Open Access Week 2018: Panel Discussion with Heather Joseph, John Willinky and Gerald Beasley

So, welcome again Thank you very much for coming And I’m very grateful to our guests for making the special trip to Ithaca for this event, as I have said already We’ve already spent some time together discussing open access, open source, open data, many other things that begin with the word open And we’ve all benefited from that as a community So I’m really hopeful that this panel will give us an opportunity to take that conversation just a little bit further And I do undertake, of course, to give, I hope, plenty of opportunity for what I hope will be plenty of questions from the audience So just to let you know, you’re very welcome to interrupt at any moment But in any case, there will be plenty of time at the end for questions I’m going to ask a few questions, in other words, just to get the ball rolling First of all, I would like to introduce my guests So immediately to my left is Heather Joseph Heather is executive director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, which everybody calls SPARC Because otherwise, to be honest, without that acronym, it’s a bit of a mouthful And SPARC, for those of you who don’t know, has been an important partner of institutions around the world, including Cornell and Cornell University libraries, in advancing openness in scholarly communications It was founded in 1998 It promotes open access to scholarly articles, the open sharing of research data, the creation adoption of open educational resources Heather’s most recent article– at least I think it’s her most recent article– is “Securing Community-Controlled Infrastructure.” And that, just by its heading alone I hope, will give you some indication of one area of interest of SPARC and of Heather I want to introduce as well– John –second on my left, I guess, John John Willinsky John Willinsky, Professor Willinsky, who is the Khosla Family Professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education John also has a partial appointment at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, where he directs the Public Knowledge Project And John has many reasons for being engaged in open access and open source and issues related to that Perhaps most well known is the fact that he developed the open source software Open Journal Systems It is used worldwide in support of open journal publishing And John’s most recent book– which is actually in my bag, but I’m not going to get my bag and display it right now– but his most recent book is The Intellectual Properties of Learning– A Prehistory from St Jerome to John Locke And that was published by the University of Chicago Press in 2017 So please take a moment to welcome our guests [APPLAUSE] So I’m just going to say just a tiny bit before we get to questions And I’m just going to say I hope everybody knows the title of this panel, which is Designing Equitable Foundations for Open Knowledge So one of the things I did was I went to my very favorite source, which is Wikipedia, to find out what open knowledge actually is And the reason I did that is because I’m very familiar with the concepts of open access– at least I think I am And Wikipedia would specify that open access refers to research outputs distributed online free of cost or other barriers, possibly with the addition of a Creative Commons license to promote reuse, and it can be applied to all forms of published research output So that includes peer-reviewed, that includes non peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses, book chapters, monographs, anything But it is somewhat associated with academic and research outputs Open knowledge, I discover– and I’m grateful for my internet connection– is knowledge that one is free to use, reuse, and redistribute without legal, social, or technological restriction And that means it’s, I guess, all kinds of knowledge And all kinds of knowledge, I think, is the theme that we’re particularly going to focus on today Because we have, as I said, we’ve kind of broadened the concept of open access

And perhaps, that’s been one of the achievements of the open access movement, I would say, is to broaden the concept of open access and to think about open in ever-widening circles of knowledge And now we have designing equitable foundations for open knowledge as a title for a panel I’m going to start with some fairly general questions And I’m very much hoping that people will– if they don’t wish to interrupt me, that’s fine, because then we’d have to find a microphone I don’t mind, by the way But if you do wish to wait, you can be sure there will be plenty of time for getting into more detailed discussion But if I may, I’d like to start by asking the “why” question, which is, why do you think people in general, and the academic community in particular, should care about open knowledge and open access? And I want to ask Heather first, and then John So thank you, first and foremost, for having me here, and thank you all for coming And for many of you, it’s nice to see you again Spending two days with you has been a pleasure As to why I think people care about this or should care about this– I think we have an opportunity for the first time, really, in human history to kind of marry a new technology with the advent of the internet and network digital tech, we have the ability to take that and marry it with the tradition of why we’re doing what we’re doing as academics, as students, as researchers, which is to discover and to share the results of what we’re finding as widely as possible We have an enabling technology for the first time, really, in the history of the world that lets us do something we could never do before For me, open is all about being an enabling strategy to help us kind of reach farther and do more with the information, the knowledge, the things that we’re interested in and being able to share it, not just with our neighbors in the next cubicle or in the office next door, but with interested minds all around the world And for me, the sort of beautiful encapsulation of what got me about thinking about using open as an enabling strategy to share knowledge was the Budapest Open Access Declaration, which was written in 2002 The Soros Foundation brought together researchers, librarians, publishers, just a wide variety of people who were interested in thinking about how could we use this new technology and kind of connect it with scholarly traditions to empower, really, all of us to kind of go further And the thought process was that by opening up, using technology to open up access to knowledge, we could connect the learning with the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, and unite humanity in a common conversation and quest for knowledge And I love that thought process of knowledge is for everyone It’s not just for those of us in an ivory tower And I think in our hearts, what we want at the end of the day is to be talking to anybody who wants to talk with us I feel like open is an enabling strategy that allows us to really get close to that ambition Well I didn’t write the Budapest Open Access Initiative, let me tell you, but it is a gorgeously written document Let me take a contrary position Thanks, John And let me stand because I see people who are getting kinks in their necks trying– [INAUDIBLE] view Can you still hear? Is this still going to work with the mic? I’m the only one without a wireless mic, though I noticed that So I want to say the opposite, or the contrary position, and just where our obligation is to fill out the space is to say that there’s nothing new in this, that science started with the notion that things would be open And that alchemy and esoteric forms of magic and all of those aspects of medieval mysticism and scientific activity were based on a notion of secrecy And part of the breakthrough of the university was the idea that science was to be open, that there could be no claim about knowledge that wasn’t open to scrutiny, open to replication, open to criticism And at the time in the medieval period, the manuscript, the illuminated manuscript, it wasn’t even illuminated in the university so much It was copied quickly and haphazardly, and it was spread using the available means And the West is famous for being very slow to get to paper Still using forms of vellum And this would be a good area Those would all the sheep out there preparing for the next texts– he bet And this idea that we take advantage

