 Okay, thank you for inviting me. I'm very interesting for me to be here. I'm a faculty in the biology department, so I'm gonna talk and touch on some of the same things. There's sort of pros and cons of open access publication. I have some of my own opinions, some of my own anecdotes about this. So I think that everyone would agree that, and so my biases will be from biology and science and how I'm not sure how broadly that applies to other disciplines and how I think about open access publishing. I think everyone would agree that open access, quick dissemination of information is very important to scientific progress and it's ideally what we want. And for many years, people have been frustrated with peer review and the publishing process. To highlight how it works is that people take federally funded or various, mostly federally funded taxpayers' dollars to do their research. They submit it to journals. Journals, they're reviewed by other people working in the field for free. The editors usually work and do this for free, not paid by the journals. And then upon publication, the author signs over their copyright to the journal. And then university libraries and government libraries pay billions of dollars to buy access to that scholarly research back into their institutions. And so I have some numbers here. So for instance, Elsevier, which is a very big publishing house for life sciences. I think in 2010 posted a billion dollars profit. You know, a billion dollars that really have come out of taxpayer-funded science research. There's been some big arguments. Some journals like Nature, Nature Publishing has a large number of journals. You know, no library can not access nature. They're very important journals. They charge a fortune. There's sort of sort of a debate where the University of California system at some point has said that they're just not going to renew the subscription to them because they're outrageously expensive. So they sort of get a buyer's market where libraries and institutions have no alternative unless you're as big as a UC system to refuse to pay whatever price they're asking. And then of course access is restricted only to those people who are already going to be in those universities of government systems that have had that access paid for them. I think this was really highlighted recently and there was a lot of flak for this with the Mars rover, the Mars Curiosity rover. People were really interested in the findings of this. People very broadly, something like two and a half billion dollars of taxpayers' money to put the Mars rover up there and have a look. And those papers are published in science. There was no open access to them. You couldn't go in and see what the Mars rover had found. And I think this is a really important highlight of the type of research people want to see. You know, and so also these journals, so there's a talk of the sort of the sting on the open access, you know, that they're paid for publication so they're going to take everything. I thought I'd highlight one really, really interesting exception to this was published in science. Science, you know, these sort of very high impact journals were frequently published at a very dicey data. And so one example of this was an extraordinary finding published a few years ago that bacteria could use arsenic and said a phosphorus in their DNA, like absolutely extraordinary finding published with high profile in science, lots of new splash. You know, it was fundamentally flawed. There were very obvious controls that were missing from experiments, wasn't picked up by reviewers, wasn't picked up by editors. Sort of as immediately as it hit the stands there was obvious criticism and it was sort of later retracted and withdrawn but you know, it didn't matter because the publicity was already out there for science. So the sort of question comes, you know, is there a way to do this better? Is there a way to do science publishing, science peer reviewers sort of by scientists for scientists and without this sort of for profit angle that, well, Elsevier obviously makes a lot of money. And so the internet really does, I mean, ideally you could find your work, publish your work, put it up on the internet, same day, people could all come along and have a look at what you found. So I think these online journals are trying to, open access online journals are trying to bridge this gap. And like people have said, they've have been extraordinarily successful. So some of the journals like PLOS, BioMed Central Journals, have got very high impact, very highly regarded open access journals. And there's a new journal there, E-Life. E-Life is trying to stand sort of up against nature and science has been extremely high profile. They're currently funded by Wellcome Trust and HHMI so that they're actually free to publish in. So although these journals are not for profit, it's still obviously surprising to me extremely expensive. And so the model now is rather than them selling access to the library system to buy, that the author upon having their journal, their article accepted will pay the fee for publication costs. And so for PLOS Biology, that fee is $3,000. You know, it's not an insignificant cost that now the PI on a grant is now taking this cost rather than the university taking this cost. And I think if we move to open access, there will have to be some understanding of how this cost is now distributed. For me as a PI, now I'm sort of shelving the cost directly out of my grants for access rather than the university buying access for me. So it's not cheap to publish here. And like I said, a lot of the traditional publishers are offering this option, open access options on papers or open access journals where you pay some sort of cost and then you can have your article be open access. One thing that I like that a lot of these open access journals are doing are sort of having a post peer review option. So they sort of sort of like basically comments that people can read the paper and put their comments and perhaps have some sort of discussion online. To me, that tends to, it seems like a great idea. It seems to be very poorly used if you go and look. There seems to be very few comments about these. And clearly when these journals are only making money when the paper is accepted, it seems that this has to create some kind of conflict. If I'm not making enough money to cover the costs of my journals, the solution to that is to start accepting more papers so that I'm bringing in more revenue. So it does seem to me that this is going to be an ongoing problem that just simply the cost of running even these online journals. And then I will touch on one, and Michael talked about that. When I've talked to the societies and the societies that run the journals, they actually, I mean they do seem to be very concerned about the fact that they currently will have journals run by their society that do make a profit for them and is their viewpoint, they're turning this profit into running meetings, running organizations, providing fellowships for students, travel, travel awards for students. I think I'm concerned about losing this kind of money as everything's moved to open access publishing. But having said all that, I think from my own perspective, being able to click on a paper and immediately have access to that, to be able to see that, not get that really annoying screen that pops up when I click on something that tells me I don't have access, but perhaps if I click, clicking on things for five minutes I might find somewhere we do have access. Seeing you has extraordinarily poor access, it seems, to a lot of journals that I want to go and have a look at presumably because the cost is high of that particular publisher. So open access is a benefit to me, and I think it's absolutely that knocks on to your paper if it is open access is going to be more likely to be cited, I think.