 Yeah, so sort of move into the sort of solution part, we've done that like the painful part, the problem now we're moving into the good stuff, the solution. So as an advocacy organization, this is the definition of open access that sparks, subscribes to and the one that we advocate for, which has two parts. The first is the free, immediate online availability of scientific and scholarly research articles. You don't hit the paywall, you get to access the article for free. But the second part of the definition that we believe is every bit as important as the first as that it comes with full reuse rights. So the goal did a fantastic job at sort of giving you a primer for open licensing and actually the specific license that Spark advocates for as sort of the proper license for open access to make it fully open, sort of the gold standard is a creative commons attribution only license. So, you know, you have full reuse rights and just to drive home this point can repeat after Bart that it takes more than just being free to make an article open. And the reason we push so hard for this is exactly what Nicole was saying. It's, you know, these open licenses really turn, you know, these these articles into something more than what they are individually to essentially kind of creates or turns all of these these academic research articles into a platform in and of themselves that can then be built on in new ways that they couldn't if they were protected by full copyright or more restrictive open licenses. And I think one important sort of analogy for this to help illustrate what I mean is the human genome project. You know, I think the human genome project has generated some somewhere around seven to eight hundred billion dollars in investment and economic activity. And a lot of the reason for that is because the results are openly licensed so that anybody can build on them for any purpose that they want. There's no restriction on using them for commercial reasons or for anything else. And that allows people to do really interesting, you know, sort of new activities with them because they can create new business models based off of the human genome project data as a platform in and of itself. And so that's why we advocate for fully open licenses for research articles so that researchers can do the same thing for research. So some of you may be familiar with IBM's Watson computer that competed against the Grand Champions of Jeopardy and beat them handily, which was a fantastic party trick, but it's certainly not why IBM built Watson, right? If you actually look at the commercials that they ran while, you know, in between the actual Jeopardy, you know, they're talking about how great it would be if all doctors had Watson, you know, by the patient's bedside to use, you know, in difficult diagnostic cases so that they could leverage the entire corpus of medical research, you know, in making these diagnoses. And, you know, for IBM, maybe that's possible because they have, you know, buildings full of lawyers that can negotiate the rights to every single article with every single publisher. But, you know, if you look at who, you know, the historically where innovation comes from, Google wasn't built by IBM, right? It was built by graduate students. And when it's that difficult to get access or to get licenses or the permission to do this kind of computational text mining analysis, then it really restricts who can build these new platforms, you know, that make a huge, huge difference. And so, you know, if you look online at Twitter, for example, you'll see lots of researchers really frustrated with trying to get permission to do computational text mining on articles because they have to negotiate, you know, with the commercial entities that own a lot of these journals. And a lot of times, you know, they're denied, you know, the ability to do this text mining or in many cases it takes so long, you know, that researchers just don't have time to do this. And so this is, I think, one of the reasons why we push for the second part of this definition that it's fully open is to allow researchers, you know, the ability to do this text mining that we have the capabilities for, that we have the technology. But unfortunately, we're just so restricted by copyright and the formats that these articles are made available in that, you know, even though we have the technology, we can't really bring it to bear. So there are sort of two paths to sort of moving towards an open access system. One is to just publish in an open access journal that makes all of its content openly available, immediately upon publication. And then the second path, sort of a transitionary path, is what's called self-archiving, which essentially means publishing, you know, in subscription-based journals if you need to, or wherever, but then making a copy of your article freely available through an institutional repository or a subject-specific repository like PubMed. So we'll delve into each of these paths a bit more deeply. So first, there are a little bit over 9,700 open access journals that are published today. It's grown tremendously over the last couple of decades. Many of you might be familiar with some open access publishers like PLOS, the Public Library of Science, Frontiers, which now is owned in large part by the Nature Publishing Group, which I think illustrates how commercial entities are actually moving into open access, which is really interesting if, I guess for those of us that have been involved in this movement for a long time, you know, in the early days, people would talk about how open access was an ideology that it wasn't a viable business model, and now we're in fact seeing, you know, Nature Publishing Group, you know, buying a large share of frontiers. We're seeing Springer, which bought BioMed Central a number of years ago. You know, the commercial entities are starting to realize that, you know, open access is the direction where things are really heading and that it actually is in fact commercially viable. There's a great resource called the Directory of Open Access Journals that's online at DOAJ.org. That's an index of all of these open access journals that they also try to curate by quality as well. So I think it's helpful to delve into a couple