 Okay. Okay, so welcome everybody, I'll leave the introductions for the webinar to Kathleen but before we start some housekeeping rules. So if you're using social media please use the accounts and hashtags that are shown on the screen. As a participant you are standardly muted and you cannot show video so don't worry about this this is a setting in the back end so you cannot change this. If you have a question or a comment, and if it's about the contents of the presentations or if it's like a direct question for one of the presenters please use the Q&A box you can access this Q&A box if you hover over the bottom of your screen at least I assume it's the case with everybody at the bottom. So you can just enter your question there and so the presenters will deal with it during Q&A time. You can also see the questions that other people ask and you can upvote them and you can comment on other people's questions so that the presenters can see that this is a the moderator can see that this is an important question. At the end during the discussion, feel free to also raise your hand and we can allow you to speak if the time permits. If you have any technical issues if you just want to say hello please use or refer to share a link please use a chat box. And we will make the recordings and the slides of this webinar available via the open air YouTube and Zenodo. Also on the open access week overview page and on the dedicated webinar pages so probably true. You found the link to register for this webinar on one of these pages so just go back there tomorrow and you'll see the recordings and the slides. And of course you will also announce it on social media. So now Kathleen over to you. Thanks Gwen. Hello and happy open access week everyone. Welcome to the core EIFL open air panel on equity and inclusion community owned infrastructures for open science. My name is Kathleen shear and I'm the executive director of core which is the Confederation of open access repositories. And I will be moderating the session today. So we have a great lineup of speakers for the session today and I hope that this will stimulate some really good discussion in the community about community ownership and how we can move forward with some good models in the coming months and years. And I think it is a very timely session as open access and open science expand scholarly communication infrastructures are being integrated increasingly into our daily workflows and we really need to ensure that they're inclusive and are not skewed or designed to support the one group over over many others. And of course the groups that often get favored are the elite institutions and researchers that have access to to most resources. But what does it mean to be community owned. How do we ensure that the right players are at the at the table in terms of governance. We avoid tokenism and empower broad participation and diverse contributions when some organizations can afford to pay and others can't. These are some of the questions we'd like to tease out in today's session. I know adopting community based models can be a really difficult transition for many services and infrastructures because they're often created through projects and project funding, or they're based at a single institution, or they're even commercial entities. So what is the best best path forward for these different types of players. So without further ado I'd like to introduce our first speaker Dominic Babini Dominic is based in Argentina, and is the open access and open science advisor at the Latin American Council of social sciences which is called clack so a network of 736 research institutions in 52 countries. She serves on numerous numerous advisory boards and has played an important role in raising the visibility of Latin American perspective in many international discussions. And many of you are already familiar with Dominic as she has been a real leader in the open access community for many years. So thank you Dominic for agreeing to share your perspective with us today and I passed the floor over to you. Thank you very much, Kathleen. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening to participants today and next days with this recorded session. We thank you also open air core and a file for your long standing commitment and support to community led open access and open access and open science initiatives. Today, we wish to share with you in this open access week three of our concerns the first related to the issue raised by Kathleen about the need for funds for community open infrastructures, because scarce resources are going to be directed to ABCs in many of our regions. The other issue is the reward system, which today rewards with the high impact factor. And the third issue is about what we consider is still and and weak interoperability among community owned infrastructures worldwide. From where do we speak will click so as a social science research institutions. We have extended collaboration and co creation of knowledge with social social actors, which are beyond the scientific community so the open access venues. We have developed in the past two decades are with high representation of the biodiversity, but this by the biodiversity needs peer review, because peer review today is concentrated in journals. We need peer review of other contents as core says next generation repositories are editorial catalogs has more than 3000 open access books, but we need that those books describe the evaluation process of the contents which does not happen always. And with read a leak we have a collection of nearly 1000 social science and humanity journals from America, and those journals do not charge ABCs because in Latin America it's a community led open access. We have also other formats are focused today is on reviewing the evaluation processes in Latin American countries we think if we don't change the evaluation procedures, open access and open science have less possibilities to grow. And these times we have all problems. Latin America is the most unequal region of the world. And we have new problems and needs because we have, we are in lockdown since March in the region so the economy has collapsed and the social economic situation is dramatic for the next years. We are learning the lesson and the pandemic that we have to think not to transform the industry from pay to read to pay to publish. We really have to transform this. We really have to continue transforming the scholarly communication so it is community owned and community led. We have the opportunity with open science. We don't want to this landscape of hyperinflation of ABCs as yesterday nature announced $11,000 for one article in ABCs. We want to repeat the story of subscription model. So, we have to go forward in other models we agree with the core board that we need more efficient inclusive and governed by the scholarly community solution. No barriers to access no barriers to publish. Look at these goals of the global of the agenda 2030. All these challenges need as much local as international research. And this is about the open access week 2020. We have to look not only what we include in our open access venue we have to look at who we are excluding from our, who is invisible in our open access infrastructures and who is whose interests are prioritized. Some of the issues we are looking at, and this open access access week 2020 remembers us that we have to think from diversity of points of view. We have to look at our communities. And in these posts pandemic or pandemic times, pandemics which will be repeated. We really need all the voices that can contribute to improve the situation in all our regions. In Latin America, how, how does it work community governments. Well, in pale blue you see that the journal editorial teams manage journals with no ABCs, basically in with OGS and sharing the costs. The library teams manage the institutional repositories with a very diverse formats and contents, and they manage also the institutional journal portals. And today, I read that the University of San Pablo has already in Brazil has already more than 190 journals published by the