 It's all about the open library, something I think is dear to all of us, we're all passionate about knowledge and sharing that knowledge and making it as accessible as possible. And in this day and age, openness is part of that and ensuring that our collections, knowledge and skills get out there that people can make the most of it. It's accessible and reusable and lies very much at the heart and core of what a lot of libraries are engaged in. So I'm absolutely delighted that in this session, we're not just covering open access publishing, which is where most people jump to when we talk about open, but also open educational resources and something that's very close to my heart, open software as well, with a healthy dose of partnership thrown in from what I can see from our different speakers and summaries. So I think again something really important to enable us to be open. So I'd like to welcome our first set of speakers. And we have Maria and Helen from the University of Sheffield. Welcome both of you and they'll be talking about the work that they're doing to realise the potential of open educational resources and bringing much more inclusive, diverse and sustainable curriculum to us, which also brings with us lifelong learning and CPD opportunities. I'm really curious to hear more about it and welcome to both of you. Maria. Thank you very much, Kirsty. Well, I'd like to start by talking about some of the drivers for the work that we've been doing in Sheffield. The first is the university vision for education in the university. One of the strands that is digital experience aspiring to design an inclusive digital learning environment that enables all our students to engage effectively in their learning. And we think that OER because they can be made available to all students without restriction and can be reused and adapted to provide relevant and inclusive material for programs. They can help to realise that vision. And this is particularly important to think in the light of some of the restrictive and unsustainable access models used by some publishers for digital textbooks. And I know that's been a challenge for a lot of us in the sector. One of the core principles of our content strategy here in Sheffield is to provide ethical, sustainable and open access to resources and we believe that OER can help us to deliver this. Open access for research outputs has now become the norm. And we'd like to see this develop in the learning and teaching space as well. So the open scholarship and open education are just as widely practiced and understood as open research practices. The use and creation of OER can provide opportunities for colleagues to develop their academic careers, particularly for those with research and teaching or specialist teaching contracts. And the academic career pathways that we have here in Sheffield already recognise this and we anticipate that more support will be needed in the area in the future. And then finally, there's the global dimension following the adoption of the UNESCO recommendation on OER. So the UNESCO recommendation on OER was adopted in 2019, November 2019, with the aim of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development goal four. And this calls for the international community to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. And the recommendation is the first international normative instrument to embrace the field of openly licensed materials and technologies in education. And it encourages action at institutional as well as national level across all educational sectors. So the recommendation incorporates five areas of action for member states to address, and you can see these on our slide. And in Sheffield, we've used the five areas to inform the development of our work. And in the presentation, we're going to expand on what we've done in each area so far. The first review of progress on implementing the UNESCO recommendations currently underway, member states were required to submit a report by the end of January 2023. And we're hoping to find out more about the UK government's response in due course. So the first area of action is building capacity of education stakeholders to create access, reuse, adapt and redistribute where we are. And in Sheffield this started with a lot of conversations to raise awareness, not just within the library but more widely in the institution as well. Particularly during the pandemic, our faculty engagement team talked to a lot of module leaders about the challenges of providing digital access to their recommended textbooks. And we drew their attention to open textbooks that could be incorporated into reading lists alongside commercially published material. And we found that colleagues were generally unaware of the restrictive models used by many publishers, and they were willing to consider open alternatives. We also talked to our colleagues in relevant professional services, including our learning and teaching professional development support service, and other individuals that we thought would have an interest in OER. And more recently we're helping to build capacity by making funding available for small grants to support colleagues who want to start using or creating OER in their teaching. And these are promoted on our OER webpage. At a regional level, we've just completed a research project with our White Rose Libraries partners to scope the levels of awareness of OER in our institutions, and the support needs associated with that. During the project, we conducted a survey and interviews with academic colleagues, and the documentation from the research project is available within the toolkit that we produced as a final project output. The toolkit provides guidance and information about finding, adapting, creating OER, as well as information about licensing. And it can be used by library and academic staff. It's got a CC by license and colleagues are very welcome to reuse it in their own institutions if they want to. So the recommendation also encourages member states and institutions to develop policy environments to support OER. And I'd like to move on now to talk a little bit about developing the OER policy that was adopted in Sheffield recently. We knew that OER aligned with the University Vision for Education, and it's been a key priority in the library action plan during 2022-23. We also knew from the SPARC annual survey of open education in European higher education libraries that policies are important enabling factors. And through the SPARC survey report, we were able to access some existing policies from several UK institutions, including Edinburgh and Leeds. So we did the White Rose Libraries project survey, just over 50% of respondents said that they would welcome an enabling policy in their institution. And all of this evidence prompted us to look at how we could develop a policy for Sheffield. So with the support of our leadership team, we wrote a briefing paper to introduce the benefits of OER and recommend the adoption of an institutional policy. We also did a draft policy that was informed by Practice Elsewhere. We also used a policy development tool that's been created by OER practitioners in the USA. And our director of service shared the paper with our vice president for education who was keen for it to progress as quickly as possible. And we got the go ahead to take it through the internal committee process. And I think we were fortunate with the timing. It was ideal really, it coincided with the development of a new university intellectual property policy. And also our research publications and copyright policy rights retention policy with clear connections between all three. And this probably contributed to the policy working its way through the internal process very quickly. And we got Senate approval for that policy in December last year. So moving forward, we'll be working in partnership with the University Digital Education Advisory Group to raise awareness of the policy across the university and to support its use. And at this point I'm going to hand over to my colleague Helen. Thank you. So the third area of action identified by UNESCO is to harness appropriate technology solutions to support strategies and programs that facilitate the use of OER for all maximizing equitable access, co-creation, curation and searchability. Each of these areas presents a challenge in themselves, and this is definitely working progress. One of the early decisions we took was to pilot press books as a tool to support the use and creation of OER. And we promote this platform as a self-guided approach and explain to authors how it complements other open publishing routes. We opted for press books because it's a well-established platform and it's used extensively to publish material in book form. One of our other authors is currently experimenting with hosting his open textbook on GitHub as well. So regardless of whether our authors choose to use press books or not, we asked them to consider issues such as export options, ensuring they choose a platform which will allow other people to download their OER in various formats just to maximize reuse. So in press books, for example, you can download material in formats such as e-pop, PDF and various other formats. We also asked them to consider accessibility issues. We want to make sure that OER can be used by