 We are very happy to have Dominic Mitchell from the Director of Open Access Journals with us today. Dom is the operation manager at DOIJ and he is quite involved in the... The users called INGA can please mute their self. Thanks. And towards the implementation of the plan S. And it's like the right place to remind you that Open Air is also one of the open science infrastructures that open the plan S. Identified as necessary for the implementation of the plan S itself. So Dom, the floor is yours. Thank you. Okay, so let's get started. I'm sorry that we're starting out a little late. We had a bit of technical difficulties. But the title of my talk today is Plan S Compliance for Open Access Journals. What we know so far and where we think we're heading. And I added that qualifier to the title of the presentation because there is still a good deal amount of uncertainty about what exactly is going to be required. And I'll show you some of that as we go through. I also thought that actually the title of the presentation should really be Plan S Compliance for Journals and Platforms. Because of course Plan S is about making all journals ideally become Plan S Compliance, not just ones that are already open access. And the Coalition S documentation does also mention platforms. So that's really the sort of coverage that that's what I'm going to talk about today. So a little bit of background for you on the Coalition S and Plan S. You probably know that it is a group of European funders who have come together to produce these guidelines and principles on what on how scholarly articles should be made available for public consumption free of charge and not behind a paywall. These are the national funders and some of the other funders listed here. And you do also have some supporters that are listed on the website too. The fundamental print the fundamental principles of Plan S are bold and promising statements and they were designed with intention to push organizations and individuals into action. I think that we can safely say that it has had the desired effect. The the five I've listed the five main principles here. There should be no paywalls access should be immediate. Everything should be licensed with a CC by license. If there are APCs or publication fees then they should be at a reasonable level and there is no room in Plan S for hybrid journals unless they are part of a transformative agreement. And these fundamental fundamental principles do dovetail very nicely with existing with existing programs such as OA 2020 from the Max Planck Institute in Berlin. And also these principles do build on the principles that were declared in the Berlin declaration update from 2013. Although I think that plan S is probably a long way from the original vision of the Budapest declaration in February 2002. But we're not going to dwell too much on the history. So the first plan S guidelines were put out in 2018 and then a revision was put out in May 2019. And the guidelines and principles as they are today are about scholarly articles and you'll see later that there has not been any provision or details made just yet for what happens with books and monographs but I'll come to that later. And when these guidelines went out. There was a lot of questions and a lot of a lot of worrying about how journals were going to become compliant, particularly in the short timeframe available, which was extended to 2021 from the original year of 2020. And how were journals and publishing platforms going to become compliant. And DOA J is mentioned as as someone that coalition as an organization that coalition S will be working with, and it does say that journals will have to be indexed in DOA J so you know how is that going to work how is in DOA J indexing going to match plan S indexing. And what's the difference between DOA J certification and plan S certification. So these are some of the things that I'm going to tackle today. My talk is in four main parts and the bulk of it is covered in part one, and that is going through what the guidance says, and what changes, I think that journals and platforms can anticipate. And then we're going to look a little bit about what the certification process looks like at DOA J how we think it might look. If, if we're involved, and what the difference is between DOA J certification and plan S certification. And I want to say at this point that I am not anything to do with coalition S DOA J is not in any way is not part of coalition S. But I think the reason that we were asked that I was asked to give this talk today is that because we were mentioned as an organization that's working with coalition S. And so we have been looking very closely at the literature on the coalition websites, and we have been in communication with the, with the organizations behind coalition S. What part one, what does the guidance say, and what changes my journals and platforms consider and here comes the first of my big huge disclaimers. These are my suggestions, and these are not guaranteed steps to achieve plan, plan S certification and that is because as I've already said, we do not know, we do not yet know what the final pieces of data that have to be made available are we do not know how they should be made visible and who's going to be looking at them. I had a question submitted to me at the registration here about how many publishers have actually committed to becoming plan S compliant or implementing the changes that plan S asked for, and I do not have that answer. I think that's something that probably will become more apparent as the process continues and maybe coalition S themselves may actually be doing some kind of analysis in this area. Another question I received is that can small publishers take part and yes you absolutely can. I don't think that there are any changes in the plan