 Hello and welcome everyone to today's lecture as part of Homecoming 2021 at UC Berkeley. I'm Michael McGinnis, President of Berkeley's Class of 1966 and I'm delighted to be welcoming so many alumni, parents, friends to this presentation by University Librarian Jeffrey Mackie Mason. Before introducing Jeff, I'd like to say just a couple of things. First, Cal is a very special place. We all know that we've lived it, we've learned it, and now we have external validation in the recent Forbes number one ranking of Cal as the leading university in the world. I know from my day job as Executive Officer at the National Academy of Medicine in Washington DC how much Cal has contributed and is contributing to progress throughout society and throughout the nation. For example, the CRISPR-Cas9 technology developed by NAM member and Berkeley's recent Nobel laureate Jennifer Doudna is revolutionizing biomedical research in action including our response to the pandemic. In addition, the digital knowledge platform is revolutionizing medicine's ability to become a continuously learning and improving system, improving the health prospects for people everywhere, and you'll hear shortly from Jeff about how that applies not just to medicine but across the board in society and Cal's leadership on that front. Second, I'd like to thank all the donors to Cal. We each benefit from the support of generations of donors. The Class of 1966 is very proud of our choice to devote particular emphasis to the support of the library's leadership capacity, but the opportunities at Cal for donations to improve society across the board are many, many, and that is another element of our great good fortune. We can make a difference in the prospects for society through our support for Cal. The title of today's session, Brave New Heights, Libraries After the Pandemic, could easily be libraries after, before, during, and after the pandemic because we've seen already the extent to which transformation in libraries and their contributions to digital progress are setting the stage for a new world on so many dimensions. As we move into the introduction of our speaker, I'd just like to say to please post any questions you have into the comments section in YouTube and we'll triage them for response in the question and answer session. Now it's my great pleasure and privilege to introduce Jeffrey Mackey Mason, the University Librarian and Chief Digital Scholarship Officer at UC Berkeley. He holds appointments as a professor in the School of Information and in the Department of Economics. Mackey Mason came to Berkeley from the University of Michigan where he served as the Dean of the School of Information from 2010 to 2015. He was on the Michigan faculty for 20 years as a professor of information and computer science, professor of economics, and professor of public policy. Jeffrey earned his PhD in economics from MIT and a master's in public policy at the University of Michigan and you can understand quite clearly from just those brief comments about his background how fortunate we are to have Jeff's leadership for us on the Berkeley campus and our contribution to the improvement of society. Please join me in welcoming my friend and University Librarian Jeff Mackey Mason. Jeff. Thank you so much Michael for that introduction and good morning to you all. And thank you Michael for leading the amazing class of 66. We are so grateful to you and your classmates for the record-breaking support that you've provided the library. And thank you to all present for this virtual lecture. I know you're squeezing it in between last night's celebrations, this morning's hangover treatments, and the football game. So thank you for being here. I'm now going to share my screen. It will take a moment to set it up I think but let's get started on the talk. Okay. It's the 21st century. It's the time of global terrorism, global climate change, the COVID pandemic. Aren't libraries just a little bit quaint? Do we still need them in the 21st century? Well you won't be surprised that I'm going to say a resounding yes we do to that. And it's because the 21st century is also the dawn of the second age of information. The first age of information began in 1450 with the printing of the Gutenberg Bible on a movable tight press. What followed was the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the Scientific Revolution. In short, a 600-year transformation of Western civilization due to the first information revolution. With the invention of digital computing and communications and in particular the internet, we have entered the second age of information. We've already seen remarkable social change and the second age of information is just beginning. Our core information institutions like academic research libraries are thus more important than ever. Of course how we provide information services is rapidly changing. Now we're in the middle of the worst pandemic of the modern era. US deaths from COVID have now surpassed those of the 1918 Spanish flu and it's not over yet. We're seeing major changes in many of society's institutions. So what will the new normal mean for the future of the 21st century academic library? Let me give some context. Our university library at Berkeley comprises 24 libraries across campus. Our greatest resource are the nearly 300 employees who work every day in partnership with our students and faculty. But we also have one million square feet of space, about 13 million print volumes, several hundred million pages of rare and unique historical materials and so forth and so on. We are a very physical organization. What will our new normal look like? I'm going to start with a few things that we've learned about our place-based activities. Then I'll talk about future developments. First, what did we learn about our print collections during the pandemic when campus was closed for nearly 18 months? Now I'm Mr. Digital and I've been largely paper-free in my own research and teaching since the mid-1990s. However, one