 But we're just so pleased to have Heather Joseph with us who's our keynote for this morning. Let me tell you a little bit about her background. She's currently the Executive Director of SPARC, which is the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, where she works on broadening access to the results of scholarly research through enabling open access publishing, archiving, and policies on a local, national, and international level. She's also the convener of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access. I don't know if we're going to hear more about that today or not. And she's a reformed former commercial publisher. It was a cell biology journal, right? Worked for Elsevier. Yeah, no, I'm doing it on your behalf. It's fine. No, but the good part of it is that I believe that your journal was the very first one to commit to fully contribute itself to PubMed way back in the day. So she's been thinking about this and been at the forefront of it for a very long time. Part of what we're doing with the keynotes this year, you'll see yesterday, you know, Larry talked about copyright and about OER, Heather's going to talk about open access to research, tomorrow John's going to talk about open data. We really want to give you a broader overview of what's happening in the open space outside, kind of the narrow vertical of OER. And there's just really nobody better in the world that we could have come talk to us about open access than Heather. So we're so grateful that she's here. Please help me welcome her to the stage. Thanks for reminding me that I'm following Larry Lessig. I appreciate that as an intro. No pressure, no buildup there. I want to open as I'm plugging my computer in by saying a giant thank you to the conference organizers and especially to the program committee. Not only for inviting me to come and speak at this meeting, but also for including the very first track for libraries and OER into this fantastic and vibrant meeting. Spark as David didn't mention is actually a library membership organization at its heart. Our community is just thrilled and delighted to be represented here and to be being absorbed into the mainstream, hopefully of the open education movement. As David said, I'm not an OER expert by anybody's stretch of the imagination, but I did start my career off with a whopping 15 years in the publishing sector. I did work for Elsevier, but only for 11 months in the commercial publishing world. I only lasted 11 months in the commercial world. I worked for nonprofit publishers and scholarly societies for the balance of my time. But for the past decade and why I'm really here to talk to you today, I've been just privileged to work at the forefront of a movement that's really sought to create wholesale change in the system that scholars, our faculty, our scholars, our researchers, our students use to share the results of the research, the scholarly research that they create, and that is the open access movement. And the OA movement has really been deliberately and sort of laser beam focused on one specific output of the scholarly process, and that's journal articles. And we've made that choice deliberately, and it's been important for a variety of reasons that I'll talk about during the presentation. But I do want to note that since the inception of the open access movement, we've always been aware that we're not operating in a vacuum, right? That there have been other movements swirling and growing in the space around us that are working just as hard to provide a more robust open environment for all kinds of the elements that are so crucial to the generation of knowledge. As David said, John will talk about data tomorrow, but also the code that helps us make sense of that. The articles and the textbooks and the curriculum that report and help make order out of information chaos in some senses. So this morning, what I'd like to do is really just share a bit about what my experience has been like in the open access movement since its inception. We'll talk a little bit about the drivers that have compelled us as a movement forward, our vision of what a good and ideal end game looks like. What some of the enabling strategies we've undertaken look like. Talk a bit about our successes and probably more importantly, the failures that we've learned from. And also our hopes and dreams and agenda for moving forward. And I suspect that as I go through a little bit of a narrative on the OA movement, that you will be struck as I have been over the past couple of years with just the incredible similarities that there are in our stories. From the drivers, to the objectives, to the trajectories that we're on, to the challenges that are in front of us. And many times over the past two years, I've been lucky enough to be in a room where a David Wiley has given a presentation or a Dave Armstrong and a Cole Allen, and I've literally sat straight up in my chair multiple times and gone, I could take that slide out of their deck, pull it into mine, and use it to describe what's happening in the open access movement. And nobody would know that it came from open ed OER movement. The similarities are that stark. So I hope these similarities will provide us with a jumping off point to think together about ways that we can deliberately operationalize deeper collaboration and maybe even to move beyond thinking about the OA movement and the open ed movement as separate movements and rather just as pieces of a larger whole, a collective moving towards enabling a bigger open knowledge generating environment. So about the open access movement, about this little thing called open access. It's about a 10-year-old movement and the drivers that have compelled us to look for a new system to underpin the way scholars and researchers share their work, I think will look very familiar to all of you in the room, right? One of the major drivers is obviously new technology. The internet has changed everything about the way we communicate, the way we share, the results of the work that we're doing, but also about the way that we're actually conducting the work that we're doing. And even more importantly, it seems like every other month there's a new channel that pops up on