 Go ahead and get started. Okay. Hello, and welcome to today's community conversation, reflecting on five years of open access book publishing, successes, lessons, and next steps for tone, co-sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries, the Association of American Universities, and the Association of University Presses. From 2017 to 2022, these associations ran a pilot in which participating institutions agreed to give three of their faculty members $15,000 subventions or grants to publish their work open access through a participating University Press publisher that had already accepted the work for publication. Today's session is governed by the ARL Code of Conduct, which my colleagues will put in the chat. And as you've heard, we are recording this session and we'll make it available on the Tome website at openmonographs.org. So my name is Judy Rutenberg. I serve as ARL Senior Director of Scholarship and Policy, and I'll be your host for today's program. First, my great appreciation for my colleagues in the Tome Partner Associations, Peter Berkley and Brenna McLaughlin from AU Presses, Toby Smith and Meredith Asperger at AAU, along with all of the members of the Tome Advisory Board, some of whom I see are with us today. Nancy Marin, who authored the report, will be discussing today. And thanks to all of you in the community who responded to Nancy's survey and contributed data to this important report. We have a fabulous panel today. Lisa McLaughlin from Emory, Peter Potter, formerly a visiting program officer at ARL, leading the Tome Initiative for several years, now at your grader, and Charles Watkinson of Michigan Publishing. All of our panelists have been deeply involved in key aspects of Tome's development, some since the very beginning. And I'm really grateful for their time and participation today. And we also look forward to a really lively engagement from the audience through the Q&A. So just like a quick note about what this conversation won't really cover in depth, which is a detailed look at the cost of publishing Tome monographs, specifically whether that $15,000 per book, pilot-designated subvention was the right amount. This was really deftly handled by Nancy Marin and Kim Schmelzinger in a report available on Humanities Commons, the cost to publish Tome monographs. So I recommend it, and I thank AU presses for commissioning that report in 2022. Instead, we're really here to dig into Tome's stakeholder value assessment report. And the report references, and this audience is no doubt aware of the recent growth of OA monograph programs globally. But today we're really gonna dig into Tome's unique features and design features as a pilot. And in response to data about key stakeholder perspectives. So authors, publishers, and the institutions that intervened with this new funding model. And that unique design, those design elements included, one, academic leadership explicitly, financially supporting the publishing mission of universities and the importance of humanities and social sciences scholarship. Two, that Tome drew institutional funding outside the library acquisition schedules. And three, that funding went through authors to a network of university presses. And this network required a new role, institutional contacts that liaised with authors and presses. That role primarily resided in the library. Tome then created a community across this network meeting annually during the pilot. And Tome was a successful pilot. Here are some key indicators of that success over the five year program with a number of titles published, more than 170 authors, 30 presses published Tome books and an impressive sales average print copy sold and download rate for the first 25 Tome books that were really tracked carefully. And these numbers are slightly updated from the report that you have. Thank you to Peter Potter. So while it was provosts that helped design and launch Tome in 2017 as members of the original group, campus champions of Tome outside the library and press included deans and department chairs. Among the benefits of the Tome to institutions that we heard was this, promoting a focused conversation about the future of the humanities monograph among administrative units that might not otherwise think about this. In other words, it started conversations. And in fact, the sources of funds used for Tome grants subventions were distributed with more than half coming from outside, half of those funds coming from outside the library. Tome authors surveyed, overwhelmingly believed their books had more impact than they would have if they hadn't been OA. Now this is probably not a unique feature of Tome. It's more a ringing endorsement of open access book publishing. And I'm pleased it was a finding of this report. But why Tome or what did they particularly value about this pilot? 77 out of the 150 plus authors we surveyed responded and what they appreciated in order of importance. Number one, making my scholarly work available to a wide readership, followed by for free and more affordable and then some interest in the pilot itself and bringing attention to the institutions for search lower down. While presses were not specifically surveyed in this report, Nancy was able to draw from her prior interviews on the cost study to derive these positive assessments of Tome by publishers that editorial investments and processes for Tome were similar to other books. That the subvention offset financial risk of releasing a simultaneously OA version. And then flowing from that, it enabled some editorial risk taking as presses moved into new subjects. As one press director said, the Tome grant offered support that allowed us to publish this in this case unusual book