[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
> Further, ACM does many positive things beyond archiving articles. According to Crista Lopes on Twitter (I'm not sure if she's on this list): "I studied @TheOfficialACM’s finances a few years ago, when I was Treasurer of SIGPLAN. As far as I can tell, the ACM DL paywall is a small business whose revenue serves entirely to pay the staff who works for it — sales and support ppl. Very little of it flows elsewhere... As far as I can tell, the ACM could operate based only on conferences’ revenue, and ditch the paywall entirely, and everything good would still happen — staff and all. But that would mean getting rid of the DL staff. Whose salaries come [from] the DL paywall." Derek > > Since Arxiv is currently largely supported by Cornell University along > with the Simons Foundation, I appreciate the callout. But its costs are > also increasing dramatically. Further, ACM does many positive things > beyond archiving articles. > > -- Andrew > > Gabriel Scherer wrote on 12/22/19 12:52 PM: > > Dear Andrew (and list), > > > > I believe open access is a goal for ACM > > > > > > This is what the ACM says, but this is not their actions suggest. Some > > examples: > > > > 1. They signed this letter. (They defend their choice in > > https://www.acm.org/about-acm/opposition-to-zero-embargo-mandate ) > > > > 2. Events affiliated with an ACM conference, such as a workshop, are > > not allowed to publish their proceedings as (fair) open-access if they > > wish to, for example by publishing in ETCS or LiPICS. (I know from my > > experience with the ML and OCaml workshops that ACM people check this > > and enforce this rule.) > > > > 3. According to private communication with ETAPS organizers, the Gold > > Open Access deal offered by Springer costs *less* per paper for ETAPS > > than the Open Access model that SIGPLAN generously funds for PACMPL. > > If you're doing worse than Springer at Open Access, you are probably > > not trying very hard. > > > > I hope we can agree that publishers do provide some value in > > supporting the scientific process, for example by maintaining > > archives of publications for decades and across formats. > > > > > > According to LiPICS (the fair Open Access publishing arm of Schloss > > Dagstuhl), their edition/typesetting work costs 60€ per article ( > > https://www.dagstuhl.de/en/publications/lipics/processing-charge/ ). > > (In any case, ACM outsources their edition work on proceedings to > > external companies, that if I understand correctly are budgeted as > > part of the conference organization, so not paid by ACM itself.) > > > > According to arXiv, their long-term archival platform costs <$7 per > > article ( https://arxiv.org/help/support/whitepaper#21-budget ). > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:46 PM Andrew Myers <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > It feels a bit facile to bash the ACM for signing onto this > > letter. The letter does not mean that they oppose making > > publications freely available; in fact, I believe open access is a > > goal for ACM. The letter means that they oppose having the > > government *mandate* that all scientific publishers operate in > > this way. Exactly what the right funding model is for scientific > > publications is still up in the air. Should the government spend > > taxes enforcing rules whose implications we > > do not fully understand? I think not. > > > > The discussions I have seen about this topic seem to focus on the > > costs to readers and authors while completely ignoring the > > economics of publishing. I hope we can agree that publishers do > > provide some value in supporting the scientific process, for > > example by maintaining archives of publications for decades and > > across formats. That value can only be delivered if ACM et al. > > have money. Where are they supposed to get it? The old model of > > libraries paying ACM subscriptions is dying and is incompatible > > with open access. Corporate charity is unreliable and > > insufficient. The only other player with an incentive to provide > > money is the authors. My understanding is that the economics are > > forcing ACM to go in that direction. > > > > I believe ACM Is trying to be a good actor here, unlike publishers > > that double-dip by extracting money from both the authors > > (publication fees) and the readers (subscription fees); those > > publishers are doing very well financially and generating > > well-earned resentment. My understanding is that ACM does not want > > to double-dip. Instead, the idea is that authors at institutions > > with ACM subscriptions will pay lower or no fees for publications. > > That should keep the total cost to institutions under control and > > hopefully approximately cost-neutral. And note that the open > > access fees charged to other authors are still much lower