We are Open Education and
Scholarly Communication Librarian
at the University Libraries.
Some others have assembled a panel of
colleagues to talk with you today
about connecting to the Opens.
[NOISE] This is actually Open Education Week.
We have a slate
of different events that are happening this week.
[NOISE] This is the first one.
Welcome, if you are a part of this class.
Welcome, if you are not part of this class.
How is this going to work tonight?
We have three people that are giving about
10-minute overviews [NOISE] of
significant topics in the areas of Open.
Then we're going to introduce
the rest of the panels and open up the conversation.
They bring a lot of varying
and deep experience in these topics.
I encourage you to ask questions and to engage with them.
On your way out, please pick
a copy of Opening Knowledge book tools.
This is produced by the University Libraries.
It gives you an overview of some of
the different tools that you can
use to open up your research,
open up your scholarship,
as well as your teaching.
I think we are short a number of these,
so we'll make sure that you can get these later
if we were not [inaudible] because we want to make
sure get one of these.
Briefly, my colleagues here are Peter Potter,
who is the Director of
Publishing at the University Libraries.
[NOISE] Followed by Steve Ellingson,
Dr. Ellingson is Associate Professor
in electrical and computer engineering.
Followed by Dr. Tyechia Thompson,
who is a post-doc in the Center for Humanities.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] Dr. Freddy Paige
is Assistant Professor in civil engineering.
Followed by Dr. DePauw, who you know.
[OVERLAPPING] Who is
the [inaudible] Dean for graduate education.
Then my colleague, Philip Young,
who is the Institutional Repository Manager
of University Libraries.
You're in for a real treat tonight.
[NOISE] Some of the things that we were talking
about are open access.
Raise your hand if you've heard of them; open access.
Open source, hands.
Open data, yeah.
Open research. Open science.
Open education. Okay, great.
Along those developments,
we're going to cover some of them.
We think this will be helpful for
your future careers as faculty,
and we look forward to talking with you.
Peter is up first.
[BACKGROUND]
Hi, everyone. Can you hear me?
[BACKGROUND] [NOISE] I'm going to talk with you
very briefly, I hope,
about scholarly publishing as a business.
Because I think that's something that as grad students,
you're just entering this world
and I want to give you a sense
of what you're entering into
from a business and money standard.
Just beware, I'm going to
throw a lot of facts and numbers out there.
These slides will be available if you're interested.
The main thing though is I want to give you a sense
of the overall system that
we're dealing with [NOISE]
and problems that we're facing,
because they're numerous and very large.
Just to begin with,
brief definition of scholarly publishing,
which is fairly straightforward
communicating the results of
research from this range of academic fields,
and it's part of
the broader system of
scholarly communication you'll hear off.
Those two terms, scholarly publishing
and scholarly communication,
they're often used interchangeably.
Scholarly communication is more vague,
I think, and it tends to refer to something broader.
To give you just a sense of
the sheer numbers that are involved,
it's estimated that there
are nearly 10 million active researchers worldwide.
You can see the global R&D spending,
according to UNESCO, is about 1.27 trillion per year.
That's a lot of money that's potentially in the system.
We're dealing with 5,000
plus publishers around the world,
30,00 journals, hard to believe.
That's the ones that we actually contract,
there are probably more.
This number for academic libraries,
this is just from the US side.
I've not been able to find any numbers for worldwide,
but gives you a sense of breath here.
This number is pretty well agreed upon because we're
seeing around three million articles published per year.
It's increasing on a fairly predictable path.
What I'll like to point out is that
scholarly publishing is business,
[NOISE] it's an expensive and profitable business.
[NOISE] To start with,
it's the worldwide revenues
for scholarly publishing estimated
to be around 26 billion,
and academic libraries alone spend eight
billion [NOISE] on that.
I'll show you what we pay here at Virginia Tech shortly.
This gives you a little bit [NOISE] of
sense how that breaks down.
The medical there, this part.
Then under scientific and technical,
that actually includes humanities
and social sciences according to the definitions.
