This session is part of a series of webinars commemorating the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, Year of Open Science, and is co-sponsored by UMD Pact and the UMD Libraries Interdisciplinary Dialogues and Research Education.
In today's session, our fantasy lineup of speakers will provide a practical overview of open scholarship tools and platforms that are available for UMD researchers.
Our featured speaker, Dr. Martin Halper, will share the latest news about federal agencies responses to the OSTPs Nelson memo on public access.
Because we have a packed agenda for this session, I'll now briefly announce our speakers in the order of their appearance and we'll get started.
Please note that you may submit any questions into the Q&A function on your Zoom session and will hope to address audience questions.
We only have 2 brief points in the webinar to do that though. First, we'll hear a few brief framing remarks from Dr.
Greg Ball. Dr. Ball is a vice president for research for the University of Maryland College Park.
And the University of Maryland Baltimore. Ben will hear from Dr. Philip Cohen. Dr.
Cohen will share his perspectives on open science, especially where a preprints fit into the ecosystem.
Dr. Cohen is a professor of sociology at UMD and he is a founding director of Social Archive, an open archive for the Social Sciences.
And he's also a very strong advocate for open science in the research community. Next, Miss Sarah Weiss will share an overview of tools and platforms that are available for you on D researchers through the UMD.
Miss Weiss is a stem and open science librarian at UMD and she's a passionate advocate for open research practices.
She also serves as our UMD contact liaison for the open science framework. Then we will hear from Mr. Terry Owen who is UMD Scholarly Communications Liberian.
One of Mr. Owens primary responsibilities is managing the university's digital repository known as Drum.
And then our last speaker who will join us when he can, he's, we knew he'd be running a little late.
His name is Dr. Martin Halbert. He will join us to provide updates on the OSTP Nelson memo and agencies responses to that memo to date. Dr.
Halbert is a science advisor for public access at the National Science Foundation, MSF. Thank you to all of our speakers for joining us today. Dr.
Ball, I'll turn the microphone over to you.
Thank you, Dean Lim. Good afternoon, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to this webinar.
I would like to begin by thanking all the panelists and participants for being a part of this event.
And for their engagement in the University of Maryland's research ecosystem. When Dean Adrian Lin kindly invited me to share some opening remarks for this session, I happily accepted.
The importance of open scholarship and open science is fundamental to our universities origins as a land-grant institution with a historical emphasis on working to achieve results that contribute to the public good.
Open Scholarship and Open Science offer the potential to help make the creation and sharing of new knowledge more equitable.
The August 2022 memo referred to by Dean Lim from Dr. Alondra Nelson in the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Communicated the priority of making federally funded research more accessible. Stating that public assets policy should be considered with our values of equal opportunity, allowing for broad and expeditious sharing of federally funded research.
This principle of equitable open access is one that is easy to support. However, the details of how this can be achieved in practice can be a bit more complex to say the least and require universities consider what changes must take place in order to facilitate this change in how we view data.
In the division of research are Office of Research Administration has been working to ensure compliance with new federal requirements to share data and software developed under sponsored awards via data.
Management plans in order to make them accessible and available to the public. NIH, NASA, NOAA, and DOT are just a few of the federal agencies that are now including such requirements for recent funding solicitations.
In some cases, these new open access sharing requirements do not align with the university's intellectual property policy.
Which has necessitated an increased need for IP waivers. As we move forward and navigate these complexities and increases in research compliance task, We acknowledge that such changes in policy represent both opportunities but also challenges for our university.
And all universities. As this new era of open scholarship and open science evolves, It is presents new possibilities though for our community.
I encourage you all to take advantage of the University of Maryland's membership in the Open Science Framework.
And to use the university's libraries, open scholarship tools and platforms. That will be discussed in more detail during this webinar.
With that, I would like to close by thanking you for participating in this important session. And I hope you enjoy learning more about the emerging technology tools designed to help advance open scholarship and open science.
Thank you.
Great. So, that brings it to me. Thank you so much, Vice President Ball, and Dean Lim.
And I just want to say, we're also fortunate to have both the support of the, the fantastic team at the library under, Dean L's leadership and also your, your support.
I still think of you as Dean Ball. So thank you, thank you very much. I'm going to just share my screen.
I'm gonna spend a few minutes. And talk about pre prints. And where they fit into our sort of evolving landscape and and the available tools and and the infrastructure that we have for so so this is my question the role of preprints we know this, the content of this slide, but it just bears, it bears repeating that, we do our
research, but it doesn't become knowledge until it's made public. in the, in the social sense of knowledge.
And we have to, we have to, as this ecosystem evolves, I want us to think a little bit beyond publishing in the narrow sense of journals and books, the academic publishing, what we think of as a publication.
Think of the broader sense. So that's just a little bit of orienting. I know there are there are a lot of complexities to that.
I want to situate this in the sort of the research lifecycle and I use this image from the Center for Open Science.
Where, we all, we all do this all the time and it's not, it's not a neat circle, but all the stages of the of this process are part of our research.
We have to discover the existing knowledge, develop ideas, design and studies to collect data, analyze data, and then disseminate our results.
Where each one of these stages has sort of an open science or open scholarship opportunity to it where we can pre register share our materials, share our data, and I'm going to focus on here on preprints as an accelerated means of disseminating research results.
Pre prints, are, finished drafts of scholarly work that has not been peer reviewed essentially.
There also however sometimes called preprints when they are accepted versions of peer review papers that are in their free in their in their free or pre publication version but after they've been accepted.
Pre prints are scholarly outputs. They're permanent. They're archived, sidable parts of the scholarly record.
And, they are a growing part of our, our ecosystem. I have here, the most prominent preprint servers archive was the the first and biggest preprint servers archive was the the first and biggest started in math and physics, bio archive was the first and biggest, started in math and physics, bio archive and med archive, which, really broke out during the pandemic.
And then source archive and med archive, which, really broke out during the pandemic. And then Sarsh Archive and Sierra, really broke out during the pandemic.
And then Source Archive and Si Archive are, our sibling, servers, servers on the open science framework and we'll talk more about that later.
Social archive is the, platform that I'm the, I'm the director of.
Why are we doing this? Well, there's the narrow reason that sort of like a policy might say we should do it but more fundamentally we want our work to be more efficient, more engaging, more inclusive.
And we want to take control of the publication or dissemination process. Specifically time is a huge element here.
Dissemination process. Specifically, time is a huge element here. Why, after spending all the time developing our research and ideas, the delay in publication is really debilitating and and we've increasingly come to realize that now it doesn't mean that everything is published all the time instantly as soon as you hit enter, but it is something that we really want to wrestle with.
How can we move? How can we move faster in our research? And also fundamentally access. We don't want our the knowledge that we produce to go into a narrow channel of locked up.
