 It's going to present, okay. Welcome to today's webinar presented by the Australian Research Data Commons or ARDC in collaboration with the Council of Australian University Librarians or CALL and the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group which is known as AOASG. The topic of today's webinar is Fair Beyond Data and my name is Natasha Simons. I'm the Associate Director for Data and Services at the ARDC and I'll be your host for today. Before we begin the presentations please note that you are all in listen only mode which means that if you you're all muted and if you'd like to make a question or make a comment you can use the question pod. We will have a number of speakers and we'll get to your questions and discussion towards the end in due course. I'd like to begin with an acknowledgement of country and as I'm located at the University of Queensland I acknowledge the Turbull and Yagura people as traditional owners and their custodianship of the lands on which we meet today which is in the Brisbane area for me and on behalf of ARDC I pay our respects to their ancestors and their descendants who continue cultural and spiritual connections to country. We recognise their valuable contributions to Australian and global society. So the Australian Research Data Commons was formed on 1st of July 2018 and as a new initiative our history is short. However we bring to the e-research sector over 10 years of experience on research data infrastructure and services by building on legacy initiatives including the Australian National Data Service, the National e-research collaboration tools and resources or NECTA project and the research data services or RDS. We're funded by the Australian Government through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Program or ENCRIS and we help develop infrastructure that enables Australian researchers to gain competitive advantage through data. So the ARDC is a strong advocate for the fair data principles which are a set of global guiding principles to make data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. We build support for fair into our programs and partnerships and the initiatives that we take and we're also in the final week of delivering an eight-week fair data 101 course which we offer to the sector as a way of providing people with skills in enabling fair data. So while the ARDC's primary focus is on enabling fair data, we recognise that data is best discovered and reused in context, in the context of other research materials particularly publications. And in this webinar we are collaborating with Call and AOASG who will take us to a world of fair beyond data and show us that fair can be applied not just to data alone. And with that I'd like to hand over to Professor Ginny Barba who's the Executive Director of the AOASG. I'd rather do that. Okay Ginny. Excellent thank you very much Natasha and thank you very much to the ARDC. I hope that you're able to see my screen. X looks like that's all good. So thank you very much we're very delighted to be part of this webinar. My name is Ginny Barba as Natasha said I'm the Director of the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group. I'll just briefly introduce my co-speakers. So Angus Cook is the Content Procurement Manager at Call, the Council of Australian University Librarians and Martin Borschert who is the Chair of the AOASG and also the University of New South Wales. Angus will be talking about what Publishers are doing to make work fair and Martin will be talking about fair in repositories. And I'm just going to give a brief overview to set the scene. So these are the things I'm going to cover. I'm going to talk a bit about where the fair principles began and how they became to be thought of being applicable beyond data. I'm going to talk about concepts of free open and fair which are kind of quite confusing often and how they relate to each other. I'll talk a little bit about whole of system approaches and then I just want to end by touching on the idea of fair in the context of open research more generally and some bigger principles. So you'll probably all be very familiar with the idea that fair has been around since 2016. There was a whole body of work that led to it but this publication in 2016 described the four foundational principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability. And although these principles were very much founded on data and described for data it became pretty clear very early on that they could be applied to other research outputs and in fact the original publication itself talks about all scholarly digital research objects. So when you look at that what does that mean more generally? There are actually some really rather specific items that are required to make data in particular fully fair and this is a graphic that I did back in 2016 with Mark Cooper at QUT. We did a few of the graphics that you'll see coming out and these talked about these just show the principles as they were laid out in that original publication. As you can see they're pretty specific and they have some really fairly obvious technical requirements that are very important in the context of data. But at the beginning right at that time quite a few people were already thinking well how might we apply that to research publications in particular how might we boil down those publications those principles to something that's much simpler and this is just a very short example of how research publications can be thought of as being fair. So just to take you through them all so again the findable is this concept of having the research output the publication being associated with which metadata particularly persistent identifiers the most importance of which orchids identify orchids for individuals and DOIs for research outputs but but also now for grants and for institutions for example. Accessible this isn't it. Ginny, Ginny, I'm sorry to interrupt you it is that your slides are cut off towards the right hand side. Oh I'm sorry. It's causing that but you can't see everything you might want to go