When you break that number down,
journals is where the most money goes.
Books are a small part of the overall picture.
It's not where a lot of
the corporate consolidation has happened,
but 10 billion or 40 percent for journals.
To give you some comparisons,
I think these numbers are really fascinating.
Every year, the money that the movie industry
makes has been pretty steady
around $10-11 billion a year.
Not even close to what scholarly publishing generates.
It's closer to what Facebook generates in a quarter.
[NOISE] This is the last quarter,
and not as much is happening.
Here's where you get to the part [NOISE]
of why we're facing a problem here,
and it's that like in a lot of things
we know and we see in the world today,
it's concentration of wealth
and resources in a few corporations,
and what we have is probably publishing as an oligarchy.
It actually comes down to
those five top publishers which
control over 50 percent of the market.
They're determining everything that happens
within this realm, for the most part.
Elsevier being the largest.
Is everybody familiar with Elsevier and Springer?
[BACKGROUND] Here's why it's so galling to many people.
As academics, you are going to be producing research
that you're going to
most likely have to pay to get published,
and then get nothing from it,
no income from it.
But Elsevier is going to make
millions off of it [NOISE] and millions for shareholders.
To give you a sense, this blew me away,
I just saw this yesterday.
Elsevier is owned by a company called RELX, R-E-L-X.
Market capitalization is about $50 billion.
[NOISE] They're almost six times the size
of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. That's stunning.
That was in Bloomberg
and I would like to find the source of that,
but that gives you a sense of the kind of
size we're dealing with.
Inside the libraries, we've
seen the money going to serials,
it's increased over the last 30 years by 500 percent.
Some of you may have heard about
the University of California last spring,
about a year ago, the University of California,
which was in what's called a big deal package.
A big deal is the library purchased a bundle
of journals like a cable system
where you buy a bundled package.
This is for journals.
We were paying 10 million to
11 million per year for this big deal package,
and they said no more.
They proposed
an alternative solution, they were turned down.
For a year, the UC system has gone without
any Elsevier journal issues, any new ones.
Cool. Primarily publishers in Elsevier.
Because I don't think everybody in the class,
most of them know Elsevier, but what disciplines?
All the STEM fields.
So in technology?
[OVERLAPPING] Engineering and medicine.
They have a smaller presence
inside humanities and social sciences.
Part because it doesn't make as much money.
Here's some statistics for our library.
You can see 48 percent of our total budget goes
to pay for journals from these three publishers;
Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley.
If you extrapolate out by 2024,
that would be 100 percent of
our budget [NOISE] allowing for obviously
across the inflation increases.
[NOISE] Again,
the thing that is so galling
about it is that we buy these big packages.
Elsevier publishes about 25,000 journals alone,
and we buy a package that
only about 40 percent get serious attention.
We're paying for a lot of journals
that most likely people really aren't reading.
As part of the problem is that Elsevier has
been in these companies have been just adding journals,
more journals, more journals regardless of need.
So it's not demand-driven,
it is really they're trying
to continue their business model.
[NOISE] Like the University of California,
the State of Virginia,
the seven research universities in the state
have a big deal contract with Elsevier,
and that extends through next year and
we are facing a decision at the end of next year;
what are we going to do?
[NOISE] You can see I have
there we exactly paid about 1.9 million just to Elsevier.
[NOISE] The universities are
all getting together and we're talking
about what our response is going to be.
We would like to see something happening with
the University of California
because that may be a model for us.
Very quickly, I'll just say,
is OA the answer to this problem?
There's a lot to be said for that.
It definitely gives greater exposure
to your work worldwide.
You pay once for it,
and it's free for everyone, no paywall.
Great idea that no one can disagree with.
Some up to the money that's spent in the system right now
is spent by Elsevier,
Springer, these companies with
the technology associated with
maintaining access control.
If they didn't have to do that,
there would be a lot of savings there.
Again, no longer paying for seldom read journals.