university, who are in the journal portal and then you have an army in Mexico, and the University of Chile, we have many universities with more than 100 journals each. And then you have the national science policy community, which selects the quality journals and harvest the contents of the institutional repositories. And you have the more bibliodiversity in journals and repositories institute at the institutional level, and you have a national level, a more selective open access venue. So this is at how it works. And at regional level, the community of journals and universities have led the indexing of journals of peer review journals only it's Latin dexiello and read a leak. The three are initiative funded by universities, or by science funding agencies, and in the fields of repositories. The system la referencia. It's like open air in Europe. La referencia harvests the collections of peer review contents from the national repository systems from 10 countries. So in Latin America, it has been decided, and by 23 countries that green and gold are the roots to go ahead, but green have to be inclusive and cooperative, not centralized. So it is decentralized in the institutional repositories and in gold APC are inconceivable. It's an affordable. If you compare salaries of researchers. I think now in Argentina, we need one year to cover one APC of salary of starting researchers so it's an affordable. It is recommended that gold open access route in the region continues its present emphasis on sharing cost and not charging APCs. And what about the community of researchers. They are not so much involved in governing infrastructures of open science and open access. It's an opportunity with open science, because today they are rewarded with impact factor, but we need to change this. So we have developed in the past year, a forum of research assessment together with some national research counter Councils of the region. Next, Tuesday 28 we have an international consultation if you look in our website, the document you can comment on the documents and participate in the consultation, please. And now we are expecting the UNESCO recommendations on open science in the draft, we see some promising ideas to review the assessment practices to reward accordingly to open science practices and open and own by the community and funded collectively. We consider this is possible in a post pandemic decade, because research involves not only social science and not only scientific community but also other social actors in different sectors of the world. And this will help support the development of research, the development of research, the production of knowledge, supporting scholarly communications with no APCs and no BPCs. This will help equity among researchers from developed and developing countries. It will support diversification, a biodiversity, multi-lingualism, which is so much mentioned now. And it will be monitored to ensure that it supports the research community interest and not the industry interest. We have, we need researchers to be more engaged with door and late and principles to use the open access indicators when they evaluate research to go towards the next generation repositories and use alternative metrics and discuss in describe in each digital object which is in the open science process to describe what evaluation has this digital content had. We are a big community, only some of us are here. We need to reinforce the cooperation and interoperability of all our initiatives. We need to raise our voices to make it stronger and to work together to strengthen community owned infrastructures. So for our first concern, we think we have to prioritize funding, our funds and our other resources dedicated to non-commercial initiatives and to quality certification of the contents. Because we are paying in Latin America, you pay an additional to the salary if you publish in high impact factor journals. Why can't we pay those researchers for doing peer review of contents in repositories? So we can change the system. Then for the weak international interoperability, we have to undertake more international collective actions to move ahead in this very difficult post pandemic decade we will have. We agree with the statement from in us that it is not the solution to build islands of excellent. It is not enough. We need voices from different realities to contribute in what we need to rebuild our societies and economy in post pandemic times. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Dominic. That was great. There is one question Dominic in the Q&A that I'm going to read out to you. And hopefully you can answer it. It's Gultukin from Turkey and he's asking what do you think about transitioning agreements and I think he means transformational agreements. Well, I'm sorry, but I think we are concentrating too much on how to help the industry transform from pay to read to pay to publish. And we should put more discussion, more policy, more decisions on how to transform our own scholarly communications that the scholarly community decides how to transform scholarly communications. Because I tell you in Latin America, we don't even know how much we're spending on APCs, but we are, we have already the pressure of the industry, making us decide if we are going to make a transformative agreement with our national, because the purchase in Latin America is national purchase, you purchase for all the country. And so now there's a pressure. Yesterday we had a meeting with a webinar with the Mexican policies who purchased the national journals for all the country. And we were speaking about meeting of all the consortia whose purchase in Latin America to decide the position of the transformative agreements. It's a crucial moment I agree with core and a lawyer has mentioned it many times. It's a crucial moment. We have to support non commercial open science and open access if we want a sustainable future. That's our opinion in flex. Thanks Dominic. There's, there's also another question now in the Q amp a from and that evangelos. Thank you very much for this interesting presentation, you mentioned the necessity of funding to non APC away community based journals. Could you mention which are the opportunities to seek funding at the at an international level at an international level. I think we have to start locally. First for the journal. We have to look at our own scholarly community if the journal is in a society or if the journal usually is in a university. We have a team work. So you add you distribute the costs, and you have the academics, you have the library, you have the editorial team in Klaxo. We started 20 years ago, team building the editorial teams with the libraries. We have a community of more than 1000 people who work in the library and in the editorial teams of the university's members of Klaxo, and they worked open access together. So they share costs, and then you go to the national level and you ask your research funding agency to take your journal and index it and help your journal to get quality qualifications. And then you go to the regional level and to the international level in our region you go to a regional level and that index for the leak and Seattle help you to get into a position of quality regional journals in open access with no APCs. And then you go international in door in other platforms. I think it's from down up. And then, if you get quality, you can see international funds to support your initiatives and many of you see how door has received funds and now. And it's, I think we have to start in your own community sharing costs. I completely agree with you on that Dominic I have I have one question before we move on to to Tom. You know you said that we need collective action. So I'm wondering how you think that collective action can take place because there are a lot of organizations we have a shared vision, but sometimes we struggle to, to unite together to advance things. And so I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how we might better at that. The big challenge. We know that the industry has collective action because they agree. We don't see where but