the broadest possible audience. So the OER needs to be in an accessible format. So for example, we ask people to consider whether it can be read by a screen reader, whether the text can be magnified, and whether there's alt text present as well for images. And we ask them also to consider longer term preservation. What happens to the resource if the platform is no longer available? We want to promote ethical, sustainable, diverse and inclusive collections. An OER means we're not constrained by what commercial publishers choose to publish. OER can exclude material in niche subject areas, voices from the global south, material in less common languages, and material from marginalized communities. As Maria has mentioned before, at every opportunity, our team of liaison librarians highlights potentially useful new open textbooks to appropriate members of staff in the departments they support. And we mentioned one particular Canadian example here published using press books that could widen the reading for introductory criminology modules, making it more inclusive. One of the areas where we've encountered difficulties is around the topic of discoverability. So we're an ex-Libris institution, and at the moment it would be very difficult for a member of teaching staff to search pre-mail for, for example, the book on criminology with a CC license that will allow them to modify it to suit the local curriculum. Not only is it difficult to display license information, but you cannot easily filter the results by license type. We're also having lots of discussions locally about what open material is activated within pre-mail. There's a tension between including enough to be useful, but not so much that it overwhelms our own holdings. The fourth area of action is supporting and encouraging the creation of sustainability models for OER at national, regional and institutional ways, and the planning and pilot testing of new sustainable forms of education and learning. Somebody mentioned our content strategy, which articulates a set of principles around being user-centered, open, transparent, inclusive, sustainable and ethical. Taking this approach has enabled the library to support open initiatives, both within our own institution and beyond. Maria mentioned earlier the funding scheme we have open to teaching colleagues who would like to explore OER. The new OER policy has already encouraged a whole department to look at sharing more of its teaching material outside the institution. I must stress that OER is also a whole library effort as we tap into the expertise of people from other teams. Other teams include our content team, scholarly communications team, metadata and digital preservation, and we're slowly building it into workflows across the library. Working with our regional wide-range partners has brought many benefits, not least that we've been able to avoid duplicating efforts and take advantage of our collective knowledge. We anticipate that this project will be the catalyst for other collaborative work to support the use and creation of OER. At a national level, there are other people working in this space. Sussex, for example, has recently published a psychology textbook using press books, which will be used as a core text in its undergraduate programs. We're promoting this at Sheffield and would encourage others to do the same. We've had discussions with several others who are considering setting up an OER service at their institution, and nationally it seems it might be a good time to pull this practice together. This goes final area of action. It's about working collaboratively beyond national borders. So many overseas networks exist in the area of OER, and we have engaged with those listed here on various levels. In Europe, Libre has a relatively new working group looking at educational resources broadly, but has a focus over the next two years on open textbooks specifically. The INOAL group has been responsible for creating many valuable practical resources to help authors and librarians get started with OER. Its website is worth a visit if you're contemplating creating your own material just to make sure you're not duplicating something that already exists. Further afield, we know that open education is very well established in North America, and we've been able to benefit from the expertise of open education advocates there. Initially by joining mailing lists, and more recently by being part of both the Open Education Network and the Press Books community. The OER in particular has been very welcoming and keen to understand the drivers for the OER market in the UK. So often so now we haven't mentioned students who are at the heart of why we're pushing forward with OER. One of our drivers is the provision of material to support not only students while they are at university, but afterwards too. Material that is readily available, that's inclusive and that's accessible by all. To this end, we've recently recruited four student interns to work with us, and with their program leads to look at what's already available in those disciplines, and to see whether any of it is appropriate as course reading. Maximising the existing use of systems such as Simplectic could help our institution to assess how many teachers are taking advantage of the opportunities offered by OER. And we're currently exploring whether authors can use Simplectic to record their teaching outputs, as well as their research outputs. Although we've described how we're embedding OER in appropriate library workflows, we are still seeking to increase our capacity to support the service. At this point in time it's unlikely we'll have a dedicated OER librarian post, but it's something that we continue to make a case for. Thank you for listening. Thank you so much Helen and Maria. That was really excellent oversight of this particular area and topic with some really great links to various different resources. And please do if you've got questions from Maria and Helen, pop them in the Q&A and then we'll pick them up at the very, very end, but that was fascinating. And as I suspected, collaboration and working jointly, I think will be a bit of a theme that comes through today's session. So next I'm delighted to be welcoming Ian and Scott from the University of Manchester Library, where they're going to be talking about how they've been supporting open research for engaging with open source software, something I'm quite passionate about. And I'm really excited to hear a bit more about their development of a new open research tracker application and how that's going to enable them to share their aspirations and hopes around open research platforms, which I think we would like to see more of, but are always challenging in their inception. So over to Ian and Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Kirsty. So before we launch into our discussion on growing open research through open source software at Manchester, just wanted to start explaining where Scott and I fit into the wider library structure. Scott and I both work in the directorate of research and digital horizons in the library. I lead the digital development team and Scott leads the research services team as well as being the head of the office for open research. We're in the same directorate as our teams have a history of working closely together on the development of innovative research support applications. So for our presentation today, we're going to cover different aspects of open research at Manchester. I'll be talking about our growing engagement with open source software and Scott will reflect on the current and future state of our research platforms that will have a common focal point around open source software and research tracker application that has just been released. So in many ways, the recent drive towards open research follows in the footsteps of the long established open source software movement which gathered pace in the 1990s, and which according to the Boston Consulting Group, a couple of years back is now a strategic necessity in a fast changing digital world. And as a team of developers, we've been aware of open source software for a long time and various individuals in my team have been involved with open source projects at various points in their career. But as an internal team developing a range of bespoke software applications, including a wide range of research support applications, we've generally defaulted developing closed source systems. So I've been thinking quite a lot recently about why this has been the case, why we haven't more readily gone down the open source route historically, despite being aware of the theoretical benefits, as well as what the catalyst has been for a recent change in approach. So reflecting on what might have held us back in the past, a number of possible reasons suggest themselves. So this could include simply habit. We're good at doing things in a certain way at university just because that's the way they've always been done. Another idea was that as an embedded domain focus development team, we've often developed software, the librarian is doing very specific tasks, maybe specific to our library, using specific technology, maybe specific to our library. So what we developed sometimes has little or no relevance outside of our local environment and setting. So the incentive