of the current technologies And so my concern joins with Heather, because in the period of print came along, a similar kind of concern Do we share? And the universities were not the first to print The pornographers and the church were the two first groups to get to print But then the university realized that it had a huge advantage and that it was part of its obligation And that it was a sense of the current technology that could be used to strengthen the claims of knowledge that could be used to share and build It could build reputations It wasn’t building fortunes in the university, but it was certainly building reputations And now with this new technology, again, we have not been the first to market, if you like Well, we have in some ways, but not in others DARPA and the beginning of the internet happened within a university environment, supported by the Department of Defense, mind you So those kinds of contradictions I want to see as a long history And what we face today is a huge opportunity– that I think Heather hit on beautifully– to open again And we happen to live in this moment when print is transforming into the digital era, and we need to think again about our responsibilities and about the very claims that distinguish the knowledge that we produce Because there is some question today about qualities of knowledge– I don’t know if you’ve noticed– some question about factfulness and trustworthiness And that our responsibility and our opportunity– very much in the spirit of what Heather said– is to make the knowledge that we produce and the knowledge that has been based for centuries on a spirit of openness and sharing and critique and review and advancement and extension, we have an opportunity now to move that knowledge much further into the public domain Print did that The paperback revolution of the 1950s and 60s did that It was a university for everybody It was some of the same language that was used And so in that way, we need to see ourselves as taking advantage of current technologies in order to do what we’ve always done, and maybe to do what we haven’t done before, maybe to push and open and challenge things that are going on in the public forums of knowledge that we can contribute to in a new way So that’s the why for me Thank you Thank you And I am one of the people that loves this concept of the broad sweep of history, actually thinking that, yeah, maybe there isn’t anything new about this, but there’s something that needs to be brought back I like the reopening idea The reopening We’re going to use that Trademarked Sorry No, we have Commons license, John Come on CC buy I’ll attribute, my friend But I also want to get really particular– you’ve mentioned that there are good reasons why we should be interested in open access now at this time– but getting even more granular, if you will Is there something about 2018, 2019, what we see going on around us that would inspire you to think, actually, this is quite urgent, we should not be waiting I’m going to ask John first, if you wouldn’t mind We’re alternating here It’s a very polite way of doing things Yes and no Actually, there is no “now” for this open access movement I think everyone is at a different place and a different stage in all of this I would rather say that the nowness of it is that what are you doing today and what are you going to do next week that will further open and share your work So it may be just to put your final draft that all publishers permit you to share publicly in an institutional repository or on your website It may be to send out to all of your friends the latest work that you’ve done in the old-fashioned offprint kind of manner of sending a PDF around to people It may be to start within your society a concern about open access, why your professional journals are not being shared more widely Depending on the area that you’re working in, there may be a public out there waiting for it So the nowness aspect of it and part of our involvement– In fact, in 1990, 20 years ago when SPARC started, that’s when I first had my realization, as it were, the epiphany that suggested to me as a schoolteacher by trade and a professor of education that if I was concerned about public education, maybe the research of the university should be part of that public aspect It suggests to me that we need to look at opportunities that will serve the work that we do and that will serve a wider public in terms of that work So there’s no– for me, at least– there’s no particular aspect

Just to give one element, I think we can safely say– although the research is not decisive on this– we’re at the 50% point 2018 is the year– and 2015 and ’16 is leading up to it– when 50% of the research that is published this year will be publicly available, not just in every public library, which is wonderful enough, but in every high school, on every bus stop, where people are looking at their iPhones or their phones We’ve reached the halfway point Now, a portion of that has been published in open access journals, a minority And a minority has been placed online And a minority is up there illegally And that’s 15%, 20% in that area for each of those So we’re still at that kind of convoluted state, where there is not a decisive form, a decisive economic model, a decisive way But there is that expression of urgency in the sense that all of the leading funding agencies are behind this And now half the literature is up, and we’re waiting for that other half to follow So, Heather, can you add to that? So my response– Tipping point is what I’m hearing Tipping point is there My response is going to be– will probably be a theme here– little bit more pragmatic And I live in Washington, so they’ll be a political element to it, too John mentioned funding agencies So the source of funding for research is federal governments, state legislatures, private foundations And more and more– sort of following on the theme of why now, we have technology that allows us to communicate faster, wider, better– funders have kind of taken that to heart, and they recognize that communication of results is part and parcel of doing the research If I fund you to do research and you can’t or you won’t or you don’t– I mean, you would– but if you can’t or you won’t or you don’t communicate what you’ve found, the funder can rightly ask, what was the value of my investment in that research in the first place? Because knowledge only gains in value when it’s shared and when it can be built on So funders have really taken this idea of opening up access to their funded research results, whether it’s primary data or research articles, to share with a broad audience so that it can be built on and gained in value And that’s created sort of a sense of an imperative that we’re going to be, as academics, as researchers, pushed in the direction from our funding agencies They’re conditioning our grant money to go in that direction Most researchers, I think, most students, most scientists feel pretty good about doing that, and that’s wonderful The culture change has been a little slow to kind of keep up with some of the institutions But that’s moving us in that direction, and it’s reaching critical mass now It’s not just US policy makers It’s not just a handful of disciplinary funders who are thinking in this direction It’s really become a global norm for funders to say, these are the new rules of the road And I think that momentum has been growing for about a decade, and it took on a whole new sense of urgency when we had a change of administration here in the US And part of what happened in the very early days of this new administration was this very real sense among many that science and research was not valued by the administration And that in fact, some of the science and some of the research outputs that had been already produced, particularly in areas that are susceptible to politicization– I can never say that word– that are politicized were vulnerable And I feel like the added impetus for people to say particularly things like climate change data needs to be made available to people, it needs to also be protected by our private institutions as well as our public institutions, has really led a sense of urgency to– we want the facts to be out there because there are such things as facts, and we know there are such things as facts And openness in many senses replicating, providing copies of these things, making sure that they’re out there as broadly and widely as possible, I think has never been more urgent or important than it is in 2018 Thank you And I think both of you have touched on many of the parties We have a question This is good Could you wait for the microphone just so that people who are listening to this as a recorded event can hear? In terms of additional publications, is there any evidence that putting them in open access actually gets more readers? Yes We’ll say it in [INAUDIBLE] There’s a plethora of studies that look at citation impact

effects of making your papers open, and it happens across disciplines It’s not the same effect in every discipline, so some disciplines, the citation advantage is greater than in others But it is consistent across the board We’re not sure how it will hold up over time, whether the advantage is persist But certainly, we have studies that track everything from a brand new paper being published in open access in an open access journal versus a paper on a similar topic in a closed access journal You can see citation advantages there We were talking this morning, some of us, about I was recently in Brisbane, and the Queensland University of Technology for a long time has tracked the citation impact of making papers open just through their institutional repository, and the citation advantage is quite visible Even when you take papers that are old papers and put them in the repository, they get new life breathed into them and they’re cited more often So yes, there’s a very robust body of data that shows that advantage is real Let me just add a couple points on that It’s much more robust in the readership Your point is well taken There are many, many more readers than there are citers One study, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences– PNAS– yearbook, the uptake was three times as many citations for those authors that chose to, which they had the option to make their articles open access, compared to those that don’t There’s always limits on these studies because it wasn’t random It was professors who chose to do it But that three times uptake is much less in the humanities– I must add to my humanities colleagues here– in terms of the percentages that have been done But what’s been consistent is the readership increase at all of these points And my doctoral student, who’s now Professor Juan Pablo Alperin, did a study in Latin America where we think 85% to 90% of the literature has always been open access There was not a subscription market in print, and there’s not a PC or a restricted subscription market electronically And he checked to see how many of the public were coming in He had a one question pop-up And 25% of the people coming in to thousands of articles published in Latin America were members not affiliated with universities or members of the public So the promise there is not only a greater readership and a greater citation, it is a public interest, and a public interest that was extended not evenly at 25%, but that hovered around that in the humanities, social sciences, and the medical sciences Actually, the biomedical field was had the heaviest public interest So that’s part of this promise And I think it’s a fair question to ask in terms of does it make a difference in terms the public and of readership and of citations But it’s a limited term offer I have to say, Heather, this is the advantage of going open access when everything is open access will disappear So you have, I would say, five years from now to get an open access article out, and you’ll get that citation three times uplift– if it’s in PNAS– three times uplift, and then it’ll disappear when it’s 100% But it shouldn’t matter because part of what we want to talk about in terms of the idea of equity and sort of building a new system is to move away from the reliance of citations as the primary way that we are judged– [INAUDIBLE] –and the quality of papers No But look, you set that up beautifully, and you did it on purpose But it really is, I think, one of the things that we’re wrestling with in terms of progress towards open access, and open access publication in particular One of the ways that we had to start off the open access movement was to kind of go slowly And it was to take journals, much like we did in the move from print to online, we kind of replicated the print journal exactly PDF looks like what we were used to on print, and that was a good step forward OK, phew The sky didn’t fall Everything goes forward Moving to business models that supported you don’t have to pay to read, there’s a payment somewhere else in the pipeline and everybody gets access, we didn’t change anything else about the journals really We didn’t change anything The articles look the same The peer review process is the same The only thing that’s different is the point at which the money that supports the process, which is necessary, comes into play Now we have an opportunity to kind of take that next step And that next step is, I think, a little bit more scary because it looks like maybe not having journals look the same way, maybe not articles being the currency and the coin of the realm