and make it available to a wider scope of readers while also expanding our list and pushing our boundaries into new areas of experimentation. What institutions appreciated about Tome? So by institutions, these are the people who served as liaisons between authors and presses often handling matters like agreements and funding. This is based on a survey that went out to the 20 funding institutional contacts. We received 12 complete responses followed by 10 in-depth interviews. And the number one answer is shared with authors, making scholarly content widely available. But for institutions, the second most important reason or answer thing that they valued was about introducing this new model. So we do know from the participating institutions that there is some likelihood that these institutions will continue to support Tome or a Tome-like program. And if not Tome, in particular, there's a great likelihood of ongoing support for OA monograph publishing in general, which is great and also a success of the program, in my opinion. So this was a pilot of three membership associations, none of which specifically represented authors. Although scholarly societies certainly helped shape Tome at the beginning, participated in various key meetings, I think everybody believes that there's a role for scholarly societies going forward in the governance of this kind of an arrangement, including, this is what follows now are the recommendations for different stakeholders drawn from the report. So including, for societies, raising awareness among authors of open monograph publications for broadly, including Tome, but also other programs. Report recommendation for presses led, which could be led by the university presses that participated, what might be needed to make this process easier? For example, greater alignment between open access publishing workflows and general good digital design and accessibility kind of workflows. Is there greater alignment to be had there? And recommendations for institutions to convene. And as we see in the report, a wide range of stakeholders within the institution from which funding and other kinds of support might be drawn, but to convene them to figure out the demand, what kind of funding might be available and to discuss criteria for what they might want to fund in a Tome-like or ongoing Tome instance. So we've been asked with the associations, been asked by institutions continuing to fund Tome in this post-pilot phase, whether the brand will continue when sort of what becomes of Tome. And at this point, what I can say is that ARL will maintain the openmonographs.org website that we will continue to work with AU presses to make sure that it has up-to-date information on participating presses and participating institutions and any updated documents that come from the community. We will also work together to host some kind of online community space for the institutional administrators of Tome funding so that they can stay in touch with each other. So it's really time to hear from our panel. What we're going to do this afternoon is I'm going to get an opening response from each of them and then we'll have a discussion that includes any questions you put in the chat. So I'm going to open up the screen here a little and we're going to start off with you, Charles. Can you just kind of start your remarks by letting the audience know how and for how long you've been involved in Tome. So I'm a true old-timer. I was there right at the start when the hills were mountains and... I mean, it really was the case that, you know, if we think back to the start of Tome, open access monographs is still a very new conversation. And, you know, a lot has changed in the landscape since then. And let me go ahead and just make a couple of remarks. I mean, these are... I mean, the first thing that I wanted to say right up front is I think it's a huge testament to the staying power of Judy, Peter Berkeley and Peter Potter that we're here at all. I mean, it was a lot of work that these three individuals have put into making this happen. And I think we should all be very grateful to them. At the start of the program, something that's very important to remember and that Judy emphasized in her remarks is this was always a pilot. It was a pilot, not a program. And I remember... I remember Paul Courant, then the provost at Michigan, being very excited by Tome because as a behavioral economist, he was asking the question, what happens if we drop some money in at the top of the system, what's going to come out at the bottom of the system? And when measured against that goal, this has been an absolutely fabulously successful pilot. It was always envisaged as an opportunity to see what an institutionally funded model of open monograph support would look like given that US higher education institutions have such different cultures and very different ways of doing things. And so I wanted to say that because the critiques like why are practices so inconsistent between institutions or why don't publishers have a single way of dealing with the money that we give them? It completely misses the point. It fails to grasp that Tome was never envisaged as a coherent program. It was a pilot that was aiming to raise awareness, encourage discussion and it crucially ensure that open access was not just a journals thing and pilots don't have to turn into programs to succeed. So measured against its original goals, this was a huge success. The second thing I wanted to point out is that something we learned from Tome is that authors don't want the cheapest options for monographs even if funders may. So we're not digging into the $15,000 or whatever but it was very striking in the report that a major reason