out of out of full presentation mode or something. Okay I think this is probably just the only one. Can I just carry on with this and then I'll if it's still a problem I'll cut back. This is probably the longest site. Okay thanks for that. Okay so accessible is this concept of being accessible via either a public repository or an open publishing platform and that's in the context of publications that's obviously journals publishers or institutional repositories in particular. We have this concept of interoperable which is often not really considered particularly for research publications as important as for data but in fact it is increasingly important now in particular in the context of systematic reviews when work is often harvested by computers and is then incorporated into large systematic reviews and interoperability becomes very important at that point and then reusable is this concept of understanding what can actually be done with an article and that the most important concept here is the license that's associated with it and most commonly that's the Creative Commons license that many of you will be familiar with. Okay so this idea of free and open can I just check how is that looking on the slide at the moment? It's sort of right to the it is a little bit cut off still just at the end. Okay all right well I'd rather do it like this but let me I'll just make sure I talk to the the parts of it as we go. All right so so back in 2017 this was shortly after the original articles were published on FAIR. A paper talking about FAIR in the context of the European Open Research Open Science Cloud made this point that FAIR is not equal to open there'd been some confusion about that and although the FAIR principles come from the open science movement in many ways they deliberately don't address the the idea of FAIR as in the concept of equity and the moral parts issues that are often considered with open access more generally. So it's there I just wanted to then think a little bit about the concept of FAIR and open and how free and how they all relate together. So we're all very familiar with the concept of free so free is something that can be downloaded from the internet that we can use for our own use but we can't really do very much else with it. If you add a creative commons license on to it then it becomes clear what the rights around sharing using and reusing are and that's this is probably the concept that's most commonly applied to open access but FAIR takes that one step further and this is the concept of the the rich metadata including the persistent identifiers that I mentioned and the structured format and then you end up with a fully machine readable and discoverable research output which can be fully shared and so I guess the ideal really for research publications in the long term is that items are both open and FAIR. So is there a sort of is one better than the other one you're thinking about publications? On the one hand for open access we have a well-established community there's been work going on in this area for more than 20 years but as I've said the differing definitions which can often lead to confusion around terminology whereas FAIR although a relatively new approach that has very clear definitions and so what we have really I think is a way of thinking about that it's the FAIR principles are the mechanism whereby an open access approach can be fully implemented it provides rigor around openness that's quite important. So just thinking about that in the concept of a whole of system approach back in 2016 at the same time as these principles came out on FAIR a group led by Linda O'Brien from Griffith University but which is now led by Catherine Clark at Curtin which the AOSG is also part of came up with a statement for FAIR for Australian publicly funded research it incorporates the concept of FAIR but it also talks about the need for sustainable dissemination models and actually critically the importance that researchers would be rewarded to disseminate their work in this way and work continues on this fair policy statement there's a group around it that continues its work at the moment and you'll see that FAIR is present in policies in Australia so it's incorporated into it was incorporated into the revised NH and MRC open access policy and the specific mention of it in the call statement on open scholarship in back in 2019. It's also present in global policies so in 2016 the G20 leaders incorporated FAIR into their their communique at the end of one of their summits and much more recently 2020 the Canadian open science roadmap talked about the importance of FAIR as research outputs being opened by design but designed by default and that they should be FAIR. So it's becoming a term and a concept that is increasingly incorporated both nationally and internationally into more than just the specific principles. I just wanted to touch on why this has really become incredibly important at the moment so in the middle of this pandemic at the moment a large amount of work has gone on in harvesting the open a number of all the research outputs that are coming out and probably the most important of them is this CORD 19 open research dataset which is a large collaboration currently of more than 50 000 scholarly articles it includes a large collection of full-text articles but it also includes a very comprehensive metadata file so that these articles really in the best form are completely FAIR they may not be fully open all of them and it's certainly the case that some of the research articles have not been shared in the way that one might hope completely but they are fully FAIR and they have rich metadata associated with them and the licenses on them really shows how they can be used and reused. And then I'm just going to finish by touching on the concept of FAIR in a couple of other ways so first off that we there's a group known as the FAIR open access alliance which talks about FAIR in in the terms of equity and they have a set of principles which are obviously not the same as the FAIR principles we've discussed