examples of how these open access journals work. One model that the Public Library of Science and BioMed Central and Frontiers use is an article processing charge model where, you know, the necessary costs of publication are covered on the front end as a service rather than on the back end as a subscription, which is good in an economic sense because publishers have much less sort of power to set a price when publication is paid for in the front end as a service. You know, again, as we discussed earlier, you know, in a subscription model they essentially have a monopoly over each and every article, and that's different when it's paid for in the front end. And the idea here isn't to make individual researchers pay, but instead just to shift its cost. And so it's great to see institutions like many of the UC schools establish open access funds to cover these fees for their authors. An increasing number of funders are also covering these fees for the researchers that they fund. Some examples of the funders that do that are the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and a growing number of other research funders. And actually, the Wellcome Trust estimated that to cover all article processing charges for all of the articles that its funded researchers produce would cost them somewhere around 1% of their total budget. Which they view as a bargain to make all of this research then that they spend so much money to fund than available to the largest possible audience to build on in turn to grow its impact. But in fact, it's only the minority of journals that actually charge something to authors or to readers. In fact, most journals, like this example, the Journal of Machine Learning Research, don't charge anything to authors or to readers because so many of the inputs to these journals are voluntary and the necessary costs that do exist in terms of managing the peer review process, copy editing, hosting the content online can be covered in other ways. I think this particular journal, I believe, is housed within a department at MIT. They have a student that works as sort of their webmaster online and a lot of the other, like the copy editing, is just voluntarily contributed. And so the reason this is my favorite example is for a number of reasons. One is that it was actually founded when the board of a subscription-based journal called Machine Learning actually resigned, almost all of them resigned, out of protest at the high cost of that journal and essentially established the Journal of Machine Learning Research as a replacement that would then be open access so that it could reach more people in its field, which is artificial intelligence. And they actually estimate that the sort of cost for articles is about $6.50. And I think if you actually read the post, a large portion of that actually goes towards, I believe it's an accountant, to make sure they keep their books in order so that they can keep their nonprofit status. And it's not a small enterprise that actually publishes around 3,500 pages per year and is ranked in the 93rd percentile an impact factor for its discipline of artificial intelligence. And so there's a great blog post that's written by Stuart Schieber, who was the head of the Office of Scholar Communication at Harvard and has been involved in publishing this journal. And this is a bitly link, it's a bitly slash and efficient journal. And I think it's a really good example to sort of get into the details of how you make an open access journal that doesn't charge either authors or readers work. A little plug for the e-scholarship, first plug with many for the e-scholarship repository here at the University of California, but this is a list of the journals that are published through the e-scholarship platform, many of which I learned earlier today are funded by the GSA publications, which is absolutely fantastic. But I think they're around 60 plus journals that are available through this platform. It's a great, I think, example of how librarians are starting to take control and help in the publication process as well. So that's the first path, the second path, which I mentioned in the beginning, it's sort of a transition area one is again self-archiving where you can publish. And most journals, and then make a copy of your article, the text either pre or post peer review, made available online for free. And they're now a little bit more than 2,000 repositories like e-scholarship around the world. And actually, I believe e-scholarship itself was one of the very first institutional repositories to be established, I believe it was in 2002. And in fact, the vast majority, about 72% of publishers will allow their authors to make some form of their article freely available online. And I think this is something that a lot of authors aren't as aware of as we would like. Because in a sense, we have sort of the permission that we need to solve a lot of this problem, but people just aren't in the habit of depositing their manuscripts into repositories like e-scholarship. And this data was pulled from a project that has a fantastic name. It's called Sherpa Romeo. And if you go to their website, if you Google it, it's the first thing that comes up. It's actually also a very good resource. You can enter the name of a journal or a publisher, and then it will tell you the rights that you have as an author in that journal to make your work freely available. So it's a nice tool when evaluating where you might want to publish to see what rights you'll retain in a subscription-based journal, or in looking back at the research that you've already published and saying what you can make freely available. So we've already plugged e-scholarship as a fantastic repository, but you can see it's gotten over 21 million views and has over 70,000 publications. And I think, you know, I venture to say it's certainly one of the leading institutional repositories in terms of content. And we're really excited about a policy that sort of works hand in hand with the repository, which many of you might be familiar with, which is the system-wide institutional open access policy. And here in the UC system that essentially grants the Regents of the University of California a non-exclusive license to the articles that the faculty here