Constrained access. We want people to actually be able to read it, especially when they have paid for it, which is the case with most of our research one way or the other.
And then we also want to find ways to disseminate our research in ways that connect us to other scholars to deepen our engagement across the fields, including outside our own areas and outside academia, and and to do it in a way that allows us to reclaim that process of disseminating, of publishing the research and say, we, we can make our, we can make decisions about how to do that and we just need
to be purposeful and design the tools and infrastructure that we need. Just to situate preprints, here's a slide from A.
SAP bio, which works a lot in this space that shows sort of how traditional publishing goes. You have a manuscript, goes to a journal, 3 reviews, they rejected goes through another journal maybe they some of the reviews are more positive you revise third journal revise eventually months or years later your paper enters the public at that point after all this time.
Okay, well that's reasonable if it's getting better and better and at some point you want it to be public that's when we get the community feedback the idea is the discussion but the what we're trying to do with preference is accelerate that and get the benefits of this this of publication earlier.
What do we get when we publish a paper in a journal? Well, we get, a timestamp essentially, we get something that says these people did it.
We, I wrote this article. I had this idea at this time. And that sort of precedence.
We get a dissemination in the sense of sort of marketing here. Here, here it is. Please read it.
A curation function of journals that says here's a list of important things to read. It has a stamp of peer view that says some experts have read it and they approve of this.
And, and the particular journal, if it's a high status journal, hopefully it's it comes with an imprimatur that says somebody important thinks this is a this is a valuable thing to do.
With preprints, we move some of this process forward. So after a very basic screening process, the paper goes into a public preprint server.
What happens at that point? There we get the precedents and the dissemination to happen earlier to timestamp it and say this is my idea at this time and this is my results and to start circulating it and try to generate readership for community feedback ideas.
That can happen earlier and then we still get the benefits of peer review later. Just takes longer to get the stamp of approval from a journal and and from our peers.
So that's where where the acceleration in the process comes comes in. A lot of people heard about preprints for the first time during the pandemic.
This is from a paper by Fraser at all that just shows, how many preprints there were, about COVID.
19 published in 2,020. which were, allowed thousands, tens of thousands of papers.
And you can see the different, all the different preference servers that they were on at that time.
Now crucially, the one of the reasons I cite this paper is because they actually followed up with a lot of the papers to see how much they changed when they were subsequently published in journals.
And the answer is most of them didn't change very much. Some of these preprints were shared thousands of times and really changed our understanding of an emerging crisis situation.
And of course, some of them were wrong. And so that's something that we have to wrestle with.
Some papers and journals are wrong also. To show you the growth of this medium if you will archive started about 1,992 in 1992 and you can see how many papers have been published each year since then and so we're now at a papers have been published each year since then and so we're now at a few 100,000 papers per year since then.
And so we're now at a few 100,000 papers, per year. And, and so we're now at a few 100,000 papers, per year.
And, and you can see, SARSHARK, at the very top there is small, archive is still, is still very, it's still the biggest, but bio archive, and others have grown quite a bit.
So it's been a really rapid rise in this dissemination. Of course, we're producing more and more research science scholarship altogether.
This is a way of normalizing that trend and putting those preprints as a fraction of all the articles published in peer review journals in Web of Science.
So it's about, if you think about it that way, it's about 14% of the, of the equivalent to 14% of the corpus of peer reviewed articles are coming out in preprints as of last year and this has been increasing.
You can see that big increase, in 2020, which was the pandemic here when everybody understood that we had to get things out faster and that was a huge point of what we were trying to do.
On Social Archives, which is social science, arts, humanities, education and law, sort of social science and adjacent.
We only have about 14,000 papers, but you can see us adding a few 1,000 per year.
We're extremely fortunate that this project lives at the University of Maryland now, but it's open to people all around the world and we accept papers from from all around the world and our volunteer staff are People like you.
Who are who screen the papers when they come in and we get them up as quickly as we can.
Just to show you a little bit about what it looks like when you have a paper on a preference server like So archive, what we're getting.
Here's the paper. This is actually the paper of mine. It's the O the open access version of it, which because it's free to disseminate, I can put it on search archive.
But you can see that this is actually version 5 of the paper and you can see that this is actually version 5 of the paper and the other versions are stacked underneath it.
We have a view count and a download count. We have some annotation tools on the site. We have applaud it for endorsements or a lightweight peer review anybody can do.
We have, the ability to, to store, to archive and disseminate supplemental materials right with, with all the papers that's becoming increasingly important.
We have a DI digital object identifier that makes it sable at a, at a, at a permanent location, and also links to the publication DOI.
So if somebody cites, some somebody sites the prefront, it can the citations can be aggregated up.
To to identify it as one paper. We have a license and this one it's a CC 0 license anybody can can disseminate this you have a choice of licenses we apply some taxonomy and tax so the authors choose their own categories and then We have the versioning.
So down at the bottom, you can see this is version 5 of the paper. If you did want to click on that and look at the previous versions you can, they are part of the scholarly record, but we always put the most recent version on top.
And that's where that's mostly what we want people to see. But with this permanent link, somebody comes along having seen a link a few years earlier on an earlier draft of the paper they can get right to the latest version.
Say, oh, now it's in a journal. So that's sort of, a picture of what it looks like when it's on social archive.
I wanted to situate this again in what we're trying to do with openness in general.
We want to we want to be accountable and want to communicate our trustworthiness and our integrity. So an openness and transparency is a huge part of that, not just to our immediate readers but also the editors and reviewers, our colleagues, the public, anybody that we're trying to convince of our integrity, openness is an important signal for that.
Openness can increase our efficiency if we if we're smart about it and we make the right decisions.
We want to maximize the investment of everything we've put into the work by letting other people use it and letting it get out there faster in a more useful way.
We have to realize that there's a strong equity and diversity element to all kinds of openness in the.
Scholarly ecosystem element to all kinds of openness in the scholarly ecosystem that is scholarly ecosystem.
That is, we're thinking about all kinds of openness in the scholarly ecosystem.
That is, we're thinking about how to get our work out there, but we really have to recognize that we are enabling other people to do their work better.
And especially people with less resources than we have. And then there are the rewards you get. You want people to read your work and cite your work and you want to get kudos and have your reputation.
Press your boss and comply with the policy. So if we have to disseminate our work if our funder says you have to disseminate your work openly, key thing about preference is with a green OA and we'll talk more about that a self archiving or a dissemination of your paper in an open access format, you can comply with open access policies and then also publish your paper in in the journal of your
choice. We have a lot of choices about when to share our work. It can be early if you want to sort of plant your flag and it could be early if you want to sort of plant your flag and get it out there.
It can be paired with a conference presentation if you want to allow people who are interested in your work right then to click and get it.
