 So welcome to the ARL, ACRL virtual listening session on the recent US Office of Science and Technology's policy guidance on ensuring free, immediate and equitable access to federally funded research. My name is Mary Lee Kennedy and I am the Association of Research Libraries Executive Director. Today, please join me in thanking Karen Malenfond, the Senior Strategist for Special Initiatives from the Association of College and Research Libraries for co-hosting with us. It's wonderful to co-sponsor the session, clearly of interest with over 300 registrations. Before beginning with the agenda, please note that this session, like all ARL events, is governed by our Code of Conduct. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me or Cynthia Hudson Fatali. And I'll just give you a few minutes to take a look at this. Okay. There are several federal agency representatives here today to listen to you. I will not be answering questions during the session, but you are welcome to place your questions or comments in the Q&A, and we will pass them along after the session is complete. We will also share a recording of this event, and the results of the survey, many of you completed with agency representatives shortly after today. Today, the official agency representatives with us are a broad community and I'm very grateful to them for joining us. Layton Christensen from the Department of Transportation. Hi folks. Martin Halber from the National Science Foundation. Christopher Markham from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Carly Robinson from the Department of Energy. Kathy Sharpless from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Jerry Sheehan from the National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Andrea Medina Smith from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Anthony Smith from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Nancy Weiss from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. And Maryam Zaring Halem from the National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Thank you again to all of you for being here today. And as a note, other agency representatives may be on the call as well. Now let's turn to the program. Today you will hear from four library leaders. Vicky Coleman, Dean of Library Services at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Sandra Anamel, Program Director from Scholarly Communication and Information Policy from Yale Library. Harriet Green, Associate University Librarian for Digital Scholarship and Technology Services, Washington University of St. Louis Libraries. And Dita Manny, Dean of Libraries at the University of Massachusetts and Hearst. They will be followed by Judy Rutenberg, Senior Director of Scholarship and Policy at ARL, who will wrap the session up for us. Martin Halbert, the Science Advisor for Public Access for the National Science Foundation, will start us off with an overview. Bios for all panelists are available in the session materials, so I invite you to consult them there. And with that, please join me in welcoming Martin Halbert. Thank you, Mary Lee, where I can say on behalf of all of my colleagues from other federal agencies, we are delighted to have a chance to engage in this listening session with you, we are all engaged in reaching out to the different stakeholder groups that we represent. The National Science and Technology Council that is convened by the White House Office Science and Technology Policy Office is very engaged always in ongoing questions of science broadly. In particular, the Committee on Science and its subcommittee on open science is deeply engaged in the matters that are highlighted in this 2022 memorandum from OSTP. We're delighted to have quite a cast of people here. I think we've got virtually all of the working group chairs from the SOS and Chris Markham from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Rather than engage in a lot of discussion about what OSTP and the various groups within the subcommittee on open science do. I'll just invite you to take a look at the memorandum, the 22 memorandum, which the entire section five talks about the interactions and alignment efforts that will be undertaking in the NSTC subcommittee on open science in coming days on this memorandum. With that, let me turn it back over to our ARL colleagues. We are very eager to hear from you all about your thoughts, interests, concerns, opportunities, all the things that you have to say today. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. I believe I'm next on the agenda. My name is Vicki Coleman and I am the Dean of Library Services at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. This institution is a historically black university, a land-grade university, and it has an enrollment of over 13,000 students. I am also co-chair of the US Repository Network Steering Group, of which I will talk more about later. In August I was excited to see Dr. Alondra Nelson's memorandum with regards to ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. I believe that the OSTP statement is a significant step toward the notion that since taxpayers pay for federal research, then taxpayers own it. Therefore, taxpayers should have free and immediate access to that research. With regards to the OSTP specification, that federal agencies update or develop new public access plans such that scholarly publications are publicly accessible in agency designated repositories, I will share a few thoughts. Given that the general public, librarians, researchers, etc., will have to trace new publications to the repository of the agency that funded the work. And given that library personnel work closely with faculty and other researchers to develop plans for sharing and preserving research data, I believe that policy coordination across federal agencies will be crucial for ease of use of the repositories and to lessen the load for compliance with repository guidelines. With that said, I would like to state that two organizations, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, and the Confederation for Open Access Repositories, have formed a partnership to launch the US Repository Network. For brevity, moving forward, I will refer to the network as the USRN. The USRN is envisioned as an inclusive community committed to advancing repositories in the US. In this context, US repositories refers to all open research repositories based in the