that participating authors love Tome and here's a quote, was because they felt supported by their press with the same care they have come to expect from traditional monograph publishing. So Tome's received a lot of criticism for using the $15,000 number but the financial analysis of participating university press costs has shown that high touch publishing the sort of publishing that university presses do in the US is what was wanted is what authors liked and there are absolutely choices that would reduce the cost of publishing. So we could not exhibit at disciplinary conferences. We could depro professionalize acquisitions editors move towards a scholar led mode but what was clear is that that is not what authors want. That was clear from Tome that that is not what authors want. So that's really important. And the third comment I'll just make briefly is that funding for open access monographs we now know will be hybrid. It will come from multiple different sources and parent institution support for its faculty who wish to publish open access monographs it can't be the only model for open access monographs but it is a model. And the concern that really bedeviled Tome is a concern about inequity for non-affiliated scholars but that was never Tome's responsibility to solve that problem. And that is where raising the issue was great solving it. No, because there are other options now like subscribe to open models from MIT from Michigan for the path to open model from JSTOR. There are the institutional consortium models like Level Press or Punkton Books. They've been developed to deal with that issue. So I just want you to put it in context. Great, thanks everybody for joining us today and I can attest to the fact that Charles had a lot more hair when this session when we started this, not to mention I did as well but let me just offer a few thoughts that building upon what Charles said. So Charles's point about authors don't want the cheapest options that what really struck me in the findings is that our authors actually really like OA especially when it fits into a publishing process that they're comfortable with that they understand. Over time, we may find that authors are more open to changing that process, becoming as Charles said having different cost-cutting approaches built into the process. But at the moment, this was a way that ensured that authors could be more comfortable get involved in the system and as we saw over time this I saw because I was also the person at Virginia Tech that was recruiting authors. I found that author support grew substantially over the course of the pilot. And I think others would agree with that. Another point I would make is again following up on the point about equitable about whether the tone model isn't equitable. I would just add that as a pilot, the question of accountability we weren't taking that question on as Charles said, but in the future the tone model itself could be adapted to be however we could scale it in any way that we wanted to incorporate authors at other institutions that perhaps aren't as well funded. It's up to the community to decide how they want to fund tone so that the model, it isn't that the model isn't equitable, it's how we wanna grow that model. And I think there's still a reason why we should look at that model and continue to adapt it. The other thing I would say about another key finding for me anyway is that any future models if we're gonna talk about this to be models and I don't think there's gonna be a single model. I think there will be multiple models and for those models to work and to be realistically sustainable, we need to be more dynamic and more sophisticated I think in how we particularly handle the generation of funding, but there will be a lot more experimentation to come and what we need to do I think in the future is to build upon what we've learned from tone and from the other initiatives out there. And as Charles said, we have to move beyond funding just from the libraries. We must incorporate multiple revenue streams. We have to understand that sales will continue to be a part of the any successful OA system. We have to have administrators beyond the libraries, administrators need to have skin in the game. It's not just our one schools but any universities and colleges that benefit from having their faculty get published and cited. They need to be participating in the funding of this. And I think we have to find creative ways to generate funding from other players in the system. Aggregators for instance, who are figuring out how to make OA content more discoverable within their particular platform systems and environments. They're benefiting from this. They should have skin in the game as well, data analytics companies. I think there are ways for the corporate entities that are benefiting from the publication of academic research for them to be contributing to this. There are ways to do that and that's another conversation. Just a few last quick takeaways. I would say Tome is really different from the other kind of models out there in that it really was complimentary to not competing with other initiatives. So for instance, many Tome books were also luminous books. They were Schump books. They were fund admission books. They were direct to open books. We had Tome books on the manifold platform. So I see Tome as having been really an attempt to generate community participation and work with other initiatives out there to push us forward in our understanding of how to make scholarship more accessible. Another thing that was perhaps surprising from when we initially started the pilot, the idea that we ended up with 67 participating publishers, 20 funding institutions, we thought at