this fabulous internet that lets us think about doing our work and sharing our work in new ways. And on our campuses, we increasingly see our scholars, our students, our researchers using YouTube and Instagram to share results of their work through video, multimedia, still photos. We see conversations happening about work on Twitter and Facebook, venues that we might not normally have thought about as channels that enable work to get done in the academy, but that is happening in spades. What's also happening as people are talking about their work, they're doing their work in a digital environment as well. Whenever you have a wholesale shift of a workspace from sort of a paper-based paradigm into the digital, you see the second pressure or the second driver emerge. And that is, you move into the digital space to do your work, you end up with a whole lot more digital stuff resulting from your work that you have to then organize, make sense of, and fold into your workstream. And I love this phrase. I know it's a little trite, the digital deluge, but I think the word deluge is really, really important. Because what happens when we see our disciplines moving into the digital realm is that the amount of data and information and digital articles and digital objects that we have to work with as scholars, doesn't just kind of like the frost it turns on and the data and the digital objects trickle out, they pour out. This next slide is actually shared from Elias Serhouni, who is the former director of the National Institutes of Health. Don't worry if you can't interpret it, I'll tell you what it is. It's actually a snapshot of a piece of the human genome when it was digitized in 2005. And Dr. Serhouni actually used this slide to try to explain to members of the U.S. Congress the pressures that the NIH was under once it moved into a digital environment to try to make sense of the outpouring of information that it was collecting. In 2005, one of the outcomes we hoped that would happen from digitizing the human genome was that we'd be able to identify places in the genome where disease-specific conditions resided in order to speed up our ability to be able to provide treatments, interventions, and ultimately cures. In 2005, that happened for the first time when the gene associated with macular degeneration was actually identified. But I want you to look at the pace of what happened after that. In 2006, we had three more disease-specific conditions identified. In the first quarter of 2007, that amount doubled. In the second quarter, it doubled again. In the third quarter, in the fourth quarter, first quarter of 2008, second quarter of 2008. The amount of information we're able to extract from the digitized human genome accelerated the pace of our ability to do research and to generate meaningful results, not linearly anymore, but exponentially. And this is just a curve that represents what happened to deposits in GenBank over that same time period. And this curve, the only thing you need to know about this curve is that it is not unique to genomics. Any time we see a discipline make a wholesale move into the digital realm, this is what happens to outputs, whether it's digital humanities, whether it's social science disciplines, whether it's cell biology or genomics, you get this hockey stick curve where things take off. And the amount of information that you as a scholar, as a student, as a researcher, as a human being have to think about making sense of goes up at an incredible pace. And what this does is puts an enormous amount of pressure on our current system for how we make sense of things. Imagine trying to sit down and read article after article in a linear fashion reporting on this material. We simply can't do it anymore. There's too much information for us to go it alone in trying to make sense out of information. We have to be able to enable computers as a category of readers to help us make sense of this information. And this is where, just as a quick aside, Larry mentioned the notion of copyright law and temporary copies and needing to secure the rights to work with temporary copies. If we text mine, data mine, compute on these papers to make sense of them, we need the rights to work on temporary copies. So it's a hugely important concept. And for us in the open access movement and for us all, I think, in society, it's an important concept. The last driver that I want to touch on I know looks familiar to you all. And this presentation has a mind of its own. And it's like advancing a pace, which is good. It's keeping me brisk here. And that is the notion of prohibitive costs. You guys deal with this all the time with textbooks, right? And parents and teachers and students know how expensive textbooks are. But I think sometimes people are surprised by how expensive scholarly journals actually are. And your friendly neighborhood librarian represents about 80% of the journal marketplace. As the folks who buy journals to provide for campuses. And the price barriers, the price pressures in this environment will look just as stark as the price pressures in the textbook environment. Your librarian can lease access to one year of the Journal of Econometrics for the same price that he or she can buy outright a nice new Mac Power book. Or one year of the Journal of Geological Review will set him or her back the same price as a nice Tiffany diamond ring. And God forbid Aaron McKernan is on your campus as a neuroscience and you need brain research. You can lease one year of access to that journal at the same cost that you can buy outright a nice little vehicle. Don't mean to pick on you, Aaron. I just noticed we had a neuroscience in the front row, neuroscientists in the front row. And of course, here's one of the charts that I use, one of the slides that I use that you will recognize from your textbook prices, right? These prices don't stay the same year in and year out, but rather they've gone up at an inflationary rate of about 340% over the last 20 years. I really could swap out, I think the textbook number is even starker than this, but you see that trajectory, that red line. That red line is a problem. That red line is a driver for us to make change in this system. These price