Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science • Hacker News Board

Re: Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science

#61

Post by chalst » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 10:08 AM UTC

rick_2047 wrote: post #50

MichaelSalib wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it helps to distinguish different types of costs. If we're talking about general technical writing editing or assistance getting something latex-ified, that seems like the kind of thing that can be readily pushed back onto authors themselves. For example, the volunteer editor could easily tell an author: "the reviewers loved your work, but you need a technical editor to make this acceptable for publication: h…

I think what you are suggesting here is already being done. I don't have much experience but from what I hear you are required to submit a "Camera Ready" copy of your submission after you have been excepted. That would mean a well formatted and edited work.

It's common to ask authors to have their articles edited at their own expense.

Re: Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science

#62

Post by chalst » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 10:11 AM UTC

oiuyhtgyhuj wrote: post #23

Anechoic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a well run, professionally edited journal costs money to produce But how much? I'm not familiar with ACM/IEEE but looking at the journals and standards bodies that I do contribute to, I know that they don't pay authors for contributions (in some cases the authors have to pay the journals) and they don't pay editors or reviewers. As far as I can tell, they only thing they pay for is administrators a…

The reason is that live on institution subscriptions. If they switched to an iTunes $5/paper download then there would be less pressure on university libraries to pay $1000s/year for a subscription (the library pays a lot more than members for a journal) It's like the cable companies, they want your $100/month irrespective of whats showing - they don't want you to pay $1/show for what you actually want to watch.

I wouldn't trust Apple to maintain an archive of peer-reviewed science for the next 100 years, which is what librarians aim to do. Institutional subscriptions are part of this picture: libraries receive all the publications of the journals they subscribe to and archive them.

Re: Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science

#63

Post by adrianN » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 12:12 PM UTC

neilc wrote: post #53

rick_2047 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would certainly like a confirmation of this. If I remove a whole paragraph (like of acknowledgements or related research (which is already covered in the reference section)) does that mean that the paper is not owned by the journal? What if I make my own formatting and change the conclusion paragraph?

Per http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#De... : "As part of their retained rights, authors may revise their ACM-copyrighted work. If the new work is substantially developed, it is considered a new derivative work. The author owns the copyright in the new work and may do as she wishes with it. The author must incorporate a citation to the previous work with a notice ... If the work is a minor rev…

From the same site:

"The original copyright holder retains: [...] The right to post author-prepared versions of the work covered by ACM copyright in a personal collection on their own Home Page and on a publicly accessible server of their employer, and in a repository legally mandated by the agency funding the research on which the Work is based. Such posting is limited to noncommercial access and personal use by others, and must include this notice both embedded within the full text file and in the accompanying citation display as well:

"© ACM, YYYY. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in PUBLICATION, {VOL#, ISS#, (DATE)} http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/nnnnnn.nnnnnn

Re: Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science

#64

Post by csperkins » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 1:00 PM UTC

smutticus wrote: post #17

What's even worse is that the IEEE charges to read their standards. The ITU charges as well but the IETF thankfully does not. All 3 organizations are effectively doing the same thing. Granted their standards focus on different areas. But why can the IETF manage this completely without charging while the others have to charge extortionate fees?

The IETF charges attendees $650 in meeting registration, and receives close to $1M/year in sponsorship from the Internet Society and industry (budgets on http://iaoc.ietf.org/). Free access to IETF standards is subsidised out of other fees...

Re: Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science

#65

Post by gcb » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 5:50 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #63

neilc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#De... : "As part of their retained rights, authors may revise their ACM-copyrighted work. If the new work is substantially developed, it is considered a new derivative work. The author owns the copyright in the new work and may do as she wishes with it. The author must incorporate a citation to the previous work with a notice ... If the work is a minor rev…

From the same site: "The original copyright holder retains: [...] The right to post author-prepared versions of the work covered by ACM copyright in a personal collection on their own Home Page and on a publicly accessible server of their employer, and in a repository legally mandated by the agency funding the research on which the Work is based. Such posting is limited to noncommercial access and personal use by oth…

You own the paper. You can publish it on your personal site before X in "© acm 200x". It's not your fault they didn't choose to take interest in the paper before that date...

Re: Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science

#66

Post by larsberg » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 8:57 PM UTC

patrickyeon wrote: post #42

larsberg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another PhD student, I don't really get all of the rage. In practice, everything post-1997 is easily accessible, and if you're searching through CiteseerX you probably won't even notice the difference. I won't claim it's a great system, but there is observational equivalence with "free and unencumbered publication" modulo a 3" x 4" blurb of text on the lower-left of the first page of the document. Except for a sel…

When you are no longer a student, it will not be so easy. IEEE and ACM (at least) will charge you for articles, and without an IP address registered to your university, all you'll see is abstracts.

No, what I'm saying is that you can get exactly the same paper through CiteseerX, modulo the copyright (which is all that changes between the preprint and final).