 team's project. Team members are Chan Lee, Becky Miller, and Mohamed. And I think, Chan, you are going to start us off. Is that correct? Sure. Thank you, Sue. I can start. We're all in different places now. We're all two of us, our members are traveling. So I will actually, Mohamed, I will share my slides just in case your connections not good. Sorry, just give me a sec that I will share my screen. And I think, Mohamed, you can kick us off. Mohamed, are you online? Sorry, I was not sure whether he's there yet. Becky, have you received a message from Mohamed or anything? Chan, I don't see that he is logged in. Yeah, I saw him. He's been in and out. I think he said his connection was dropping. Perhaps we should just go ahead with his piece. Chan, if you'd like me to try to wing it, I can just remind me when you take over, which slide, and I'll just kind of wing it up until then, unless you'd like to. Sure, Becky, you can go ahead. I think I will start from talking about a method. Okay. All right, well, thanks for your patience, everyone. Mohamed is actually in Egypt, I believe, and I think it is understandably maybe having some connection issues. But all right, so our title is Open Access Publishing, a study of UC Berkeley faculty views and practices, and this was led by Chan Lee, our assessment librarian. And then Mohamed is the Middle East Studies Librarian, and I'm the Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences Librarian. Next slide. So as a brief outline, we're going to give you a little background. Talk about this faculty survey that was done at Berkeley. Talk about our methods for this study, our findings, some of the implications, and what might be directions for future research. Next slide. Okay, so back way back, it seems like a long time ago, but in 2018, the University of California system was announcing a major initiative to transform the scholarly publishing industry, and has really done a lot to move towards open access through different mandates and things like pursuing transformative agreements. And in October 2018, UC Berkeley Library conducted the Ithaca faculty survey, and 71% of our faculty respondents said that they would be happy to see the traditional publication model replaced by an OA publication system, and this was higher than the nationwide average for this question. So what we wanted to do was use some of these views expressed in the faculty survey towards open access and compare them to the faculty's actual open access publishing practices. Next slide. So just a little background from this Ithaca survey, again, this was in October 2018. And we did see, let's see some disciplinary differences that more faculty in the arts and humanities, especially valued no cost to publish. And it looks like more faculty in the life and health sciences valued no cost to read which, you know, we're sort of equating with open access anyone can read. So kind of looked a little bit at funding. I mean we're not going to have a chance in this brief presentation to talk about all the different things we looked at but you can refer to our report for more details. But as far as funding there was definitely a stark difference in the faculty reporting external funding in the last five years. And it's quite a bit more of the science faculty as one might probably expect reported receiving external funding and so that you know we wanted to kind of look at that because that might have implications for things like paying article processing these and things like that. Okay. Okay, so I will talk about a research method so as Becky said we're looking at the background as we know the way there's a movement there. And we've done this survey study back in 2018. And so the idea is we want to integrate that the survey data with those are their perceptions data data from our faculty we want to combine that with their actual publication behavior. We want to do a correlation analysis based on what they said in the survey, and then also let's look at their publication publishing behavior from their based on their publication data. So we basically wanted to combine the two data set one is the survey data survey responses, not not for all of the survey questions just focus on a few questions related to away. And that was that one data set. The other data set is that we look at who responded to those data surveys and look at those particular faculties their publication data from scopus. So the data would include things like number of applications the year publications, they're reported research funding and others. And also we want to look at their away publication information and that particular data came from and paywall database. And we, our study primarily focus on the go to a as this category reflects the strongest intention to publish away. And then the faculty's opinions, you know, they came from the survey. And we focused on two questions. One is about the importance ranking on no cost to read, and the other is about importance ranking on no cost to publish. So after we got all of the data, we combined it, the two data sets, we conducted correlation analysis by looking at different demographic parameters. So overall I was studying clues about 479 faculty. So those are the faculty who responded to the survey, we also got their fact, their publication data they're always data. And so in total, we look at their 4,413 published articles over a five year period from scopus and and paywall database. So this is some some of the findings the key findings that we wanted to show you today. Our first thing is that we realized there's a large open access output at Berkeley, and particularly with gold away on the rice. So if you look at the pie chart on the left. It shows all kind of away output distribution, including none away which is closed. That's the gray area as 2028 28% which means the rest 72% are different kinds of away it's just depending on how open they are. And then the gold away represents 18%. So this is really, it kind of a surprise to us, realizing that 72% of all our faculties, not all but the faculties in our research are kind of open access. And on the right chart, the line charts here, if you see the big, big orange line, those are gold away publications in terms of number, number of away articles. So those are steadily increasing over the years. 