 So, thank you everyone for participating with this event today, my name is David Shear, I am the scholarly communications and research curation consultant librarian with the Carnegie Mellon University Libraries. And thank you for joining us for our event, open access and the library of the 21st century, a discussion of the open access initiatives and practices at the Carnegie Mellon University Libraries. We have already discussed some housekeeping events so we can skip over this. We have a jam packed agenda for today's event. I'll be giving a brief overview of our open access initiatives at CMU. I'll be presenting some of the things that we've been doing over the last year that have allowed us to ensure that open access is the default at CMU. We'll then have our introductions of our panel chair and panelists, followed by a panel discussion. We'll also have a period for questions and comments. And then our panel chair, Dean Webster will be presenting his perspectives on the future of open access at CMU, followed by our final remarks. So, just to provide a brief history of open access at CMU. The university has had an active role and has taken a number of actions to promote open access. In 2003, then Provost Mark Camelot signed the Budapest Open Access Initiative from 2002. In 2007, CMU's faculty senate formalized the commitment with an open access resolution that strongly encouraged faculty to make their work more available to the public when possible. In 2008, the university libraries launched CMU's first institutional repository, known as research showcase. This allowed members of the CMU community to make their research and other materials open access. In 2012, through the Roger Soros fund, the university libraries created the CMU article processing charge or APC fund, which to date has supported the publishing of 183 journal articles and two open access monographs. In 2015, the university libraries received its first open access data set, which was further led to in 2016, the university libraries launching the kilt hub repository. The comprehensive institution repository for CMU whose mission is to increase the dissemination of research data sets and other scholarly outputs made open access through the CMU community. To learn more about updates on our open access activities and other scholarly communication news and events, please follow our monthly scholarly communication newsletter, scholarly communication news, or as we refer to it, SCOME. 2020 has become the year where we've been able to make things possible where our scholarship at the CMU could be opened by default. As stated by Provost Jim Garrett, Carnegie Mellon is committed to ensuring that our publicly funded research is accessible to the world, and moving our research to an open access platform is important step to knowledge sharing and helps pave the way for our colleagues across academia. Announced in November of 2019, a transformative agreement was reached with the commercial publisher Elsevier, which demonstrated our ongoing commitment to ensuring that the university's research would be open and accessible to the world. As the first such agreement between Elsevier and a university in the United States, CMU's agreement prioritized free and public access to the university's research and ensures CMU scholars will have access to all Elsevier's academic journals. This further led to the CMU collaboration with the University of California, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Iowa State University in developing a new publishing model, an open access agreement with a society publisher, the Association for Computing Machinery, which is the university's largest publisher. Additionally, CMU is also the single biggest contributor to ACM. Also beginning on January 1 of this year, this three-year agreement covers both access to and open access publications in ACM's journals, proceedings, and magazines for these universities and represented the first transformative agreement for ACM. Most recently, CMU and the Public Library of Science are PLOS, created a 100% open access publisher, which announced a two-year open access agreement which began this past July. This allows our researchers to publish in PLOS suite of journals without incurring any APCs where the cost of that would be covered by our agreement through the libraries. And you can read more about our publisher arrangements and agreements on our CMU publisher relationships webpage, which is linked here on the slide. Now that I've presented to you a brief history on open access at CMU, it's now my pleasure to introduce our panel chair. David Webster is the Dean of the University Libraries and Director of Emerging and Integrative Media Initiatives here at Carnegie Mellon. Keith, I now turn it over to you. Thank you very much, David, and good morning, everyone. It is great to see so many of you with us today. I'm seeing friends and colleagues from around the country and from overseas. So wonderful that Zoom allows us to do this. Maybe I could invite the panelists to make sure that their cameras and microphones are now switched on. And I will just introduce them briefly, but I will in turn invite them to say a bit about why they are here, and I hope they know an answer to that question. The panelists have all used open access support from Carnegie Mellon, either through access to the funds we make available to support payment of article processing charges. Or they have published through some of the agreements that David outlined with Elsevier plus or ACM, or they have deposited their work in the Kilt Hub repository that David also mentioned. So with us today we have Ian Cruikshank, a research scientist in the Institute for Software Research. Christelle, a professor of chemical engineering, biomedical engineering and material science and engineering. Cole Glason, a PhD student in the Human Computer Interaction Institute in our School of Computer Science. Molly Lewis, special faculty in psychology and social and decision sciences, and Sean Litzer, professor of mechanical engineering. I'm conscious that we are gathering on Veterans Day. And when we had a meeting of the panel last week. Ian talked about his journey into open access whilst he was deployed in Afghanistan and therefore I think it's appropriate that we acknowledge Ian for his service and express our gratitude both to him and to all who have served America on Veterans Day. So with that I am going to get the panel engaged and talking to us and my opening question is to ask you what you've done to promote open access or pursue open access in your own work. And tell us what sucked you into that. I am going to start just with the order of panelists on my screen and Cole is number one. Hey, yeah, thanks. Yeah, I mean, I think that open access is a really good way for us to get the work that we have in our own little subfields out into other fields but more importantly into industry, especially to, you know, my field in computer science where there are the industry developers who especially are independent, independent or smaller and would not have any institutional access so facilitating that kind of research to tech transfer is important. I work in accessibility where, you know, it's really important to kind of get the things we research for people with disabilities actually into the market and so I think open access can facilitate that. Thank you, Sean. So, where it's been really important for us and open access is something similar to what Cole said, in