 Welcome back everybody. Thanks so much for participating in the workshop and the engaging discussion this morning to open us off from Miriam. I don't know if she's able to stay with us. Oh, there she is. That's great. But we'll move on into some panel sessions that we've planned for the workshop. The first of these will be focusing on the publishing research articles process. But in all of these panels, our goal is to is to understand, you know, how this is unfolding across the, across the criteria and goals that Miriam outlined for the, for the memo in the public access direction in general. So this first panel. Will focus for a focus on four speakers and I will just jump right in so that we can get going and I thank you very much for your patience with me because I'm just jumping into this. I wasn't planning on speaking publicly today. So First speaker is Brian Hitson. He's the director of the US department of energy's office of science and technical information. So, Austin, Austin fulfills agency wide responsibilities to collect, preserve and disseminate scientific and technical information animating from DOE funded research. In support of guidance from the OSTP, Brian is co-authored both the 2014 and the 2023 DOE public access plans. So this will be great to get the update developing strategies for increasing public access to scholarly publications and scientific data from the DOE. Along with DOE and Austin colleagues, he launched, he led the launch, thank you Brian, of the DOE public access gateway for energy and science or DOE pages. I'm looking forward to hearing more about that. He also formed partnerships with the National Science Foundation and Department of Defense and increasing public access to those agencies R and D results as well. And his directories led strategic efforts to improve discoverability and linkages between diverse and related research objects, including publications and data sets and scientific software at OST, OST.gov. He also represents the DOE and interagency and international open science initiatives and organizations. Brian holds a BA in economics and an MBA from the University of Tennessee. Thanks so much Brian. Thank you for that introduction and it's great privilege privilege to be here. Linda, I want to thank you and your team for prepping us speakers and you've done such a great job and always a privilege to be joining in this session with members of academia and the publishing communities and societies. And so real privilege there. And I really do want to give a shout out because the federal colleagues that I work with across agencies work so hard together in this whole endeavor. So Maryam just doing an outstanding job leading at a government-wide level all public access efforts. And Bob Hannish, my colleague from NS, will talk about the data piece of it this afternoon. He's just a national leader in data infrastructure and data thought in general. So Bob, really enjoy being here with you too. I am from the Department of Energy and I want to talk a little bit about our journey through public access, primarily in that in that timeframe of 2013, the Holder memo to the 2022 Nelson memo and beyond. I want to go back in time about DOE's public access mission for decades and then just end with sort of what Maryam talked about this concept of open science and how the public access policies are really enabling open science practices. With any luck, my remote will work better than Maryam's. So I want to start off here with this kind of very big picture of DOE's mission. DOE, a very big agency having a budget over $30 billion per year, about half of that going to research in the energy sciences, physical sciences. That money flows from Congress to our program offices within DOE and then to our 17 national laboratories and many hundreds of grantee institutions and universities. All of those entities are doing just amazing work in research and development in the energy sciences and the most immediate outcome of their work is recorded in the forms of scientific and technical information that you see here. Publications for sure. The peer review publications being those journal articles and accepted manuscripts, but also technical reports, conference papers and so forth. And as Maryam mentioned, data sets, software patents, other forms of scientific and technical information and out of that $15 billion investment, we generate about 50,000 R&D or STI products per year. So within the federal government, in terms of those journal article publications, this pie chart gives you a sense of which agencies are producing the largest volumes of journal articles. NIH and NSF, certainly the biggest share, NSDOE generating 25 to 27,000 articles per year and then a whole host of other agencies producing very meaningful quantities of journal articles. In the DOE, if you extract that just the journal article piece and think about the disciplines within those journal articles, because we are the largest U.S. funder of research in the physical sciences, makes perfect sense that we have published many articles in physics and chemistry and chemical engineering very relevant to this workshop, but you see a host of other agents, disciplines as well. Now, if you total these up, they will definitely total to more than the journal articles we've cited, but there are many occasions you get more than one subject category assigned to a given article. Now, within DOE, the responsibility for providing public access to that content falls to my organization, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information or OSTI within DOE. And we've had this mission for providing public access to our R&D results way before the Holder Memo in 2013. We started it in 1947 when we were established as part of the Atomic Energy Commission. I hope most of you have seen the Oppenheimer movie, the Manhattan Project that led to classified research for winning the war, but right after the war, people quickly turned to declassifying that information using that research information for peaceful purposes. That led to the Atomic Energy Commission, and along with the Atomic Energy Commission, OSTI was formed to be that arm of DOE that does that declassification of making that information available to the public. There have been various pieces of legislation that reiterate OSTI's mission in doing that, the most notable one being the 2005 Energy Policy Act that talked about the Secretary through OSTI shall maintain within DOE these publicly available collections of scientific information. So the visual on the left there is the umbrella search tool by which we make all of that content accessible, going all the way back to the Manhattan Project to the present, where we provide three plus million records going all the way back to that period in time to the present through OSTI.gov. After the 2013 Holder Memo that Maryam mentioned, we established this DOE pages of the Public Access Gateway for Energy and Science as our repository for those journal articles. Prior to 2013, most agencies didn't have sort of the ump for the authority to get into the full text of the journal articles. It was the Holder Memo that gave us that, and so pages represents that for DOE, and we're up to close to 200,000 articles. You'll think about, if you'll think about OSTI analogs and other agencies, what other parts of those agencies do the same kind of missions? The National Library of Medicine, the biggest and best known, we all look there for health conditions and diseases. In fact, us or our families, a great resource. In DOD, the Defense Technical Information Center performs this kind of mission. There are national libraries and departments of agriculture and transportation. NASA has an STI program. And prior to the 2013 Memo, NSF didn't really have an OSTI analog because they didn't have that mission, but they needed to establish a repository. So they partnered with DOE, and we host and develop for them their NSF public access repository. Just a wonderful partnership, a strategic partnership for us, and so we really value that relationship. So some of this I am going to repeat in a slightly different way from what Maryam had talked about, but why got it all started as far as agencies getting into the peer review publications piece of this and making the full text of that accessible was the John Holder Memo. And it focused largely on providing increased access to peer review publications and digital data. I won't talk so much about data, that'll be Bob and the afternoon session talking about that. But with respect to the publications, it allows for this one year embargo, as Maryam mentioned. And so just as with the 2022 Nelson Memo, with the Holder Memo, we also had to develop a public access plan first and foremost was our plan. And our plan in the publications model, part of that with at least talked about what I would call as mostly a green open access path for achieving that. The authors from our laboratories and grantees needed to submit to us their accepted manuscripts within 12 months of publication. We had the authority to to collect and disseminate those under what's called a government purpose or federal purpose license where we retain a copyright in the accepted manuscript to make it publicly accessible. Our model also integrates the voluntary participation of publishers publishers were not mandated. We don't have any leverage over publishers to say you have to participate. So when a publisher chooses to make their publishers manuscript accessible or a version of record accessible from pages, we will link out to that version of it as well. And again pages is the repository. Again, I won't speak much about data management plans that'll be covered more in the afternoon, but we established like most agencies, a data management plan requirement anytime a funding proposal is made to show how you're going to make your data more accessible. So over time we've been quite successful in building up what's available to the public through dwe pages in these journal articles that would not have made been made accessible to the public had it not been for the Holden memo. And so year by year we've increasing that from our labs and universities getting up to 200,000 articles per year. Now a lot of times people will ask what's been the impact over 10 years now of these articles becoming more accessible to the public. And there are many different ways of measuring this. This one is an article that I pulled from 2023 and a little bit busy but let me explain it. So on the upper on the upper visual, it shows the percentage of journal articles that are 17 national laboratories have made accessible since the 2014 open access mandate went into effect with the John Holden memo. And so you see that our national laboratories are getting upwards of 90% of their articles becoming accessible as a result of that of that memo. And then there's a control group that shows a lesser percent. The lower visual then shows since 2014 certain communities are citing those articles from our laboratories at much higher rates than they had before those things became accessible. Inventors and small firms communities that never would have had access to these through typical subscriptions and because they were made freely accessible that they're citing them more in their patent applications. And to me this is a real economic or commercial advantage of showing how these communities benefit from that. Scientists aren't aren't citing those articles at any higher rate. And my theory on that is that most scientists have subscriptions through their universities or their national laboratories. So it's it's not the public access mandate that's benefited them them so much as it is other communities that would have would not have had access to this kind of content. So fast forward to the Nelson memo in 2022 and Mary and touched up on a lot of this. And I hope many of you have read the Nelson memo it said the Holden memo everything great everything agencies were doing great. Keep doing that. But we want to make some key changes to that. One is we want to eliminate that 12 month embargo period to have immediate access to publications. We want agencies to maximize the use and reuse rights of those publications to enable machine readability and to under and to provide immediate access to the data displayed in our underlying publications which is what Mary and Bob mentioned earlier. And and for the first time and Mary mentioned this persistent identifiers. This was never mentioned in the Holden memo but personal identifiers is a big piece of the Nelson memo and I'll talk more about that in a minute too. So just as we did with the Holden memo we had to develop a public access plan. Today is the is the one year anniversary that we submitted it to STP we had we had six months after the after the memo was issued. So we got it over to STP on February 21. We had a very participative and inclusive process both within agencies with other agencies and with external communities within agency. My parent organization that that I'm a part of the Office of Science led it but we engaged all the major programs in DOE we're engaged research communities on an interagency basis. Mary mentioned the subcommittee open science we're very close to what other agencies are doing so we learned from them. Austin has been offering persistent identifier services where we give bids for DOE deal assets and software and so forth to other agencies. We learned a lot from that and that's informing our plan and then obviously we engage many external communities professional societies publishers libraries and our plan itself tells the public how you can give us how you can give us input and that's simply at the email comments at dot gov. So our 2020 we got that plan over into February 23. Mary and work very hard and got us approval in for in April of 23, and we're now in the throes of implementing it. And so again just as with our original plan, we're very much emphasizing the green open access route where authors can deposit their accepted manuscripts into DOE pages. We recognize that. Sorry, I jump forward. We recognize that publishers are very concerned some are threatened by this move from a 12 month to zero embargo. And so they're moving much more aggressively towards gold open access practices and APCs for those are planning acknowledges that that is an acceptable path for doing compliance. And so it's an allowable cost to have to have an OAP or a fee paid from their research