And certainly, not relying on a proxy metric to tell us whether or not a paper is good when that metric really doesn’t tell us anything about that individual article at all So I think that’s an inflection point we’re at where we have the opportunity to say, what do we have the chance to do together to move the needle to create a system? When Budapest was convened– and we do this all the time as sort of a refresher exercise– the question was asked, if we could rebuild the system for how scholars and scientists share their work from the ground floor up, what would that look like? And so we’re taking these incremental steps, and we have an opportunity to take yet more steps together These next steps involve culture change and really changing how we think about and do things So, Greg A microphone if we have one And perhaps just mention who you are I forgot to say that, but it’s probably useful for everybody to know Hi, I’m Greg Morrisette I’m a computer scientist, so I’m going to ask John a question from a different angle Your historical analysis says in some ways nothing has changed But one thing that’s changed with the digitization of information is that there’s a new lens in terms of computation over all these data and papers So for example, the Google Books Project allowed us to calculate a law about when do irregular verbs die out in English And these are the kinds of things lends across all the publications that we couldn’t do– at least I don’t think we could do– before that And I’m curious, to Heather’s point, in the design of the idealized system How do you support that new lens as it’s open? I think that’s a legal question more than a technical question So this is the idea that open is not just freely available, but texts that are freely available and carry the rights for folks to reuse them fully in the digital environment The only role for copyright in an open access publication environment is to make sure that the author gets attributed, to make sure that when I say reopen, I attribute John Willinsky, 19– 19, how old am I?– 2018 Open licenses allow reuse for all kinds of novel computational material It should, right? All the digital articles are is data, and it should be open for us to compute on any way that we want That’s been another kind of stutter step in getting the movement started is that people were, publishers in particular– and those of you that I’ve talked to know I was a journal publisher for 15 years, and I completely understand the protective instinct of society publishers to want to kind of move slowly and make sure that we could continue to provide the kind of valuable services that societies provide– but it was, let’s make articles free to read in PDF form Well, you can’t compute on PDFs the way you can compute on structured markup language XML is a gift The value of unlocking that format across a whole corpus is just huge The initial policies and the initial efforts that we’ve made, some material carries open licenses and you can compute on and you can see what happens when you get access to those collections versus looking at a collection like PubMed Central NIH has five million articles in their online repository About 40% of those articles now carry open licenses, and you can text and data mine them 60% of those five million articles are left out of that What are we missing in terms of being able to trace different pathways or gene structures or relationships because we can’t compute on that? And that’s one of the next frontiers But that really is a licensing issue It’s a rights issue I’d also say it’s a quality of science issue that I think is a very important one to note Since we have been involved for decades now in open access, it’s time to think about how open access is contributing to the quality of science And so the idea that we can do the kind of computational work that you’re suggesting means that we need the data to be open And for the data to be open means that we have the power and the possibilities of replicating the research, and that’s been a missing aspect previously Forgive me on this historical element, but one of the things that print introduced was a regularity of data One of its contributions was that every time you had a manuscript, you had a mistake in the data And so in fields like astronomy, where statistics began to develop, the regularity of the printing of data was a critical feature for improving the quality of science And the computational work that we’re able to do now is part of that aspect So the open contribution we need to hold to in 2018–

and I think this is a now aspect– is no longer is it open or not That’s not it Is open contributing to the quality of science? And that kind of contribution now is the motive and incentive as opposed to I want it for free And the aspects in which that we need to think about that is in the representation of data And one of the most exciting aspects of the post-journal field is dynamic data, is the ability to rerun on the fly, is the ability to drill down in tables and look at the source data And the sharing of that kind of information is very much a quality aspect and very much a requirement of openness and very much an aspect of intellectual property rights around database The very difference in laws between the United States and Europe around databases is a good stumbling point, or stutter point Can I use that one now? You may, John OK The exchange is magnificent So that element is one I want to keep on the table about the quality, and it’s one that we should be pushed on in terms of the contribution So the public on one side, and the idea that we’re going to push out to the public something that has greater quality that we can make claims about and that we can be concerned And again, I’m very taken, Heather, by the point about the current administration’s approach to science There is something to be defended at every point in that aspect Thank you You mentioned something that just struck a chord with me, which was the public engagement with science, which is something that I think we’re all concerned with When the NIH became the first funding agency in the United States to say, we’re going to require that if you take money from the NIH, you make a copy of every article that reports on that funding available online in our PubMed Central open access repository 10 years ago, one of the biggest pieces of pushback that we got from opponents of that policy– It took a law, first of all We had to get Congress to require that to happen And there was a lot of pushback by mainly commercial publishers, but also some in the community, which was the public’s never going to want to read these things These are complex esoteric scientific articles, and the public isn’t going to want to engage with this material And one of the things that has been the most, I think, gratifying and illuminating at the same time to me is that PubMed Central, the database is housed in the National Library of Medicine, and librarians– thank you, Gerald– will protect the privacy of users to their graves We don’t know who is looking at this material, but we do have usage data based on domain And the domain usage that we would expect if someone from an academic background or institution was using it would be .edu usage And 2/3 of the users of PubMed Central on any given day, whether it’s domestic or international, come from non .edu domains Sure, there’s some percentage of we’re an academic and we’re at home and we’re using it But the demand for that information from the general public, from patients’ advocacy groups, from consumer groups, from entrepreneurs, from just members of the general public, from parents who have kids who are interested in the latest information on whatever condition is affecting their families, is the vast majority of the use And that proof of concept, to me, says that opportunity for engagement is vast And it’s something that we feel that in terms of equity, bringing the public in to this conversation with humanity on these issues that are so important to us is at our fingertips to enable So I’m not seeing any other questions now Oh yes, there is a question So if we could have a microphone And if you could say who you are, as I say, that was just helpful I’m Jonathan Joseph I work in the astronomy department here Hi, Jonathan I’m Heather’s brother-in-law That’s OK Thanks, Gerald This is not a plant question So I’m wondering with publishing houses that are for-profit, maybe one of their arguments might be that if everything is open access, there might be a degradation of quality control over what’s being put out there So can you say anything to that? Yep, that is definitely one of their arguments, to which we respond– We had a meeting yesterday of many of the journal editors who are on campus here in Cornell, who are the folks who are responsible for actually coordinating the quality control for many of those journals, although many work for scholarly societies Some are Elsevier-run journals, though I believe Joe is here