earlier but they are the ones that talk about FAIR as in the concept of equity access to all research and access to ability to publish and organisations that are part of that include the open library of humanities and some other specific publishers and then I just wanted to add really at the end that the whole underpinning of open access more generally is this concept of fairness and equity and in many ways although the FAIR principles are something that's perhaps technologically something that we might think of as being a technical solution they are in the end very important for equity overall until you have articles that are fully FAIR it's not really impossible for them to be part of the open research ecosystem. So these slides will be available and I have some references on them but I'll stop at that point and hand over to Martin and happy to take questions at the end. Sorry now I'm handing over to Angus Cook, I apologise. Thanks Ginny and my slide should be there on the screen I think that's all looking okay okay well thank you for joining us everyone for the next 10 minutes we will have a look at what publishers are doing to be FAIR we're going to look particularly at our A business models and journals and put those OA business models under the FAIR microscope now in 10 minutes we can only really stretch the surface and as many of you know there's a huge range of issues and dependencies when we start talking about OA business models but we thought it might be good to make sure that we're all starting for the same point so what we'll do is to just get an understanding of those business models and what they mean. I'm sure many of you will be familiar with some of these terms that's read only, transformative agreement, read and publish, publish and read but these terms are quite often used interchangeably and quite often used incorrectly and they're also quite nuanced and what one publisher calls read and publish might be called published and read by another one so it's important to understand some of the differences so we'll look at these models in a little bit more detail read only is the standard subscription to read only journal content it's the model used for the majority of our journal database and e-book access here in Australia New Zealand for the subscriptions this is what called procurement is is perhaps most involved with at the moment so it's a standard subscription model that we're all most familiar with read and publish is where the payment for reading and payment for publishing is bundled into the same contract and really what's happening here is that we're redirecting the fund speed previously spent on the read component into the publishing component and then if we extend that idea a little bit further we can say it's really part of a transformative agreement in many cases where that transition from read only to OA publishing happens in graduated steps over a few or several years publish and read as opposed to read and publish could be defined as publisher receives payment for publishing and the read component is included at no extra cost and quite often there's often a little mix up and a little bit of confusion between read and publish and publish and read and yes they do get used interchangeably but just to be clear these OA agreements will allow for all publishing from the institution under an OA agreement and quite often they will also include all access to all of the previously published content prior to the agreement as well so looking at transformative agreements a little bit more detail in terms of what how they actually work and what the mechanisms are and how they progress let's just take this example here where we have an institution with a subscription costing a hundred thousand dollars per year and as we enter into the transformative agreement we go into year one and the read subscription fee will be 67 and the OA publish fee will be 33 000 in year two that starts to switch around a little bit the read subscription is 33 000 and the OA publish fee is 67 000 and then by the time we reach year three the OA publish fee is a hundred thousand so we've completed that transformation from a simple annual read subscription fee to a purely OA fee and all of our publishing is included with that as well so that's what a transformative agreement looks like there are some other models that you will have heard of as well flipped is a term that's used to describe where a publisher will deem it that they have sufficient income from APC so much so that they no longer need to charge libraries a subscription for that content so at that point they do what we call flip to open access there are other models where publishers offer rebates and offsets such as scope three you may have come across and subscriptions are lowered for all institutions as a result of consortia OA funding or in certain cases the publisher may just simply lower or offset the price from the OA publishing activity and reduce the price of the subscription and there are some cases where publishers have to have done that it's something that can be a little bit tricky in terms of measuring the outputs and then lastly we've got discounts on APC charges where publishers and this happens more with the pure OA publishers they may offer a discount for a P purchase or bulk purchases of APCs so I think now that we're all on the same page in regards to what these models look like if we put them under the the fair lens and see if they're findable accessible interoperable and reasonable and whether they sort of adhere to the fair data principles that Ginny's introduced and mentioned if we start on left here with findable yes we would expect transformative agreements no agreements to be findable outputs can be crawled by academic web search engines and metadata includes stable identifiers such as DOIs and appropriate keywords orchid IDs that sort of thing so the major publishers have been doing all these things for for many many years their platforms and workflows accommodate to ensure that metadata and identifiers are all there and present when they're bringing