US, regardless of content, post, or platform. The USRN steering group consists of library leaders, repository managers, and consortium leaders. As a member of the USRN steering group, I know that the USRN welcomes the opportunity to engage with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and with federal agencies on the implementation of public access guidelines. Excuse me. Shifting the conversation to my role as a campus administrator. As the dean of a library at a public university, part of my library's mission is to provide students, faculty, and researchers with access to trusted information resources that enrich their scholarship and creative activity. While the OSTP policy will help me carry out my mission, there are unknowns regarding the policy that raise some concerns. As you are aware, colleges and universities vary in size, research infrastructure, and funding, and so do their respective libraries. For example, at my library, we have a committee that works as a team to provide services in the areas of research data management, planning, institutional repository research infrastructure, and in the area of open educational resources. By comparison, many larger research libraries have entire departments dedicated to these services, and many smaller academic libraries do not have the human resources to offer these services at all. Also, there's the issue regarding article processing charges referred to as APCs. These are fees sometimes charged by publishers to authors in order to recoup cost associated with the researcher or faculty member publishing in an open access journal. At my library, we don't have it within our budget to cover such APC fees. With that said, we also do not have experience negotiating APC fees with publishers. We are concerned that journal publishers may shift their business models in such a way that researchers from less well funded disciplines, as well as researchers from less well funded institutions will not have sufficient funding to support publishing and many of the publisher journals due to the associated APC fees. Personally, personnel in my library are wondering if they will need external guidance and or training in order to assist university faculty and researchers in bringing their research data and compliance with the forthcoming federal agency policies. I and the librarians at my institution are hoping that federal agencies will take these concerns into consideration as they are developing their policies and guidelines for their respective federal repositories. In closing, it has been my experience that library personnel, faculty and researchers are all excited about new opportunities to more quickly and cost effectively access and share research. The August 25 memo from the Office of Science and Technology Policy provides the framework for bold initiative to ensuring free immediate and equitable access to federally funded research. However, there still seems to be many details to work out pertaining to how the policy requirements will be implemented. My desire is that federal agencies will work in collaboration with institutional stakeholders scholarly publishing coalitions and library associations to ensure a smooth implementation of policy requirements to build a more equitable research dissemination structure and to address unforeseen challenges. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts. So I think I'm up next. Thank you, Dean Coleman. My name is Sandra, I am in a mill and I am the program director for scholar communication and information policy at Yale library. I'm here in my capacity as the chair of the research and the scholarly environment, which is a committee of the AC of ACRL, the Association of college and research libraries. I'm also in bringing some thoughts and issues that have been raised as part of my participation with the IB plus libraries confederation, which is a confederation of libraries, which are ID plus, and they have a scholar communication group that discusses these issues as well. So, Dean Coleman and saying that overall the response to the OSTP memo among academic libraries of which I am involved in a conversation with has been very positive. There are a lot of questions that we have that we're hoping that there'll be an opportunity for us here, and later also to weigh in on. I'm really excited about the idea that the public will have guaranteed fast unenvargoed access to scholarship and data, and that now covers all of the federal agencies. We are thinking that it's very important for there to be harmonization across the federal agencies as there are many more impacted now than were in 2013. I know that there are some steps that could be replicated from the 2013 OSTP memo, like the creation of PubMed Central, so a central repository to host the content of scholarship, and also for support, or possibly another hosted repository for data. I know that many of my colleagues are concerned about that, excited about the idea that the data accompanying a lot of this scholarly research will also be required to be openly available, publicly available. But wondering about the infrastructure and the support that'll be necessary for that and where those funds will come from. We're also interested to know that their references also, so if there is a designated repository, what would be considered a designated repository, so in the memo there's a mention of agency designated and wondering for some of us who have hosted institutional repositories, could our repositories count, could they be considered as agency designated as well, or if there is one that's supported fully by the agencies, you know, wanted to make sure that we're able to comply with and participate in and be able to direct our faculty in using those systems. So starting the cost and financial impact for this, for being able to help our scholars here at our institutions, our personnel infrastructure for support training to comply as Dean Coleman mentioned, will all help with our ability to help researchers comply with these mandates. We are very excited to help them as we have in the past, as we as we do every day, but we are definitely interested in hearing about the support for infrastructure and training for our librarians to make sure that researchers are able to comply with the new rules that will soon be in place. Dean Coleman also mentioned this the institutional costs of APCs institutions like mine and many others