The peer review is actually done by academics who are members of scientific communities, scientific societies, departments, guilds, who do this as part of their service to the field Elsevier layers some organization on top So do scholarly societies So could other entities– university presses Dean is here from the University Press The administration of peer review is not, by any means, the sole purview of commercial publishers They charge a lot of money for their part in it It could easily be done and taken over by– and would be taken over by– those in the community who are already doing it Retaken? Retaken is maybe the word, like reopen It is part of what’s, I think, really compelling to many is the notion that there’s something fundamentally unfair about a business proposition where the community produces the information, the content, the community does the quality control checks on the content, and then buys back that content from a third party, who puts a journal name and an impact factor on it That fundamental unfairness is beginning, I think, to reach a boiling point And the idea that the community can retake ownership and reclaim ownership for a fair price of that information is very compelling You get Thanksgiving dinner this year We’re not actually related Is it OK if I– [LAUGHTER] –jump in? Let me take this aspect My surprise last year when I read– and it was actually labeled something like facts you won’t believe, but it wasn’t quite like that– surprising facts under an Elsevier site, in which Elsevier was very proudly claiming that it was the second largest open access publisher in the world So there’s no longer a question about the publishers versus open access 10, 15 years ago, Elsevier was part of the party saying that open access would destroy research as we know it They have found a way to monetize that, and their profits are still moving in a very positive direction from a shareholder’s perspective So it’s no longer that question about quality It’s no longer that question about the checks or the preservation of the tradition It is about the community control It is about the proportion of the resources, the research resources, that are going to the publishing process as opposed to what we might think of as the bench science or the more traditional humanities and social science research process And that has changed So in 2018, you’re not making a decision anymore, and we’re past the tipping point It is going to be open access And whether you noticed that your journal has changed or not, or whether you’re paying APCs or not, is an interesting question, and we can talk about those details And this is a strange thing to find, to wake up in the morning and it’s not a horse’s head beside me, but it’s Elsevier, and it’s Wiley, and it’s Sage because we’re now all on the same side And so what we’re talking about and what this title– in a very obscure way, Gerald, I have to say– “Equitable Foundations” in a very obscure way– in a very clever way, excuse me– in a very clever way Gerald has referred to is this open infrastructure question The question for us today is– Elsevier has been a mergers and acquisition splurge and has been buying up pieces of the infrastructure, whether it’s preprints with CERN, whether it’s bibliographic management with Mendeley, whether it’s the psi value and the other kinds of statistical or analytical tools All of these different areas are seeing a lockdown And Elsevier has recognized that it will no longer own the content It will now move into the infrastructure And so we talk about an open infrastructure, and SPARC has been a leader in this area And it becomes a matter of the academic community not owning so much, but as gaining some control and participation in that It’s around finances, but it’s also around whose business is this And by the way, I really like the title But I actually claim no credit for it because this was put together by the International Open Access Week committee I’ve insulted everybody? No That’s the theme for next week, which is the Open Access Week officially Very deliberate in terms of the choice of word

What I really appreciate is that you’ve moved us to a topic, which I think we’ve kind of touched on, perhaps not addressed absolutely directly So maybe, maybe not, maybe we have a room full of people who now see, yeah, there’s real value in open access There’s real value in openness and open knowledge And in fact, we are at a time in history where we can actually act on this and see results But the title is well chosen, I think, because we are also at a point where we have to think about, well, if we’re going to design that future, how are we going to do it while taking account of equity and the need to have an equitable future and to build on foundations that are equitable seems to me to be a very good thing to address I’m going to ask you, Heather, because I’m sure you’ve thought about it a lot, and I want to hear what you’re going to say And then, of course, John as well The theme was very deliberately chosen by a global group of participants The Global Open Access Week organizing committee, I think, was comprised of representatives from 20 different countries And that’s very deliberate because knowledge generation, research, scholarship is a global enterprise And one of the characteristics that is really notable about the current system that we have from a paper-based system moving into online, and what we really don’t want to replicate in an open access system, are the inequities that are baked into the system So right now, we have a culture of journals that are largely published in North America and in Europe The predominant language is English The topics are chosen by editors who are predominantly, again, North American, European And you think, well OK, that’s where there’s lots of academic institutions There’s an aspect of truth to that But what ends up happening when you put barriers, like language barriers or the predominance of participants coming from specific regions, is those perspectives are reflected more heavily in the subjects that are chosen, the topics that are included in the journal, what’s considered important in science And what we’re missing in the scientific literature and in the scholarly literature in many cases– I’m much more familiar with scientific than the humanities, so I’ll kind of frame my comments more around the sciences– is that the voices of those from developing countries where locally-produced knowledge that might not be in English or might not, in fact, be written down, where it’s oral traditions to share information that is vital to the well-being of a specific populace, gets ignored in the literature And that bias of who’s allowed to speak in the conversation is something that we want to avoid happening How do we avoid this happening? If we could recreate the system from the ground floor up, while we’re designing this, we have deliberate choices to make And we need to design with equity and inclusively in mind at every step of the way So when we’re choosing the technology platforms, the modes of accessing science, the languages that it’s available in, the places from which we make a specific effort to deliberately invite more voices to be at the table, that’s what we need to be thinking about and talking about What are the things that we should be doing deliberately? We use the phrase at SPARC “it needs to be built in, not bolted on,” because we tend to think about inclusivity and equity after the fact so often Like, oh yes, we need this to be more international, so let’s invite somebody to the meeting from Africa Or let’s invite someone from a community college to be at the table What we should be doing is designing with these voices at the leadership tables, helping us to build the system from the ground floor up in their image, in our image The collective is global The collective needs to be deliberately built that way So the theme was chosen by this organizing committee It’s a learning process every minute of every day for me with this group I said, wouldn’t it be great to have this translated into as many languages as possible? And we sent out a note saying, if you would be willing to translate this into a language, and we immediately got back a bunch of different things We got back translations of designing equitable knowledge foundations in 20 different languages within 30 days But we also got back criticism for saying translate this from English into something else It was, can you tell us, can you share with us what this is in x language The translation, putting English as the dominant language and something else as a derivative,