I can go with the journal submission so that a work is out there being reviewed and and we're increasing the audience if we're a little bit more gun shy we could do it we could post a paper just when it's accepted, that way we can say, okay, it's been peer reviewed, now you can really read it.
Or we might, we might just do it at the end as a way of sharing a free copy and that's what we do with our repository drum, which we'll hear about and also with Sarsh Archive.
So I'm gonna wrap it there and I'm gonna be happy to take your questions and comments later.
Thank you.
Alright, thank you, Dr. Cohen. Take over from here. Let me just get my screen shared.
Alright, so it's, today I'll be giving a quick overview of some of the tools, that can be used to open the research workflow.
And I'm specifically going to be focusing on open science framework. And at the risk of being redundant because Dr.
Cohen did a fabulous job with talking about open research and the benefits. I had to put a head to define our most important term and I'm sticking with this classic and widely used definition from foster the open science training portal.
And just, you know, to read in general, open research practices are intended to strengthen the quality and impact of scientific research and it provides benefits across the board.
So. To researchers, policy makers, funders, and the general public. And this can manifest in all sorts of different ways, like increased efficiency.
You know having the availability of. Things like detailed artifacts can enhance the efficiency and productivity of the overall system, including diminishing redundancy and expense associated with creating and reusing data and enabling more extensive research, utilizing the same data sets and expanding opportunities both locally and internationally.
In the research process. It increases quality and rigor, making the process more transparent. We get increased scrutiny, which helps to eliminate questionable and erroneous research practices and facilitate facilitate more reliable reproducibility.
It increases equity by making it accessible to those with less resources. And of course making collaboration easier. So those are just many positives that come from open research practice.
So when we talk about open research tools. We can be talking about quite a lot. At every stage of the research life cycle or workflow there are tools that can make the stage of the process more open.
And many of these tools are popular and widely used already, whether or not they were originally intended to be used for open research.
Some examples would be GitHub, there are also tools developed specifically to help with making research more open.
So 2 notable examples, we have data site which is a leading nonprofit organization that present provides persistent identifiers.
So DOIs for research data and other research outputs. The things that are not you know published papers and organizations that are within the research community join data site as members to assign DOIs to their research outputs and University of Maryland is a part of that.
Then there's Orchid, which provides unique digital identifiers. So the Orchid ID.
And it allows you to distinguish yourself and ensure that you get proper attribution for your work in scholarly publication and otherwise.
And those 2 that I mentioned, they are fairly well established and they're pretty widely used at this point.
But there are more that continue to be developed. So the tool I'm gonna focus on today is Open Science Framework and there's a couple reasons for that.
The main one being that I serve as the contact liaison here between OSF and campus, so I'm most familiar with it.
In addition, here at the University of Maryland, we have an institutional membership, which grants benefits such as single sign-on and discoverability on the UMD landing page.
And as I mentioned, how many tools there are for open research, OSF is one that can be used at many stages of the research workflow and it enables connections to many of the products that you're probably already using and that helps with streamlining and efficiency.
And it's great as a collaboration tool. OSL hopes research teams work on projects privately or you can make the project publicly accessible for broad dissemination.
And so I'll be walking through some of the things you can do with OSF by showing you.
Screenshots. This is not a workshop, but if any of what I discussed sparks your interest, please reach out to me and we can discuss it in more.
So let's say you're with your team, you're just getting started and you'll need to sign up.
And you'll need to sign up for an account on the OSF. There are 3 ways to create an account.
The QR code here will take you to the sign in page if you want to check it out.
Also wanna point out OSF is completely free and open for anyone to use. So an account can be set up with just an email address.
If you've got a researcher ID through orchid, which if you don't, I highly recommend that you acquire one.
And we can help you with that here at the libraries too. You can associate your account through your orchid ID.
And then, finally, if you're affiliated with the University of Maryland, we have those nice institutional benefits and you can link your account through your UMD signing credentials.
And I'll show in a bit this will allow you to auto affiliate your projects with UMD, make your research discoverable on our institutional landing page.
And actually, you can have your account linked through all 3 and, I would recommend, you know, associating both the orchid ID and.
The UMD log in for both. Also, as you can see, it's possible to collaborate with pretty much anyone, so researchers from other institutions, people from industry, even those in the general public.
So if you're involved like a citizen science capacity, you know, we can add people.
I don't necessarily have, you know, a orchid ID or an institutional affiliation. So you and the team are getting started with your research design and you'd like to register your work.
Osf registries provides the infrastructure for you to pre register your research. Registering a project helps to promote transparency and integrity in scientific research.
So it describes what your research planned to do. Preregistration is an important part of open science or open research it eliminates a variety of questionable research practices including low statistical power, selective reporting of results, and publication bias.
While still allowing complete flexibility to report unexpected findings. So even if the results of your study are never published, the registration remains as a record of the work or pre work that was done up until that point.
This is an example registry of a project. On campus and once submitted the registration can't be modified but this page can also link to the subsequent components of the project including resources you can see on the left.
And links to the project dashboard, which I'll show in a minute. Alright, so.
Once you get started, one of the big features of OSF is the project dashboard and it allows for workflow management through structured projects where you can manage files, data, code, protocols in one centralized location.
And you can easily build your own custom organization for your project so you don't have to worry about you know having to search through a long list of emails or scramble to recover, you know, lost data.
You also have controlled access where you can manage over the course of time which parts of a project are public or private.
So it makes it easy for you to collaborate with just your team and share with the community when you are ready.
So remember that pre registration we just looked at. This is the link to the associated project dashboard with the materials that they've chosen to make public.
Some features to note the affiliated institution, UMD, and in this case, I believe, just one of the researchers is a, faculty here on campus.
The others are at other institutions. I'm gonna guess that don't have institutional memberships, but.
So that is why UMD appears there. You've got the DOI. That you can associate, you can put DOIs on.
Projects once they've been made public. You can put in licensing information. There's the wiki that's available and it can be used to document your process, for example, to keep notes and project logs, keep track of who took what actions. It can also be used.
I've seen it used a lot to give a general info. About a project. And then, materials can be organized into project components and you can create and embed as many of these as you need.
This one includes the data component, and the associated publication, and preprints are linked here.
As Dr. Cohen was talking about and in this case they have a pre print on
So OSF is also, can be used as a dependable repository. Their preservation fund is sufficient for the next fifty-plus years.
At their present costs and I know that they're, you know, working to continue to maintain funding.
Sustainably. So OSF can also be used for data as well as other artifacts.
Metadata can be added to any of the files and projects for increased discoverability in places like Google Scholar and Crossref.
As well as within Osf's own search function. There are some limitations. There is a 50 GB public storage limit and a 5 GB private storage limit.
