ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
twitter.com
ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#2This post makes no sense. ArXiv is a site to which papers are posted. ACM and IEEE are technical societies with a range of publications professionally managed, peer reviewed, and edited. They serve different needs and have--surprise surprise--different costs.
Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#3(arxiv.org is not archive.org if someone wants to fix the title. both are absurd creations that can't possibly exist, though.)
Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#4The big difference is that the acm spends a few million of that on politicians to keep it that way, but Arxiv doesn't have the money to do that.
Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#5Is arxiv.org mirrored on archive.org? The latter has its Wayback Machine of course, but that might not necessarily follow .ps and .pdf links.
Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#6(arxiv.org is not archive.org if someone wants to fix the title. both are absurd creations that can't possibly exist, though.)
> both are absurd creations that can't possibly exist, though.
How so?
Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#7This post makes no sense. ArXiv is a site to which papers are posted. ACM and IEEE are technical societies with a range of publications professionally managed, peer reviewed, and edited. They serve different needs and have--surprise surprise--different costs.
You can host a peer-reviewed selection of papers as an "Overlay" over an open-access archive such as arxiv.org, at trivial cost. Closed-access journals don't even fund their peer-reviewers generally, so it's not like the "overlay" journal would be offering a worse deal from that POV.
Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#8Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#9Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs
#10This post makes no sense. ArXiv is a site to which papers are posted. ACM and IEEE are technical societies with a range of publications professionally managed, peer reviewed, and edited. They serve different needs and have--surprise surprise--different costs.
They don't pay for peer review. I'm not sure you mean by "professionally managed" or "edited" exactly - or why that would cost over $100m.
(Disclaimer: I wrote the tweet. Although I didn't expect it to appear on HN...)