pressures have very real effects on each of us as individuals, on everyone that's on our campuses, on everyone that tries to access this information. An outcome of this price pressure is that we all end up running into this scenario. You do a Google search on a topic that you're interested in finding articles on. You return to a list of articles. You click on one you think you might want to read. Abstract looks pretty good, yep, maybe. I think I might, I think I might. You click on it, you get a paywall screen that says, sorry, your library couldn't afford this journal, or you're not affiliated with an institution. Pony up $31.50 for the privilege of seeing if this maybe is a paper you might want to read. It's a common problem. We have people working on it. I'll talk about that later as I smile at one of the developers of a solution. It's a common problem. So what's happening in our community? How do people react to it? Well, as the library community, we like to think that you come to us and ask for an interlibrary loan, but, and sometimes you do, but we recognize it takes too long. There's a cost associated with that. So more frequently what we see is ask the author for a copy, right? You go directly to the source. You go to a colleague that you think might have access at another institution and go there. You get really creative and you use the hashtag I can has PDF and you put in the name of the article and you hopefully get a copy of that article returned to you. People have used it. I could do a show of hands, but I won't embarrass you. Or another thing that I know you guys are really familiar with in your community. The cost is too high, so I skip getting access to that resource altogether and go on to something that I can afford, right? That happens in the textbook environment. It happens every day, multiple times a day in the journal environment. And what that's really meant is that it's forced us into working in a system where we're used to workarounds. If I asked for a show of hands of how many people have gone to an author directly or gone to somebody at another institution to get a copy of an article, I'd wager that 90% of you would raise your hand and go, I've done it, right? We take it for granted that we have to exist in a system with workarounds. What we really need to do is optimize the system for the people who the system is supposed to work for. Scholars, the Academy writ large, the general public, any interested person who wants to know more. And that's been the driver behind the idea of open access, right? Our end vision for how we can make this system a better place. In the early 2000s, the Open Society Foundations of the Soros Foundation, a sponsor of this meeting, convened a group of stakeholders and essentially asked them to answer this question. If we could rebuild, just tear down and rebuild the system of how scholars are sharing this particular resource on our campuses from the ground floor up to take advantage of the new technologies that are out there to solve for the explosion of digital information that we're going to have and to take out those price barriers, what would that system look like? And the solution that we've come up with and the vision that we've come up with and that the framers of the Budapest Open Access Initiative came up with is this notion of open access. It's a very simple yet very specific end goal. We mean enabling the immediate free availability on the open internet of journal articles, that category of material scholars traditionally produce without expectation of payment, coupled with the rights to use this stuff fully in the digital environment. So it's a beautiful definition. We shorthand it for just helpful purposes for fitting on an index card or in your purse to mean open access is immediate availability coupled with full reuse rights of journal articles. And we've had 10 years to really kind of go great guns in terms of building enabling strategies that will move from this just being a vision if we could do it to here's how we want to put it in place and to put it in place. Since the enabling strategies are threefold, building open access journals, building open access repositories and changing the overarching and underpinning rules of the game by creating open access policies. In terms of open access journals, it's almost a no brainer, we have to do this. If we're talking about a wholesale replacement of the subscription journal access system, we need a viable alternative for people to publish in. So open access journals are essentially a category of journals that operate from an editorial peer review, copy editing, quality control process, the same way as traditional journals operate with the only difference being they answer the call from the definition of open access. They allow always free immediate accessibility of all the articles in the journal coupled with the unrestricted rights to use those articles. And those rights really are important. They include the ability to text and data mine, bulk download, compute and enable machine reading on these articles to do all the kinds of things that the Budapest open access definition envisioned. And we're doing pretty well with it. There's more than 10,000 open access journals out there that meet the full definition of OA and part of meeting the full definition of OA is enabling those rights through the use of open licenses. And under the open access definition, really the only role that's envisioned for copyright is attribution back to the author, that the author is appropriately credited. So the Creative Commons license that's most appropriate for an open access journal is in general the CC by license. In terms of open digital repositories, this is another enabling strategy that we have to have in order to create infrastructure for us to get to this final vision of OA, right? We need a place for open access articles that are published in open access journals, but also articles that are published in traditional journals that an author might want to make open access after a certain point in time available to the public to live to be accessed and also to be preserved over the long term. So open access digital repositories are simply digital collections, digital