in more open access content their platforms are already set up to be findable so usually there should not be too much for issues there in terms of accessible we get a big tick here when we look at OA obviously anyone can access and download the research outputs for free from any location OA content is in front of the paywall and copyright is retained by the author so there is no password required to access open access content so I think the biggest elements in terms of fare is that the content is accessible interoperable outputs can be cited precisely and linked from other words works publishers should provide facilities to automatically deposit OA articles in institutional repositories now Martin's going to talk a lot more about this certainly a call requirement when we're entering into agreements with publishers in regards to OA is that they should have this functionality to support the automatic loading of articles into institutional repositories so certainly that that's one element of interoperability that we would expect and then when we get to reusable certainly another tick there outputs a license in a way that allow for reuse and appropriate attribution and that is because we request that the publishers allow creative commons licensing to the authors so the authors retain copyright and so that content can be used elsewhere other than the publishers own platform it can be freely shared and used in other ways so certainly yeah four ticks when we look at fare in terms of the fair data principles but we do have some challenges with agreements particularly in this region which I'll just elaborate on a little bit in terms that we have high publishing outputs in Australia New Zealand our research output is sometimes higher proportion than other regions so if you think back to the transformative agreement example that I showed a few slides ago where we had an institution with a subscription for a hundred thousand we move into transformative agreement the way that the publisher may look at this is to say okay well this institution is publishing five open access articles a year typically into a hybrid or into gold journals which is fifteen thousand and they also publish about 50 articles a year through normal channels through non-oA publishing and if we take the equivalent of that we should be our typical APC charge of three thousand and times that by fifty and then add on what they're already doing with our articles that's a hundred sixty five thousand dollars a year that the publisher is going to look like so instead of this being a hundred thousand dollar costs to the institution it's now a hundred and sixty five thousand and again that's going to be a challenge in terms of finding that budget beyond the library so again on the fair principles yes we would say that that's findable yes we would say it's interoperable it should be reusable but when we get to accessible will we ever reach accessibility if we're having to work with these sorts of prices as I said we have had some proposals that are very similar to this but there is also I think acknowledgement from some publishers particularly the society publishers that the pricing needs to be sustainable and it needs to be affordable and so they're making adjustments to bring that closer to the hundred thousand so the hundred and sixty five thousand thankfully we're able to work with those publishers further so in terms of what call is doing in regards to procurement and OA there's a couple of documents that Ginny has mentioned already here the call statement on Open Scholarship March 2019 had seven action points for two of which I suppose most relevant to my world number three publishing to actively work with our research communities and support appropriate licensing and author rights management and number five content acquisition to negotiate with publishers and vendors a transparent commitment to Open Scholarship and then in May just recently this year call released its roadmap to Plan S 14 recommendations excuse me number nine OA publishing to pursue negotiations with open access publishers to minimize or eliminate transactional APCs and number 12 to develop new consortium models for distributing costs within transformative agreements so that gives us a framework to work with call has already signed some published sorry some reading published agreements there was the microbiology society agreement and Portland press agreements late in 2019 this year has been challenging for obvious reasons our focus really has had to have been more on negotiating the 2021 renewals that said we think that transformative agreements and read and publish agreements are really important and there are some conversations in place that we'll continue pursuing and we're hoping to have some more announcements later this year so in terms of keeping call agreements fair we might look at that from a value perspective rather than from a data perspective and I suppose our elements in terms of and our principles in regards to to value and fair is transparency agreements must be publicly available and so call will publish finalized agreements on the ESAC website accountability is really important what we know from our experience so far is that we need to validate any data given to us by publishers and vendors not just at the beginning of the agreement but as we go through the agreement as well especially where there's agreements where the pricing might have a variable based on the amount of publishing so we need to make sure that we're keeping our publishers accountable to the data in terms of the volume of publishing sustainability is also really really important especially in light of the challenges that libraries have in regards to budgets now we do request that the agreements have uncapped amounts of publishing during the term but costs are capped as well and we need to make sure that these agreements stay within the library budgets and then consistency is something else that we look for so call is working with the GISC model license and there are others out there such as the ESAC open access service