terms of getting the information out to those that might not have academic subscriptions and that includes both industry but also prospective students that are interested in finding out which faculty they might want to work with. You know, one of the challenges have been you know there's so many journals out there and so many papers being published you know how to rise above kind of the noise and make sure people are aware of it. You know we use social media, but have been our group linked in Twitter to announce when papers come out, and it's really nice open access that you can link to something that's not behind a paywall and accessible to others. Thank you very much Molly. So I would say that sort of open access is sort of pretty critical to every stage of my research process from sort of the beginning stages of developing a project and sharing code and experimental materials to data and sort of the final publish form of a publication. So in addition to that I try to share, excuse me, course materials publicly, etc. But I would also say that sort of more on the consumption side I benefit a lot from open access so I work a lot with sort of existing data sets. And so in that way, open access has been pretty critical to actual sort of doing the data of my research. Thank you, Ian. So I'm going to echo comments that have kind of come up already and that's the open access is a way that we can provide information, especially things like data and methods to those folks who may be outside the formal university system or its libraries. So as you mentioned, sir, in my case, my journey with this goes back to 2014 in Afghanistan. When I was an infantry officer with the hundred first airborne division, and we were working on real social problems within the area of concern we were at. And the thing of it is is you couldn't really get access to a lot of the material a lot of this stuff have been researched. But a lot of it was behind paywalls are obscured or somehow not easily accessible and so there are a lot of missed opportunities when that kind of thing happens and so I am a big fan and supporter of the open access movement and providing those things to people who aren't otherwise in academia to actually use for real world results. Great thanks and Chris. I'm going to sound a lot less noble than everybody else here, I'm going to say that we want to publish our work in the best possible journal that will accept it. And so with that in mind, a lot of times those journals have you have to pay. It's an open access journal or it's a certain type of journal. And so, you know, having the available funds there to be able to publish, because a lot of grants are getting stingier and stingier about covering publishing fees. So that's great. It also makes it a lot easier if you're funded by the National Institutes of Health to upload your documents later, as is required by the National Institutes of Health. I mean, I'm not going to repeat what other people have said I'll just take the, take the lazy and cheap route here, but it's, it's a great opportunity. It's also my colleagues at other institutions that we have this available. They're often very jealous because they're limited in the journals that they can even submit to because of the rising costs. And I say, well that doesn't come into consideration for us. We publish in the best possible place where we can get the best possible viewership for our work. So I wonder then and I'm not going to go sequentially around the panel again, unless things dry up. But I wonder if any of you could respond to what benefits you've seen from your approach to publishing in open access formats. Have you seen greater visibility of your work? Have you seen greater citation parents or collaborators or better opportunities to form industry engagement or attract research funding? I can go if no one else is please. I actually find that people will read it more than on the surface level, if they get to see the whole work. Sometimes I think there's this habit of I'm not going, you know, I'm not going to pay for the whole article. So I'll just read the abstract, if it's available. And now if the whole article is available. I didn't think this actually happened. I thought people would request it and get it sent to them. But now I see that people will actually get a deeper sense of the work. And that actually does lead, I find, to collaborations and interest in the, not just the results that we have found and put in the abstracts, but the techniques that we've used to get to those results. And so that has led to better collaborations internationally. It's kind of anecdotal, but I can't really measure it from the author side of things, but from the reader side, I do know that I will encounter and read more papers that are open access, especially, you know, this year with a lot of time at home. Yeah, you're not always logged on to the VPN and something comes up seems interesting quick Google search, you run the open access article and then you can meet it there so it from that side of the coin. I expect it has that impact. Any other thoughts on that. I would agree as a publisher or as you know, as someone who's writing articles, kind of, I don't know that I have a lot of direct evidence that I'm actually getting excited more people are reading it more. But I, there's sort of a recent experience made it salient to me what the sort of value of open access was when I, the summer I published a paper that got some in a non open access journal, it got some sort of international press. And I had all these people around the world, like email me trying to, they were like journalists writing up a sort of a short thing about my paper, but they couldn't actually access the paper. And the consequence that's you know the what they were writing wasn't totally accurate. And so they were really salient to me that was really unfortunate that they couldn't actually see the primary source of the document. Seeing any shifting trends or emerging trends in your disciplines in terms of an attitude towards openness, whether it's making your publications available, open access, making available preprints of your work or sharing your data, or code or other things. I think sharing preprints and data and code is getting a lot more popular. I mean, it has been popular for a few years but I mean, in terms of formally open access I don't know if that's taken off quite as fast as the preprints and and all that have. But there is being more data sets being shared more code being shared and I think more preprints. I know that you have elements of funding from the NIH. And they have just published their open data policy do you have, you know, have you had much communication either from the NIH or from anybody else about their expectations now that you will be sharing data from your research and does that prove. complicated in any ways through privacy or commercial confidentiality. No, but our work isn't that interesting. Anyway, I mean it's not going to be patented or it's not really useful for anything. And we, we've been keeping it backed up for for deck over a decade anyway. So we've just got a lot of hard drives stacked up. No one's asked us for any. That's embarrassing. But it in terms of your other question. There's a lot of other library issues I know this is about open access, but also about, you know, predatory journals cropping up. What I think is where the ability to have open access almost fights the predatory journals, because predatory journals, not