they do it, because if not, they could not sustain a profit of more than 30%, which is what one of the most profitable industries of the world if they would not agree among them. So we have to find open ways to do it. I think an alliance. It has been started I mean a full open air and core are today with this webinar when we have, we have a mini alliance everywhere. UNESCO has find that has done a coalition of community led open access initiatives. We have several seminal initiatives. We have to build a big alliance because the voice has to be very strong and has to be decisive so that the global research and national science Council UNESCO the United Nations, the governments realize that this time it is serious and that it cannot be it is politically incorrect to look at the other way at to make as if it didn't exist. That is my opinion because you can't believe it but in Latin America and I'm sure in Africa it's the same. The impact factor regulates the salaries of researchers at certain level so and the research funds. So, open science is impossible in that landscape. It always comes it often always comes back to the impact factor and research assessment frameworks need to be that I know you're doing a lot of work in that area in Latin America. So, so thank you again Dominic and hopefully we'll have some time at the end to continue on with the discussion. Just, I should have mentioned at the beginning that we plan to end the, the webinar was planned for an hour and a half so we plan to end the webinar in about an hour from now and again hopefully we'll have at least 10 minutes or so at the end for some more discussion. But on that note I'll turn it over to Tom. So I'm going to talk editor of editor in chief of directory of open access journals or do a J as we call it, and do a J is a very highly used directory across the world, extremely international, and has done some really interesting work around planning its governance to engage with more stakeholders globally. And Tom will be talking about how this type of governance can impact equity and inclusion. So, turn it over to you Tom. Thank you for the invitation, and I will start sharing my screen. There is something wrong. Sorry. It looks, we can see the slides now if you put them into presentation. So I have to do the, let me see slide. Where is the present you go up to the top to the right. I know I see it because the pictures are on top of it. Yes. Okay. So I want to talk about the community involvement and the governance structures that are used by scope as rep or signs and the dj. I want to show a map of the world. It's what we know about the academic journals that reflects the global inequalities and this is a map showing what was known about the geography, which is a lot of gaps, a lot of white spots. And I think you can compare this to the publishing landscape, because what the authors here has said, is that there is the known knowns, and there is the unknown knowns, and the unknown unknowns, which means the known unknowns is everything that is knowledge produced in the west or in the north, how you would like to say it. The unknown knowns is that you know that there is a lot of things published somewhere else, but it's unknown in the center where the knowledge is produced in the first place. You can have the unknown unknowns, which is knowledge that is there, but it's not used, not worked on and not published. So it's basically this the known knowns, the unknown knowns, and the unknown unknowns apply to publishing. And the reason for this is that there is indexing services that give a give an indication what is the important knowledge. And of course, what they index the journals that is published in the journal that matters, and that is knowledge that matters, but of course, that gives them a very important role in what is published at all. So the current publishing landscape is the product of an over reliance on the indexing services because they determine that what is important more or less. The evaluation of the quality in the indexing services, most of them is based on ranking, you know, scopus and the rep of science, and they value a lot. The concept of excellence, excellence, which is something that you can talk a long time about. I won't do that, but it's a very fake concept where lots of lots of things I'm building, but it's very stupid concept of promoting concentration of the power, the center and the territory of knowledge production, and you also create exclusiveness, because if you have important journals that are listed, and scientists publishing there that are important to create an exclusiveness and not an inclusiveness. This is mainly fueled by the language and the cultural dominance of the West and the languages English, often you even have this in the countries of Europe themselves, more and more they are dominated by the English language for everything happening there. It's very important that there is a kind of a false supremacy feeling with white people, I can to use the term white, I won't use the term black. But anyway, this is something that matters because it gives everyone who is living in the West and publishing in the journal that is indexing scopus for example, the idea that it must be much better than anything else published anywhere else. Another concept of globalization globalization makes everything more the same. And this is also in publishing the case. It leads to more dominance because it leads to concentration of publishing in the hands of a few publishing companies. And it leads to less diversity in that sense and we want more diversity. The scholarly publishing has also become more about the business of publishing and having a lot of money for the shareholders. Then it is about community and about production of knowledge and advancing the society and helping the community. So what has to change. The scholars have to take back control of the scholarly communication as it was in the 17th century. I mean now scholars have given the control of scholarly communication out of their hands in the hands of publishers. So I agree with Dominique there is should be a community controlled infrastructure. We should make scholarly communication less of a business, it should be more of a commodity and there was recently a very nice article published on the commodity that publishing should be. What's the transition from the subscription to open access because the longer there is subscription the more emphasis there is on this money aspect and less emphasis on sharing. And the indexing services that say what journals are of good quality, or even it has deteriorated in the sense that it says what journals are good and matter. It should become more inclusive. They should have more journals from outside Europe and the US. The articles should not be assessed just on citations course. We should have another assessment system altogether. We should include social economic and cultural factors. We should also include many more journals in other languages than English, because if you are a scholar, and you have to publish in English, it will always give some loss in what you want to say how you want to say it, and even what comes over with the people that read your work. There's always a disadvantage from the beginning if you have to publish in English. So what are these indexing services I have listed for you the scope as rep or science cable and the DOJ. Now, all of you know scope as rep or science, perhaps not so well cable only because of the predatory journalist, I assume. And you have the DOJ. And the difference between the four is that the first three are all for profit companies, DOJ is a nonprofit, a not for profit company organization. The scope as rep or science and cable all list journals. Preferably most of the of the north and of the West cables has not a very big coverage of of journals and it's a company that started to do this, not not very long ago and concentrate a lot on the predatory issue, which is not unimportant. It's a special thing all together. Here I show you what the content of all these indexing services, the journals that are listed is, you see that copers and rep or