level agreement so that's the last of my slides you'll get these links when these slides are distributed and so at this point what I would like to do is to hand over to the final presenter Martin and make Martin presenter there you go it should be all yours now Martin can you all see my slides it's Martin here no we're seeing your directory we're seeing your desktop there we go you see my slides now yes they're in presenter mode though how's that perfect great hello everybody and good afternoon it's Martin here and it is great to be here with you this afternoon and thanks for joining this afternoon I'm going to be talking as the final part here of the presentations about how to achieve fair using repositories and I'll be talking mostly about institutional repositories which our institutions have had already for over a decade so I want to start by saying that what we've been doing with our repositories remains to be very important still even with what's happening with plan s even even with what's happening with publish and read and read and publish agreements because our repositories are still the major mechanism for making the read-only content available openly to people and researchers who don't have access to all the wide range of library resources through subscriptions and it's an area too in which institutions still have got control and influence so it provides an alternative pathway and perhaps also provides I think a source of insurance or backup as well and of course I think by having I think the green open access route it helps to put a pressure on publishers and a commercial set so I guess the main message of my slide here is that the pressure remains on and we have to keep on doing what we've been doing so you will have seen in various other ways perhaps in other channels that we're really looking still at well under half of Australian research outputs being openly available and so there's still a lot of work to do we've heard a lot there from Angus about that publishers are making our strides in the open space but it is in a commercial sense and so we need to pay for that if we're going to if we're going to go with that option while using repositories can come at no cost except for infrastructure and the no support costs we're also seeing that some publishers are moving away from supporting green open access so I think making these moves helps to cement the position in the marketplace for them plus we're also seeing a move from open access into science you know so we're going from OAs to OAS which includes methods and data as well so it's important I think to grow the business in that direction and thinking about our institutions and also how they're going to work with with other researchers around the world in partnership if those other research groups are already working with OA or they're working with FAIR or they're working also with the OAS how can we make sure that we can collaborate with them and if we're not going to collaborate with them then how are we going to perform in the marketplace so I think the pressure remains on too because plan S has released you know has also released information and the requirements they've given guidelines for repositories and call has also released a roadmap to plan S for Australia so I think that sets the scene that there is still a lot of work for us to do we don't yet have a national approach to open access or open science we've still got it roughly half of universities in Australia we also have a policy on open access open science you know others may have guidelines we also found in the call review of Australasian where we had the call review of repositories that Australian repositories weren't actually meeting with all the guidelines of plan S for repositories there are quite a few that came very close but as a marketplace as a whole there's still a lot of work to do but this also is interesting because with core they did a study and found that they found that the popular repository tools that they could be used to meet plan S requirements for repositories so I think that suggests in many cases that's how we're using them whether we've got policy you know whether we've got practices whether we're monitoring also whether we are working with authors to also to add more items to repositories also here here in ANZ we've got a small number of member institutions to core and I think we could do maybe more in our marketplace to bring the benefits back and to share them amongst institutions more broadly also it's wonderful the work that we have done through other call and also like you know the repository community really excellent work there was a recommendation there to increase the support perhaps in the technical advisory group space and to do more work in between the major events together so that we move together so I'm now just going to move through FAIR here with findable so things that you can do with your repositories to include you know which will help to improve findability you need to maybe do some work to ensure that web search agents and also harvesters actively working to harvest all the content that you've got there'll be different ways of doing that with different tools but of course you'll be familiar we did find in the call review that on the whole that was done quite well also National Library of Australia has released a new version of Trove we asked in that project team to if there could be work to improve I think the way how research material from our repositories was made available and I think they actually have made a good improvement there and it's really really great to see so I'd like to thank the NLA for that I would think too about with publications are you also making the data associated with that publication available or you're only making the publication it's important to also make all the metadata I think available in your repository and not just metadata where there is full text attached that really does help to I think to help the findability of what you have I know that will affect the ratio of full text but I think ultimately if we're