that’s one of the things we need to be thinking about and designing a system for a common conversation that’s truly global and truly inclusive So it really was chosen to stimulate these kinds of conversations and to stimulate the kind of feedback that we got well-intended But this is an operating reality that we have the opportunity to be aware of and we have the opportunity to change That’s very powerful And I want to give a kind of example, as well as an apology But we’ve been working with Google Scholar So part of this new landscape has been the mix of corporate and nonprofit and university entities, so we’re being very hard on Elsevier one minute And then I want to talk about Google Scholar and the equity issue because part of what distinguishes Google Scholar, in our experience, has been– Thanks for the visual prompt You show me a mic, I understand that I should put the mic up here That’s good When we developed open journal systems, which as Gerald mentioned earlier, part of its uptake was in the developing– or the global south, or however you want, emerging economies– and part of it was in multiple languages And one of the first groups to reach out to us was Google Scholar They wanted to know how they could improve, and how we could improve actually– it is Google, after all– how we can improve our indexing system so they would pick up all of these additional sources, that we could begin to level the playing field in some way Now Google is not level in any true sense of the word, but it was an opportunity And in my group, at first, we said no We said, we’re not feeding data to Google– Elsevier said no as well– that we’re going to use an open standard, not Google standard But then we realized after a discussion after a while that the opportunity was too great to turn our back on and that our service to the journals that were using OJS in multiple languages required creating as many opportunities as possible And now looking back at that decision, to see that these journals are indexed and are showing up in the same way that every other journal is in a way that wasn’t present in the ISI Web of Science or in the subject indexes that the library still subscribed to, was an important aspect So again, this idea of the changing landscape that Elsevier on the one hand is this and now it’s this And Google is this large corporation, and now it is providing this service that may go commercial, may start charging or may advertise or may whatever, but at this point is providing these opportunities So this question about equitable decision-making, the question about the knowledge exchange on a global basis still goes back to the quality of science element, the fact that the participation is on a global scale in terms of that earlier urge to have things reviewed, to critique them, to extend them in some way, is a very, very important aspect of open But the other part of it is that there would be no participation from the global south if it wasn’t open The subscription levels from libraries was pitiful before, and it would be nonexistent now And so open access made that possible Latin America is a very good example In the earlier days, they were doing exchanges of journals among institutions You would print 500 copies and send them to 500 other institutions that were Spanish or Portuguese language And then you would receive from each of those ones, and you would build your library collection that way So there has been a circulation of knowledge in terms of that openness that didn’t exist in the north And so in terms of being kind of triumphant about it, or in terms of being optimistic about it, that has changed That is something that is new today and on the scale We think about– and Heather mentioned this– the center of knowledge and the periphery, and those elements have started to change, even though we have legacies around impact factors and other things that are working against that And we really have to be careful, too, about the business models that we choose to support The example of Latin America is so powerful when you look at the culture I mean, we always used to talk about how commercial publishers came into a circle of gifts economy, where scholars share the fruits of their labor, they share the peer review It was not based on doing this for financial gain We had the commercialization of that happen, and the knock-on effects of commercialization were particularly damaging in the developing world They were damaging here in the United States for less well-funded institutions We can see them just as, I would say, strongly What is very immediate to me is Latin America’s following

that sort of circle of gifts economy in how it promotes the exchange of open information Here, again, in North America and in Europe, we’re using article processing fees, which is just kind of subscriptions in sheep’s clothing as far as I’m concerned So it’s just taking the charge and moving it to a different part– A lot of Gucci clothing Gucci clothing, that’s brilliant Designer clothing So maybe you should say– because you mentioned APCs a couple of times What it is Maybe not everybody knows I know, but maybe not everybody knows And you were just about to define them, I think I am now Thank you for the cue So APCs is shorthand for Article Processing Charges, which is just a business model that says instead of paying to access an article, and at the time an article is accepted for publication in a journal, a fee is paid to that journal to cover the costs of publishing that article “Cover the costs” of publishing that article in giant red air quotes because everyone charges something different Is it a profit margin, a commercial profit margin for an Elsevier or a Springer of a 20% to 30% to almost 40% baked into that APC? Or is it really just covering the costs of publishing that article, as a not-for-profit society would say, where it’s what it costs plus maybe a little bit to keep the lights on and buy coffee There’s nothing inherently wrong with article processing charges as an entity It’s the way they’re being applied that is very concerning The fact that what’s happening now is the commercial publishers in particular have essentially just taken the amount of money that they’re currently making out of subscriptions, the number of articles they published, dividing one by the other and saying, this is what it costs us to publish journals They’re coming up with numbers that– I’m not making this up– are around $3,000, $5,000, up to $10,000 for an individual article There is no way on God’s green earth that somebody at a community college or in a less well-funded institution here in the US or in the global south is ever going to be able to pay that fee What happens then is we’re replacing the problem of access to science, I can’t afford to read the article, with I can’t afford to make my science part of the conversation So we replace the access problem with a problem of participation in science, and that should scare the hell out of us And we need to work to make sure that the models that we are promoting are not skewing the playing field in that direction So a point I wanted to make back on this is the question about the quality and the money aspect So the open access advocates don’t believe it should be free The information doesn’t want to be free I’ve spoken to it It’s not even on the agenda What it is much more about is how the money is being spent So the example I used yesterday– was it only yesterday– the example I used five meetings ago was the $10 billion, that we can roughly calculate that $10 billion is being spent on subscriptions today And of that $10 billion on subscriptions that are being spent today– and with some of that being open APCs, but still a very small minority of the money that’s involved– we’re simply saying that if the universities are already paying that $10 billion– it’s probably too much, but we are paying it– we would be willing to pay that for open access So it’s not that we expect this to be published for free It is that we’re paying $10 billion to lock up this knowledge and its data and its references and the whole paraphernalia, and we’re asking that we begin to think about allocating that money for open access Because having the exclusivity of the ownership and the proprietary ownership that comes from subscriptions is not a goal It does not serve the function of the institution In fact, even the publishers are beginning to realize that they’re moving away from publishing in the sense of ownership of content to publishing services So there is– I don’t want to say a convergence– there is a convoluted kind of obfuscation of the goals or of the way we’re going to achieve those goals, but there is within that some common threads at this point And one of them is about the allocation of resources, not one system is free and one system is overcharging So I see a couple of hands I think you were first I’m Michael Cook, head of the collections at Mann Library The Latin American model that you were describing of gifts and exchange was a healthy, robust model in this country for about a century through the land grant schools We had bulletins, Experiment Station bulletins,

for many years And it was part of the mission of the land grant was to make this research available to the public Later, you had extension, which kind of made it digestible and understandable by the layman And that died out probably by the mid-1980s, and people would ask why That’s because that research was then being published in commercial journals So there was a time when we had that, but it cost money to have a publishing arm in [INAUDIBLE] That’s a wonderful example I mean, the land grant universities were created on that very principle, that there needed to be that distribution of knowledge across the country particularly And this institution is a lovely marriage of that So again, thank you I think John’s comment about the redistribution of money that’s already in the system, sometimes I cringe at that There’s plenty of money, we just need to redistribute it seems too simplistic But the reality is that the library’s budgets are, as you know well, what percentage of the collections budget is tied up in commercial journal multi-year big deal packages? If you could free up that money and redirect it to support the distribution of knowledge in a different way, what would you bet on? What would be the thing that you would want to invest in? And imagine you’re not the only one in that position, but your colleagues in other universities are in that position We would have enough money to be able to support completely different mechanisms and functions When you asked the question about what happens with peer review, and if the commercial publishers aren’t organizing it, who organizes it Could scholarly societies organize the peer review of all kinds of different outputs on open platforms? Yes And we would be willing to take that money that’s currently going into paying for subscriptions to supporting scholarly societies or guilds or disciplinary groups who say, we’re the community who has the expertise, we want to do this So I think those are the opportunities that we’re really thinking about and that return concept I’m not saying we should turn the clock back and go back to exactly that, but things that are more in the spirit of that circle of gifts economy Abby Cohn, linguistics I wanted to kind of follow up on something we touched on yesterday afternoon, which is the ways that we, as institutions, are completely complicit in the restricted access of knowledge and the desire that it kind of plays into a notion of elitism and prestige, and how scarcity actually supports that, and how do we start to flip that And then at the same time, how do we think about– it really gets at what you were just saying– but how do we define knowledge, and where does curation and evaluation and judgment come in and counterbalance that? Can I say something about that? Perhaps not giving a definitive answer, but it is something that exercises librarians a lot And I think, from my perspective at least, knowledge should no longer be associated with elitism It should no longer be associated with a distinctiveness Knowledge is actually, from my perspective, part of the infrastructure that we should all be sharing We should all be networking as best as we can And of course, we will have all those hurdles and barriers that you would expect us to have But fundamentally, it should not be part of the competitive edge is that we have this and someone else does not That’s a huge culture shift Thank you I’m fine with huge cultural shifts We’ve already had a mention of one or two There has to be distinctions There has to be distinctions about the knowledge I mean, I’m very concerned about the university’s position, and I think the open access movement is very much about the positioning of the university as a producer of knowledge So I can only justify the privilege of being a faculty member on the basis of producing a distinctive form of knowledge, and that there is a quality to that knowledge and a distinction around its production and its checks and its contribution and how it grows and builds in a way that will change with open access, in a way that will begin to justify itself In the early days of open access, we ran into a lot of people saying, I don’t want my work public, it’s a threat to my academic freedom And I understood that to mean that their academic freedom was justified by obscurity, and that was a terrible license