If we were in an OA system,
we'd be paying individually
upfront for articles to be published.
We wouldn't be paying at
the end for journals that no one is reading.
A lot of the money that goes
into the system is government funding.
[NOISE] The issues are,
can we actually what's called flip the system?
That is, can we switch from
a toll-access to a free access system.
A lot of people think that it has to
happen quickly and a
shock to the system for it to happen.
But on the other side of it,
we still are always going to have Elsevier,
at least for the foreseeable future.
Elsevier and Springer, they're going to
be around and they are
now among the fastest growing away publishers.
They're basically co-opting away from themselves.
There's questions about, who pays
for our processing charges,
and is it equitable for everyone around the world?
[NOISE]
I'll end with this.
[NOISE] There are some initiatives
that suggest that we are heading in that direction.
If you haven't heard about Plan S,
this is a European initiative for journals [NOISE] to
go open access by 2021, starting in 2021.
The US, it's unclear what our placemat is going to be,
but Plan S is specifically for
European publications and European funded publications.
There are increasingly more universities
opting out of these big deals,
so that's a good sign.
The last point I would make is that I think there's
an inevitability with open access and we're
seeing it right now with the coronavirus.
That part of the reason why we're able
to attack the problem is open access to the literature.
I've been reading that if you go to bioRxiv or medRxiv,
they have set a tab for submission
of articles on the coronavirus.
The JAMA has received
approximately 200 coronavirus
manuscripts since mid-January,
and the ones they're publishing even though
it's a total access site,
many cases are making those open access on their site.
The pressure and the momentum
is going towards open access,
we just have a lot of issues
to solve before that will happen.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
[BACKGROUND]
Thank you Peter. I'm Philip Young.
I am Manager Repository here at Virginia Tech.
It's an open access repository
that posts articles, presentations,
posters, theses,
and dissertations going to VTechWorks
and get downloaded from all over the world.
I want to define open access and talk
about the ways that you can
make scholarly work open access.
[NOISE] The canonical definition by Peter Sub,
one of the open access experts,
is that it's digital, online,
free of charge, and free of
most copyright and licensing restrictions.
In common parlance, we tend to focus on the first part.
You can get through it, [NOISE] you could do
the sign in like that,
but we often forget about the second part,
which is free of most
copyright and licensing restrictions.
Most open access journals, for example,
will publish articles under Creative Commons license.
Those articles are still copyrighted
but permissions are given in advance to share.
You can take that article, post it on another site.
You can reuse it for other things.
You can reuse the figures with attribution, of course,
but I just wanted to
point out that we commonly forget about
the second part with
open licensing for open access works.
Why are we concerned about this?
The fact is that most people lack access, of course.
Our colleagues at other universities,
it's very difficult, if not impossible,
to tell which universities
have which subscriptions to which terms.
You may have a colleague in
your field at another university,
particularly small universities,
they don't have access to that chart.
This is a much bigger problem when we start looking
at the international scene,
particularly low and middle-income countries
do not have the funds.
Peter just got through telling us about the billions and
billions that are involved in this industry.
They don't have the money to subscribe,
to the Elseviers, Wileys,
and the Springer Natures of the world.
Frequently, researchers
in low and middle income countries
are at a big disadvantage because they don't have
access to do their own research.
As Peter mentioned, much research is funded by
taxpayers here in the Unites States
through federal agencies like NIH,
NSF, all the others.
You can make a case that everyone at Virginia Tech
is in part funded by taxpayers,
because we are in part funded by taxpayers in Virginia.
There's a strong case
there that this should be public knowledge.
Also, if your work has anything to do
with policy, influence policy,
we need to remember that government policymakers,
non-governmental organizations typically do not
have access to peer reviewed research.
To make an impact,
you really need to have access to your work.
Then, of course, all of you are going to be
alumni at some point when you graduate.
That access gets cut off.
Unless you re-engage with
another institution that does have lots of access,
pays these millions of dollars a year,
you won't have access.
