 this afternoon. I believe that archive is familiar to many of you here, so I will have a very brief introduction. It's more than 20 years old and it somewhat ushered open access to pre-print publications in many disciplines including physics, math, computer science, astronomy, quantitative biology, statistics, so on and so forth. Just to give you a sense of its use, last year we received 64 million downloads for these papers from all around the world. Four years ago at Cornell we started an initiative, a sustainable initiative, in order to plan archives feature from many perspectives, from business, finance, governance, usability, technology. This will be a very very brief overview, so I will just share with you in a snapshot mode a few principles that we tried to either implement or we learned through lessons, but if you are interested in learning more I would suggest that you go to this page with plenty of information about its background and more detailed aspects of how we implemented this initiative. One of the starting points for us in sustainability was to clearly define the value proposition of a public good, public good being archive, accessible globally free to researchers and for that purpose we actually create a very succinct four-page document to describe Cornell's role plus archives core values and in addition we try to identify some of the core stakeholder groups and integrate within value proposition what their roles are. This really shows a somewhat I would say simplified version of the stakeholders that are present surrounding archives operation, but let me give you one example from financial perspective. In means of our membership model we focused on libraries and research laboratories and the reason was that we felt that libraries and research laboratories had been at the focus of at the center of scholarship for years and they naturally have a stewardship role and therefore for us it was a very natural role that didn't involve any conflict of interest to form a membership model and to engage these institutions. From a financial perspective we tried to diversify and actually we are still working on this but this is a snapshot of the current financial model the funds are coming from the Cornell University Library from a scientific foundation and member institutions. Currently we have 173 members representing 22 countries and one of the principles that we are trying to learn is to have transparency about the archive operation including its expenses. Many of us run repositories we have been in this business for years but when it comes to clear to identify what the costs are how they occur and how they fluctuate it is still work in progress. After five years of writing trying to identify annual costs I must admit that we are still trying to you know unbundle expenses or try to kind of more clearly identify what are the sources of revenue and what are the sources of expenses for archive. Another principle that we are paying attention is again along the lines of transparency is the organizational model how we are running archive different roles responsibilities and we also feel that our community is in really desperate need of sharing this sort of information from organization financial perspective how much we are spending what are the skillsets represented and what are the organizational members to be able to build sustainable models collectively. I'm the program director and actually we are in the process of recruiting a scientific director we do thoroughly believe that at the heart of repository initiatives should be collaborations between or among different stakeholders either even if the libraries are taking the lead in sustainable the planning involving scientists in this process is critical and along that line this is how our governance model looks like Cornell University library has a set of roles especially managing the moderation of submissions operating archive thinking about long-term access from preservation perspective financial responsibility and we work very closely with two advisory boards and both of these advisory boards have bylaws so that members of these boards clearly know what their roles are and what their contributions are and how they are involved in the archives day-to-day operation. Again I want to emphasize that archive success stems from it's coming from the scientific community and after 20 years we are still trying to give prominence to the scientists roles their needs and their sociocultural issues therefore a very important part of our governance model is the scientific advisory board and their involvement in sometimes even day-to-day operation. We also have a member advisory board that represents libraries and repository communities because we think equally important as intellectual oversight of archive is engaging the global repository community in running the repository including interoperability standards development priorities so on so forth as I said given the short duration of this presentation I'm just giving you kind of sampling snapshots but some of the principles that I have included so far I mentioned number one importance of academic community number two which is clearly defined mandates and governance governance structure and the fifth one which is reliance on business planning strategies even open access initiatives require business plans because we need revenues we have expenses so we really need to understand that a special nonprofit operations need a clearly identified and transparently communicated business plans again going with my snapshot approach I would like to give you two examples to illustrate number three which is technology related and number four which is about content policies and I'll start with the importance of content policies I would say one of the success principles of archive is quality control which may not be a very kind of obvious process for you but in a very simple sense we are receiving 230 to 250 articles every day at Cornell and our staff is doing a very personal review of each paper received just to make sure that these are actually scientific papers they have been submitted by legitimate authors that they are coming from a certain institution and that to identify different subject categories using automated tools but a very critical element of this process is we have engaged close to 140 scientists from all over the world and each paper submitted even if it's just one minute glance is looked over a scientist to make sure that we are maintaining the quality parameters as I said this is not necessarily maybe a very well known aspect of archive but I want to emphasize that maintaining an open access repository doesn't mean that we should accept everything that for the stability and the quality of the scholar enterprise I think it's very important that we all based on our own content policies define even if a very lower level some quality parameters the other issue that I want to mention to you is again as a success principle for archive we gather minimal metadata because we want to make this deposit process very fast very robust therefore we have to sacrifice we librarians love metadata right especially with the new obligations with funding sources so on so forth research data we are so in a way you know we have we have incentive to add and request more data from authors but we firmly believe at this point that with authors as we speak with scientists it's very important to keep the barrier of ingest the barrier of submission very low unless your organization is in a position to invest in submission staff where the staff would be monitoring and adding articles to your repository the other issue I want to mention is last five years we are very well aware of the importance of research data and especially we are very much involved in creating an integrated scholar communication environment where we have preprint published article postprint research data images so on so forth are presented and discovered in an integrated way with archive a couple of years ago we were involved in a research study with data data conservancy from John Hopkins to experiment with using archive as a front-end interface to accept research data too actually I'll be glad to give you if you're interested in the URL for a blog article that we published about this experiment but what I want to share with you is that with research data the most complex things about small data after running it for two years we were just surprised to see that as we are talking about research data what we are seeing coming from our researchers is many small data sets and sometimes very difficult to identify some articles they might have 20 data sets deposited but in means of understanding you know how these data sets relate to each other how they relate to the article so on so forth that is not very clear and I wanted to offer this as an example of sustainability because as we focus on this cutting edge and innovative features sometimes what will define sustainability and usability is attention to daily operational issues such as this one so these are my very quick remarks thank you for the opportunity okay next we're going to hear about Jura space we have here Michelle Kimpton who is a chief