Bonjour tout le monde, welcome back everybody. Guten Morgen. I'm very happy to see you here this morning for the second day of the PKP conference. My name is Tanya Niemann. I am General Director of IRIDI. So my pleasure is this morning

to present our first speaker of the day. It is Dominique Berube. Dominique Berube was appointed Vice President Research Programs at the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada in October 2015. And Dominique is very well known in Montreal actually

because prior to joining the council, she was working at University of Montreal for eight years. And to be more precise, she was my boss for eight years. So yesterday you met Frederic who's my current boss and this morning you will meet Dominique

who was my former boss. Dominique held a variety of positions at University of Montreal including VP Research, Acting VP Research, Associate VP Research and she was the Executive Director of the Research Services. So she participated directly in the development and implementation of large scale research initiatives

including infrastructure and strategic projects. And from my own experience, I can tell you that the support for researchers is really something very important for Dominique and the quality of this support is a high priority. So through our regular meetings around IRIDI

that I had with her, I think she realized a lot what it means to support independent journals, what they need to survive and to perform in a digital environment, in a changing environment and I would say she experienced actually the height

and the depth of independent journal publishing in social sciences and humanities and the impact of publishing initiatives that come out of the universities that are operating for the goals of the academy versus those as we know are companies that exist for the benefit of its owners and stakeholders.

So she played a role in the development of the consortium IRIDI, chairing the board of directors from 2012 to 2015 and she strongly supported us in finding strategies for sustainability in fixing strategic orientations

and in encouraging IRIDI to think about new models and support for open access. Dominique holds a PhD in Environmental Sciences from the University du Québec Amoréal and on her Twitter account you can read that she is a fan of arts, science, societe et humain, data and wine.

So I'm very curious to hear Dominique this morning and please join me to welcome her.

I'll just open this. So merci, Tanya, pour l'introduction. You just reminded me to check that Twitter account. That is the only thing that I did not accept to remove when I joined SSHRC. You're supposed to tweet one tweet in French, one tweet in English and it's always regulated. So I rather indicated that these tweets are mine only

and do not represent and I still keep it there but then you say that and I might look at what I'm usually tweeting there. Now, merci, bonjour à tous. Je vous d'écommencée par remercier les organisatat la conférence pécapée. Madonné cette occasion de partager avec vous quelque réflexion.

I'll reassure the audience immediately. I do not intend to continue in French. My boss is not there. They're not watching me right now but usually we're supposed to do, you know, if I'm in Montreal, I'm supposed to do 75% in French, 25% in English. If I'm rest of Canada, it's the reverse part

but I'll skip that and I'll keep to English. Though I might reverse to French from time to time. Sorry, I guess my accent, my Montreal and Quebec roots are always coming back and they really show. In Ottawa, we have that weird habit of switching language in the same sentence which make it impossible

for the official translators to do anything. So we'll have time, if you want to, to engage in a discussion at the end of the presentation. Of course, I'm tremendously happy to be here today. It's the first conference, of course, of PKP in Montreal and it comes, you know, to support

the extended collaboration that has been happening with Irudzi and that was in the middle of our thoughts and discussions and work for the lab, for the 10 years that I involved myself in that file. And I know that from the inside, from the Irudzi and PKP perspectives, it's just another milestone, that long collaboration

but I know the hard work, the compromises, the open minds that it took to get there and from the outside perspective that I'm now part of, I think you should definitely broadcast this critical success for Canada. I can say honestly that 10 years ago,

it was not that obvious that we would get there. I would also, of course, want to congratulate PKP for the event. I continue to be so impressed by the leadership and the level of excellence and the international impact of this initiative, well illustrated by the list of participants and speakers.

