 Hello, I'm Leanne George, Coroner of the Specs Survey Program at the Association of Research Libraries, and I'd like to thank you for joining us for this Specs Survey Webcast. Today we'll hear about the results of the survey on libraries, presses, and publishing. These results have been published in SpecKit357, which is freely available at publications.arl.org. Before we begin, there are just a couple of announcements. First, everyone but the presenters has been muted to cut down on background noise, so if you are part of a group today, feel free to speak among yourselves. And we do want you to join the conversation by typing questions in the chat box at the lower left corner of your screen. We'll answer as many questions as possible at the end of the presentation, and I'll read the questions aloud and then the presenters will answer them. The webcast is being recorded, and we will send registrants the slides in the link to the recording within the next week. Now let me introduce today's presenters from the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida. Laurie Taylor is the Digital Scholarship Librarian. Brian Key is the Associate Dean for Administration and Faculty Affairs. And Chelsea Dinsmore is the Director of Digital Production Services. Meredith Morris-Babb, who is Director and CEO of the University Press of Florida, is unable to join us today. Use the hashtag ARLSpecKit357 to continue the conversation with us on Twitter. And now let me turn the presentation over to Laurie. So before we go into our results, we wanted to provide framing for why we wanted to do the spec kit. There are two huge reasons. The first is practical and is stated in the spec kit. Many Association of Research Libraries, ARL members, have robust and long-standing publishing activities, often in collaboration with or running parallel to the press of the larger institutional entity. As reported in the Association of American University Presses 2015-2016 Annual Report, 30 of those presses are in libraries. 81 institutions are both ARL and AAUP members. And at 21 of those institutions, the press reports to the library. Other libraries, including the Amherst College Press and the University of Cincinnati Press, launched new presses within libraries. Most of the 123 ARL member libraries are engaged in publishing and publishing support activities such as hosting digital publications, administering open access publishing systems, creating open educational resources, providing editorial services, or participating on scholarly advisory boards. To address the critical concerns and opportunities available for libraries, presses and publishing, in 2016, AAUP, ARL, and the Coalition for Network Information, CNI, hosted the first publishers reporting to library summits to share knowledge and develop best practices for library press partnerships. In 2015, the Association of College and Research Libraries, ACRL, published, Getting the Word Out, Academic Libraries of Scholarly Publishers. Also in 2015, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation announced the inaugural grants for the Humanities Open Book Program for bringing out-of-print university books back to life digitally. The Library Publishing Coalition, or LPC, started several years prior and successfully holds an annual meeting to assess the variety and types of activities underway in library publishing. Further, LPC conducts an annual survey that addresses an expanding array of publishing activities and the organizational structure for publishing in libraries. The Coalition offers an inclusive definition of library publishing that aids in framing discussions on libraries and publishing. The LPC defines library publishing as the set of activities led by college and university libraries to support the creation, dissemination, and curation of scholarly, creative, and or educational works. Generally, library publishing requires a production process, presents original work not previously made available, and applies the level of certification to the content published, whether through peer review or extension of the institutional brand. Based on core library values and building on the traditional skills of librarians, it is distinguished from other publishing fields by preference for open access dissemination, as well as the willingness to embrace informal and experimental forms of scholarly communication and to challenge the status quo. The findings from this survey complement the ongoing work of LPC, ARL, and AAUP on libraries and publishing to inform on the expansive breadth of practice taking place at the intersection of research libraries, presses, and publishing. By investigating ARL and institutional landscapes and practices as they relate to presses and publishing, this study complements and extends prior spec kits that focus on digital scholarships, digital humanities, open educational resources, and digital collections and services by exploring aspects of publishing activities in the specific context of press collaborations, integrations, and partnerships. For our practical reasons, there are also practical obstacles. We'll cover the obstacles in this webcast, and it includes the complexity of the current situations and configurations for libraries, presses, and publishing. Not only are these complex, they're also rapidly evolving. The complexity and rapid evolution makes the work to assess the current landscape more difficult. However, the same reasons that lead to that difficulty also mean that this is a time of tremendous opportunity for defining what and how libraries, presses, and publishing can be and what they can do. This brings us on to the second part of our answer for why on libraries, presses, and publishing. A short answer is that we needed this information and our roles in the University Press of Florida, the University of Florida Press, the Library Press at U.S., Undergrowth Text Plus, M.E.F. Libraries were all actively engaged on