aiming for a higher amount of content I think making the metadata available may also act as an incentive to authors to also add their full text you can automate a lot of the metadata work through the Chris system or the information system you can harvest different subject repositories obviously authors they can be publishing into a wide range of repositories it'd be good I think practice for institutions to identify that content and to harvest and to place a copy in the institutional repository as well rather than just the other thing that I think was highlighted also in the call paper was around work in making sure that the content will be there for a long time so this was actually one of the largest gaps in our marketplace in ANZ was around having you know was it like having like an other strategy in place of preservation of the material for the long term we go to age to accessible so it's important to look at what is the rate of deposit for publications and data in your instance of your repository to work I think a closely with authors as much as possible you know you'll have multiple areas of your library perhaps working together to do that for example helping them out with licensing example like using a creative currents license again I think as we see more publish and read agreements come through I'm hoping that we will be able to contract to build an OA router type solution to them to increase the auto in you know like the auto ingestive content into repositories another way to work very closely with your authors is to monitor the compliance with fund mandates with your authors and to order and then perhaps that you contact your authors and you follow up and you chase them for the auto finding manuscript and you can use there the policies of the funders I think it's the reason to do that I think it's also perhaps good practice if possible to harvest and host the full text of outputs which are already hosted in subject repositories for example I just think it gives a backup and an insurance that that material will be there right up to I for interoperable this is really about a machine readable this really applies to metadata and the file formats it helps to facilitate harvesting also helps to facilitate reuse of material as well and do the sharing so I just wonder if also just as a comment we had funding nationally for repositories for publications at one time and then at another time we had funding for data repositories which is really really great it helped put Australia into a good spot I think internationally with that infrastructure but I think as we've been running those for a time now are together maybe have a think about when is the right time to merge the publication and data repository workflows because it might help her to simplify and to improve I think her the experience for authors and then through opera bid and then of course after interoperability you still have all the functions work on this before we did find in the call repositories port that there wasn't really I think a lot to gain in investing in a national infrastructure for repositories and all centrally so I think I think at this time we identified really the benefit was to improve what we already have rather than to have another investment and project reusable I think one of the main things there is to support authors to publish with a creative comments license so and that of course they also hold copyright and don't hand it over and then for data there is also the information about how and where the research was formed through provenance information it's important to make sure that the outputs are interoperable okay so that the machines can use those but I think as a backup you can also offer a mediation and a negotiation process for some of your outputs too if necessary so really the final steps I think is to be aware of your fairness and to review it on a regular basis you should develop I think a plan for how you're going to make your repository a compliant with plan s and also like them with our funder requirements if you haven't done that already I think you can also develop a web you can also develop a work plan that will help you through to move from OA into the broader sort of realm of OS as well I think that's a good thing to do at this time the AOSG we also have a new group or the practitioners group and they're doing us some work on guidance for fair aware so look out for that too I think it's good to regularly you know to have a look at your repository and audit other compliance with fair principles and to make all the improvements ongoing as you can manage to do them I think in a continuous way and then the last slide I've just given you some links and some references thank you very much we'll hand back thank you Martin I think if you just click stop sharing did you need a hand yeah oh yeah that's good we'll just leave it on that um so if we could all if all the presenters could turn on their webcams that would be helpful for a moment right okay thank you all very much that's very good there's quite a few questions here so let's get through to the first one which is for Angus the question is I gather that the read component is only for those with the agreement though not full open access read access so the read component is only for those with the so the yes no the read component at an institutional level yes would be only available to that particular institution however as part of their read and publish agreement that the total value of the deal is supporting the open access publishing as well the the institutional consortium when they organize this will will get access to all the content that that publisher has as part of that agreement when we looked this is why we try and do things on a consortial basis though so that we can get the read component available to all of the institutions within the within the consortium and then further open up the access to content that way great thank you Angus there's a question for Martin not everyone is familiar with what a chris system is and they're asking what is chris system and how what does