[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
I agree with Peter and Gabriel. The ACM seems intent on charging the same amount per article and just shifting around who pays for it: from readers to authors to conference-goers to (in their newest scheme) universities as part of some sort of general tax. And we shouldn't be paying it. I would add that for publishing conference proceedings, EPTCS (which publishes the conference proceedings for Linearity, ICLP, QPL and dozens of other conferences) is a great option. EPTCS is free to everyone, and it would be nice if more programming languages conferences switched to using it. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 12:38 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > [ 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. > > > > > > > > >