concerns with libraries, presses, and publishing. We're also all involved with the Digital Library of the Caribbean, or D-LOC. The images on this slide are from the University of the Virgin Islands collection in D-LOC. The images here are of D. Jackson Hamilton and the Harold newspaper, which he founded, and which was the first free newspaper. The newspaper served as a voice and a vehicle for the people to organize, gain civil rights, and gain citizenship. With libraries, presses, and publishing all at a critical developmental stage, all involved have the opportunity to create new publications and new ways of publishing that can enable change in our world. The digital age has brought new opportunities for public engagement, new forms of scholarly and intellectual work, and new modes and methods for connecting our collections to our communities. The results of this spec kit provide foundational information on how we're organizing this work, who's doing the work, what's being done, and what are some of the considerations for the future. The survey results are based on responses from 63 of the 123 ARL member libraries, a 51% response rate. Of the 63 responding libraries, 44, or 70%, reported that the parent institution has a press. When asked if the library had created a press of its own, that is either separate from the institutional press or where no institutional press exists. 9 or 14% of the respondents reported that they created a separate library press. Few reported they created a library press and there was no institutional press. Three reported that the library plans to develop a library press that will be separate from the institutional press. And another three will develop a library press where no institutional press exists. Interestingly, all of the responding libraries are engaged of some form of publishing activity as defined by the survey. A further analysis of the data indicates seven categories of respondents. 31 institutions, nearly half, have an institutional press that no library press. Nine have both an institutional and a library press. Three have an institutional press and plan to create a library press. Two have a library press but no institutional press. And another three have no institutional press but plan to create a library press. One has an integrated single division with a library and institutional press. And 14 didn't have a press of any kind. The respondents who reported that a press exists or is being developed provided information about the press and library relationship. 14 of the respondents or 34% stated that the institutional press reports through the library. Their comments describe the complexity of these relationships. In one example, the press director reports to the dean of libraries, but their budgets are separate. And another institution, the press reports to the university librarian who has a deputy provost role. In another example, there's not a direct reporting relationship, but librarians serve on the press advisory board. 68% of these respondents have firm that the libraries and presses are collaborating. Examples include collaborations for specific needs as they emerge, as well as for ongoing programmatic requirements or opportunities, such as publishing books, journal hosting, speaker events, service on editorial boards, archiving and preservation, digitization at the press backlist, publishing companion websites for digital or enhanced versions of print publications, and other activities. Many respondents noted programmatic collaborative activities that draw on the presses and libraries and bring them into closer ongoing contact. As the librarians serving on press advisory boards, the press co-sponsoring library journals, the library funding several open access books per year that are published by the press, and the library and press co-funding and editorial position. The motivations for having the institutional press report to the library for creating a library press and for library and press collaboration are varied as this chart reflects. The 32 respondents reported multiple reasons, but the overarching motivations included leveraging expertise and efficiencies and stakeholder need and an opportunity for enhanced library contributions. In the survey, we were also interested in both the project development and editorial, including project planning and management, peer review, developmental editing, editorial advisory board activities, and grant preparation and the editorial activities that are common with publishing services, design, permissions clearance, material production, printing and binding management, distribution and marketing. The graphs on this page, okay, my slide just advanced, show the many types of publishing and editorial activities based on engagement by organizational structure. Libraries are engaged in a variety of activities, but less engaged than institutional and library presses and peer review, editorial board supports, copy editing and proofing. Institutional presses are deeply engaged in the full spectrum of these activities. And I'll now turn the presentation over to Chelsea. Thank you, Lori. The graphic on this slide, when it advances, depicts the type of publications produced by libraries and institutional and library presses. Clearly, libraries are creating a broad spectrum of materials. The most frequent library publications were electronic theses and dissertations, followed by open access journals, online exhibitions, data sets, and online portals. These libraries are less likely to produce description journals and either print or enhanced monographs. Other categories include digital scholarship websites and visualizations, larger scale digital project databases, faculty digital editions for projects, 3D scans, gray literature, promotional materials, reports, white papers, posters, conference proceedings, working papers, and learning materials, among others. Library presses are most likely to produce open access and or