science have a lot of overlap. On the right, it means that they list the same journals. DOJ has a lot of journals that are not listed in scopes or rep or science, but also a number of them are not listed are listed in scopes or rep or science and not in the DOJ. And I'm talking about open access journals only in this case. So the conclusion is that there is a lack of completeness of listing of all the journals for all, all these indexing services for the DOJ for scopes and for the rep or science. Although the DOJ has 8000 journals that are not listed in the others. We have to say there are 2000 journals not listed in the DOJ. So what can you say about the governance and the community involvement and the reason for this overlap. Well scopes, I have asked all these entities scopes rep or science cable and the DOJ. The major people there on on how they see their role in community involvement and in running a business scopes has not answered. You can find some information on the net and you know there is a lot known about about scopes, not in the least that they are part of well X, which is a shareholder company. And it's really everything they do is for the shareholders. The community involvement is there because there is a content selection and advisory board. You can see that it can on in the web that this can lead to more diversity, because people are asked to look at what is being selected for the scopes list. People can also contact scopes with title suggestions. But that is just more or less a control measure to see that not very bad journals are listed. In fact, what they say is that there is really not much drive towards more diversity. And I couldn't find any spokesman of of Elsevier saying saying something else. I have talked to people from clarity. I've talked to Nandita. Who is the managing director of the Web of Science. And of course it's a for profit company. And the board members are all from the corporate of finance. So there's no involvement of scholars or even community in the sense the other other people that do science. The other side of the university. It's all about business. But they do have a community involvement. They consider the quality concerns raised by users to have a lot of outreach activities for monthly webinars, especially also for other languages. They accept journals in many languages, as long as the titles and abstracts are in English. Do not favor or prioritize journals from large publishers or the global north is what she said. And I think it's true. And if you want to be in the rep or science course election. You need, you do not need to fulfill many criteria is a set of 24 basic criteria and having an impact factor is not one of them. The most important criteria which you can read in their website is that is a quality process of producing articles and a good review peer review system. And of course the open access criteria. You go to cable. It's also a share of the company. The community involvement is more or less. Restricted to that anyone can recommend the journal for the inclusion in either database so recommend them for being a predator in journal or recommend them for being a good journal. And there are outreach activities, but the representatives from tables told me that they have a lot of ideas for the future to involve community in building their database, making it more inclusive, which is something that we have to wait for, of course. The DOJ is a not for profit organization. And since one year or so we have a council and advisory board and an editorial subcommittee that were selected from all kinds of stakeholder communities. Publishers, universities, libraries, people were chosen by these groups themselves who wanted to represent their group. And we have the database management that we have. We have volunteer editorial teams all over the world. Who are native in late have the native language and they will do the assessment of the journals in their region. The ambassador program and ambassador program which is more directed towards getting the policies in their countries towards open access, getting good publishing practices for the journals there, and also trying to get more journals in open access in their respective countries. I will just quickly flip through this, flip through this these slides because you can just see them afterwards it's the structure of the DOJ just chemically again. The DOJ governance structure, the council what it does the 15 seats with community representatives. The advisory board that provides input. It also has different people from different groups. And the subcommittee, which is a committee that looks into more technical issues on what is admissible in scholarly publishing. If there is different, if there is very difficult questions arising, then Jay will dispute discuss and see what happens. So what I want to go a bit further explaining the DOJ ambassador program. The purpose of the ambassador program from 2016 17 is to increase the coverage of open access journals outside of Europe and North America. So Asia, Middle East Africa, Latin America, increase also the quality and the visibility of the journals, because listed in the DOJ journals become more visible. We want to establish context with the policymakers of governments, universities and organizations. And we want them in some cases to direct teams, the editorial teams that I talked to you about. We want also to see that there is publishers that want to be listed in the DOJ, because we are not going out and say, just do you want to be listed. We wait till somebody applies. But in these cases, we have reversed our policy a bit and we start fully and that's the program to solicit new publications. We want to promote the best publishing practice and raise awareness about the questionable publishing. And this is an overview of where we are and where the journals that are listed in the DOJ are. And what is immediately clear to you, probably, is that we don't have many journals open access journals listed from Asia, from China, and not so many from Africa either. Although we have ambassadors there, which is indicated in the head numbers, where let me just pick one continent, Africa, where we don't have many journals listed in the DOJ, so there is the open access is just a bit unclear there. The good news is the percentage of open access articles published in Africa is high. It's already done by Cameron Lailand and his group, and it was just told about yesterday in another webinar. The most output of this, however, is published in Western journals. So, although there is a lot of open access articles. Again, the output is in Western journals because the perceived prestige is such that all the universities want to have their people publish in those journals. And it's most of the time scope is on that side. This is Cameron Lailand's figure showing that there is a lot of open access in different regions of the world. This is a percentage of gold open access journal open access and green open access in diverse countries. And you can see, you can go to the original publication, so the PowerPoint or the PDF and look at it yourself. It is obvious that Africa or Latin America or other countries are not very bad in how much open access is there. But again, we have to be very careful because it doesn't say where it's published most of the time it's in Western journals. This is just a bit of an overview of one single country where you can see that the open access is rising, the gold open access is going in Ethiopia even to 80%. But obviously, there is a bit of a decline in the repository open access, the green open access, and there is some hybrid open access. The advantage is that there is quite a lot of publications in open access. So the willingness to publish an open access is there. Only the attitude of where you have to publish should change so that you publish in African journals and not in all those prestigious journals. So we need to change, we need to go to more local open access journals, I mean, in all the parts of the world, also in Africa. We need to have a quality check of those journals by including them in indexing services. And I think the