funding. But the key word there is a reasonable OMB sets out that those costs are allowable as long as they're reasonable. And we're already seeing some way fees jumping up. So we're going to track this over time and monitor it very closely. And at some point, some agencies may have to decide to define what reasonable means. And, and then with respect to reuse rights we're certainly going to maximize those within existing copyright laws and rights and data causes that exist in grants and awards. I'm also showed a version of this timeline and I won't go over this too much, but we're right on track with where we need to be we've satisfied OSTP's requirement to get our plan out and finalized. We have to get any new requirements or policies in place by the end of 24 full implementation of those policies by the end of 2025. And then the 26 and 27 numbers have more to do for us in the case of persistent identifiers getting requirements out for those. So that'll be coming down the pike. Now I've, I have taken the liberty then I want to transition from the policy piece of this just to the conceptual piece of open science. I borrowed this from Wikipedia where you see the different components of open science here, and I've taken the liberty of adding the yellow boxes that's where do is really playing a big game and some of the discovery tools there. So we're really focusing on getting those publications more openly accessible open data software was mentioned we're doing a whole lot and getting our software accessible. We have discovery tools, do we code data Explorer do we pages for getting those different kinds of outputs more accessible to the public and then the umbrella search tool of Oste.gov. Around that I've drawn this dotted line of persistent identifiers and Mary mentioned that, and that's really the connective tissue for getting access across all these diverse research objects. The memo itself called for pits for research outputs for researchers themselves and for R&D awards so our plan will be covering all three, three of those pieces. Now I just want to show sort of visually and I'll finish up very quickly here. And many of you are seeing this in the tools that you use but but I just want to show illustrate how PIDs can kind of help you bounce across the research landscape. Journal articles or many cases are issuing digital object identifiers for those. So in this metadata page at Oste.gov or DOE pages will show any time a publisher has provided a DOI to the article so you can bounce right out to that article if it's available. It's not always available but the the accepted manuscript should be. And then with the authors of course Orchid ID is kind of the default PID for authors so we'll definitely pull in the metadata related to an author's Orchid ID and you can go out and see their full range of publications. But then I really want to focus on sort of that data set and software output. We've had a service for some time of issuing PIDs or DOIs to data sets and software so you so very seamlessly and it promotes reproducibility to get to that data set and software. So from our metadata page from the journal article or accepted manuscript, you're able to bounce right out to the data set and see that what's happening and similarly for the software. You can go out and see the software and that really again promotes this idea of trans transparency and reproducibility. And that's ultimately what we're trying to get to and implementing the policy and the and what's expected from OST Peter fully realize the benefits of open science. And so with that, I just want to say thank you again thank you for having me and I look forward to working with the panel thanks. Thank you Brian I appreciated those examples right at the end that was really inspiring. And we will be saving questions for the panel time so I would like to jump into our next speaker now who is actually joining us remotely from the United Kingdom. This is Emma Wilson. Emma is the director of publishing at the Royal Society of Chemistry, and she has strategic responsibility for RSC's portfolio of journals, books and chemistry databases, ensuring that the publishing portfolio delivers against the society's mission to help the chemical sciences community make the world a better place. And I can see Emma on the monitor there so that's great. A particular focus is working with the chemistry community and other stakeholders to accelerate the transition to open access publishing models and supporting the development and adoption of open science practices. She's previously served on both the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association and the Association of Learned and Professional Scholarly Publisher Boards. And prior to joining RSC, she held a variety of editorial and business development roles at Elsevier and before that trained and worked as a biochemist at the university Sheffield University, Cambridge and University of Rome. Thanks so much Emma for joining us remotely. Thank you. Thank you so much. Can everyone hear me? Okay. I will just share my screen. We can hear you great. Brilliant. Thank you. Right, I'm just sorry I'll just get this. Screen is shared. I might want to get into the right place. The right presentation. Does that work? Perfect. Brilliant. Thank you. So good morning everyone and it's an absolute pleasure to be joining you today. I am sorry that I'm not being able to come in person and huge thanks to the organisers for providing me with this opportunity. Really looking forward to participating and also learning a lot from the panel discussion and workshop. I'm going to take quite a broad view of some of the work that the RSC is doing around partnering with researchers and also library communities in our kind of collective road towards open science. And first of all, I'll put some of that in context of the wider RSCs work. Hopefully we don't need too much of an introduction for this audience and I'm sure many of you are involved directly in the kind of breadth of our activities, whether that's some, you know, our educational work, policy work, scientific events working through our membership groups, we have 55,000 members worldwide or through our publications. But everything that we do is focused to deliver our purpose, which is to help the chemical sciences community make the world a better place. And part of our mission is to provide the tools for our community to create and exchange knowledge. This of course speaks to open science and also our publication portfolio as well. So we publish chemistry databases, we publish books and we publish a portfolio of 56 journals that span the whole of the chemical sciences and we're publishing at scale around 36,000 articles a year. So what are we doing around open science? So open science as we've heard, it's, you know, it's really broad and it touches many things. But it's about making every part of the research cycle, not just the research outputs, but every part of the research cycle more accessible to all. It's to increase the dissemination of the research allow its reuse to increase the rigor of research in terms of reproducibility and evaluation about fostering collaborations and also building equity and maximizing the impact of that research also for societal benefit. But this does necessitate a change in the way that science is both conducted and communicated. And so any transition to more open science practices also necessitates a change in open in research culture as well. So I do think broadly that societies have a really important role that we can play here in terms of facilitating the development and the adoption of open science practices. And this is because I think we're really quite uniquely placed to work with our communities and our communities are discipline specific. And I think that's important for open science, because there will be different needs within different disciplines. We're also really well placed to work across many different aspects of research culture, and also open science, be that in our accreditation skills and training programs, our work around research assessment, or whether that's through our publication routes as well. We can partner in this space and I think a really fantastic example of that is around, is the formation of chem archive, which is when five chemistry societies came together to address a discipline specific need, open science service of the preprint server in chemistry. The other thing that I think is relevant here is where as societies are absolutely hardwired to uphold quality and integrity. And although business models may change. I don't think this, this will, this will always be at the centre of what societies do and how they uphold research and the outputs of that research. So as we said, open science is extremely broad. So at the RSC we think, okay, what does this mean for the chemical sciences, and where can we make the most impact. So we focus predominantly on research assessment and research culture and we have broad, broad programs around that. And then open access, which is what I'll talk about now, and then finish quickly on open research data as well. So I've been asked to give a little bit of a European perspective as well around open access. So open access, the shift to open access is really in full flow, but it isn't evenly distributed yet. However, I think the direction of travel is fairly, fairly clear. And it's no longer and if there'll be open access, it's when and very importantly how. So how will that transition be managed in a fair and equitable and sustainable way as well. How would those quality standards be upheld as well. So in terms of the push for open access a European perspective, there are a number of things that have happened in Europe. So we've worked under an open access policy environment for some time. And this really culminated in 2018 with the formation of Coalition S, which was a group of funders that came together and put forward Plan S. So there are significant open access mandates from funders operating in Europe, but also I think really importantly was the way that librarians have really experimented and championed open access models as well. And worked with publishers and developed new and innovative open access models. And you can see this in terms of the rise of transformative agreements. And these are sometimes called read and publish agreements or publish and read agreements. And this is when a publisher and an institute have an agreement and we are within one agreement. There is there are fees that cover the open access publishing costs in gold open access journals, usually in the hybrid portfolio and there's also a fee for any pay walled content so subscription content as well. It's a way of moving and transitioning and subscription spend to open access services spend as well. So we've been experimenting and with these sort of open access agreements since 2016. As I said on my previous slide you can see there's been a really significant rise in the last few years of these agreements. We have over 1250 institutes are covered in 37 countries with really high uptake and traction in Europe. But now we're seeing that gaining traction in there in the US and other countries as well. So the roots to open access at the RSC. We have a number of them we have chemical sciences which is our flagship journal free to read free to publish and the costs are covered by the society. We have a portfolio of gold open access journals. These are mostly covered by author facing article APC charges. Our portfolio of hybrid journals where authors can choose to publish either by the behind the paywall or through a gold open access route. And as I said we have a growing number of institutional open access agreements that support the payment that support open access publishing mostly in our hybrid portfolio. And these are extremely popular agreements with researchers as there's no author facing APC charges when they publish open access if they're covered by an agreement. And we also have chem archive the pre print server which as I said is shared service formed by five societies. We also have a green route to open access publishing as well and that's with a 12 month embargo period. So how does our community choose to publish. And as you can see, we have very high uptake of gold open access publishing for Sweden for countries that are covered by transformative agreements. And as you can see here in the UK it's over 90 90% in in Germany it's it's somewhat light lower at 61% the US 36% and our UK US authors tend to publish open access in our gold open access journals not our hybrid portfolio and China I've also put up here as well and China are Chinese authors again favor our gold open access journals and not our hybrid portfolio. Of course, we will obviously also be having authors that are publishing under the green route as well. So we've come a long way in terms of open access around just under 30% of our content is published through a gold open access route. But we believe there is further to go. We see open access as the future and we want to be part of that. We want to be working on both with our researcher community and also a librarian community to develop models that will work for all actors in this in this space. From our perspective, we would like to develop models where authors are not paying for APC, APCs and paying for open access, but the libraries, governments, university budgets, governments and funders are reinvesting reinvesting the subscription funds to cover open access publication costs. And really to have a global understanding where open access and certainly open access at the RSC is about quality integrity as well as transparency and that quality and integrity part will always be an important part of our journal portfolio. I'm delighted to tell you this is breaking news that we have been working with customers to develop new and sort of more future facing open access models. And we co-developed with TIB and it's a German consortia. It's quite a new way of looking at institutional models and it has a community action approach as part of it. There are three components to the agreement, a base fee, which is a membership fee that all members of the consortia pay and this covers publishing services. The publishing component that is variable and this applies only to institutes that publish and part of the way the model works is there is a range of institutes within the consortia. So some research intensive institutes that have high publication