We spend time focusing on peer reviewed research
and how that's the information of importance,
but then we've got people off from it.
It also benefits authors.
There are about 70 studies showing
citation advantage for open access papers
over subscription access papers.
Not all studies show the advantage,
but I think about 50 out of
70 show the citation advantage.
That's important for scholars inside the academy.
There's also an old metric advantage.
All metrics are links coming from elsewhere on the web.
You can think of this citation advantage as
being an ivory tower thing
that most of the world does not care about
too much metric advantages the rest of the world.
That can be a link from
New York Times or any media organization.
It can be social media,
it can be policy documents, that sort of thing.
There's an advantage there as well.
When things are open, you can link
to them and other people can link to them.
That also helps with promoting your own work.
A lot of funders
and universities are interested in broader impact now,
not just impact within academia.
If you use Twitter or
any social media or you blog about your work,
[BACKGROUND] you want to give
equal link that's going to work for everyone.
You don't want to send people to
a link where people are going to got to pay for.
Open access also facilitates
other uses like text and data mining.
Ten or 15 years ago,
people maybe weren't thinking about this, but now,
we can [BACKGROUND] aggregate a corpus in
a particular field and do text
and data mining in that corpus.
Open access makes that much easier.
Otherwise, you'd be going to
every publisher who publishes journals
in your field and negotiating access.
Those terms may not be
the terms that you need to do your research.
That is foundation, is just an essential scholarly value.
I have to be able to read all the articles in
my field to know what research needs to be done,
and everyone else in
my field needs to know what my research is too.
It's just the basic scholarly value
that we need to share our research.
There are two ways to make your work open access.
The first you probably know about is
open access journals and the key question is,
how do I find a legitimate one?
There may be some well-known open access journals
in your field, perhaps not.
One way of finding them is
the directory of open access journals,
doaj.org, which has a pretty extensive vetting process.
To get listed in that index can take a couple
of years for a new journal to get listed.
Here in the libraries, we use this directory all
the time to make sure that
our researchers are using
vetted journals when they apply for our open-access fund.
We also have Ulrich's periodical directory,
which we have access to the library too,
where you can sort by
peer reviewed journals and open access.
There's also a site called
Think Check Submit if it's a journal you've
never heard of and that sort of thing.
You can check that site or
even ask us because we look at journals all
the time to determine whether we
should fine [BACKGROUND] the article processing charges.
Not all open access journals
have article processing charges.
In fact, the majority do not,
but the [NOISE] journals that published
the most papers tend to have
article processing charges and the most prestigious ones.
Typically these fees come out of grants.
For example, if you have an NIH or NSF grant,
you're allowed to use part of that funding
for the article processing charge to access a journal.
The libraries, as I just mentioned,
has an open access fund and
that's meant to be a safety net.
If you don't have a grant,
you can apply to the libraries [BACKGROUND] and
that's open to everyone on campus,
faculty, students, and staff.
You can apply to this fund as well if there's
the article processing charge
and your research is not government funded.
Because of our relationships with numerous publishers,
we negotiated discounts with
many of them too so you wouldn't pay
the same article processing charge
as you would otherwise.
The second way to make your work open access,
which is tremendously underutilized,
is archiving your work.
Which is taking a version of your work,
such as the accepted manuscript or
the submitted manuscript and
posting that online in a repository.
The key question is,
do I have the right to do this under my contract?
You need to check you're
contracting with defined parameter.
Typically, that contract will say
what version you can post, when you can post it.
Many publishers will impose
an embargo of six months to 12 months after publication,
and where you can post it.
They become increasingly concerned about this
with the for-profit aggregators,
like ResearchGate and Academia.edu.
They will frequently use the word non-commercial.
You can post this on a noncommercial site.
What that's doing is excluding
research paid in Academia.edu.
There's also a site based in
the UK that aggregates all these Publisher permissions.
It's very useful, called SHERPA/RoMEO.
It's such an unusual name.
I don't remember what it stands for, it is an acronym.
