Holy smoke!! I have so many old documents to read now. Does anyone want to form an ACM Cool Papers Club?
Everything older than about 20 years has been open access for some time so you should have started earlier!
ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
41–50 of 63 posts
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#42USENIX 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…
Many USENIX papers are not open access, despite being available by literally just clicking the PDF from the conference website. (See the definition in https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration .) This is not for any nefarious reason; a lot of them predate the general understanding of why open-access licensing was important, as well as Creative Commons's founding. You'll note, for example, that https://www.usenix.o…
It's the first time I'm hearing about the Berlin Declaration. :)
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#43Holy smoke!! I have so many old documents to read now. Does anyone want to form an ACM Cool Papers Club?
I just started reading this one https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/325165.325171
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many USENIX papers are not open access, despite being available by literally just clicking the PDF from the conference website. (See the definition in https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration .) This is not for any nefarious reason; a lot of them predate the general understanding of why open-access licensing was important, as well as Creative Commons's founding. You'll note, for example, that https://www.usenix.o…
It's the first time I'm hearing about the Berlin Declaration. :)
Perhaps the first time you'd heard of it directly, but you used the term "open access" as if everyone were familiar with it, so you'd apparently been hearing about it indirectly for many years.
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers about how hard-to-use software that's no longer available worked on obsolete computers they don't have access to, especially when the problems that software solved are problems they don't have. I'm n…
> It really isn't very likely that anyone will ever publish a computer science paper as impactful as Dijkstra's go-to-statement thing. Ok, disclaimer that I am not a computer scientist (work in semiconductors so only tangentially related). But, this statement has the same "end of history" energy has the famous Philipp von Jolly quote about end of theoretical physics: "In this field, almost everything is already disco…
I think there's an enormous amount that can still be discovered, including new paradigms. I don't agree with Ken Thompson's opinion that people studying informatics today are unlucky because the most interesting stuff is already done.
But I don't think it's especially controversial to claim that Galileo and Newton had more of an impact on physics than Maxwell and Einstein or than anyone since. You could maybe quibble about Gauss and Lagrange, but Kip Thorne and Ed Witten are much more similar to Galileo than Galileo was to Descartes or Aristotle.
You might be able to cause an Einstein-like revolution in informatics—LLMs in particular seem like they have a good chance of doing that. But the field those new paradigms revolutionize will probably be recognizably the field that was largely defined by papers published in CACM in the 60s and 70s.
Also, although this isn't relevant to my thesis that probably nobody will publish such an impactful paper again, the ACM is especially unlikely to. "Attention is All You Need" https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/3... got published in NIPS 2017 rather than CACM or even an ACM conference. You could imagine a timeline where CACM was the Cell or Lancet of informatics and published papers like AiAYN instead of "The Transformative Power of Inspiration". But that's not the one we're in.
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#46USENIX 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…
I am currently the publication chair of a ACM SIGCHI conference and actually all the work is managed by by Sheridan publishing for ACM. The process is really streamlined. The main paper track actually is now a journal since a few years, so it is mostly getting the flea circus of 30 workshops and other adjunct papers to meet their deadlines. We are still under the old syste, so I wonder what the effect of the new system will be as some universities prepay the fees, while others require the authors to do that per paper afaik.
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#47Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#48With 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.
what I'm seeing is that profs in the gulf countries are collaborating with profs and groups in third world countries where they are throwing money at the profs in the third world, who are doing all the work but don't have the funds to get published in these "prestigious journals"(its called the third world for a reason), so all these people get authorship for free.
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> probably never again going to publish
Does this mean that ScholarlyArticles that authors choose to publish with ACM can be uploaded to e.g. ArXiv in full instead of only the preprints?
(If you upload PostScript and PDF to ArXiv, they can generate an HTML5 rendering of the article.)
Open access > Effects on scholarly publishing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
I learned OO from lots of great resources, and may have been disadvantaged to have have never read Ingall's paper; which isn't yet cited in Wikipedia's OO page under History.
Object orientated programinng > History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Hi...
"'Considered harmful' considered harmful"
Considered harmful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful
Edsger Dijkstra published "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" (1998) with CACM.
Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a great list of papers that was curated by Brett Victor: https://worrydream.com/refs/by-date.html
without opening the link, any idea what he is upto nowadays?