subscription journals, digital books, and open educational resources. The survey also queried on which systems or platforms are used to deliver these publications. Responses reflect enormous variety with dozens of tools in use for the different publication types. As found in the annual library publishing coalition surveys, open journal systems, or OJS, is one of the few platforms in wide use. The responses to the survey demonstrate that libraries are leveraging and integrating digital library and institutional repository systems for publishing. They are also adopting digital scholarship specific tools such as Scalar and OMECA and implementing common web tools such as WordPress. The staffing section of the survey included questions to grapple with the relative newness of library publishing at its current scale and to address changing staffing models. Several types of employees, including faculty and staff are currently engaged in publishing activities with varied organizational placement, often under the framing of scholarly communications or digital scholarship. As this chart shows, these personnel are engaged in a wide variety of activities with the predominance of librarians and other professionals. Select findings regarding staffing include the majority responded that a graduate degree in library or information sciences was not required for any professional staff engaged in publishing activities. Libraries have addressed changing responsibilities for staff in a variety of ways, including creating new positions and redefining existing ones. Survey participants were also asked if the libraries have utilized or identified opportunities for enhanced workforce and or workplace diversity and or inclusivity. For example, backgrounds, experiences, races, ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientation and perspectives. When creating or reconfiguring positions to provide publishing services, the majority of respondents had not. However, some noted involvement in the AAUP discussions on diversity joint search committees with representatives from the press and libraries to support an expanded framing and a diversity and a diversity internship program with graduate students placed in the department. One finding is that the prevalence of graduate students could present an opportunity for recruiting new professionals into libraries and library publishing. I'll now turn the presentation over to Brian. Thank you, Chelsea. The survey also investigated funding, including whether there was a separate budget or distinct funding source for publishing activities and the sources of funds. The responses are depicted in this graph and reflect separate funding models for institutional presses, but not for library presses. It is important to note the many respondents had difficulty reporting how much is spent each year on publishing, which may partially be the result of the undifferentiated funding models, but also parallels challenges with reporting the number of publishing related staff. The main reason for this is the large number of people involved in publishing, many with only partial time allocations or split assignments. Also, we found the majority of respondents expect funding to remain the same over the next three years. The survey also asked what types of external vendors the library contracts with to provide publishing services. Per our findings, vendors are most frequently used for digital storage, electronic distribution of e-publications, printing, and metadata distribution. Other services include print on demand, binding, sales and marketing, storage, and peer review for scholarly societies. The majority of institutional and library presses publish materials from authors both inside and outside of their institution, although a handful do focus on internal authors. Proportionally, libraries less frequently publish works from external authors, but a significant number of libraries are engaged in this work. Survey respondents reported numerous activities and outreach methods to enlist and engage authors in publishing activities. These include leveraging the role of liaison librarians, direct messaging and promotion of news stories, workshops and presentations, outreach targeted to journal editors, and outreach targeted to institutional repositories. Respondents also rely on annual fairs and integration in events such as new faculty orientation and word of mouth building from existing activities, calls for proposals, focused activities based on data from institutional faculty performance system, booths that a scholarly society meeting, conference presentations and social media. Now I'll turn the presentation back over to Lori. Yeah, so thank you, Brian. Lessons learned and additional comments were also solicited from respondents. Many lessons were elicited from new publishing initiatives, including the need for sufficient staffing, proper scoping to implement a service program rather than boutique or one-off support, service tiers for structuring support and guiding conversations, service alignment, framework alignment with the library mission and integration into the strategic plan activities, structural and organizational documentation support processes, for example MOUs, formal service agreements, policies, best practices, standard publishing contracts with clear deadlines, clear communication on what services are and are not offered, and participation in the professional community's organizations, for example library publishing coalition. Other findings on lessons learned were specific to publishing. The most common single recommendation was to work closely with the institutional press where one exists whenever possible, even if it seems like the library publishing and press activities are discreet. Multiple respondents noted the value of having advisory or steering committees to guide and support publishing. Other lessons included that publishing requires a great deal of time to implement