 Hey, everyone. Thanks for watching my video. I'm Nadia Lagasse. I'm the Associate Executive Director at NISO, and I want to tell you about a few projects that we are starting up this fall. So without further ado, here we go. My outline today has a little description and talk about how trust is affected in our information ecosystem and the role that standards and industry recommendations play in support of this. And I also want to tell you about the project scope specifically, but just a little bit about NISO. NISO, my organization, is the National Information Standards Organization. We create and manage technical standards and recommendations for our information community. We enable libraries, publishers, and vendors to collaborate and solve problems of mutual interest by providing a neutral forum in which they can engage and build consensus. We're starting up two projects to be created by working groups made up of community stakeholders, and these working groups will create NISO-recommended practices that will help guide industry efforts in particular spaces. So I'll dispense with the suspense. One project has a apt acronym, correct, and that means correct communication of retractions, removals, and expressions of concern. The other has no acronym, only a specific long title, integrating publisher and repository workflows to improve data article links, but it also is very accurate and specific. So to begin, about the world we live in and the role of trust against misinformation and our everyday systems, I think in 2021 we're all well aware of how the spread of misinformation affects so many aspects of our work and personal lives. And I also know that many of you watching this video take very seriously your important role in combating this modern calamity. So thank you so much for all you do. I believe that most of us in our industry also value openness and transparency, and our daily work focuses on areas of these. So when systems are disconnected and priorities vary, some disappointing and discouraging effects come about through no one's fault. This screenshot from a recent article in The Economist is one related example of the inadvertent effects of our current infrastructure. Those certain articles may be found after publication to have different issues that prompt retraction notices or related notes such as expressions of concern. It's difficult to communicate this information about them into the scholarly ecosystem. There's no agreed upon process to share information about this type of status. And unfortunately, once a problematic article is cited, it may simply continue propagating. We're also separately where publication data is stored in repositories and disconnected from its related formal output, ensuring that these relationships are recorded and updated when necessary, often by unrelated parties. That becomes unwieldy and costly. And that also degrades faith in systems and professional communications. So ultimately, where we all agree that our scientific and scholarly output needs to be trusted and used and reused with confidence, if we can all agree on standard mechanisms for better sharing of the information we all track, we will be better off as a society. And that's not an understatement. So for these two projects, where did they come from? Who was out of them? First, a little bit of background about our organizational processes here. So in 2019, NISO merged with one of our sister organizations, NFACE. And we took over the meeting that was formerly known as the NFACE Conference. This was usually held on the third weekend in February in Philadelphia. NISO reformulated this meeting to become less sage on the stage and much more discussion-oriented, with speakers and sessions tracking different developments in scholarly communication, with ample time for facilitators to guide audience discussions on actions to be taken by the community. We didn't want the meeting simply to be, oh, we'll talk about these problems and then go back to our lives. We wanted to pull together the expertise that we were gathering and think about what actions could be taken following the conference. The inaugural NISO Plus event with about 200 participants was held in person in February 2020 in Baltimore just before the pandemic struck. So naturally, NISO Plus 2021, this last February, was a virtual event, but with 850 participants from 26 different countries. And as you might guess, the 2021 virtual event spurred a lot of new energy simply due to this diversity of voices. It was really exciting. All of the sessions generated a few dozen potential ideas for action. And NISO staff tracked and discussed these with our leadership groups in the weeks following the conference, and we chose several to follow up on. So I'm going to be talking just about these two that I've mentioned so far. So one of these two NISO projects, correct, and again, that stands for communication of retractions, removals, and expressions of concern, stemmed from the NISO Plus session on misinformation in general. Jody Schneider of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, managed a panel discussion on her work on risers. Her work, her project stands for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. And the goal of the risers project is to figure out how to reduce the inadvertent citation and reuse of retracted science. Schneider's research covered detailing harm associated with retractions, intervention points for stopping its spread, the different classes of retracted research, and impediments to open access to dissemination of retracted status and retraction notices. The risers project, which was just published, and you can see all of that information on the URL on this slide, came up with four main recommendations. First, to develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions. Second, recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories and classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders. Third, develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes. And last, educate the stakeholders about publication correction processes, including retraction, and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record. So the NISO Plus participant discussion following that session was very enthusiastic about putting the risers' outputs into action. Our second new project, integrating publisher and repository workflows