S criteria, which are impossible for small publishers. Hopefully the slides that I have coming up coming up will show you how they are possible and I've even given some suggestions on things that I think that you might be able to do. We are fully aware, however, that these changes take time and that time is money and that some smaller publishers smaller journals may not have, you know, unlimited resources and unlimited time or money. So I one of the suggestions I might later on make later on is that you could start doing some of these changes now. And I'll show you some of the things that I think you can do. The guidance on the coalition S website is split into five sections, and you'll see that they have some mandatory conditions and mandatory technical conditions. And then they have some recommendations, which are additional criteria, and then there are some specific conditions for journals and publishing platforms. So I was going to present the all of the extra criteria in each of these categories but there are too many sort of criteria which which which come up which fall across both so instead I've grouped the the suggested changes by by sort of theme as it were. So I would say at this point is what exactly does number four mean, what do coalition S mean by strongly recommended additional criteria. Does that mean that it's okay for publishers or journals or platforms to simply ignore these additional criteria. Will publishing venues be penalized for not implementing those recommendations and these are questions which we don't have answers to in which I think coalition S will need to answer. So most of the changes around is around business models and this is a statement taken from the introductory section of the plan S websites that states quite clearly that any research funded by members of coalition S must be made upon publication without any embargo. And this section has a list of actions, which are my suggestions on how I think that publishers journals platforms may start making changes to meet compliance to each of the criteria. I'm not going to go through each action in detail these slides will are available after the presentation, and you can read through those yourselves. I will not pretend to fully understand the complexities of journal publishing today I haven't worked in journal publishing for some years, but these actions are built on my time working, both as and for journal publishers. So I think that you know these suggestions are sensible ones at least but they, but they will not cover everything. If we were taking part in the certification process we would look to see if content is published online immediately to make sure that it's open access, and if funder information is displayed in the article. It's worth saying at this point that publishing venues should remember that you that these changes are not being requested for the benefit or for the sake of DOAJ, or for plan S, or for the EU or coalition S or for funding agencies. They are not being requested because they are changes for the users. It is important that the journals policies and the practices and the business processes are clearly available to readers and authors. Essentially the consumers of the content and these policies and practices and processes must be easy to find easy to read and easy to understand. So users must be able to understand them immediately and be able to quickly assess what content is available to them, who is making it available, and what they can do with that content. So if you are a, if you own a journal and you have a journal website, you know, you're not making these changes just for the benefit of coalition S. Okay, there's a reason and I think that sometimes this gets forgotten all too often. It's for the users, it's for the people who want to both use your content, and also for those people who want to submit content to your journal. The next statement on business models is that coalition S does not support hybrid open access publishing when those fees are not part of a transformative arrangement, and that means that that journal has to register for a transformative agreement at the ESAC website and I have put the link to the ESAC website there. If DOAJ was looking for compliance here then we would look for perhaps an agreement number from ESAC. I believe that each journal or publisher that registers with ESAC gets a unique ID. We would look for that number on the website and a clear statement about what about the intention to transform from hybrid to a fully open access journal by the deadline of 2024. The next slide is on business models. The next slide on business models is about being able to publish with immediate and permanent open access, or to deposit a version of that into an open access repository and this is where coalition S is meeting both, is meeting both forms, two forms of open access, green and gold. And I will speak more about self archiving and licensing in a minute. Self archiving is a term given to being able to deposit a version of your manuscript into an open access repository. And if DOAJ were looking for, we're doing certification on this, then we would look for clear statements on the website that describe both of these policies. And we would also check that open access is immediate and that licensing terms do indeed support both of those statements there that are in red. The last slide on business models, and it states very clearly on the coalition S website that coalition S will define the various services, such as triaging peer review, editorial work, copy editing, that publishers will be asked to price. And this is a call to action for publishers at the journal level, although publisher level is a minimum to start itemizing publishing costs on the websites. The exact guidelines around this have not yet been defined. So coalition