2019 actually has 20% more increase compared to 2016 data. This is also the way publication you know it's not surprised to us that there are disciplinary differences among the way output. So, like what I said earlier combining all kinds of low a like gold hybrid bronze green, they represent 72% of the total publication output, but that percentage varies from discipline to discipline. So for LA LA actually is life and health sciences publications. They not only have the highest away output percentage, which is 78% on the left. And they also actually represent the highest percentage of the total away output across all disciplines at Berkeley, and that is shown on the pie chart here. So the, the life and health sciences that represent 63, among all of the, the way articles, and ours in humanities here, it has the lowest 37% of their data, the total articles are away open access. And among all of the total their percentage even less is only 1%. The percentage that we have very limited data set for ours in humanities. So that may actually explain some of the lower number that we have, but that definitely needs more research on that. This is the correlation analysis results I won't go into detail explaining what it is but I would just want to tell you the results that finding based on the data, the analysis we did. Overall, when we map their pop, the faculty's publication data and their responses to their responses to questions on supporting away. It shows that the more gold away articles that they published, the more support they have for open access publishing, which is, you know, interesting. When asked in the survey we asked how important it is, you know, that journal makes its articles freely available on the Internet so there's no cost to read about 41% indicates it's very important. And also, the people in that group have higher, they published higher percentage of gold away articles, compared to the rest of group we indicated is less important. And we also correlate their publication data on the gold gold away to their responses on the questions about how important it is to have no, no cost to publish. So the, based on the analysis we learned that the about has, we, even though Berkeley has this substantial always output with gold away increasing, but more than half of the faculty are still concerned about publishing publication cost. So this chart shows that the more gold away the faculty publish only slightly less concerned they are about publishing cost. So the difference are quite small. The line you know it's almost flat is not really a negative correlation line here. So not it definitely means that not paying the APC cause it's kind of important to, to our faculty faculty members. And they're also their disciplinary differences that impact our faculty's publication data and their perceptions on the way publishing life and health sciences group again. They not only have the highest go to gold away output. They also support open access publishing the most, and they are the least concerned about away publishing cost. On the other hand, arts and humanities, even though we have very limited publishing data on the arts and humanities faculty and go particularly around open access data. But the survey data actually shows that a lot of arts and humanities faculty, they support to go, they support open access. They are the group who has the most concerns about always publishing cost. So I think that was also interesting that we may wanted to do more research into that arts and humanities areas. And now I will hand this over to Becky. Yes, and I've been told I just have a couple minutes so going through quickly here. Our study definitely had limitations. We can't be sure what role Berkeley authors played in the journal selection and whether or not it was their funds that we're going towards the APCs. Obviously our sample was heavily biased toward the sciences because we use scopus and most of the content and scopus is sciences. And we focused on gold. Ideally, we would also look at things like hybrid articles where the authors chose to pay to pay an APC but we couldn't separate those out with on paywall. And there are other pro OA behaviors we didn't capture like posting to academic social networks and things like that. Okay, next slide. But you know many studies in our literature review we found that many studies show that support for away and away publishing are growing and our results suggest that Berkeley is above average in both with the gold away publishing increasing recent large studies using on paywall data found the total levels of away were less than 50% and we found 72% so we feel like you know Berkeley's doing a good job with this. It's probably related to our open access policy and plus a high level of research funding and the funder mandates especially in the sciences. So you know despite this above average away publishing away is still not a top priority for authors they still chose other factors as being more important to them when deciding where to publish so you know author motivations are complex. So we did find that Berkeley researchers who publish more gold a feel more positive about it so experience publishing away helps. And like others have found APC may be a barrier, and they were a concern for our authors whether or not they received funding. And so this is a place where libraries can perhaps help with dedicated APC funds and transformative agreements. Next slide. So for future research as chance suggested we would want to find other ways to assess the always scholarly output for arts and humanities and also for the social sciences. And then we would want to refresh any survey data about away attitudes a lot has changed in the last few years and a lot of, you know, more attention to away so we might expect that attitudes have changed to. And we did find that authors of funded articles still request library APC funds. So we think it would be interesting to explore authors authors practices around using their research funds for paying APCs and you know what what the disconnect might be there. And finally, you see has a lot of recent transformative publishing agreements with, you know, a lot of different publishers and so going forward we would may want to monitor what impact that has on a way levels that Berkeley. So thank you. Thank you, Chan Becky and Mohammed and I see, Mohammed has been able to check back in so let's bring make sure we bring him in during our questions and discussion.