only want your money and your publication, they kind of want to pull your work into it. So having the ability to have the open access almost undoes the power of some of these new unknown journals. So, I really appreciate it from that area as well. That's a very important issue and particularly to those who are in the other stages of their career that many of us receive almost daily emails from publishers offering, as you say to suck our work in in exchange for some cash. And if you need publications clocked up that can be quite an attempting offer but as you say if the playing field has been leveled in a way that allows you to pursue established publishers that does negate some of the downsides of predatory publishing. So our panel continues discussing their questions and their feedback. Please remember if you have any questions that you'd like to pose to our panel to please post those to the chat and I will present those to the panel during our Q&A. Thank you. So Ian you talked about your experiences in Afghanistan and now that you are on the academic side of life. How have you tried to embrace the opportunities of open access. So I think that the first and foremost the library here provides an opportunity to actually embrace open access in a way that really, you know, as other folks have mentioned a lot of other schools just don't. So, the first and foremost, there's a fair number of journals so I work in computational social science, and particularly social network analysis. So a number of journals like the journal for applied network analysis or something like that that are open access and having something like the CMU APC fund allows me to actually publish in those journals versus pulling it for both one that isn't open access but one that's like less important to the domain as well. So in order to really embrace kind of trying to publish open access it's incredibly helpful to have something like the CMU APC fund, and now these agreements with groups like post one and stuff that just it makes it almost like a seamless way to do it so it isn't a huge burden financially to try and publish open access if you want to. So you mentioned and David introduced the agreements we have in place and we continue to negotiate with other publishers to try and add more to the roster. One of the challenges we face is that every society and every publisher has different business models and different financial needs. So are we able to set that aside for a moment. Are there particular publishers that you would encourage us to give priority to as we enter the next leaf of negotiations. I think everyone's going to have a different answer for that, depending on their research area, but you should do mine, which is, I'm kidding. I'm also wondering why, like in the Pittsburgh area why why aren't there, you know, the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon team up. So I do medical research, and I may once or twice have asked a colleague of mine over at the University of Pittsburgh to access an article for me that I wouldn't have access to or things like that. And I often wonder why there's not a bundling of either local, or Sure, it's an absolutely valid question. I would be interested offline to chat with you about which journals because we've tried in recent years to really expand our coverage. But to your specific question. We do license a lot of our journal packages through consortia, and there are a number in the region was a Pennsylvania academic libraries consortium there's one for the Northeast region. So we do to an extent secure some sort of volume discount based on that buying club, essentially. We did a couple of years ago approach two of the big commercial publishers to explore what we could do by joining forces between Pitt and CMU. And the bottom line was that they were quite excited about the possibility, because in both cases they saw the opportunity to charge us even more than they did already. It was just seen not not quite as a money printing opportunity but not far off it. And there were no gains to be had by joining forces, not to say that that will remain the case in perpetuity because we are seeing a lot of shifts in the scholarly publishing business and it's one that we would want to keep an eye on for sure. So, Sean, I'm going to turn to you and ask if you have any thoughts about open access from an academic career advancement perspective. I'm conscious that at CMU we are heading towards the main annual reappointment promotion and tenure committees, and I wonder if you have any thoughts on whether open access publishing is something that early career faculty ought to be encouraged to pursue and make something of that in their dossiers. Yeah, it's definitely something with a new aspect to consider. I'm not sure about the overall impact it's had at this point yet, but one of the things you often look for in such things is like visibility to external within your field, different departments, and things like that. So anything that helps with visibility outside externally in academia or in industry certainly would be helpful to put a direct measure on it. I don't have much to add there. No, I think, you know, I was just going to mention that we've recently utilized the new agreement with El Seve in a couple of publications and I just wanted to mention that, you know, really appreciate how easy that was to use. It wasn't, you know, having to go through a separate request for funds or that it was just a matter of clicks extra clicks in the submission process. I just wanted to mention that, you know, brought us back to some journals that we were having, you know, questions about whether we would continue publishing or not. That's good to hear. I'll pass on the workflow feedback to them because this was a system that they pretty much had to design for us. One of the things we avoided doing until what half an hour into this event is make any reference to the pandemic. Usually it's in the first 30 seconds that somebody talks about the exceptional unusual year we've had. But I would like to hear from each of you, your reaction to what impact the pandemic has had on your work and on the flow of publications. We're hearing interesting reports from publishers about shifting volume of articles and fields in which people are conducting research. I'm also interested, Sean, you mentioned earlier, being at home and having perhaps more time to access and read materials so I'd be interested in anything of that sort as well. That's definitely been a challenge. Of course, we all are familiar with that. You know, we have an experimental group and so, you know, we were kind of out of the lab for quite a while. And that gave us opportunity to do a lot of publishing. But one of the things, you know, it's not really related exactly to open access. But in the review cycles, one of the challenges we had this year is when a reviewer asked for some additional measurement or condition to be checked, you're kind of stuck at a point. So, you know, this goes to another point you brought up, which was the pre-pinned repositories like archive and those things. Those have been, you know, heavily utilized for COVID research during the pandemic. Though, you know, one of the challenges I think that those have is they're not peer reviewed as well. And so of course, they have even warnings on the top of the pre-print archives that they should not be cited by media or anything like that. Especially like med archive and stuff. But, you know, those are