as a program and more time than would generally be expected for library programs. That separate branding is important for works that are heavily peer reviewed versus those that are produced with less editorial investment and that implementing a call for proposals process with an evaluative component to support selection and decision making for new publications can help create the attendant support based on the editorial level. Also that journal hosting is important for publishing and that the growth and open act open educational resources or OERs may drive the development for formalizing library publishing activity. So for considerations and recommendations, this back kit serves as an initial snapshot of ARL member involvement with library publishing and presses. The results of this inquiry document the current level of complexity. While an increasing number of institutional presses now report to libraries, the relationship often remains administrative rather than representing integrated operations and primarily for financial reasons and following the retirement or departure of key personnel. The majority of work in library publishing thus far has focused on providing journal hosting and repository platforms. One best practice that emerges is to use existing digital library and repository systems whenever possible and then to supplement those with appropriate additional systems for specific services. For example, open journal systems for journals, scalar for digital scholarship and wordpress for web publishing. There's less work to date on the acquisitions in what presses also term curatorial and editorial aspects that are core to institutional presses. The results suggest that curatorial and editorial are areas for future growth. For this and other growth areas, respondents reaffirmed the value of learning from institutional presses. Respondents comments suggest that one way to accomplish synergy with institutional presses is to establish and operate shared advisory boards for presses and publishing, including stakeholders to review editorial practices and operational design. While the majority of ARL members are already engaged in publishing or publishing support activities and many have robust and long-standing publishing activities, the next phases of growth will be informed and enhanced through collaboration with institutional presses, scholarly advisory board, other libraries and related communities. The survey findings also suggest a need for greater engagement with the community of practice. This is through collaboration with ARL and with groups like the Library Publishing Coalition and Association of American University Presses. So I'll now turn the presentation over to Leanne for the questions and discussion. Thank you, Laurie, and I want to remind you all that we welcome your questions. Join the conversation by typing your questions in the chat box in the lower left corner of your screen and I will read those questions for the presenters to answer. And while we give you a moment to start entering your questions, I will ask the presenters. In your considerations and recommendations, Laurie, you mentioned that it's recommended to collaborate with scholarly advisory boards. Can you speak to what that looks like at your institution and what the process might be for establishing such a group for library publishing? That's something that we're actively investigating right now. That's a great question. So at the University of Florida, we have the University Press of Florida, which serves as a statewide system press, and there's also the University of Florida Press, and Meredith is over both of those. And then within the libraries, we have the Library Press at UF, which is a joint imprint of the University of Florida Press and the libraries. And so this really came out of all of our different publishing initiatives and needs and so much rich collaboration with the UF Press, including the hosting support for the Orange Grove Text Plus, which are open access textbooks, work in journal hosting, work in bringing back reprints of a museum collection, and collaboration on our Mellon Open Books grant, where we're bringing back to life 39 books on Florida and the Caribbean. And so right now, so we've established the Library Press at UF, but we don't yet have a scholarly advisory board or right now we're thinking more of an editorial collective, some sort of groups to help support the ongoing curatorial editorial advancement of the group, and so we're in close collaboration and discussion with the press to develop a proposal for that group. Thanks Laurie. Please enter your questions in the chat box so we can get our presenters to answer them for you. The survey results mentioned Scalar is a standard common tool, a platform. Tell us some more about what that is and how it's being used in digital publishing. Yeah, so I don't know if we can do a poll of the participants. I think probably not or it might be cumbersome, but the Scalar is a tool that grew out of the University of Southern California. It's an excellent, robust tool that's been designed by designers, media studies theorists, and other experts, specifically for web publishing and for integrated media publishing, so including video video elements with transcripts, annotating videos, and not just a linear reading experience or a structured one, so you can have the Scalar, the fundamental element is the book, but then you can also do paths through it. And so a number of different presses are working with Scalar. It's also heavily being taught in digital humanities, digital scholarship classes, so it's an excellent platform that really has the adoption, the community involvement for that community of practice engagement and support. Thank you. Jody has a follow-up question about advisory boards. She asked, who do you envision inviting to your group when it's formed? That's a great question. Thanks, Jody. The library press that you have is really