S is going to is going to produce that, I believe by the by the start of 2020. And this is something that if you have that information already you should start thinking about how you're going to display it on your website. And DOAJ would indeed look for that page where that information is displayed, and that each required cost, whatever those costs may be in the end are actually listed and itemized. The next slide is the first of a couple on publishing best practice and I think that this is probably where things start to get slightly tricky, slightly difficult. This is a recommendation or a demand that journals and publishers and platforms should have a solid system in place for review. That refers to peer review that in itself is not difficult. But then coalition S follows it up by saying that this these processes for review must be done in accordance to the standards of cope in as and that the journal must follow the guidance of copes core practices and policies. Now copes core practices are a thing I also work for cope. So I know that these core practices were put into into what were made live three years ago, they were, they replaced the code of conduct for journals and editors, and they cover 10 very distinct areas and you'll see that in some of them here on the on the slide. I think that that I mean there is a lot of work here. So I would really advise for those of you which have not already done so to go and read the cope core practices I've put the link there, the link to coalition S guidance is wrong by the way. So this is this is the correct link, and make sure that you have documented publicly all of what you would do for each of those 10 categories. That coalition S does not insist that the journal is a member of cope. And even if you even if the journal is a member of cope, it needs to state very clearly on its website about what it would do in each of these 10 areas. So that's quite a lot of writing quite a lot of work and do a j if we were checking for compliance here would indeed check that policies are publicly available on the website and that they describe each of these 10 areas in detail. The area in publishing best practice is about having a detailed description of editorial policies and decision making processes. And at least some basic statistics. So, these are the statistics that you might that you would get from your manuscript submission system if you have one. So if you don't already collect these statistics if your manuscript submission system or your editorial workflow system doesn't collect these statistics then start collecting them now. Because all the work that you can do now this side of 2021 is is only going to stand you in good stead. I think that there's another question here that is needed to be defined by coalition S what exactly does it mean by editorial policies and decision making processes. Is it enough to just list how the journal runs its review process as we saw on the last slide. You know what other policies are included here. I need some clarification. When do a j is looking for certification here, then we then we might check for those statistics for example, make sure that they're documented and that they are clearly stated on a journal website. The plan is guidelines only has one real section on copyright but there is only one really one section on copyright that is needed. It's a very simple change. Make sure that copyright is retained by the authors or their institutions. There's nothing complicated about that. However, making that change may be complicated. If you already run a journal you will already have copyright statements on your websites you will already have publishing agreements or author agreements that contain copyright information and that tell people what they can and can't do under the terms of copyright. Those will all need to be changed. And in particular you will need to make sure that there are no conflicting copyright statements. As we see all too often that there will be something perhaps on a journal issue that says you know copyright is remains with the author, but at the bottom of every single page of the website it says copyright. The copyrights are reserved by the publisher, and that is because the copyright statement has been pasted into the footer of the website and that is in clear contradiction with the other copyright statements so make sure there are no conflicting copyright statements. You should also think very clearly about what range of content the new copyright agreements are going to apply to. Are you going to go back and get updated copyright agreements. If we're just checking for certification on this point then we would like to see a clear statement that copyright is retained by the author or their institutions, and we would look very carefully for conflicting copyright statements or clashes between copyright terms and licensing terms. There are several slides on licensing and coalition escos a long way to make sure that licensing is implemented on all the different components of of scholarly content. The first one is that the article content itself the scholarly content must be made open and available immediately with a CC by license. There are exceptions and you'll see those listed in the actions, but CC by is the preferred license. I think that there's a question here, particularly because creative commons licenses are not recognized by all institutions. And in some, and I know that certainly several years ago they weren't recognized in all countries, they are in Europe certainly but not all over the world. What happens when a creative commons license is disallowed. I was made aware of this just just yesterday from an institution in Poland, their lawyers do not recognize creative commons licenses. So, what does that mean for plan S compliance. If DOAJ was checking for