DOHA will be well positioned to take up those journals, but also clarify and perhaps copers can work on this. And you can even think of having your own, yeah, indexing services for quality control, setting up a new one. The most important thing is that this would be an accreditation of those journals by the policymakers in the respective countries. And that should be worked on, we try to work on that aspect by our ambassador program, and by our personal contacts of myself and our managing director and other people in the management with the respective government officials. There has to be more publishing of scholars in index local journals. If they are living in Kenya, why should you publish in a journal that is not in Kenya. So what, what are we doing, and I, I don't know enough about clarifying and copers and weapons science. In a sense, to say exactly what they are doing. So the scope of my talk will be more about what the RJ is doing, what we are doing is that we are acknowledged by many more organizations than 10 years ago. And we are considered by many global open access index for quality. We have not so very difficult criteria. Anyone can really fulfill those criteria. Our site and application form are changing. They were a bit fancy and not very good, but we will change them into better design. And we also have the wording changed so that it's more easy to grasp what we mean. It will also be in many, many languages. And we already have of course application forms in many languages, but everything will be become better in that sense. We want to promote and we are promoting the creation and the indexation of local journals at the moment, especially in Africa. We have collaborative projects with other organizations, like with shallow Reddly, America, Seattle, Africa in Africa, a JOL in Africa and J stage in Japan. In order to make existing journals go to open access and be indexed in the RJ and become visible, or even start journals in open access and help them to have that new journal started. We are lobbying very much for the political changes, and we do a lot of workshops, conferences, publisher and other training sessions. So, I hope that I have given you a good overview of where we should go, and what I think the role of the RJ could be, but it's in the open, if you want to have another indexing service to take over what we think that we can do and that we want to do. Thank you very much. Tom. So I invite questions from the participants to please put your questions in the Q&A chat. And I'm going to use my moderator privilege to ask a first question of Tom. So you showed the graphs from Cameron Nyland's research around where African researchers are publishing, but because you believe there are a number of journals from Africa that are not represented in DOAJ, we might question the validity of that work in a way because those journals are essentially invisible and not being included in any analysis. No, I mean Cameron Nyland, I said his work showed the amount of open access, but he didn't say anything about where it was published. Because his data don't include, as you rightly say, those articles that are published in African journals that are not in scope or so the Web of Science. They only looked at the data of the journals index in these kind of indexes. Yeah, so I think we need to take that with a grain of salt in terms because in a way what Cameron is doing is replicating what's being done by the assessment committees by only looking at the articles that are visible through these various indexing services. But the important message is that there is a lot of open access publishing from African scientists, even if it's in Western journals. There is a tendency arise in the open access content and that is very positive because that's the first thing in attitude that has to change. Bianca Kramer is saying in the chat that cameras work in includes not only Scopus and Web of Science but Microsoft academic which is much broader but but I imagine there's still a lot of journals that are not visible through even Microsoft academic in many countries. So, it's something that we need to think about. There's a couple questions now that have come into the Q&A, and I will read the first one out. How sustainable is the funding for DOAJ as it grows going forward? Is there a long term plan? Yeah, at the moment this cost funding scheme runs out of course. So we had the sustainable funding scheme from different library consortia and members. Then we asked for three year funding commitment. And at the moment we are rethinking our funding scheme but we are asking all the people that fund us. So the library consortia, the universities, the funders, the separate funders, all the many parties that give a bit of money or a bit more of money to DOJ to commit themselves for three years. And if we can get them to do that, which is in these times or the corona times, it's very difficult of course, because there are many restrictions in financing, especially with libraries and library consortia. But we hope to be able to get enough funding for the coming three years. So our horizon is three years, what we aim at. And it doesn't look very bad at the moment. So we haven't, we can't say that we have enough money for the next three years, but we're working on it. And it doesn't look very bad if you have to believe Lars Bjornshauer. He says that it looks okay. That's excellent news and I'm glad the S-cost funding was successful for DOAJ. There's another question here. Well, more of a suggestion that's from Evangelos again. A suggestion for you, Tom. I totally agree about the need of publishing in non-English languages. Perhaps DOAJ could create some kind of seal of approval for those journals publishing in different languages. Excellent idea. And we are, we have been, we are thinking of changing our criteria for the seal. So as you know, we have this basic criteria, you can just be listed in the DOAJ. And if you are fulfilling all the criteria, then you get a seal. We want to have another kind of seal. So we want to promote journals that don't charge APCs and give them a kind of seal. And we also want to take this thing in consideration, journals that are in non-English and journals that are doing groundbreaking work in their countries. So that we don't, at the moment, the seal really is a thing that is mostly more given to these big publisher journals. Because they can fulfill quite a few of those things that are asked from them. So we want to go back to the drawing table and have a whole new kind of seal very shortly. This is an excellent suggestion and it's on our list of rewarding it with a seal. Not very future projects, it's really for the coming year, I can say. So that's great. Well, thank you very much, Tom. And I hope you can stick around just in case there are some more questions in the next, after Janika's presentation. Yes. Great. Great. And so our last speaker for today is Janika Adema. And she is an assistant professor in digital media at the center of post-digital cultures at Coventry University where she's exploring the future of scholarly communications and experimental forms of knowledge production. She's also the co-PI on the community-led open publication infrastructures for monographs project or what is called referred to as co-PIM. And she's going to take us through their journey at co-PIM that they're undertaking around developing a community governance structure and some of the lessons learned. So it's a pleasure to have you today, Janika, and I turn the microphone over to you. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Kathleen, for everybody here for this invitation. So yes, I have been working on supporting co-PIM and I will shortly introduce co-PIM next to. So we started almost a year ago now. And community governance is one of the key elements on the line of project. So co-PIM intends to set up an open community-led governance system for its infrastructures and processes. A structure that we want to develop together with the community of stakeholders that will be involved in the project more broadly. So academics, publishers, librarians, researchers and knowledge managers. So what I want to share with you today is what we are currently learning from other projects. So including Klaxo and the DOIJ, Eiffel, CORE and OpenAir around what good governance is and how we can ensure it is indeed community focused and directors. And hopefully once we're a bit further along in the project, I will be able to share more about our own experience of setting up community-led governance structures, which is what we will be focusing on in the next couple of years. So I want to start by highlighting the collaborative nature of the research that I present here today, which has been developed together with co-PIM members and supporters and draws strongly on the insights and establishment of other community-led publishing projects that we draw inspiration from. So this presentation draws on the work that I've been doing with my co-PIM colleagues, Sheri Barnes, Eileen Joy and Samuel Moore. And in particular on a series of blog posts written together with Samuel Moore, reflecting on a community governance workshop, which we hosted earlier this year, and this is mostly the kind of insights that were shared with us by the participants of that workshop. So they were posted on co-PIM's open documentation site on pop-up, where we are indeed openly documenting the research that we are conducting and the progress that we are making within the project. So if of interest, what I will be talking about today is described more elaborately in the blog posts that are listed on this slide, so please have a look down. So first a little bit more about co-PIM. So co-PIM is an international partnership of scholar-led open access presses, universities, libraries and technology providers. So its aim is to realign open access book publishing away from competing commercial service providers to embrace a more horizontal and cooperative knowledge sharing approach instead. Governed by the research community and open for widespread participation by scholar-led and non-profit publishers. So co-PIM aims to address the key technological, structural and organizational hurdles, so around funding, production, dissemination, discovery, reuse and archiving, which is standing in a way of the wider adoption and impact of open access books. So co-PIM wants to deliver major improvements in the infrastructures used both by open access book publishers and by those publishers making a transition to open access books. Innovations will enable more productive collaborations between actors, so including librarians, publishers and researchers in the open access landscape, and will expand opportunities to develop the skills, tools, funding networks and systems necessary to run open access publishing operations. So co-PIM wants to support and facilitate global collaborations to achieve collective stewardship of open access and remove structural and organizational barriers to open access book publishing, especially in the humanities and social sciences. So the work on co-PIM is divided into seven work packages, including a project management work package. Work package two is developing and launching a modular scalable revenue generation and management platform for open access books to be made available to publishers and libraries. Work package three is working with selected publishers to assist them in migrating their economic models to open access versions while documenting this process. Work package four, which is mainly the one that I will be focusing on today, is developing the governance procedures of co-PIM's open publication ecosystem for monographs, which will be community governed and led. And then work package five is developing technical protocols and infrastructure to better integrate open access books into institutional library, digital learning and repository systems, including the development of totes, which is an open metadata system that will be the open dissemination system this work package is developing. Work package six is producing a set of pilot cases of experimental books, which will be developed with the aid of new tools and platforms focused on experimental long form publications. And work package seven is identifying the key challenges associated with archiving research monographs and is looking at archiving solutions for more complex and experimental long form publications. So we are keen to work on these projects with the wider community that we are designing them for so please do get in touch or so if you would like to know more about what we're doing. So on May the first of this year we hosted a half day workshop focused on community governance spring together governance expert key stakeholders and open access book publishing and representatives from allies large community led projects to collaboratively explore what the governance procedures of Coven's open publication ecosystem for monographs should look like and to begin thinking about developing models to sustain the governance of the infrastructure as a community based open access service organization, you can see some of the participating stakeholders attended our workshop on the slide. So the discussions with the participants focus on two key questions. What does good governance mean, and to who or what is our community. So from the discussion around the first question, what does good governance mean a number of themes emerged. So one of them was situatedness or the situated nature of governance. In other words how good governance provides accountability to a specific community or range of communities. So we are now mapping that communities norms values and practices to inform decision making powers based on the resources being managed. So this situatedness will also determine how to promote equity and fairness in a specific community. And it's at the same time what makes it difficult to assess objectively what good governance is, as this is of course context specific. This specificness also brings with it certain expectations about governance, which might inhibit experimentation with different models. So the situatedness of an organization or project influences the kinds of normalize governance models in the particular fields. As part of our initial research for coping we analyze the governance models of a selection of scholarly communication organizations and projects, not as elaborately as as as Thomas just done but we had the snapshot of what's happening there. And most of them follow a quite formalized governance structure which for example assemblies advisory boards and bylaws, a set up which then becomes an expectation of good governance. But this formality can also create issues, especially also in the realm of small community led scholarly communication organizations, which we are coping find ourselves in. So governance is here often an afterthought something that will come later as there are more pressing issues at hand, especially when they start off. Many of these kinds of organizations rely on forms of benevolent dictatorship, which is a term used by media theorist Nathan Snyder. Basically it means that a few individuals initially run an organization on their own. Now if in one organization grows or develops who then gets designed the systems of governance. So there's also the issue of the imbalance of labor in more horizontal and informal organizations where governance comes down to those who have time to do the work. So in this respect, governance can be seen as a process. So ready as you talked about a flexible tenancy model of governance that adapts a stakeholder's change and organizations develop. Still a solid foundation from which to grow is needed. So governance needs to be part of the conversation whenever project starts to be reassessed continuously. In this sense, governance might need dynamic models once it develops for more informal to more formalized. More formalized structures can also pose a risk to the more informal relationships or community norms that have been developed. Then on the other hand, good governance might also imply setting up formal structures for long term governance that allows people to step away from a project without it falling apart. And in place allow it to continue