designed to build off of the library collections to help showcase, yeah, exactly, to help showcase the excellence of the collection and present them as public scholarship in the public sphere. So some of the questions in the digital age are, how do we have people see a million bucks? You know, we've digitized so much, but then some of the ways that you do that data mining, text mining, sometimes you also tell a single story. So how do we tell the story of the Baldwin Library of Historical Children's Literature, which is a collection at the University of Florida? So one of the library press books for that, the first one that I'm coming out with, is B is for Baldwin and Alphabetic Journey through the Baldwin Library of Historical Children's Literature. And that will have 26 different entries. A is for Anglophone because almost all of the texts in the Baldwin are in English. B is for Baldwin. C is for Chapbook. And they're all written by different children's literature scholars, many of whom came through the University of Florida Children's Literature Studies program. And then they'll also be anchored with different images from the digitized materials from the Baldwin collection. And they'll have essays that help supplement it to provide the framing. So with that sort of example of a project that we're working with, we're looking at UF's unique strengths in terms of the collections and also our programs. So someone who we would want to, and obviously we would certainly invite scholars. We would also need administrators for how does this scaffold up? What are the structure and relationships of it? So someone from the University Press certainly. And we have some, we do have librarians on the University of Florida Press at board as well. And so that also has that cross connection. And then our faculty, experts in the different areas, and our curatorial experts in the different areas. The ones who know the collections and who know who can speak to their stories and why these materials are particularly impactful in developing for new publications and in print. And what that does for the material. So thinking through all the different format questions, the presentation, and how to write and create public scholarship. Thanks Laurie. You mentioned how complex the relationships are between, oh sorry you've got another question coming in from Charles says what kind of workshops are being offered to build editors communities across campus? So we have several different things that are going on in that regard. One of the main ones we have a journal editors brown bag, which is a regular meeting and discussion. Suzanne Stapleton is one of, she's our agriculture librarian and she's also head of the OJS service team within libraries. And so she runs those and those include having different journal editors speak about what they're doing with their journal. Having other people talk about considerations and launching a new journal. Considerations for moving from print subscription to open online for the back archives and then subscription paid for the new archives. All of the different things that our journal editors are facing in terms of how you use the different technologies and what it means for your workflows and your scholarly community. So those are done on a regular basis. She also runs different presentations and other workshops on OJS open journal systems for that. A number of our faculty are also using the institutional repository to publish often conference proceedings or conference sets of conference posters and other things. And so our IR at UF manager gives regular presentations and also meets with folks on different center publications and other materials. Those are often being reborn digital or being curated and shared with the world digitally for the first time. Another workshop that's series that we've done is with Besta Farber collaborating with strangers or co-labs which bring together different people across campus, across different fields, across the community depending on how they're targeted. And last year we did one of them focused on publishing. And so that we made sure folks from the university press were here and we really had some great conversations and from that great conversations people meeting each other, understanding more about what the other ones do. And from that we had a workshop on how to turn one of the needs identified was how do you turn your dissertation into a book proposal or how do you write your first book proposal. And that was really incredible because we thought we were targeting largely graduate students and we had graduate students, junior faculty, senior faculty, some people who published two or three books but they really didn't know how it worked. They just knew that they had gone through it successfully but they wanted to hear the press's perspective. And so having Meredith be able to present and share and say things like it's fine to submit your book to multiple places but tell us that you're doing it. Don't make it so that I get a phone call from one of my press colleagues asking about a book and potential reviewers. You know just keep us informed and it's okay to communicate with us and other things that we're really inviting and really helpful. So for that we've been talking about doing that on a regular ongoing basis with our Center for Humanities and the public sphere and then looking at what other workshops might develop out of that. You were describing some enhanced monographs a little bit earlier. Can you tell us more about those and how they relate to the publishing that libraries are doing? Yeah it's super exciting. So often at UF we're always looking for how can the technology support our needs you know and how can we do something better with the infrastructure that we have. So we had a number of scholars come to us and say okay I just published my book it's based on archival research. I keep getting these people contacting me wanting the archival