I don't want to get into details. There are a few workarounds within OSF and as I'll talk about in a minute.
You can also integrate other storage solutions. It's also not HIPAA compliant, but it is able to link to storage add add-ons that should be able to meet HIPAA requirements.
And that takes me into integrations. So let's say your team would like to increase your storage capacity or link to some of the other tools that you're using.
This is from the Center for Open Sciences or which runs OSS, page, with OSF's workflow and storage integrations.
You can manage your entire project from one place. So OSF connects to many of the tools you're already using and allows those tools to work together, which helps with collaboration.
And, if you need more or different storage options, there are a ton of storage add-ons, for example, like GitHub, Amazon, S 3, Box, Google Drive.
And so on. There's integrations for publishing like Fig Share and Orchid and Citation Management Integrations like those, and Mendeley.
And I have some of them pictured up here. This is not all of them that they currently have and they continue to work on.
Integrating and adding more. So some ways researchers are using OSF, like I.
Already sort of demonstrated. For project management and collaboration. It can also be used for teaching. So I've seen it used to give students hands on practice with open research as a place to publish class papers.
That would make them discoverable, and even course management with organized sections of class materials. Another uses to deposit and share grey data.
So grey data, that's the detailed stuff that's part of the research process often necessary for reproducibility but that doesn't necessarily make it into official publication.
So materials can consist of analytical code, detailed protocols, and other digital materials such as survey instruments or content included in the study procedures.
It can also be for data that's not associated with a peer reviewed scholarly publication. And this stuff can be really important as findings that remain unpublished represent a treasure trove of information.
Publication bias remains a problem and unreported findings represent real credible knowledge that we need to have available.
Many times studies are not published because of the lack of trends detected in the results, but having access to this information is important because future research can try different approaches.
To the problem. This kind of data can also help offset false positive findings. So have been published and also be useful for future analysis.
For example, and maybe initially statistical noise will keep, you know, the research team from detecting any trends, but perhaps looking at this data again, you know, years down the line, it will be possible to detect trends.
And, I do have the QR code here for our landing page. So I want to thank you for listening to me and just as a reminder, if you do have questions about any of this, please reach out and of course.
I'll be able to do questions later. As well. Thank you.
Thanks, Sarah. Let me go and share my screen here.
Okay, so today I'm gonna be talking to you about using Drum to store and share data, you know, perhaps to meet the requirements.
Stated in the OSTP memo or to maybe meet the requirements for funder or maybe even that of a journal publisher.
And then I'm also gonna be talking about 2 other options that are available to you and D researchers.
And these include dryad and qualitative data. Repository or QDR. Just as follow the libraries joined as members of both repositories.
So just starting off with Drum. To kind of give you some background information on the repository.
Drum was launched in 2,004, using D space. And it's mentioned is to collect, preserve, and provide access to the scholarly output of the university.
Of course, it's a great place to deposit journal articles, technical reports, conference presentation. And it also includes all of the thesis and dissertations from 2,004 to the present.
But in recent years, we've really had a number of requests. To deposit data sets and they've really increased over the past couple of years or so.
So in response. We did create a separate collection in 2021. So that users can also deposit their data in drum to satisfy funder data management requirements.
And to accomplish this, we did develop specific workflows and we added new. Metadata elements to accommodate the data sets.
Specifically, our researchers does not deposit their files directly into the data collection. But they do select the research works collection for their academic department which they're automatically authorized to deposit in.
And during the submission process, they select either dataset or software as the type. For the content and this is a required field in the submission process.
And then this mission is automatically mapped and included as part of the UND data collection.
So of course, Drum does provide several benefits for research that is deposited in the repository.
Of course, the, it's indexed by Google and Google Scholar, which is gonna make the research widely available.
We've also customized the drum record display so the number of downloads is reported for each individual file within a record for each individual file within a record.
We also assign a DOI to each record. This DOI of course allows, authors to link to a journal article or another publication.
And other researchers can easily cite the work using the DOI. So if you do plan to use drum to share and preserve your data, we do have several recommendations when you get ready to deposit your files.
And these are listed on the drum for data website. We do recommend including a Read Me file with the record.
Depending on your data set, the readb file might include a list of the files and their contents.
Instructions for processing the files how the data was created. Are basically any information that users would find valuable if they're interested in reusing your data.
We do provide guidelines. On the website for creating this readme file. If there is a journal article that accompanies your data, we recommend that the publication and the data be deposited in drums separately.
This is going to ensure that your data is going to be cited and discovered appropriately. And we do have the capability, to link the publication and the data within the drum record.
Also on the drum for data website, we have a boilerplate text that you could use for data management plan as part of a thunder requirement.
And even though in depositing an item in drum is pretty straightforward. We do have some specific instructions for depositing data on the website as well.
So here's what a typical data record in Drum looks like. I know that you may not be able to read some of the detail.
But I wanted to point out if you key items that are related to the data records. Right here is a list of files along with the number of downloads for each file.
This researcher has followed our recommendation included a read me file. For this particular data set, there's also a link to the corresponding publication.
And we include this in the related publication link field. The DOI for this record is included so the others can included in their for this record is included in their, publications and then of course other users can use to site the data.
And then finally, You can see that the record appears in the research works for the author's academic department.
In this case it's the physics research works collection and also the UND data collection. So there are some limitations to using Drum for data.
If you do decide to deposit your data in drum, we do have limits on file sizes.
Individual file sizes must be less than 2 GB and the total size for all of the files for one record must not exceed 15 GB.
In addition, we cannot accept confidential or sensitive materials such as personal identity information or PII.
If your data has been de-identified or the information has been redacted. Then you could, deposit the files in Trump.
So if you have large files. Or your data contains sensitive information. Then you'll probably have to look for an alternate repository, which is why the libraries has become a member of both dryad and QDR.
So dryad is a community owned resource and it would be a good option if you have large files and your data is intended for broad sharing and reuse.
Dryad does recommend that individual files do not exceed 10 GB. And they have a 300 GB limit for each data publication.
Which is of course substantially larger than the drum file size limits. It also isn't discipline specific, so it's, available to a wider audience.
As in drum, DRIs are also assigned to the data records in DRIED.
And usage and downloads are tracked for your data set. It also uses orchid as the primary login method, so you will have to create an orchid ID for accessing Dryad would not be a good option if your data is too sensitive for sharing widely.
A dryad does require you to agree to the Creative Commons 0 license. Which requires the content creators to give up their copyright and put up their works in that worldwide public domain.
The license allows users to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format.
With no conditions so if you were unable to agree to this license then dry it might not be the best solution for you if your data needs to be in embargoed for any reason or it requires any type of managed access.
Then dry, not, not, not be the best option. And if your data set is larger than 300 GB, then you might not need, then you might need to find a better solution.