archives, usually based at an academic institution that contain digital articles. But I think interestingly what we're also seeing is this fabric of open repositories that we're building is increasingly becoming the home to digital articles and digital articles and data, digital articles and teaching and learning materials. It's a home base on our campus for a whole lot of open stuff to be accessible and also to be used, potentially worked in and preserved over the long run. Ideally what we want to see are these open repositories being as, I know this is a buzzword that people hate but interoperable and it's really important that they talk to one another so that what we're enabling is this open environment, a global database of openly accessible research outputs. And we're doing pretty darn well in terms of establishing a robustness of infrastructure in terms of locations. This is a mashup of Google Earth and the Directory of Open Access Repositories that just shows where they're located all around the globe. So we've got the backbone in place. We're beginning to populate it. We're not going as fast as I think many of us would like in terms of actually enabling the interoperability of these repositories but that's a challenge for us to work on now and to try to get right in the next couple of years. Okay, so as this infrastructure has become more robust and as we've actually sort of gotten proof of concept that here's an enabling environment. People, scholars are willing to use this environment. They're publishing in these journals. They're putting stuff in repositories. We've got the interest of policymakers who are working with the open access movement by and large to try to change the underpinning rules of the game. And they're centering on a very simple and specific concept and it's a concept that I know also resonates with folks in the open ed and OER movements in particular. And that's the notion that governments fund our citizens to do specific things. And in this case, governments fund citizens to do research and the organization for economic cooperation and development had a great statement in 2005 that really set the stage for us to work off of to do robust open access policy development. And that was positing the statement that governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in funded research by doing one very simple thing by making the findings more available to people to work on and that by doing so they'll boost both the economic and the social returns on their investment. That ROI return on investment argument has been fantastic and the notion that investment benefits the public has resonated and has allowed us to build a policy focus across states, across the United States, across international boundaries, focusing on the concept that the public is entitled to access and use articles reporting on the results that their tax dollars have funded. Very simple statement, very effective to go to policy makers to make that case. And we've had some success here in the US in pushing that forward. There's about $60 billion in federally funded research conducted annually funded by our tax dollars. The National Institutes of Health represents half of that, about $30 billion in annual research. And in 2008, the open access movement was successful in convincing Congress to pass a law that requires that any articles that result from NIH funding must be made available, freely available to taxpayers via the NIH's online digital repository. And that's made about three and a half million or 3.2 million articles available to the public over that time period. We've been pushing as a movement for expansion of that policy and last year we had one of our second major policy successes when the White House issued a directive telling all the other federal agencies, the other half of the funders to step up to the plate and please issue policies that will achieve the same goals and use hopefully a similar model as the NIH to achieve those goals. Yeah, thanks for the tea break there, that was good. Okay, so we've had a 10 year running start to get going, how's it going? Well, Mike Carroll, I don't think Mike is here today but my friend Mike Carroll likes to say, if we look at it from starting at zero, we're doing darn good. If we're looking at cumulatively, we started at nothing and we've been building. The number of open access journals over this decade has gone up on a steady pace. Ditto with the number of digital repositories and objects in those repositories. Same trajectory, great increase for the use of CC by licenses on individual articles in journals and the same trend line applies in the policy environment, our universities, our funders, private, public, multi-institution are adopting open access policies at a growing rate. Love on this trend line, all things, signs are pointing up. So, yay, but wait, I know, Mike is right, that we're starting from zero and it looks good when you can point to that trajectory, but we are realistic in the OA movement and we are realistic that there's a lot more work to do. So of the 21 agencies that are required by the White House directive to come up with policies so far since February of 2013, only one, the Department of Energy, has released their plan. So we've got a lot of work to do to pry these plans out of the federal agency's hands. Of the almost 4,600 degree granting institutions in the United States, 45 of them have open access policies. 45 is a nice number, we have a long way to go before open is the default on our campuses. And Ditto with the number of articles that are published. 