Open access progress and sustainability

1. Open access progress and sustainability Chair: Neil Jacobs, Jisc 14/07/2016

2. Introduction Neil Jacobs 14/07/2016

3. UK and US positions on open access Steven Hill, HEFCE – SarahThomas, Harvard University 14/07/2016

4. The UK position on open access Steven Hill Head of Research Policy Jisc-CNI conference 06 July 2016 @stevenhill

5. Summary • Policy • Progress • Prospects

7. UK Government Policy • Independent reports – Dame Janet Finch – 2012 – Professor Adam Tickell – 2016

8. UK Government Policy “I am confident that, by 2020, the UK will be publishing almost all of our scientific output through open access. The advantages of immediate ‘gold’ access are well recognised, and I want the UK to continue its preference for gold routes where this is realistic and affordable. I also accept the validity of green routes, which will continue to play an important part in delivering our open access commitments.” Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science Image: Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Johnson_Photo_Speaking_at_the_British_Museum.jpg)

9. UK Government Policy “I am confident that, by 2020, the UK will be publishing almost all of our scientific output through open access. The advantages of immediate ‘gold’ access are well recognised, and I want the UK to continue its preference for gold routes where this is realistic and affordable. I also accept the validity of green routes, which will continue to play an important part in delivering our open access commitments.” Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science Image: Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Johnson_Photo_Speaking_at_the_British_Museum.jpg)

10. UK Policy Landscape • Research Councils UK – Journal articles and conference proceedings – Preference for immediate, CC-BY access – Accept access after 6 months (STEM) or 12 months (AHSS) with CC-BY-NC – Block grant to HEIs for APCs (pure OA and hybrid) • Charity Open Access Fund – 7 major medical research funders (including Wellcome Trust) – Journal articles, conference proceedings and monographs – Deposit in PubMedCentral or EuropePMC – Require immediate, CC-BY access • Research Excellence Framework – Journal articles and conference proceedings – Deposit in institutional or subject repository – Accessible for read and download at least 12 months (STEM) or 24 months (AHSS) – Encourage: immediate access, liberal licencing, monographs

12. Wellcome Trust compliance analysis • 2014/15: 30% of articles for which APC paid not compliant with policy • E.g. 392 articles not deposited in PMC/EuPMC - £765,000 APC value • Hybrid journals main source of non-compliance: Source: https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/

14. Prospects • REF policy – significant increase in open content • Possible action by funders on hybrid journals (see DFG, Norwegian Research Councils) • Offsetting deals • The effect of Sci-Hub? • Further developments on policy/implementation; 4 working groups of Universities UK OA group: – Efficiency – Service standards – Repositories – Monographs

16. Thank you for listening s.hill@hefce.ac.uk @stevenhill openaccess@hefce.ac.uk

17. U.S. Positions on Open Access Sarah Thomas Vice President for the Harvard Library July 6, 2016

18. U.S. Legislation and National Initiatives • PubMed Central (NIH, 2009) • FRPAA (Federal Research Public Access Act) (2006, 2009, 2012) • FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research) (2013, 2015) • White House Executive Order/ Office of Science and Technology Policy (2013) • Open Government Data Act (2016)

19. Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) • Introduced in Congress in 2006, 2009, and 2012 • Never made it out of Committee • Superseded by FASTR Law

20. FASTRFair Access to Science and Technology Research Law

21. FASTR• Introduced as a bill in the Senate in 2013 and 2015. "Breakthroughs in technology, science, medicine and dozens of other disciplines are made every year due to the billions in research funding provided by the American people. Making those findings available to all Americans is the best way to lead the next generation of discovery and innovation or create the next game-changing business. The FASTR act provides that access because taxpayer funded research should never be hidden behind a paywall." Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon

22. FASTRThe Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved the bill on July 29, 2015. It was the first time that the bill or any of its predecessors had gained committee approval and been forwarded to a full house of Congress

23. Key Elements of FASTR • Agencies over $100 million • Embargo capped at 12 months, earlier deposit encouraged • Mandate free public access through Green OA • Require final version of author’s peer-reviewed manuscript