automate metadata by chris mean yes so what I was talking there is about using technology for current research information system which does automated harvesting of publication metadata for your institution and then puts them into a research management system so often you've got chris systems and the repository they can be set up to have a two-way data flow so you can you can have authors who can add the metadata and the publication and manually for example either through the chris system or through the repository system and then they'll share information and in the background you've got the chris system during the automated harvesting of the metadata from publishers and then it pushes it automatically thank you okay I have a question here which is for myself I think being a data commons what is ARDC's interest beyond data I did set the start but perhaps people came in late that yes our focus is research data however research data is best discovered and reused within context so if you can find the data it's very helpful if you can also find the publication which mentions the data the grant that funded the data the project that developed that collected the data the researchers that were involved in collecting the research organizations etc so that's one reason we also offer persistent identifier services to the sector which concentrate on research data in particular so DOIs for data but also related materials great literature such as reports and so forth are offered to the sector through ARDC we work with the AAF on the Australian the Australian Orchid Consortium to help support the adoption of orchids across the sector and other persistent identifiers such as the international geosample number that identify physical samples in the course of research etc so it's all about connecting the dots really and enabling all of those outputs to be fair so that's our interest there next question I would like to ask Jenny if she can share the page of her presentation where she explained that free in capital letters sources are limited and get better with a creative commons license but with fair it is best for reuse accessibility etc I won't actually I won't share that page because I'm not sure technically it's probably take me too long to do that but I can talk through it quickly so the concept really is that we often think that stuff on the internet is is openly available but in fact most of the time it's just a free to read so it's huge cause of confusion particularly for people that haven't thought too much about the the concept of licensing and such like the point about putting the creative commons license on if you're as if you're a creator then it kind of specifies exactly how that work can be used and reused you can choose it to be as open as you want it to be but the where the fair comes into it is it's in addition to the creative commons licensing so not well not only having a a license on it but also having the metadata associated with it such as the identifiers that Tasha was talking about means that you know much more about the provenance of that article and also it means that you can accurately more accurately cite it and you can incorporate it into other research outputs more efficiently so it's I'm happy to share that page more generally afterwards and you can contact me directly but it's um it's really they all build on each other and I would just say in particular don't ever assume that something that it's okay for something just to be free particularly a research output because it's not you're not then able to really specify what it can be used for right thank you Jenny um I'm not sure who will be best placed to answer this question it's about creative commons license so how important is it that authors publish with a cc license our publishers likely retrospectively to make publications away given that we saw that they could do this during COVID I mean I'll take that question that's one of my favorite topics is that the creative commons license is incredibly important so indeed we are seeing right now on the the core 19 database that I showed you there are some publishers who um it was uh set up by the White House by the Office of Science and Technology Policy they asked all the publishers to put a creative commons attribution license on which is the the most liberal of the licenses apart from the one for data um some publishers did quite a lot of publishers didn't do that and what we're seeing now is those publishers are already trying to withdraw their articles from that core 19 database so um there I can't overestimate the underestimate the importance of the creative commons licenses we know for example that articles that are just made free by publishers on a on a you know sort of charitable basis can be withdrawn down the track so incredibly important thank you follow-up question bonus for the bonus points is the cc buy attribution the only license you recommend um yeah I didn't have time to go into all the licenses obviously this is a pretty whistle-stop tour through fair but I think cc buy is is a reasonable one to start with but I would just uh a point point to the fact there's a creative commons have a great license chooser on their website that literally walks you through what what you want to do with the use and reuse of your articles so I'm happy to share that afterwards but I would say as a default the cc buy is a good one to consider consider thank you Martin's in the hot seat now there's a couple of questions that are quite similar I'll read them both out however could Martin please elaborate on the reasons why the call repositories report found little benefit in a national research Australia infrastructure from an efficiency standpoint it seems odd that each individual institution has to maintain its own installation of software and infrastructure and associated workflows and the question which is very similar could you please walk us through calls reasoning around deciding that investment in a centralized or national repository wasn't worth pursuing so it's um it's really about a matter of what investment