 Mae'r cherddau. Mae'n gweithio nego'r Llywodraeth ar gyfer o blwyddem yn cael ein lleiol, i fynd i'r arbynnwys i ddod yn cyhoedd Cymru Gweithlethol, sy'n cael ei bod yn gyfodol i'w Llywodraeth neu'r Cyfly tensi. Mae hwn yn gweld i'r gwahanol ond ychydig ar gyfer o'r rhai — y Jagwch, dychydig ar gyfer i'w rhai successau gyda'r cyffredinol, sy'n cael ei gallu gwahodau. Cefnog , adnodd yr arddag hyd yn gwneud o ymgyrchu'r hyfforddiad. Chlyw wnaeth fod yn bach ar gyfer Fawrwyd y rhagor, ac mae'n bach ar gyfer Ythysydd hefyd, sy'n gydig sy'n gwybod ymlaen yr hyd yn gyr Celfa Rhyllfa. Yn gwrs, rwy'n ddiddordeb ac mae'n dechrau. Dwi'n ddelirio i chi yn gwneud i'r llunio, mae'n gweithio yn llyfrin ar gyfer llunio. Dyma hedyn nhw bod ei wneud o heddiogel ynghylch o bobl honи, It should be said, from the outset we are a Gold Open Access publisher, so I'm stepping back in case you want to throw things at that point, but hopefully not. As mentioned, the press was established in 2016 in response to feedback from the academics in the White Noise Institutions. It's open to academics globally to submit proposals. We aren't just there to support the institutions ymrwydd, i ni gynnwys cyflwyniadau'r cy derech, neu yma yn yr wych yn cyfrifol, ac yn cefnodach yn gyfrifol iawn ac yn cael cyfeiddechol cerddaeth, a i ni'r cyfrifol iawn, elin o'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol yn cyfrifol, yn ymditteniaeth i gyd ymgrifol yw'r gwydden. Mae yma yn cael ei gwblau cyfrifol i lystiad cyfeiddechol cyfrifol, yn maen nhw'n iawn, yn cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol i'r cyfrifol iawn i'r cyfrifol iawn, that, adding to the growing commons of academic scholarship. I think that sounds grand don't you? I think if we could just agree on that it would be brilliant. So we are primarily a digital publisher, so sometimes I'm asked why that's different from putting content in a VLE or putting something in a repository under the green open access model or an academic putting a paper on a personal website. And really, most of it is about process. Mae'r rwylo yn dweud inni, yn Rwyfyrdd Rhaid, o'r cyfryd gyda'r ysgolwysiad gweld. Mae'r ddweud yn ddweud yn ei bod yn cael eu cyfrifol. Mae'r cyfrifol yn eistedd yn meddwl ar hyn o'r methu. Mae'r cyfrifol yn ddysgu'r ysgolwysiad yn y ddweud. Mae'r cyfrifol yn cyfrifol yn gwneud. Mae'r cyfrifol yn ddweud, yn gyfrifolwyr yn ddweud, mae'n ymddian o'r ymweld yma'r ysgolio'r ysgolio a'r polisiogau. Mae'n ddweud yma yw unweld ar gyfer y bydd gwahaniaeth yn ymdegol ac mae'n gweithio ymdegol ar gyfer 3 ymddian o unweld yr unweld ac ymdegol a'r ymdegol yw gwerthoedd o'r content i'w ddysgu'r ymddangos a'r ysgolio a'r ddweud yw'n ei wneud. Mae'r llwyddoedd yn ymddangos ymddangos i gylio'r ymddangos rydych chi wedi ceisio roddonyn yn gweithio gael unig arnyntme mewn cyfroedd i arddangos eu credu o ran o'r eimlo i'r ymgyrchio gael yma neu oedd ymgyrchio ramio. Roeddwn i'n gweithio gwiaith. Roedd cymryd yn hyn o'r gwaith ystyried yma azyddiant gyfrifiadau cyfraffwyr yn yr inni. Roedd ymgyrchio'n hyn i oedd yn cymrydol. Roeddwn i ddweud yn cyfrifio sy'n gweithio'r yr ymgyrchio'r ceisio gan dwylo a'r fawr o'r fawr, yn y fformatau sy'n gweithio i'r fawr. Mae'n fawr o'r fawr o'r fawr o'r fawr ar gyfer y bydd. Yn ymdyn nhw'n cymdeithasol, mae'n gweithio i ddweud cyffredinol. Mae'n ddweud i gael chaisolau, ond rwy'n gweithio bod yn gweithio. Mae'n gweithio i ddweud y cwmwyll ymdyn nhw, i gweithio i ddweud y prif, mae'n gweithio i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud, Felly, y cwmysgwisio, y dyfodol ac y cyfnod dechrau ar y dwyg iawn yn y cyfnod ymlaen, ychydig o'r cwmysgwisio, dyfodol ar gyfer y dyfodol a'r cwmysgwisio. Rydym ni'n gwybod, mae'r cwmysgwisio wedi'u ar y dweud i'r cwmysgwisio, yn y profiad ar gyfer y dyfodol ac yn y cyfnod i'r prosesu sy'n arddangos, ac yn ei wneud y cwmysgwisio, y sgwrth ymlaen, yn ôl o'r cyfnod, a'r bysach o'r propozol yn y bydwyd yn ddiwylo'r gweithio'r ffordd yw'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. Yn y cyfnod y bydwyr sy'n gwneud cyflwydoedd, gwmpio gydag popeth, cyfrifredig, ond, ond, ymy'r bydwyr yn ychydig yn gwneud y cyfnod. Y dyna'r un ffordd ymlaen fod yw'r gweithio ac ymlaen am yr eithas. So, why open access, and I don't think I really need to expand on this too much, we've heard lots of reasons in this session, why open access. I think things to emphasise the publishing options for academics in terms of model, people who want to disrupt the ongoing sort of, I don't want to use the word stranglehold but there's, you know, the traditional publishing model is a model and there isn't been a lot of choice to date. As we are a non-for-profit price, we're not really interested in the commercial viability of the proposals we get, we're interested in the quality of the scholarship. So, where we are, we have advantages that we're able to commission things that are very worthy, very important to the field but also are quite niche and potentially wouldn't generate a lot of sales. It may not be commercially viable but it's viable for us. It's key for us about academics