the beginning, perhaps that the hard thing would be to get the presses to come on board. There would be more funding institutions. It ended up being the reverse of that. That's a whole subject for discussion, but that's an interesting finding. Another thing that as of yet, we have no real indication that the OA edition has any negative impact on sales. So that's still an open question. I know we're not dealing with the $15,000 subvention here specifically, but I think we did learn a lot about what it costs to publish a monograph and that it varies a lot among publishers. We still, the open question is that question of the sales revenue, what is the impact on sales? So that's still something we're dealing with. And one last point I would make is that big picture, big piece of the picture that's still unclear is that of usage data. We really need to have a centralized way of collecting that data and there are efforts underway to make that happen, but that's to me for OA monograph publishing to get embedded into the scholarly information system, we need better collection of the usage data. So those are my key takeaways. Right, lots to dig into there that I'd like to hear from Lisa. Thanks, Judy and thanks, Peter and Charles. So a little bit of a touch of history about Emory because I think it's informative for the discussion. At Emory, we actually were fortunate enough to have a Mellon planning grant that predated the TOME initiative. So we were having conversations on our campus and I was fortunate to be in a committee that Michael Elliott, who at that time was Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, pulled together to really look at the question, what is the future of the monograph in a digital era and long form scholarship? And so it was a committee primarily of humanities, faculty members and it happened over the 2014-2015 academic year and produced a report if you are interested in reading it. But one moment in those discussions that really stuck with me was a history faculty member saying, I write to be read. And I think that one short phrase reflects what we also saw authors telling us about their experience with TOME. If you write to be read, the wider the distribution of your work, the more readers you'll reach. So I think that was really kind of a key component of TOME and something we always kept in mind going through this process. The other pieces and thanks to the Mellon funding, we really also realized that we needed a person to really help create and manage a process on behalf of the institution. Who gets funding? How do you manage that? Who can help faculty answer some of these questions that they have? And so at that point, that was when TOME was being launched as an initiative. And so we were fortunate. We had Sarah McKee and now May Veloso Lyons who were within our Fox Center for Humanistic Inquiry and were able to work with faculty as well as others on campus to really help our authors understand what this meant for them, what was required of them and really go through that process with them. So I think there were a few really key things that made this successful at Emory. And one of those very foundational things I think for TOME overall is tenure and promotion. And we were fortunate in that we had a humanities council of faculty members who had adopted, who had recommended and then later was adopted a statement that digital humanities count towards tenure. And so we had already had that in place before these discussions began. So we were fortunate that we had fewer questions about that, but that is a question that still can bubble up among faculty. And then we were also fortunate that Michael Elliott, himself a humanist who was PI on the Mellon Grant became Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. And so the question of whether or not the administration is in support of this was really answered by him being in that role. And that support has continued because our associate dean of faculty, Debolina Roy herself is the author of an open access monograph. We have had very nice clarity on whether or not an OA book is any different than any other book and that answer is no. And so I think that really helped adoption and answered some of the questions that faculty naturally had around open access, particularly early in this process. The other thing I think that became very clear and I think it's true on the institutional side is that you really do need a champion. You need someone on campus who can help wrangle the various processes. There is an agreement between the institution and the press, which is a very different thing. The money is passing from the institution to the press to support the open access addition. And so while funding often gets attention for very natural reasons, I think the necessity to have a point person on the institution side was something that became apparent for us and we were very fortunate to have that, but it was also a very collaborative process. It's always been a collaboration between the College of Arts and Sciences, our Fox Center for Humanistic Inquiry, the libraries, our Emory Center for Digital Scholarship. And so we really tried to put in place a team that supported our faculty authors in whatever way was needed to really help them through this process. And of course they got the support of the press as well. I will also say that I think we were fortunate in that the funding initially was from Mellon but has been continued by the College of Arts and Sciences. And so the libraries are supporting open access books in a variety of ways, but we were not looking at that challenge of balancing the cost of OA books as part of Tome with the collections budget and purchasing books. And I will say that