are entering into read and publish or also called transformational or transitional agreements, where we are moving from buying or purchasing access to or purchasing full up content, we are now funding the ability for content to be published. So we may be taking on the ability to pay for the APCs on behalf of our affiliated authors and researchers. So this is really just transferring the amount of money that might be paid, which could range in costs from $500 to $11,000 depending on where a researcher may be maybe publishing. And those costs are often born by the researcher or from the grants that they are affiliated with, or they may be able to get funds from their institution. Some libraries do have APC funds, like Dean Coleman mentioned Yale library doesn't have one that's widely available for researchers to use and many institutions do not. So, we are entering into a lot of these what are what have been being called transformational or transitional agreements, where now the cost of that APC is shifting to the library to pay for. And this is actually turning into just a shift in what things are being called and we're not expecting that there will be a reduction in costs for that so even though more content will be openly available through this. I would say that there will probably still be a system where APCs are required, and so that is not going to change how much our costs maybe and in fact there may be increasing costs for libraries, and definitely for the costs of our training for the cost of our staff and other resources, there'll be additional costs to us as well. As Dean mentioned, in terms of the APCs and publishing and where some of our researchers and scholars may publish. This system is all run by the tenure promotion process which of course you all don't have anything to do with and can't really influence but you know I think it would be remiss of me at an academic institution to not mention that is the process that really kind of drives this system and if there's there isn't much of a change that's happening where the acceptance of open access content and material and publishing widely and open access journals is not promoted. A lot of a lot of these things are, you know just kind of feeding into the system that's not changing the way that maybe many of us are hoping that it will. I think to also bring into the conversation are really the concerns mentioned by Dean Coleman around equity, not just between institutions but also between disciplines and departments. You know with this new new memo, there are other fields that maybe have not been as engaged with open access and open access publishing. That will now have to be in the conversation around this and they have not been used to this system of APCs, open access or having to manage or deal with those those things and so there's going to be a lot of education that will be necessary and there's going to be support for certain fields and specialties and disciplines such as the humanities, which are not as actively engaged in open access publishing as the sciences and the medical fields are. There definitely be something to to think about and how we will support our folks who are in the humanities who may be interested or maybe hesitant or maybe concerned about what publishing open access particularly maybe around data may mean for them. Finally, I'll say that I think you know again this is a very exciting opportunity and we are very engaged and we want to hear what is happening and how we in the library can help a number of our institutions across the country have people in place. People like me, scholar communication librarian, copyright librarians, digital publishing librarians who are repository librarians who are all active and engaged in the community of knowledge around these issues, and looking to support our researchers and scholars in making sure that they're able to comply that they understand what is happening with this new system, and that they're able to fully take advantage of the grants and opportunities that will be made available to them. So I thank you for having me here today and I thank you for the opportunity to to engage with you and to provide some information and thoughts from some of the constituencies that I represent. Thank you. Hello. My name is Harriet green, and I believe I'm next in speaking today. I am a member of the steering committees for the US repository network for spark and for Sam Vera, and I participated in professional organizations throughout my career around issues of open access and communications. Therefore, I bring that experience to bear as I am honored to speak with you today, and share my own thoughts separate from my institution and not affiliated on the impact of the White House US team at P memo on libraries and information organizations. And I joined the previous speakers and my fellow information professionals, as we anticipate a significant impact on our research procedures policies and infrastructures as your agencies develop guidelines in the coming year. And I like to open with two prongs of context to build upon what we've heard so far. I would contend the course that libraries are increasingly are critical, if not foundational piece of institutions resourcing infrastructure for enabling research outputs and data sharing. As we know, it's not only the linchpin of traditional research, but also as central, really the most broadly accessible resource for researchers, faculty and students across the full scope of schools and disciplinary studies for digital tools and concurrent services around open sharing of research outputs. In the years we've built out existing services and infrastructure that undergird this open sharing of research. We advise on data management plans with things such as the library develop DMP tool. We manage do I minting services providing persistent identifiers and support memberships through orchid for researcher identifiers educational outreach is also critical. And we lead West workshops on data ethics, data management and data curation with campus partners with accumulated technical expertise we provide data curation of data sets. We also provide increasingly institutional repositories and data repositories for the open sharing of publications and deposit and open distribution of data and libraries invest in this infrastructure and expertise, because we see this as part of our mission providing information. But this also