So I guess that today, you know, and yeah, it's such a Canadian success story at the international level and I think we have to recognize it more in the way that we put these stories outside. I'll try to present today, you know,

from a perspective that is a bit related to the conflict of interest that Tanya so eloquently evoked. You know, I was involved with, involved and committed to Irudzi, I might say devotion to Irudzi for these eight year and also I was a VP research and acting VP research in University of Montreal

so I had that, you know, that perspective coming from the academia and now I have the other one. I went to the other side of the force and I'm now part of the funding agencies. And my commitment to Irudzi really stem from a firm belief that a conviction

that was really built over time that we need that infrastructure for humanities and social sciences, for publishing and I'll come back to the need for that infrastructure and I think that the collaboration between Irudzi and PECAP provides really the essential tools that are needed by the community to build that innovative future.

I guess I have this here, the second, the technology. So this was published a few months by, you must all know the Pildeyer and Deeper comic strip and this was published a few months after I arrived

at SSHRC and I shared it with my directors because that was so much the perspective that I lived when I was in Irudzi, like oh no, the funding agency agent is coming to visit and then we had to write that big grant proposal and report that everything was going so well and everything. So that was a dog and pony show that we usually,

so today I feel like I'm the funding agent that is coming to check on what's happening in the project. So I used to be on that research side with Irudzi and PECAP looking for funds, having personnel to support, tweaking when not inventing ideas to benefit with the funding opportunities,

creating collaborations on the go that were so extraordinary, filling form, raging against forms, guidelines, evaluation criteria, discovering the night before the deadline that the summary was not following the guidelines, promising the world and almost scared when we got the funding, have you ever felt that?

You get the funding and said oh no, what did I write? And you go back to your proposal and say oh my god, I did promise that. So now I'm on the other side and I had that impression when I was with Irudzi and even at the university that the government knew where they were going, that they had a vision and that they knew what they wanted to fund

and that they just had to do it, that they could organize the stakeholders. Government funding agencies are mostly listening to the noise in the community. They try to make sense of all the opinions and I should say the conflicting opinions that come to our ears and we try to think of mechanisms that are as fair

as possible for the entire community but that will have at the same time some sort of incentive to support innovation and creativity. So noise is good, make noise, make more noise and repeat a lot of times because that's the only way that they hear what they should do.

So where does SHRC fit? So not everybody in this room probably knows what SHRC is or stands for. So SHRC is the Social Science Humanities Research Council and where do they fit in the publishing environment? That's a question I've been asking myself since I arrived at SHRC.

Coming from University of Montreal in Irudzi, I thought, great, I'm going to be able to do things and influence the publishing world and everything. So I said, well, maybe I should first learn exactly what kind of tools I have to work with and that's the only slide that I'll impose on you

on what SHRC is but it summarizes the how SHRC is organized. We organize ourselves around three funding opportunities. We call it three programs, the talent, insight and the connection. Talent is pretty explanatory by itself. We fund scholarships and fellowships. We fund people. Insight, we fund research grants obviously

and support to institutions for smaller grants but it's also grants to researchers and connection, it's about the mobilization, the flow of exchange, the mobilization of knowledge. So that would be where the support for journals fit in that. So we have about 3,250 millions of funding,

grants and scholarship for social science humanities. I do manage another 500 millions of tri-council funding but it's essentially for large scale infrastructure programs that do not touch as much social science and humanities. So where you can see where the support for publishing fits, it's a very small

funding opportunity. Just switch there. We call it the Aid to Scholarly Journal. It's about, this is a support journal that has been going on since 1979. The current funding opportunity is called Aid to Scholarly Journal.

It was launched in 2008 and we award barely about, for a three year period, 10.2 million to 144 journals in Canada. So that's less than 3.4 million a year that we distribute to journals. So that would be about 1% of our grants budget

or .05% if I look at all of my granting activities at SSHRC, so it's very, very small. All the rest that we're funding is in fact projects. Everything that SSHRC funds as a beginning and end deliverables and you're supposed to start again with the new projects.

So that makes the Aid to Scholarly Journal a bit of an idiosyncrasy already within SSHRC because it's not project, it's a very small budget. Imagine the difficulty of reviewing the quality of a journal as compared to a research project. All of our reviewers say the same thing.