of the loud and strong lessons from the past 18 months is that print on paper materials are still very valuable and widely in demand. With about 60,000 people on campus and many public patrons of our libraries, we get a lot of feedback. And the loudest feedback that we got during the first few months of campus closing was find a way to get us access to the print collections. Now, as I'll discuss shortly, during the pandemic lockdown, we were able to provide emergency online access to about 12 million of our print volumes. But as remarkable as that is, we still have about four million volumes in our circulating collections that are not digitized and folks wanted access to those as well. We also had strong demand for access to our print collections because many scholars work more effectively when they can browse the stacks, discovering books on their topic that they didn't even know they were looking for. And many can read and learn more effectively from print books than on the electronic screen. Access to print collections was especially critical for those who rely on our rare historical collections for their learning and scholarship, especially the collections in our amazing Bancroft library. We have only scratched the surface on digitizing these rare materials. So without access to the originals, many scholars had to stop working. Well, because of this clear evidence, our campus quickly approved limited access to print collections as one of the very few campus essential services despite the public health work from home order. So by mid-summer of 2020, we had launched two new services, a contactless pickup service for circulating books not available through online emergency digital access, and special in-person research appointments for reading room use of our non-circulating Bancroft rare collections. So what does this evidence say for the future of the research library? We're going to keep and make available our print materials. We have millions of books that are not digitized that scholars want to read, and of the millions of books that we have digitized, about two-thirds are still in copyright, and we do not yet have a legal way to share those, except during the emergency in a way that I'll describe shortly. Even if available digitally, print is sometimes preferred. To paraphrase Mark Twain, fitting as we have the largest collection of his letters and other printed materials in the world, the report of the death of print has been greatly exaggerated. That said, what did we learn about our online resources during the pandemic? This message from our users was also loud and clear. Even if print is available, there is more demand for digital access than we previously knew. Though many have let us know that continued print access was vital, even more let us know that they were thrilled by the greater digital access that we could offer during the emergency. And they're now deeply sad that we had to turn off emergency digital access when we reopened our physical libraries on August 25th. So I first need to describe this part of the great COVID experiment. What was this emergency digital access to our print books and why did we have to turn it off? The Hottie Trust was created in 2006 with Berkeley as a founding member. In partnership with Google, over 17 million print volumes from university libraries across the country have been digitized and stored in the Hottie Trust. The University of California owns print copies of about 12 million of these volumes. In the U.S., written works are in copyright for decades. The exact time is determined by complex rules. To first approximation, anything published after 1926 is still under copyright. That means that although the Supreme Court permitted the Hottie Trust to scan volumes that were in copyright for preservation purposes and certain transformative uses, we're not actually allowed to read both our print copy and the digitized online copy because we only paid once for the original print copy. The bottom line of the 12 million print volumes that the UC owns that are digitized in the Hottie Trust, we can't read about two-thirds online if the print copy is available to users. Accept. And this is a big and somewhat controversial accept. Under U.S. copyright law, there are various fair use provisions that expand readers' rights. About four years ago, a group of legal scholars analyzed the fair use provisions and developed the controlled digital lending doctrine. Under controlled digital lending, for each print book that it owns, the library, if it keeps the print copy out of circulation, can lend one digital copy instead. The idea is pretty simple and logical. We paid for one copy that we're allowed to lend. As long as we lend only one copy at a time, it shouldn't matter whether that copy is printed on paper or is bits on a screen. Either way, one copy owned, one person reading. Now I should say the controlled digital lending doctrine has not yet been tested in the courts and there is one pending lawsuit by publishers that has challenged it. But quite a number of legal scholars and practicing intellectual property lawyers have concluded the doctrine is sound and we in the UC are comfortable relying on it. So what does this have to do with the pandemic? During the pandemic, all of our libraries were locked. People could not check out our print books. Our UC and Hottie Trust lawyers quickly decided that this created an opportunity for a pandemic emergency service. As long as our libraries were locked, they would let our users check out digital copies of the books we own. They were careful. Only one digital copy could be checked out at a time for each print copy that we owned. This was a huge success for our faculty and students. They depend every day on Berkeley's collection of 13 million print volumes. How could they do their studies and their research for 18 months if the libraries were closed? Not all of our books are in the Hottie Trust digital library. Most of them are and they were used heavily. Since the