sharing hasn't always been there. And even if another library is interested in what we've done, or think it might help them, we don't always have the resources to adapt that software to be usable in a different environment if it's strongly tied to our local processes or systems. Making legacy software usable so external users can involve considerable effort to decouple from bespoke integrations or proprietary technology and requires good documentation to make it easily usable outside of the local context. So again, the incentive hasn't always been there. Historically open source software has often been accompanied by passionate evangelizers who sometimes saw the movement as a battle between good and evil. Now many large proprietary vendors adopt open source software Microsoft themselves own GitHub, and it's not so clear cut and leadership in our library is tended to be more pragmatic about what is the most appropriate in the circumstances, rather than taking an ideological position on strengths and weaknesses. So having said all that, we have turned the corner recently and have started deliberately taking a more proactive approach to opening up access to our own software. And it stems partly from our recent involvement in two major collaborations. So I'm going to use one of them as a running example of what's motivated us to change our direction. And that's a project that we've been running with Harvard and Stanford University on the development of the open source email archiving application EPAD. So we've really benefited as a library from EPAD being open source, our special collections team wanted our help in utilizing it. There was no way we could build something equivalent ourselves in scratch. There was no off the shelf solution that did exactly what we wanted. So we were able to take an adaptive to meet the needs of our users without enormous amounts of effort. As an advanced tool, EPAD already did much of what our users wanted as the original developers were addressing issues common to the email archiving community. Our use of EPAD gradually caught the attention of the original developers, which ultimately led to a desire to collaborate on future enhancements, which led to a shared grant application and the combining of our expertise and resources, and ultimately a shared responsibility, which has led to the achievement of greater things than any of us could do individually, benefiting a much greater number of people. There have also been many beneficial side effects from being involved in such a venture, not least simply learning from others, how they approach work differently, what techniques, tools and processes they use, how they collaborate. But the key to it for us was the experience, experiencing the good things that come out of an open source project firsthand, not as a set of theoretical benefits, but as part of something that's sometimes challenging, but ultimately is a journey of growth discovery and relationship. And which referring them back to the Boston Consulting Group quote, this happens to coincide with our strategic goals of our library. So having experienced this, we started thinking about how we could then apply some of these lessons to our involvement with the various research support and administrative systems and applications, a number of which have been developed internally. And we began making tentative steps in this direction through the open sourcing of some code we wrote to retrieve data sets from the Scolics API, based on a list of target publication DOIs, which we shared at the open air conference a few years back, and which you can now find on our GitHub site. After this, we made a decision to open source one of our key internal applications known as the Open Access Compliance Platform or OACP. This application was developed a number of years ago as an extensible tool to support our research services team in managing and monitoring the submission of research outputs and compliance with the university's various OA policies. We did a technical refresh of the platform last year, including some changes to support the new UKRI policy on peer reviewed articles, and also added this to GitHub. Most recently, we've developed a new application, which is similar in some ways to the OACP and utilizes the same underlying database. But crucially, whereas the OACP started conceptually as a back office application, the goal of the open research tracker is to open up this information to a wide range of end users, including library staff, faculty admin staff, as well as the researchers themselves. So it's geared towards an open approach in the specific functions of support, as well as in the underlying code. And at this point, I'm going to hand over to Scott to give some more insights on the open research tracker, why we developed it and our future hopes for it. Thank you. Thanks Ian and hello everybody. Yes, so the open research tracker is a new open source application developed by Ian's amazing team in partnership with our libraries research services team. And it's available to university staff from this month on the University of Manchester office for open research website. The app receives a dynamic feed of journal article records from the open access compliance platform OACP that Ian mentioned, and that system gets its feed from our Chris system pure. The OACP allows the library to manage records using custom metadata fields unavailable in pure. So it enables us to include information like data accessibility statements, whether a paper is available under the university's new rights retention position, or Diamond OA or any specific read and publish deals. And these records are then surfaced through the tracker. And throughout this part of the presentation, I'll discuss our long term goals for further integrations with external systems beyond pure. So the tracker offers a read only view of the records in the OACP. So individual researchers can log in and view their records that have been accepted after the first of January this year. And around 160 or so users with research admin or leadership roles can access all the records in the tracker. And this slide displays the filters that are available at launch to admin users. So it includes the old rules, REF compliance, OA route, the organizational unit within the university, if you particularly interested in one part of the university, and any of the listed funders you can filter on. The app's self service model allows researchers to monitor their open access funding request status when they've requested funding, and it streamlines access to the information we hold in a transparent way. It also facilitates real time sharing of the information across the university and how OA is being achieved across the across the different disciplines and enables self service organization level reporting on compliance with funder open access policies and all of this that fosters a more transparent approach to managing university research output data. While we initially keep the data behind authentication, our medium term goal is to develop the tracker further to publicly share aggregated open research reports, and we may also explore sharing record level information through the public view with appropriate moderation controls. So the tracker is an integral part of our open research strategic action plan, and hopefully it already adds value to the university with its current feature set. We're starting small, but we hope that this will become a key part of our infrastructure as the open research movement develops pace. In our current development phase, we're building an integration with our commercial tools to bring in research data records with a similar fully customized set of fields. So for example, we'd like to record what exactly is in the data accessibility statements that are in articles, and then we can report on that information too. As Ian mentioned, the tracker is the latest piece of infrastructure that we've developed within the library to enhance and augment our processes. On this slide now you can see a flowchart sort of walkthrough and the boxes shaded in violet are the commercial systems that we buy in, and the unshaded boxes are the applications that we've developed within the library. So I won't get too much on this, but just to illustrate the sort of ecosystem you've got. Fig share in the top left, which is our data repository that gets harvested by data monitor, which is an Elsevier integration tool, which in turn pushes records into pure, which is our Chris system. Alongside that we've developed to what we call gateway services, which are sort of on lightweight forms that allow researchers to share their accepted manuscripts or DOIs for data. And then the library's research services team does a mediated deposit into pure on their behalf. Pure then feeds article records into OACP on a dynamic basis, and over the next couple of months, once we launch the feature, it will also feed data records into OACP. OACP then does a few clever things. On a nightly basis, it sends all of the DOIs of unpublished manuscripts through to the Crossref API, and any positive results get returned as a potential published record for processing. The OACP also sends through article data to a tool called Scholasy and it receives article insights. I'll mention more about that in the next slide. And all the information