It's extremely difficult. How do you fund them? How do you establish the budget? What is the model for funding a journal? They were telling me a bit, I told them, why don't you just give them an amount and everything? And they said, well before, we told them, send us a complete budget and tell us how much money we have and we'll fund the deficit.

And at some point, everybody was just increasing the deficit and increasing the budget just to make sure that it would get more money. So it's extremely difficult just to devise how to fund a journal. It's a very highly heterogeneous group. The business models are different, the delivery,

the disciplines, the variety of disciplines makes all kinds of different journals, long articles, short articles, letters, reviews. Also, the only thing that we can really see that is a trend in our journal because you see from the subscription and open access moving wall,

there's a small difference between 2011 and 2014, but overall, the dependence to subscription is still very high. And if you look at the, the only thing that we can see is really a trend is that we are really seeing a trend towards, of course, digital journals, but there are still a lot of journals

that want to publish in paper and there's a lot of distribution of paper journals in Canada still. So this funding opportunity has not been reviewed in the last 10 years and there's enough noise in the community regarding publishing and the general state of the environment, of the publishing environment that we thought that it would be a good time

to do some review of the opportunity and try to find, but keeping in mind that it's only three millions a year, which means that we can't do much with that. So we participated in a series, IRUDI led with partners, consultations regarding the socio-economic situation of Canadian journals.

And we also participated, participated by the college initiatives, Canadian scholarly publishing working group that took place in 2016. And this year we put together an advisory committee of which Jean-Claude is part and contributed his IDs last week and we were all impressed with his contribution.

So I just take the opportunity to wish him the best in his recovery. We look forward to continue to work with him on that. Essentially, what comes out from that, and we're trying to make sense of everything that's coming in from that is that there's a very high quality

publishing enterprise in Canada. And it's extremely important to maintain that publishing enterprise, essentially also for regional topics versus national topics versus international topics. We have some regional journals that are extremely important in the ecosystem.

And this is a system that builds on existing strength. There's a good group of stakeholders that are committed to make it work. It's rather flexible and adaptable and it offers also opportunities in training and editorial practices. So over that, there's something to build on

but there are some clear challenges that we're facing. One of the first, you know, it's one of the first challenge that we're facing at this point is around the open access. I mix my ears. Is around the open access.

You know, there's a vision, there's a policy that was adopted and that was published by the Tri-Council. By the Tri-Council, it means that it also covers the health sciences and it also covers science and engineering. So they all had to agree on an open access policy and they finally managed to say,

okay, let's go for 12 months. They consulted for a year or two years but then they went for a 12 month obligation to put in the public environment any publication that is arising from supported research from the Tri-Council.

So that's all nice. We have now a policy. It is not enforced. So we do not check if this is being done or not. The reality from the three sectors is really different. Obviously, from our perspective, it's pretty obvious why we're supporting open access.

It's a priority of the government. It is public funding. So it makes sense that any research that's being done with public funding would be made accessible. But at the same time, it adds some drawbacks and some negative feedbacks towards the agency because now what was supposed to be open access and reduce the cost

is now becoming an important eligible expense in all the grants budget and is taking a large chunk of money from the researcher's budget so that they could pay for that gold access in the commercial world. So there's added expenses from our sides that we can really see this increase in this expense.

And the university side, there doesn't seem to have a positive impact on the subscription costs if you see positive by reducing them because they have only increased since the appearance of the open access trend. It's still interesting initiatives for the libraries, obviously,

but there's added cost because of all the data management and the contribution that they can make to the mobilization of knowledge, but it's still added cost due to the need for their repositories. And from the research side, from the conversation that I had with the researchers, I can say that it can create profound angst

on what it means, open access, and what's the impact on their own research and the fact that it reduces the flexibility on the way that they want to publish and distribute there. So we hear it everywhere. So open access is not a solution to all, obviously. We obviously still need a vehicle to publish.