So qualitative data repository or PDR is another option. That's offered by the UMD libraries.
It's been around since 2,014 and it is hosted at the at Syracuse University.
So similar to dryad, it's not discipline specific, but given the nature of the data. It mainly serves the social sciences and the health sciences.
As part of our membership, the QDR staff are available to consult with you about your data, at data in preparation for deposit.
They're gonna help you format and prepare your data using best practices. So that can be shared legally.
And ethically. They'll also review your data management plan so that you meet your funder requirements.
So as part of curating and storing your data project, QDR will review your data. Determine if there's anything that might result in a disclosure risk.
They will assist with any renaming or reforming of your files. They'll assist in creating comprehensive documentation.
And then translating that documentation into standardized metadata formats. If your data needs to be restricted from public access, they will assist in creating the access controls.
As in the other systems, they're gonna assign DOIs to all the data, ensure their discoverability through OSF share, the data for catalog and data site search.
And then they will also track and document the reuse of your data. And also reassure the long term preservation of it.
So as you can see, QDR is very hands on. And they will work directly with you to ensure that your data is stored and accessible according to best practices.
So to kind of summarize the 3 options that I've discussed today. Drama is gonna be best for smaller files Dryad is ideal for ideal for larger files.
And data that is intended. And ready for broad sharing and reuse. I think QDR is best for qualitative data that requires some initial planning and support to make it available.
For we use. So that's just a quick overview of the options. Available to UMD researchers for storing data.
If you do need any assistance with your data and the future, you can contact research data services at this email.
They can assist you in determining the best home for your data. And then also keep an eye out for future workshops that will be offering, using dryad and QDR.
Thank you, Terry. And thank you, Sarah and Philip for all of your information that you shared.
This is our first Q&A session. I don't see any sessions, questions submitted, publicly yet, but I, I had a few myself as I was listening to some of your remarks.
Most of them are gleaned from some concern shared by other faculty at UMD as I go around and have my conversations with people.
For example, both Terry and Philip you mentioned downloads and that is something to I would think be proud of.
I've done research myself and it would be great when you do research and Sarah you brought up how you know sharing even the whole whole process of research can be more equitable and garner more attention to your research.
But then, what happens though when, you think, well, I, I maybe am going to get pushed back from publishers later.
When they don't like it that you have shared some of this information pre publication. Oh, what would any comments you would have to those concerns?
I could say something about that. It's a good question. It is something people are concerned about.
You know, journals, journals are the, are the main, are the main, actor that you would be concerned about and and people are afraid if they're supposed to preprint then maybe either their paper will not be considered by a journal because the journal wants to have exclusive right to distribute it or, that somehow the journal will sort of want them to make them take it
down. Or something like that. It is both those things are technically possible and it just for It's important to recognize that if the journal does that, they're not acting in the public interest.
So that's something to consider, like maybe find a different journal. But, but you know, people have, they, people, you know, you want to have your career and you want to, maybe, maybe, you have to publish in, in your, in your discipline if you want to, you know, have a job.
So I, I definitely understand the concern. Basically, journals are not very worried about this by and large.
In sociology, I'm none of the major journals have this. Most, most journals do not anymore.
They're happy to have people reading the papers in advance, partly because also because of their self-interest, partly because also because of their self-interest, if the pay if the paper ends up getting sighted sooner.
If the paper, if the paper ends up getting cited sooner, that is the impact factor is that getting cited sooner, that is the impact factor is determined by citations in the first, couple of years.
So they would actually love people to read the paper 6 months before it's published so they can cite it one year after it's published so that it can get counted in the impact factor.
They want citations. So the smart journals have realized that this doesn't really hurt them.
It doesn't really cut into their revenue stream to have preference, going around. But, you do want to check the policies of the journals, the, of your target journals.
And if they are, if they do have a restricted policy, which some still do in some disciplines, especially then you have to decide, whether or not you're going to share whether or not you're
Thank you.
Yeah, the only thing I'll add to that is and I agree with everything that's, said that you should check with the journal and see what their policies are.
Specifically and, Drum, we can handle. You know either removing the file from public view the record but still remain there and then we can also link to the journal article as well from the journal record.
So, you know, we do have the capability to do that, but I haven't really ever encountered.
So, you know, we do have the capability to do that, but I haven't really ever encountered that.
In the entire time that you know I've been managing drum but yeah so I don't think it's a it's it's that Big of an issue with the publishers.
But we do have that capability.
And you do one, if somebody comes to the preprint after the paper has been published in a journal, you definitely want to make sure that prefrontal landing pages got the link to the journal version and and readers want that.
They don't want to site the pre print if there's a subsequent version published. So any, any decent server, including drum and so Scharker is going to do that to provide and which is essentially advertising for the journal.
So they should like it.
Okay, thank you. Well, I was going to ask a question about those identifiers because all 3 of you mentioned the need for identifiers and what it's what it can do to help improve the profile of the researcher.
But I've also heard concerns that if you get a unique identifier in one submission and then you have another one here that the ability to add it to the same record doesn't really in their minds easier concerns because how is it being I don't know, aggregated or will they have to do it themselves?
And of course, this all released to tenure promotion review, things like that. Could you address that concern?
Yeah, I can maybe. Try to answer that. Yeah, that is something that we kind of struggle with, with all the different systems and you've got the journal website and then you've got, let's say a repository such as drum and trying to aggregate that because we don't have the capability to bring all that together for the researcher.
I mean, it's something that we are kind of looking at and seeing what kind of options are available.
But, Yeah, it is a very difficult. Thing to kind of deal with but a lot of times you know, one thing that with the journal article is that, you know, maybe that would be behind a paywall.
So, you know, that's another consideration that,
You know, you'd have to think about, but if something was in, say like Social Archive and was also in drum.
You know that's something we could also facilitate you know the linking of the 2 as well.
But yeah, as far as compiling all of the downloads and the statistics for each system. There isn't really a good option out there.
I'm Google Scholar will, algorithmically combine things if it's see if it decides there 2 versions of the same paper it will combine their citations.
That's usually right. It doesn't always put that your favorite one on top. What in your own Google Scholar profile you can combine, you can combine different records that they have and tell Google scholar to treat them as one and it will merge their citations.
Downloads are a little bit different. But it is, you know, it is, it is a tricky thing.
The important thing is I think, that they're stable and preserved. So at least, I mean, the important thing is, I think, that they're stable and preserved.
So at least, I mean, the main thing is you want people to actually read the research and, you know, the, it will, it will come back to your benefit sooner or later if people are actually accessing and reading the research and the citations can get a little messy but it works out.
That is a good thing that you just mentioned about Google Scholar. I wasn't aware that it, that you were able to do that.
Oh, I'll say I should mention, Clara Fates web of science product has preprints now.