happens on a national level and collaborations to advance capacity and expertise for data sharing. The data sharing network data curation network or DCN based at the University of Minnesota is one notable and organic effort of this of this kind. Washington University libraries is a member of this consortium of 18 institutions, in which we share and collaborate through data curation with data curators with broad ranges of expertise. And through this collaborative exchange of expertise efforts like the DCN are ways that libraries are working to maximize our investments and collectively work together to advance open sharing of data and advance the fair principles, findability, accessibility, interoperability and and reusability as a core quality global standard for effective sharing of research data. And I would urge you to consider the awareness of these partnerships such as this as this collaborations for research data go forward. And underlying all this is the scholarship and as was Sandra acknowledge the OSTP memo now brings into conversation a diversity of scholarly disciplines and research work whose funds were funding was previously not under the scope of the 2013 memo. And while the influence of the 2013 memo reached beyond its official scope to encourage diffuse open access principles throughout research. This will be a new chapter nonetheless. One of the areas I'm particular familiar with is the humanities, especially digital humanities. And the digital humanities in particular brings analysis to bear on cultural artifacts and humanities data can range from text data sets to dance and movement to websites, electronic literature and art that may have a femoral nature in its longevity. And it's also highly disciplinary and in conversation with the sciences and social sciences. And so, how do we curate humanities data and preserve context of cultural interpretation from a range of time periods is a question with noble work done and more to come. And I believe this is a carry area for you to consider as well. And from these, there are questions I'd like to raise as well for consideration as has been discussed by Dean Coleman and Sandra. How can we all forecast and account for institutional and research investments as this as a memo and the mandates unfold of the coming years. The cost of managing data and labor required for data search sharing is a concern and interest, and there are initiatives taking steps to investigate this question. The NSF funded realities of academic sharing project is a partnership of six research libraries, including Washington University libraries, and which we investigate the costs, born by researchers to meet data sharing requirements and the institutional costs as well. Cynthia Hudson Vitale from ARL is a PI who's leading this work, so I'm not the authority to speak fully on behalf of this project, but I can say that while the work is still ongoing, we have already catalyzed conversations with stakeholders on thinking through the costs of research data sharing. Therefore, I urge agencies to take this into consideration. How can comply as guidelines factor in these needed investments and costs for managing data, the efforts to curate in the infrastructure we maintain and aim to maintain support robust data sharing that meets the vision of the OSTP memo. And what is the role of not only individual libraries, but these consortia and group efforts to organizationally build our capacity and meet this vision. And I also reiterate, as the previous speakers, the importance of policy harmonization across the agencies to streamline processes for compliance. We seek to build services and infrastructure that enable the broadest spectrum of users to meet requirements. And we again strive to meet the global standards for data per the fair principles. And when we're looking at the range of research outputs now covered in the humanities and social sciences as well as the sciences that is being generated. I hope you will consider balancing compliance policies across agencies to account for the varied types of research. And as others have noted are the equity issues around data sharing. What institutions have to support researchers to openly share research outputs is a critical issue, and it's not just servers and storage. Again, some institutions have staff to advise and assist researchers with data management and some have none. Some have host data repositories, while other researchers must knit together their own network of expertise and storage and leverage repositories from agencies and professional organizations. And I'd also reiterate that disciplines are part of the equity. Digital humanities in the humanities will generate richly diverse types of publications and data. And how might we acknowledge these diverse research outputs and data format is all federally funded research outcome become enmeshed in this framework of open research. And this is just the tip of the iceberg on the equity issues and for institutions and researchers and the questions they must grapple with and negotiate in order to meet the vision of the memo. In conclusion, I'm fully committed to this vision of making us taxpayers investment and research democratically accessible and open in the fullest way. And I urge agencies and funding administrators to consider the full scope of institutional investments required to meet open access and data sharing compliance. And again, consider the greatly diversified nature of the work that would be impacted in the scope of open access significantly wider than the lens. I very much look forward to the conversations ahead and hope that the guidelines will recognize an account for the multiple stakeholders that partner together to enable the fullest access to research output. Thank you. Nandita you're muted. Thank you. So thank you to my colleagues and to ARL and ACRL and those from the federal agencies for this opportunity to share perspective and ideas and how academic research libraries can partner to advance policy formulation and change. I come to you with around 20 years of experience in the health sciences and more recently perspective as a dean who engages across campus to see in what ways libraries can partner and advance efforts in the research enterprise. The University of Massachusetts is a large public land grant R1 institution, which has significant federal funding from over 14 agencies, which really cross all disciplines