and a terrible justification And that we should say that I am prepared to share what I do– and this is a good one for the humanities because they are often beaten up in these kinds of areas– I am prepared to share and defend what I do, and it is on a distinctive contribution, on the basis of these distinctions Now the elitism and the different ways in which that is handled, that is going to change We are saying that this is– to take NYU’s former slogan– a private institution in the public service And that basis– and we see this at Stanford– where we’re challenged on our tax free exempt status, and the justification of that has to be on a basis of what we give back And what we give back has to have that value of distinction It can be applied It can be pure And there are lots of interesting aspects of that But it is that we do something here of value, that we want to give back in a new way and we want to be held accountable for in this more open way I wonder if there’s also an element– I mean, in my mind, there’s an element of elitism that may be slightly different than what you’re thinking But when I look at the opportunities that we also have in front of us, one of the most compelling possibilities to me is that we could be designing incentives and rewards for things other than article monograph or book publications In the current incentive system, we don’t really have a value structure for people who produce nice data, for people who are adding value to the ability for their colleagues to do the work that they’re doing We reward individuals, and we don’t really reward contributions to what really kind of advances things, which is people working together in teams and in different ways and the individual contributions that make my work possible because somebody else goes through and annotates the data for me so that I can figure it out– like I just didn’t do it while I was collecting it, which a lot of us don’t People who are responsible for the code that makes things one, for the beautiful algorithm that otherwise wouldn’t get me anywhere, I would like to see those kinds of things acknowledged and rewarded and kind of opening the process up When we think about open as an enabling strategy or what does open knowledge look like, to me, those are key elements in the mix And to some extent, we talk about democratizing access to the outputs, but we should also talk about democratizing rewards and incentives and contributions in a new way And I think that gets to the idea of elitism from a slightly different angle, but in one that’s maybe very pragmatic and something that can bring more people along in seeing, why am I talking about open, open in order to do what Not open for open’s sake, but open to get to this discovery faster or unlock new knowledge And my contribution is directly in that value chain, and I’m recognized for it finally You’re starting to see that bit in the citation data So there are a number of systems that are available now that will give you a data citation And the idea that your data citations– whoops, I’m slipping into that again Yeah, I was going to say See, you caught yourself That was good I’m self-corrective here OK I didn’t do a face, either No, no No, no I’m internalizing it I speak to many audiences, and they sometimes have these concerns We go automatically into, well, the reward should be for citation But it’s got to be more than that It should be goodness itself So I think there’s a question from Paul You have the mic German and comparative literature And just to return to the conversation we started yesterday– and what you just mentioned, John, about 10 minutes ago– about, at this point, Wiley, Elsevier, they’re all on board with open access as well So in some ways, the open access side is, one, it’s already happening We’re at the tipping point We all agree with that Even the big corporations agree with that OK So I’d like to return to the financial side, which this is where I think where the rubber hits the road And this is where the real pressure– again, speaking as the co-director of the faculty library board here– where the real financial pressures are on And we talked about the amount yesterday, the $10 billion, and if we just switched it to we pay $10 billion now to keep it closed, and now $10 billion to keep it now to open it On the one hand, that’s great But Wiley, Elsevier still walk away

with their 30% profit margins That is not sustainable That’s where the real problem is And so we need to get to what the solution is to this financial real problem pressures, even on elite places like Cornell that can’t afford this anymore And this is where I think the question of the different models comes in and becomes very interesting, particularly this transition, what that transition would look like without it all falling apart Or maybe we want it to all fall apart, I don’t know But so the one model that we talked about yesterday was where the funders have a repository, like NIH has a repository, a cure rating, a particular type of cite that would be built into it, or in your case, the funders being built into the structure of paying for it You can maybe recap that for the audience here But one thing I was wondering about is in that transition– Heather, you mentioned that it’s the societies that can be adjudicated to quality– and one thing I’m thinking about– and just speaking from the perspective of German studies, a small field and a very traditional field– but in some ways, the societies are also stuck 20, 30 years in the past And where things are going, there’s going to be much more interdisciplinary work German studies should be talking with Greg from CIS And there should be this type of societies being developed as to where things are going, and that societies then ultimately can be also not necessarily the positive force as far as where things are going to be in 20 years And we need to be thinking of where things are gonna be in 20 years also on the quality [INAUDIBLE] Think together these two elements, the financial side together with quality, that is awesome This is where the right– John, your model still allows for that friction, that creative friction, a bit more perhaps that would allow different things to emerge, different societies, different ways of groupings So to bring these two factors together or start thinking– because I think it’s going to happen one way or another in the next 10, 15 years, where things are really going to start to fall apart because we just can’t afford it anymore The OA believe is won It’s done This other one is the real elephant in the room Yeah One of the phrases that Joi Ito, who runs the Media Lab at MIT, said a couple of weeks ago at a meeting was he felt like we were at the Berlin Wall moment for the open access movement And so we’ve been talking since then– a group of people– about what’s on the other side of the wall And I think what you’re getting at is what we were talking about yesterday, which is we have some ideas and some differing directions of what is life on the other side of the wall look at And since I jumped in, let me let you go first Well, OK Let me put a couple things on the table that we didn’t talk about yesterday One is I think we have to respect the publishers at a certain level So the fact that it’s not sustainable suggests that it’s a golden goose, and the publishers are going to kill it And that’s to say the publishers aren’t very smart, that they don’t do any future forecasts and they don’t understand that The fact that they will take us to the limit to drive the library committee crazy on the margins that they’re taking out of the library’s limited resources only speaks to how smart they are So they’re going to operate on that basis So that’s one aspect So Elsevier is going to evolve and is not going to kill the golden goose and is going to find ways to, in this case, move to publishing services, where they don’t own the content– but I want to come back to that point– and by infrastructure and all those sorts of things So they are going to do everything in their power to maintain their position, and they’re going to move in response to how we move And so the ability for my project to create some open infrastructure is going to challenge them a bit And I think if we’re offering publishing services and OJS is out there with Aries that they just bought– a similar kind of workflow management, journal management– then that to me is a better situation But it doesn’t mean that they’re not going to be still taking a lot of money out of the system The second aspect– and this is where Heather and I differ in terms of our– I mean, when you say you’re pragmatic, there are moments of great idealism, I think, running through you– I’ll concede –in the spirit of that And then to dress it up in pragmatism so that it seems like is– I don’t know about that But I am pragmatic about Elsevier in that sense They own a heck of a lot of our work And the idea that they’re going to go away, what happens to that work? I’m more concerned about how we get that work back I’m more concerned about encouraging them to move out of ownership That, to me, is a very positive step