There, there are, there ingesting preprints and so there will also be preprint citation index that they have it already but it's growing they're working on ingesting I know Soshark having the other ones on OSF and so there will be citation counting of preprints as part of that whole process.
And I assume they'll have a way of murdering preprint and journal versions. I'm not sure how they're gonna do it.
What I think is fascinating, if people who are in attendance have not done this yet, maybe this is old news, but a little while ago, maybe a year or 2 ago when I looked at my Google Scholar profile.
And realized that it was trying to rate me on how open my scholarship was based on whether something was federally funded.
I think some I would bet that some researchers know about that, but others may not. So could you say anything about that?
What what do you think about that feature and should we all be rushing to look for it and if so people can deposit things into repositories post publication too at times and maybe some advice about that.
I don't do you know how that works, Terry. I think I've looked at that Google.
And it ranks the number of things that are, it ranks the number of things that are, oh, it seems to be very low and missing most things that are, oh, it seems to be very low and missing most things.
So maybe there's maybe they're still developing it. I'm not sure. Like especially if you, if you publish something like it's so shark I've been I know a drum also you can do you can post post prints so the paper is published and it's behind a pay wall and you want there to be a free version out there, you can post.
The whatever version you have the right to share after signing your author agreement or under our equitable access policy at Maryland.
The author accepted manuscript version. So you can post a pre print after it's published and then some people will call it a postprint.
But It's a good idea too. I put all my old papers up eventually. I just decided we have to put them all up.
And and and people read that. It's great.
Yeah, it seems to me that, often times we just assume we can't do it.
But so often you can look back and things can be just freely shared after a certain time period.
Well, and Sarah, I'm wondering with OSF, if you're, if your presentation has inspired people to begin using it.
They may need to know something more in depth, obviously. And I know that, Philip, you were part of some training that we gave.
Sarah, could you talk a little bit about, whether we will be off any new training soon?
Yes, that's a great question. We've been talking about it. There's nothing official.
Like I said, I'm Maybe the libraries expert on OSF, but I am by no means, you know, a fully experts.
So what I've been doing, I'm open for consultations and a lot of times, not all the time, but a lot of times with that, all the time, but a lot of times with that I'll involve this.
I'll get directly in contact with support so we can kind of what that'll involve this I'll get directly in contact with support so we can kind of brainstorm or I'll get directly in contact with support so we can kind of brainstorm or figure things out.
So for now, so yes, keep your eyes out for that. We can kind of brainstorm or figure things out. So, yes, keep your eyes out for that.
Hopefully we can get some worksh I encourage you to reach out. In contact me I'm available to consult.
And get help people get started or troubleshoot. There's all sorts of things, you know, sometimes, You know, I've done consultations where we're just trying to figure out what the best way to organize the project information in the first place would be.
So it's a powerful tool. But, and I think it's pretty user friendly, but still like with anything there's a little bit of a, you know, learning curve and guidance can be helped.
Philip, regarding OSF, I know you're, one of the virtual users of it.
And have you been able to use it to improve your research design? I'm just curious.
Well, what I have used it for, is when I, When I want to share like I do a lot of, you know, I have a blog and I'm always doing like little analysis or what and I wanted I just want to be transparent and say like here's my data in code so I have a lot of little OSF projects that I have put up that are just sort of like, oh.
here's a little thing I posted a graphic posted and just put the data in code there. During the pandemic, I had a pretty, a much more elaborate sort of ongoing project of reporting brakes and fatalities and stuff in geography.
And I was making maps and graphs and everybody was doing stuff like this. And I did use, I took advantage of their integrations for that.
So at the time I was using Dropbox, I switched to Google Drive now, but I just created folders that were automatically mirrored in an open OSF project.
And that allowed people who were following a link from one of my tweets or someone else sharing it could get right into a folder with the, especially like, how do I make this kind of graph?
That kind of thing. So, and the nice thing about that has been, I have some collaborations that came out of people sort of poking through my old my old state of code or data files and we get to talking and you know next thing you know you're working together.
With somebody so it's also just really good for just for communicating that sort of, you know.
It's hard to overstate how important transparency is just for your credibility. Just so you're not hiding anything, most people don't want to go look at all your work product, but the fact that they can just means something about who you are as a researcher.
I think that's really important. And that, and, but you don't want to devote your whole life to the nuts and bolts of it.
That's why something as easy as clicking on a folder and saying like, let me share this folder.
I have like a public folder and some of my projects and I just drop stuff. In there when I'm ready to share it, I have it all set up and it's it doesn't it doesn't add a lot of time to to my work.
Well, I have another question occurs to me. Everybody talked about data. Sharing data and of course the OSTP memo mentions data in it.
And the ability to share data related to publications. And the memo is clearer to say this doesn't mean any sensitive or confidential information.
But what other, is social archive, Drum, OSF, does it accept media files, any other associated files?
Yes. Okay, but video can get pretty. Big. Are there limitations there or 2 or are they the same as other data?
And drum, it's the same, as other data. So we do have a 2 GB.
File size limit for any you know audio video or any type of AB material as well.
I wonder, and Sara, do you know if it's the same in OSF?
Well, yeah, so OSS. OSF kind of is one of the big like nice kinda I don't wanna call it this but like a dumping grounds like a good place to like centralize have kind of links to.
Like you were saying videos or even you know examples of like questionnaires you used in a study or you know whatever code.
So they do have the limits of like I said for any public projects so things that are available to 50 GB and if it's private so if you haven't made it public it's 5.
There are workarounds though you can embed projects within each other to, you know, get around kind of the 50 GB limit.
And then of course, like I said, you can. You can link to other storage options. So sometimes just kinda having that link to like your Google Drive or your box folder.
This kind of a, you know, a way around that.
Okay, thank you. Any, I think we Yeah. Oh, thank you.
There's a question in the chat. Adrian. From Joshua, I think my impression so With preprints, I know the question is, will it be particular repositories?
I think what they're going to end up doing is disseminating standards and making criteria so that different providers can get their services up to code to meet the requirements.
I think that's how it will be. But I'm not sure maybe, Sarah Terry, you might have some ideas about how they, how the government may end up standardizing the.
Or requiring that we use a particular repository.
I don't have insight and I actually the the, you know, the talks and things they attend on this are all kind of everyone's keeping their eye to how.
You know, different agencies are coming out with this and how it's going to look. But I think You know, I think the hope is that it's not gonna be too restrictive or kinda.
Work against kind of the intent. For example, making it so that these open repositories require you to pay.
You know, so I get it's complicated, but no, I don't know.
Don't know any other inside info.
We do need, you know, sustainability is an issue and so we do need if things are going to be meeting funder requirements, then you know that's good and that's a justification for paying for them.
So I wouldn't be surprised if there's some shakeout in the services over the next few years as the.