1.5 million on average, are articles published in journals every year, still less than 20% published in open access journals. So good trend lines, but clearly a lot of work needs to be done and things aren't proceeding as fast as many of us would like it to proceed. So what's the hold up? Well, yesterday Larry and his keynote said, they're coming for you. And Larry's, Larry's, I don't mean to be an alarmist, but Larry's right, they're coming for you in the open ed movement as your successes begin to add up and as our successes in the open access movement began to threaten the one vested interest that would like to slow things down or reverse our progress, they've come for us. Let's put it that way. And I'm gonna tell you a couple stories of who they are and what's happened. So the annual revenues that are generated by commercial and nonprofit STM journal publishers is roughly almost 10 billion with a B dollars, US dollars per year. This is a big industry. This is also a slide that I could pull straight out of one of Nicole's textbook presentations to describe the size of the commercial textbook publishing industry, right? Which is also a roughly $10 billion a year vested commercial interest. And just to put it in perspective for you, another industry that operates in the US on this level of revenues is the national football league. So this is big business, right? And this is big business that has a vested interest in protecting their profits. They do not want to see us flip to an open access model where subscription revenue is eroded by any degree at all. And so they do what Larry described yesterday and we've seen them, we see them do it every day here in the open access movement. If you go to websites like opensecrets.org you can actually track the contributions that my former employer, Elsevier, has the pleasure of being my test case here. The contributions that they make to members of Congress, to state legislators when we're trying to move bills, very targeted, very regular, not enormous sums of money, but year in, year out, month in, month out, week in, week out. If we're trying to move a piece of legislation we will regularly find the offices have been visited by the publishers and that a generous contribution has been made. The publishers also have the $9 billion, $10 billion at their disposal and I should say the publishing lobby. There are many publishers, many journal publishers in many disciplines who are good citizens who are not part of this larger problem and I do want to be sure to say there are many subscription access publishers who are trying to do the right thing. But there is a large industry and a lobbying interest that represents them who are pushing back hard. And they could afford to not only send lobbyists from who are on staff and their organizations to the Hill, to the state houses, to wherever it is we're trying to advance policies on a daily basis but also contract with lots of outside firms. It's not unusual for us to go to Hill meetings and hear, oh, we had a meeting with the publishers yesterday and the participant list will include representatives from three or four different outside lobbying firms and one publisher. So money does buy you presence and it does buy you influence and that is a very real reality that we're dealing with in the EOA movement. We're also dealing with another reality of the way the publisher, publishing lobby can and has spent their money. In 2007, they hired Eric Diesenhall who is a very well-known PR professional in Washington DC circles and he's known as the Pitbull of PR and he gained this moniker from his representation of Enron of ExxonMobil when he waged a PR campaign against Greenpeace on their behalf when they were getting a little too successful in terms of making progress against a drilling initiative that ExxonMobil was putting forward. And in 2007, the publishers engaged him for a six month period. They paid him between $300 and $500,000 to come up with a media messaging campaign against the open access movement and that media messaging campaign in memos that were subsequently leaked from some of the publishers to the press and published in the press indicated that they felt that the open access movements message of taxpayer access, equity, fairness, freedom of information was almost bulletproof and what was worse for them, we had right on our side. So rather than trying to debunk the messaging he suggested for half a million dollars that they waged a campaign that we had to defend against. He said the messages don't have to be right as long as it takes the open access movement off of their offensive, their aggressive game and makes them defend and delays their gains. So the messages included things like picture a world without peer review. Open access leads to junk science. I mean there were messages that were ridiculous but that we had to spend time countering and I love the call out quote in the story about when this campaign was exposed in nature that said media massaging is not the same as intellectual debate. So money can also buy distraction and we've definitely seen distractions aplenty and the last story that I wanna tell you just on this vein and I'm not telling you these stories to scare you and you know they're coming for you Larry said they're coming for you but just to try to put into perspective that these things happen but you will successfully be able to overcome them. The open access movement did not fold in 2007 because they spent a half a million dollars on a messaging campaign. We picked up and we went forward we've continued to be successful. Larry had props and Larry was called an egghead and had a cone head and you know as somebody said to me you have to bring props and tell a story about those props and I'm gonna tell you the story but I didn't bring the props and when I tell you the story you'll see why I think I would have gotten weird looks either on the subway or in a taxi this morning if I tried to bring them with me or at the same time that the publishers had hired the pit bull of PR Spark was working with a student organization called Students for Free Culture and it was actually an organization inspired by Larry that work on campaigns that raise awareness of copyright infringement and places that people are trying to really use IP in a negative way to infringe freedom. Students for Free Culture is a student group but they were a successful student group that successfully sued Deebold the maker of the faulty election ballot counting machines that were used in Florida in the infamous 2000 campaign they took Deebold to the Supreme Court I mean these are students who knew how to organize and knew how to get things done they also had some colorful tactics and actually had another action where they were trying to raise awareness and defend the artistic freedom of an artist in Utah named Tom Forsythe who was sued