some things that have been kind of a challenge for us as you know, we've had more time to get papers out from prior work. But when we get pushed back from a reviewer and that they asked for more stuff, we're kind of stuck at that point usually. Great. Yeah. So, with with the onset of the COVID pandemic, some people probably heard there's also now the infodemic. So this explosion of misinformation and this huge natural global experiment that was created for studying human behavior computationally. So, along with that, what I have seen in my field right within social network analysis or computational social sciences is an explosion of people trying to publish their data and their findings early about this infodemic so that we can do things like trace trends or even just allocate what research groups are going to work on what of the many dozens of research problems out there so that you're not, you know, simultaneously working on the same thing to come to the same result and then something gets lost. And so what I have seen both when I have submitted publications but then also just within the field at large is that push towards using pre publication servers like archive. So as a case in point one of the, it was actually submitted for an open access publication journals when I submitted it and they said yep we'll accept with edits. They also said please publish this in archive as soon as possible to. So it's almost like we're seeing at least in my field a huge push towards now, trying to pre you know put these things in pre publication servers as soon as possible. In addition to finalizing things out through an open access model to sense since the onset of the pandemic. So I said I would ask each of you to respond so I'm going to start picking on Molly. Sure, so I would say sort of open access has become salient to me in sort of two ways with respect to covert one is that I think conferences have sort of become a slightly less. They're certainly happening but they're less central way that information and research is getting disseminated sort of early on in the research process before publication and so preference have become a little more important than they were before. And it's, you know, a lot of people in my lab, or in my fields to lab research, which is, you know, as others have said, become obviously harder. And so more people have turned to working with existing data sets sort of reanalysis of data and meta analysis or computational social science methods, and sort of having access to other people's data has become more important during in that way. So, were you finishing your PhD shooting the pandemic or had you. Yeah, I'm sorry. So I've been finishing it over the past few months. So yeah, definitely during the pandemic and I think the way it's affected our work mostly is that we can't do in person user studies with people like we used to luckily we found ways to do remote user studies and stuff like that but it has changed maybe the research problems we've worked on. But with regard to open access I think the, the biggest thing I'll echo Molly is that the places we publish are often conferences and I've seen people kind of maybe spread out when the when the publications come out using preprints and stuff like that. Because of either, you know, the conference is not being as important or the work being coven related and wanting to get that out quicker. Sorry. Oh, sorry. So, I was a primary speaker one of our big conferences this year and it turned into quite a challenge because you know those kind of big overview talks you go through a lot of your material. And with the way that the conference was done we had to post videos of these talks and post the slides as well and then the, the copyright issues related that required a scramble to get all the permissions in place and I think open access would have simplified because we're going to see more, especially in the next year or so, more and more conferences going online to our virtual format, having to get away from having to get all those permissions in place for, you know, one new one new new new permission per slide. That would be a appreciative thing. Yeah. And I just wanted to check Molly did I cut you off. No, you're fine. I couldn't tell who's who you were directing your question to. Chris, what, what does covert meant for your scholarship. So a lot of my students, you know to keep them busy they started writing review papers based on their work. And so we're now publishing those, and those, you know, often require looking through a lot of other data and I go back to what Sean's point was that you know, when students and everyone's trying to VPN and you know that was kind of a nightmare. So being able to go through other people's data to present in the review paper. I'm sure that they really enjoyed the ability of open access data to put in the review paper. Right. And cool. If I remember from our earlier conversation. You were editing a proceedings at around this time as well so has that been challenging beyond the normal challenges of being a proceedings editor. I mean, it's challenging in terms of covert I think, you know what Sean was saying in terms of the videos, we've included a lot more stuff in the proceedings this year with videos and slides and you know captions and everything so there was a bit of a gap in that and I don't know that you know much that was open access related although there was a few, you know, CMU authors using the CMU ACM agreement so that was pretty cool. But yeah I mean proceedings have definitely been interesting this year because you're trying to archive basically the whole conference and not just the the, you know, papers output. May I make one other comment please is it is exacerbated by COVID. And that is is researcher and especially PI researcher and I know it mean no disrespect to non PIs time. So, I have small kids at home who have been really at home lately, and that has been a bit of a nightmare situation. And even before that, being able to have really good library services. I would never appreciate it. I will tell the horror stories of my graduate students of the days where we had to go with our list and walk to a library and photocopy journals. Maybe Sean's with me on this one. You got there guys are to you. But, and I have to say Carnegie Mellon talking to my colleagues is some of the best library services so I did want to say thank you. And also like if you do have to request a PC charges. It's like this five line form. It's not a big thing. So, the fact that people are really appreciative of people's time. You have to write the paper submit the paper go through revisions address the authors comments, all of this and then you get to the final stage where you either have to submit the pre print, or you have to ask for help with charges that it's so streamlined and helpful is really great for people who have so little time, and especially with coven so I want to say thank you, and also recommend for people who are watching elsewhere that that is, it's such a blessing to have great people, helping out with that. So, thank you Chris I'll make sure I see a number of my colleagues on this event. So they will hear your thanks directly but I will make sure that those are passed on, but you know I'm also of that vintage of the photocopiers and it really points to an interesting shift in workflow. A few years ago, researchers had to organize their information workflows around the library it's actually 25 years ago, that if you wanted