start of the pandemic, Berkeley students and faculty have accessed the emergency collection 153,000 times, viewing over 6 million pages. About 1 million books were checked out of the digitized collection. So now let me turn to the future, the library after the pandemic. I'm going to tell you about three initiatives. First, what are we going to do about digital lending for our print collections in non-emergency times? Second, what are we going to do to end copyright barriers on reading scholarly research publications? And third, what are we doing to create a more inclusive and equitable student experience? The Hottie Trust emergency service was closed when our print collections reopened in August. But now, of course, we've let the genie out of the bottle. Our students and faculty have learned how wonderful it is to have any time, anywhere access to 12 million volumes that previously were only available by going to the library during open hours and checking them out physically. They want continued digital access to our vast collections. To continue controlled digital lending, letting people read digital copies of copyrighted print books, we would need a method for verifying that the print copy is not already checked out, and then we'd have to block the print copy so that it can't be checked out. In fact, to be strictly compliant with the copyright law, we'd have to make sure that no one could even take the print copy off the shelf and read it in the library while somebody else has the digital copy checked out. One copy, one reader. And that's currently impossible given that our stacks are open to users. We can't stop them from taking books off the shelf and sitting down and reading them. Further, because Hottie Trust is not willing to run this service after the pandemic for legal and cost reasons, we will have to build our own platform that can control digital lending, only one copy at a time for a limited period, and in a way that the book cannot be downloaded and duplicated. So these are all challenges, but our job is to solve challenges so that we can support the information needs of our students and faculty. So we're on it. Developing the controlled digital lending legal doctrine was the first step. We've already taken the next step on a limited scale. This summer, we developed a lightweight platform that can manage controlled digital lending for a modest number of books and users. And we're using this new platform right now for our 100% electronic course reserves service. Through this, we are providing course materials at no cost to the students, making them available anytime, anywhere over the network, though just like our print materials, only one person can read a copy at a time. Last fall and spring semesters, while the campus was closed, we provided electronic course materials to about 20,000 students a semester. For the electronic reserve service this fall, we are currently serving over 355 classes with nearly 1400 books. We digitized 700 of these full text books in-house. We're also providing about 480 videos and over 1,000 articles in digital format. In the first three weeks of the semester, we've already had 4,300 checkouts of course materials. Looking further ahead, we would like to offer our entire print collection for controlled digital lending, all 13 million volumes. We have a number of problems to solve to get there, but we've started on these as well. We aim to have a full controlled digital lending service running for our students and faculty within a few years. This would include all 13 million digitized volumes in the combined UC print collections. Let me now turn to a second priority for the future research library, open access. I've been explaining to you some of the restrictions that copyright imposes on our ability to lend digitized materials. So what about getting rid of copyright restrictions altogether instead of creating expensive platforms and services as workarounds? Well, let me be clear, copyright generally is a good thing. People who create new textual content should be able to sell copies to make a living. How many novelists would we have today if after they sold just one copy of their book, they could sell no more because someone made millions of digital copies and gave them away for free. However, for most scholarly and teaching materials, authors are not making a living from selling copies. In fact, for the three million research articles that are published every year, three million new scientific articles published every year, authors get paid nothing. Nada. We transfer our copyright to the publisher in exchange for the publisher's editorial services and marketing. We don't write research articles to be paid, we write to be read. What this means is that publishers are typically the ones getting paid for selling copies of scholarly writings, not the authors. That isn't necessarily bad either. Publishers provide services and they need to be paid. But some of them are an extraordinary profits. However, that's a different story for a different day. Meanwhile, there is a better way to pay them. Scholarly publishers are a business. They provide a bundle that we can call publishing services. Now, one way they can make money and what they do today is that if the author gives them the copyright, they charge people to read per article or per subscription. They take a toll. But if they're providing publishing service, another way to do it is simply to pay them for those publishing services. That is, we can pay publishers for their costs of doing the publishing plus a reasonable rate of profit. Then, already paid for their services, they can make the scholarly articles available to read for free. We call this open access. Nearly all pure research is paid for by public funds delivered through the government. With pay to read, the public has to pay typically $30 to $40 to read a single article. Yes, more than most full length novels in hardcover, just for one scientific article. At Berkeley, we're paying about $12 million a