research. I have to dig it out for my computer files then I'm trying to find an external hard drive to send them. Can you help me with this? And so of course we were able to help them clearing permissions for the materials to be available in the institutional repository or most often in the digital library of the Caribbean. So then the materials relate to the book so that their digital files that they are with permissions of the archival institution it links to where you can buy the books from the different book the different press different university presses and then when people contact them they can say oh no it's already on D-lock you can go immediately and find it and at the same time that this is happening we're getting more requests from faculty. Meredith is contacting us saying hey I'm getting more requests from faculty when they have books that have data sets one was bought Hami in archaeology others are on lots of archaeology with a Florida press but other data sets from you know different archival research things and other work that people have done some oral histories and so the question from the authors has been is there a way that I can have these materials supported and our answer was absolutely and so that work in developing the process for that and the close collaboration with the press and the libraries to have those data set you know there's archival materials available openly in the institutional repository and linked to the book and then we're trying to get ahead of it and enough time to have the book also linked to the data sets so that when they're published people already have that link in the book themselves and that's what we mean by enhanced monographs and the press has been Meredith taught me the term enhanced monographs because they have so many publications that already do this including ones on dance and ballet where it you know you have little videos you have links in the book that go to videos that tell you about the different dance forms that demonstrate it. I invite our participants to join the conversation and send us a question for our presenters we've got a few more minutes before we need to sign off and you went into this study expecting to find a pretty messy and evolving environment and you describe some of the various ways that libraries and presses are organizing and relating to each other is there anything that really surprised you when you were evaluating those the results of the survey that we were really surprised Brian and Telsie oh I know one of the things that we were interested in was understanding the role of the MLS degree and you know I think that kind of we expected actually that to be a little bit more you know varied than the actual data ended up which you know was an indication that it's it's not a universal requirement by an extent but you know I think that as the chart show is the material that we were not able to incorporate into the webinar show I mean it really is messy presumably in a positive way because of the you know because of the state of change and flux that's taking place so you know I think my impression is that it really kind of evidenced a lot of the expectations we had going in and we were hoping that in the diversity question because anytime you have a a new program you know a new structure and something that blends across fields there's a real opportunity to rethink what the fundamental you know requirements of the job are which it looks like people are already doing with the MLS but then also to move forward on different opportunities and so we were hoping to steal lots and lots of great ideas and it seems like we're all working on this but there weren't there weren't lots of you know tons of new ideas to steal from that but that was a hoped for can you speak to how services such as typesetting and layout and copy editing are being offered by libraries what kind of platforms are they using that's a great question those are areas that were less represented by far and libraries than they were in presses so B-Press provides a platform for doing that but we did not we don't have data on how many people are using B-Press specifically for the copy editing typeset and layout and B-Press has its user group a number of people are migrating off B-Press now with the new acquisition oh I had not heard that many libraries are reconsidering using it with the acquisition of Elsevier I've heard the other way where people are looking at migrating away from it oh okay Chelsea said that's what is meant by the question so but typesetting layout and copy editing are less frequently offered by libraries at institutions there is normally a strong expertise in that not necessarily in doing it but in supporting the editorial review process and the graduate editorial offices which are often within the graduate schools Charles asked about going back to what you're saying about the MLS and do you think the problem is that in MLS programs they don't include information on publishing is that a gap that the iSchools should be addressing that's a great question I think it's it could be in part that the MLS programs do not offer sufficient training education on library publishing there is a grant right now and Brian and I are some of the authors on it I think John is also one of the attendees on the call who's also one of the authors for developing it's an MLS grant that has funded the development of a library publishing curriculum to support that need in masters in library science education one of the things one of the reasons we're interested in it I don't have a master's in library science I have a PhD and so libraries some library programs require any library in position to have an MLS and where a PhD or you know other equivalent advanced degree does not suffice you must also have a master's in library science and the trend has been moving away from that in libraries not as quickly as I would argue would be better because just having the diversity of