 Hello, my name is Russell Schwartz. So I'm a computational biologist and I I'm not a leader in open access or anything like that I am a scientist So I wanted to share some of my experiences with using open access some of my experiences in the field So being a computational biologist formally means that I'm someone who works on applying computer science to problems in biology But more informally it really means that I have to draw on many different disciplines to do the work I do so I read and publish in journals of biology and medicine journals and conferences of computer science But also mathematics physics chemistry I don't know how many different kinds of engineering and this ends up being a real challenge because every field you find Does things their own way and often the intersection of these different fields you you can have a lot of Difficulties coming up with a model that works for everyone so I've been involved in publishing in various capacities, so of course as a reader and an author of a number of articles but as an associate editor for a couple of journals as an Organizer for various conferences that publish papers of the computer science models Mary Shaw was saying as well as Being involved in reviewing quite a few papers in these different formats And I have at least tried to push for open access where I can so one example there would be I work with a Computing journal, so I'm an associate editor for one computing journal and I and the other editors who work with biology Went through a multi-year process of trying to convince our co editors that they had to embrace some sort of open access option in the end allowing authors to pay Publish papers through this journal fully open access This is one of these journals that's published by a society that expects to make money from subscriptions And just convincing our other editors that an author might be willing to pay Convincing them that this was normal in the biology world was a major uphill battle They just didn't believe us about this, but eventually we were able to win that battle and The key argument that wanted is that now if you have NIH funding you cannot publish there if they don't have some alternative for open access and I really have to give a shout out to the NIH that Having that behind us was what won us that battle and I really hope the other sources of funding come along to follow or even to push stronger Models of open access because I think that will really help us win the same sort of battle in many other places So that really is what I've done with as far as open access beyond simply voting with my feet as an author and trying to Favour open access forums or paying these extra fees sometimes to get my papers open access So I thought the rest of why I could talk about here is why I do this So why I think open access is important Well one reason is because I am a scientist and I know that when I perform my scientific research I depend on the work of many other people I have to read about work in many other disciplines and what I do builds on this work and hopefully carries the science and other Step forward beyond what these other scientists have done And I want other people to then read what I do and carry their science forward building on what we've done So promoting open access is really promoting openness with it which is absolutely essential to how science works That's how science advances. So I see it as simply part of being a good scientist a Second argument, which I know a number of people have brought up is pure self-interest I would like to encourage other people to publish open access because I want to be able to see their papers So it's good for me as a scientist if other scientists are publishing their work open and likewise It's good for me if other people are reading my papers I'm willing to pay that extra fee that $3,000 or whatever to get the paper open because then more people will read my paper And that's good for me if they're reading it if they're building on it if they're citing our work and so forth. I Think there's also an argument of fairness and you get a feel for a lot of this if you work with editing and you're seeing a lot of Dealing with a lot of authors and readers Especially from other countries that don't have the kinds of resources we do and Carnegie Mellon is fairly wealthy as universities go Compared to your average university worldwide. I know it often doesn't feel that way when you're here But we have much better access than most and still it's quite common for me to see a paper or see an abstract For a paper I really want to read and discover we don't have access to it here And that is a much bigger problem in many other universities I worked a couple of years in the biotech industry before coming to Carnegie Mellon and it's an even bigger problem there It's very rare for a company to have the kind of library facilities even a small university has and for researchers in the third world There is often just no way to get access to a journal that requires you to pay for for that access So I think it's part of just being Being fair in a way that will bring other researchers worldwide into the process and that again is good for the science the more voices You have the more diversity of people looking at and contributing to the science the better it advances So that is another reason why I think it's important to push for open access and to try to democratize the practice of science and the last argument that I Think is important to me and that was also brought up earlier is that It is a question of the public trust So the great majority of serious scientific research I would say is done at non-profits of special universities and Funded by by the public funded through government research grants And it's simply the right thing to do to say that the public has paid for this research Of course, they should be able to see the results of it Of course, it should be open to anyone who wants to see it. So again, it's it's good for the science It's the right thing to do and I think it's a way to bring the average citizen more into science to keep them interested And what's happening in science and able to appreciate what we are trying to do to advance scientific research So again, I can't claim to be a leader in open access I'm someone who believes in it and tries to use it in his work And I certainly hope other scientists will follow suit and I encourage all of you to do the same if that's an option to you