the view of our college administration has been that this is a way to support faculty in the way that they support faculty with a lab and with a whole host of other support systems. That doesn't necessarily address the inequities of who has funding available to them, but I think it's important to recognize those inequities come and show up in a whole host of different ways within academia. So it's not something unimportant to address, but it's not just Tome where you can see inequities. And then I think the other really delightful part of this in many ways was that Tome as a pilot did create a community and it created a community of people who didn't always interact with each other in the same way. We were all figuring out it out as we went, which created both consternation and some phone calls and discussions. I think we did reach a point where we realized it's simply okay that we don't all do this the exact same way. Having the presses let our authors know that their book was eligible for Tome was very helpful. Campuses are large and complex places and so that was something that, it was very helpful that the presses could say to an author, your book may be eligible for Tome here, here's the person to talk to on your campus. And that led us to realize that transparency was also very useful in this process. So we created, by we I really mean Sarah McKee created with input from others, a list of our expectations at Emory, both for our authors and for our publishers, just so that everyone could easily see on a website what our process is, what we were asking for, what we expected. So I think some of that transparency between institutions and presses and authors was helpful and relatively new quite frankly, and kind of bubbled up because of the Tome initiative. And then finally, I do think there are a couple of benefits that maybe weren't highlighted in the report but are there nonetheless, perhaps a tad bit less tangible. And one of those is that I think Tome really is an example of mission alignment. The missions of our universities are also the missions of our presses and our libraries. And I don't know that we always think in quite those terms. Sometimes we serve as customers buying a product. But I think if you get back to that fundamental I write to be read. Basically Tome really pulled together the various members of universities with university presses and institutions and helped make that possible in a new and different way. I'll also say that I think that librarians learned more about how university presses worked. And I think that's always beneficial. I know that there is a lot of question around does it really cost that much to publish a book? But I can also say that there is a lot that our authors rely on as far as guidance from their editors. And we've had those conversations with those authors and that support for our authors who are our faculty is an important part of this whole process as well. So I think that greater understanding of the roles and the benefits of various people within the university to support faculty in their publishing of books, open access has been a less tangible benefit but a benefit nonetheless. Thanks, Lisa. I don't know if you have comments that you want to make to each other or I can go questions but I don't want to stop you from reacting to one another if you have conversation. I do want to pick up on this question about which Charles sort of teed up and Peter talked more about is this, these other initiatives, how Tome interacted with was complimentary to other initiatives. There's no BTA as an open collection. You mentioned path to open and some others. And then particularly books that were I'm really intrigued Peter that you mentioned books that were Tome and Luminos and direct to open in. And so what does that just talk about from your various perspectives, the complexity of that and can we, is that okay for a while or do we need to have greater understanding of that or is that something to sort of track or how do you see those institutions that are continuing to some of yours to continue to provide Tome interacting in an ongoing kind of way with these other initiatives. Yeah, I mean, I think it's just part of the unfolding of how we're figuring out the funding model for this that it's, you know, that in many cases, I think what stood out for Tome for me was that many of the other instances are based, the initiatives are based at a single press and Tome was agnostic to that. And so it wasn't, we weren't trying to make our initiative work to support our press. It was, we were trying to support all of the presses that were participating and show the institutions that were participating that their money was going to a good to be used well. And we tried to stay as much out of the middle of that as possible. And I think that was helpful in how the initiative was viewed, how the pilot was viewed that we let the presses pretty much do the process the way they did it. And if presses had other sources of funding, we worked with them on that. So, and I think that's what's gonna have to happen in the long run is there's gonna need to be more of this collaboration and any kind of, there's not gonna be one single funding approach to OA book publishing in the future. Well, that's really interesting. Charles, you're involved in some of these, several of these different kinds of initiatives. Do you wanna sort of talk about how you see Tome and some of the other work that you're doing in this area and sort of picking up on what Peter has suggested? Yeah, the hybrid funding comes down to really thinking at the individual book level as well. That's what makes this open access work very tricky. And we have had some awkward conversations about