retaining the ownership of their work, creative commons licensing is important. And in the conversations I've been having with the academics, it's been quite eye-opening for me the lack of understanding that some of them have about what they do when they publish in the commercial model about ownership. I see heads nodding in this room but it's getting that message further down, I think is interesting. And the other points really about access, removing barriers, the point about people being able to access a scholarship at any point through their journey and also at any point at case of need. So, it may well be that there's a piece of scholarship done studying somewhere a low-income community and they would have no access to the output and that seems strange whereas open access publishing would allow that to be accessible. Wherever it's needed to be read. I'm going to use this point to segue into a discussion about funding. So, we are a Gold Open Access Press and it frustrates me sometimes that this is then automatically described as author pays or pay to publish because I don't think that's necessarily the case. When we form a contract with an author around publication, they contract to provide us with content and we provide them with services. And as part of that, they also contract to source the funding. But our experience is that that funding comes from grant funding, funding from a society particularly where journals are involved as being a society publication. And also from their home institution. So far, we haven't had an example where an author has paid for anything and I don't think it's helpful to talk about it in those terms. As an indicator, our costs are very low, as I say, we're not for profit. So, the costs are exactly the costs necessary to produce the volume to the specification decided on by the author or the editor. And our current average APC is £300 plus V18. Now that depends very much on the services selected for the journal. So, huge disclaimer there, but that gives you an idea of the costs that we are currently seeing. I think it's also worth saying that for our current crop of journals, none of those costs for APCs are actually passed on to the authors that publish with those journals. They're all funded in different ways. That's not a policy decision on our part, it's just how it's worked out. But I do think that's quite a good indicator of how these things would work moving forward. So, how is it actually going for White Rose University Press? We are still very new and in some ways we're still doing baby steps. We have four live journals all with content published. Two of them, the African Cultural Heritage Journal and the Politics and International Relations Journal, are new and were born within White Rose. But the Jesla Journal and the Bioge Journal came to us from other publishing models. In terms of monographs, we have six commissioned monographs and the three titles on the lower shelf of the bookcase. I'm not sure why being a digital publisher, I decided to go with a bookcase slide. But, you know, with hindsight is a wonderful thing. So we've got the blast volume, the Corbyn volume and the two volumes of the Starcom monograph and they're all going to come out in the next couple of months. So we think that that is quite good progress from a standing start in 2016 with no internal workflows, no processes, no brand identity and frankly no idea what we were doing at all. We're working to grow the through advocacy but we already have a steady stream of proposals coming through and going into peer review which at this stage we think really does support the academic feedback that this was something that was needed. Just to show you how one of our journals is performing, sorry. I in no way have picked the slide of the journal with the best stats. No, the Jesla Journal was a journal that existed in a different format previously. It acted as the yearbook for the European Second Language Association Conference and until fairly recently it was only in printed form and they gave it out at the end of their conference every year. So it had limited circulation, I think it was fair to say. So the stats there represent 11 articles that comprise the first volume for this journal under our auspices and they've been published since the first of August last year. So in about six months we've seen this level of usage. We as a press and the journal editors have been very pleased with that. Stuff that's hard, you have to have a stuff that's hard slide in presentations. There's been lots of things that have been challenging about setting up the press. It was founded with absolutely the best of intentions and motivations. It was done with a huge amount of attention to the quality of the output to the structure, to the governance. It was done to support the needs of academics and the wider academic institutions, perhaps even before they were aware of those needs. So in short, it was done by librarians. But librarians are not publishers. I am not a publisher and I wasn't until about 12 months ago. And there have been a lot of challenges involved. You have to learn the