24. White House Executive Order (2013) Office of Science and Technology Policy

25. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_pu blic_access_memo_2013.pdf

26. Executive Order/OSTP • Signed by Chief Science Advisor (Holdren) but issued under Barack Obama • Executive action complements legislative activity • Agencies spending $100 m on R & D • Embargoes capped at 12 months • Requires OA for articles • Requires OA for data • Requires OA for metadata concurrent with publication

27. Executive/OSTP Directive • Directs "a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where appropriate" (2.a). Section 3 adds that "Repositories could be maintained by the Federal agency funding the research, through an arrangement with other Federal agencies, or through other parties working in partnership with the agency including, but not limited to, scholarly and professional associations, publishers and libraries."

28. OSTP Directive • ) a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where appropriate, and fostering public - private partnerships with scientific journals relevant to the agency’s research; • b) a strategy for improving the public’s ability to locate and access digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research; • c) an approach for optimizing search, archival, and dissemination features that encourages innovation in accessibility and interoperability, while ensuring long-term stewardship of the results of federally funded research;

29. • d) a plan for notifying awardees and other federally funded scientific researchers of their obligations (e.g., through guidance, conditions of awards, and/or regulatory changes); • e) an agency strategy for measuring and, as necessary, enforcing compliance with its plan; • f) identification of resources within the existing agency budget to implement the plan; • g) a timeline for implementation; and • h) identification of any special circumstances that prevent the agency from meeting any of the objectives set out in this memorandum, in whole or in part.

30. Executive Order/OSTP Directive • Requires Green OA • "each agency plan shall...[e]nsure that publications and metadata are stored in an archival solution that...provides...access to the content without charge..." (3.f).

31. Open Government Data (2016)

32. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Implementation Plan to Increase Public Access to Results of USDA-Funded Scientific Research (PDF), November 7, 2014 ARL Summary of USDA Plan, February 20, 2015 Department of Defense (DoD) Public Access Memo (PDF) , July 9, 2014 Plan to Establish Public Access (PDF), February 2015 ARL Summary of DoD Plan, March 19, 2015 Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science DOE Public Access Plan, July 24, 2014 Statement on Digital Data Management, July 28, 2014 Cover memo (PDF), July 28, 2014 ARL Summary of DOE Plan, July 31, 2014 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Guiding Principles and Common Approach for Enhancing Public Access to the Results of Research Funded by HHS Operating Divisions, February 27, 2015 http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/ public-access-policies/federally- funded-research/2696-white-house- directive-on-public-access-to-federally- funded-research-and-data#.V1xrD9IrLIV ARL tracks policy developments

33. 0 5 10 15 20 25 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 new applications approved (not yet funded) Harvard Open-Access Publishing Equity (HOPE)

34. Gold OA versus Green OA in the US Recent ARL Discussions • Won’t Gold APCs cost research-intensive universities more than subscriptions? • Can we transform scholarly publishing while maintaining the same players? • What are the constraints on publishers in a subscription-free world? • What is the impact on the humanities?

35. Flipping Journals Office for Scholarly Communication Harvard Library • Transitional subsidies • Government subsidies • Funding agency subsidies • Reduction of operating costs • Membership fees • Discounting APCs in initial phase of flipping or for categories of submissions

36. University of California and university digital library costing models Mackenzie Smith, University of California, Davis 14/07/2016

37. MacKenzie Smith University of California, Davis Ivy Anderson California Digital Library Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

38. Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016 Why this project, why now? North America Europe / UK Increasing disconnect between European and North American approaches to open access • Finch Report • OA2020 • APC Offset Agreements • Tri-Agency OA Policy • NIH OA Policy • OSTP Directive • FASTR • Faculty OA Policies

39. Pay It Forward Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing Charges for Large North American Research Institutions “build a set of financial scenarios, or models, depicting the financial implications an APC-based system of scholarly journal publishing, for the conversion of the current system of scholarly journal publishing to an APC-based system, for large North American research institutions.” Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