then in OACP is as of this month pushed through to the Open Research Tracker, which is our attempt to make the data that we hold more visible, transparent and useful. So I mentioned that the Open Research Tracker. Oh, I've got the wrong slide there. So, so traditionally the final published research article has been considered a primary focus of our collection development. However, the Open Research Movement has highlighted the importance of a more diverse range of research outputs, including data sets, software methodologies, protocols and many more. And as we integrate more of these output types into the tracker, that could serve as a stepping stone towards a modern research collection of the university's Open Research workflows, moving beyond the traditional focus on final published research articles and outputs. Ultimately, this approach offers the potential for a catalogue of fully reproducible research workflows that could be programmatically harvested and also made available as a discrete collection. I mentioned in the slide before last about Scholasy and so the Open Research Tracker features integration with that tool. It's a technology company that uses machine learning to extract structured data and knowledge summaries from scholarly content. And through this partnership, we can provide users with an article insights tab for papers, which summarizes the key points and insights, as well as passing structured information about methodologies, pre registrations and any funding acknowledgments which are present within the paper. And this feature really very experimental. It demonstrates the potential for the Open Research Tracker to integrate with other research tools and technologies and support innovative ways of managing and analyzing open research outputs. So while we are in this experimental phase, the article insights tab is only appearing on personal user zone records. At the core of our approach to fostering a more open and sustainable research infrastructure, we have designed our application around the university's open research principles and aims, rather than those of large for profit companies. The tracker supports greater transparency and accountability around our data, ultimately contributing to a more accessible and equitable research landscape for all. To ensure the tracker aligns with the university's open research aims, it's clearly crucial to establish suitable governance to guide its development strategically and that's our focus right now. We're arraignment to have that in place by summer. And based on our previous experiences, as Ian described, we're also very open to collaborating with other partner universities to develop this platform as we move forward. And finally, the Open Research Indicator framework is a key project within our strategic open research action plan, which aims to model and report data for a better understanding and support of open research practices. A key step towards achieving this goal is the development of the tracker, which enables a more holistic approach to open research management and tracking. As we advance our efforts, the intention is for the tracker to serve as the primary source of quantitative open research measures within the Open Research Indicator framework, further solidifying our commitment to promoting accessible and transparent research practices. Thank you very much both Ian and Scott. That was fascinating, not just supporting open research, but also supporting open source. And again, if I can encourage everyone to pop the questions into the Q&A, and we'll pick them up at the very end of this session. But again, really fascinating insight. And again, that sort of partnership of working with different elements across the university being key to developing such shared services. So we've now got shared service partners as pioneers, and I'm delighted to be able to welcome Rebecca Vachoska, an Open Access Publishing Officer at the University of Edinburgh. And she's going to be very much talking about Open, Edinburgh Diamond, which is the Open Access hosting service which they offer to staff and students who wish to publish books and journals. I'm excited to see this as this was something I saw come to fruition in my former role and it's lovely to be hearing about it here in my current role at York. So over to you, Rebecca. Lovely. Thank you very much, Kirsty. Can you hear me okay? Yes, that's fine. Yes, perfect. Thank you. So yeah, hi everyone, I'm Rebecca. I'm the University of Edinburgh's Open Access Publishing Officer and I'm based in the scholarly communications team. So just a quick apology from me. I do have someone building some furniture up so if there's banging and buzzing, that's what that is. I'm not my house isn't being broken into or anything. So today I'm here to talk about our service, Edinburgh Diamond, as well as the growth of our shared hosting service which works with multiple institutions all around Scotland. So I thought I'd start just with a bit of background about Edinburgh Diamond as a service first. So Edinburgh Diamond is a hosting service situated within Edinburgh University Library. We provide a hosting solution for academics and students who wish to publish. Pardon me, I just had COVID. I wish to publish Diamond Open Access books, journals and conference proceedings. So Edinburgh Diamond began life as the Library Journal Hosting Service and was launched in 2009 using Open Journal Systems or RGS. And just very quickly for those of you who don't know, RGS is open source software from the Public Knowledge Project or PKP. We do still use RGS and we have quite a lot of in-house knowledge about it because of this because it's been the same person who has worked on it from the very start. And we've got over a decade's worth of experience there. We launched the book side of the hosting service in October 2021. And we now have seven books and that includes textbooks, reports, an edited collection. And we even have a cookbook and colouring books. So hopefully that shows the kind of breadth of the types of books that we're hoping to host. We use Open Monograph Press or OMP for that. And that is also open source software from PKP. So we rebranded as Edinburgh Diamond in 2021. And that was to bring all of our services, so the journals, the books and the conference proceedings hosting all under one umbrella. So we chose the name Edinburgh Diamond because it's short and it's snappy rather than the Library Journal book and conference proceedings hosting service. And also it kind of tells everyone what we do straight away. We focus on Diamond Open Access. So we wanted that very prominent in the name. And when we think of diamonds, we also think of, you know, like clarity or transparency, as well as high quality and sturdiness. So yeah, it was just the perfect name for us. So the service internally for Edinburgh staff and students is provided free of charge. But we do have a paid for non-profit service, which we provide to other Scottish institutions who are members of Scurl. And that is specifically what I'm about to talk about now. So in 2018, the University of Edinburgh submitted a proposal to create a shared service. And that was to be governed by the Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries, which is formerly known as Scurl. So I just thought I very quickly kind of tell you a little bit about Scurl, just so you have that context. So Scurl is a membership body that supports service development and improvement across Scotland's University and Research Libraries. The key areas of work are coordination, collaboration and advocacy. Scurl's aims are to improve services for users and maximize resource through collaborative action. To collaborate towards the creation of a cooperative library infrastructure in Scotland. To advocate the contributions and benefits of library services to stakeholders and to provide mutual support for members. So the aim of the service that the University of Edinburgh proposed was to equip member institutions with a hosting solution to fulfill their open access publishing activities. And the development time was to be charged to the University of Edinburgh. It's worth noting here that our partners don't have to publish diamond open access, even though we're called Edinburgh Diamond. We do have the ability to set up subscription journals or set up books that need to be paid for. Like we can do that so we see all needs. But most of our partners do actually publish open access and most of them publish diamond open access. So the fees that we charge only serve to cover the cost. Everything is invested back into the service and it mainly goes towards technical and staffing costs are paying for that that tech expertise time. The service launched with three members. Pardon me. Heria Watt University, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and ourselves the University of Edinburgh. So now over four years later, the shared services growing to include 10 partners. So I've been very busy in this past few years. And we do have more members interested in signing up as well, which is great. So all the members meet three times a year. We just met last week. I couldn't because of aforementioned COVID, but the meetings are really, really helpful. So we just kind of how we want the service to grow, how we want it to look. What does it need? What's