year to subscribe to scholarly journals. And so, much of the public simply cannot afford to read current research paid for with their tax dollars. Most students and scientists in developing countries can't afford it. Non-profit organizations trying to solve pressing problems can't afford it. Independent doctors not affiliated with a major hospital can't. Most U.S. liberal arts colleges can't afford to subscribe to most scholarly journals. Indeed, not a single U.S. university, not Harvard, not the University of California, no one subscribes to all of the scholarly journals because of the cost. What does this have to do with lessons learned from the pandemic? But let me tell you a bit more of the story, but I am getting back to the pandemic. Academics, including me, have been working on transforming the way that we published scholarship for about 25 years since the mid-90s. The digital revolution was the key. Once we publish articles electronically, it doesn't cost anything effectively to make unlimited copies for people to read. When we printed journals on paper, each copy required paper and ink and transportation, so there was a logic for charging readers for each copy. But that logic has gone away with electronic publishing. In the 25 years that we've been working on open access, we haven't made much progress unlocking scholarly research. As of five years ago, only about 15% of all scholarly articles were published open access in their final version. But things started to change five years ago. A number of institutions, led by those in Europe and by the University of California, decided to get serious about transforming the scholarly publishing industry. And we developed a new strategy backed up by a willingness to cancel subscriptions if publishers were not amenable. With some daring and a lot of hard work, we started accelerating progress to full open access. I've been privileged to co-chair the University of California negotiating team during this effort. In our first year of this new negotiating strategy, we signed five publishers to open access publishing agreements, including the number two publisher in the world. We were passionate about opening the gate and proud of our progress because we knew a simple fact. Scientific progress is faster and better for society when scientific information is freely and widely shared. Then COVID hit. And I told you I'd get back to the pandemic. What does COVID have to do with scholarly publishing? All of a sudden, within weeks, armies of scientists around the world were jointly focused on the same problem. What is this novel coronavirus? How can we treat its disease? And how can we protect ourselves from it? The largest focused scientific effort in history was launched. And what did the scientists say? Let us read all of the relevant research now without charging us. The publishers acknowledged this demand. How could they not? That is, they publicly admitted what we academics have been saying for 25 years. Science moves faster and better if information is freely shared. So all of the major publishers stopped charging during the pandemic for COVID related articles. And it made a difference. Scientists all over the world have been exclaiming how fast things have moved. Joyful about how much collaboration there was across institutions and national boundaries. And the results have been remarkable. The fastest major vaccine development in history. And not just once, but about a half dozen different vaccines developed. Treatments for COVID. A scientific basis for public health protocols to slow the spread. So now this genie is out of the bottle. The publishers had to admit that we were right. Open access is the best thing for scientific progress in society. And right at the same time that we had figured out a new business model and a new negotiating strategy that has been effective in forcing them to change. So last year, during the COVID pandemic, we signed five more open access publishing agreements, including one with the largest publisher in the world, Elsevier. A company that had fiercely resisted open access before. Indeed, the UC had to cancel its subscription and withdraw from negotiations for 18 months before Elsevier capitulated. But capitulate it did. Today, surfing on the front of the COVID wave, the UC has covered about 33% of its research articles with open access publishing agreements. So that going forward, a third of our research will be published open access. And we're in negotiations with further publishers to get that to 70% within two years. This is the future for scholarly research. The public pays for the research and the public gets to read the results without paying again. Libraries are solving this problem, gifting the world's scholarship back to the world. And Berkeley is one of the most recognized global leaders on this mission. Finally, my third topic about the future. Let me talk about one more feature of our post pandemic university library, engaged inclusive learning. In the library, we work in many ways to support a more diverse and inclusive campus. From the pandemic, we learned a lot more about remaining challenges. In particular, we saw how the growing inequality in our society was leaving many behind, especially when we depend on technology to learn and to keep us healthy. Let me describe two important library initiatives aimed at leveling the playing field and making all students feel included and equally treated. First, a few years ago, we started developing a new service delivery approach that we call by the students for the students. We actively listen to our students to figure out what we can provide that will best support their learning. And then, we work with them to develop the services. And finally, and this is the really innovative breakthrough, we rely on the students to be the primary providers of many of the new services. This gives the students agency. They feel a sense of belonging and are empowered to shape their information learning experience. As one example, a