certification here then we might check for the licensing statements displayed correctly on every article and not just in one section of the page or on on the publisher website or in the footer. It has to be displayed in the full text of every article. And that's extremely important. And we would also check to make sure that there's no clash between copyright statements and licensing statements, which again unfortunately we all see very, very often. There's also a statement about self archiving. And the statement is that the journal or the platform will allow the author or institution to make either the version of record or the authors accepted in manuscript, or both versions available under an open license, via an open access repository. And this is self archiving. And I think that there are specific requirements, specific features around self archiving. I know that some platforms offer to do this as a service. And so that the journals pass this on as an author service. Is this something that you are going to do on behalf of the authors. If so, what are the workflows between those journals and the repositories. You will need to update your agreements and state the policy on the website and update copyright and licensing terms and conditions. One of the strongly recommended criteria by plan s is that you registered the policy with Sherpa Romeo. I would recommend extremely strongly that if you are going to register a policy with Sherpa Romeo that you get that policy you written clearly onto your website and you apply for registration at Sherpa Romeo today. There are some very specific requirements that Sherpa Romeo have to make sure that a policy is worded correctly. So it's really good to get going on that as soon as you can. Now we've got a couple of slides on permanent identifiers and coalition s makes the difference of between article identifiers and what they call author identifiers. So this first slide is about the use of article identifiers, or what we might commonly know as a DOI, which is one type of identifier but there are others. There is a urn, there is something called handle. There are also other IDs which aren't mentioned. For example, arc ARK. So what does coalition s think about those. I think what we need to, we need some clarity on that. If you are going to use a DOI then you will need to register for a DOI stem and you will need to do that with a DOI agency or via a sponsor. And you'll need to set up the workflow to make sure that DOIs are handled correctly in your manuscript submission system or your workflow process. And you'll need to make sure that those DOIs, for example, are deposited and resolved correctly. And there is a recommendation by coalition s that you also enable versioning. The first step of course is to decide what type of identifier you are going to use. If DOAJ was checking for certification here, and we include this as one of our own criteria, then we will check that the DOIs are against the content and that they resolve correctly and that they have versioning. The other identifiers, and this is a strongly recommended criteria, not a mandatory one, is that the journal or the publishing venue supports PIDs for authors, for example, ORCID. But there are other IDs as well, you know, funder IDs, funding programs, grants, institutions, essentially where there is an ID number or an ID system for each of the components that have come together to produce that article, then you should incorporate those into the metadata as much as possible. You will, I think that maybe a lot of authors know about ORCID IDs, but not all of them, so it is absolutely recommended that you start working on getting, raising awareness of what each of these IDs are. If DOAJ was checking for certification here, then we might check for that the ORCID IDs are present in the article metadata and that they resolve to the ORCID website, and that they are included in the article metadata. There's one mention in the plan S guidance on archiving and preservation, but these are really two things. You need to make sure that your content is deposited in a program that does archiving and long term digital preservation. I think that the website literature, the coalition as literature here is wrong. It shouldn't say or, because we know all too well from our experience at DOAJ that there are many services that offer archiving, but they don't actually preserve the digital record. They don't ensure its integrity and make sure that it lasts over time. So if you are not taking part in one of these services, then you should probably start negotiations with them now because even if you have a signed agreement with one of these services, it does not mean to say that your content is being actively deposited. That process can be quite tricky because of course all journals are built differently, they have different formats, they have different workflows, and all of those have to be taken into account when you sign up with one of these programs. I think that there's a question here about whether coalition S have any recommended or any preference to what these programs are, although they do mention clocks, locks, portico, I believe. But there are other programs such as those offered by the British Library or some national libraries do have very valid long term preservation and archiving programs. So I had a question here about who's iris program, which is an archiving system about whether it was valid and I don't know is the answer. I looked at the iris website and there's no information on the website about whether iris is a preservation and an archiving program. There's no technical information about what iris does to ensure that the record is archived and preserved. So I'm afraid I can't answer that question. And if there's anybody from the WHO on this call, then I recommend that iris gets that