not working? What's working well? That kind of thing is very much a partnership. It's not just led by Edinburgh. So these are the 10 members that we currently have signed up to the service. We have Glasgow Caledonian University, Heria Watt, Queen Margaret, Robert Gordon University, the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. We host the Scottish University Press or SUP. We host their platforms. The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, St Andrews University, we're in the process of bringing them on. Same for the University of Glasgow and also the University of Highlands and Islands. So we can see we've got members from all over Scotland. Everyone here is obviously a member of Scurll. But yeah, no, so it's great to see how it has grown over the past few years. This is the service actually offered. So specifically for our Scurll partners, we offer the OJS and OMP hosting platform. So users get their own installation of OJS or OMP. Some of our partners just have OJS. Some have both and you pay for each one. So you would pay one price for OJS and one for OMP. However, the charges per installation. So for example, if you go for OJS, you don't have to pay per journal. You just pay for that installation and you can put as many journals as you want on there. And it's all included and will help you with all of those. We also do the initial configuration of the site and the basic customization of the user interface. So we'll get it branded properly and just get everything looking how the other member wants it to look basically. Users get a workflow management system. So both OJS and OMP can be used to manage either the full publishing workflow. So that can include submission management and peer review. Or they can use it literally just to put the content online to publish things. So both options are available and using OJS and OMP doesn't require much technical expertise. So setting it up and doing the tech does obviously, but just the kind of day to day use of it. It's very user friendly in my experience. So we do give full training on how to use the systems and guidance and that's ongoing as well. It's not a case of, here you go, we'll set you off to you. It's very much an ongoing service that we provide. Users do also get ongoing technical support as well. So we support all stages of kind of setting everything up. And we also complete the migration of any back content if it's a pre-existing journal, for example. We're responsible for the technical maintenance of the platform, including upgrades, which we're currently doing. And we are on hand for all technical kind of day to day queries. I myself, I come from an academic publishing background. This is my first foray into librarianship. So we also provide ongoing publishing support. So I'm always on hand to answer any publishing queries and to help in that area as well. And we just provide overall guidance in pretty much all areas. Anything anyone comes to us, even if it's something new, we aim to provide guidance around it. And then it's a learning curve for everyone. But we do provide guidance around archive and preservation, including advice on where to get your content backed up. And internally, we actually do a daily backup of all content. So if something were to happen, we can restore that site and all the content. We help with copyright and permissions. And that's topics that come up quite frequently. We provide guidance on how to pull together reports for the content. So, you know, like article downloads, website traffic, journal and article level metrics, citations, that kind of information. We also help people to understand what the data means and how to share it with people in a comprehensive manner. We provide guidance around policy development and we're always happy to share our own policies as a starting point. And we provide guidance on submitting content to various abstracting and index and databases. So that might include site and policy preparation to ensure that they're meeting the eligibility criteria in order to actually make the submission. And we also provide guidance around publication ethics. So our own publication ethics statement is guided by Cope, the committee of publication ethics, and we have licensed it under a Creative Commons license so that other people can go in and kind of reuse it. We would expect more serious publication ethics matters to be dealt with the partners themselves, but we can always meet to discuss and as I say it's another opportunity for a learning curve for everyone. And also there are certain elements that the service doesn't include. For example, ISSNs or ISBNs. Edinburgh Diamond uses our university's memberships and subscriptions with the British Library and Nielsen for these so we can't share them with their external partners. For similar reasons we also don't provide DOIs. We have a membership with Crossref and that's how we assign and deposit our DOI metadata. We can't share that because those prefixes are attached to our membership account and so is the University of Edinburgh. So we would expect skill partners to either have their own or set up their own Crossref account or something similar. Although I mentioned we provide guidance around submitting to index and databases, we don't actually do or track the submissions ourselves. We're just on hand to help basically. Similarly, although we provide guidance around metrics and reporting, including providing written instructions and offering, you know, meetings. We don't actually create the reports or get the metrics ourselves. And finally, we don't provide copy editing or typesetting services. We just don't have the resource. We can't even offer it for our own internal hosting service, sadly. So we can't also currently offer it to our skill partners, but it's something we are looking into. So there were many benefits to a shared service, especially for open access content. For example, it offers many flexible hosting and publishing solutions. So we can set up or facilitate hosting services like ours for other institutions like we are in the process of doing for St Andrews. We can also set up publishing arms for membership groups like we've done for the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. And we can also set up fully fledged, you know, traditional presses like we are currently doing for the Scottish universities press. So we really can have a hosting and publishing solution no matter what kind of publishing program you're running. The regular meetings and team channel means that we can pull knowledge. And it's literally impossible to know everything yourself. And the more people there are, the more ideas can be thrown in the mix. For the meetings that I mentioned, we just have one or two representatives per partner, and that just, you know, helps prevent a too many cooks kind of scenario. But linked to this idea of teamwork, a lot of these services or presses are ran by a tiny, tiny team, like for example, Edinburgh Diamond is literally myself and then the tech support. So getting together actually feels like you've got a team and that you've got more colleagues that you can bounce ideas off and it just helps, you know, the kind of decision making process behind things. So I'm really grateful for for the meetings. And finally, there is a greater opportunity for innovation. So as I mentioned before, more people means more ideas and input. And the more of us there are the stronger the services both financially and brainpower. So it just means we can invest more in shaping the service in the most beneficial way for everyone. And, you know, for example, we might write a new plugin and then our tech team would share that coding on GitHub, which they have done before. And that benefits the wider OJS and open access community, so not even just our shared service. So of course there are challenges to a shared service as well, such as this one. The reason people use the service is kind of to outsource elements that they just don't have the resource for in-house. So for example, a lot of our partners just don't have in-house technical resource or the technical infrastructure needed to run such a service. And that's why they join us because we provide that for them. They'll manage the day-to-day service, but they just need the tech and the tech helper, maybe the publishing guidance as well. However, it does mean a lot of resources coming from one place. I mentioned we have one person who has worked on OJS for 10 years. If that person left, then, you know, that's a lot of knowledge lost. So that's always a bit of a danger when it's the shared service led like this. So you also need a lot more resource, the more partners that you get, which is a bit of a given. So it's important to ensure that you grow sustainably, otherwise your service just won't be fit to run. So with our new partners in place, we are currently looking at growing the amount of time we have dedicated to the technical side of things. There are, of course, financial barriers which may deter potential partners from signing up. We didn't increase our prices for over 10 years, and we offer scale members a 20% discount, whereas other external partners who aren't members of scale, they have to pay the full price. So scale partners currently pay around £1,600 plus VAT per year. And we try to be cost effective and