40. Scope  North American research institutions (U.S. and Canada) Library partners: University of California, Harvard, Ohio State University, University of British Columbia  Scholarly journals and conference proceedings only  Models APC-funded scholarly journal publishing system at 100% scale Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

41. Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (authors) Greg Tananbaum and ALPSP (publishers) Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

42. Large-scale Author Study  10 focus groups of 77 faculty, postdocs & grad students, across all disciplines  2,020 survey respondents: faculty, graduate students, postdocs, across all disciplines Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

43. Importance of Factors in Selecting Where to Publish 1. Quality and reputation of journal 2. Fit with scope of journal 3. Audience 4. Impact Factor 5. Likelihood of acceptance 6. Time from submission to publication 7. Editor or editorial board 8. Open Access Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016 “Taken together, it is evident that reputation building within a specific field is at the heart of what matters most to academic scholars.”

44. Author Willingness to Pay  Personal Funds [Humanities: $0, Life Sciences: $250]  Discretionary Research Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $1000]  Library OA Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000]  Grant Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000] Observation: author discretion → incentive to economize Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

45. Solomon & Björk Mark McCabe Greg Tananbaum Mat Willmott Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

46. Lots of Data!  Library journal expenditures over 5 years (2009-2013)  Publication data from Web of Science and Scopus over 5 years (2009-2013)  Research funding data from HERD (except UBC)  APC data from multiple sources  Publisher revenue data Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

47. What Does it Cost to Publish?  Cost Per Article: ~$500 to ~$2500 Depends on how it’s calculated, what’s included in publishing costs, and publisher ‘fixed effects’  plausible minimum CPA is $1,103 (including 13% surplus)  $1,864 emerged as a defensible CPA, based on current OA expenditures at partner institutions Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

48. Current APCs  APCs for fully OA journals (in which our authors published) averaged $1,775 USD  APCs for converted OA journals of major subscription publishers averaged $1,825 USD Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016 Solomon & Björk

49. Current APCs not very useful  still fluctuating (new offsetting deals)  driven by a few large OA publishers  few large commercial publishers  few in humanities & social sciences Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

50. Break-even Costs: Example Library Sample year = 2013  Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM  Published papers: 3,593 with associated grants: 2,492 without grants: 1,101  Break-even APC Level library budget only: $1,119 including grant funds: $3,651 Current average APC = $1,775 - $1,825; average CPA = $1,864 Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

51. Break-even Costs: Library Budgets Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016 Institutions with high break-even level are smaller, less research-intensive universities with lower ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of teaching to research faculty, more students per faculty member $1775: Average APC for partner institution publications in full OA journals Institutions with lower break-even level are more research-intensive universities with higher ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of research to teaching faculty, fewer students per faculty member Demographic data from IPEDS http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

52. Break-even APC: Grants Pay First $1775: Average APC for partner institution publications in full OA journals Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

53. Future APC Estimation Two distinct publisher types  No correlation between “quality” and APC levels (lots of these now)  Strong, positive correlation between “quality” and APCs (fewer but most major publishers) Assume publishers will set APCs in relation to journal “quality”, use IF/SNIP as “quality” proxy Estimated APC = 1147 + 709.4 * SNIP Baseline journal (SNIP=1.0) APC = $1,856 Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

54. Redirecting Library Budget (example library, sample year)  Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM  Estimated APC Expenditure for 3,593 papers: $7.49MM  Estimated APC Expenditure for 1,101 papers without grants: $2.22MM Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

55. How to Achieve Sustainability? “funding a journal with APCs is acceptable if authors do not have to pay the money themselves.” … “I think this [OA Big Deals] is beginning to happen, and that publishers are finding ways to create an APC-based market that will be as dysfunctional as the subscription-based market is. The basic problem with APCs is that publishers can charge what they like, knowing that if universities start to tell academics that they must publish in cheaper journals, there will be an uproar about the perceived threat to academic freedom. I have never seen a convincing explanation for how a properly free market in APCs could work.” Sir Tim Gowers, interview with Richard Poynder, 2016 Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