output, but also institutes that have much lower publication output or read only. And that publishing component is not article specific or APC based and we look at total output of the group and calculate the publishing share accordingly. And there are discounts available as well. So the more institutes that participate the better the rate. And we believe and I think our customers believe that this is a more fair and equitable way to structure the fees for these sorts of models. And finally, I'm just going to talk very briefly about open data, although I would shout out, you know, we'd love to talk to the librarian community in the US in terms of your needs and aspirations for open access and to work with you in developing models that will work in your circumstances as well. So open data, very much believe in the fair principles for open data. And, but there are challenges in the chemical sciences so from transitioning from supporting information to real data deposition publication and citation around standards and instrumentation and infrastructure, and also making it easy and rewarding for the researcher. And the researcher at the heart of this as well. There's a huge amount going on in the space and I know many of you that in the room or on this call are involved in aspects of this as well. In our journals and linking data sharing to research to our article publications we strongly encourage authors to deposit the data, and that's in an appropriate repository and then to formally cite that. And, as Brian was saying also had to have a persistent identifier there. We encourage data availability statements and we require them on our journal digital discovery. We're working actively with the community around the development of open standards. We develop open ontologies and are a founding member of the Inche Trust, for example, and this is a whole community and cross disciplinary journey that we are on together. So here is just a recap follow fair guidance deposit the data when possible. All of the data obviously must be shared at submission that supports the finding repositories over supplementary material and look out for journal specific guidelines. And as I said, digital discovery data accessibility statement is required. Strongly encourage authors to deposit as much data and code as possible. And there are, there is a specific data reviewer on every paper that's reviewed for digital discovery who checks the data code, the usability, the accessibility of that data. It's cleaning the model development and validation reproducibility, for example, of the code. So I appreciate that was really very much a whistle top stop tour of some of the things that we're doing at the RSC to support and develop open access practices and open science practices more broadly. Thank you. Thank you so much. I love. Thank you for bringing in some of the perspective from from Europe. It's really quite interesting to hear how how it's like it's unpacking there. Next we'll be having representative of the American Chemical Society so looking at a chemical society publisher in the US. I'm happy to welcome Sarah Tegan who is the senior vice president and chief publishing officer for the American Chemical Society publications. She leads the development of ACS's preeminent portfolio of 85 hybrid and open access journals oversees the award winning news magazine chemical engineering news and manages development of the ACS books program and also had strategic planning and relation development in Asia. Dr. Tegan serves as chair of the STM Association, STM's research integrity governance board, the American Heart Association scientific publishing committee, and the American Society for Microbiology's publishing committee. I needed to practice this ahead. Sarah previously served as co chair of STM society day co chair of SP SP what is PSP stand for there you'll have to tell us when you come up journals committee and the CSE president. Tegan has developed several pros award winning journals and platforms as a frequent speaker at a range of industry topics and is alumna of the University of California Berkeley and the MIT. Thank you Sarah so much. Thank you Leah for that that introduction and PSP is the professional and scholarly publishers division of the American. The association of American publishers. So I've been involved in the industry for a long time I've been with ACS for about 18 years and before that I got my start in publishing at at PNAS right so very much steeped in nonprofit publishing society publishing and the importance that that plays in our ecosystem. Really I want to thank Linda for all of her work and organizing Rob Laska for his work and in helping chair. It's a really great opportunity to be here to speak to a lot of like minded individuals. And I'm really glad to have followed my, my friend and colleague Emma Wilson, because RSC and ACS are so very closely aligned in what we do. And, you know, frankly I could say pretty much ditto to to Emma's presentation and sit down, but I'm going to give you a little bit of a tour about what ACS is doing around open access and open science. So, I want to start with a little bit of context setting I want to talk a little bit about global scholarship. The graph shown here shows the past 20 years of chemistry content of chemistry articles as indexed by scopus. And I source this information from the US National Science Foundation and their National Center for Science and Engineering statistics. What we see from the graph here is that chemistry articles as classified by scopus are growing at about 5% per year, and nearly all of that growth is happening outside of the US in Europe. And in 2022, the year for which data is most recently available more than a third of the content came from labs in China. And for me this is such an interesting shift in the research ecosystem in not such a long time. And it gets at some of what Emma was saying to about the transition to open access and how much more supportive of open access, the Europe and the US are so we're going to be living in a mixed economy, I think for some time. The second point about growth and scholarship is about the growth and global research and development. In 2000, there was about $750 billion in R&D funding with the US leading the way. Closer to today, the most recent data available was 2019. China is close to investing a trillion US dollars in R&D. That represents for them a fivefold increase in the amount of research and development activity going on there. And the US and Europe are growing but are growing at a slower pace. We have also understood from some of our partnerships in China and some of the folks that we know there is that China is looking to shift some of its research and development investment from applied science to more basic research, and they're hoping to grow that fraction of research and development money from 6% to 8%. So why is this important, right? Global scholarship is growing as a science enthusiast and a former practitioner. I love this. I think that the world is better when more science is done by more people. However, as a consumer of scientific information, I'm worried that there is so much more good science out there to understand, and somehow my day hasn't gotten longer, right? So it's the problem of trying to figure out how do we shift, sift through all of the information that's out there. So at ACS publications, like so many other not-for-profit society publishers, we understand that we play a really vital role in the research community. We are the community, right? Folks who are chemists join the American Chemical Society, join the Royal Society of Chemistry, join the German Chemical Society. They are our scholarly homes. We set the standards. We convene people. We recognize practitioners. We educate the practitioners. We, as nonprofits, also reinvest any excess revenue back into the things that the society does, and that's a really important difference for Emma and me from some of the other commercial publishers out there. Like Emma said, one of the things we care most closely about within the ACS publications is research integrity. It's not lip service for me. It's not lip service for my colleagues that when we say we want to strive to be the most trusted source of chemical information, we mean that. We live that every day because we, because without trust in science, without trust in what we do, misinformation flourishes, and I think that diminishes the importance of science globally. And we are living in an age of misinformation and the more that we can do to help promote trusted research, I think that better off we are as a global population. So at ACS publications are 900 editors are all active practitioners of chemistry. They are professors, they are government researchers, they are corporate scientists, and they work closely with our professional staff, many of whom are trained in chemistry or other scientific disciplines. We have a team of people who are responsible for helping to educate our editors on best practices in peer review and how to manage their own work. We also have two groups within our publishing integrity office who focus solely on ethics and data. These folks work closely with our editors and our authors to uphold and understand research integrity. In addition to that, we are active members and participants and leaders within things like the Committee on Publication Ethics, the STM Research Integrity Hub, the Research Data Alliance, and we've endorsed the joint declaration of data citation principles. So research integrity really is at the heart of everything that we do. I want to turn next into diving into research data sharing, and I want to reiterate here that we are committed to the fair principles for sharing. All of ACS journals have embraced a level one of the fair data principles means that all of our authors are encouraged to share data. Some of our journals now require a data availability statement that's primarily in our organic chemistry journals, and we're using them as a pilot test case. And what we're learning from the pilot is going to extend into what we are planning to do for all of our journals where we'll require a data availability statement for every single publication. And then finally, some of our journals have adopted a level three plan where some data must be shared and this is a little bit discipline specific things like sharing CCDC coordinates and things like that. So within the context of data sharing, we also realize that there is a role for ACS to play in helping to facilitate the deposition storage and retrieval of data in a way that also helps get authors credit for helping the scholarly community. I'm really glad to have heard that from Brian, right, that sharing data that sharing publications helps not just academic researchers, scholarly researchers, but it helps the small business community get access to information. We think that that's really important, but we also want to make sure that authors that researchers are getting credit for the work that they're doing to make their data available. So, along those lines, we are developing the chemistry data bank as the site to deposit digital data relevant to chemistry. Chemistry data bank will bridge the two sided market in scientific research. It will provide clear guidance to authors on how to apply open science standards to their chemistry research to enable them to share their primary research data. Right, the thing that we know is we want researchers to do the things that they're really good at to do the things that they want to do. We want them back in the lab. We don't want to have them thinking about how do I administer all of the, the requirements around the funding and research. We want them to do research. On the other side of the equation chemistry data bank will deliver high quality practical primary research data sets to chemistry researchers as part of the supporting information in published journal articles. And for us, this means that they're going to have a DOI as well. So getting at that requirement for persistent identifiers we fully agree that the infrastructure of publishing DOI is kids or kids, all of which have been funded by the publishing industry are important components for findability accessibility, reusability. And ACS publications has been a supporter of open access now for nearly two decades. But it was about 19 years ago that we made our first articles openly available. And in order to stimulate researchers to publish open access a decade ago in 2014 we created a program that allowed authors to use an ACS provided token to publish their next article in ACS open access. We introduced an ACS sponsored diamond open access journal ACS Central Science, totally sponsored by the American Chemical Society and ACS Central Science is led by 2022 Nobel Prize laureate, Carolyn Bertosi, and it focuses on interdisciplinary research of exceptional quality. We also want ACS publications to be accessible for all different kinds of researchers. So around the same time that we introduced ACS Central Science, we also created our sound science journal ACS Omega. And in 2021 we introduced our gold suite of open access journals, which satisfied satisfy the needs of authors who are required to publish in fully open access journals, but who are seeking a venue that's more closely tied to the disciplinary community to which they are affiliated. So for ACS today we have 17 fully open access journals, as well as 70 hybrid open hybrid journals. I really couldn't be more proud of our journals program. With the exception of Central Science that ACS funds are open access journals are supported by transformational agreements or by article publishing fees with various and substantial discounts available to subscribers at various institutions around the world. I also want to reinforce what Miriam said before I really appreciated her comment that open science is careful science. I couldn't agree more. And each of our open access journals is guided by the same rigorous peer review process as any other ACS journal, and the editors of our open access journals have the same goals as every other ACS editor to work with their communities to work with authors to shape and publish the best science for the community that the journal serves our efforts to help the community navigate the transition to open access are working in the past three years our open access. Authorship has increased by 40% our open access articles have increased by 