[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
dear all, I'd like to add my 2 cents to this thread, replying to this bit of Roberto's message. >On the one hand, it created a gigantic legacy problem: even if we all started publishing Open Access today, what about the hundreds of thousands of articles published over the past decades, that are still behind a paywall? II would like to volunteer the information that the ACL the Association for Computational Linguistics https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ did exactly this. It made all the articles in their main conferences free and open access; and then they went back and digitalized and open-sourced their past! they made the already published papers also open source. Now if the computational linguists can do it, I fail to see why we cannot. To me, it seems a lack of will from our learned societies. But I don't know the numbers, of course. Happy holidays! Valeria On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 1:28 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Types-list mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/mailman/listinfo/types-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Types-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: In a letter to the US White House, (Robert Rand) > 2. Re: In a letter to the US White House, (Gabriel Scherer) > 3. Open Access: a bit of background (Was: Re: In a letter to > the US White House, ACM opposes free distribution of > peer-reviewed journal articles) (Roberto Di Cosmo) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 21:11:42 -0500 > From: Robert Rand <[email protected]> > To: Peter Selinger <[email protected]> > Cc: Types list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TYPES] In a letter to the US White House, > Message-ID: > < > cagkxo9des4hc+nj_anq9de3nz4kfh53mg6bappohhvgktad...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 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 pay? unreasonable > > > > Gold Access author processing charges (APCs)? > > > > > > > > ?: 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 16:28:35 +0100 > From: Gabriel Scherer <[email protected]> > To: Peter Selinger <[email protected]> > Cc: Jonathan Aldrich <[email protected]>, Types list > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TYPES] In a letter to the US White House, > Message-ID: > <CAPFanBGKj= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I strongly agree with Peter: the most effective action against unreasonable > publishing models is to not participate in them. We are very fortunate to > work in a community where many sensible Open Access venues exist, so that > this decision comes at little to no personal cost. > > I created a webpage to document this policy (tentatively named "Keeping my > work Open"). To evaluate the impact on my work since I started applying it > in 2017, I listed venues to which I did or did not participate due to the > policy. > > http://gasche.info/open_access.html > > The summary is that this principle is not limiting: most venues in > Programming Languages research have sensible policies (I include PACMPL, > thanks to the generous support of SIGPLAN to fund APCs, and ETAPS since > 2018), and that the Closed Access venues I encountered had fairly direct > replacements in all cases. > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 7:37 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 pay? unreasonable > > > > Gold Access author processing charges (APCs)? > > > > > > > > ?: 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 18:21:38 +0100 > From: Roberto Di Cosmo <[email protected]> > To: Gabriel Scherer <[email protected]>, Types list > <[email protected]> > Subject: [TYPES] Open Access: a bit of background (Was: Re: In a > letter to the US White House, ACM opposes free distribution of > peer-reviewed journal articles) > Message-ID: <20191224172138.GC32219@traveler> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear all, > I'd like to contribute to this very interesting thread by offering > some > background on the Open Acces debate, that started almost a quarter of a > century > ago, and that may help younger collegues to get an idea of why we ended up > where we are today. > > It's important to recall that, no matter the official statements one can > read > here and there, the goals of researchers on one side, and traditional > scientific > publishers on the other, *have always been quite different*: researchers > wanted > access to publications as broad and efficient as possible, and a means to > signal > excellence of their work; publishers wanted to run a healthy business, and > a > monopoly on their own areas (via mandatory copyright transfer and > ownership of > the publication trademarks). > > It just turns out that in the pre-Internet era what publishers offered also > satisfied the goals of researchers: the difficult divorce started some > twenty > years ago, with the generalisation of the Internet, when sharing papers on > the > Web became a *more efficient* means of distibution than having copies of > journals or proceedings sent to thousands of libraries all over the world, > and > the publishers' own goals started to become an obstacle to the free > dissemination of science. > > Unfortunately, before this divorce started, northern emisphere researchers > (*), as > well as funding agencies, had broadly agreed to the conditions imposed by > publishers, in particular mandatory transfer to them of exclusive > copyright, > which were not necessary to achieve the researcher's goals. > > This had quite disastrous consequences. > > On the one hand, it created a gigantic legacy problem: even if we all > started > publishing Open Access today, what about the hunderds of thousands of > articles > published over the past decades, that are still behind a paywall? > > On the other hand, and maybe even worse, it accustomed all the players > (including governments and funding agencies) to accept the idea that the > publishing houses actually *own* the copyright to the articles we write, > while > they actually *extort* this copyright from the authors themselves, by > forcing > them to relinquish their rights in order to be published, a provision that > is in > direct violation of the spirit of copyright itself (in France, it is > actually in > violation of the letter of copyright law, see article L.131-4 of the CPI). > > You can find a trace of this line of thinking in the wording used in the > letter > that started this whole thread, where it mentions "intellectual property" > that belongs to the publishers. > > A broader and longer analysis of what is at stake can be found in this > early > account I wrote 15 years ago, when some of us had the illusion that Open > Access > was going to win soon : > > Scientific Publications: The Role of Public Administrations in The ICT > Era, Upgrade, 2006 > + available at: http://www.dicosmo.org/FSP/FATOS-Upgrade-03-2006.pdf > + french original version available at > http://www.dicosmo.org/FSP/FreeAccessToScience.pdf > > Cheers > > -- > Roberto > > (*) in Latin America the situation is quite different > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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] > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Types-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/mailman/listinfo/types-list > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Types-list Digest, Vol 121, Issue 8 > ****************************************** > -- Valeria de Paiva http://vcvpaiva.github.io/ http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~vdp/
