is a really important part of the conversation here, I think. And understanding, and part of, I'm gonna say building trust, but at least part of the transparency is understanding where industry might be coming from, why they're pushing things in a certain direction and being upfront where libraries are coming from and what we can do. So that's sort of long-winded, but a little bit in response. I was just gonna comment on that because when I'm looking about distributed access logging, that's kind of what I think. It's like, well, how could be bad because we'll find out, we'll get better statistics about what we should keep. But my worry is, are the industries going to increase the costs of things because they'll say they're used more by a certain library and as a result, you're gonna pay them. So it's, what is the purpose, like the kind of stuff you're talking about in the first panel about, what's the use of the data? And likewise, if we can go back though to something I said there, right, we struggled to say like, oh, don't reshuffle the periodicals because we do actually wanna know what our users are finding useful. And so if they're finding it useful, but it's not on the publisher platform, that's also important data for us. So it's not as simple as we don't want it or we do. It's actually we don't want it and we do want it and that is a much more complicated thing to figure out then how we want to engage the conversation then I think particularly as Cheryl and Kent were saying around so how will this be done, right? So there was a big discussion if you go back and read all the reports about the distributed usage logging development about whether that data would be reported in your counter report on a separate line or if it would be integrated. It is reported on a separate line in your report. So you see your on-platform use and then you see the distributed usage logging use as a separate. It's not widely implemented at this point so that may be why you're not seeing it very much. But the question of whether something is going to happen is a different question than how it will happen and maybe part of my pitch is that we put a little bit more attention to shaping the how rather than arguing against particularly when we're not in a position to decide whether it happens. I think about Get FTR here where I heard a number of librarians say well we just won't turn that on and it was like well, this is not something in your configuration profile so. And I'll just, I mean I'll say that I think you heard the same thing about seamless access but surprise, several of our publishers we have not sort of actively pursued sort of turning on that but because they're part of various in common federations sort of groupings, it's on. It's already on. Like I mean so that sort of fighting against that tide I think is pretty futile so thinking more about and we talked about this on the panel at the last scene I thinking more about how we frame those conversations about okay well how will this impact us and what can we shape within our institutions and if we're paying attention to these things coming out like how can we shape those. Lisa knows, I'm Gwen Evans, I'm the VP of Global Library Relations at the evil big E, Elsevier. Nobody told me what the good big E was but I would just like to echo Lisa and Sarah's plea for engagement that Elsevier at least and many other publishers are willing to listen if people are willing to engage and Lisa knows that she has talked to Elsevier about privacy, about other things. They are respectful of her opinion and let me just tell you that I am a librarian. I joined Elsevier. What they don't know about library is a lot. They're not sitting there figuring out how to, they don't know anything and they need to know what librarians care about, what happens on the ground and the more engagement we get the better. So that's a plea for when I have a request for someone to talk to Elsevier about this issue that I find people not just Lisa to talk to us about. I'm really glad that Gwen just made that comment because I've been thinking about two things. One a comment you made to me a couple of days ago, Lisa, when you were describing this panel and that was you said the publishers are cooperating, collaborating with each other and that's what we want but we're also not paying enough attention to that collaboration and cooperation and then Lindsay's comment that the library side of the equation has an awful lot of groups that are engaged in very similar topics. So it seems to me one of the big questions is where are the interstices between the two ecosystems? So you've got a group of people on one side of the equation who've created an environment for themselves to have these discussions and they've invited a few folks in or they've invited you in and thank God it was you. I mean it could have been any number of other people. So we're lucky it was you, that's good but that does put an awful lot of responsibility on your shoulders to Gwen's point. Meanwhile, we've created our own ecosystem and I don't wanna say never the twain shall meet but they don't meet as often as would be nice and I wonder if some concerted thought on our part about the interstices between the two might not actually be useful and profitable and might be responsive to Gwen's point about we would like engagement. So let's think about who the engagers could be in a structured way. Forgive me if I go off on a slight tangent because what I didn't see in all the topics covered was the inclusion of APC's article processing charges and how they're handled and the adoption of OA switchboard or some other common standard seems to be desperately needed and could easily be feed into the whole article sharing framework because that's the, when an article is accepted that's the first time where it can come up and be shared with a research information system. And was there anything about that included? So STM does not have an initiative to manage messaging around APC's or other open access publishing contractual models such as transformative agreements and the like. There's OA switchboard is the messaging system and then there are platforms coming online from Rights Link and the Copyright Clearance Center to manage the payment side of that. I know from talking and hearing Todd that there's also discussion about the need for standards in these areas. I think OA switchboards been quite successful in sort of bringing all stakeholders to the table in those conversations, librarians, publishers and the like but primarily in Europe where there has been such a drive to do transformative and pure publish agreements which then drove the need for that kind of platform. So there are many other industry developments that are not housed at STM which is the primary place where the publishers