And the back issues, how that happens, I mean, I’ve even fantasized about them getting a huge tax break by donating their back issues And there are examples of this, precedents of this, where a corporation gives something to the public and gets an enormous tax break for it So those are the kinds of questions I think the library committee and the responsibilities around managing those budgets are part of that, and the pressure from the libraries has had an effect But they’re going to maximize– in fact, they’re going to increase their market share while maximizing their profit is going to be something we are going to wrestle with And it can’t be they’re going to disappear It has to be where are we going to draw the line and on what principles They’re definitely not going to disappear And I think one of the things that we’ve been doing at SPARC is about this time last year, we took a look at the pattern of acquisitions that Elsevier, in particular, was making, in terms of what kind of infrastructure were they buying and what did that tell us about their future direction Because they’re not stupid, and they’ve been planning for about a decade and a half for the day when gating primary content was no longer their golden goose They are quite far down the path And John’s correct– it’s buying up infrastructure Their ultimate goal, though, I would say, John, from our analysis is not limited to publishing services They’ve become a data analytics company So they are buying and selling research analytics software, the PureSystems, to say, what is the research output, what does the productivity of your faculty look like They’re moving into enrollment systems, course selection systems, learning management systems The infrastructure that’s the end-to-end, not scholarly communications infrastructure in our universities, but the end to-end how do our universities do business It is not just production, but knowledge management infrastructure And the endgame for Elsevier is not about ownership of that infrastructure per se, but rather the data that’s produced by or attended on top of that infrastructure And that ranges from research and output data, to student performance data, to productivity data for faculty, to retention, to how do we identify at-risk students There’s an enormous amount of financial value in the data and the IP You gave a great number And when we look at this with the market analysts, the control of content industry for journals is roughly $10 billion revenue-producing industry For textbooks, it’s another $10 billion So they’ve got the publishers sort of at large have about a nut of $20 billion that they’re currently in control of When they move up the food chain into infrastructure, that represents roughly a trillion dollar revenue potential market When you look at the data and the IP on top of that, it’s a tens of trillions of dollar market That’s where Elsevier has its sights set That’s where every piece of business acquisition that they’re making is targeting That’s where every piece of policy work that we see them doing in Washington is targeted towards giving them an advantage to ownership, exclusivity, and control of this data So it is all about control, but they’re moving up the food chain And so at the same time that we’re thinking about the imperatives and the possibilities that using open as a strategy to regain control of the content, we have to be thinking about a block play for this data And John mentioned earlier that infrastructure is an important thing We don’t need to have ownership, as in we buy the infrastructure, or we create open source that the community owns, although I think open source is an important piece of the puzzle What we need are strategies in our agreements with the commercial entities, like Elsevier, that take into account deliberate We design these contracts We make deliberate decisions about who owns the data when we signed the contract We’re not doing that across the board So building in mechanisms that ensure, fine, we’ll lease Pure from you, but at the end of the day, that data comes back to us on our time frame and on your dime Data migration, ownership, where does it live, who has exclusive control We’re giving it to them right now without deliberately designing contracts So this notion of ownership is really, what we’re finding, is a contractual, a procurement issue across the universities So there’s sort of two fields that we’re fighting Elsevier on now, or we’re recognizing we’re needing to kind of fight on two fields And it doesn’t mean we want to put them out of business or that we want to say no commercial players in this space But what we want to avoid is having that data space locked shut the way the content space is locked shut for competition We want to have terms and conditions that lock it open for competition so that ownership and the economy

can use this data and infrastructure in the ways that we want to use it Very pragmatic I’m not 100% idealist I’m just looking for the glimmer of optimism in this As far as I can see– But wait, there’s one thing worse, though Oh One thing worse Let’s have the worst thing And that is, the analytics are going to be business analytics The analytics are going to be ROIs, Return On Investment The analytics are going to be driven by the data in the sense that what can be measured and how it can be tracked And the analytics are going to be driving machine learning kinds of algorithms that are going to be providing constant outputs of concern at targets of productivity And so it is a commercialization– an industrialization, if you like, in a very old-fashioned kind of way– of the university setting And we can wax romantic and concerned about our scholarly production at one level, but I think Heather’s point’s very, very well taken that the way in which we enter into contracts, the way in which we negotiate Because they still are businesses, and we can still say that we’ll purchase x but not y And so I think those kinds of very pragmatic decisions are to be pursued We want to have the option to purchase x and not y, and that’s what we’re trying to protect The glimmer of hope is that in the analysis that we’ve done– we hired folks out of Wall Street to do this with us– is that they’re not there yet They don’t own this market They’ve been setting the stage for quite some time, but they haven’t penetrated into the universities to the degree that they need to do to have lockdown We have probably a year and a half, two-year window to– [LAUGHTER] All right, so that’s not the– There’s time There’s still time Before it’s– [INAUDIBLE] Before it’s– [INAUDIBLE] Google? So this is interesting So we’re talking in our analysis at SPARC about Elsevier, Clarivate, Academic Analytics, Pearson, Cengage, Wiley So we’re looking at the cabal that’s been doing content and where they are now We have colleagues in Sage Bionetworks, which is an open drug discovery network for oncology drugs looking for targets by using open science techniques, who have been running into this exact same issue with data storage, cloud storage And their infrastructure that they’re coming up with these exact same issues is Google and AWS, Amazon Cloud So their concern is less locking the market open for competition– well, it’s locking the market open for competition because the issues for them is surveilled science We’re signing contracts to– it’s cheap storage, so we’re throwing data in the cloud But we’re not paying any attention to what we’re giving them permission to do with our data stored in that cloud So these conversations are actually kind of coming together now, which is good I think the strategies will be– I’d like to hear from Dean Do you have the microphone nearby? Dean Smith, director of the University Press And 10 years ago, I was working for an STM publisher and scenario planning what would happen with a six-month embargo, and also looking at author processing charges as an added revenue stream So that’s where it’s coming from I’m now in humanities, where our model for monographs is broken, and we’re experimenting with open access through the NIH And for a lot of the years, we’ve heard that these are low-use monographs, but from my perspective, they’re really just undiscoverable And once you make them discoverable, even through Kindle where we have $0 downloads, we have access in 150 countries to these and substantial usage So what thoughts do you have for a humanities publisher? What do we need to do to kind of educate our authors? Even culturally within the press, there’s a lot of pushback I think there are only probably 15 University Press directors that are even remotely interested in open access I know that because I had to negotiate with University of Chicago to get open access to my recent book And their starting position was that, of course, I could put my final draft up, I just couldn’t use the title, which I thought would have a discovery problem to it And so I have negotiated a one-year trial, in which I have to record every person who downloads it and to report it But I had a better contract with MIT– I guess I should’ve stayed with them– and they were actually quite amenable So the presses have very different attitudes The humanities– anyone else? Yes, we’ve got humanities here Because the humanities are in a different space in terms of open access and a different regard There’s still the smell of paper and print and ink and glue that are an issue, and dust jacket designs