not over or under charge so that partners get the full value. And as I said, it's not for profit. It's all invested back in the service and everyone knows how that money is used. So we're fully transparent about that as well. As mentioned before, having more people means more ideas in our experience. But of course, there's always the risk of having so many people that not everyone is heard or maybe it's harder to come to an agreement. So as I said, we kind of mitigated that by just having one or two representatives, but it's just something to be mindful of. Luckily, we haven't actually had any conflicting opinions. We've had no fisticuffs or anything like that yet. And I think it's because partners trust our expertise in this area and we trust the expertise that they bring to the table. So yeah, it's really good vibes, our meetings, but it's always a possibility that people might not agree about the direction to take the service in or on certain elements like that. So worth just bearing that in mind as well. So I've included some feedback we've had from Skull and external partners about using our service in case it helps, you know, understand some pros and cons. So the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland said that moving to OJS and OMP significantly increase the visibility and usage of our online publications. Readers are happy with the interface which was customized to meet our needs and we save time on processes that are automated through various plugins. Most importantly, having a local hosting system with local support is extremely helpful. The Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Library said, as with many open source software applications, OJS requires advanced technical competencies which most of our editorial offices do not have. The service provided by this house have been excellent, both in the initial setup of the system, including the migration of back issues and the customization of the website, and in the competent and timely support received throughout these years. The attention, care and qualified collaboration received has certainly contributed to the development and the success of the journal. So that was lovely to hear from both of them. So I'm just going to finish by looking to the future. So we will continue to develop service strategies and policies to ensure that we and our partners are compliant with industry standards, as well as funding legislation, just to ensure that we're providing a really viable publishing option for authors. We aim to promote and grow the service so more people are aware of the research they can freely access or the service they can use. And whenever I do these activities, I do always highlight our shared service partnerships as well as RO. And we aim to get further investment in the service so that we can grow our technical support and just generally strengthen the service and attract more partners. If it was up to me, every library in Scotland would have a diamond open access service, but that's why it's not up to me. But yeah, this of course entails acquiring more resource to fulfill these roles. And I'm sure many of you know it's very difficult to get funding for roles, especially in this climate, but we are trying. And finally, we will gather more feedback and continue to work closely with our partners to grow the service according to use in need. So that is me. Thank you very much. I think we'll be going to questions, but do give us a follow on Twitter at Ed in Diamond. Thank you. Thank you very much, Rebecca. That was fantastic. So if I could invite all our speakers back up, that would be great. And there we go. Everyone gradually reappearing. So I think we're going to go to the Q&A now and I'm just seeing what we've got coming through. I think for me, what was really interesting was just all of you had the element of the technology that's helping to support this growth of open and needing that sort of technology expertise, but also just that partnership element and that was coming through each of your talks and how you're working with others to ensure that we can be open. So really baking that ethos into all that we do. So one of the questions we've got from Lucy Woodhouse through the Q&A is for Helena Maria and it's around about the licenses that make OER open. Can it only be by CCBY or can other elements be included to two and how generally does licensing work? So I wonder if the two of you could just expand on that a little bit more. We tend to follow the UNESCO definition of OER. So that means that any material created needs to be able to be remixed and adapted and built on. So any license that's got a no derivative element to it isn't really compatible with the UNESCO definition. And when we work with our authors, we always steer them towards a more liberal license. So the ideal would be CCBY, but we definitely wouldn't fund or support anybody that doesn't want their material to be adapted further. So we wouldn't fund anybody, for example, that wanted to use a license with a no derivative element. But we try and persuade them to the more liberal end of the licensing spectrum. Thanks very much for that. And I was quite curious, both of you, when you were talking, you talked very much around about the challenges of making that OER content accessible and discoverable. And how you were sort of thinking around about some of the challenges that you find through using the Primo interface. And have you, are you beginning to come to some solutions there? Now you sort of talked about making sure we don't overwhelm the kind of holding content that you've got. But how do you surface that content more actively? What are some of your thinking in that area? I think it was something that we thought long and hard about during the White Rose project with our colleagues from Leeds and York. The White Rose project was a discoverability strand to investigate that. And I think it would be fair to say that that was perhaps the element of the project that struggled the most. Just really because it is a huge challenge, I think, in terms of getting people to be able to easily find stuff with the appropriate license if they're wanting to do adaptations. But also what to put in our discovery systems because there is so much and there are so many OER collections and the quality of the metadata does sometimes vary. So we're continuing to talk to our metadata team here in Sheffield and I think similar conversations are going on across Leeds and York as well. And I don't think that's an easy nut to crack and I think that will need some more input, perhaps an effort across the sector. I think the providers certainly ex Libris are aware of some of the issues, but it's always going to be dependent, I think, on development time prioritization, that kind of thing. So, yeah, I don't know if there's anything Helen wants to add to that. No, I don't think so. Right, thanks very much for that. And I've got a couple of questions coming through now for Rebecca. So Christopher Zipkin is interested to hear a bit more about the ethical issues that you might find yourself in both advising on and the interface with individual institutional ethical policies and processes. Yeah, I mean there's quite a variety. Some of them are name changes seem to be something people are considering more now so some of the queries are just about how to phrase it on the statement. I can't go into detail with sensitive information obviously but we have had ones regarding articles that have been previously published but then found out that certain permissions that were thought to have been gained by the authors haven't been gained so kind of what to do about that. We benefit from using the university's legal team. Their stance is very much they can provide advice and guidance but they won't tell people what to do. So that's that's kind of how it works but thankfully we've not actually had that many major publication ethics queries at the minute it's just been I want to write one. And we just offer use of ours. We say to all our journals if you want to use ours link to it if you don't you don't have to. We don't enforce it on everyone. So, yeah, a mix of stuff, all fun. Thanks for that one. And there's another question and sort of come in around about, and this is from Massoud. So it's very much about the diamond open access model and this is more of an institutional question really is your library beginning to think of actively redirecting any savings from the National Publisher agreements and that we've just had recently such as else we're into open access models such as diamond. I think that's for you Rebecca but again if the rest of you have any thoughts on that please do share. Yeah I'm happy to chip in and start so as I mentioned I'm based on the scholarly communications team and the scholarly communications manager is responsible for the direction of those funds so he is very passionate about diamond open access just as I am. And I know he is trying very hard to funnel as much of those particular savings into the service so we've done things like growing our membership so we're members of Alps of Alps. We're hoping to get more engaged in the community and use funds for that. And as I mentioned, we are looking to see if we can use some funds for copy editing and type setting because that's one of the biggest time burdens for our