But if you Google it, it will be the very first thing
because nothing else has been named that,
but in any case,
you can put it in a journal title,
an ISSN or something like that,
it will bring you up a permissions page
and tell you exactly what you can do.
It'll say have green checkmark
for pre-print or accepted manuscript.
It will usually have a red X for the publishers' PDF.
It's very rare for
you to be able to share the publishers' PDF,
but often that 80 percent of publishers will support
you posting the pre-print or accepted manuscript online.
You can also negotiate your contract.
This really is a contract between you and
the publisher where you transfer your copyright.
If you don't like the terms under it,
you can at least ask for something more.
If there is a 24-month embargo,
you can say, hey, what about a six-month embargo?
Or can I post this online now?
There's also an addendum online for scholars to do that,
to add that to their contract
when they return their copyright transfer payment.
I also wanted to mention that there's
a proposed open access policy here at
Virginia Tech that we've covered.
Originally it was for faculty and now,
it's written in such a way that it covers everyone,
faculty, students, and staff.
Basically, it will become
part of another high-key policy.
It's not a sure thing yet,
we're still in discussion with
university council, but essentially,
authors would grant a non-exclusive license
to the university in order to be able
to post their articles online
at the time of publication, zero embargo.
Anytime you published in a subscription ground,
you would always have an open access to refer,
Open Access version 2.2.
Where should you post your report?
Well, here at Virginia Tech we do have
repository VTechWorks which is accessed around the world.
It involves just registering,
and then emailing us for a collection.
We have collections for every department here,
as well as institute research centers and so on.
Faculty can deposit directly
from Elements which is
the EFAR System when you do your annual reports.
That is quite easy.
You can do it all in one place.
There are also lots of disciplinary repositories
and preprint servers like arXiv,
bioRxiv as well as taking off in the last five years.
For virtually every discipline now,
there's a preprint server.
There's also some generic ones
like open science framework
as one just called preprints; preprints.org.
There are a lot of places where you can post preprints,
but you need to make sure that your journal
will accept this or permit posting preprints.
That is one caveat.
If you're interested in posting
your simulated version online,
is that you need to know the journal's policy too,
so you can either shuffle around
the journal's page to see if preprints are accepted.
Frequently, they will allow you to post on your website.
Often, they will see your website immediately and
then repository after 12 months or something like that.
I would strongly advise you to put it in both places if
you're going to do that because
the repository is going to take care of it, preserve it.
Have a persistent URL for your website,
particularly if it's on a VT domain.
When you use Virginia Tech,
it's probably going to get wiped.
You won't be able to preserve that work.
I mentioned earlier the commercial repositories.
Whenever you see the word non-commercial
in the fine print about posting
accepted manuscripts and preprints,
they're in researchacademia.edu.
I also wanted to mention open data since we don't
have somebody here from our data services team.
This is increasingly required by
both journals and funders.
It improves the research integrity
and replicability of the work.
There's a saying in stem fields [NOISE] particularly,
but the article is just an advertisement for the data.
A lot of times you'll read an article and say,
I want to see a data behind this.
How did they do this?
What system did they choose to get this.
It also becomes a citable object in itself with a DOI,
and so you can get citations for your data set.
Data management plans are now required by most of
the major federal funders like NIH and NSF.
I briefly wanted to mention some of
the library services for
open access in the data that we provide here.
For the articles themselves,
they have an open access guide online which
explains in much more depth
some of the things that I've talked about tonight.
We have our subvention fund that you can find by
searching a VT side and
discounts that I mentioned earlier.
Repositories, VTechWorks, anyone is free to
register and close works
there if you have a poster presentation,
video conference, that sort of
thing, we'd love to have it.
We have several people who monitor the email address,
if you have any questions at all,
just email vtechworks@vt.edu.
Even if it's not about posting something in VTechWorks,
we'll be glad to help you if it's an open access issue.
For data, we have some guides online for
data management and including
some specific guides for NIH and NSF.