to stay up to date you had to come and browse the new issues of journals in the library and if you wanted to read something you had to come and photocopy it or sit in the library and read it. You can deliver that content, wherever you are, whenever you want it. And we now have to make sure that our services and resources fit into your workflow and are visible to you. And we've certainly seen over the past seven or eight months, striking increase in the consumption of content, both electronic journals and electronic books. And one of the things we are reflecting upon now is, as with so many aspects of our lives, have we moved towards a different next normal, where telemedicine might replace visits to the doctor's office for some cases, and many of us might not go to the movie theaters again. What impact will that have on the role of the library is an interesting question, but not one that I want to spend too much time on just now, but as I think about workflow, I think also about the broader approach to open science that we've been promoting, and the variety of workflow tools that we are making available, whether it's to support open protocols or data sharing or collaborative authoring using latex data repositories and the like. And I wonder to an extent how visible the library is and how visible these services are across CMU. I'm not pursuing a particular agenda, there's just a general question about how often do people think about the library as a point of support for open science and scholarly workflow tools, and if they don't, what could we do to be more visible? I mean, I think that from the student side of things, the library might be seen foremost as as the building you go to, and then maybe the place you go to get access to various things when you're outside of VPN. But I think that things like the open access agreement with ACM, you know, a lot of the PhD students who published at ACM did hear about that because they got an email about it or because one of their co-authors told them about it. And so I think shifting to those sorts of services, this is the right approach and making kind of these options the default is helpful to kind of show off these services. Yeah, it's an interesting question, because for most people the library is a big building full of books and journals, and when those books and journals have shifted to digital form, what does the building become and is there an inner essence of the library in this that we need to capture. Again, I'm just going to offer a quick anecdote, and then I'll turn to you, Sean, about 25 years ago the British government published a review into the future of academic libraries at the very start of this digital transformation, and they quite seriously offered a position that library buildings could become parking garage buildings because they had the load bearing on the floors that could hold the books and journals and could hold vehicles but thankfully we haven't quite descended into that. Oh, I'm sorry. So you're asking about like open data side of things, open science side of things and how the library plays role. I just think about how we currently do that in kind of my field and you know we're often looking at trying to dump every variety of data type into supplemental information with our journals, whether it's video links tables, you know, additional documents with algorithms in them and code. And maybe this is a question to you Keith or other people on the panel but know where would be a point where we decide not to put that into the SI of a paper versus storing it within CMU so if it's like, we do a lot of like high resolution x-ray work and those can be very big files those can be gigabyte type files sizes that we have and so it's not something that somebody's gonna randomly click on and download. And so I don't know if there's there's thoughts on you know how an author might pick whether to do SI or one of the resources within the library. Yeah, so David mentioned in his opening remarks are kilter repository which is available of course for depositing publications but also for depositing data sets of different sorts. And one of the advantages we find there is that as you deposit something a DOI is minted which gives a degree of permanence and pointing to the data. But rather than be waffle about things that I am at best an enthusiastic amateur about maybe I could call on my colleague Hannah Gunderman who I see is on the call, because she is our data consultant and will give you the definitive encouragement. Hi Hannah. Hi, thank you. Yeah, thank you for the acknowledgement and yes so I work with some of my great colleagues on the kill hub team. And my role is really to, you know, when we get data sets submitted to us and, you know, we want to make sure that it's reusable we want to make sure you're getting as much exposure as possible for this data beyond just keeping it safe you know we want to take it that extra step. So we do spend a lot of time, making sure that it's it's in formats that are sustainable that it's got the data and in a read me file that just is going to help with that reuse and so, you know when you submit data to us it's there's a lot of care that goes into it on our end and we're just really passionate about making sure that that data is is safe is sustainable, and as reusable as possible with the hope that it brings you more potential citations and data reuse and collaborations in the future. So we're always here we're always here to answer your questions on that and happy to do consultations or anything like that. Another of my colleagues points out in the chat that we have a data set. I don't know if you meant under a terabyte, meaning one kilobyte or just under a terabyte, but we certainly have large data sets in there are killed have repositories built on the fig share platform which may be known to to some of you. I'm hoping that the audience might be thinking of a few questions to present to you but as they do so maybe I could offer a final question which is again for each of you, what would you say to your colleagues or your students by way of encouragement to get engaged in this space, whether it's by sharing publications in pre print servers or publishing an open access journals or sharing data. How would you encourage them. Chris. This is a bit, can I, can I be pessimistic before I'm optimistic. Sure. Okay, 2020. Yeah. One thing that I've noticed with the open, open resource that I want to be very careful about and I hope, and I always tell with my students, when they're when they're consuming information is some of it is like social media that there is a lot more information out there. The open availability of information. And I don't know if other people who've been in this field for a long time or have been academics for a long time I've seen this, the, because people are asked to review so many papers. The quality of reviews has gone down the quality of editorial decisions has gone down. And so with more information out there. It's, it's important that you always take things with a grain of salt. Not every publication, obviously, but especially in, you know, especially when it's open right if there's two articles you could look at, and once you know free and you can just grab that one. You always have to be careful to double and triple check any information if it's available. And also I think it's also incumbent on us as people who are publishing, just because we could sneak something through. So we have to take that much more ethics