to function smoothly. Second question we discussed revolved around establishing who or what your community is. So community led as a concept comes with a set of implied values or practices such as inclusivity, informality, and a values driven approach to organization. Often opposition to top down or market led forms of publishing. Community led often remains ill defined and as a concept or model is rarely used unfavorably. So this highlights the difficulty of defining what or who a community is in the abstract, even though this might be the most important thing to establish for an organization or a project. So when do projects individual participants become a community. The solution to this conundrum is to work with a more pluralistic understanding of communities, or even what Leslie Chan termed a community of communities to indicate different needs. So within a project or organization, a community also tends to consist of different groups with different needs. So there are stakeholders, there are beneficiaries, and there are partners, for example, by identifying the groups that is made up within this way might even help us determine a community's interconnections and relationalities. It can also help make more visible inequalities within communities, for example around labor inputs, who puts in the work and who benefits from it. So communities also bring with them homogenization effects, as they can obscure the difference within by assuming a shared and common identity. So homogenization is often a clear feature of how advocates, for example, for open access in the global North, talk about Latin American, when in fact there are of course huge levels of diversity between various countries and local contacts. So community definitions that will require attendance to detail and different so it's not to homogenize such diverse contexts. Community also by definition implies exclusion, those that are not part of the community. How then do we take on a welcoming stance as a community? See for example, which has already been mentioned today, the issue of the Anglophone and English language nature of many open access communities. Who then gets to speak on behalf of everyone else. So all of this again emphasizes the importance of community building. How do we identify our stakeholders, beneficiaries and partners. So communities need to be nurtured in a processional way, this work is never done. It's a matter of keeping an eye on both the community that is and the one that is coming about. And this involves how we can support communities in a continuous way through interconnections with many other communities. So we must be open to the linkages and relationalities with other communities that themselves can be nurtured. So community then becomes less a standalone thing and more something that reveals the interconnectedness of our efforts. So this also very much lines up with the principle or philosophy of scaling small that informs the coping project in which we're still developing. And which plays a key role in the future of Copham's community building efforts. So scaling small is an alternative organizational principle for governing community led publishing projects based on mutual reliance, care, and other forms of commenting. So this principle as Q standard approaches to organizational growth that tend to flatten community diversity through economies of scale, and instead puts forward the idea that a skill can be nurtured through intentional collaborations between different projects that promote a bit of a diverse ecosystem while providing resilience to research sharing and other kinds of collaboration. So scaling small allows for the collective coordination of resources across a diverse ecology of organizations that creates a kind of meta community or community of communities for the provision of diverse approaches to publishing. So what we're doing next for the work that we're doing around governance in copium so we've set up a governance working group humanities comments, which will work with us towards defining those kind of organizational principles that will cover us. And we set up a satirro library too so if there's anything that you think we should be reading please be in touch or join the library so that we can add you. If there's anything else you'd like to know, please you can find all our contact details here. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, that was really interesting and, and I think there are a number of organizations, you know that are going to be struggling with adopting governance models, you know, in the coming weeks and months and years so we have a lot to learn from watching you. I hope that you, by the end of the project you will have defined the governance structure for for copium, and that will allow you to continue on and find external funding as well from other organizations. It is an ongoing process of course and we're trying to figure out at the moment also what needs governing and who our community is. I think we have some deadlines already in a year's time and we do need to know a little bit more about what we're going to do then. Moving forward, yes, I think, and for me it's also very important to what Dominique also highlights in the beginning to to find this interoperability between like managed projects and finding a way that we can govern together, right, because it is the kind of this community open source infrastructure that we're building together and making sure that it lines up and that we can work together for me, and for the project is just really important to make sure that open access can actually work as a not for profit and community lead and So I, again, I open the questions to all the participants and please feel free to ask questions to Dominique Tom or Jenica. We've only got about 10 or 12 minutes left so I actually have one question to lead off the open discussion which I'd be interested in all of your thoughts about this and also if participants have some thoughts about this as well I'd be interested to hear them so My question and maybe we can, Jenica you can respond first and then Tom and Dominique is, is there any scenario in which a commercial entity can really be governed or have proper community representation. Good question. It depends I think because I think what Tom already outlined in his analysis, you can have this kind of community input through advisory boards and but that still doesn't, it's still the stakeholders, the for profits parties that control the direction of these companies so for me it's it's essential that we work with public companies with public infrastructures in order for these things to be really community led. So, is it possible, only if and when they start to become public institutions that's basically the only way I can see that. But I think maybe what is more important is for us again to start highlighting the public infrastructure that does exist that is already out there and see how we can start to support that. And I think that's again a question of getting our institutions are funders lined up to start really supporting the existing infrastructure that's already there that is actually community led and public. I agree so much with you, we have to look at the richness of our communities and initiatives and possibilities we have to stop looking at taking care of the transformation of the industry because they have their shareholders who require. And many of the shareholders are funds, how you say, are not even people, they are funds from banks. So, to dedicate our energy, trying to change the industry I think we better dedicate our energy to change ourselves and improve our systems. Tom, do you have anything to add. I agree with Janneke, of course. We are in thinking of an entity that exists. I was thinking about newspapers. Like in Germany you have the touch, which is a newspaper in Berlin. And they say, we want to be there for everyone. And you can just pay us what you want. And they don't have subscriptions, you know, and they have a lot of community involvement in telling them war there to talk about and what to report and things like that. And this kind of this is really