We also have data studios here for
data transformation and data visualization,
which has gotten really heavy use.
Those are really cool studios,
so I advise you to take advantage of those.
We also have a data repository called VTechData.
It's just like VTechWorks,
but it's just for big datasets.
If your general founder requires that
you put your data somewhere,
do you want a persistent identifier for it,
that's the place for it.
Their e-mail is dataservices@vt.edu.
They do a lot of consulting about
wide variety of data related issues.
If you have any of
those questions about any of those issues,
set an appointment with them.
With that, I will return it
over to Anita. [BACKGROUND] [APPLAUSE]
Thank you so much.
I'm going to give you an introduction
to open educational resources.
If you might think well,
these are not really connected [NOISE]
to other kinds of open.
But as Philip mentioned,
one of the key selling points
that is maybe not so often mentioned is that
open access [NOISE] does have licenses that allow
full reuse editing adaptation
of the content that is under
a Creative Common Attribution license.
There's a lot of connection.
But we still wonder, are these the same?
Is this a different name for the same thing?
What are the differences?
If open access, yeah,
it's Creative Common of an attribution license or no?
If open access just means free online
and nothing else, then they are different.
Faculty senate asked me last semester,
what is the difference?
[LAUGHTER] It took me
a while to come up with some ways of
talking about the differences between
open access and open educational resources.
[NOISE] This chart displays at the top,
how are they different in purpose.
The blue oval on the
left represent open educational resources.
This is codified knowledge.
It's useful for learning,
it's useful for stimulating discourse,
it includes lots of different formats,
it's free to the public,
customization is hours permitted.
Then on the right in the yellow oval, open access.
These tend to be scholarly works.
They're created to document new knowledge,
they're also created to advance a scholarly conversation.
Public access is always free.
Sometimes they have open licenses,
and the formats tend to be scholarly works,
scholarly books, scholarly journal
articles, things like those.
How are they different in the physical world?
People ask, well, if you have
a printed version of an open educational resource,
is it still open?
My answer to that is, yes,
it still have an open license,
but it does have a cost because
printing things on paper has a cost.
There is an overlap between
things that are freely available online,
things that are openly licensed,
open educational resources, and things that
are available in the physical world
that have an open license that
allows their free adaptation.
Then the very bottom chart,
I have a copy of those for you if
you want assistance with taking pictures.
We are open access and closed
all tool publications are differentiated
primarily because of the way
that the creator of the work has licensed it.
Works are automatically in the US under copyright.
Creative things that she make, build, document,
automatically enjoy copyright protection.
Many people will say, "Oh,
I wish that I could tell people up front that
they could use this work for some other purpose."
The Creative Commons licenses,
[BACKGROUND] the wide variety of them,
communicate the additional availability
of these rights to bar 5.
In the blue section,
you see resources that can be modified,
things that can be
customized to better fit your audience.
For example, this book
was modified from an [BACKGROUND] existing open textbook.
It has also been made into a Canadian edition.
So if there are any Canadians here,
I'd like to make sure that you get a chance to see this.
See the Canadian musician as well.
I'll pass this around after talking with you.
All of the blue section says,
"You are welcome to modify and share."
Sometimes you're allowed to make money off of things,
sometimes you are not.
The yellow section below that says,
"You're welcome to share,
but you cannot modify."
There's usefulness in this too,
if you get something that's freely available,
but you can't customize it.
If you want to make something
into a version that [NOISE] would better fit
your students or would better fit your location or
your unique educational contexts you can't,
but it's still freely available
online and that is helpful.
We'll skip through those.
[NOISE] The Creative Commons licenses allow five.
These four Creative Commons licenses plus
two public domain markers
apply to what we call 5 R permissions.
The questions they would ask is can anyone routine it?
Revise it? Reuse it?
Remix it and redistribute it?
Can customize and share these kinds of things?
The book that you just saw has over
500,000 downloads [BACKGROUND] worldwide
in about two and half years.
I think we're probably up to about 40 million adoptions.