on ourselves to be putting things in the public domain that we know to be good and true science. So I wanted to put that out there that with great power comes great responsibility. I heard that somewhere. And I think that's really important now in a more open format and I just wanted to bring that up for discussion. Okay, Cole, I'm looking at you. Yeah, I just say to PhD students or others. I mean, I think that the, the goal of like getting our work out to the public or the industry partners is like really important and open access is one prong and the way to do that, and I would just emphasize that you know, open access is one way to do it, making our research more accessible to people with disabilities, making sure that our machine or our research is maybe readable by machine so that you can kind of do some of these large scale analyses, which have become really important with the amount of coven research out there. So I think that there's a bunch of different ways to do this but open access is clearly one of the easiest paths out there right now to make your work relevant to the public or two partners outside of that industry bubble and that's a good reason to do it. And it's becoming easier and more default now at least at CMU. I guess I would say, you know, modular sort of financial issues, there's not a lot of downside and a lot of upside to researchers sort of engaging in a variety of open access practices. I think the one that I think people are maybe most hesitant to engage in in my field is sharing data and code. In part because I don't know for fear people, you know, finding errors or just like the extra work involved maybe and actually making it public. But I guess for me the sort of added, you know, it's as much the effort that goes into that as as much, you know, for me as, and my collaborators as other people like it's important to like, you know, catalog your data and your, you know, code in a way that you can just reuse and at a future date and you know you'd never have to worry about someone emailing you and you can't like find some something from some publication in a year or two back. So, I don't know, I think there's a lot of upside to it in general. Ian. So, you know, usually when encouraging it's not it's not so much peers. You know, as I'm a recent PhD student myself in terms of encouraging more open access practices it's normally with like an advisor to try to get them on board, you know, an older professor to get them on board but doing these things. And so, you know, the same way, you can almost always encourage academics you're going to get more citations it's going to raise your, you know, your, your gravity toss and you're standing in the field if you go open access and that normally works for helping to encourage people to use open access practices. But along with kind of what Molly said one of the one of the, I would say issues but it's becoming much better is this idea of publishing your code. Data in the world of like social network analysis can often be hard to release because it often has like personally identifiable stuff and you don't want to like go down the path of Cambridge Analytica here kind of some kind of unethical things. But the code should be at least to some extent reusable and published out like if you can't actually, you know, take somebody's code and test it on your own thing type of stuff. It really negates that the usefulness of the publication to a large degree. So, thanks and Sean. Yeah, I think for those for those of the here here are students or early career, you know, getting priority on your results and findings and making sure it's externally visible as we talked about a little earlier. So that's key and so, you know, open access as part of that but you know the pre print archive type methods is one way to do that and you know it's, it seems a little bit scary when I think what even to me it seems a little scary putting something out there before. I've had the test of a peer review in it and I probably would be hesitant to cite anything well you can't really cite anything in them for peer review but it gets a chance to get your, your visibility out there and of course, more people that can see your papers the better. David has a couple of audience questions we lasted almost half an hour before I forced us to talk about covert 19. We have lasted a shade over 45 minutes before anybody said anything about the election. But David I think the first question from the audience is indeed about what happens after the election. Yeah, so the question that was posed by our audience member. I would like to highlight that on January 20 we will have a new administration in the White House. And hopefully with plans that this White House will further actions that took place earlier in 2013 with the, the OSTP mandate and a push for funding agencies to require the research that they find to be made openly available. The audience member would like to ask the panel to present their thoughts or hopes of what this new administration will do to further open access or what you hope funding agencies will do to make it easier to make your research available openly. Well, I can answer that having done the NIH route. The NIH College of Library. Oh, I don't know what it's called I'm sorry maybe you do. The National Institutes of Health has a whole National Institute for cataloging and libraries. The National Library of Medicine. Yes, yes. And so they set up a really nice website that whenever you have something published, they can't obviously take if it's not an open access journal. They can obviously steal it because that's a copyright violation. So you have to go and put your preprint up on the website and it's four clicks. You know, you upload it, they make sure they look through it briefly and then it goes up on the NIH PubMed website and it's really, really nice. And I think now that a lot of the governmental agencies are coming together. But it's probably they're all going to adopt some form of that so it's really not that scary. As long as you keep a good version of your preprint. Right, not with, you know, your advisors notes that say the section is junk or something like that, you know, just keep the version that you submit to the journal, and it's it's very seamless and if you want to do it through Carnegie Mellon I think they will do it as well. So they have a students do it. So anybody else with any thoughts on that question or David any other questions. I mean, I would like to see more, you know, pressure or support from funding agencies for open access. I know a lot of the funding at CMU comes through different government agencies and I personally had a NSF fellowship for most of my PhD tenure here and so if there was, you know, say, support for open access in terms of funding, I mean, maybe at CMU with the APC fund, I wouldn't need that but there's plenty of PhD students all over who would benefit from, from support like that. If not, you know, some sort of mandate. And so like the NSF as part of being one of their graduate research fellows you get like super computer access. They have these little grip and other industry type fellowships you can apply to and get additional funding to like do over the summer type of stuff. I guess if you were an NSF fellow or an NIH fellow or, or whatever the case might be as if they did provide a little additional stipend that you could use, right for publishing open access while you're in fellowship status. That would be the kind of thing I think