As the requirements from the funders trickle down, But I think it'll be a case of like, you know, a set of criteria that gets disseminated.
I hope.
And then I think that Josh is question, would be really good to ask Dr. Albert when he joins us too.
So I'll try it Josh if you're out there listening, I'll try to remember to come back to your question.
But then Philip, there's one for you also from Cassie. Who said why choose google drive dropbox over kit hub
Yeah, good question. No real reason. Just if it's easier with my workflow and I would just wasn't a GitHub person.
One, if you're, if I'm just sharing code, I will often just use OSF.
And, put the code there. One of the nice things that like, that is content OSF has in common with GitHub is people can fork your project.
So somebody can take your project. As it is at one moment and then make it theirs and take it off in a different direction and that's something that I associate that with GitHub, but OSF does it really nicely also.
So, but no, I don't have, I don't have a strong reason for that and definitely nothing against GitHub.
I wonder, does anyone else on the panel have anything against GitHub? I think that makes sense.
It's just what's easiest what you're used to perhaps.
Okay, now, because Dr. Halbert has not joined us yet, he did say you might be running a little late.
I have one last question. If you are a faculty member who wants to share your work pre print or your author approved manuscript or whatever and the publishers agreement is not to your liking.
Of course, we know that we can negotiate that. Some of us know that. But just in case, would any of you like to make some remarks about that?
What are some options for a UMD researcher if that happens?
Yeah, there's, there's actually, you know, quite a few options, but of course one of the first options is that, you can submit an author addendum to that agreement.
You know I think the first thing you need to realize is that you're entering into a negotiation with this publisher.
And if you don't ask, then you'll never know. And you know, the worst thing that could happen is they could say no, but of course it always is worth it to at least ask them.
Specifically, you know, for to retain some of the rights, you know, maybe you want to use it in your classroom.
Or you want to deposit in a repository. So you can. You know, make some.
Edits to that original agreement and we actually, open scholarship services in this libraries, can actually help you with that and, We actually have an author add that you can use to, tack on to your publisher agreement to make those revisions.
Thank you.
Sometimes the editor, you're the managing editor, the editor you're talking to at the journal might not.
No exactly how to do that. So, you know, especially if the editor is the academic editor and they're just to them the publishers just the faceless bureaucracy.
You sometimes have to ask, but like Terry says you can ask and cut you know everybody's so excited to finally have something published they don't want to do anything to mess it up but they're not going to decide not to publish your article just because you ask about, about amending your agreement.
So it's definitely and you know, you're giving them something for free. You're giving them the only thing they have to sell, which is your paper.
So, you have, you have, there's a moment when right before you hand them the agreement when they actually really need you, you know, as much as you need them.
So, Phillip, I'm gonna ask you one more question and just to see if you have any thoughts about it.
But I did hear from a couple of faculty members who said, well, the more I make things open, the more my content will be used in AI.
Without my permission and in ways that I can't control and I may not like. But of course, One could argue the publishers are doing that as well, they're building their own tools for sale for commercial sale.
So, but have you been thinking about that as a founder of Sochi?
Yes, so definitely the publishers are developing products where they're going to essentially they're going to use AI and look at their corpus and then predict like tomorrow's discoveries today.
Like they're already doing that. Elsevier will sell you next year's research already.
That based on just predictive, you know, predictive text. Yes, so the search market papers, you can use the API to download.
So, Sharkcar papers and, and port them into your AI machine if you want to train it.
I actually think that's fine. I think the question is, you know, if, if people, if people do bad things with it, then that's the problem.
But, but, restricting access to it is generally not the right way to, to, to go about, you know, that to like control that bad behavior.
No, and the truth is, you know, in an, in a better world, we would want that.
I mean, we want machine readability and we want things to be aggregated and analyzed and we want to learn from the body of knowledge in ways that are unanticipated.
Those are all things that we really want. And so there are, you know, there's regulation and legislative issues with what the AI companies are doing, but in principle, I don't want to restrict access to.
My work, so that it can't be, used to train, to train the machines.
I think, you know, in principle, I think that's good. I may not be. You know, the same as everybody on that.
Lindsey is raising her hand.
Lindsey.
Hi, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to cut, Dr. Cohen off.
Hmm. Thank you. Go ahead.
I was just going to say while we have a few minutes, I was going to share the information that I shared in the chat about upcoming.
Training sessions just in case folks aren't familiar. We have a workshop series that we offer through the libraries.
That, deals with topics just like this. We have some that are focused broadly on data services and developing data management plans and then others that go into specific tools.
So we actually just recently the semester had one on Scopus. We had one on, QDR and Dryad.
So the links that I've included here also will take you to the slides that presenters have shared with us.
So if there's nothing currently scheduled for a topic that you're interested in, you can consult the slides.
And you can email us to let us know if you want additional sessions or if we can give you the contact information for a facilitator so you could follow up with them.
One on one as well.
Thank you. Thank you, Lindsey. Well, I see that, Dr. Hallbert has not joined us yet and it's for almost 4 10.
Now, what I could do is go to some slides that I have and I'm not an expert in this area, but for those pent attendees.
Who may want a little refresher at least for what are we talking about when we say OSTP memo?
It came out in 2,022 so it's gotten a lot of press and people have been working on agencies have been working on their plans, but I could give a little bit of just background information so that when if Martin joins us he can then jump into some updates at least.
And then of course I really welcome any of the speakers so far. If you have something to chime in and add, please do so.
But I'm going to share my screen. And again, this is just more basic information. See you.
Oh, well, you know, and of course here is a memo itself and it's called the Nelson memo because here a doctor.
Alondra Nelson. Issued them the memo from OSTP and it is a guidance to all of the research, federally funding research agencies to use to develop plans for public access to research.
And so the guidance as I list here will result in making taxpayer-funded research publications available without any embargoes.
Guidelines allowed in bargos, for example. The idea is that the research is more useful and valuable.
Will improve integrity. Well, increase public trust in research. Promotes equity. By, allowing, researchers who can't afford the high subscription, payroll walls to be able to access more research.
It extends the scope and reach of the current, the old policies that were existing at the time. The guidelines do allow ample time for policy updates and I will show you a little bit of a timeline so you can see that that's true.
And then the argument is made that this builds on 15 years of study progress to make research publicly available.
And finally, it does align with UNESCO recommendations on open science. It brings the US into equal footing with other other governments across the world who have established these strong open access policies.
Here is a just a brief chart that was developed by the Association of Research Libraries. I like it because it gives a really good just comparison quickly in regard to the previous memo, which is referred to as the holder memo.
As compared to the Nelson. On your right of the side. And as you can see, quickly embargoes.
No, no longer wishing to have any embargoes or delays after publication. Agencies, that changed.