language. It uses the same words as the language you think you speak already, but it works in a completely different way. And so using that to build a relationship with the technical providers for the services we use is quite interesting. We've had to learn what academics would actually like and what they need from a publisher from their perspective, rather than perhaps what they've been offered to date by the commercial model. And we've also had to learn in turn what we can realistically expect from the academics that we're working with. And I should note that delivery of a manuscript to an agreed schedule, not one of those things doesn't happen. So it really has been a learning curve. And if you look at the slide, as I documented all this, actually all the things there, it's stuff librarians are good at. It really shows why a lot of the new university presses are housed within library endeavours. But it's not straightforward to translate these things into the publishing arena. And it's no small challenge to set up a press. One piece of learning I would share with you is that proper resourcing is absolutely key. I've got white rose colleagues in the audience nodding at that. Yes, resourcing is key. I've had several conversations with people from other institutions who are in different stages of putting plans around their own university press together because they recognise the need that white rose recognised. And also based within the library, because librarians are fantastic folk that can do all this stuff. And we know this. But my takeaway from all those conversations is that without exception everyone is underestimating the time and the resources and the work involved in making formal publication a reality. There's a huge misconception that academics know what they are doing with publication. And lots of them do. And lots of them understand very well particular stages around the publishing process. But we are finding there is a huge range of knowledge and experience with the people that come to talk to us. And when you feed into something like a different model through open access publishing that just complicates things even further. Why am I telling you this? As we've heard you all know about open access. When we're putting the proposal together to take to our UK about this presentation one of my colleagues said but the room is going to be full of library directors and senior strategists. They know this stuff. And I'm sure that is generally the case which is brilliant. But genuinely your academics don't. The academics that you work with do not know this stuff. And I think you need to start asking yourself where in your organization does the knowledge of this stuff lie. You will all I have no doubt have specialists in this area that provide training for academics that provide training for staff that people go along to if they're interested. And I'm not sure that the skills are actually where we need them to be now. Because I'm going to now talk about the ref. We talked a lot about the ref or we've heard a lot about the ref as a stick. I don't genuinely feel the ref is a stick. I think the ref is a reality and that if we stop thinking about the ref as a problem and a stick it might go a long way to get better engagement from academics around it. Just a thought. In this very room about a month ago because all the best events happened in the British Library there was a university press redux and there were lots of publishers, university presses, commercial publishers in different stages of their development in this room. And Stephen Hill from Hefke mentioned in one of the sessions that there would be an open access requirement for monographs in the next ref, not currently, the next ref. And the place went into uproar. It's astounding, the hand-ringing and the Twitter posts about this is news, it's not news. It's been documented for a little while now. And I think one thing you need to take from this is that the academics that you support who publish commercially that the university presses who work on different models and the commercial presses are not engaged with this as yet. They're really not. Stephen's later blogged around this, slightly confused at the surprise it was displayed. But also to clarify that we don't know what this is going to look like yet. We don't know what it's going to look like for 2021, let's be frank. So we've got no clue for what's happening next time. But it seems clear that an open access monograph requirement will be a thing for the 2025-27 ref. So we need to start thinking about it and equipping the academics. And in some ways, I think we've made a bit of a rod for our own back with this. We've put a lot of work as libraries into creating the act on acceptance culture. And it's been successful. And part of that is because it's very clear. It's part of the process that people are familiar with. It's an extra step, there's nothing to be frightened of. And it means that you meet your thunder requirement and all the things that we know is necessary around it. But it doesn't really tell the academic about open access. It kind of hides it