information up online if they want to be considered as a as a valid player in this particular part of the plan this process. If somebody was checking for compliance here, then we would check that a program is mentioned that participation in a program is mentioned. And we would also check the keepers registry, which is a third party service, currently operated by ISSN.org to make sure that the content is actively being deposited in the program mentioned. So now come the first of four slides about article metadata. One of the recommendations is that article metadata, so abstract metadata is made is made available in a standard interoperable non proprietary format under a CC0 public domain dedication. It's going to be slightly confusing. The CC0 license does not apply to the scholarly content. So we're not talking about licensing the article we're talking about the license that's applied to the actual piece of metadata itself. So the way you know that that metadata record. I think that here coalition has still need to provide a list of what those accepted standard interoperable non proprietary formats are. I mean there are many standard ones already out there but you know what does coalition has mean exactly. I had a question here received from one of the users is what can we consider high quality article level metadata under a DC public domain. And I wasn't really sure whether what was meant by quality. Did you mean the quality of the article content or did you mean the quality of the actual metadata record itself. The article is structured correctly, and it should always be of, then it should always be of high quality. You know, if it turns, if it is an open format, it will be, and it's done correctly it will be of high quality. There's another question about who is responsible for licensing the metadata, the repository or the journal. Well, it is the publishing venue that produces the scholarly content in the first place that is responsible for producing the metadata. And therefore, it is that same publishing venue that should be licensing the metadata under. The next area around article metadata is that it must include complete and reliable information on funding and the minimum that the article metadata must include the name of the funder and the grant number or identifier. If COAJ was looking for a compliance here then we would check the article metadata to see if those if the name of the funder and the grant number were present, and we would also look to make sure that there were clear instructions in the instructions to authors that tell the authors that they must provide their grant, the name of the funder and the grant number. The plan S literature says that machine readable information on the open access statement status and the license should be embedded in the article in a standard non proprietary format. Again, what does coalition S mean here by standard non proprietary format. Even more importantly what do they mean by embedded from our experience at DOAJ we know that actually embedding licensing information in, for example PDFs is difficult, and people don't know how to do it, and they don't have the technical resources or know how to do it. The larger publishers may do this very easily because they have the resources for that, but for the smaller publishers this is tricky. At DOAJ we moved away from the from the requirement of embedding to just allowing just allowing the article, the license information is displayed in article content. And we think that's acceptable but is that going to be acceptable for plan S I think that there's a question mark there. It's important that the open access status and the license are included against every single article PDFs, particularly, but other formats as well, get downloaded and they get shared. It is not enough to have the license information in the footer of the website. They have to, it has to be against every single article. Another requirement around article metadata is a recommendation only, and it is that the full text of the publication, including all supplementary material is available in a machine readable community standard formats such as jazz. And again, does this mean that coalition s will accept other formats, apart from jazz. I don't know and I think that coalition s need to need to specify that. If we were looking for compliance here at DOAJ then we would check that the XML download feature is available against every article, or at an issue level. And every article would be would make more sense because of course we're talking about scholarly content that is funded by coalition s and not all content. And we would also make sure that the instructions for authors explain that Jats is used and that users can download your article in the Jats format. The next two or three slides are from the strongly recommended section of the literature. And you'll see here that we have a mention of open air compliance our hosts for today. There's a question here though because what does coalition s really mean those guidelines that they refer to currently refer only to repositories and it's unclear what aspects of compliance will be looked for for journals or platforms. I would also say that articles should contain linking to underlying data code and other research outputs and that they must be available in an external repository. What do they mean here by repositories. I know many researchers who put all of their raw data and code in Dropbox is is that considered enough. Can you just provide a link to an open file in Dropbox. I think there needs to be clearer definition provided here by coalition s. There are some, there is a recommendation that all citations are made openly accessible in accordance to the standards of I for OC. Again, there are lots of questions here. What standards exactly are being referred to is