Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

#101

Post by Certhas »

b215826 wrote: post #97
Certhas wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was quoting the number for submitted articles from Gowers blog, your number is accepted. Also, proofreading at publishers basically doesn't happen any more. And even if it would, it certainly doesn't account for the difference in price, not even remotely close. You can call it bare bones, but as a scientist, it is very hard to see what value IEEE adds above this "bare bones" approach.

> Also, proofreading at publishers basically doesn't happen any more. I'm sorry, but which publishers are you talking about here? I've published with several publishers in my field (physics) including APS, AIP, AAS, EPS, Springer, etc., and almost all of them do moderate to extensive copy editing, even for journals that aren't exactly high-impact. > it certainly doesn't account for the difference in price, not even r…

But it's really not disingenuous. They simply don't provide value for money. They are, in economic terms, rentiers. Arxiv isn't all of the cost, but the arxiv costs are order of magnitude accurate, that's what Gowers showed. In physics JHEP is a good example of a high class arxiv overlay journal that is extremely successful without APCs.

The IOP and DPG with NJP also charge half of what IEEE Access do, and they are among the journals that actually provide some copy editing. As far as I recall my publications with the APS did not have any substantial proof reading done.

I actually think proof reading is a really valuable service, and I would be happy to pay for it optionally or in a transparent fashion. But even with proof reading we don't get to 1000s of dollars.

My understanding from talking to editors is that for professional societies, journal income subsidises other activities. Which is fine, but I would like to see that transparently declared. "APC 150$, Contribution to other IEEE activities 1500$". Structurally it's also questionable that library budgets should finance professional societies, but that's really the least of my concerns.

Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

#102

Post by Certhas »

b215826 wrote: post #93
Certhas wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to speculate how much it costs to run a world class journal. The cost above arxiv is 15$ per Submission: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/discrete-analysis-la... IEEE charges 1700$+

That's an unfair comparison. Discrete Analysis is an arXiv-overlay journal, IEEE hosts its own articles. Plus, Discrete Analysis doesn't typeset or proofread the articles it publishes. Again, I'm not justifying the exorbitant prices that most journals charge to publish using an open access option, all I'm saying is that it's unfair to compare arXiv with an actual academic journal. A preprint repository is in no way e…

Arxiv hosting costs were posted elsewhere and are minimal. Less than the 30$ per published article that DA requires on top. From memory: So we have roughly 1660$ unaccounted for for IEEE. PRX costs 4000$.

Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

#103

Post by b215826 »

Certhas wrote: post #101
b215826 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, proofreading at publishers basically doesn't happen any more. I'm sorry, but which publishers are you talking about here? I've published with several publishers in my field (physics) including APS, AIP, AAS, EPS, Springer, etc., and almost all of them do moderate to extensive copy editing, even for journals that aren't exactly high-impact. > it certainly doesn't account for the difference in price, not even r…

But it's really not disingenuous. They simply don't provide value for money. They are, in economic terms, rentiers. Arxiv isn't all of the cost, but the arxiv costs are order of magnitude accurate, that's what Gowers showed. In physics JHEP is a good example of a high class arxiv overlay journal that is extremely successful without APCs. The IOP and DPG with NJP also charge half of what IEEE Access do, and they are a…

> In physics JHEP is a good example of a high class arxiv overlay journal that is extremely successful without APCs.

I don't think JHEP is an overlay journal anymore. AFAIK, JHEP is now published by SISSA/Springer with funds from CERN/SCOAP. SCOAP also pays for most articles in Phys. Lett. B and some articles in Phys. Rev. D. But SCOAP probably doesn't pay for open access as much as individual authors would have to.

> As far as I recall my publications with the APS did not have any substantial proof reading done.

APS did do a moderate amount of copyediting when I published with them in 2015. They (and most publishers) also check papers for plagiarism, and it's my understanding that the third-party services that they use for this charge a hefty fee [1]. arXiv only compares submissions with existing preprints on arXiv and not other journals.

> My understanding from talking to editors is that for professional societies, journal income subsidises other activities. Which is fine, but I would like to see that transparently declared.