by the Mattel Corporation for a series of photographs that he published depicting Mattel's favorite Barbie in compromising positions with kitchen appliances so their way of raising awareness which proved very effective to raise awareness for artistic freedom was to have a national Barbie in a Blender day of action where they posed Barbie with Barbies with blenders put Barbie in a blender, Barbies with blenders really just to say look this is ridiculous that Mattel is going after this artist you know we get that she's a copyrighted icon but you know come on this is kind of nutty so fast forward we decided we were going to work with students for free culture on a very small initiative we were going to do a national day of action to raise awareness for open access on our campuses card tables in libraries on 11 campuses showing the price of scholarly journals yeah and we issued a press release saying we want people to be aware of this so I've never been called an egghead but I have been accused of being a Barbie blender because of that press release and that national day of action and it was in the Washington Post I woke up the next the morning after the press release went out to this lovely headline research results battle pits PR pitbull against Barbie blenders on the federal page of the Washington Post and that's pretty much how I felt that morning so me on the metro with a Barbie in a blender yeah not happening this morning so don't be scared we keep winning we keep moving forward I hyperventilated it took me days to get over that debacle but we kept moving forward and how do we keep winning and so the last part of my talk I just want to to highlight ways that I think we can keep winning and we can keep winning if we work together we keep building our community in the open access movement we've become a global movement we have representatives we have networks we have people working on open access in just about every country around the globe the open education the OER movement mirrors this this movement merging our communities working collectively making sure we're taking advantage of the boots on the ground where we have common interests I think is crucial for us our community it's so important to note encompasses a broad range of stakeholders not just librarians and people and administrators on our campus but commercial organizations like Google and Microsoft Research work with us patients advocacy groups consumer groups and most importantly student groups early career researchers yesterday there was a comment in one of the questions during the keynote that said you know 20 somethings we can't get them engaged in the open access movement our experience has been exactly the opposite they're the heart and the soul of the open access movement and they are ready and acting today on our behalf in amazing numbers an example is this weekend I had the privilege of spending some time at OpenCon over the weekend run by the student right to research coalition which bought together a group of about 150 students from around the world and the students had to apply and talk about what they knew and what they cared about in open access open education and open data in order to come to the conference and this is a map that the OpenCon organizers put up on their website that shows where the applications came from to get into this meeting the organizers had to turn away 96% of the applicants that came not because they weren't qualified but because they got about 2,000 applications for the 110 slots that they could afford to fill community is all of us community is everywhere and students early career researchers are at the center and the heart and soul of our movement and one of the things that they're helping us to do and that the second strategy that helps us keep winning is to build better resources right we beat the intense entrenched industry not by going out and starting a pack and raising as much money and being able to buy as many lobbyists as they can although raising money doesn't hurt there's nothing wrong with engaging professional lobbyists it's a great strategy but ultimately we win when we build better resources than the ones that we have been that they're providing to us for our communities to work with and in the open access movement as in the open ed movement open textbooks OER we're seeing a proliferation of innovative ventures that are coming along that people are taking up in great number from open access journal projects like a PLOS and E-Life and Peer Jay and Heddawe to repositories that allow us to just motor through preprints like archive this open access button in the upper left hand corner is a student run project that is attacking exactly that scenario of you do your Google search you come up against a paywall what do you do well they're trying to build a solution that not only allows you to register that you've had this problem but also ultimately a solution that will direct you to a freely available copy of that article in the moment so we win when we're able to address the problems head on and build better solutions to bring us out of the system that we're working under and into the system that we've created the vision for and we've created the enabling strategies for the last thing that I want to close on is that we have to be smart about the details of these projects and we've learned this lesson the hard way and the open access movement but we're getting better at it and by details I mean the technical and legal details the community details of building these ventures we have to kind of get out of the mindset of I'm building a project and it's mine I'm building a project and it's the communities right this is to enable the foundation of open to be as strong as possible and most of the groups up here on this slide will work collaboratively around sharing code around sharing technical specs they want their materials to work together to interoperate so that the foundation of open at least in the journal portion of the show is as robust as possible and I think we need to do that across movements as well and one place that I think is a great illustration of being smart about the details and where we're really learning lessons and hard lessons is in terms of