56. How to Achieve Sustainability? Behavioral Objective:  Authors choose the “best” platform for their article, given the price of access, publication funding, platform readership, quality of editors, etc.  Publishers respond to elastic author demand by competing for submissions. Claim:  Under ideal conditions competition in an OA environment lowers cost of scholarly communication  Many mitigating factors, e.g. platform ownership concentration, delegation of APC payment responsibility, etc. Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

57. Financial Model, Example 1 Set Library subsidy up to $1,164 (break-even cost)  Library pays $4MM in subsidies (3,593 papers)  Grant funds cover $2.5MM (2,492 papers)  Author discretionary funds cover $1MM (1,101 papers)  $1M increase to institution (+25%) Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

58. Financial Model, Example 2 Set Library subsidy up to $1,857 (SNIP=1.0 journal APC)  Library pays $6.4MM in subsidies for 3,593 papers (fully covers 1,188 papers)  Grant funds cover $.8MM (1,739 papers)  Author discretionary funds cover $.3MM (666 papers)  $2.7MM increase to institution (+66%) Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

59. Some Conclusions  Future APCs not perfectly predictable, nor disciplinary differences.  But we can build crude estimations and improve them over time Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

60. Some Conclusions  In North America, library journal budgets alone won’t cover all APCs for research-intensive institutions  But grant funding of authors at those institutions could cover the difference Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

61. Conclusions So Far  Attitudes toward open access and APCs vary widely between disciplines.  But all authors are price sensitive and exhibit the behavior we want, if they have discretion to choose where to publish based on cost/quality. Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

62. Some Conclusions  Giving authors discretionary funds introduces APC price competition, without interfering with author choice in where to publish.  This is the best chance to encourage a competitive journal market, drive costs down over time. Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

63. Future Work  Concerns about under-resourced authors  Disciplines without research funding  Young scholars  Global South  Stakeholder involvement, e.g., library role in ensuring preservation, mining rights, etc.  Lack compliance tracking mechanisms Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

64. Project Report, Bibliography, Data, Tools http://icis.ucdavis.edu/?page_id=713 Report: bit.ly/29dJcCv Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

65. Total cost of ownership and flipped OA Liam Earney, Jisc 14/07/2016

66. Total Cost of Ownership and Flipped Journals Waiting for theGreat Leap Forward 14/07/2016 Jisc CNITCO and Flipped Journals 75

67. »Background › APC based gold and the total cost of ownership › Offsetting agreements »Challenges »Opportunities › Indicators › Sustainability and how we might promote it? › The importance of international collaboration »BeyondAPC based gold open access? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 76

68. The total cost of ownership 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 77 £0 £10,000 £20,000 £30,000 £40,000 £50,000 £60,000 £70,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 APCs Subscription

69. 39 51 66 401 1296 (500,000.00) - 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 5 9 23 76 162 (50,000.00) - 50,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 350,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 14 23 34 99 252 (100,000.00) - 100,000.00 200,000.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 500,000.00 600,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 90 91 108 492 1200 (500,000.00) - 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Elsevier - total APC cost 8 13 14 94 144 (100,000.00) - 100,000.00 200,000.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Nature - total APC cost 40 35 51 173 300 (200,000.00) - 200,000.00 400,000.00 600,000.00 800,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Oxford University Press - total APC cost 8 12 16 75 228 (100,000.00) - 100,000.00 200,000.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 500,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 4 16 11 68 198 (100,000.00) (50,000.00) - 50,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 3 2 7 21 54 (20,000.00) - 20,000.00 40,000.00 60,000.00 80,000.00 100,000.00 120,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

70. Offsetting agreements »Priorities 1. Cost efficiency - minimise/remove additional costs to institution 2. Compliance - help/enable institutions to comply with funder policies regardless of whether they are choosing gold or green 3. Administrative efficiency - minimise the burden on institutions of implementing and managing OA payment schemes 4. Transition - implementing schemes that facilitate a real and sustainable transition to open access One response to the actual increase in expenditure 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 79

71. Challenges and lessons 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 80

72. Challenges »PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 81

73. Sustainability? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 82 “Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs” May 2016 Katie Shamash https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions © Jisc Published under the CC BY 4.0 licence creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