50% and the usage of our open access articles has grown by 64%. That number of published papers in 2023, more than 15,700 open access articles represents about 25% of our portfolio, and we are committed to moving with the market. I think it's really great to see that RSC and ACS are just about on par with a number with a percentage of papers that are published open access. Our sales team has worked really closely with the chemistry librarian community to develop read and publish agreements that like Emma talked about earlier. And as we closed out last year we have more than 1000 read and publish agreements across 35 countries. The one thing that doesn't get highlighted in this graphic is a really great program innovative program that we created that's aimed at creating more equity in the system. For primarily undergraduate institutions who are subscribers to ACS publications. Their researchers who choose to submit to our journals are offered an open access option with ACS covering all of the costs so no cost to the researchers at these primarily undergraduate institutions. And last year more than 100 papers were made open access through this program. I think that's a great way that we are getting at equity within the system. ACS publications wants to support all authors who wish to publish in our journals. And I'm really glad that funders institutions and publishers agree that there is a real cost to scholarly publishing to ensure a sustainable model of delivering high quality rigorous services from submission to final editorial decision. Last fall we introduced a new option for authors who need to utilize a zero embargo green open access option because of a funder mandate. We call this option the article development charger ADC. The ADC simply covers the cost of ACS is publishing services through the final editorial decision. This includes organizing and developing and maintaining the high quality scholarly review process that's provided by our global network of fantastic editors and reviewers. It includes our focus on research integrity that I mentioned earlier, it includes all of the infrastructure that goes along with publishing. It also includes community development activities, which are so important to scholarly societies. So in the six months or so since we introduced this this new program we've had some questions about who this option will apply to. The answer today is that it applies to a very, very small number of authors. More than 90% of authors who are subject to these mandates have a simple and funded pathway to make their articles gold open access in ACS journals, either through institutional read and publish agreements, or another source of funding. The ADC is intended to provide a solution to that small fraction of remaining authors who need to adhere to this zero embargo green open access mandate. And today, as of earlier this week, we have had only one author utilize this pathway. With so many other organizations, so many other funding bodies so many other coalitions are preferred option is for authors to utilize read and publish agreements to make their version of record open access through a gold pathway. Right, and we couldn't agree more with Emma that we don't want authors paying directly open access fees. We would much rather work with funders with institutions with governments to find a way that makes the sustainable for everyone. And the final thing that I want to talk on that that Emma also talked about is a way to broaden access to research results is the collaboration that camera archive and bodies through five like minded scholarly chemistry societies. In 2017 we created camera archive jointly which is the pre print server dedicated to chemistry. It's funded and run by us as part of our service to the, to the development of the chemistry community. And I am so pleased that camera archive covers so many different disciplines of chemistry and receive submissions from around the globe. It continues to grow really nicely with more than 21,000 pre prints posted last year and those pre prints reviewed nearly 50 million times, which speaks to the power of pre printing in chemistry. Our archive just to reiterate is free to authors and readers and with the costs for camera archive born by the five partner societies. So just to close out scholarly societies play a unique and critical role within the publishing ecosystem. Our goals are quite different from commercial publishers we and reinvest in our community. We help set the discipline norms, we educate the next generation we convene the community, and we are thoroughly committed to protecting the integrity of the literature. We want to educate on great research practice, including sharing, and our community expects no less of us they expect us to take a leadership role here. I hope that we can agree that scholarly publishing is more robust when you have many different kinds of publishers who are represented in it. And I will be happy to take questions with the panel a little later. Thanks. Thanks Sarah for that background on ACS programs and then look forward to following up further during the Q&A. Last but not least, we will have a librarian perspective. Libraries have mentioned several times over course of the day already. So it's really my great pleasure to welcome Elaine Westbrooks. Elaine is the University Librarian. Where is your title on here? Here we go. Sorry, Elaine. Hi, I'm Elaine Westbrooks, University Librarian and Vice Provost at Cornell University. Kaviyat, I did invite her, but I wasn't going to be leading this panel originally. So Elaine has received her bachelor's degree from the University of Pittsburgh and her master's degree in library and information science also from Pittsburgh. She first came to Cornell library in 2000 as a metadata librarian. In 2005, she became a senior metadata librarian and then became the head of metadata services. She developed and strengthened strategic alliance with other library units to really advance and position metadata services as an integral component of libraries digital collections. In 2008, she became the associate dean for library operations at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, where she provided strategic managerial staff development operational leadership for technical services, research and instruction services, all branch libraries in the data curation program. In 2012, Elaine became the associate university librarian for research at the University of Michigan, where she coordinated and administered support for the university's research enterprise. Also providing operational leadership to the copyright office, Asia library, area studies and most of the subject specialists. And then from 2017 to 2022 Elaine served as a university librarian and vice purpose for university libraries at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, where she was responsible for the library annual budget of 45 million. As an expert who's been interviewed by the Chronicle of Higher Education in Vox, Elaine is also co-authored, meditated in practice with Diane Hillman in 2004 and co-edited at academic library management case studies with Tammy Nicholson Deary and Michael Math in 2017. So she's a much sought out speaker on diversity, equity, inclusion in libraries and other topics related to scholarly communications and leadership. In 2015 and 2016, she was honored with the Foreign Expert Award by Fudan University in Shanghai for her leadership in building strategic partners across borders. She serves on the board of numerous organizations, including SAGE Publishing Center for Open Science and the Digital Public Library of America. So, thank you Elaine. Alright, thank you Leah for that introduction is really an honor to be here and I very much appreciate the opportunity to talk and to meet many of you. So I'm going to jump right in here. And I wanted to just come out with an affirmative statement on where I believe the scholarly communications system is currently right now. And so as you may know, Cornell is an Ivy League school and we're part of the Ivy Plus Library Confederation and we collectively spend 200 million a year on collections. And yet, when we meet face to face and via Zoom, we lament on how difficult it is to acquire the research that is necessary to support the research, teaching, learning and healing that's happening at these institutions. And so, so I titled this presentation though, about facilitators and funders because I always have to remind a lot of people that libraries are the source of a lot of the funding that we that is necessary to support the research that is taking place. Right, whether you're it's the society, the society's publishing is being funded by the library if it's, you know, one of the big multinational publishers that funding is coming from the library. And in addition to that, it's all the services that we provide of the librarians that are supporting this work that is also being funded by the library and I think that is a really important point. And as things change and as memberships drop in societies and, and, and the budgets get tighter, there's still this really important role that we pay, we play as the funder, and as a facilitator. And so, I'll talk more about some of these issues that are really hitting higher edge just to provide more context, but I did want to start off with this because I do firmly believe that we still are not out of the woods right we still have a system that is quite challenging. And, and I think it's going to be difficult to get to open science if we don't address some of these issues with our scholarly communication system. And, and I believe that you know you still have to be an elite elite institutions and have elite libraries that to fully participate in many of these publishing models that we have. I believe that the population of people conducting the research lacks diversity, the people who get the publish is not a diverse group and the people to decide who gets to publish is not exactly a diverse group. And I think there's still a lot of barriers that are in place that make it difficult for many people to participate. And then fundamentally, I believe many of this is still remains unaffordable, and you can be a nonprofit publisher and still be unaffordable. So it's not just we're saying only one group is affordable there's a lot of affordable research that libraries are not able to acquire. Okay, and so I wanted to provide some context about the higher ed because this is interesting. There we go. Because, of course, the research enterprise is so important to institution like Cornell University, but there's so many other things that are going on in higher ed. And I would just start off by saying that values that have been core to Cornell University, since its founding, have become hotly debated topics nationwide. And so higher ed is really at a moment where, you know, pre expression First Amendment is extremely challenging the campuses today, academic freedom, intellectual freedom. We have a community, particularly United States is questioning the value of a college education. We have pressures from government and donors who want to decide who gets to be hired and fired at universities. We have, you know, a declining investment in higher ed in general. We have legacy admissions that are being heavily scrutinized right now, a firm of action in higher ed and emissions is now illegal. We have artificial intelligence as a major disruptor. And it's in the world that's increasingly dictated by algorithms and AI is not merely a technological phenomenon. It is a transformative force that is redefining our intellectual social and professional landscapes. We have a historic censorship, the battle for privacy and a reckoning right we have at least 40 bills introduced in 22 states. That are essentially trying to restrict diversity, equity, inclusion efforts in higher ed. And finally, and I can go on, but we have increasing union is a unionization of student athletes and graduate students that is certainly taking hold throughout higher ed. So this is kind of the, the complex situation that we find higher ed, in addition to thinking about the research enterprise and how we go change the world and push the front tears of knowledge at these institutions. And so one of the things I hear a lot about is a lot of hand wringing and moaning about compliance right that just happens a lot. And I think that this idea that, you know, there's always something else to comply with something that our researchers and I talk to faculty every day. And this is, you know, this is something that just keeps coming up. And, you know, I typically say yeah yeah I mean I feel your pain but you still have to do this right. And I think part of it is, it's not just the research compliance but it's the compliance for all the other things so harassment and sexual assault and athletics at missions academic integrity. All these things that the significant risks that the universities are subjected to and so the compliance, I think is really important like we have to have these sticks, because I don't think actually higher ed is going to change without some of the sticks and I wish they were more carrots but these sticks are really important to really force the change that we think is is necessary. So the other part I want to make is awareness about a lot of these issues that have been talked about today awareness about scholarly communications and so just this morning I got an email from a faculty member. Asking me about retractions and why are there so many retractions and why you know, and these, I did not used to get these questions before, and then yesterday I got an article or an email from a faculty member who wants to talk about flipping their right. And so what I would say that there are these multiple stages of awareness. And I would say that when I first came into the profession, even though Paul Ginsberg had started the archive at Los Alamos in 1991, brought it to Cornell. And there still weren't a lot of conversations about the system and what's working what's not working. And so I think there was a lot of unawareness. And now I'm seeing a lot more problem aware, right. They know there's a problem, but they're not exactly how they don't know how to solve the problem. And now I get this question of like how can we help solve this problem. And so I think these stages of awareness like I've witnessed it in my 30 years in this profession to see that people are thinking about