We still need the vetting process. We still need the editorial activities. Open access is just some sort of an added constraint that we're adding to the system. And to be honest, that we're not supporting at the same time. We just add the constraint, but I have to admit that the funding agencies

do not support for the moment that move towards open access. Another big concern, and it's not documented and everything, but you can see that from the funding agency perspective, it's sort of a what the heck are we doing in that world?

When you see the commercial interests that are playing right now, when you see the scam publishing that is increasing, when you hear about that the peer review system is broken and that some researchers are doing things but others are not,

and how is the system organizing? And for these reasons, and others obviously, the internationalization of research in general, our fellow agencies, whether it's NSERC or CIHR, have just decided to remove themselves from this publishing business,

which means that important topics for Canada are just difficult to find home for publishing for these topics, though they consider that for their sectors, it's not as important. Obviously, for humanities and social sciences, that's not where we are going, but I can tell you that there's a real concern in the funding agencies

that they shouldn't be involved in that publishing enterprise in general because of, I guess, the instability of it and of the big commercial interests that are there that are way stronger than whatever the government could invest in such a system to make it different. At the same time,

we hear from the community very interesting perspective about what is a journal, what's the purpose of a journal, and I was talking about Jean-Claude, but he presented a conference at ACFAS last May that I had the pleasure to listen to, and he was really trying to redefine the journals as it was initially thought.

The journal was a way, initially, to communicate between researchers that knew each other and that needed to exchange their result. Nowadays, it has more or less become a credential for obtaining your tenure in an academic career,

but to come back to that collaboration journal, we need to be able to support innovative initiatives that would transform those journals into collaborative platforms, and this is already happening with what PKP is doing, with what plenty of researchers are trying

by launching these small initiatives, bringing the researchers around common topics, so as a funding agency, we hear about it, and we need to better adjust to be able to recognize those initiatives. This is our ecosystem that my friends will recognize

and that we are facing. I mean, one of the things that we hear from the journal is that the journal, the funding to a journal, is too discrete. I mean, it's a small unit that is independent from the others, and more than independent, it is isolated from the others, and to get them to work together, to share the resources,

to share the expertise is extremely difficult, and because of that, we're lacking an opportunity for innovation for those journals, and of course, it impedes directly in their international impact and in their way of being mobilized around the world.

So this is something that we heard from everybody that we talked to, that we need to find a way to have an organization that would be able to support the innovation part of this journal, but in a group way instead of an isolated way. Theoretically, just to give you an idea

of the environment, SHERD does not offer any infrastructure funding. I was telling you we only fund projects, but there is a lot of other opportunities in the Canadian ecosystem. CFI is covering what we call the innovation realm, though it derives mostly from the STEM world,

so it's designed and planned to support large-scale infrastructure. If you want to buy a microscope, it's pretty easy to go there. If you want to build a database on journals, it's a bit more complicated. IRUDI PKP still managed to do it, so they all know these acronyms

and these programs, so it's possible to build your infrastructure, to get money to build the infrastructure. You can even get some operation money from the major scientific infrastructure that PKP and IRUDI got, so they've got some operating money on that.

But how do you bring that to the journal, and how do you offer services then is sort of the gap. It's just like if we have, you have conversation coming from two sides. You have the small journal who says, I want some support, and you have that community that organizes itself

that we're offering support, and how do we make them talk together, and how do we support that conversation? So we do identify that gap. We need to think about the solution. Is it more funding? Is it a different way of funding? Is it rather recognition and designation

of national facilities? It's all kind of questions that we need to address. Agencies will create program if they feel there's an opportunity, only if they have to, if there's a gap in the system, and if it fits their mandate. So it's a long road before we create a new program.