their community and their newspaper without a very much for profit system. So the essential thing is you need to have a non not for profit infrastructure. But of course you need to make money in somehow because you have to pay your people, and you have to pay for publication it's not nothing is gratis. So you have to devise means that not all the money goes to shareholders like Janneke said, and that is the essential thing I think, which is mostly the case with all the big publishers that we know today. And that's why we want to really support and promote the publishing initiatives outside of Europe, like Seattle's Africa, or like the journals that are in platforms with shallow. And this is the way to go for us. Okay, there are a couple of questions now in the q&a which I'm going to read out. Marcel Laflam says respectfully not all private entities are publicly traded and have shareholders as such. I'll give the example of the small family on publisher bargain. Thank you Marcel. An anonymous attendee says with a few exceptions us university administrators seem ideologically opposed to the efforts described here. And we reckon with their mindset that favors outsourcing, for example. I mean I think what you're alluding to is this very, very strong trend over the last several decades related to neoliberalism and how there was this idea that the the market and the market could solve all problems. And I think, frankly, we're coming to a reckoning in many areas of our society that that's not true. If we look at climate change if we look at health care if we look at many things. So, I hope, I hope that the tide is changing related to that attitude. That favors commercial services over community or public, not for profit services. But I welcome also to hear the opinions of the panelists. Well, I would say that I think, at least if you look at books, for example, it's just not a sustainable model if we will continue to outsource and especially if we move towards an IPC BPC model. The studies have already shown that it's just not affordable. And I think what we're trying to show is that the systems that that we are creating that already have been created are affordable and sustainable so that's an argument that you can make towards librarians and institutions and next to that is this idea of diversity, of course, which I think is so important. And we're missing out on all this fantastic research that just falls by the wayside because there isn't a place for it to be published through the established channels, or we're not seeing it because it's not published in the established channels. And I think there's actually, I understand the feeling that that a lot of institutions are have been moving towards outsourcing, but there are also a lot of institutions that are actually really supportive of what we're doing. And again, this is mostly the outsourcing is mostly a global Nord phenomenon, and when the rest of the world has been able to accommodate more. Publicly an institutional funded model so I think look there and look what they're doing. That's that's what I would say at least and it is very much trying to also convince people look it can be different I think and we need to keep on telling people that it can be different and different models do exist. So, for example, from Arizona University that redirected their ABC fund into supporting community owned infrastructure like open libraries humanities. And the right examples in Canada as well I think it's University of Toronto, right, right, Kathleen. No, in Canada, it's our national consortia is now looking at what kind of. I mean, some institutions are doing it individually but the national consortia is getting actively involved in funding, you know, non transactional based research infrastructures. Dominic, did you have a comment as well. I think the next question, what we think about plan S and I was so concerned that I forgot what I was going to say here, but I agree with your comments in Latin America also the consortia the national consortia are very concerned with how much outsourcing and how much funds should go to the community infrastructure of open access, and how much money is going to go to ABCs and those issues. We did a study I worked on a study here in Canada that looked at what percentage of the library budget is being spent on open access. So for the all the large research libraries in Canada and it was only 3% compared to about 40 or 45% of the awards subscription based acquisitions. So there's, and there's a lot of money in the system, and the, what we need to do though is is kind of what Yannick has said is is to convince those people are holding those bundles of money to move that money over, move, you know, substantial amounts of that money over towards community based infrastructures. And I think I'm completely agree with you. Dominic about starting local you know what what what what what do you see in your own local environment that you think you should be supporting. Yes. So, sorry there's one, there's another question here and I'm conscious of the time so Daniel asks what are the views of the panel on plan S. Dominic do you want to start I think you already. We have difficulties in Latin America with plan S because plan S gives the industry the possibility to, to make the transformation from pay to read to pay to publish. We want to see the first year report at the end of 21 at the end of 22, where does the funder's money of the coalition S went. And I hope we are wrong. I hope that part of the money will go to sustain community led initiatives publishing and open science initiatives, and that it is not an exercise to give time to the industry to accommodate to pay to publish system, because for our governments plan S puts them in a very very hard position, because we need journals for our researchers, we need to pay subscriptions and now we are pushed to transformative agreements and we have to pay subscriptions plus APCs because nobody will tell me that it is minus a it's it's it will end having costing more money to countries. And why does knowledge funded with public funds why does research outputs with public funds need to be a market need to be a product need to be a commodity. We don't discuss that issue we only think if it is more high or less APCs, but the main point, does it need to be a market. It is not disgusting in plan S. So it's good for privileged institutions is good for privileged countries, but it's not a worldwide solution so we want to see what money will go. Thank you Dominic is does anyone else want to comment on plan S. I think that the transformative agreements, especially are often a buy in a lock in for the you have to publish with those publishers. So it's their marketing mechanism to give more. Just leave them with their dominance in the publishing market. And that is a bad idea I think, but I'm not, I'm not entirely sure that promise people realize this mechanism. They should, but I see it as a danger. It leads to really, again, less diversity, more exclusiveness, and and also even to higher prices, what you see all the time you see that everything becomes much more expensive than it should be because of inflation or so. And that is the case for the so called APCs for for the open access journals and for the subscription journals. Well, I were two minutes past the the end time for the for the the session today I want to thank you. Dominic Tom Yanica for leading this great conversation and I hope it won't end here. Let's continue working together as a coalition as Dominic said, and working on new models for funding open access journals and working on good governance together. So thank you much very much again and don't forget we have our second joint webinar on Friday where we will hear from our Chinese colleagues about their new policy related to scholarly publishing So, you're all welcome to join us at that webinar which if you go to the open air eifle website you'll find the time for that. And I also put a link in the chat. Thank you. And thank you for the arena and Gwen for for hosting this webinar. Oh, thanks guess Lindsey and Jenny kid Dominic Tom, Gwen. Thanks very much.