it simply as it states on the I for OC website that these citations are structured, separable and open. That is what they mean. Is it enough then to simply declare that your article metadata is available under a CC zero license because with a CC zero license they are very open. The I for OC website refers very, very heavily to Crossref members do you have to be a member of Crossref to do this. Do you have to become a signatory of the I for OC. I think these things all need to be made clear. The last slide out of this section is that it is strongly recommended that journals facilitate the deposition of publications into an open access repository. We touched on this slightly earlier it's about do you will you offer this as a service, instead of relying on the author to put a copy of their article into an archive, will the journal do it for them. And again, what is a plan s compliant open access repository. I think that that needs to be clarified by coalition s. Okay, so that was the end of the first part. And I am going to just the last three parts are much shorter. Next question I'm going to look very quickly about what might the certification process look like at DOA J, and what is the difference between DOA J so to certification and plan s certification. And here comes the second of my huge disclaimers. It is not yet confirmed how DOA J will be involved in the certification process if we will be involved at all. This is based in DOA J's mentioned, and it does mention coalition s does mention that they will work with DOA J, but it is not determined in exactly what that partnership will look like. What I can tell you is this this is what we have imagined might happen if DOA J is an active partner in the certification process. First of all, that on the DOA J website plan s certification will be separate to DOA J certification. So if you are in DOA J you will not need to reapply and start again from scratch. We had that was a question submitted to us in 2015 we made all of the 10,000 plus journals in DOA J reapply to remain indexed we are never ever going to do that. That's process again. That's a promise. It will be possible to be indexed in in DOA J and even have the DOA J seal, but not apply for plan s certification plan s certification is not mandatory for all journals. If you publish articles where you have received funding from European funders then yes you will have to meet plan s certification. But we have so many journals in DOA J that this will not even touch for journals that are not in DOA J and are not plan s compliant yet, it will be possible to apply for both at the same time. For journals that are already in DOA J, it will be a possible to apply just for plan s certification, but it will not be possible to be plan s compliant but not be DOA J compliant because the literature says that to be one of the plan s criteria is that you have to be indexed in DOA J. There are certain things in the DOA J criteria which match very closely the plan s criteria and we envisage that by answering the question once, then that information will be carried over to whatever process plan s compliance will look like so publishers journals platforms will not need to provide that information twice. So I think that there are things that you can start now and this is just my suggestions on other things that you can get going and most importantly it's about communication. And I think that you know start talking to all of the stakeholders that are involved in the production of scholarly content in your journals or on your platforms. Start informing them what plan s is I can guarantee that there are, there are many people who have never heard of plan s yet and they don't really or they've heard of it and they don't understand what it means to them. Start talking to third party services or vendors that you may use manuscript submission systems content converters website hosts, make them aware of that changes are going to be needed, because it's not only your journal or platform that's going to be doing this but there are going to be many, many journals and platforms all trying to make these changes as soon as possible. I'm sure that many of you who are looking at becoming plan s compliant have already started this process at least I hope you have, you know, talk to your legal department or get legal advice about how to change copyright statements or, you know, or contracts or the contracts or agreements and talk to finance about budgets. Now how are you going to make provision to make these changes and to change your, your, your publishing models. If your journal is already open access then I would advise you to get it into DOA J now apply for DOA J indexing now you can apply for plan s criteria later. If you need help about the differences between copyright and licensing then talk to us, and I can guarantee that there are publishers and or journals out there that have conflicting statements about copyright and licensing on their website, you will need to sort those out. We can help you we have the resources to do that. Decide on your content strategy. When you make changes to licensing and copyright statements, or you implement archiving or present and preservation programs, or you start assigning do is what range of content is going to be covered is it going to be all of us. You may have back archive material that has been made available for public consumption under completely different copyright terms or can or or contractual agreements. Is this only going to apply from content going forward from 2020 or 2021. You need to decide that and start talking to you or to your partners to other third party services particularly the ones that are mentioned in the coalition as literature the plan s guidelines, and that would be repositories, public permanent ID services, archiving services, and