With publishing prices ranging from $700 to $1800. Some real art of the deal stuff here.
What’s more, it creates an incentive to accept more papers for publication, with obvious implications for quality.
ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
21–30 of 63 posts
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#22Cancelled my membership many years ago over their refusal to support open access.
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#23Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#24Holy smoke!! I have so many old documents to read now. Does anyone want to form an ACM Cool Papers Club?
I'm totally down for that. Maybe a discord server or something?
I’m for a Awesome ACM in the style of the original https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#25I've greatly appreciated the ACM's movements toward open access, but I have to ask: What's the license? The Berlin Declaration that defined Open Access https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration defines it as follows: > 1. Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a licen…
New articles are Creative Commons (CC-BY or CC-BY-NC-ND).
The new articles aren't important.
The ACM is probably never again going to publish a paper as influential as Liskov's paper I mentioned above, or Knuth's "Structured Programming With go to Statements", or "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/362929.362947, or Schorre's "META-II: A Syntax-Oriented Compiler Writing Language" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800257.808896, or Ken Thompson's "Regular Expression Search Algorithm" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/363347.363387, or Dan Ingalls on "The Smalltalk-76 programming system design and implementation" https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/512760.512762.
Papers like those are the ones that we need to protect our ability to archive and distribute. Not David Geerts's "The Transformative Power of Inspiration" from the current issue of CACM https://cacm.acm.org/careers/the-transformative-power-of-ins.... (I am not making this up.) Thompson was competing with, let's say, Mooers and Schorre; Geerts has decided instead to compete with Jesus, the Buddha, and Norman Vincent Peale, and my brief reading of the article does not offer much hope for his prospects.
It seems safe to say that in 30 or 100 years' time nobody will cite Geerts's article as a turning point in the human understanding of inspiration, so if it's lost due to copyright restrictions, it probably won't matter that much.
At the other extreme, scholars seeking to understand the historical origins of object-orientation or personal computers would be crippled without access to material like Ingalls's paper. I'm not speculating—I'm speaking from experience, because lacking that access, I grew up thinking C++ was object-oriented!
But what do we see on the current version of the Ingalls paper that the ACM's web server just gave me? A note added in 02002 prohibiting public archival and redistribution:
> Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work or personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#26I've greatly appreciated the ACM's movements toward open access, but I have to ask: What's the license? The Berlin Declaration that defined Open Access https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration defines it as follows: > 1. Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a licen…
New articles are Creative Commons (CC-BY or CC-BY-NC-ND).
CC BY 4.0: Attribution 4.0 International: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#27These are tremendous gold open access fees, consistent with for-profit editors... I much prefer the LIPIcs system ( https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/series/LIPIcs ), which is a public service supported by Germany. They even have a modern and useful interface to submit the papers to editors!
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#28USENIX and their conferences were the absolute best to publish with. You as a researcher focus on submitting papers and/or being part of the PC. They help organize the whole conference instead of depending on an army of volunteers (you won't see "general chairs" and "local chairs" unlike with ACM). And all papers were open access without even needing a login: you literally just click the PDF from the conference websi…
Your work played an influential part in my (brief) academic journey. Didn't think I would read your username here lol, thank you so much!
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#29Cancelled my membership many years ago over their refusal to support open access.
Time to resubscribe! Show your support for this change with your wallet!
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#30USENIX and their conferences were the absolute best to publish with. You as a researcher focus on submitting papers and/or being part of the PC. They help organize the whole conference instead of depending on an army of volunteers (you won't see "general chairs" and "local chairs" unlike with ACM). And all papers were open access without even needing a login: you literally just click the PDF from the conference websi…
Your work played an influential part in my (brief) academic journey. Didn't think I would read your username here lol, thank you so much!
This made my day. Thank you for the kind words! What were you working on?