I totally agree with the sentiment that most publishers charge way more than they should for open-access options. Premium open-access-only journals like Phys. Rev. X and Nat. Comm. are also problematic since it discourages authors who have smaller budgets and grants from submitting their papers to these journals.

[1] https://www.ithenticate.com/products

Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

#104

Post by dvanduzer »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #6
dvanduzer wrote: post #3

(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?

I intended that as a reference to an XKCD strip[0]. Folks often talk about public goods like scientific research, as if the "real stuff" couldn't possibly happen without private investment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[0] https://xkcd.com/2102/

Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

#105

Post by throwawayjava »

williamDafoe wrote: post #67
sigstoat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because you have to run lots of meetings and pay technical editors to go over them, produce diagrams, etc? i'm not arguing that any specific amount is appropriate, but "free" seems a little low.

I was secretary for IEEE 802.20. It is a volunteer position as is the chair position, but some evil company usually has the "independent" chair on its payroll (I'm looking at you, QUALCOMM). There are no paid editors draft standards are written by committee or companies as are change proposals (I have standardized many) and the chair usually merges the changes, for free. The only people paid at conferences are the re…

Wow, I didn't realize the standards stuff is also done by volunteers.

> The only people paid at conferences are the registration people.

...if by paid you mean "free labor from local organizers and their students, plus some $1K-$3K travel awards for a PhD student in exchange for 20 hours of front desk registration, with maybe one association employee overseeing everything".

TBF, the travel awards are actually a pretty reasonable rate (avg $2K for 1/2 week of labor) if you close your eyes and ignore that:

1. CS PhD students are under-paid by a factor of 10x

2. CS PhD students are probably the only tech workers who are expected to raise funds on their own for work-related travel multiple times per year

3. these organizations double-dip. They are essentially paying a bit over market rate for labor required to run their conference registration desks while claiming that this relatively small amount of $$$ gives them some moral justification for price-gouging everything else (see: any ACM/IEEE statement about open access policy, which inevitably mentioned sponsoring student travel...)

4. ...and then still lean on conference organizers to find corporate sponsors to supplement those travel awards.

5. and those same students do a ton of other free labor in the form of writing and reviewing papers.

And so on.

Basically, any time I think "oh yeah, ACM/IEEE do that thing I didn't think about. Well, those people must be paid / must be receiving honest-to-goodness grants", it turns out: nope! All the work is done by volunteers, and any "grants" come with labor requirements.

TBF, none of that is totally unreasonable until you realize how much money these orgs are raking in. Where the hell does it all go!?

Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

#106

Post by earthboundkid »

williamDafoe wrote: post #67
sigstoat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because you have to run lots of meetings and pay technical editors to go over them, produce diagrams, etc? i'm not arguing that any specific amount is appropriate, but "free" seems a little low.

I was secretary for IEEE 802.20. It is a volunteer position as is the chair position, but some evil company usually has the "independent" chair on its payroll (I'm looking at you, QUALCOMM). There are no paid editors draft standards are written by committee or companies as are change proposals (I have standardized many) and the chair usually merges the changes, for free. The only people paid at conferences are the re…

In the humanities, this is how all the journals work: professors and grad students do all the writing and editing for free for the reputation it gives them, then some asshole company charges $30 for a 5 page PDF from 1989.

Re: ACM costs vs. arxiv.org costs

#107

Post by Calamity »

jph00 wrote: post #20
cs702 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for tweeting this. I'm making my way through the IEEE annual report to which you linked[a], and am dumbfounded too. Not only does the IEEE spend $193.4M/year operating "periodicals and media," they also spend $103.5M/year on "membership and public imperatives" (!?) and $38.5M/year on "standards" (!?). Note that these figures do not include the amounts spent on conferences, which are at least tangible. Moreo…

Another asset they have (and monetize) is a vast library of old papers. For instance, if you want to read Kildall's 1973 classic "A unified approach to global program optimization" then ACM will gladly let you do so... after you pay them $15.00 for the 8 page paper. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/512927.512945 It's hard to see how this is compatible with their claim to be "Advancing Computing as a Science & Professio…

Another reason why something like Sci-Hub is a public good despite its negative press.
Post reply on HN