to improve research data article links, had its originations at the NISO Plus session on research data describing sharing, protecting, and saving. There were two talks in that session describing various aspects of aligning data policies and the difficulties of ensuring accurate links between published outputs and supporting related datasets. So the discussion following this session honed in on the data publication connections as a problem that needed attacking. But how do we get from this is something someone to do something about to an actual NISO project? The NISO leadership, that includes NISO staff and our leadership groups made up of volunteers from the community, used different scoring methods to identify the potential projects. But then NISO working groups, and not to mention our voting members, need more than just good ideas to start work. We need something that's a proposal overly fleshed out explanation. So during the NISO Plus post-session discussions at NISO Plus, we took the opportunity and asked the conference attendees who were doing the discussing if they would be interested in joining any follow-up discussions where we have them. And so after we decided which projects to advance, we contacted these new volunteers to schedule a few Zoom sessions, which took place in April, May, and June of this year. Since these were the same participants who had identified the urgency of the issue, they had motivation and relevant expertise to help flesh out project scope. Each discussion group had about three meetings over that time period, and they used this time to brainstorm the problem space and develop a narrative document which was then reformulated into the NISO work item proposal form. It's our general form, and that's essentially a business case that the working group is using when it starts work, but it's also used to shepherd through the approval process as we approve processes at NISO. So I'll provide a little bit more specific information about the scopes of these two projects. First of all, for correct. Once a decision is made to retract to withdraw or to publish an expression of concern by an appropriately authorized organization, how do the scholarly communications ecosystem and other information consumers become aware of and share information about the status of the original object? This working group will focus on the metadata elements and relationships that affect the communication of and awareness of retraction. The specifics of the metadata that are most relevant to the retraction will be defined by the group, and this working group will not address questions of what a retraction is or why an object is retracted. That is completely outside the scope. You'll see some of the intended outputs listed on this slide, really focusing on the metadata, the channels for distribution, who's responsible, what kinds of visibility, how can that be made more visible in the process, and of course making an illustrated workflow process to help show the adopters how this all might work. Others are very active in the retraction space, of course, no surprise. COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, has published guidelines on retraction. Force 11 maintains a committee on data ethics, and similarly, many publishers have teams working on questions of research integrity and ethics. Crossref and preprint repositories will be involved, too. For the Publisher Repository Interoperability Project, inclusion of links to data sets are meant to encourage data citation and reuse, especially when we are all focusing on open data, but it's still very difficult to understand what data is associated and how it's been associated. As well, any development of metrics to better understand what articles have used what data, these are impossible as long as the links remain unreliable and inconsistent, especially the inconsistent part. This working group will make recommendations to ensure that link creation happens as a matter of course, include precision in the citation types and context for the links, and notify on changes so each end can keep track of things. These links are intended to be bi-directional, so publishers would link to repositories, and repositories linking to publishers, and metadata focused as well. Many people who've looked at this proposal have observed that it does seem a bit ambitious. I think the last line may be the most ambitious element, something that's easy, scalable, simple, automated, and ensuring widespread adoption. That will be the challenge, but it's a very exciting project as well. Of course, NYSO is not the first organization to work on this issue. I show anyone who works with data and publications knows about these problems. We hope to engage others, such as the RDA-Scollex Initiative, Jats for our Practitioners Chorus, the Notify Project at the Confederation of Open Access Repositories, etc. What's happening? What's next? I mentioned the NYSO Plus took place in February. These groups were discussing brainstorming through April, May, and June, put the proposals together. They went through the NYSO approval process with our topic committees and our voting members that I'll end in September. Since then, we've announced them publicly in order to solicit interest in serving on the working groups. We have a lot of interest for both of these. Now, putting the working groups together, I hope by the time that you view this video, we will have them underway, planning to have them start in December and January. They will be working definitely throughout 2022 on their own timetables, their own scales, and hopefully have some outputs for draft review in early 2023, mid 2023, draft for public comment before we finalize and publish these recommended practices in 2023. So, I hope that you will stay in touch. For more information, the URLs on this slide with the document ID space link to the work item proposals, these are the business cases, these proposal forms that work through the NYSO process. You can find a longer description about each of these projects. If you subscribe to NYSO Info on Twitter, you will be kept up to date on not just this, but all of ours, but you will find out more information and you can also subscribe to the NYSO mailing list. So, my contact information, if you have any questions, is on this slide. I hope that you will stay in touch and I hope that everyone has a great C&I. Take care.