I might mention for the people in the room that are familiar with that, I mentioned an historical exception where SSHRC has been funding a Pan-Canadian network infrastructure for many years before CFI that was dedicated to research data centers, which is pretty much very similar to what the group is doing,

it is NPKP, and only recently did CFI recognize them as a major scientific infrastructure. SSHRC continues to support that national infrastructure that rallies all the universities and researchers in Canada, and we even manage the vetting process of the research projects that are being led on that infrastructure.

So that's also indication that things can be done when everybody rallies around a common goal. I think there's, just to finish, I think there's a lot of opportunities in Canada right now to move things. There's been what we call the Naylor Report, which was in fact this fundamental science review that was led by David Naylor,

and that the report was published last April, and we're waiting for the government response. So I'm part of the government, so I'm waiting for my minister to tell me that I can respond to the Naylor Report. That's how it goes. But still in the Naylor Report, there's clear indication, and the community is really rallying behind the report.

There's clear indication that there needs to be further investments in the funding agency towards fundamental science. So new money always means the moment for budget ask, I would think. Our government also reinvested for a two year period in the leadership council

for the digital research infrastructure. That was sort of a consortium of all kinds of stakeholders across Canada that were trying to find the best solution to support all the digital infrastructure that is being developed in Canada in isolated ways, which is, of course, what happened

with Irrudy Pécarpe initially, and how we could all bring this together. So that's an opportunity to get involved there and have your voice heard at that place. There's also a new CIO at the government. That seems pretty far, but it's a young CIO that comes from the museum world. It's very rare to see that in the government,

and it's all about open API, open source, and he wants the government to move. So anything that departments and ministers and agencies would do that go in what he's saying, so I do invite you to maybe talk to him and to get involved with him because he's really interesting. And it is a short priority also

to support digital scholarship in general. We're launching a consultation on data management pretty soon, next fall. So I think, again, that is very closely linked to the activities that PKP is doing. So I guess for conclusion, the only thing I could say

is that we do hear that there are some challenges in the community. We think that there's, we need to discuss, you know, to find the best ways, but I think that the most important asset that we have in Canada is that collaboration between, and I'm of course totally biased, but it's the existing infrastructure

that is already internationally recognized, well-networked, and we need to rally behind and to make sure that we can use it to the best of its capacity. So thank you so much for giving me this opportunity, and I welcome any questions.

Daniele, could you fill in the mic? Yes, maybe you can name yourself because I can't see you too much of the light. Yeah, hi, I'm Chuck Kosher from Crossref, and I've been involved in some discussions recently

where the notion that funding agencies can replace or supplant peer review, and the thinking being, since funding agencies select and vet the research and monitor the research, that the resultant literature will of course be of high quality,

and so what's the need for peer review? Can you say something on that? Journal peer review, you would say? Pardon? You would talk about journal peer review instead of grants peer review, obviously? Correct, that journal peer review is not necessary.

That's an interesting question. I mean, more or less, it's in some cases, in some fields, some sectors, it's more or less already happening, because the readership of some journals, you might do the peer review of the article, but the readership of the article is sometimes pretty limited,

so at some point, you do wonder, you know, is all that process really needed, because if an article is going to be read, we're gonna know from the comments if it's positive or not. It's not, we can't, as a funding agency,

it's impossible to guarantee the quality of the research that's going to be done. I mean, we're only vetting on a proposal, on something that is coming in the future, and I think the community needs, if the peer review at the journal level is not what they want anymore, fine, but they need to find another way to recognize what is good and not good results,

because we're only vetting the proposal, and from the humanities and social science perspective, I'm funding no more than 20% of my community, so there's plenty of research out there that is not funded, and that has not gone through an agency process.