these things. Much more people are very concerned. And of course librarians have been concerned for a really long time. But to hear a lot more questions a lot more concerned from the faculty is something that is just is definitely changing and it's increasing. And so in terms of the the context of the library so you have higher it all the pressure of higher it then you have the research libraries and all the pressures that I'm that keep me up at night and I think about day in and day out. And I would say first and foremost is really about the chokehold on the library budgets right. And so, you know my budget for materials, almost 85% of it is already sucked up by about, you know, three publishers, essentially so. So the cereals, scientific cereals are dominating the budget. And that number was not the case before right it was closer to 50% than 60 but now it's close it's in the 80s. And so I have very few degrees of freedom to go out and acquire the content that that the researchers would like to have at Cornell University. And so in that what's left, I have to pay for the monographs and databases and maps and all those other things all the data sets and things that are needed for research teaching learning and healing. And of course Cornell University keeps bringing in new programs right new departments new areas of disciplines are splitting these things keep happening. Obviously new journals keep getting produced. A lot of journals are publishing more issues per volume. And so, being able to keep up with the velocity, the volume, the variety of of scholarly research and the assets are being being produced as a result of this is very difficult with a flat budget. Right. And so it's a very difficult conversation because I often get called and so they'll talk to you know my wonderful librarians like Lee and say hey I'm upset like why'd you cancel this journal and all this stuff. And you know I didn't have to say this before but now it's just like okay well what what other journals should we cancel so we keep the journal that you want. And that's not the kind of conversation I want to have with the researchers, but that's the one I have on a regular basis because are we're so constrained with the budgets that it's either you add one journal you have to subtract another. So, this is the reality of the research library budget and, and if this can happen at Ivy League school like Cornell you can imagine that's what's happening at some of the other schools that have, you know that are very prestigious schools schools that are putting out amazing research like Michigan State and Michigan and Berkeley, but these pressures are real. And so I want to show this picture because, you know for many years this this whole scholarly communications thing just kept me up at night. And now I guess I've come to accept that, you know the budgets flat, you know at some point this is going to take care of itself because I only have so much money, and the buying power keeps going down significantly year after year I could just buy less right. And so I wanted to start this picture because you know I want to remind our listeners that libraries jobs are the preserve the scholarly record. And so this is a picture from our annex and my job is to preserve and steward what we have purchased for the past 200 years forever. And so this annex is just as important to me as the journals that I subscribe to every day. And this is what's keeping me up at night more because nobody has enough space for this stuff and of course is a lot of this is monographs and archives and things like that. But this is really important that we preserve this for future generations of scholars, not just Cornelians but everyone we want to preserve this. And this is, you know thinking about how do we keep this at, you know, I think we have, gosh, seven. No, I'm sorry we 55 degrees 36% relative humidity, the cost of that cost of moving materials. What if I have to build another one of these is which is what I'm contemplating now. And so this preservation mandate the curation and stewardship is so important. And as we shift our models we're not thinking about acquiring the content anymore like we used to. And now it's been about how do we acquire access. And so I think what also is important is that, and this goes to the preservation is these are our values, right. And it's really important that we have these values to be the backbone to our policies, their promises for what libraries stand for. And these values guide our decision making, particularly when our resources are constrained. And so they demonstrate what is important to us and they send a message to everyone what we value. And what it sends a message to the publishers or donors or administrators or staff, our staff, and they allow us to make course corrections if we stray. So these are the eight values that I think are really important as we think about this future of building collections. And so the shift I see happening among the research libraries is just rethinking how we built research collections and and of course we've already given up we can't buy everything. But Interlibrary Loan is awesome. And we will continue to invest in Interlibrary Loan. And what I've learned is at other institutions where I've canceled titles, Interlibrary Loan picks up the slack very well. And that's a lot cheaper to support Interlibrary Loan than to buy journals. So Interlibrary Loan is we're going to double down on that. We're also having these bigger conversations about collective collections. And so instead of just thinking about Cornell as a collection, I think of all the other 12 Ivy plus schools as a collection. The Big 10 does the same University of California does the same. And then the other thing I want to mention is control digital lending. I mean, it has a long way to go, but we have to find a way to lawfully and legally share digital content. The technology is there. We just have to figure this out. And of course we have to buy by the laws. And then as I mentioned before, when we analyze the serial cancellations, we don't see Interlibrary Loan going through the roof, right? When we make these cancellations, we don't fully understand what our faculty are doing because we cancel, we save the money, but we don't know how they're getting it. Now we can suspect that they're using illegal means, they're getting it from friends, like they're doing all kinds of things. But the data has been very clear that when you cancel things like large sets, thousands of titles, the world does not come to an end. And I think this is the reality that we live in. So I want to mention the open science and I want to go back to the side idea that open access is fundamentally a part of open science. And I don't think you can have one or the other, you have to have both. And so open science is something that is really, really important to libraries and we are very much committed to supporting it in every way possible. And I was just thinking about the positions I hire. And so nowadays, we just have a position posted for open scholarship librarian, data visualization librarian, data curation librarian. These are the positions that I'm increasingly hiring because data is so important. And we're expanding our department for open science and open scholarship and digital scholarship. And it's like we never have enough. Like I could hire six more librarians and it's never going to be enough. But facilitating this open science is something that we do and the policy work that we participate in. And so one of the groups that was already mentioned, I think Mary mentioned is Helios. That's an organization in higher ed that's really thinking about the higher ed leadership initiative or open scholarship is something we're really supporting right now. But if I go back to one, we are continuing to provide some funding, but we're really, what's the word, we scrutinize it quite a bit, right? And so we just don't give anybody open access funding, but we really think about what kind of publishing we want to support. And then, as I mentioned, policy change is really important that we're working internally with our institution, but also externally. We're really big on author rights, and we spend a lot of time educating our authors about how to make good choices. And this, this whole education component is really important to us. So, and then finally, our values remain really important and are driving what we do more and more every day. And so I do feel like we are setting up a situation where, you know, we have our values, and we make sure that our researchers and faculty understand those values. And so when they're upset when we cancel the journals because they don't align up with our values that they don't, you know, they don't beat me up, right? They go back to the society or the publisher or whatever and have that conversation because we're at the point where this is not a sustainable system. And the values are what we have to stand on no matter what. And this is, this is a lot of the conversation that's happening, not only at right now, but in libraries, research libraries across the country. So I think I will, oh, I forgot to mention just the consortia that we're working on are doing so much. This is what we talk about. This is what we talk about in the Association Research Library meetings. And they're all the Northeast Research Library group. These buying clubs are still important. They're still relevant to us. Haley else has already mentioned is working on the policy and working across many institutions. And then we really want to invest in like-minded institutions. So thinking about orchid and data site and RDA and all these, there's so many groups that are working on these issues. And really trying to invest in all of those groups and be clear on what we want to invest in and what we don't want to invest in. So I think that is actually the end. All right, welcome back everybody from the break. Welcome to everyone online. We're going to be moving now into a question answer and also discussion portion of the program. We have about an hour for this session so we can have a lot of time to really dig into some of the burning issues you might have around some of these topics. So anyone who's just joining us, we just finished a round robin of speakers on a panel. We had funders and published society publishers and librarians represented. So a breath of perspectives and stakeholders around this question of open access and publishing scientific articles. Okay, so now we will move into the Q&A and I'll go ahead and kick it off. There's a question that came in through zoom, but I think we could broaden this and get it going. You know, we're in a transition period here we're trying a lot of different models. And it hinges around where the money is coming from. Of course, it's one of the bottom lines. Another thing is maybe workflows and infrastructure to support support support those workflows. What is the vision for the future and getting to a place where the workflow but also the accessibility of the funding is equitable across the research sectors across different size institutions across different areas of the world. So this question originally came in for Emma so we can start there. But we'll we'll we'll go around the panel go ahead Emma. Yeah, thanks. So that's, that's a big question. It is at the nub of lots of things. I mean, as I said, I think I think there is a transition and we won't get I mean this is going to be very messy. I think for quite a long time there was experimentation and there are different models. I think there was an awareness and a greater awareness that equity is important and needs to be built in from the beginning. But how that is done on a both a kind of on a sort of practical and money flows basis I think is extraordinarily difficult. And that's why we need as I said we need a lot of discussions we need a lot of quite detailed work to really understand how that how that can work and that should work. I mean the question in the zoom I completely acknowledge you know we are taking small steps here. You know, and we don't have the answers I think it's going to be a very collaborative effort. We are, you know, working and you may be aware there are kind of you know the OASPA has a working group that's looking at this, working with researchers and librarians from different places on the globe but I don't think there's a magic answer to this I think there's a lot of awareness that needs to be built in and that have one inequitable system for another one. But I don't think you know I it's going to take a while and be quite quite iterative. I'd be really interested actually and what other people feel. As I said, from the RISC's perspective, we do see that you know it institutes funders and governments that are funding the cost of open access publishing. We would say not necessarily around an APC or an APC based model we don't see that as a long term sort of end game. But the movement of money and how that money flows is not straightforward. Thank you for your thoughts on that Emma would like to jump in next. Everyone has the money issue. Yeah, sure I think that the other consideration here too is is is global right I mean data that I showed with third of chemistry content coming out of China now is only going to I think lengthen that that transition right I mean this is a really hard question that we spend a lot of time talking about and we don't have all of the answers. You know today for us in a transformative agreements make a lot of sense. There are groups that are clearly left out and you know when we make programs to enable equity, whether it is geographically or kinds of institution based funding for that still has to come from some other place and you know heard from Elaine like right your your funding is tight and so should you have to help fund that equity I don't I don't know. So I think we collectively have to have some better conversations about where this comes from because I don't want nonprofit societies to go away the thing that I don't want to happen right is a race to the bottom. You know I think that that the focus that we put on research integrity is something that we cannot afford to lose and sometimes those end up being nice to have said if you've got a race towards the bottom we can't do that we cannot do that as a community. So I'm really welcome additional conversations with this group of people and others to say what's the real solid solution look like for