appropriate educational offerings to meet the job requirements allows you to have a richer field for hiring and recruiting but library publishing it seems to have already begun at that standpoint so it's so the only thing I would add to that is I think it only represents a problem if the expectation is that an MLS degree is a required credential for people who are engaged in leading library publishing at a professional level rather than bringing in journalism or master's in business yeah or if that's not a kind of specific area that people build their own community of practice and establish those skill sets elsewhere in collaboration with the institutional press you know so whether it represents a problem whether it represents an opportunity we're trying to continue contribute to the curriculum in that area Laura asks if you could speak to what expertise libraries can best bring to academic publishing versus just letting the university press deal with those kinds of initiatives oh great question and that's a question we continue to work through on hey Meredith is this you know proposal better for you or is this something that's better you know for us in library press and so figuring out sometimes it can be a little bit blurry but the university presses are fantastic so allowing them to supporting them and doing the work that they do promoting them further on campus promoting their recognition so we can serve as their advocates and our liaison librarians are completely happy to come to different faculty meetings and talk about everything that the university press offers as well as what we offer in library publishing and so it becomes another service the point service support brokering connecting to different resources also our librarians have such a depth and wealth of understanding of knowledge about their collections and some of the collections they're so fantastic and then knowing about how well how do you present a curated collection how do you present something like the Baldwin library of historical children's literature which has over 120,000 volumes it's one of the largest collections in the US and so in the world sorry of children's literature and so thinking about that collection as a whole and then how do you present it to a general populace you know the public as public scholarship that's if this was sort of a coffee table book then the university of Florida press has an imprint for it if it was a scholarly publication a traditional monograph or edited collection type the university of Florida press has a way for that but that's sort of in between public scholarship we're still figuring that out together so for that proposal our curator for the Baldwin library completed the manuscript information sheet I shared it with Meredith to say is this something you want to work on to expand the US press or is this something the library press should take on and then we'll of course be in contact and in collaboration throughout the process and for that when we've gone with the library press but all of this is in close collaboration with the US press and in thinking through how do we support them more how do we expand and what areas can we do together or connected complimentary attendant to support all of the different initiatives as well as the new initiatives as well as the traditional expertise and strengths that kind of addresses Harrison's question about how did you get buy in from your liaison librarians um you said they participate in your workshops absolutely so when the liaison librarians are they liaise to different departments different fields different areas and they're they want to support and to showcase the their faculty their students the folks they're working with and so having our closer collaboration with the university press and then the library press as well journal hosting with OJS this is something that we didn't have to have to see it buy and we had to make we had to work to make sure we could support all of the interest and the the growth from it and so that's where like Suzanne Stapleton as the lead on the Florida OJS service team and then she has other folks working with her on that yeah we had to make sure that we had different structures to support all of the interest we have time for one last question Nola asked if you can describe any instances of collaborative tech development across the the press and the library that's an interesting question I'm not sure exactly what's meant by that because there are a number of different digital scholarship digital publishing platforms that are coming out of largely out of Mellon grants for different press systems so manifold Jane is one so there are a number of different ones that and I believe there's a pre-conference workshop showcasing them that's being planned for the library publishing curriculum forum the one of the things that's interesting is the libraries and presses we so many things are so alike and yet they're disconnected by that sort of final tech hop so presses began with onyx metadata libraries more often began with mark but the different expertise for the metadata feed systems whether you're sending it out from the catalog into different discovery systems or you're sending out for the different vendor systems to have it included there's a lot of really parallel expertise and so some of it is it's not that the tech development needs to be done it needs it's more the human conversations and connections need to be in place to make sure we we do that sort of last mile connection across the the technology systems or across just the processes I'm not sure if that answered the question but I want to think all of our presenters today and thank all of our participants for joining us for the this discussion the results of the library's presses and publishing spec survey and to remind you that you all registrants will receive the slides and a link to the recording in the next day next week thank you thank you thank you again