few years ago, some upper class students from the first cohort of the new data science program on campus came to us to figure out how to help new students, incoming freshmen, the sophomores, the transfer students, many from low-income school districts, how to help them figure out what data science was and how to engage with it and make it a part of their education. With our assistance, the students created a no-fee consulting organization called Data Peers. In it, upper class student experts hold regular office hours and run drop-in sessions to assist incoming students. This program has been wildly successful and has become a permanent part of the data science program on campus. This is just one case. In another example, five student groups were looking for a place to create a makerspace, basically a prototyping workshop. We gave them space and management support in Moffitt Library and they've been running a successful entry-level makerspace open to all students at no charge for about five years. Students manage the space, they offer the training sessions, they buy the equipment and the supplies. And another group wanted to create a simple studio for producing virtual reality simulations. All of these are student-initiated and student-run projects in the library. One way our donors support these efforts is through funding for our WorkPlus Learn program. We employ about 600 students a semester, most of them on financial aid, learning information professional skills as they support their education. Many of them directly support or buy the students for the students' programs. Unfortunately, due to continuing reductions in state funding per student, we have been sadly forced to reduce student employment in recent years. Donor support for WorkPlus Learn is critical. Also going forward, we are raising funds to transform 100% of Moffitt Undergraduate Library into the Center for Connected Learning. 140,000 square feet right in the center of campus. The design philosophy for this massive innovative learning center, buy the students for the students. The Center for Connected Learning is a welcoming, inclusive information gateway to campus, helping all students, regardless of background and prior education, level up to succeed as Berkeley scholars in the new information age. We have all of the architectural work done for this project and we'll start the construction as soon as we finish fundraising. This all works together. Because our programs are designed by students, responsive to their needs and circumstances and are run by students, there is a wonderful sense of belonging and inclusion. Students from all backgrounds feel like Moffitt being transformed into the emerging Center for Connected Learning is their home on campus. They pack it every day. Every single day of the semester there are students sitting on the floors because this is the place they feel comfortable and productive. In the year before the pandemic, we had 1.4 million entrances to the building and that's with only the first 30% of the project completed in phase one. The Center for Connected Learning is a strategy and a home to support genuine inclusion and belonging on a college campus, a place where everyone wants to be and to be with each other, engaged and connected in learning rather than isolating in separate groupings in separate locations. Well, it's time for me to wrap up and take questions and discuss with you. Quick summary of the lessons learned and the future of the library. First, print materials are still crucial and highly valued. We will be providing both print and digital resources as far as we can see into the future. Second, our users don't want either print or digital. They want both types of access. We can't afford to buy both print and digital copies of everything so we're moving ahead with developing a service built on the legal concept of controlled digital lending which we tested during the pandemic emergency. When we finish, we'll be able to give users a choice between print or digital copies of our 13 million circulating volumes and growing every year. Third, copyright restrictions forcing users to pay to read the results of publicly funded research slow down the progress of science. So Berkeley Library is a leader in the worldwide effort to flip the scholarly publishing industry from charging to read to a business that charges to publish and lets everyone read for free. And finally, during the pandemic we could see directly how deep some equity and inclusion challenges remain. The library is working on multiple fronts including creating the large Center for Connected Learning designed on principles of equity inclusion and personal agency by the students for the students. Thank you for listening and now I'm happy to take questions that you submit as comments in the YouTube window. Great. Jeff, we have a few questions. The first one is do you know which books in our library have been checked out the most and approximately how many times were they lent out? Oh, you know I was actually looking at some numbers on that yesterday but I'm not sure I remember them. We have that data but having it in my head what I was looking at actually were what was checked out from the Hottie Trust Emergency Digital Service last year. And the, well this fall, what is it? It's a novel that's being checked out the most this fall from our eReserve service and then the second thing is a chemistry textbook and interestingly two of the top 10 checkouts right now are chemistry textbooks. We're not quite sure why the chemistry students are reading more avidly than students in other fields but there you have it. Overall the literature books as a group sort of as a genre or a field are were the ones checked out the most last year with science books and social science books roughly tied for second and third. So in those broad categories it was literature. That was actually one of the interesting things that we saw last year. Our humanity scholars are probably the ones who care most about continued