across the university. When we think about consultation and coordination in these efforts, opportunities for disseminating completed research varies widely across disciplines as various funders have had different criteria and institutions and vastly different funding and staffing available to meet expanding mandates for sharing publicly funded research. So we need to be working collaboratively and strategically on shared policies and standards that take into account the variety of disciplines being served by our institutions. While many universities have institutional repositories, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, agencies have varying levels of support for data deposit, which leaves researchers in flux about where to deposit data, compared to oftentimes in the health sciences, which have repositories that are connected to account the variety of disciplines being served by our institutions. While many universities have institutional repositories are included. There is no current coordinated effort to link institutional repositories on a national scale, nor are institutional repositories the same. For example, not all repositories can handle the different formats researchers produce. They are focused on articles, book chapters and traditional publications, while software data and other complex products appear reviewed and federally funded research remain unsupported, such as those in the digital humanities. So policies should expand beyond addressing traditional publications and need to include existing formats and remain flexible to be able to incorporate new formats as they emerge. Institutions fall along a spectrum of highly funded to less funded for resources available to help researchers meet these mandates to ensure that all institutions that receive federal funding will be able to coordinate with OSTP to ensure equitable delivery of federally funded research results and data series consideration needs to be given to developing strategies to support less funded institutions. There are existing initiatives that are working towards coordination that could be effective partners in these efforts, including Helios, Spark, the US repository network and open research funders group. It would be ideal to integrate these entities as you work towards policy generation to see how mutually beneficial efforts can be addressed. So how can agencies help make the mandate more equitable and effective. Make it easier for institutions to support faculty across disciplines through coordination of policy development, both federal among federal agencies and between agencies, higher education and research institutions, and third party infrastructure providers. You can also encourage agencies to require public access to peer reviewed book chapters, editorials and peer reviewed conference proceedings. This will begin to level the access to research in fields that traditionally publish in other formats beyond journal articles. There were recommendations in the OSTP memo asking federal agencies to coordinate the plan for public access together. It would be more effective for academic institutions, research libraries and publishers and providers to be part of those coordinating efforts so that agencies can see how policies are affecting the institutions that will be doing the work of making research publicly accessible. Building capacity for robust infrastructure expertise can reduce burden on researchers, libraries, information technology professionals and offices of research and compliance. So a couple of things to consider are guarding against highly distributed agency repository and proprietary platforms. For example, according to the directory of open access repositories. The US has around 922 repositories that are discipline based governmental and institutional that are using over 16 different software platforms, as well as repository solutions created by in house programmers. Federal repositories include well used resources such as the USGS Publications Warehouse, USDA National Agricultural Library, NASA, technical reports server, and the NIS team materials data repository. Multitude interfaces creates barriers for researchers and users who have to determine which repository to use and or how to use many different platforms to determine, sorry, to to determine how to use those platform interfaces, which then brings in a full element around user interface design that needs to be addressed. This is especially so for those who work across disciplines, or on interdisciplinary projects, an example that I would highly like to share that could be replicated and expanded on for federal and federally endorsed repositories on a national scale includes the data storage finder resource produced at Cornell University. It would be to encourage incentivize and fund open source standard based platforms and researcher driven governance. So consider developing an aggregated database or federated search engine of federally funded research across all agencies, such as your piano or lens. Integrate established non proprietary unique digital persistent identifier such as orchid DOI and the research organization registry. The repository capacity and make repositories extensible to seamlessly handle all scientific data, such as software and visualizations, which enable research replication and reproduction and building repositories that are interoperable and use standard metadata. According to open door only 19 of the repositories in the US hold software, and then I end the NIS team materials data repository is the only governmental repository to do so. Of course, investing in human capital needed to implement these policies is going to be absolutely critical. These include funding for libraries to support research and data needs information technology professionals and funding to support the information technology infrastructure. These will impact researchers who have not previously had to comply with data sharing or public access policies, and will require expansion of the core services and staff who support those faculty, and who will be responsible for understanding and ensuring policy compliance. This will increase demand for accessible infrastructure for the storage and dissemination of a wide variety of research outputs. Institutions have varying budgets and current infrastructure. How we get how we navigate the have and they have not is going to be important as we think about a