money burdens for our editors so yes, in the short answer to that. And that's interesting because again one of the things we've been thinking about at York is should we be redirecting some of our sort of savings to supporting open access and how best do we do that and I don't know if either Sheffield or Manchester want to pick up on if they're aware of any of those discussions or thoughts going on in their institutions. From the Manchester perspective I think I don't think we're quite at the stage where we'd be talking about redirecting or reallocating but we have for a number of years had a portion of our budget protected for sort of community developed not for profit ideally sort of no APC type models of publishing. And so, yeah, recently using that money we've taken on the ownership of CRIM archive which is the preprint server for the field of criminology and we're taking an ownership of PubPub which is a no fee publishing platform so there's all sorts of interesting things we're able to invest in through that portion of the budget. I think probably we're a little bit down the road from having the conversation about redirecting savings but hopefully that's the direction of travel. Okay, and Helen and Maria do you have any reflections on that. There's nothing specifically around savings from deals but certainly our content strategy in Sheffield prioritizes open initiatives and a little bit like Manchester we have elements of our budgets that can be used to support open scholarship. And it's that that's helping us to fund things like the grant scheme for OER that we're that we're offering. So, yeah, not so much with the savings element we haven't not I'm not aware that we've investigated that yet but we are certainly prioritizing this sort of spending within our content budget. And again one of the things and thinking around about what you were talking about Ian and Scott we've had a question around about what is the cost of this sort of open research tracker and model that you're developing I don't know if you've got any information that you can share on that. So, I mean, it's free. That's that's the kind of the point of it being open source. Obviously it's cost us to develop it. I think it's been like a full time developer in my team for over five months or something or think we've had multiple developers working on it at different points. And there would also be a cost if somebody else wanted to adopt the software in their own environment there would be a cost for them for their development to our IT services to kind of make it work in their environment. And it's part of what we're looking to or hoping to do is to be able to work with some other institutions that do see as a fit for this tool within their own environment and to actually work with us on making it more adaptable and reusable in different contexts. It's part of what we want to move towards in terms of all generally collaborative approach. But yeah in terms of we know we're not we haven't developed it something to sell to other institutions it's there but obviously it would cost in terms of people being able to adapt it in terms of the general cost of open research I might let Scott Yeah I suppose it depends what the question is where what which direction the cost to go in but I think Ian's covered the cost around what it's taken to get the platform open sourced and live. Yeah I mean that's a complex question if we're going beyond the tracker for another session. Again, really interesting to hear how long it's taken you because I was sort of certainly listening and I know colleagues at York you were all going oh that looks really interesting so I think expect some enquiries to come in because it's certainly piqued our interest and we're sort of going how could we adopt it and I'm sure lots of other people in this presentation will be seeing thinking similar things as we're also trying to get a better handle on it. I think again for me because I'm always interested from a sort of digital preservation perspective into how we sort of develop and grow our collections and again what you sort of made it here is really interesting around about these you know modern research collections that we as institutions are creating and actually being able to sort of have a way of sort of looking and seeing what's being developed but also bringing that into the library and I just wonder you know is that something that you're actively looking at bringing these collections into the library or thinking about kind of curating and caring for them in sort of longer term as well. Well I'll have a crack at it and then see if I've covered it. I suppose from the internal side of things it's been quite useful to start to think about the latest sort of 10 years worth of the university's research outputs, not just articles but data and software and other things like that as a collection because it's a really useful way to draw closer connections between other parts of the library that perhaps deal with more traditional collections in terms of metadata and cataloging and the library's research services can sometimes feel or seem like something separate from that you know it's in a different space but actually if we're just talking about a collection, then we're all managing the collections even though they're slightly different in their in their makeup and profile. So it's been quite useful as a sort of conceptual way of thinking. The thinking more externally there's some, there are the requirements as part of the open research movement and certainly as part of our local open research plan to track and measure the increasing uptake of the of these different practices and one of the ways you can do that is to measure the outputs of the different type of outputs. So we do want to measure is software being shared more often in methods being shared more often through things like protocols that I owe and other platforms. And if we're doing that if we're modeling that data then we're almost there in terms of creating a catalog anyway so it's almost like an evolution of that idea around modeling the data, and then it's not too much of a leap to think about that as a collection and then think of the library's responsibility for that collection in terms of preservation metadata, not just about compliance or what have you, you know, which maybe we're all a bit jaded from thinking about compliance too much thinking about more sort of the car library responsibilities if in terms of caring for that collection. That's really interesting I think it is something we're all beginning to grapple a bit more Ian was there anything you wanted to add. Well, not particularly I think Scott's covered it I mean just, you know, being in the in the development team my mind always and thinks to how can we actually what can we practically do sort of realize this in terms of integration between all that the research support of where we developed and things like Primo and the library management system and artificial preservation systems as well and then kind of moving towards that growing interconnected ecosystem across all these different areas in the library because there's a lot of potential for us to move to a much more consolidated ecosystem I think in terms of the technology. No, I would, I would certainly agree and it's something that's really fascinating to sort of seen emerge as we've all started looking at kind of data set software and thinking actually these are part of our collections as well and we need to start thinking about what we're going to do in the longer term. So I'm going to jump back to Rebecca actually because I've had a question come up around about student publications and how do you deal with the potential short term nature of journals that students might develop but then move on and perhaps new students don't take up or have other interests or it no longer feels relevant within the course so how do you approach that. Yeah so obviously it is a concern because it would take us a lot of time and resource to set up a journal and get it going just for it to finish after a year or two so we really want to avoid this this situation so we have a journal proposal form. And we ask everyone students and academics to fill it out and the aim of that is not only for us to have all the information that we need to populate the journal with, but so that they really understand how much work it's going to be on their part. And to make sure that they thought about everything they need to think about like editorial boards what what's their peer review process going to look like that kind of thing so. And then we put some some students off and then we never hear from them, but, but for those who are really serious about it we do ask them to do that. We also arrange a meeting with them and we ensure that any student journal has an academic contact, who is aware that the academic contact for that journal, and also that they have a succession plan in place. So what usually happens is before they leave, they will hand over to the next set of journal next set of editors who are going to be on the course for next year. And I have a meeting with them and set it up. So, luckily we haven't we've only had, I think one or two journals kind of drop off but even then it was after years and years. I mean ghosted too much so that's that's a nice thing but yeah they're