the long term. Thank you Sarah. Emma Elaine sorry. Yeah I mean I would just say that. This is really difficult we all acknowledge that and I think that some of the models and the things that we're trying out are very helpful. And I think that we're going to need a much more radical approach to this problem. And and that's going to be a significant change and of course the word radical and higher ed like there's nothing radical or you know you just can't change things work really quickly in higher ed so I think that I'm glad that we've tried these new models and I think we've it's demonstrated clearly some of the problems with the system and we're going to need some bold individuals some bold publishers and both societies to start pushing the envelope and and really trying to poke at some of the known problems that we have I mean we're just talking peer review is a problem. It was not designed to do the things it's doing now. And that worries me and I think I can go on and on and all the different components of the system that are not holding up very well and they're being exposed right now. And whether the system we have whether it's a reading publish or the community models these all these problems are being exposed and so we need this collective bold action with publishers libraries presses I also run Cornell University Press I I understand some of those the economics on the other side of that too so we need all these partners working together. Thank you Elaine friend. Choose the right speak button here. Yeah just a few different thoughts on it. For one thing I think there seems to be a consensus that gold open access or you know some ABC based model of achieving the public access mandates. It just seems to be the consensus view that that's the only way to achieve this. And I'm sure publishers have looked at you know their business models and the revenue models and so forth and made that conclusion. I would I guess I would ask that everyone keep an open mind as to whether that is the de facto solution to things. Open access in terms of the implementation of it has been the primary mechanisms that mechanism that we have done that by. I know that seems less sustainable and zero embargo environment for the publishers. And but one question that Bob Hanish asked earlier you know what does a media mean it and terms of, and that was mostly in the realm of the data side of things. It also applies to the publication side of things. There are natural administrative lags in the in the actual meeting of immediate accessible and publication that are probably not likely to make it immediately accessible on day one. And and and the UEs on case. Some of our labs are taking full advantage of the 12 month embargo to get those but those accepted manuscripts to us. Others are getting them to us as soon as they can through their own workflow workflow processes but that's no sooner typically than two or three months after publication. While we're going to strive toward immediate access I don't know that that it's going to happen on day one. So I think that that dynamic needs to be factored into publishers calculus as to as to whether goal open access is the de facto solution for getting there. And just as we did with the 12 month embargo, I think publishers are creative in finding a value added role of the version of record that accepted manuscript did not offer. So I think there's some imaginative ways there to still have that wholesome value that don't necessarily force us all to go to go open access. And then I would close by saying that the article development charge even though that's expected to be the rare exception. In turn, in terms of an article if author chooses to go to a green open access path from a DOE perspective and this is something we're discussing internally, whether that's an allowable cost in terms of in terms of the past publication because there's no guarantee you're going to get published through that. And it could potentially infringe on the government's right to have a license to that copyright. So I'm not sure that's also a sustainable business model to get there. Thanks. Thank you for your comments on that. Everyone. It'll be a long interesting view forward Jake, you've been waiting. Thanks. Is this working. Okay, great. Um, I want to follow up on that exact question, but I want to frame it a little bit differently. And what I want to say is that I think that when a lot of people talk about open access, what they say is, Oh, you know, I want someone who is not a scientist, but you know, let's say their mother has cancer and they want to find a cancer paper that they previously wouldn't have been able to have access to so they can bring it to the doctor and so on and so forth. Right. That's the example that people like to bring up. But I think that this conversation has laid bearing much deeper problem, which is that the current funding model as we heard so eloquently in Elaine's talk is not sustainable. And, you know, I worry about that a lot because I work for publisher. And so, you know, when, when you're in a situation where a university like Cornell can barely afford the publication cost, then, you know, it's not simply a question of, you know, do you have a subscription agreement or a read and publish agreement or this agreement or that agreement. The question is, you know, at a fundamental level, how are we going to keep this whole enterprise a flow. And one of the questions that I have very specifically about that is, has the open access question started moving in the direction of more of the publishing money coming from the funder, rather than from the university. And if we are moving in that direction, then should there be currently a lot more funder publisher discussions than their traditionally have been. Because in the sort of status quo is that publishers mostly deal with universities rather than with funders. We would love to have more conversations with funders. We don't feel like our voices have been heard or well engaged, frankly. We're certainly open to continuing our dialogues with publishers. We have had extensive engagements with the publishers in different forms. And so we're very much open to that. The, you know, the plant in the European plan s environment, I think that whole effort was driven partly by the funders, but also by the library community to solve some of the serials crisis there. And the government's public access objectives were not intended to solve the serials crisis. They were intended to solve the public's access to the taxpayer funded research results. So while it would be nice to solve some of that serials crisis for the libraries and their subscription costs. The ultimate goal is to try to get that research out to the public more quickly. And so finding the resources to do that. There again, I go towards where, you know, I think everyone needs to look for economies to be achieved savings to be achieved in the system so that it's not it's not seen as a, you know, there's this, there's this level of funding that has to be has to be transferred either to the funders and of course the funders concern is Congress isn't going to throw more money at us because of this they're going to, you know, here's your research funding and more money is going to be taken away from it for that. So, I don't know that there's already made solution to that but again I would encourage everybody to continue to look for efficient efficiencies in the system so that so that this the full brunt of this access isn't put on the publishers, because ultimately we're just trying to get to the publisher to the taxpayers that which they've already funded. I just want to add it depends on the discipline. You know I did a transformative agreement on with with a social sciences and out of like 65 authors only one had funding. And this is at UNC Chapel Hill, one institution that probably publishes more social sciences than any other institution, maybe Michigan's the other. And they didn't. So it depends and I buy for all disciplines and so the arts and humanities performance those areas obviously were aren't even in this space but social sciences is, you know, kind of on the line and the funding just isn't there. Thank you. If there's any comments in the room on any of these topics. Feel free to raise your hand so yeah I know there's a Q&A I just wanted to mention that. I have a supplementary point to make great go for it. Okay, I was just going to call on you. I'm Stephen Burley I run the protein data bank and I'll be speaking this afternoon. I would be grateful as people think about this issue that they should think more broadly about the question of does the cost of preserving the data and publishing the results belong to the funders of the research. I think there are a lot of people in the scientific community who feel that it's the funders responsibility to ensure that the data are preserved and that the results are made available to the people who funded the research the funders. And within even the NIH you see differences of opinion among directors as to where that cost should be born. And there doesn't seem to be a clear despite what Biden said in 2022 there does not seem to be a clear consensus within among the funders as to how best to proceed. Thank you. I'll leave that to my brave friend Bob Hanisch to talk some about it in the afternoon because that's on the data side of things but I think your point is well taken. And I think there are financial aspects of both grants and contracts where that'll be addressed and the permissibility of building those kind of costs into the funding proposals. And I think there's an expectation that that is an allowable cost as part of that. On the publication side of things again as I mentioned in my presentation we recognize publishers are moving more aggressively in that direction and that those the responsibility of agencies to allow for those costs so long as they are reasonable is also something that we're expecting to see in the funding proposal. And so there there will be kind of a shift from those costs being paid more by the funders and the agencies. And in the effect in the sense that that's going to lead libraries to decide OK more and more of these publications are made immediately accessible we can we can end our subscriptions then that would benefit their budgets. But again, there could be there could be some alternative models that I don't that I don't know have fully been explored in terms of ways of allowing for the quick public access in a zero embargo environment through the green open access route while still allowing for the publishers to recoup some of those costs in a value added role of the version of record in subscriptions. So any other comments from the panel. Okay, Bob, finish. Bob hannish from NIST and I will be much less diplomatic and you Brian this afternoon as I address this topic. I'll hold those comments until this afternoon but something in one of your sides Brian brings up this question which sort of bridges this discussion and this afternoon's and you had a slide that showed a researcher depositing data in fig share. And so this raises the question well what is the acceptable suite of repositories how do we decide what criteria are used and whose responsibility is it is that the publishers responsibility is that universities responsibility the government agencies responsibility. The SOS of course published a white paper on desirable characteristics of repositories for federally funded research. But this is for all really all of the panel. What do you think about when you think about what's an acceptable place for authors to deposit their data. I'm going to start by saying that I do believe that certain institutions to pay more. I do think I think the amount of research coming out of institution matters. And I also think that places like Cornell should pay more than I mean I just think that's the cost of doing business and that's what's fair. You know the university is already paying the salaries of these researchers. And I think the university seems to think that we're on the hook for most of this. And that is really this is super challenging to be able to have that response for funding the library, funding the salaries of the researchers who do the peer review who you know that's a lot and I think that I would love to see the the federal government step in but I also don't feel like that's realistic either and so I, I feel like my role is to really come back to the university and say how do we reimagine the funding of the university press, the library, all the APCs that are being paid. You know the page charges like the publishing costs are not just being the library it's the cost of the library it's the cost of all the work being, being done, the time that you need for the peer review. And I think that's the conversation that we haven't really had as not just, you know, Cornell, but a you and you know like how do we think more broadly about the funding structures that we need that to support a more equitable system and I just think we, we just haven't been able to do that because I even know my institution is it's, it's difficult because the deans are basically saying look I give I give all my faculty money. And now they want more money for APCs and I don't, they don't feel like they should pay for it. And then I'm like, you know I don't have the money to pay for it and so then the, then the discussion becomes well who's going to pay for it. And so now we're going to recoup those costs. And so now we have to think about well maybe we need to revisit all those research packages that faculty get in the beginning, because now a lot of, a lot of those dollars are being will be spent on APCs. And that was not how those dollars were intended to be used when they were first set up so that's just some thoughts from the university side. I want to sort of riff on what what Brian said about let's find efficiencies right. And so what I think would be more efficient is a small number of say discipline specific kinds of repositories right as a community we know the kinds of data that chemists have life sciences community is different kinds of data so we're the best position to understand what kind of makes sense what I don't want to see, I think, is a proliferation of lots of repositories at lots of institutions it's duplicative efforts. And then I also worry and worry about Cornell, like universities that go out of business we're seeing that are with some small, primarily