access to print resources. They read long texts, they read dense, difficult to read texts at times, they read many many books and they are very traditionally attached to print collections and browsing and so forth and yet our humanity scholars were among the loudest saying how excited they were to have online access to digital copies of all the books in part because with the digital copy you can do full text searching in a way that you can't do with a print copy. So you don't have to read the whole book to remind yourself or define one particular thing if you're searching for references to particular locations or searching for particular genre concepts or use of particular words with the online copy you can do that algorithmically instantly and our humanity scholars were thrilled by that so we had a lot of checkouts of literature. Great, thank you. So our next question is do alumni have access to the e-reserves? The short answer to that is no. There may be certain parts of the collection that alumni have access to but for licensing everything that we have licensed all of the scholarly articles and the videos for instance we don't own those we license them under use conditions and those use conditions strictly limit us to making things available just to people on campus. Otherwise we'd have to pay much more and there are a lot more alumni than there are people on campus so we would be bankrupt pretty quickly I'm afraid. For the books that's sort of the gray area that our lawyers are still addressing and we're being cautious about that we would rather not be sued by the publishers for pushing control digital ending too far. The exception for that is things that are out of copyright as I said about one-third of our collection is out of copy right now and that's available through the Hottie Trust so that's you know roughly four million books that Berkeley owns are available if you go to HottieTrust.org basically anything before 1926 and selected items that are out of copyright since then so not current works although we hope to be able to change that over the next few years as we make progress on developing the control digital lending doctrine but for now I'm afraid the books we're being cautious about and the other things that we license it's just a matter of paying since we have to pay for the licenses. The next question is how do you see the use of rare materials in research shifting with digital access? That's a great question and it's something I've been very excited about and care a lot about. Our former director of bankrupt and the current interim director Charles Fallhaber is a Spanish medieval literature scholar who has spent his entire life head down in the book and he's discovered that European institutions have been digitizing rapidly and much of what he does is now available online and he is absolutely thrilled. It enables you to access things that are owned by libraries around the world without having to travel to them which of course is expensive and time-consuming especially when the materials you're interested in are scattered across different libraries so that any time anywhere access is extraordinarily helpful to people doing historical research. It also allows for new types of research if the text has been what we call OCR, optical character recognition then you can do the full text searching I was describing and you can do all sorts of research that isn't possible without computers. You can do what we call text mining that's a type of data mining where the text becomes the data and you can do new types of research and humanities and historical scholars are doing things on social trends on changes in genre new definitions of genre seeing relations and influences across different parts of the world by being able to do computerized analysis of text on large bodies of text as we digitize more and more of our historical rare collections we'll be able to do more and more of that and for instance digitizing the scientific papers of a Nobel Prize winner we'll be able to do new types of studies on how those ideas develop how we're the connection between intelligence and creativity and things like that so it's really opening up new types of research that are possible as well as making the research easier for people. It doesn't mean we get rid of the physical artifacts sometimes people really need to work with the original materials for the type of research they're doing and they're willing to go wherever those materials are but it's making them available for textual reading much more easily we just have a long ways to go and digitizing it all. It's also by the way great for education outside of serious scholarship or high-level scholarship think of all the k-12 students or maybe you know seven through 12 students who might go to a rare books library once on a field trip while they're in middle school or high school and hopefully they'll get excited by the fact that there are these original rare materials that they can see when they go to college but once we have them digitized they can see and use them in their classroom and in their home while they're still in middle school and high school. They can really create great new opportunities in k-12 education for working with original materials and understanding more directly and in a more exciting way about our history and how we got where we are. Thank you how do you see open access working for the arts and humanities area? Um largely the same I mean technically and legally there are no differences there's some resistance in arts and humanities among some scholars who are concerned that if their material becomes too easily available people will possibly steal some of it and republish it or will manipulate it in ways which the author doesn't want. Copyright provides a legal protection against that but in a digital world the the main problem is is how you control access and how you keep track of what people are doing. So that that is a sort of a cultural shift and that cultural shift is happening and