the kind of processes we have in place to try and stop that from happening and it's worked pretty well so far. Okay, and I'm just going to pick up a bit on kind of that partnerships and collaborations are you thinking or are you offering your services Rebecca to institutions that aren't school members and can anyone kind of get in touch and have a look at what they're doing. Yeah of course so we do have an external partners program. As I mentioned they pay full price of 20% more than what scale members pay. But because of our resource we do have some criteria in place because otherwise we wouldn't be able to run our own service. So we ask that external partners, their journals are to do with librarianship or open access or Scotland in some way so if it meets one of those three criteria and we have the capacity, then we will work with external partners who aren't based in Scotland or a scale member. So one of ours is based in Italy I believe the Journal of the European Health and Information Libraries so yeah so we're open to it. Absolutely great and I think one of the questions that came through your presentation Helen and Maria was again around about that network and partnerships element and I just wanted to ask that question is there something around about us setting up a UK OER network and what that benefit could be. Could you perhaps expand on why you're keen and what are you looking for perhaps to have next. Yeah, I think building on our experience of working with Leighton York it's been really good just, we've got kind of shared experiences about why we might want to explore OER, but we're all at different stages of that exploration. It's quite fascinating talking to people more broadly about where they are at the point of developing an OER service. They also think it would be really good to think about what, what are the specific benefits for the UK for OER. Because we're on mailing lists and we read a lot about the benefits in North America, just kind of identifying what's unique about the UK, I think would be really really beneficial. So one of the things that's cropped up recently is in talking to academic staff. They're keen because they want to improve the visibility of their teaching outputs, in the same way as they do their research outputs. They're teaching outputs is often the kind of poor relation really. So if that's a big driver for them, we need to be thinking about how we can track impact and usage and just help them maybe with career progression and promotion and that kind of thing. And I think if we're able to talk more broadly as a UK community, we might be able to explore that a bit more deeply, I think, and other related issues. That was just one example. No, and you mentioned the work of academic colleagues here and one of the questions that's popped up is do you find that certain disciplines are perhaps more willing to engage with OER than others? I think we've been quite surprised by the breadth. Would you agree? Yeah, I mean, we're currently funding two projects, one's a mathematical biology textbook. The other one's a textbook around teaching Korean language in fluent English, so two very different projects. And some of the other things that we've been looking at really varied. No, I don't think there is any one particular discipline. Okay, I'll add to this question to Scott and Ian, because again, open source and different institutions as differently perceived and certainly I've worked in institutions where it's been really, you know, embraced and other institution where it's like, oh, it comes with security risks and this that and the other and the sort of barriers go up. What's your experience been? And do you think that there are still some of these barriers around? Yes, I mean, it's a good question there and no, I mean, there's not. There's not kind of loads of barriers, I would say, in the sense that if you're motivated to do it within your local team, there's, you can get on and do it. So I'd say there's not a lot of facilitation or encouragement from an institutional wide point of view certainly for sort of the support services type support software that my team. It seems to be very much down to the individual philosophy of each area or team or perhaps down to their available budget sometimes. I think it's been quite a long process in having all programs to get to the stage where we're thinking we're actually going to make an active move in that direction. So I think a lot more can be done in the institutions to encourage this. And I find it really interesting that the open research movement in particular is really asking this is a serious question now around. I'm not just opening up the software, the research itself, but the support software is being seriously asked, you know, we're going to push for openness, then we need to have openness across the board, not in pocket. So does it miss Scott, you've got anything to add to that? Yeah, I mean, it's a similar picture across the research software landscape where our university doesn't have a policy such as Delft or others where the institution makes it clear what's expected of researchers when they create software. What what licenses should they apply? Where should they share it? What supports available to them? So that's certainly something we're addressing through our open research program and the Office for Open Research. And hopefully we'll have a project open running soon in that direction. But yeah, I mean, I suppose on the more professional services side in terms of and that's where our library sits. Manchester, it's sort of, you know, a mixed picture of commercial open source, but no real overarching umbrella vision around what what the preference should be. And perhaps something, you know, something to consider, but a complicated, another complicated one. And again, one of the frustrations on the chat is just around about, you know, how a lot of the systems don't really talk to each other so easily. And that's certainly something throughout my career I've been founded. We spend a lot of time wrangling systems to kind of try and talk to each other in order to then get sort of further benefits out of it. It is a real frustration and one that hopefully as we move more to open and just that open thinking, not just around about open publishing. But kind of looking at openness in all different areas, activities we can sort of start perhaps combating a little bit. That's that's sort of one of my hopes. I've had a last question pop through for Helen and Maria. And again, this sort of touches a bit on the technical that we've just been talking about, which is around about the sort of afterlife of the areas. There's that sort of ongoing support and obviously technical support of having the area in various platforms, but also then around about how do the original curate creators update and refresh content if they want to have a new version or bring something new in. Helen and Maria, what are your thoughts on that? We don't currently have much experience with that. And obviously we're still in the early days of developing an OER service so we haven't encountered a situation where authors are wanting to make significant amendments. So we said that it's in our part of our workflow. So it's very much part of discussions that we have been with the wider team about longer term preservation of material but also how we manage new additions and that kind of thing. So I think I would say it's working progress. And by then nature, they might not have a long life and I don't think that's a problem necessarily. If it only exists for five years, then that's that's fine if it's presumably met a need. Is there anything you would add? I think the only thing that I would add is around the press books platform which which we're currently piloting. We know from observing the way that press books has been used at different institutions that it does lend itself to publications that you can easily update quite frequently if necessary. So it, you know, it may be that an author who's used press books might not want to do a full blown new edition in the traditional sense of the textbook or whatever. But they may want to produce a publication that perhaps is regularly added to or updated and the press books platform is very user friendly in that respect. But as Helen said, it's not something that we've had that much experience of yet. So it's kind of watch this space. Thank you for that. And can I just thank all of you that's been really, really interesting. And I think we will be able to see some of the connections and sort of similar freds and themes that are sort of coming through some of the challenges, but also that kind of strong need to really embrace open and kind of go with it. It does come with its challenges, but I do think it's from what you've all kind of been talking about really worth it. And as libraries, something will truly benefit from and allow knowledge to be much more open in the future than if we continue with previous models. And but also that collaboration, networking, partnership and sharing that you've all touched on in your presentations is a really important part. And again, I think feeds into the ethos of what libraries do, but we just need to remember again to just kind of foster and embrace that and nurture it where we've got it in order to get the best out of it also.