getting the licenses right so Creative Commons is the default mode for or go to place for us to find open licenses most of us in the community does it really matter which one we choose and these are the conversations the sort of nitty gritty ones we're having every day in the open access movement across platforms across campuses across developers does it really matter if I use CC buy or CC SA and C do the details of those licenses really have any net effect on how good the product is the system is that we're building in the long run and I want to say that the answer is yes and to just to close with a story that I think illustrates why the answer is yes I'm all full of toys today you got Barbie and now you're getting Lego my story is about Lego right so like I have a 12 year old and like many 12 year olds he's absolutely obsessed with Lego and like most 12 year olds gets his age he's long since passed the state of being satisfied with making just like sort of standard Lego structures and he's moved on to like wanting to get blueprints to do more complicated things and Lego's being a very smart company they recognize that the blocks kind of get old after a while and they feed this obsession in kids his age and they provide these kits which have these great tie-ins to other obsessions like Star Wars of kids his age and so they clamor they really they're dying to get these kits which have standard Lego parts but they also have special characters that you can or pieces that you can only get if you buy these kits so these are like the drivers for why kids want these kits right they want the stormtroopers that populate the things that they're building in their rooms right so if any of you have kids that are of a similar age my bet is that you've seen this happen you your child asks you for this kit it's procured for Christmas or a birthday or you know next report card whatever gets it the Starship is built it's ogled for an appropriate amount of time when ah over it child plays with it and then this happens right at some point said Starship is disassembled and is reassembled to fit some blueprint that exists only in your child's imagination in the massive Star Wars battle that takes place and never goes away on the floor of the bedroom but that's exactly what we want to have happen right we want we want them to work with these things in the way that speaks to them we want them to fuel their imagination to be able to take the pieces apart and put them back together into something that makes sense to them but here's where the open access and open ed movements really need to pay attention at some point you will likely also be with your child in your friendly neighborhood target and said child will discover a fantabulous other kit that he simply must have because it has one of those special parts that's only available in that kit and it will be on the same shelf as Lego only it will be made by mega blocks and then you will and your child will spend an hour in target looking at a Lego brick looking at a mega block looking at a Lego brick looking at a mega block trying to figure out if these two things that look exactly alike are gonna work together and actually stick if you pony up the 2499 for the Star Trek kit if you're like me and my son you'll pull up the specs for Legos and Mega Blocks on your iPhone and you will look at the mathematics and try to decide will this actually work and you will say this is really close they are close they are so so close you'll buy the kit you'll bring it home child will sit on the floor happily humming away assembling new vision in his head of hybrid Lego mega block creation only about an hour or two into the project he'll get up to get a glass of water his foot will hit the structure and it will fold like a cheap block of Parmesan cheese right it will just crumble because even though the specs looked close they're not exact they're almost there but that tiny detail that micron meant that the connection was loose enough that the thing would fold disclaimer is this is not something my kid built only triumphs are allowed to be photographed in our house so I had to go I had to go online and Google pile of Lego right so but I do think that that it's super important right frustration abounds when this happens and this actually happened to us a couple of weeks ago it made me think about the conversations that we're having in the open access community about the relative merits of CC5 versus CCNC and CCSA and whether they were just details that couldn't be worked out later or left to chance and the great mega block Lego hybrid collapse of 2014 really made me believe that the answer is no that these are not small details that they're crucial details that we need to build a foundation for sharing knowledge where the connections are strong enough to hold their original structure but they're also strong enough to hold when they're taken apart when they're used by other people when they're put back together when they're when they're remixed to along with specialized pieces from other people's collections to build a foundation and open access open education OER open data all of us collectively ultimately really need to work together in making sure that we're adopting the same specs at a fundamental technical and legal level in order for us to truly build a robust common open environment in which to share knowledge so that's something that I hope will be conscious of doing as our communities continue to grow and not only intersect but it's my hope to merge and as we go through the next few days of this wonderful conference that those are the opportunities that I'll be looking for and I hope that you all will will use this opportunity to look for similar opportunities thank you so much we have time for questions and they can be about Lego construction because I'm quite the expert at this point yes sorry I took my glasses off and now I cannot see into the audience I have a question from a humanities perspective I'm an English professor but I've actually gotten pretty good at talking about science in terms of scientific journals and paywalls and grant funded public monies that should be sort of getting back to the public but I have actually a hard time thinking