are collaborating to create infrastructure as opposed to other companies or nonprofits that might enter the space with products that serve the needs of publishers and libraries. So that was the decision made in this particular talk around why those six particular initiatives are those ones that were being really driven and coming out of STM but there's lots of others we could speak to. So I think we probably would also not see something around APCs coming out of STM because since that is financial there would be definite questions about price fixing if they were to move into that area. So I don't think we would, this is Lisa's opinion, I don't think we would expect to see publishers both be willing to expose their information to their competitors because remember, this is all collaboration among competitors. Libraries are lucky because in this way when we collaborate we have a certain degree of institutional competitiveness but libraries really don't compete with each other in the same way that the publishers do and we also don't have the kind of financial arrangements that would cause certain kinds of things to become a real problem. But you're absolutely correct that there's many other areas that we should be paying attention to as well. So I moved on to the next slide which has some of the questions we were sort of trying to think about as well and I realized that especially if you just heard these six initiatives for the first time asking you, how could we leverage them is a bit much. But I think some of them we can think about like seamless access does have an icon that tells people how that icon is specifically developed to be on every platform that uses seamless access as an identity provider discovery layer so that the user will sort of key in on the graphic identity and so there's a simple thing that we should pull that same graphic and have it in our LibGuides about how to get access to full text. We should have it in our instructional things. Look for this icon. If you see this icon and then search for our institution, now of course that depends on the degree to which we've actually implemented Somal as an authentication mechanism for content but if you are a campus, say at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where we have turned on this access for a long time actually, this is value for our patrons who often find, I know we all know this, it incredibly difficult to get to the PDF, right? And obviously if we can get FTRs value to our users is enhanced by the greater percentage of our licensed content that is able to be targeted by Get FTR links which means that platforms have to integrate the Get FTR technology so that it can use the shared entitlements database that Get FTR has built. We need as much of our data in the shared entitlements database as possible in order for the Get FTR technology to query it and not miss things. Now the good news is because there is consolidation in the publishing arena, by having the biggest publishers sort of driving this, a huge percentage of our content is already covered but it's covered at the publisher level not necessarily at the discovery layer level where people are searching. So it's a, many of these things have to be implemented on two sides, on the search side as well as where the resolution to the link is. So again, in this particular case, my big sort of pitch is we really need our aggregator services to be targets for Get FTR in order for us to have the value that we're providing in these things. I mean, I think this is another, actually I think Get FTR is also a good question for me. I think a lot about this because in the age of books, we cataloged our books into shared databases so everyone would know what we had. Some reason or another when it came to electronic subscriptions, so print subscriptions were in WorldCat, because that's how you knew who had the journal titles so you could send them in a library loan request so they could mail back the photocopy to you. The equivalent in the digital age would be an entitlements database of which journals do you subscribe to? I mean, we spend all kinds of time getting into our licensing agreements in our library loan rights for electronic copy, but that's kind of a lost value if no one knows you have it, but we're not cataloging these e-resources mostly. We don't have a public entitlements database. This is something libraries could build if we chose to or decided to. So right now, the publishers have access to an API that lets them query under certain circumstances where they don't do competitive things, blah, blah, blah, blah, but we don't. But maybe we'd like to have GetFTR integrated into some of our things, like if we're a library publisher, our journals could have smart links in them, our institutional repository could have GetFTR links in it, our researcher information system could have GetFTR links in it. So we could also be a consumer of some of this technology. Hey, Lisa, I feel like you anticipated the thoughts that I was having. I'm Karen Esslin from Colorado State. About a decade ago, I got involved in a feminist open access journal. No one was publishing on queer studies that couldn't get anything published, that couldn't get anything on new media. And because of, yay, the internet and library publishing that journals had over 3,000 citations in a decade and it's really transformative. But what about those voices would get hidden if we don't adapt these technologies or how do we ensure that those kind of places are not then buried within? Yeah, and I mean, I think this is part of my, as I said, really understanding what the implications are. So as we're doing library publishing or as we're working with very small publishers, open access publishers, it does make me worry about what that overall ecosystem begins to look like if these are difficult for those smaller types of publishers to adopt. It makes me worried about if we don't have the infrastructure within our libraries to really understand how to adopt and we don't have the expertise. So I think that's a really, it's such an excellent question, right? Yeah? And I think that sort of there's a counter to this, right? Which is that these technologies have the potential actually of also surfacing those smaller things if they're leveraged. So almost all of the development is nowadays is gonna operate off of DOI. So I even see libraries publishing journals where they're not giving articles DOIs. So that's really table stakes at this point for being a publisher, but almost all of the things, article sharing frameworks, like all of these things, get FDR, they all run off the DOI because you need not human readable but machine readable things. So if you're not giving things a DOI, it's not, it's just gonna disappear. And it probably was already kind of