within their existing workflows. And it makes it just an annoying extra step that they have to go through. And I think this could now cause us problems and we need to start thinking about how to take it forward differently. We're very good as librarians at telling people what they need to know to achieve, what they need to achieve with minimum first. We all do it from undergraduate induction through to whatever it is we're talking about. We don't give people the big picture. We give them the slice they need to work through it. And I think that the slice people need is now expanded and we need to look at it differently. Because my experience in talking to people with my publisher hat on, which is a lovely hat, by the way, it's got feathers, is that authors are not equipped for the open access monograph environment. And I think it's probably worth considering what potential models that could look like. Because I struggle with an open access monograph model that mirrors the act on acceptance we see for journals. I struggle with seeing how you could put an embargo period on a monograph that is relevant in terms of the publisher needs, but also in keeping the content worth looking at when the monograph is then made open access later. I don't think a year is going to cut it for a monograph. So we're moving into the area of real challenges, actual things that we need to think about. And I hate to tell you this but I think these are going to be shared challenges across different areas of the sector. We need to support academics as they move through the open access landscape, but in a meaningful way now. We need to, going on what was said by Melanie, they need to understand the benefits. They need to know about how the Creative Commons license lets them retain ownership of their work. They need to know about how the terms they set around that can enable their work to live on and be used and be built on in further research. So the maximum value can be brought out of everything that's out there. They need to know about the benefits to themselves of a collaborative pool of scholarship that they could dip into. They need to understand that open access publishing isn't vanity publishing, but is a viable academic press option. There is a good deal of work to be done to embed open access publishing into the wider environment. As a press, we deal with all sorts of issues around the vanity press accusation and we use our processes to fend that off. But in practical terms it's very difficult for an academic to get the right licence to publish their party content in an open access publication because all the licences refer to printments of 1,500 copies or licences for 2,000 ebooks. That just doesn't suit our model. We don't print that number and we don't licence it, we just give it away because that's the point. Institutions that own lots of content like museums and galleries and libraries are not necessarily up to speed with that. It makes it difficult for academics who want to go down this route. We're working with someone who's got lots of images in a volume and they threw their hands up at one point and said, wouldn't it just be so much easier if all this stuff was open access? Yeah, yeah, it would, it really would. Funding. I don't have a solution for the broader funding going back to the point about the radical adoption of open access as the proper model rather than as a kind of theoretical choice. There are a couple of places, a couple of things happening that are testing the area we heard yesterday in passing about the Tome project in the US towards an open monograph ecosystem, apparently, which I think is very catchy. Under this, publishing costs would be met by university-funded grants and they're estimating a monograph at $15,000, a university that signs up would commit to funding three of these in a year for five years, I think, and then the author could take that funding to any open access press that they wanted to. There are very, it'll be interesting to see how that works out, I think, but it's still going to be a drop in the ocean. Again at the Redox event a month ago, Frank Smith from JSTOR extrapolated on that and did some calculations. These are rough calculations, he said at the time, and I'm going to say that again, so please don't pin any hopes necessarily on the figures I'm about to say. He estimated that in America there were 4,000 monographs a year published and to make 50% of that output open access would require $30 million of funding. That sounds like a lot, doesn't it? But if you divide that across all the US HE institutions, that works out at $10,000 each. For that, that would fund 50% of the scholarly monograph output of the states. It would give you access to that and it would fund global distribution of that output and I think that's quite a bargain actually. So I'm not sure those are accurate, but even if they're ballpark it's an interesting thought and it would be very interesting to know what the figures would look like for the UK and how they confirm to the budget that you spend on content. Because if we can make it work, it's going to be really cool.