would really help, you know, students, you know, specialist graduate students really adopt those practices and then get kind of used to the way of doing it too. We have another question that's come in from our audience and they've asked the panel they could discuss how open access especially open data has influenced the IRB application process. Specifically, would people be less willing to participate in a study if their data, especially audio visual data would become publicly available. So I've never given options to participants to publish the entirety of audio visual data they give us the most I ever, you know, ask for is the ability to quote them in in partial text for publications or presentations. I do think that if I asked people to publish the audio visual data in open access in its entirety as a condition of the study I think that would reduce participant participation, but as an optional thing I don't know. A lot of people, you know, feel pretty comfortable sharing that stuff for quotation, I don't know that they would feel comfortable sharing all of it. I can speak to that I, the IRBs I've worked on, typically have on like the consent form has a box where people can check about whether or not they're okay with people sharing their audio visual data. And the kind of stuff I do isn't very sensitive, but I can say that people actually rarely opt out of that. They, you know, they seem very comfortable. So it hasn't affect, they can, it doesn't affect participation because you can opt out of it, but in practice people don't that often. I'm sure that would, you know, vary if I were doing more sensitive stuff, but that's my experience. Yeah, and clearly any legislative provisions would override open data sharing, which hopefully would give people a degree of confidence that their sensitive data would not be made public. Okay, well, I think it is time for us to thank our panel for their engagement. Time has flown past and I'm grateful to Ian, Chris, Cole, Molly and Sean for their engagement. I believe the next bit in the agenda is for me just to say a few words about the future which my colleagues will know means a few slides. As I make that transition so I would like to acknowledge that in the audience on zoom I see a few of my colleagues who are leaders in our work in this field, David and Hannah you have heard from already. And Katie and and Marie and Rick are there to help you with digital scholarship and repository needs by gin on data collaboration data reuse and artificial intelligence type things. And Sarah on systematic reviews. My apologies if I have forgotten anyone else who is there ready to roll their sleeves up but do please engage with them as you wish. David asked me to say a few words about the future and how I see all this playing out. And for so many reasons, it's both timely but difficult to be precise about what that might look like. But let me do my best to try and help you there. Can I just check, David, can you see my slide. Yes, now we can see your slides, you can see my slide great and can you see a second slide. Yes, great. So I just threw this one in as the panel was talking because I was conscious of the point that was made about slowing or the decline in arguable decline in standards of peer review and so on and I think this is best reflected by the changes we've seen over the last 2025 years in terms of the volume of scholarly output and this is for the US the European Union. Yeah, it included the UK post, I could get away with that and obviously the increase in output from China. And some of you know that before coming to Carnegie Mellon I worked with Wiley one of the big publishers and whilst I don't want to give undue sympathy, I am conscious that the volume of article submissions was such that it was taking a lot of effort with no real additional resource to manage the peer review process. But that was just a reaction to that comment. What I did want to do was try and frame a few thoughts on the future against the backdrop of open science. I talked about that a few times during the panel discussion and I particularly wanted to point to the release last month of a global recommendation on open science from UNESCO, and they point to the, you know, a broad definition there of open science as various movements that come together to make scientific knowledge methods data and evidence available for anyone and everyone to use. And I, for a number of years now, when I talk about open access described it as a stepping stone on the way towards open science, and Dr Foster, a London based clinical evidence organization has developed a taxonomy of open science and you can see at the top on the first note that open access is one component of the bigger goal of open science. So I just wanted to try and frame our thoughts about open access and our discussions around open data in that broader context of reproducibility, workflows and policies alongside access and data. And UNESCO in particular has embarked upon a very ambitious agenda, because we are confronting major challenges across the planet on all aspects of the environment, society, health and the economy. And science is a critical response to that. I was pleased to see an endorsement for the fact that the president elect will be listening to the scientists I'm not sure that the outgoing president said that with the opportunity for me to use it as a segue but we have heard on a number of fronts that the incoming administration will be paying more attention to the scientific world. And that is particularly important, given the impact of COVID-19 and the extent to which that has driven both an awareness of the importance of research, but also a remarkable degree of global cooperation. So a slide coming up that will show just how much stuff has been generated over the past few months by the scientific community. And I was on a call with some people at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy where they were saying that they now, if they didn't already, they get it that they have seen the benefits of the global community sharing data for reanalysis reuse combination to allow insights to be gathered at an accelerated pace. So I heard comments about concerns about the, you know, the challenge to scientific fact out there and this infodemic of misinformation, flagged up by the Secretary General of the United Nations. I do think that this is an important caveat to understand that if we make it easy for people to share, we need also to ensure they have the skills and the critical thinking to question what it is that they are consuming, making decisions upon and reusing. Again, I see that as a critical role for libraries everywhere to be supporting the questioning of information that we receive from any source. I don't want to belabor the points but just to show the key thinking behind UNESCO's open science framework that it is driven by the expansion of technology to increase the societal impact of science to open up the work of scientific communities globally to verification to scrutiny and critique and to build an evidence base for decision making. Anyone who has an interest and an ability to contribute to scientific discussion to be able to do so to democratize knowledge to guide scientific work towards solving the problems that are confronting citizens everywhere. And I would encourage you to look out the UNESCO recommendation, it's only a few pages long, but really is an important part of the landscape in which we are operating. And it very much