sustainable solution that includes key areas such as research security, including cybersecurity and associated training. There is a steel of research that has confidentiality concerns, and there are very few available commercial options for institutions to purchase that can meet the security needs for confidential data. Building on the success of health sciences repository such as PubMed Central, who have agreements with many journal publishers to assist with data deposit, and considering the following as you ideate around policy generation would be great. Let's talk about data privacy, data storage and compliance capacity, having those consistent and my colleagues spoke about the harmonization needed between policies and standards, and thinking about assessment and compliance and impact. In conclusion, I just would like to say that I think there's a lot of opportunities to work together, and also to partner with institutions such as those that my colleagues and I are representing to kind of work through the different types of workflow. As you start generating the policy and what it may look like in the real world. So stepping through that workflow having the partners at the table and having those conversations with a variety of institutions that are thinking about this work to find out what works and what may need additional support would be great. So thank you again for that opportunity to share with you. Well, thank you so much to everyone who spoke on this session everyone who listened or commented, and to everyone who had a hand in this expansive public access policy that we've been discussing. And ACRL convene this listening session to provide a channel of communication between academic and research libraries and federal agencies on the NSTC subcommittee on open science as they update or develop their public access plans. It was not the first such communication. And I hope it won't be the last. The US research enterprise is a vast complicated and evolving, some of which we have what we heard today really touches on areas outside the immediate responsibility of Sandra said of either libraries or agencies but are in spaces where we have some interaction and some influence such as researcher behavior. The comments that you submitted, many of you, and from our speakers today. We heard a general resounding enthusiasm for expanded public access and an appreciation for how this guidance and your forthcoming agency plans will increase public participation and federally funded science. We also heard genuine spirit of partnership to see successful policy implementation within our academic and research institutions. We also heard genuine concerns real concerns about costs and economic models for most of which seems to be the cost from the survey comments the cost of data management and storage. Something reflected here today the cost of article processing charges or APCs and resourcing for institutional repositories we also heard a lot about the costs around training. So that's very interesting librarians expressed that the more the agency plans are harmonized or have key elements in common the better and we might look at the great work done by the NSTC in the common disclosure form on the research security side for a model. So I think that our libraries clearly will be able to or want to pay for open access publishing on an article basis and our seem to be asking for flexibility and agency plans. Also consideration of non article formats. Thank you Nandita, as well as increased federal investment in agency based repositories. And I want to break in here that one of our agency colleagues Brian hits and from DOE shared that maybe in some of our comments and assumption that gold away and APC fees, you know, are what the new guidance sort of means and while he clarifies that while publishers may start limiting or narrowing author options to gold away it's important to note that the OSTP memo itself doesn't endorse one business model over another that green away deposits into agency repositories remain a path to achieving compliance. So repositories individually and in networks, many of which were mentioned here today, some and and some of which are represented on this amazing panel, have repository and curation infrastructure that they can bring to bear on the institutional implementation and so they would all like to be considered as agency policies evolve. I've heard that open source non proprietary and standards based infrastructure will help overcome the challenge of distributed repositories. And so we hope that those issues will be prioritized in plans. There's a lot about existing library services and human expertise to facilitate public access services already in place from reporting and coordination with research offices supporting persistent identifiers active research data storage dark preservation broad consultation on author rights and deposit issues, as well as data management planning. We heard lots of concerns about equity and a number of levels including across disciplines, and also that libraries and their networks can help address some of this through their collaboration and sort of service to all disciplines. We heard build on build on these and other past successes, a particular nod to the health sciences community for its work on policy and infrastructure notably PubMed Central and NIH as many data repositories. We also heard how much digital humanities has to offer this conversation. There's a, you know, along with the enthusiasm for the guidance itself there's real hope that agencies will partner with higher education institutions and networks like the US repository network to test policies workflows and technology. That everyone on this call sort of shares what I see as a broad set of opportunities for all of us to work together on outreach and education for our investigators to work together to minimize administrative burden. And for the libraries and their networks to work together on the training necessary to scale up to meet this moment and to, as was mentioned share intelligence and forecasting on the very real costs of this work. So with that, the recording of this session will be available on the ARL website shortly. On behalf of ARL and ACRL. I want to thank you once again to our speakers to our listeners to all of you for your engagement on this vitally important expansion of public access to federally funded science and scholarship. Thank you.