74. Challenges »PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin? »Transparency or just a bigger big deal? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 83

75. Bigger big deal? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 84 28 institutions 39 institutions 40 institutions £0.00 £500,000.00 £1,000,000.00 £1,500,000.00 £2,000,000.00 £2,500,000.00 £3,000,000.00 £3,500,000.00 2013 2014 2015 Total APC expenditure Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers

76. Challenges »PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin? »Transparency or just a bigger big deal? »Too many and/ineffective workflows › Too much human interaction › Poor communication – both to authors and OA managers »Cost allocation within and across institutions »Is there any evidence of price sensitivity from authors? »What penalties are there for no offsetting agreement? »Tensions between efficiency/transparency/cost? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 85

77. Opportunities Sustainability and how we might promote it 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 86

78. The journal market 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 87 “Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs” May 2016 Katie Shamash https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions © Jisc Published under the CC BY 4.0 licence creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

79. Indicators of a market 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 88 28 institutions 39 institutions 40 institutions £0.00 £500,000.00 £1,000,000.00 £1,500,000.00 £2,000,000.00 £2,500,000.00 £3,000,000.00 £3,500,000.00 2013 2014 2015 Total APC expenditure Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers

80. Indicators of a market 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 89 “Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs” May 2016 Katie Shamash https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions © Jisc Published under the CC BY 4.0 licence creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

81. A flipped model The SpringerCompact agreement 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 90

82. A flipped model 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 91 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Standard Model Flipped Model Subscriptions Publishing/APCs Unlimited? Capped

83. Open Access and subscription article in Springer Compact 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 92

84. Promoting sustainability 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 93

85. Steps to promote sustainability? »Limit use of research funding to pure gold? › Or place conditions on use of funds in hybrid journals »Encourage greater participation in negotiations »Preference in negotiations/purchasing for models that shift to OA »Greater support for Green in OA policies »Development and adopt a fuller range of quality indicators »Support small, society publishers, close to the academic community, explore innovative business models 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 94

86. The importance of international cooperation From open access in one country to international sustainability? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 95

87. Market transformed (Open Access) After an OA transformation Global level view 96 The global scholarly journal market and its financial dimensions Scenario of transformation based on current global operating numbers per year An OA transformation seems to be possible without financial risks Market today (subscription) Total budget 7.6 bn € 1.5 M scholarly articles in WoS; up to ~2 M overall 5,000 €/article WoS; 3,800 €/article overall Base budget 4 bn € plus ~45% buffer 2 M scholary articles 2,000 €/article1) based on realistic APC expectations1) available for new & improved services, remaining subscriptions etc. Jisc CNI TCO and FlippedJournals 14/07/2016

88. 7.6 bn EUR Remaining subscription budget 10%(~0.8 bn EUR) Open Access volume: ~14% of articles; ~4% of budget Global level view 97 Transformation means re-allocation of budgets and conversion of journals and processes 2.8 bn EUR buffer for new & improved services etc. (without remaining subscriptions) Global open access journal base budget 4 bn EUR p.a. (2,000 €/article) Assuming 90% conversion Global subscription journal budget 7.6 bn EUR p.a. (≥3,800 EUR/article) 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals

89. Should APC-based Gold open access be the target? »One target in the near/medium term »Is APC narrative and experience harmful to OA? »Should APCs be regarded as transitional/experimental? »Do APCs address the fundamental issue of ‘control’? »Could membership models be more sustainable and attractive? › What does membership include? › How do ‘we’ participate in governance? 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 98

90. jisc.ac.uk Thank you Liam Earney Director, Jisc Collections liam.earney@jisc.ac.uk 14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 99

91. Open access progress and sustainability14/07/2016

Open access progress and sustainability

Esté a ler uma amostra.

Confira estes a seguir

Open access progress and sustainability

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Diapositivos para si (20)

Semelhante a Open access progress and sustainability (20)

Mais de Jisc (20)

Mais recentes (20)