double dipping. So the real problem comes when libraries were the source of Tome funding. The way we've tried to think about it in the context of work at Michigan where we are trying to get library support for our fund to mission program and it doesn't cover everything. So we need to top up with money that we can get from other sources. The way we've talked about it is to do with the motivations behind the benefits that each of these programs bring. So Tome is very much about, the motivation is about helping faculty members get extra reach, extra impact, extra outside the academy engagement. And that's something that really matters to deans of humanities, for example. And it's really a benefit that exists at the individual title level. And then programs like fund to mission, for example, or direct to open are very much about collection level benefit. So it's about a library investing in having a whole collection more open. And then there are programs where the parent institution is supporting its press. And there it's, again, it's a different motivation. It's about the press extending the reputation of the institution. So the way we had to talk about it, have had to talk about it with books that have received both Tome funding in collections who have received Tome funding in collections that have also library support is that the motivations, the benefits behind those different pots of money were very different benefits. But it is going to become increasingly difficult to be an honest dealer in this space and to be honest. And I think transparency is the only way we can possibly do it. Just being very honest about what we're doing and the way in which each book is its own project and we're trying to gather the funding to make that possible and fulfill the author's dreams. Thank you. That's really, really helpful. I see a little bit of conversation in the Q&A and you've all sort of touched on it a little bit which is this the sort of usage issue like how we kind of tracked OA book usage, how do we know who bought the book who's downloading it, what like you just talked about increased reach, people, authors talked about global reach, that kind of thing. So I wonder if any of you could talk a little bit about Tome's sort of participation in this broader conversation around OA book usage. It's been part of our meetings for the years and sort of where you see the future of that work. So I don't know if Peter, you want to get that started? Sure. Well, there's underway, Mellon has put a good bit of funding into the OA eBook data trust project that has spun off into two pieces, the data trust and the dashboard and so that's an example of kind of collective action I think that is needed across the scholarly communication community to the collection of usage data is something that can't be done by one group, one institution, one publisher, it has to be collective and you have to find a way to do that so that the data is trusted, is seen as impartial, all of that and so there's definitely an effort underway to develop the kind of data gathering and sharing that we need and I really do think that is the key to kind of unlocking the whole system because I think when we get to the point where we have really reliable sources of usage data for OA books, I think authors will, that will impact authors and their perception of OA and I think also administrators in terms of tenure and promotion, all of that. I mean, one of the things I noticed that again at Virginia Tech was I had some authors who participated, assistant professors who were up for tenure and they wanted to have whatever data I could provide and it was impossible to get that from one place so I would track down what I could but I always felt like, gee, I bet you there's more out there that I just don't have access to so that really is kind of the holy grail I think is reliable, trusted data. Those, I mean, Lisa or Charles, do you sort of from where you sit in an institution, will greater, will this improve data help us understand the full demand? Is the idea that we would be able to fund every book published in the institution as an open access book? Is it just some, how do you, how are you sort of thinking about that? I think one of the things that's interesting about the desire of authors to have data around the use of their book is that there's very little of that for a print book and so the fact that the book is away and out there in the world and digital raises an expectation that you can track it in ways that I know Peter and Charles are well aware is not as easy as it sounds. So I do think Tom kind of raised an expectation among authors that was a little more challenging to meet than what any of us really had thought about at the start of Tom. And so kudos to the work that Peter's done and Charles has done as well to really try and help corral that data into a single place. And then as all of us who are librarians know the data only tells you so much. It tells you there was a download. It doesn't tell you the who or the why, citation metrics tell you a little more, but not everything. And so a lot of what we've heard from authors are really anecdotal stories, invitations to conferences that they never would have even known about or considered because somebody in that country was able to get a copy of the book. So there's a lot of anecdotal evidence of that reach that gives I think a little fuller picture sometimes for individual authors. But I think overall the question of would the data be used by an institution to justify all books? I think we have chosen to really let that be an author decision. It's the author's work. And so, I don't think that every book lends itself well to open access. There are some that are