undergraduate institutions but what happens to data that right. So who's got the responsibility for the maintenance for the long run so I think that some centrally funded, probably from a number of different sources but small number of big databases probably makes a lot of sense for us. Yeah. I would. Can you hear me. Yeah, okay. Good. I would very much agree with that around discipline specific repositories that are decided sort of by the community. And I think there are a lot of unanswered questions though around the funding of that. Personally, I think that funders need to play their part in that I think there was a lot of requirements coming in I think that those of you know very positive but who's going to fund it. And I think that is is quite an open and answered question. I also agree building on the on the points earlier that funds need to be more directly involved around the costs of the dissemination of the research that they publish that they fund sorry. Thank you. I'm going to circle on to a question and zoom and this might relate to Bob's question of where I think he was trying to get into the data side of the conversation a little bit. We have a document of questions here. So thinking about the data side of this equation. Many more questions almost in the sense because we are not working from a, you know, tried and true, if not quite sustainable model as we are with publications. You know, based on the experiences that have been addressed in the panel so far in terms of your area and supporting research. You know, what, what, how do we, how do we support researchers moving towards this cultural shift that has come up in terms of their workflow. Self deposit, who's depositing metadata, alien concept maybe. Melding a lot of questions here so happy to. And again, I'm not, I'm not do ease data point of contact and expert in that but the primary mechanism that agencies are going to use is the state of management and sharing plan where you lay out at the beginning you start thinking about it at the very beginning of how you're going to increase accessibility of data that's displayed in or underlying publications as well as addressing data that's not displayed in publications making accessible and so agencies giving attention to that rewarding and interacting that into awards themselves decisions being made later about continuation of funding is kind of a carrot and stick it in itself. And so there's just a lot of incentive to make building in the funding proposal process and evaluating that. And so it's going to, I think, just change the culture of how data needs to be thought about, especially in the immediate access piece of it. Then, you know, a daily there would be agency ways of rewarding that kind of behavior and in terms of universities and in the always case National Laboratories, sending sending a signal that we would like to see that rewarded and incentivize in different ways as well. And DOE we have, as I mentioned our 17 National Laboratories, and we have just like each one of us probably as employees we get a report card or performance appraisal that says how we do every year our labs get the same kind of report card. And so we've built in the public access expectations to that. And so they get a grade on that on that part of it among many other aspects of their plan, and that grade translates into more money they get out they get a higher award fee for it. So that's one incentive that we that we're intending to use to continue to use trying to try to change the culture. I think that there's some work to that we can do around education so when I talked earlier about the data help desk that we staff it's it's staffed with a bunch of really bright data scientists, some of whom came out of like the pharma industry right. And they love nothing better than talking to authors about what what what do I do with this kind of data how do I make it available. So, I don't think that you know one to one kinds of conversations are sustainable and scalable for the long run. But as we learn what kinds of questions authors asked, then we've got the ability to create better training materials, be able to work with funding agencies to say, how do we, how do we help your fundees comply with this because we have mutual mutual interest here. I like that opening to a point of conversation sir there you go. I just wanted to add that the, you know, promotion and tenure is, that's, you know, most of the researchers were talking about that's that's why they're even doing all this stuff and I think that has to evolve. And, and, you know, I've talked to many of these P&T committees and there's still a lot of misunderstanding about what open access is what counts. And so I think there definitely needs to be that conversation. And also, I mean the Center for Open Science, shout out to Brian Nosick is they've, they've been working on a model change which is always about making rewarding make it possible, make it easy. And this change has to happen in higher ed, because again P&T, but the publishers and funders also have some sticks and carrots to that I think are going to help so I think we all have to in the incentives because I feel like there's still too many disincentives. In place, and people are smart, they're going to, you know, they're going to figure it out and try to find the fastest way to get to the, what to get published to get tenure. Great. Thank you for those reflections. Question from the floor. This is Mark Jones. I'm one of the CSR members. I want to make a comment first and then my question that comment is you kind of all of you went through. Can you get closer to the mic? Great. All of these kind of litany of complaints and not so much solutions and one of the complaints I'm surprised I didn't hear was about negative, publishing negative results, which seems to be an issue. The other one is about the impact factor and people chasing that. But my question is, if you were not constrained by the existing system, and you could design a system from scratch that would be as close to perfection as you could imagine, what would it actually look like at this point? That's my question. I'll start off. I don't know if I should say this in public, but I actually think that I already said radical change. And I think that the journal has a stronghold and I think we have to deeply revisit whether journals should exist as they do. And right now it's not the article that's important. It's the journal and its impact factor that is a problem. And I think we're just there's too many incentives to not publish negative results. There's no incentives to think about reproducibility replication. Like there's all these things that are in place because of the system that we have. And so I think impact factors have to be done away with the journal has to be done away with we have to revamp peer review. And we have to really revamp promotion and tenure to because, you know, it would be nice if people just didn't publish as much and they just published the thing that was most consequential or most impactful to society. That would be much more helpful. But again, that would mean this entire system would have to be completely blown up and rebuilt. And it's not going to be easy. So it's very easy to say, oh, we're going to do away with all of it, but we have to blow it up and build it back together. And that is extremely radical and heretical. And, you know, I know a lot of people could say, oh, that's not going to work, but I don't see it working right now. So that seems to me the only recourse we have. So I'm a federal employee. I won't go. I won't lean forward as much as a like from academia there to not weigh too much into the market forces. But I do agree that impact factor. And it's really it's not so much it's not so much a thing that agencies can do or some others can do. It's a real cultural change among the researchers themselves, because that's what that's what they're rewarded for. And it's what they seek out when they publish. And when I mentioned allowability and reasonableness of OAPs, there's a decent correlation between the level of the OAP and the impact factor of the journal itself. And so that's that's an area where it's almost a self-reinforcing prophecy that, you know, if you're willing to pay a higher OAP for a higher impact journal, then they have every incentive to keep it high and keep it going higher and so forth. That's that's a topic that agencies are going to need to think about when they think about allowability reasonable reasonableness. You also made a great point about no incentive to publish negative results and so forth. And that's where I think we can all do more to incentivize that. Whether that be in a conventional published journal literature or in preprints or in other kinds of great literature, technical reports and this kind of thing, and to and to do a better job of linking all those kinds of publications with the journal article. So they have an expanded view of the full full processes I went that that the research went through. So in DOE we're certainly looking to elevate the role of preprints and and some of that great literature that I talked about. So that that's also part of the full scientific record. I think I agree with everything that that's been said here and I also will reiterate we have to think about this from a global perspective because we could say yeah we could reimagine how P&T or grants are made in the US but we have to get like everyone around the globe to go along with this to otherwise the whole system kind of falls apart. The other thing that I keep thinking about is like when I think about scientists right scientists are explorers. Think about them like the great explorers from the you know 16th and 17th centuries and they are trying to go where no one has gone before. And so how do you how do you mark what you have found what you have discovered right and that's the role of articles, but you know an article today looks a lot like what it did in the 1650s. And so right now it is a very time bound kind of artifact of a piece of research. So should we be looking at micro releases of information should we tag parts of that science that scholarly output differently. I think that there are probably lots of different ways that we should be thinking about disseminating the great discoveries that these explorers have made. Can I come in and I mean I don't I don't have a huge amount to add actually and it's quite interesting I think there's a lot of quite a lot of consensus. I mean for me again I think actually would be around the article whether it's the article or a collection of research objects that come together or whether the article links out to those research objects so it's a much more article centric approach and a platform based approach as well and how those link through. And I think you know obviously the reward and recognition system drive a huge amount of unhelpful behaviors in or in many aspects of scholarly communication. And I think that you know that that does need to be revamped to to to drive the kind of behaviors or reward the behaviors that we've been talking about here. I don't think it does currently I also think there's going to be a massive disruptor around AI and how information is put into certain workflows at certain places to have so it can be. So information can be placed or knowledge can be placed to different audiences in different groups in the most impactful way and I think that will will also be quite disruptor. Question from the floor. Thank you. My name is my name is Arsalaam Mirjafari. I'm a professor of chemistry at the State University of New York at Oswego. I'm a professor at a public POI primarily undergraduate institution so I have it. Two component question one for publishers. The access to open access journals is critically important for my students and my faculty because they receive a huge budget cut our library receive a huge budget cut after covid and be pretty much lost access of all the journals we had. Question number one for the publisher is first part of actually my question for publishers. Is there any incentives or the support mechanism for the faculty from resource limited institution. I know Sarah said ACS has that I'd never seen it honestly. But we publish it we accept the paper this morning in Chemcom and to publish the open access needs 2,500 pound. I understand this is not much money for it. Well TPI is in the biggest schools but it's a lot of money for me and for my institution. Second part of my question is for federal agencies. The NIH requires new document called data sharing plan to store meta data. When I was writing that document for my R 15 R 15 is for the resource limited institution. It's a funding mechanism and I realized those repositories are quite expensive but the budget for the R 15 is still $300,000 for three years. I had to pick one of them so I cut the budget from the students stipends and my supplies which. It's pretty hard to carry out the research now. So second part of the question is there any mechanism for the pui faculty or resource limited PIs. To be still stay competitive and publish the results. Thank you very much. Thank you for your question who would like to comment. I guess maybe I'm happy to get some more information to you about our program with pui so stay tuned. We also as I said we do also have programs where we do support and help researchers that are less well funded. There's information available on our website for some of those and then some of those are done through communication with the journal as well. Thank you for the question about for the agencies on the data repository piece. A couple different angles there. And I know it's not either immediately going to solve your question or in any case completely. But as you noted there is a requirement for a data management plan now called data data management sharing plan. And so in that again I'm not do we lead on that but I know that the intent there is that that that will be a DMSP will be required in a funding proposal and it lays out. Where you where you intend to make data especially data underlined or displayed in publications and even data not displayed in publications made accessible hopefully hopefully using the desirable a desirable characteristics repository. And to lay out the cost of that and that and that would be funded as part of the the overall award and rather than something that the university itself is expected to foot. But this is also going