um has already been made and what are the benefits and what investment could be made in future and what are the benefits so we've already saved a lot of money for our repositories um finding that the level of fairness was sort of reasonable and growing also we felt that with the current you know to architecture and infrastructure that most of the area for improvement was not the systems it was actually the practice which need and um and also working with authors that needed more work um if if we were to move to central you know sort of infrastructure that would require extra investment in systems which we don't have at the moment um at call we discussed that there wasn't really a willingness to invest additional money in new systems when it was found that the systems could be used to become more fair compliant so I guess the issue is that if we wanted more effort and more um you know work on projects around repositories it was found that benefit would be found by practice and not by the systems there is of course some work um for each institution to to host um but that was the feeling in the room okay thank you a few more questions um okay so related to martin's point on linking data and publications in repositories are there any rda plans to make those links easier or is martin suggesting moving away from an rda type central data repository so I'll just clarify that if that was that referring to research data Australia is that how I'm reading that um because if it does I just need to clarify that we aren't research data Australia which is the ARDC's flagship discovery service for research data from Australian research institutions actually just is a is a metadata aggregator in other words we collect the records the metadata records from all of those contributors we don't actually hold the data it's not a repository in terms of um storing the data um and we do make all of those links available in rda and to third parties such as open air so you can provide links to publications um from the data sets in rda and we strongly suggest you do because they then go on to um something a sort of a hidden type of infrastructure called scolics where the publishers can actually take those links and expose them so that you can find that information in say the scopus database and so forth you can find the publication in scopus and link back to the day to the data set in an institutional repository but martin did you want to comment on any of that yes okay uh yes uh so my comments were really about at the institution end I thought um that you know that now might be the time that may suit institutions uh to merge repositories for data and for publications if you have got to um I wasn't commenting um about the role of rda I think I think that's got a separate role okay thank you we have only two minutes to go and we have a few questions so we may not get through all of them there is a comment though that um just in response to your previous answer about the call repositories project some of us have fallen through the gaps we haven't received any money for our repository solution and work flow since just a comment there um there's a question about licensing again jenny back to you presumably you would not recommend the ccnd no derivative license yeah so look I think I just think this comes back to the purposes of your of what you're aiming to do with the research itself and if there are specific issues to do with it so I wouldn't I wouldn't recommend or not recommend any particular license I would strongly encourage you to look at the license chooser I'm more than happy to answer specific questions or obviously we have a creative commons australia um group that can also walk you through them I don't think there are there are times when the no derivatives may be appropriate okay uh thank you there's a comment here that uh just noticed that the new trove records for our oa repository content says not online even when the repository record includes cc license so that's something to refer back to the national library I think second last question as we close out a question for all recent articles on oa by people are pivovar that's head of pivovar at al distinguished between green gold and bronze oa among others they fold what you've called free to read research into bronze oa freely available research that lacks clear licenses or permission to share or reuse what is your attitude toward including free to read as kind of oa we'll just take one answer from one person one presenter here well actually it isn't oa I mean it's just free to read it's it's it's access that can be withdrawn so bronze oa is not oa it is free to read essentially and I think it just adds the massive confusion that I mentioned with the multiple definitions of open access okay thank you last question in five years this is a big question so I'm just going to take one answer from one person in five years what will be the new frontiers for open scholarship nothing you should take that I don't know I guess well ideally no paywalls I think is what we're we're working towards at call you know if we can get to that point it has to remember that you know oa is not free you know there is always a cost somewhere along line and if we can manage those costs as well to make sure it's sustainable with and using you know line well within the money that's within the system within Australia and New Zealand I would thought that's where I would like to see things heading in five years great thank you very much right okay so we've come to the end of our webinar thank you everybody very much for joining us thank you to all the speakers for giving their time and for sharing all their insights and knowledge today if you want to know more about upcoming webinars you can go to the ardc.edu.au site and you can have a look at the events calendar and you can subscribe to our newsletter this session will be recorded and the slides will be shared the recording will be put up on the ARDC's YouTube channel so really great that you could join us have a lovely day and thanks all thanks very much thank you thanks