arts and scholar, arts and humanities scholars I think are getting past that and recognizing the value of open access and having more people be able to read their materials. The the issues other issues tend to be more about the economics of it and who's going to pay for it. The arts and humanities fields are not as well funded as the harder science fields. There's not as much money there and paying to publish costs money cost institutions or cost the scholars money to pay to publish rather than paying to read. If we can transfer the library subscription funds into publication funds which is exactly what we're doing to Berkeley we can pay those costs for the authors and or at least most of the cost and that problem can go away. But that's a concern it's also a concern because arts and humanities scholars often publish books rather than articles and books are more expensive to publish and the costs of paying for the publishing are higher and so we're working out models. We provide subventions the library pays for publishing open access monographs or books for arts and humanities scholars we do several of those a year we're probably still below a dozen years it's not a large number but we are supporting that and we of the 10 agreements we have currently with publishers almost all of them publish some arts and humanities journals and some of them published primarily arts and humanities journals and we're getting very good uptake from the authors. So we're we're seeing a change in that culture which has been a bit resistant and we think that it's coming around that everybody recognizes the value of having what they've written be available for the world to read and believe me no scholars are making money on their their scholarly research we're not giving up any money we're just getting read more. Great Jeff so many people have so many alum have such fond memories of the Doe Library and the various reading rooms which library do you think is the most popular library for today's students? Well for the undergraduates it's very clearly Moffitt which is just completely overrun they they it's overrun in a good way I mean they want to be there and they're getting a lot out of being in a place where they can interact and collaborate in this new learning environment as I said we've only done the first 30 percent of the renovation when we complete the renovation we will have doubled the seating space for students in the building by recapturing a lot of spaces that are currently used for staff and HVAC and other things so we're going to be doubling the capacity of that building when we finish the renovation so and that will be it will get filled up instantly already it's just you know I anytime I give a tour I can predict that there are going to be people on the floor there's no question that every single day their students sitting on the floor because the building isn't such high demand. The North Reading Room in Doe is ever popular and that's almost always filled up completely as well so I would say that probably the the next most popular place is the North Reading Room except for those who want really quiet study they go underground to the garden of stacks which for those of you who haven't been in them yet the main stacks are now underneath Memorial Glade in a four-story building that's underground and it's got great light because of huge skylights coming down so it's got a lot of natural lighting the students really like it and it's it's our one of our quietest places for study Jeff are all the books in the gardener stacks uh no no the gardener stacks has between two and a half and three million books out of our 13 million circulating volumes we've got about it's about six and a half million of our books are on campus stored in across our 24 libraries about 20 or 20 of them have collections so we've got our books especially by subject areas spread across the different libraries the other half of our books the other six and a half million are in our Richmond facility what's called the northern regional library facility which is a use facility it's a storage facility but we turn books around normally in about 24 hours on requests people request the books and we deliver them to campus and usually in about 24 hours so I think we have time for one more question if anybody wants to put one in we can ask it otherwise Jeff are there any things that you wish that you had said to our audience how they can help the library well I I certainly want to close by thanking everybody again for for being here and for your support as alumni of the university and of the library we are the heart heart of the university physically and intellectually this is you can't have a great research university without a great academic research library and we're very privileged that Berkeley has invested historically in a great research library so funding per student from the state has been declining steadily funding for the library has gone down essentially every year since 2003 so we depend more and more on philanthropy and donors and can't tell you how much we appreciate that about 20% of my annual budget comes from donors it's really you know without the generosity of you all it would be a much lesser library and we would not be serving the world's best research university as well as we should be if it weren't for your support so I thank you for that and and encourage you to consider us and think about that going forward I mentioned a couple of our initiatives like the WorkLearn program and the Center for Connected Learning but we have a number of priorities the bankcroft collections our east asia collections supporting librarians who support the faculty and so forth so we're always very grateful for the support you can provide great so if there are no further questions thank you all for attending thank you Jeff and thank you ETS for making this possible and for those of you who are going to the football game go Bears or those of you who aren't going to the football game go Bears and Fiat Lux