disappearing but it's really gonna disappear out of these integrated infrastructures. That is not a happy answer but it is a really important thing for us to think about. Yeah? I'm not sure this is an intelligent comment or not but you know there already is an aggregation of all our holdings data for our e-holdings called Google Scholar. It's just not shared. We probably all send Google Scholar our e-holding. What we need is a place that we're doing the same thing that we already know how to do with Google Scholar which can interact. Just as willing to interact. Just so I understand you're sending Google Scholar data at the journal level, right? Not at the article level. Not at the article level, at the journal holdings level. In other words, it includes years. And I mean, that's what you need to, again. Yes. If you have the capability to do it, there's just no target which can do what we need in response. I actually think it's a very good observation which is that we are actually serving this data out to who I would actually argue as a competitor of libraries, Google Scholar, without building that internal to our community, which I guess in some ways like goes down to bullet, sorry, I have the screen down here, bullet point four which is like, how would we foster bullet three? Like how would we foster our capacity to either build something like a shared entitlements database or I mean, I think Sarah you're kind of saying like, who can I just call? Or can I get a newsletter? Or, you know, so that I know which things like I need to pay attention to is the university librarian versus I need to have my collections ahead sort of monitoring this other thing. We were kind of talking before and I was like, well, I kind of think if you're a university librarian sitting in this talk, right? You're gonna probably are thinking to talk to different people in your organization about different pieces of the technologies or services we talked about today. But that's great because you were in the room today but, you know, like how will you find out the next time STM puts something together? And how do we collectively find that out? If you could have what you wanted, what would it be? Go ahead, Craig. I have another question and I know you're involved in the scholarly publishing society too which I've spoken at and been to a couple of times. What is the relationship between STM and the scholarly publishing society or is there one? So the society for scholarly publishing SSP is it's probably closer to the ACRL, right? It's a lot of individual members, although organizations are also members but it has primarily I would say a continuing education, current awareness, basic training for people who work in scholarly publishing as a focus, not a standard setting body. So more development of the community of people who work in the arena versus STM maybe being more the business collaborator, the company's collaborating obviously through people but SSP is a really great place to sort of have your finger on the pulse of some of these things. Obviously I think you should read scholarly kitchens post there but SSP is very welcoming to librarians. I mean, I'm on the ballot for president this year so they're willing to have another librarian be president. Rick Anderson was president a few years ago. So that is the place where as individual librarians we can be involved. STM is, look at their member fees and you'll know why you, yeah, I mean it's thousands and thousands of euros to be involved in STM as a company. So I'll just go back because I've been thinking about Brian's question about how we as a community talk to one another and sort of, I think build some sense of like, okay, these are the things that are really important to us that we really need to have these conversations about. And I think it's not just libraries, I think just thinking back to the previous panel, it's our privacy officers, it's our CISOs, it's lots of different folks but then it's our research offices, right? With some of these initiatives you should have really good understandings and then how we have constructive conversations around, with industry around these, especially as we can, especially if we can be really reflective about looking at those implications and the long term implications and so that we have an opportunity then to address those before we're sort of facing them without ever having done a reckoning on that, right? So I just keep coming back to thinking about that. And as I said, part of my, I think what is helpful and I, because it's very, as we all know, it's very challenging to track all of these and to really understand sort of deeper implications but having groups that for libraries are really trying to say this is what's going on, this is like technology implications, these are implications for users, these are implications for your authors, for the institution who can really help us better understand some of that. So if you ask like what my dream would be, it would be to have something that would allow us to, that would help us pull some of that together. And then having spaces like this where I think we can have informed conversations. There's so much, I feel like in these meetings, so much of what we're doing is educating each other about what these things are and what they are going to do rather than being able to then sit at a table and say, okay, well, what does this really mean for us? So I think I'll sum up, this is what Sarah and I had brainstormed for this last thing. I was like, these are maybe the challenges that we face which is how do we get strategic intelligence for us as librarians of the publishing industry and where things are moving? How do we incubate our own ideas of what we could capitalize on? They've put a lot of money into building these infrastructures. Money we probably wouldn't be, well, it's actually our money, but could we capitalize on some of these infrastructures and use them for additional uses like chorus is using get FTR, for example? And then what kind of capacity development would we have to do within the field because probably not every library needs to build the way to query the API, maybe we could do that collectively, but can we do it in a way that's a little bit more nimble than some of our past projects? So how do we organize and incentivize that kind of collective action where an institution is willing to put resources on the table in order to do something for the collective in the same way that we see this kind of collaborative action across the publishers? So with that, I wanna particularly thank Sarah for being willing to be up here with me today. She did a great job managing our institutional repository for many years, so we have past history and knew we could do this together. Thank you so much for being here today. Thank you.