very image heavy and the permissions alone would be a challenge. I think there are some authors who would have some reluctance and I think we need to be respectful of that because as I said, it is their work. So I think it's a little less of a push that all books would be open access. But I think the hope is that for every author who would see benefit from their work being open access, that there is that opportunity for them. And that I'm not sure we've quite achieved yet with the pilot to be frank. So I think that is more the goal. That was a very interesting, thank you Lisa, part of the report where there were some institutions that didn't publicize the funding as widely as they might have, wondering whether the amount of funding they had in demand for that funding would meet. And so it's partly, I was really not so much getting into making decisions for authors, but kind of assessing the demand for what that demand would be like. Yeah, and I should, the questions and answers it's a slightly odd system because when we've typed answers it sort of grade them out, whereas it's more kind of comments really, which is a shame because it's a really, really good dialogue going on there. How you can just click on answered. Oh, okay, very good. Oh yes, yes, exactly. You click on the answer and then you see, and it was interesting to see from Ginny, for example, there have been presses who have turned down funding. And the question about which presses did not participate? I mean, I think that really comes back to exactly Lisa's point that not every book is a book that the author wants to be open access, will gain with particular advantage for being open access and this intersection of disciplinary culture and institutional culture, and especially press cultures. I mean, there are definitely a number of university presses, for example, who are very focused on creative writing communities. And those are communities where there's a strong emphasis on making money from one's work, rightly that the authors are often not embedded in academic institutions, so they're not getting salaries, et cetera. So there are some really good reasons why an author may not want to do OA, but just to the point about also what we learned about impact metrics, your originally question, Judy. I mean, I think one of the things is just look back at 2018 and the way in which systems were very poorly adapted to actually identify when a book was open access and just in race that Purdue actually had these questions about who was buying the average of 342 paperbacks for the first 25 books published by Tome, under the Tome auspices. And I think a lot of them were bought just by accident because nobody knew there was an open access edition, right? And in the same way, the usage stats, I mean, who knew which edition you were measuring, there were multiple DOIs being allocated. The situation has got better, it's still a mess, but I think a lot of those early metrics are not really good guides to where we're going next. One thing it did do though, Tome did, I think it's really helped dispel the pernicious conversation about monographs not being used. I mean, I don't see those conversations happening, but back in 2018, every library conference one went to as a monograph publisher was profoundly depressing because the accident that monographs were later into the E environment was being convoluted with the idea of use. So I don't think that comes up much anymore. Print books, yes, e-books, they're used. Fantastic. Okay, we have had some Q and A attended to, I don't know if there's anything in there we wanna lift up for further discussion. There is a question about sort of where we would, this trusted entity, where we would find, what's the trusted entity? Yeah, the question about and also about how do we, how would administrators agree to kind of pool resources and I think the jury, to me, I think the jury is still out on that. I think that if, I mean, unfortunately in the U.S. we're not, in our higher ed system is decentralized, we're not good at collaborating, cooperating, but I still think there's an opportunity for there to be collaboration and universities contributing to, you know, an initiative like Tome that then distributes the funds or is the central source. I don't know whether that's unrealistic or not, but I think, I mean, Judy, you mentioned at the beginning the need to get scholarly societies more involved. There are ways to go about this that could be successful. It's just, it's not in the academies, the American academies nature to be particularly collaborative, unfortunately. I wanted to, so May Veloso Lyons had this question about the degree onto which funding institutions can or should expect transparency from presses regarding book production costs. I think one thing that May have got buried a little bit in the course of the pilot has been a number of initiatives that were sort of connected to Tome, happened around the same time, happened with the same individuals. And one of those was actually a university and AU presses, Association of University Presses template for actually reporting on costs of book production developed by Nancy Marin and Kim Schmelzinger. And I think that kind of got forgotten, and that's a shame. Another thing was the model contract for digital scholarship that Lisa was actually the lead on and which is exceptionally useful documents. I mean, unbelievably useful. We use it for now all of our contracts, but I'm not sure that anybody remembers, not many people remember that that was sort of really an outgrowth of Tome. So it's not a direct answer, but I can't even find where that AU presses model accounting template is, but I will try and find it. Another thing I wanted to