Dominic, thanks for those comments. It was very interesting to hear how you're thinking about things morphing, and I was particularly interested in your thoughts about how the journal has to open up and change and become something that it couldn't be

with print technologies. I'm really interested in new forms of scholarly publication, and SSHRC, as you say, has been uniquely supporting the infrastructure for journals on a project basis for years. There's no funding stream for supporting new form digital scholarly publication, so I guess my question is,

what are your thoughts on what SSHRC should do in response to this situation? Should the, there's the Aid to Scholarly Journals program from the Federation, there's SSHRC funding,

sorry, there's the Monograph program in FedCan, and then there's journals within SSHRC. Where does new form scholarly publication fit? Is it that our definition of journals should really expand? Does there need to be a new funding stream? Do you have thoughts on what should happen there? As I was mentioning, you know,

it's a new funding stream, we like to tweak things. That's what I learned from the government, they like to tweak instead of creating new forms. Every time that we're experimenting, you know, we've got plenty of funding opportunities to experiment. You can go to connection, there's gonna be a new funding for partnerships and everything, so you can always experiment. The problem is when you want to do

a recurring funding for such an initiatives. My proposal to SSHRC, but it has its drawbacks, essentially financial, would be to change the word journals to platforms. I mean, at some point, scholarly aid to scholarly platforms, and open up the definition of what is platform,

and expand, not just publishing articles, but it could be all other kinds of platforms. The drawbacks to that is that there's a limited pool of money, and although the success rate is now 73% for the actual journals, anything lower for them would be critical for the community. So that's why the investment of money would be interesting.

And from my perspective, and I'm really not talking for SSHRC, but really my position in SSHRC, and I want, is that if there's money that comes in, I've got way more chance to attract money towards such an initiatives, around scholarly collaboration, around new digital platforms, than to invest more in the traditional practice

of publishing that is facing so many challenges right now. Thank you for that. I actually found your talk very, very interesting, and I was even really happy to have Susan's question, because I'm actually pulling it back. I want to ask you again about the aid to scholarly journals.

That's something, a program, that I've been following for several years. I keep my eye on your website to see if there's going to be a new iteration of that. It was last time, it was 2014, and I have many journals that want to flip, and don't have any money, and don't have any funds. But you are talking about how you're really wanting to support the group,

and not the isolated journal itself. So I'm wondering if you could maybe update us on if there are any plans, because it looks like from the website that there will be a new version of that program, and if it will allow those smaller journals who have no funding to flip into an OJS program.

Answer is yes. We just delayed by a year the competition, just to allow us the time to consult with the community, and to finish the participation to these groups that were ongoing and everything. So the competition is going to be launched probably in January, and I think the deadline is in June, and obviously it's open to new journals

like any other competition, whether it's OJS or other kinds of distribution. Regarding the capacity, it's been requests that we've received from varying horizons for the creation of a group that would be able to offer innovation services to journal,

instead of giving more money to each separate journal, because obviously it's too complicated for an individual journal to travel in that realm of technology. But before creating a new group,

first, it's not our job to create a group. I mean, if the community wants to create a group, fine. They can always create a group, and then ask for funding, convince us that we should fund them, but there might, as I mentioned, be already groups in the ecosystem that could do the job. Yes, John. Thanks so much for the talk.

It's wonderful to get some insight and connections and some talent in terms of SSHRC. I wanna be part of the community noise issue that you invited earlier and said was important, and so I wanna talk a bit about a more radical thinking about this. The biggest challenge, I think, in the social sciences and humanities today

is the APC and open access. There's no question that APC is a financial success for open access. There's no question that it is a established economic model compared to everything else. And so we're seeing increasing pressure from the big publishers to move into an APC model if you want open access.

And we think in the social sciences and humanities, that's just not a starter. So one of the ways that at least we've been thinking about, and I wanna add to the noise, is the idea of direct funding from the agencies. You said that SSHRC didn't have a model for supporting open access, apart from the journal subventions.

So the idea that everyone who receives a SSHRC grant would be able to publish wherever they want, and that SSHRC would pay the publishers directly for any publications coming from that research. That would only take care of 20% of Canada's output from what you said about SSHRC funding, about 20% of the social sciences and humanities community.