This point used in many schools.
You see that the reach of
these materials is really powerful.
People are looking for these kinds of things.
If you build something that's really great,
you put an open license on it,
it's really fun to see it travel and fun to
see people pick it up and send you a message and say,
"Hey, what about this?
Would you consider making a test bank?
Do you slides?"
There are some potentials for creating communities
of practitioners that work on the same things.
Another example of this is
the project management for instructional designers.
This is an open text that was
created by numerous graduate students.
They were tasked with
adapting a book on
project management to their discipline.
They started with project management,
and they demonstrated their knowledge
of instructional design by
adapting the book to fit
their [BACKGROUND] course for
the students that come after them.
Communities are not exempt from this.
This is a taxed public domain readings that are pre 1925,
and is an anthology that's
built in an application called Press Books,
which we now have here at Virginia Tech as
a campus wide subscription
after a [inaudible] year of waiting.
The faculty member involved in
this revenue also worked with a group of
undergraduate students who helped
her to write introductions,
write summaries,
write supplementary material to introduce
the text for each of
the sections that we're covering in this anthology.
Going beyond open educational resources,
what is the driving philosophy behind these things?
It's really saying you can
create assignments that are valuable in the world.
This is not to say that all of
the homework that you do is garbage.
That's really not what I'm trying to say,
but if you, as future faculty and this current faculty,
find a way to create work or valuable [NOISE]
formative work for students that is also
valuable for the world but that's quite a win.
It's a win for students,
it's a win for the world,
it's a win for learning
because we learn a lot more when we can apply
the things that we're learning to the real-world.
Lastly, an open pedagogy,
leveraging student agency [inaudible] [NOISE]
in this class from what I understand,
that you have a different relationship
between you and your professor where you have
a lot of control over your learning and a lot of
control over your decisions
that you are creating and you're hoping
to build things that are useful for your future for you.
Open education is both practice, philosophy, movement,
but it's geared toward breaking down some of
the barriers that students face in the learning process.
Some of those are costs,
but many of them are how we teach,
what we teach, and what we use for teaching.
I'd like to turn this over to the panel,
and our first question and let's see,
let's start with someone who has not talked yet,
who would like to be that person?
Oh, they're very shy.
[NOISE] Our first question is,
how did you get started in open
and what does that mean [NOISE] in your experience?
Hi, everyone. Freddy Paige.
I'm Assistant Director at Civil Engineering.
Also, the Assistant Director of
our Housing Resource Center.
I got started with Open global for being a professor.
I wanted to create knowledge
and share information with people,
mostly as hip hop musician
and always want to make music free and
open access that people can
understand my story in my community, etc.,
but then being curious,
a permanent grad student getting involved
with publications and all of that,
I actually got involved in Open about
finding out that information wasn't free.
I thought it was free.
I thought that was the whole goal.
Your teacher, your scholars,
and share information and that's what you do.
Some learning that they did
this behind it made me think about,
"Okay, well how could we look to
do avenue that we can take?"
[NOISE] It's always been
looking for different places to publish,
civil engineering's not a space that's
actually quick to adapt
to things like Open, we're getting there.
My first major publication that was
Open was through scientific data,
and they actually required you to
be open for the article,
but then also for the dataset so
that people could actually
reproduce the stuff that you're doing.
You had to host it online.
I chose OSF, the Open Science Framework,
just because it had the feature that I needed.
But I saw that there was a lot of
different options that I had no idea about.
When I was looking at the papers, I'm like, "Oh, man,
I really wish I knew how they did that,
or I could play with their data and try to replicate it."
Now I know there is that opportunity,
and we just have to create that community and culture.
Let's see. Tyechia, would you like to introduce yourself,
talk about your role here
at the university and then how you do that?
[NOISE]
Hello, I'm Tyechia Thompson.
I'm a digital humanities postdoc
in the Center for Humanities.
My introduction to Open
was while writing my dissertation,
I created three digital,
I guess, what would I call it?
Three digital.