frames open science as a global public good, an essential part of research infrastructure. And I have little doubt that we will see real momentum build around open science in the next little while. Just last week, UNESCO was joined by the World Health Organization and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to make a joint appeal for open science, framing this in the context of the sustainable development goals and calling on member states to support open science. Now, of course, just a note that the United States left UNESCO a couple of years ago, and I hope that the Biden administration will review that decision and become part of the global community in this context once again. So I just wanted, given the topicality of this to frame today's event in the bigger picture of open science. We also touched on COVID-19 and the impact on researchers and their behaviors. A report came out last week from frontiers on the academic response to COVID-19 number of interesting points in there. Particularly this illustration showing that PhD students are the most likely group of authors to publish in open access journals and there was a separate question about sharing data with a similar response profile. And you can see a slight edging down as people's career stage advances and you could hypothesize that senior researchers may feel that they have made it and this is not a big deal for them but certainly at Carnegie Mellon I do see a huge amount of support and engagement across the entire institution. With COVID-19 it really has been striking and a few of our panelists made this point about just how much stuff has been generated. Dimensions is a database of scholarly publications that indexes journals and pre-print servers. And just before we started this event I updated the slide to today's figures 185,000 publications of some sort referencing COVID-19. And you can see also if you're interested that Dimensions points to data sets, patents, clinical trials and other interesting products of the research process. What is striking also is how much of that material is available as an open access publication. You can see those broken down at the bottom right of the slide, 150,000 of the 185,000 are open access. Publishers have been good citizens I will say during the pandemic in opening up their collections to share relevant research without paywall barriers and you can see that reflected in the bronze open access with about 60,000 generally commercially published papers that have been made free available on publishers platforms. So just an interesting observation there. As I think more specifically about open access I think there are three issues that will confront us in the coming year and beyond. Those around policies, payments and incentives. On the policy side that the big thing that is coming in about seven or eight weeks is the implementation of plan S which has been promoted by many national government research funders in the European Union. There are recommendations like Howard Hughes and the Gates Foundation, and they are requiring that from the beginning of next year research that they fund must be published in open access journals or made immediately available without an embargo through an open access repository. And the sweep of institutions and researchers that will be exposed to the plan S mandate is such that I think we will begin to see even greater momentum towards open access publishing. There are things bubbling around in China we are seeing different sorts of attention being paid to how and where Chinese researchers publish and an encouragement to them to publish more research in domestic journals and how that impacts open access is clear, how that impacts the business models of Western publishers also is not yet clear but given my earlier chart clearly there's a lot to think about there. We mentioned also in the panel discussion the publication at the end of October by the NIH of its final policy for data management and data sharing, and that also will bring a broader focus on to the importance of that part of open science. Around about this time last year there were rumors about the federal funding agencies in this country, either joining plan S or mandating open access publishing for those in receipt of federal funding that didn't go anywhere there was a vigorous backlash from commercial publishers seeking to protect their business. So it will be interesting to see how the incoming administration revisits that question. We've heard already I won't say any more about the open access agreements that we have put in place here, but those do raise our focus on the flow of money for open access and some thoughts there around the author paying transaction fees and how they are supported in doing so, whether the institution pays for an agreement of the sort we have with Elsevier and others, or whether a research funder covers the costs of open access. Those are all broad possibilities we are seeing some interest in multi pair models, or on how societies subscribe to open. One of the big undercurrents has been attention raised in Europe about the excess of funds in the scholarly communication system and fairly simplistically they have identified how much money exists in the global subscriptions business and they've estimated that to be around 8 billion euros. But if every article that was published, there are roughly 2 million articles, paying an APC of 2000 euros, that should be about 4 million euros. So there is a sense that there is a lot of profit in the system that might be diverted in different ways. So again something to watch as we move forward. And I've got a number of presentations on these issues, and these will be available in our kilt hub repository in the next little while. The benefits of open access are on this slide again I'm not going to be laboured the point our panelists covered these two very good effect, and I don't want to say more about those. I want to flag up the important role Carnegie Mellon has played in the last few weeks of talking about the sustainable development goals, the release of our voluntary university review, and how open science and open access are intimately interlinked with the rest towards attaining the SDGs. And for those at CMU, I would encourage you to think about open access open science against that backdrop. Finally, whilst we're not promising any citation premium, I would show an analysis of publications by CMU authors with Elsevier and the citation premium shown in the middle of the bars for those that have been published as gold open access. So with that, I am going to conclude my remarks and bring the event to a close. I think David is going to wrap up the presentation so I will hand back to him, and thank you all for your participation today it's been great to see you all. Thank you to our panel. Also, thank you to our audience for your attendance today. We greatly appreciate you all coming to listen to our panelists again, just a final thank you to them. As mentioned earlier in the presentation, we will be making this presentation available via recording which will be posted on our university libraries YouTube channel. As well all of our attendees that registered for this event will receive an email when we posted the recording. With that, if you have any further questions for myself or Keith or our panelists, please feel free to pass those on to me and I can pass those on to those restricted individuals. With that, thank you all very much and have a pleasant day.