do in particular start talking to show perennial, if you intend to register self archiving policy with them. So very quickly just a few things that we think are coming next. There will be a lot more information hopefully coming out of the coalition as camp. They've just appointed a consultant to start the data review. And to finalize this, the, the set of compliant data, how that should be exposed and where that will be determined soon it hasn't been determined yet. coalition s is our commission commissioning task forces to help some of the groups that are involved in plan s so for example they've just released a task force on support for society publishers. So we have a map analysis to make sure there are journals and platforms covering all the right fields and disciplines. As I said earlier they will be in issuing advice at the end of 2021 on how plan s principles can be applied to monographs and books. We will be developing a tool that will help researchers identify where the publishing venues fulfill requirements. And I had a question about how could academic libraries participate in the plan s and open access to provide users information needs. And I think it's about education and communication and raising awareness. So help your researchers and your authors look for the right information, help them sign up to orchid, help them understand why archiving self archiving is important. Help them understand what plan s means for them, and help them go and find their funding information and get their grant numbers. And when this tool is delivered by coalition s show them this tool and help them use this tool so that they know exactly how to identify a compliant publishing venue. There will be a lot more discussion with major research funders from all over the world for the moment the focus has been on European funders. And, but of course, signing up becoming a signatory of plan s or signing up is entirely voluntary. I expect that there will be a lot of discussion with some of the countries from Latin America, where the very notion of plan s rubs up the wrong way against Latin America's model of open access. And coalition s are going to establish ongoing monitoring for transparency and compliance, particularly around making sure that costs are itemized and laid out on websites. And they may even implement caps on what they consider to be an acceptable article processing charge. And of course, at the end of 2024 support for hybrid journals transforming to complete open access ends. And that's also when a formal review of how successful coalition s has been will be published. So my last slide, and these are just three promises. So I think what DOAJ is making to you today, that we will continue to push the important questions of clarification to coalition s because I think that's the publishers journals publishing venues need to know these answers as quickly as possible. As far as the DOAJ website goes, we will make the site and the supporting literature accessible, responsive and easy to read and more user friendly and we've already started on that process with a redesign of the website and a redesign of the application form. So make sure that the application form is simple and user friendly. And that applies to both the DOAJ form, as it is today and also the plan s form should that be what is asked of us by coalition s. You can keep abreast of our developments by following our blog or following our Twitter account. And that is all I wanted to share with you today. I hope that there are time for questions, given that we started late. But if not, maybe we can take them up after. Thanks Tom. I think it was very, very interesting. Of course, the information is a lot. So for the sake of completeness we will make both the recordings and the presentations available next week. We have a comment from one of the participants that says it relates to the Cope standards and says that when it comes to Cope standards, it seems to me that plan s includes an explicit requirement only about the adherence to Cope's Cope practice number nine that's about period. Yeah. That is actually a very, very possible interpretation of the, of the, of that sentence in the literature. And I hope that's so actually because then it removes the, the need to do all of that work around the other nine categories. I'm going to follow that up. One thing that I didn't say is that I think this particular point around where Cope is mentioned does require further clarification, both from Cope themselves and from coalition s. So, thank you very much for making that point whoever made that because I actually really hope that that's the case, and I will follow up on that one. There's another comment that I think refers to how would you age a word so is there any option to submit multiple journals for you at a time. So, we do have that capability via the API. You would need to establish the connection to the API, and then you can submit multiple applications programmatically, which is much easier, I believe in doing it manually. I don't know if that functionality is going to be extended for plan s. If, if we're going to be involved in that way then I then I hope that it would be, and that's certainly a request that we would put to our developers once we know for sure. Okay, so thanks from the person that asked the question. Are there any other questions about what Dom explained today? Well, I mean, feel free to ping him through the DOAJ channels otherwise. And I have just a remark that I mentioned in the beginning that OpenAir is an open science infrastructure. And among our content providers, we have DOAJ, we are based open access journals and we are happy to support any initiative that we can promote open sharing of metadata among journals and among in general the open science ecosystem for a more equitable environment.