[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
I was recently invited to the editorial board of a new ACM journal. I refused to become an editor, on the grounds that the journal is not open access. I feel that as editors, we volunteer our time, and I have decided to do so only for journals that are truly open access. And by "open access", I do not mean some "gold" model based on author charges (currently $1300-$1700 per ACM journal article, see https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess). I mean journals that are free for both authors and readers. There are already many such journals, and they are usually community-run. Examples include Logical Methods in Computer Science (https://lmcs.episciences.org/), Compositionality (https://www.compositionality-journal.org/), and Quantum (https://quantum-journal.org/). There is relatively little in the way of interested groups of individuals starting new such journals. I think the best way to get rid of unreasonable publishing models is not to participate in them. -- Peter Jonathan Aldrich wrote: > > > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] > > I agree with Gabriel. Furthermore, I think we should do something. > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:54 AM Gabriel Scherer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > > ] > > > > Dear types-list and SIGPLAN, > > > > I have long been of the opinion that our scientific publications > > should be Open Access, and that editors should not request more than > > a fair price (cost of publication, which Dasgtuhl estimates at $60 > > per article). In particular, I believe that copyright transfer > > agreements, as imposed by most editors including the ACM, is deeply > > unethical: the publishers are not the authors of our scientific > > production and they should not force us to give our copyright to > > them. A non-exclusive publishing agreement should be enough. > > > > Whether or not you agree with this position, you may be interested in > > the content of the following letter to the US White House that > > a coalition of scientific publishers, *including the ACM*, signed and > > support. > > > > > > > > https://presspage-production-content.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/1508/coalitionletteropposinglowerembargoes12.18.2019-581369.pdf > > press release from the coalition of editors: > > > > https://newsroom.publishers.org/researchers-and-publishers-oppose-immediate-free-distribution-of-peer-reviewed-journal-articles > > > > (This letter was written in the context of a proposed US legislation > > to force more scientists to publish their work in Fair Open Access > > venues. I haven't been able to find a precise link to a discussion of > > this proposed legislation.) > > > > The following parts of the letter co-signed by the ACM are > > particularly juicy: > > > > > [We] have learned that the Administration may be preparing to step > > > into the private marketplace and force the immediate free distribution > > > of journal articles financed and published by organizations in the > > > private sector, including many non-profits. This would effectively > > > nationalize the valuable American intellectual property that we > > > produce and force us to give it away to the rest of the world for > > > free. > > > > > This mandate [...] would make it very difficult for most American > > > publishers to invest in publishing these articles. As a consequence, > > > it would place increased financial responsibility on the government > > > through diverted federal research grant funds or additional monies > > > to underwrite the important value added by publishing. In the coming > > > years, this cost shift would place billions of dollars of new and > > > additional burden on taxpayers. > > > > In my discussion with many of us, I regularly hear that the ACM is > > "not evil" (the SIGPLAN, of course, is pure good!) and that placating > > its weird views (for example, that it really does cost $700 or $900 to > > publish an article as Open Source) is good for our research > > community. It do not see how this argument is compatible with the ACM > > signing this letter. > > > > I believe that many of our activities, which we collectively trained > > ourselves to see as harmless administrative details of our research > > work, are in fact empowering the ACM to make those claims. Should we > > accept to give away our copyright, or pay¹ unreasonable > > Gold Access author processing charges (APCs)? > > > > ¹: The SIGPLAN decision to cover APC costs for PACMPL articles is > > shielding many of us from paying APCs. But many of the smaller > > conferences, symposiums or workshops in our community whose > > proceedings are handled by the ACM are still limited to "pay > > $900" (or "pay $25 per page") as the only Open Access option, with > > copyright transfer as the only free choice, which is effectively > > keeping those proceedings Closed-Access. > > > >