produce. And this is an incredibly significant policy. It affects I think about 8,000 faculty. And this policy alone, hopefully once it's up and running should make somewhere around 40,000 articles each year freely available, which is tremendous. The National Institutes of Health has a policy that it's a type that I'll talk about more in a minute, but they require that all the research that they fund, which is about $30 billion a year to be made freely available within 12 months. And they estimate that that leads to about 90,000 articles being made freely available. So this one system-wide policy is almost half of the impact of the entire National Institutes of Health funding $30 billion a year, which I think is incredible. And I think it's important to point out with these policies is that they have a lot of benefits for faculty members. There have been dozens of studies that have shown a strong correlation between making an article freely available and a significant increase in the rate of citation. And there's actually some really interesting data from the first institution to have an institutional open access policy, which is the Queensland University of Technology down in Australia. And this is, I stole a couple slides from their deputy vice chancellor, who's sort of their champion and cheerleader in chief for their open access policy. And this is some data showing the increase in citation rate of a select group of faculty after their open access policy went into effect in 2004. So you can say, here in 2004, this particular faculty member had her annual citation rate jump from 183 citations per year in 2005, right when that open access policy started to 570 per year in 2011. And some of you might notice that it's sort of going down at the end. And the reason for that is that the data was pulled before the end of 2012 when this presentation was given, so not all the citation data was in. For those paying very close attention. Another researcher, very similar shape, saw their annual citation rate rise from 455 per year in 2004 when the policy began to roll out to 1,941 in 2011. Those were two established researchers. Trend also continued for mid-career researchers as well. This one saw their citation rate jump from 56 to 268 in 2011. And so in the presentation, Tom Cochran was talking about how this was representative of the faculty members there and that it seemed kind of obvious that when you make your work freely available to anybody with an internet connection, that more people read on it, read it, and then in turn more people build upon it and then ultimately cite it. So expanding on that, we've seen research funders as well put policies like this into place and require that research that they fund be made freely available. This is a map of the 18 countries with at least one public research funder that has such a policy in place. And they're around 90 now of these policies in existence around the world. So here in California, there is a piece of legislation that would actually create one of these policies here at the state level. It's called AB609, what essentially require that research that's funded directly by the state of California, the resulting articles would then have to be made freely available online. This was introduced in the previous legislative session of the California Assembly, passed the assembly by a very wide margin, went to the Senate and unfortunately did not actually make it out of committee. I think we missed it by about one vote. A bunch of the legislators on the committee that it was had jurisdiction took a walk during the vote and didn't vote at all. So it didn't unfortunately make it out but it's being sort of reconsidered in this current session. So it actually doesn't have to pass the assembly again. It actually starts right in the Senate committee where it left off. And there's some negotiations going on behind the scenes but there's the potential for it to advance this year and something that will be working and have worked really closely with the UC system and the UC libraries in particular to push this. It's also something that students have been very involved in particularly the UC student association. There is similar legislation at the federal level. Here in the US, some of you might have heard of the White House directive that was issued last year in February that essentially extends that NIH policy that I mentioned to the rest of federal agencies essentially requiring that almost all publicly funded research in the US has to be made freely available within hopefully 12 months which is a huge, huge step forward. The only issue with that is that presidents or directives are actually not that durable. So the next administration could just come in and decide that this is not a policy that they would have and immediately overturn it. And so that's why we're still pushing very hard for legislation that we have would actually codify this into law and make it much more durable as well as improve upon the policy. So this is the fair access to science and technology research act or faster. And what it would do would essentially shorten the delay by which the articles would have to be made freely available from 12 months down to six months. And then it would also require the resulting articles to be made available in formats and under terms that allow for their productive reuse. So essentially starting to hint at the importance of open licensing and trying to get licenses put on all the research that our federal government funds. And as I alluded to, this is again something that students have been very, very involved in. There have actually been over a thousand congressional lobby visits by students in the last four and a half years, mainly led by the National Association of Graduate and Professional Students that visits legislators' offices twice a year and has this as one of their top issues and has really made a difference on, but there have also been other student organizations engaged like the American Medical Student Association. So it's something that students have had an impact on at the federal level as well as at the state level here in California were actually a representative, Meredith Niles, who was a PhD candidate at Davis, testified in the California State in support of