23 Research Library Issues 292 — 2017 access publishing in Canada.” This misplaced emphasis towards “open” will be explored further in lesson 4, below. • Details matter: communicate the objectives to the participant group in a much more prominent way, perhaps in the body of the email invitation text rather than via an embedded link located at the bottom of the invitation. Lesson # 4: Don’t make assumptions. Operating under the auspices of the publicly funded university, academic libraries and librarians are directly accountable to institutional goals to maximize research dissemination and reach of outputs funded by the public purse. The principle of “openness” in the delivery of and access to the research literature and outputs, in all their forms, where possible, remains intrinsic to the mission of academic libraries. However, the notion of open-ness has been supplanted by “open access,” which, as an evolving model of publishing, has become increasingly synonymous with the APC business model (see above). This model may be unviable and unsustainable both for libraries (who continue to pay for journals on behalf of authors) and for many smaller publishers (who feel their revenue streams have become increasingly vulnerable to market forces, and competition from a small number of very large commercial publishers). Both the survey invitation and the study objectives reference the term “open access.” What we might do differently next time: • Avoid misplaced assumptions towards “open-ness,” often synonymous with “open access” so as to remove any possible bias towards a particular business model and align the survey questions to explore all potential models as a way to legitimately Association of Research Libraries While the original research project “failed,” it offers invaluable lessons, both for the project group and others considering effective research design methodologies...