Previously at any agencies with R&D budgets over 100 million but as you can see now they're saying all agencies with R&D budgets.
Publications that said yes your peer reviewed manuscripts you have to share and then it expanded somewhat in the Nelson Momo as you can see, book chapters, editorials, etc, etc.
Data. Data is also part of this new guidance and it was pretty much saying you need to share data associated with peer reviewed publications at the time of publication.
And then format, let's just say here that it mostly is saying it must be accessible and machine-readable.
I had some slides here just going a little bit more into the memos. I wanna pause for a minute.
And just check in with, my colleagues. I really can't see while I'm sharing my slides whether One of you would let me know then, I guess.
Yes, yeah, I'll let you know.
Martin joins. Okay, thank you. Unfortunately, it looks like he may not be able to join us after all, but, again, hopefully this little refresher is at least helpful.
So this is just more detail about what the chart showed. And later we can share these slides with all of the registrants in case that would be helpful.
Of data. Again, changes here where we need to share the underlying data for peer. Reviewed publications.
Now here is a timeline that I thought was a nice just roadmap and graphic form. So here's when the guideline was a guidance was issued.
And then now plans. And that that's interesting because at first people were in a little bit of a panic mode I felt because they were thinking put plans would be implemented quickly.
And that wasn't the case. The guidance did allow for a period of planning. So Agent larger agencies had to develop plans.
Earlier. So February, 2023 and they many of the agencies released their plans for public comment. And that's where some of you who are attendees, you would know that in your disciplines, certain agencies that you would, you know, get your proposals in and get grant awards.
They were hopefully sending out quite a bit of notification to you that they wanted your your comments. So then after that, the plans were due, the larger agencies were due August, 2023.
Then those agencies policies were published. Smaller agencies, there are plans we do around here, so they gave them a little bit more time.
Then the plans would not be effective until December, 2025. So you notice that I think some people once say it really started sinking in that it wasn't happening right away that the panic started to die down a little bit.
And then agency policy updates would be published in 2,026 and then those. Updates would be effective in December, 2027.
So actually there, you know, was quite a bit of time. I mean, relatively. To some that still a lot to implement.
But how our federal agencies responding so far? Well, and these slides I developed, with some of my other colleagues in UMD PACK, we developed these slides quite a few months ago now, but at least it gives you a little bit of a taste for what was happening at the time.
There was a wide range of reactions from really great celebrations and support and that was coming from so of the agencies as well like NSF and NIH.
A lot of support. All the way to concern and I would say you know for example I was aware of concern from an so humanities.
Suddenly asking, well, how does this apply to us? And we haven't had to do this before necessarily.
So there were expressions of concern from those types of disciples. But most of the large science and medical health related agencies really had done a lot of work in this area.
Many years ago and say they were in a better position to really celebrate the change and want to change. So large agencies at the at the time that these slides were developed, they were beginning to post their plans.
And then I gave a little example in the slide of one of them, NIH, seeking public input.
Or article processing charges, APCs would need to be funded. I've found that whenever the memo is discussed and researchers are around the table, I found that automatically people go to APCs.
And they worry about how those will be funded. And at what levels. Other discussions I've been in people said well it should be covered APCs.
But through the grants, but maybe there should be caps on the amounts funded. Of course, then another side of that argument, people have come back and said, the minute you put a cap on it though, then even lower APCs will rise to the cap.
So there was resistance to even addressing caps on APCs. And of course, many of us in the open access open science movement are thinking there must be there are good alternatives to expensive APCs and we should focus on those and many of the plans are that I've seen.
Focusing on other alternatives. Then. Funding APCs at high levels. A lot of concern about data curation.
And public sharing of data. What I've been hearing about is this third bullet agencies are exploring whether they will implement their own publication and data repositories.
Similar to Pubmed, NIH and Pubmed. But of course the question becomes how will those be funded?
But then when the grants run out. They start to charge. To use them because there's in their minds, you know, how are they going to sustain the repository?
And so the criticisms of the memo and some of the guidance that's coming out and the plans.
Are saying you're not addressing how those earlier or existing repositories will be sustained and whether those can help us that infrastructure help us meet the plans as they are developed.
So, my colleagues and I in UMD Pact, then we talked about what does this mean for UMD researchers.
And we thought our new campuses equitable access policy. Which if you're not familiar with that yet, it was a Senate approved and which was unsigned by President Pines.
It's a policy that allows the university to have from faculty a blanket. A non-exclusive license to share your work in the institutional repository.
And possibly other repositories. In other words, because that policy passed faculty members now can publish wherever they want.
Make any agreements they want but knowing that there was already a license issued to share their work. Institutional level and then at the, if you did put it in our institutional repository drum, then it would be available to the world.
And that you wouldn't have to worry about later restrictions. On that work because that was all a prior licensing that was made.
So it's a lot of more detail I could go into, but, we don't have time for that right now, but if you have any questions about that.
We do have a site equitable access. That has a lot of information about the new policy. So let me stop there.
There were other bullets, but I want to stop to allow any of our speakers. To add in anything they'd like to share.
It's in, you know, the sustainability, the question of who's gonna pay for this in the long run is still to be resolved.
I mean, the thing about the equitable access policy of Maryland, which is so great, is there's no reason to pay if you're if you're publishing in a journal where paying to open your article is optional there's no reason to pay that anymore because you can put the paper in drum or some other repository.
On the other hand, if you know, if this has become the revenue model for journals and it's the only way we can pay for the stuff that journals do actually provide, which is basically peer review and editing.
And, you know, and whatever the dissemination they do, you know, if everybody goes around it, then it's, you know, it becomes a sustainability problem.
So we have to figure out, you know, the, it's all in, it's very much in flux right now and I think we're going to need the great thing about the federal policy I think is that it can serve as an impetus for some.
Federal funding of the infrastructure in an ongoing way. And that's that's what we're eventually going to need is we can't keep relying on, these companies who, you know, who are, you know, they're not, they're not ultimately going to be our solution.
So we have to, we have to find ways around them and it takes some investment across money. To do the parts that we actually do want to do.
Anyway, just a thought. That's a great presentation to, and I like that you are. Ready for that.
Yeah. Oh, well, I wish so some of the latest advice, that's what we would have got from Martin.
But I think in the future what we would do at the libraries to help everyone out is as we're learning more, we're going to be sharing summaries of agency responses.
I'm looking at my colleagues just saying yes because we we will want to know too and keep track of what's happening.
But there are many, many agencies, so we might just focus on the bigger or more. More, granting ones for you on D researchers.
I guess I would say. Alright, well, we could end a little early and I'm really I apologize for our last speaker not joining but I really do think Philip Terry, Sarah.
Your remarks and your presentations very helpful and I appreciate your participation today.