to be kind of a learn as we go process to you know that some of the some of the third party repositories that meet these characteristics if they're not if it's not something that's offered by your institution. Carry a lot of cost themselves and something that will inform us as to like is this something we're willing to keep funding as a cost of doing business without additional funding from Congress or taking the taking the money away from research. And so we are exploring alternatives sort of agency agency provided repositories that would solve some of these issues. That's going to be some time in the making but we're developing clear use cases like what you're describing here so we haven't haven't have some decisions to make whether the agency itself for certain use cases is going to provide a repository and not and not push that cost on to the university or so forth. Thank you. Any other comments. Okay, I just wanted to acknowledge that there are a lot of questions especially coming in through chat. Some in that theme of sustainability that we've been exploring for a while, and then others around research, integrity, I was thinking we could move into that topic a little bit, but I just wanted to acknowledge that we will try to follow up. Further will share the questions around with all the panelists as well and hopefully support ongoing conversations around these topics so if we don't get to your thing today that will be more coming. I just want to take one zoom question and then we'll go back to the room. So, here's a question, and this probably kind of directed at Brian originally but other thoughts are welcome as well. Why don't federal agencies actually fund negative results and reproducibility studies. Why don't federal agencies actually fund negative results and reproducibility researchers don't do it, but don't publish these because they can't be funded. So I wouldn't totally agree with that's the case. We. It's typically not the case that you're going to you're going to publish those results in journal articles, but especially with our grants. And with our national laboratories, we require technical report to be submitted, submitted. It can be superseded if a journal article is otherwise covering that same kind of material they don't have to submit a technical report, but a technical report is the perfect place to get into all the methods that were used. A technical report can be much longer than a journal article and it can get into the negative results. So it is funded. It's it's it's a clear mechanism and avenue for providing that those results and and and everybody throughout history of science has seen great value and not just as successes, but things that did not pan out. And so that says elucidating and educational others as as something that was very successful. So there is there's language in terms and conditions of an award that says you can submit a technical report and the technical report will conclude just as many negative negative outcomes as positive outcomes. So there is the possibility of doing that. Hope I answered the question and maybe didn't miss the point. I might have missed the point too. I mean, I think I think we that there have been ideas of, well, let's share more data. Let's share more negative results as well as things that support our conclusions. I'm trying to get our heads around how do we make that happen. I don't know if the others on the panel have perspective on on the editorial process around negative results and publications that are relevant here. I have a chem archive welcomes pre prints that were negative negative results. We've talked about that. You know with chem archive and our ownership board meetings and I think probably at the editorial advisory board meetings as well so certainly welcome those. Thank you for that. Hi, Olaf East University Notre Dame and director of CCAS. So, a lot of discussion so far went to things how do we build the system in the future based on mandates. How about the old stuff. Right. So how about looking at the past and slide that Elaine showed in her presentation kind of stuck to my mind on these, you know, ginormous racks of data. Brian's comment about technical reports. Yeah, we got those in science we call them PhD thesis. How do we bring this information which most distinctively is not fair or any of that sort open. How do we bring that information in and do we need to plan on this is building this system part of fairy finding the past. They, you know, a lot of publishers have spent a lot of time. A while ago now right digitizing their back files stuff that existed only in print. And that is important because it helps preserve the rest of scholarship and makes it more readily available. I think to like as we consider the future and adding more data. There are electrical costs to that too it's not just shelf space anymore right it's it's what what's our carbon footprint look like to and so I guess you know that there's the question of like kind of ROI right what ROI for the planet really frankly. And, you know, the question that was kind of going through my head is as Elaine had that great picture of the of the annex up there is like, how many copies of stuff. Do we need right does every university need to preserve the same kinds of things. I don't know the right answer to that that is is your domain for sure. But those are questions I think we need to grapple with to. Yeah, I mean I would say that that that annex, I mean we're talking about every, all the big research libraries have annexes and they usually start off at 3 million titles right and so we call it collections as data, and we believe that these are locked right that they are many of them are analog, and we have to find ways and we believe the artificial intelligence might be one of the tools to unlock these collections, make them available. And it's, you know many of the back files are being digitized but there's still a lot of print. And one of the things we get from Southeast Asia, you know, reports of the world are still very much in print. And, and then we have these manuscripts and we have history of science philosophy of science history and medicine. These are manuscripts and things and collections that are not digital right at all and so I do think you're raising a good point. And I think on the other side when we think of the front list. We're coming out and I'm worried because some of the subscription models we have, you know, once we cancel titles we lose access. And so then I start to think about cortico and clocks and locks and those groups that are really looking at preserving the materials for the next generation. And I think the Sarah's point we talk a lot about how many record I mean how many copies do we need where do they need to be. That's a conversation we've had for many many years and the library profession and I think we've, we definitely don't all want to have, we can't afford to keep the same stuff. But as we digitize make it more available then we have to worry about the storage costs and Amazon and AWS. Like it's, it's expensive to preserve things forever. And that's what libraries do, whether it's an analog or digital. I actually feel much better about the analog stuff. Like we know how to preserve books for a couple hundred years. We're not as reliable when it comes to digital content, and we have a lot more standards now but I still feel like that's a little more precarious than the analog stuff. I'll just add. It's a great question. We have a my presentations show that we've been around since 1947 so we have content between the 40s and the 90s that was non digital. And we've been chipping away at getting that digitized and issuing digital object identifiers for those for those publications and our hope is that as people. We have two articles that they'll reference back to these things use them as part of their research efforts. And so that's our goal is to is to see more and more of that legacy content brought into the referential material for publications so it's a big thing for us we have a goal of getting all of that content digitized by 2029. And so we hope to see that being reflected more and more in the in the reference material of journal journal articles. Anything to add. No, no, not on this one. I don't think thank you for things kind of been said. Thank you, Marty from the floor. Thanks so much Marty Burke University of Illinois and CSR member. I liked what many of you said about coupling open access to better science that could better society. And in that vein, I think one of the things we haven't talked a lot about is just getting access doesn't actually get us there. It needs to be actionable. Right. So if we just check the box and technically it's accessible, but someone who really wants to make a difference isn't able to leverage that information that it doesn't really move the needle. So one of the really I think excellent examples of this is what NASA did with the planet hunters program. I think it's such a cool example of intentionally democratizing discovery in a way that was just hugely successful. So they took all the deep space telescope images and actually made them available with mechanisms for people to engage so hobbyists can find exoplanets hundreds of millions of light years away because that data is not only accessible but it's actionable. So I'm wondering how we might think about making the data and all the publications more accessible but also more actionable. And this is where I think the question about machine learning and machine readability becomes super important because finding one paper that you can take to your doctor. Okay, that's one thing. But finding patterns right across lots of literature is coming from all these different places and seeing trend lines emerge and be able to make hypotheses and predictions. That's a whole nother thing. And this is where machine learning and AI could actually turn into a tremendous enabler of democratizing science. So I'm just really curious to think about, you know, your thoughts, how do we make it more actionable so that we can achieve the ultimate goal of bettering science in society. I think we weren't even having conversations like this a year and a half ago. Right. So I think it's kind of one of those. It's cop out but let's let's wait and see because I think that you're right the ability of large language models and whatever comes after that to generate new information to generate insights I think is really important and and that's going to change. I think the other part of your question though is equally interesting how do we engage the hobbyist how do we engage kids how do we get people excited about science, because ultimately, if we have a science literate electorate right that that helps all of us because maybe we Congress won't be so locked up about funding and whatever pipe dreams. But I think that that's so critical to us. I think, man, science has solved so many problems and and fundamental science has solved has led to so many interesting questions that lead to solutions to real life problems that from my perspective. It's really getting to people at younger times in their life to get them excited about science so that when they, you know, are of voting age they can help elect people who care about science too. And I know we're running out of time I'll just say a great point and I think there's a difference between sort of citizen science and let's say the more sophisticated channels that some of our universities and laboratories to take advantage of machine readable content, and AI practices and so forth so I'm not sure quite how to crack the nut on the on just sort of the citizen science science piece of it other than just ensuring that they have access to these systems but as the OSTP memo pointed out, big big emphasis on laboratories and machine readability which enables these large language models and AI practices and so forth that the universities and and the national laboratories and even the commercial sector. And this is mostly done through agencies offering application programming and for interfaces for them to be to go into large scale use of this information and establish new patterns of discovery and so forth. So that's going to be a big emphasis of ours so that we don't just realize this sort of incremental processes but just like totally new discoveries. Oh, so it's okay. I mean I complete I mean open access and one of the visions for open access was certainly in the UK actually the UK government it was all about machine reading as well. You have to mine the corpus and and and to drive innovation it wasn't just about access for taxpayers. So absolutely you know AI is going to make huge use of the open access corpus and deliver information and and and and serve back that knowledge in completely different different different ways that's happening now. Any last thoughts on that question. I can say that I just came from a meeting and we're talking about newspapers as the cultural heritage of this country and being using machine learning to open up that data and then use crowdsourcing to actually clean it up. This artificial intelligence is not very good at lots of things, particularly with 19th century newspapers. And that's something that the Library of Congress is working on. And you know I'm interested in Cornell and other places working with that so I think that that is really important that we jump on this and leverage the technology as much as possible because you know as we keep saying there's so much stuff out there that is not in the hands of our scholars. Everything is digital. It is not digital. And if it is digital that doesn't mean it's actually useful. Right. And we also know all the biases and things and problems with AI to that it's not going to solve every problem either, but it is quite promising. All right, I think on that aspirational note, we'll think about lunch. I appreciate hearing the breadth of concerns as well as opportunities. I think it's great that all of these issues are coming up lots of unsolved questions but that that's what advances the community conversation. And we'll have more opportunity to dig into both the data part this afternoon and then tomorrow we're talking more about how to support the research community so more opportunity then just want to thank everyone so far for your questions and we'll be following up. You know with with further information on on these topics after the meeting as well. Thank you and have a great lunch.