mention was again, going back to this kind of double dipping question, one of the things that came out to me during this is how presses, in my experience anyway, presses really were responsible, the participating presses were very responsible in terms of the collecting of funds. So I had a number of instances where publishers said, we don't need the full 15,000, we have funding from this other source. So in the cases of where we were working with say, Luminos or another initiative where there was funding coming from other sources, I found the presses to be incredibly transparent and willing to work with us. And so it just, I think that's really important to realize in this, in a program like this that we're dealing with actors who, at least in my experience, all want the best outcome. And we did locate the digital monograph costing tool thanks to Brenner and also the model contract for digital scholarship I just put in the answer to May. I think that's on open monographs, yeah. But yes, thank you for that. And then also for those of you looking for additional reports about this whole ecosystem is that a presses is also conducting research on the impact on sales, right? That's an ongoing investigation as well. So we'll learn more from that project. Okay, I guess I'm gonna ask for sort of closing, closing thoughts, things you'd like to, the community to think about, especially maybe those institutions that are going to continue to fund Tome in this way. We've suggested, again, that we would keep the website up to date, work with AU presses to make sure that there was, people sort of understood in this very lightweight way that here are the institutions participating and here are the presses willing to accept funding or to participate in this project. Sort of what would you like to, what can you share with them as they continue this work? I'd just like to just remind people that we haven't been able to get our hands as publishers enough on money that comes from other parts of the university apart from the library. And that is absolutely crucial. Libraries do not have the resources to fund the whole flip that might be anticipated to open access monographs, but institutions do. And I just think back to Paul Koran's point that $15,000 is absolutely a drop in the bucket if it's connected into a startup package for a faculty member. And especially if you think that a startup package for a chemistry faculty member is a quarter of a million dollars plus. And now we're talking about something that could be in the package for a humanities faculty member. It's just nothing, it's nothing. And when you also compare it to the whole cost to an institution of supporting all the research of a faculty member that leads to the book, this isn't vanishing a small amount of money. And yet there are very, very few institutions actually putting money into publishing outside their library. That is a very interesting thing to watch in terms of another kind of metric to think about rather than how many institutions can we get to put up funding, how diverse the funding source, you know, this issue of outside life. It's really very interesting. Also, when you think about an APC for some journals comes close to the $15,000. So, you know, what's equitable in that kind of an equation? Yeah, and I think to piggyback on both Charles and Peter, I think the subvention that's supporting the faculty member creating the book is a different thing than the mission of the library. And it's not that we don't support open access in a host of ways, but really framing those things and really framing it. And I think the provost level may have been a bit too high framing it for the deans and department chairs, you know, who do have their own budgets and framing it as an investment in their faculty because we are still as academic institutions requiring or at the very least expecting monographs from our humanities faculty. We also are very clear, I think, across academia that we also want our faculty's work to be widely available. Not kind of in conjunction with public scholarship, which is slightly different, but you know, it's the idea that, you know, we kind of bring down the walls of the ivory tower a little bit and have our faculty experts contribute to, you know, the broader discussions, you know, within our society. And if those are goals, then, you know, funding the $15,000 for a monograph, you know, really is a small drop in the bucket for the overall budgets that people have. And it puts the humanists, I think, a little more on par with the scientists, you know, who do get that kind of support on a regular basis. So, you know, hopefully there will be more attention to that paid, you know. And it may be, you know, as more faculty have this experience, they may expect it because faculty do move from one institution to another. And you know, sometimes saying, I got such and such a benefit at my last institution, why can't you do the same, you know, as one small way of perhaps pushing that forward? Well, thank you, Lisa, for mentioning this issue about being widely read. I think I'm just going to close this out with that notion that both the authors and the institutions in terms of stakeholder value both agreed that what was really important out of this was making humanities and social science scholarship more widely available. And so, very, very happy to have participated in a program, a successful pilot that contributed to that goal. So, I want to just thank the panel so much for being with us, for sharing your years of work in Tome, and then, you know, your years of insight and expertise with us today. So, and thank you all to in our studio audience for joining us today. That closes out our community conversation.