So what I want to say is that Knowledge Unlatched is a model for the Humanities, and the Open Library of the Humanities is another model Knowledge Unlatched has been selling to libraries open access books, has been bringing lists to libraries of titles that publishers like Cambridge University Press and Brill and others are willing to publish open access if the libraries will commit on a shared basis to funding them And they have been selling to hundreds of libraries– not thousands, but hundreds of libraries– hundreds of books that are now being made available on that basis The Open Library of the Humanities has in the area– and please fact check me on this– it is close to 400 libraries paying for 20 to 30 journals, humanities journals And the libraries are, in effect, subscribing to open access And if you think about the root– let’s blame humanities here for a moment– if you think about the root of the word subscribe, it refers to enlisting an idea And the early societies– I’m playing the historian, it’s kind of fun– the early societies, the Royal Society was having trouble publishing books, and they had the members subscribe And they would subscribe at a certain rate per picture, per page, all of those sorts of things The books still sold for a price, but the price was reasonable because the members had subscribed And the idea that the libraries would be patrons of the humanities in that way seems to me a reasonable proposition However, you can point out to me how the monograph budget of the libraries has been in a period of decline, while the journal acquisition budget has been increasing So there are still real pragmatic issues at every corner around this The question of the humanities, though, is there’s a general, much larger sense of crisis within the humanities And the idea of the humanities becoming a public enterprise also has historical roots in terms of with the cultural aspects of what the humanities covers– from literature to film to dance, all these different areas– but also the public library as an intersecting point of the humanities So I think the appeal to humanities scholars has to be on the basis of this is the future of the humanities as a public enterprise And we can arrange to have your book printed on fine paper, but there will be a print on demand charge for that And so that kind of approach will within not my lifetime, but will eventually take hold out So I think we may have time for just a couple more questions if there are any in the audience Yes, there is a question over here Do we have the microphone? Joe Regenstein The quality control issue has sort of been implied But again, putting more and more stuff in open access, are we going to be able to get people to continue to do peer review? And what about some of these other things that traditionally weren’t going through those kinds of quality control systems all appearing simultaneous and next to each other? As the librarians have beaten me over the head, their role is to help with students understand quality control But with the internet as a reality beyond our open access discussion, how are we going to be sure that we’ve got and how to improve quality control? I think we can do a lot to improve quality control One of the conversations that’s most interesting to me around what’s possible in an open environment is think about the fact that right now we’re locked into quality control that’s done prior to publication And anybody who says that peer review is perfect is– I’m not going to go there And anybody who says peer view means the same thing from journal to journal, article to article, publisher to publisher is also mistaken So one of the opportunities that we have is to unpack and to change and make more transparent what’s done in the process of peer review in an open environment And so think about organizing peer review differently, and also signaling peer review differently One of the examples that I love is, if people are familiar with Creative Commons licenses, there’s a set of icons that are very clear And if an object carries a Creative Commons license, you see CC by, and you know that means

that my rights are I can do anything I want with it as long as I attribute the original author What if we had similar icons for peer review that were attached to an object, attached to an article, attached to a methodology, attached to whatever it is that we were communicating that said this was a double blind anonymous peer review You have two little people with dark glasses on or something I’m not going to be creating the icons clearly But we have an opportunity to signal, to say what does peer review mean on this object That helps tremendously to increase transparency and understanding of what kind of curation actually is taking place on what object at what time Sticking to the book, the journal, the article, and peer review as a catch-all is limiting We actually have the opportunity, I think, to open up and improve that process quite a bit Yes I’m very grateful to everyone because it’s almost the end of the session, and no one has mentioned predatory journals So I’m– oh, shoot I see a hand flicker there So I’ve been working last summer on looking at– we have this free open source software that can be downloaded at no cost, and you don’t have to record your name or anything And so it didn’t take us long to find that we were contributing to predatory journals Predatory journals, people, are not predatory Predatory journals are just a ruse of a journal They are charging $90 for an APC, and they’re not doing any peer review They have editors who don’t exist, and they’re putting your article and they’re publishing it And the worst of it is, authors know, some of the authors have been established to know this process is going on And there are hundreds of thousands of articles– not 10, hundreds of thousands of articles– and OJS is being used by some of them Yes I can’t release the data because I signed a nondisclosure agreement We think a thousand journals are probably predatory journals using OJS So what we discovered in the process, we’re working with some of those journals because they feel they’ve been unfairly labeled And so we have been working with them to both prove that they’re actually doing peer review But I think my approach from yesterday– thank you for introducing the idea from yesterday– I talked about having the libraries subscribe to open access and having the funders pay automatically for any research that they supported as research They should pay for its publication But underneath that, what I didn’t get to yesterday is the notion of vetted open access The difference between subscription journals and open access is every subscription journal is vetted by librarians in a curatorial manner, and those librarians are taking their cues from faculty I know, because they send us lists all the time What journals can I cancel? I look for the journals that my colleagues are publishing in, I circle those My colleagues look for my journals, they circle those And so the process goes So the idea that we need to think about a form of vetting open access is just because the irony of double blind review is it’s hidden The best example, I think, right now is PeerJ, where authors have the option of sharing the review, the response to the editors as an author, and the whole process And if you don’t want to do that, it has the dates when those things took place without the information And I realized that OJS was contributing to the problem in the sense that we didn’t have that kind of structured availability ORCID is another device ORCID is an author disambiguation system It identifies scholars and what they have done Anyone signed up for ORCID here? Should be 100% Because that kind of identification is part of this Now the reason all of this is happening is we’ve gone public Before that, we could count on what we knew Abby yesterday talked in linguistics that she knew what the best journals were She didn’t have to have impact factors All that was a given But for the public, it’s not For the global south, it’s not And so we are going to have to go through– in terms of that quality control, Joe– we’re going to have to go through that sense of further verification, further vetting So a model in which funders will pay for articles being published in journals that they approve of and libraries subscribing to open access will reintroduce a level of vetting There will be challenges This is a brand new journal It’s very creative Scholars will verify for it, and they will have to be that kind of dispute resolution because academic freedom and because the need to start new journals And when you think of women’s studies arising out of a number of journals in the 70s, it’s important to be able to do that But at the same time, we can’t lose that sense of this community because we need to assure the public I love the glasses Two people with glasses That double blind You’re an iconoclast [LAUGHTER]

I think that’s brilliant So that idea of how we begin to do this is going to increase the quality Because right now, we just take it for granted And I think yesterday it came up, have any of the most respected journals had any kind of fraud or retraction issues? No Good So this aspect of how we change because the university is being repositioned in a public space is an important aspect and an opportunity Thank you So this has been a wonderful conversation And I really want to thank John and Heather for what could easily have been a lot longer, I know We feel very passionate and committed on these topics It just seemed longer I’m sure you’re going to join me in thanking John and Heather [APPLAUSE]