AB609 last year. So that's sort of a view of the solution of sort of where things are headed hopefully with open access and I will turn it back over to Nicole to talk about similar things with OER. The open education space is a little bit more varied and complex because when you think about it, so many things can be used as educational resources. Online articles from newspapers, videos, assessments, obviously textbooks and even research articles themselves are educational resources. So the pathways to open educational resources and the ways that they can be used are very varied. So I'm gonna talk a little bit about just the definition of what open educational resources are and then provide some examples of what projects are doing to make resources openly available and what the impacts of that are for education. So the plain language definition of OER that Spark uses is that open educational resources are textbooks and other academic materials that are published online for everybody to freely use, adapt and share. And again, that's getting the free, meaning no costs, no barriers to access and open meaning the right to use the material. And the specific meaning of open in the OER context is a little bit less strict as it is in the open access research context. We allow a number of other types of licenses, but generally the meaning of open in OER adheres to what we call the five R's. So the five right. So the first one is the right to retain so to be able to keep and control a copy of the material so there are no 180 day expiration dates. You're allowed to keep it forever. The right to reuse. So use it in any context you want to revise it, meaning that you can actually take a copy of say a textbook and take out a chapter and put one in that you've written or that you think would better fit the course. And there's a great example of a statistics textbook that was published by a professor from De Anza College named Barbara Bielowski. And there was another professor using that textbook in her course. It was an open textbook who felt like there was a chapter missing. So she wrote it. And now that chapter is part of the open textbook that's available online. So there's also the right to remix that the fourth R. So that means taking two open educational resources that have compatible licenses. So some licenses can't be mixed together. But to take parts from each and mix them together. For example, if you wanted to take some YouTube videos and embed them in a textbook. Or if you wanted to take a series of open access research articles and compile them together into a course pack and distribute that to students. That's remixing. And then the right to redistribute is the fifth R. So you always have the right to share any open material that you either have a copy of or have modified a copy of. So, and then yeah, as a final note, in all cases with open licenses it requires attribution to the author of the material as they request that to be happened. So how is this playing out in the field? So the first example I wanna talk about is open courseware. So this may be a term that many of you are familiar with. And it's the idea that our institutions are creating educational content every day. And especially at public institutions the people creating them have a public mission as part of their job. And the idea behind open courseware is to enable the professors and graduate students who are creating these materials who want to share them to do so in a way that allows others to effectively access and use them. So the most prominent example is MIT's open courseware program which launched a little over a decade ago and was really about MIT opening up the great instructional materials that they produce and allowing people across the world to see the quality of an MIT education and actually benefit from their world-class expert faculty. And since that project launched they've released materials for over 2,000 courses and over 100 million people have visited their website. And what's interesting is that about a million people visit their website each month and another half million people visited translated versions of open courseware materials from MIT and other parts of the world. And this speaks to one really important aspect of open licensing which is that it does allow translation. And it does allow a digital resource to have a broader reach in that respect. And there are dozens of institutions, hundreds of institutions across the world that have established this kind of program. And the open education consortium represents over 200 of them and has an index where you can find specific projects. And then just one other example I wanted to highlight that's interesting for the medical context is the University of Michigan's open courseware program called Open Michigan. They're actually taking their medical curriculum and putting that online for everybody to use under an open license. And I wanted to highlight this one in particular because I've been in a number of student meetings where I talk about this project and medical students are like, oh hey, I've used that before. So it's a project that's actually widely used by students who are studying medicine both here and across the world to supplement their education which is another benefit that open educational resources offer which is that anybody anywhere can use them. And in particular, they discuss the students that I've spoken with at various conferences and discuss the videos that come with this project. It's helpful to see a lecture, even though they're hearing from their own faculty members to get that information in another way. So and this project is actually partnered with an African organization that's helping to disseminate their medical curriculum in Africa where it can be adapted to fit a more local context and also provides a lot of really valuable information. So another way that open educational resources are being created and used is through a general repository. So we talked about materials that are created at institutions and institutional programs to get those materials out, but actually there are a number of projects out there to enable anyone anywhere who has expertise to publish material they've developed openly. And the example I want to highlight is Connections