than the > > author fees charged by other publishers. The journal Nature > > charges authors $2000, for example, and it is not the high end. > > > > Best, > > > > Andrew Myers > > > > Gabriel Scherer wrote on 12/21/19 6:01 AM: > >> [ The Types Forum, > >> http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] > >> > >> Dear Roberto (and list), > >> > >> The new ACM Open model is based on the core idea of saving the > >> licensing > >> > >> revenue of the ACM by shifting costs from their many customers > >> (including > >> > >> in particular companies) to only the institutions who submit the > >> articles. > >> > >> They hope that the academic actors that produce the scientific value > >> will > >> > >> also pay for current ACM expenses. This model is completely > >> incompatible > >> > >> with having fair Open Access prices for ACM publications; on the > >> contrary, > >> > >> it would result in a strong total-cost increase for academic entities > >> that > >> > >> publish in ACM proceedings. > >> > >> This is frankly explained on the (current version of) the ACM Open > >> documentation page: > >> https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess#acmopen > >> > >>> Today, ACM Publications and the ACM Digital Library platform are > >>> funded by > >>> > >>> selling "read" or "access" licenses to approximately 2,700 > >>> universities, > >>> > >>> government research labs, and corporations from around the world. The > >>> > >>> income generated from the sale of these licenses [...] is > >>> approximately > >>> > >>> $20M+ annually > >>> > >> The vast majority of [ACM] articles are authored by individuals > >> affiliated > >> > >>> with ~1,000 institutions, which is roughly 1/3 of the institutions > >>> that > >>> > >>> license “access” to the ACM Digital Library. So, the main challenge > >>> for ACM > >>> > >>> is how to generate roughly the same income from 1/3 the number of > >>> institutions over the long term, as ACM transitions from selling > >>> institutional "access" to an institutional "OA publication" model and > >>> more > >>> > >>> and more of the articles published in the ACM DL are published in > >>> front of > >>> > >>> the subscription paywall. > >>> > >> A transition to fair Open Access practices would require the difficult > >> > >> decision of giving up on licensing revenue. > >> The ACM does not seem willing to do it, and cannot be trusted to do it > >> > >> eventually. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:08 PM Roberto Di Cosmo > >> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks Gabriel for bringing this to this list: it was indeed shocking > >>> to > >>> > >>> see ACM > >>> (and many other learned societies) in the list of signatories of this > >>> > >>> letter. > >>> > >>> The fact that many small learned societies do not feel ready to jump > >>> into > >>> > >>> a pure > >>> open access model right away does not justify their signature on a > >>> letter > >>> > >>> containing highly debatable (that's an euphemism) statements like the > >>> ones > >>> > >>> you pinpoint. > >>> > >>> By a curious coincidence, I got almost at the same time an ACM > >>> newlsetter > >>> > >>> (Blue > >>> Diamond) containing among other announcements, this one: > >>> > >>> ACM OPEN: A New Transformative Model for Open Access Publication > >>> > >>> > >>> Over the past year ACM Publications staff have been working > >>> collaboratively with > >>> a group of large research universities in the United States to > >>> > >>> develop an > >>> entirely new and innovative model for Open Access publication > >>> that > >>> > >>> has the > >>> potential to transition ACM into a predominantly Open Access > >>> publisher over the > >>> next decade or sooner. > >>> > >>> You can find details of the proposed model at > >>> https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess#acmopen > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Roberto > >>> > >>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:53:05PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer 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 payน unreasonable > >>>> Gold Access author processing charges (APCs)? > >>>> > >>>> น: 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. > >>> -- > >>> Roberto Di Cosmo > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Computer Science Professor > >>> (on leave at INRIA from IRIF/University Paris Diderot) > >>> > >>> Director > >>> Software Heritage https://www.softwareheritage.org > >>> INRIA > >>> Bureau C328 E-mail : [email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> 2, Rue Simone Iff Web page : http://www.dicosmo.org > >>> CS 42112 Twitter : http://twitter.com/rdicosmo > >>> 75589 Paris Cedex 12 Tel : +33 1 80 49 44 42 > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> GPG fingerprint 2931 20CE 3A5A 5390 98EC 8BFC FCCA C3BE 39CB 12D3 > >>> > >>> > > >