about OA in my own field because I'm interested in this independent bookstore versus the multinational Amazon type thing how do we talk about like small press and how do we talk about publishing in humanities what kinds of things do you say there to also just differentiate between full free access but also wanting to support some of those small press endeavors and I feel like a language for you that's a great question and it's a question that we get very often and I think it's really important to differentiate among disciplines they are not all created equal and there really are circumstances in different disciplines that make people approach the idea of open differently and open access does not resonate the same way with an English major or creative writing student as it does to a student who's doing genomic research to a student who's doing genomic research I've got to get access to all this stuff now and there's barriers and the journals are expensive and I'm doing all the work and I'm contributing it and I'm never paid to a creative writing student it's well my English journal is $50 for a quarterly it's really not that big of a burden for me to get access and further the way my discipline works is that ultimately what I'm writing now might be turned into a screenplay or a book or something that I might sell that I might actually get royalties from so the business model that underlies the mechanism to get to open to greater sharing has to be acknowledged and has to be differentiated and I think we're starting to make some good progress at least in the open access movement with inventors like Open Humanities Press that's coming out and really looking at finding the language and finding the incentives to move monographs more English based, humanities based outputs into the open environment in a way that supports the interests of the students that are in that discipline and I think that's absolutely crucial for us I've actually given this an iteration of this talk on campuses and had people kind of come after me and say you're only talking to the science you're only talking to the sciences you're only talking to biological and life sciences and the open access movement has to do better at being inclusive of the humanities and I think we're making some inroads in getting there it's a great question Bookstores that's your you guys purview So, yes Did you comment on predatory journal publishing and is that a threat that has been answered? It's a major concern in a faculty-aligned institution and I'm just finding that there's a turning off to OA because of predatory publishing Yeah, the question was about predatory journal publishers and can I comment on it? I can, I'm gonna censor my language it's a reality, it exists it is a threat to open access I mean, I do think that we cannot minimize the perception the problem that predatory journals are having on many faculty members' perception of open access journals as a high quality acceptable outlet to publish papers When our students, our professors, our faculties are worried that it looks like vanity publishing somebody's paying me to publish an article in a journal and in fact, some journals are out there and that's what they're doing, right? They're issuing solicitations directly into our faculties email boxes saying this journal has this wonderful editorial board and we think you are the greatest thing since sliced bread and the research that you're doing please submit a paper along with $500 and your paper automatically gets published, right? That's taking advantage of somebody who doesn't really know the industry and puts them in a position of saying oh wow, they really want me so it must be good well they're never gonna get the paper's never gonna be cited they're never gonna get credited for it in tenure and promotion their funder's gonna look at it as scants and it does devalue the idea of open access journals so I think there's a couple things that we're trying to work with one sign that the open access movement I think is successful is that we actually now have our own trade association of open access journal publishers, right? Called OASPA when your industry is getting to a maturity level where you have a trade association that can be put into place to ensure best practices and do some of these watchdog things that unfortunately are realities of operating in industry it is a sign of maturity so OASPA is really looking at trying to put in some kind of mechanism that will allow us to have rating systems that will identify predatory journals and flag them as predatory so it is a big issue. Other questions? Yes? You mentioned the OER fed declaration and in OER we have another declaration, the credit declaration and there's an additional OER in which refers to OER in learning and research materials and I think that's created this as that research materials are open access and so that says that open access will be part of open educational results would you agree to this representation? I think we're moving in that direction I mean I really do think that there's no reason for us to think about journals as some separate protected category of material I think there's parameters that are obviously different you know one of the big differences between business models for textbooks and business models for journals is that in the journal world authors have traditionally not been paid for the materials that they contribute to journals and the open access movement isn't looking to change that function in the OER world with textbooks often textbook authors will receive a royalty so the business model that's going to support textbooks has that's being developed rightly looks a little bit different than the business models that are supporting open access journals but the underlying philosophy the underlying technical specs the underlying legal specs I think it's very important that we're consciously working to make them as compatible as possible because we are part of this larger open eco space I do think that we're more the same than different and that we should be looking for those commonalities and building on those similarities to make the open space as strong as possible Other questions? Okay, thank you very much for your time