which was founded by Professor Rich Baranek from Rice University who saw the potential to make educational materials available for everybody not only to see but to break them down into little pieces and allow users to assemble them into textbooks or courses. So he built a platform called Connections that where anybody can post material and then anybody can go in and use the tools of that platform to edit materials which is allowed under the open license that the materials are under to collect them into, well, they call it collections and share the collections they've created with anybody. So it's a really useful way to share materials. And then these are just some examples of the type of materials in there. So I want to move on to talking again about textbooks. So we all know that in higher education right now, textbooks are the primary mode of instruction that's still the main resource that's assigned. And over the years, the open education movement has started to focus a little bit more on producing textbooks as opposed to just, you know, vast amounts of content that anybody can use but producing resources that a professor could actually just take off the shelf and assign in their course. And then open publishing is the term that we use to refer to projects that are developing materials that are published in kind of a traditional, following the traditional publishing model in the sense that there's peer review and they're nicely typesetted and they can compete with traditional materials. And the project I want to highlight actually grew out of the Connections platform that I just mentioned. It's called OpenSax College. And again, based out of Rice University, they're developing 20 open textbooks for high enrollment courses. So subjects like biology and chemistry, where there are hundreds of thousands of students taking those courses every year. And the textbooks are extremely expensive and the capacity for savings is in the millions. And the interesting thing about this project is that it's building a sustainable model to support publishing because of course you need to keep materials up to date and you need to compensate authors for the time that they invest in developing this work. So far they've published, I believe, six textbooks. Last time I checked and heading up to 20. The books are available in print and it costs about $30 to get a hard copy of this particular book, Sociology, if you want it. But the great thing is that the book is available on PDF for free and you can put it on an iPad, a smartphone. It gives students lots of options to access it. And in a number of courses that have used open textbooks from this and other projects, there've been efficacy studies looking at how do students do when they use an open textbook versus a traditional textbook where instead of choosing between a $200 textbook and a $90 e-book and not buying the book at all, instead they have the option to access a PDF or a free download or a low-cost print copy. What's the difference? And a number of those studies have found that in fact students do better when they're using an open textbook. They get higher final scores on their exams. They get higher grades and they're lower withdrawal rates so students are dropping out less. And there are many factors that can contribute to it but the biggest conjecture is that, well, students have access to the material and if they have access, they can learn from it. So that's the impact of open textbooks and developing materials like that. And then back to open sex college, they've gotten the materials adopted at over 200 institutions across the world and have saved students $2.3 million to date but that number is gonna grow rapidly as the semester is continued to be added to it. And then before we move on into the next section, I just wanna highlight one more way that open educational resources are being supported and developed and that's through public funding. So there is a really strong public policy case for open educational resources because, well, first of all, our government's already heavily invests in education through financial aid, through student loans, Pell grants, the state level Cal grants. So that money is going towards textbooks in many cases. So to reduce the overall cost of higher education, there's a strong case there and there's also a really strong case for programs that are developing educational resources just like research, if we invest in research, the result should be openly available to the public it's the same for educational materials. And one project you may have heard of is the open course library in Washington State which launched in 2011. They developed 81, materials for 81 of their highest enrollment community college courses to have materials that are $30 or less and anything new that the course developers created needed to be under an open license because of course it was developed with public funds. And that project has saved students $5.5 million to date and that was as of the end of the last academic year for this end of this academic year, it's over 7 million. Here in California, many of you may be familiar that there was a similar piece of legislation passed in 2012 setting up a faculty council to oversee 50 open textbooks for high enrollment courses and that faculty council is now up and running and Cal State is gonna be in charge of constructing the library to hold those materials. And then finally, some of you may have heard of the Department of Labor, US Department of Labor's tact program is how we pronounce it, possibly one of the most ridiculous acronyms that has ever been chosen for any program. But it's a $2 billion investment in improving workforce training programs and the Department of Labor decided that well, if we're gonna have people improving workforce training programs, we should allow other community colleges to take advantage of those innovations that they develop. So as a condition of receiving grant funds through this program, grantees need to agree to make any materials they develop available under an open license. So anyone anywhere in the country or the world can take advantage of it. So a great example and then expanding this kind of policy government-wide is something that Spark is a policy that Spark is working towards.