So there would still be that 80%, but that, for some of us at least, could fall to the libraries, that the libraries could flip their subscriptions. I'm just trying to give you, in a few minutes, an encapsulated model that shakes up the thinking, that SSHRC could become involved and say, this is the research that we think

is the most exciting in Canada, and wherever it's published, we wanna see it reach the world in an open access format. And rather than handling APCs out to only 20% of the community, you would just fund that research directly and work with the libraries in Canada to see about supporting the part that isn't funded.

So, as noise goes... I agree that the APC is one of the biggest problem that we're facing with the open access. We could always, in the aid to scholarly, and I'll go to the second part of your question afterwards, because the first part is easier.

And we could always, in the aid to scholarly journals, you know, say that we don't fund journals that use APC, or we don't fund journals that are on commercial platforms and things like that. But that would only affect the 144 journals that we fund in Canada,

so I'm not sure if that's sufficient to make a big difference. In fact, I know it's not sufficient, it's just a, it's a nice gesture, but it won't be sufficient to influence. Regarding what you're proposing, I guess it's, I group that in all the, I group because we had the opportunity to talk about that model of yours that is really interesting also.

And I group that in the creation of groups, you know, that could manage that for SSHRC, because it's extremely difficult to imagine SSHRC managing payments, individual payments to journals that publish articles coming from. So we need somebody between, you know, we need a broker that's gonna be able to do it for SSHRC, and we could...

And ORCID could be lovely brokers in that regard. Fine. That's a good idea. We need brokers that can, you know, we need that empowerment of the community that can manage it, because at the individual level, it's not possible for a government to do it, you know. No, I understand. Yeah. But are we thinking at that level of proposals,

so that if we got together with CROSSREF and ORCID and came forward with a group of journals that we could begin that kind of discussion? I think it needs to be discussed, yeah. Okay. From noise to music. Thank you. That's it.

Dominique, I was wondering before you said that there is consciousness that the government, that the commercial publishers are very powerful, and that a lot of money behind it and so on. But I think in Canada, we have the opportunity of building some kind of a national initiative.

There is like, because of the territory and the culture and so on, there are very much of similarities with what is going on in Europe in some countries and the European Union. So there are projects where there is a national support and national initiatives in order to make this switch

or make open access initiatives happen. So in these review of the program and looking forward, you know, to change culture and so on, I was wondering at what point are you looking at these initiatives, and in what point are you seeing parallels that could be possible in Canada to see if there won't be able,

if we won't be able to have a national system where we support with, and to have in mind what you mentioned before, that PKP and RID are there as national infrastructure already in place. So we can talk about Crossref and ORCID as brokers, but I think we also have Canadian infrastructure there

that could do these kind of jobs. There's a lot of groups, you know, that are in the ecosystem. It's a pretty, in that sense, it's a pretty sane ecosystem because of the numbers of stakeholders that wanted to, but at the same time, because it's a, when you only have one group

or one stakeholder, it's never good, and that's something that as a funding agency, you would never want, you know, to have just one organization that controls everything because obviously we see the challenges. You know, when you look at how Compute Canada is working at the national level, it's always a bit complicated when you have, when you force everybody to work within one organization,

you have to make sure that that organization works really, really well because otherwise you're gonna pay afterwards for that decision. Of course, we're interested. I mean, it's a, I have to be transparent. You know, but the knowledge within the agencies about the publishing world

and about the international stakeholders and who's who and who's doing what and their understanding of the technology is really low. This is not their daily business. Their daily business is to manage competition, to find reviewers, to organize a peer review,

to award the money, to receive the reports and then to do it again. So their understanding of the general ecosystem is not to the level that is needed to take those kinds of decisions. So don't assume that they understand. They count on the researchers and they count on the community to organize themselves

and to demonstrate that they can do it before they give the money, that they are confident enough that they can give the money. So that's, there's a bit of a difference there. Well, thank you so much and I look forward to hear all the presentations today.

You have four minutes, which is much shorter than me and good luck. Thank you. Thank you.