[TYPES] In a letter to the US White House, ACM opposes free distribution of peer-reviewed journal articles
Andrew Myers
andru at cs.cornell.edu
Sun Dec 22 14:45:39 EST 2019
The reasoning behind point #1 is "If someone doesn't think the
government should pass a law prohibiting X, then they support X." To be
blunt, this is a fallacy.
It would be interesting to see the numbers on point #3. One should keep
in mind that various publishers, including ACM, have been cutting
one-time deals to reduce open access article processing fees. as they
explore the Open Access options. Consequently, the charges for any one
conference/journal/SIG may not be representative.
Since Arxiv is currently largely supported by Cornell University along
with the Simons Foundation, I appreciate the callout. But its costs are
also increasing dramatically. Further, ACM does many positive things
beyond archiving articles.
-- Andrew
Gabriel Scherer wrote on 12/22/19 12:52 PM:
> Dear Andrew (and list),
>
> I believe open access is a goal for ACM
>
>
> This is what the ACM says, but this is not their actions suggest. Some
> examples:
>
> 1. They signed this letter. (They defend their choice in
> https://www.acm.org/about-acm/opposition-to-zero-embargo-mandate )
>
> 2. Events affiliated with an ACM conference, such as a workshop, are
> not allowed to publish their proceedings as (fair) open-access if they
> wish to, for example by publishing in ETCS or LiPICS. (I know from my
> experience with the ML and OCaml workshops that ACM people check this
> and enforce this rule.)
>
> 3. According to private communication with ETAPS organizers, the Gold
> Open Access deal offered by Springer costs *less* per paper for ETAPS
> than the Open Access model that SIGPLAN generously funds for PACMPL.
> If you're doing worse than Springer at Open Access, you are probably
> not trying very hard.
>
> I hope we can agree that publishers do provide some value in
> supporting the scientific process, for example by maintaining
> archives of publications for decades and across formats.
>
>
> According to LiPICS (the fair Open Access publishing arm of Schloss
> Dagstuhl), their edition/typesetting work costs 60€ per article (
> https://www.dagstuhl.de/en/publications/lipics/processing-charge/ ).
> (In any case, ACM outsources their edition work on proceedings to
> external companies, that if I understand correctly are budgeted as
> part of the conference organization, so not paid by ACM itself.)
>
> According to arXiv, their long-term archival platform costs <$7 per
> article ( https://arxiv.org/help/support/whitepaper#21-budget ).
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:46 PM Andrew Myers <andru at cs.cornell.edu
> <mailto:andru at cs.cornell.edu>> wrote:
>
> It feels a bit facile to bash the ACM for signing onto this
> letter. The letter does not mean that they oppose making
> publications freely available; in fact, I believe open access is a
> goal for ACM. The letter means that they oppose having the
> government *mandate* that all scientific publishers operate in
> this way. Exactly what the right funding model is for scientific
> publications is still up in the air. Should the government spend
> taxes enforcing rules whose implications we
> do not fully understand? I think not.
>
> The discussions I have seen about this topic seem to focus on the
> costs to readers and authors while completely ignoring the
> economics of publishing. I hope we can agree that publishers do
> provide some value in supporting the scientific process, for
> example by maintaining archives of publications for decades and
> across formats. That value can only be delivered if ACM et al.
> have money. Where are they supposed to get it? The old model of
> libraries paying ACM subscriptions is dying and is incompatible
> with open access. Corporate charity is unreliable and
> insufficient. The only other player with an incentive to provide
> money is the authors. My understanding is that the economics are
> forcing ACM to go in that direction.
>
> I believe ACM Is trying to be a good actor here, unlike publishers
> that double-dip by extracting money from both the authors
> (publication fees) and the readers (subscription fees); those
> publishers are doing very well financially and generating
> well-earned resentment. My understanding is that ACM does not want
> to double-dip. Instead, the idea is that authors at institutions
> with ACM subscriptions will pay lower or no fees for publications.
> That should keep the total cost to institutions under control and
> hopefully approximately cost-neutral. And note that the open
> access fees charged to other authors are still much lower than the
> author fees charged by other publishers. The journal Nature
> charges authors $2000, for example, and it is not the high end.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrew Myers
>
> Gabriel Scherer wrote on 12/21/19 6:01 AM:
>> [ The Types Forum,
>> http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
>>
>> Dear Roberto (and list),
>>
>> The new ACM Open model is based on the core idea of saving the licensing
>>
>> revenue of the ACM by shifting costs from their many customers (including
>>
>> in particular companies) to only the institutions who submit the articles.
>>
>> They hope that the academic actors that produce the scientific value will
>>
>> also pay for current ACM expenses. This model is completely incompatible
>>
>> with having fair Open Access prices for ACM publications; on the contrary,
>>
>> it would result in a strong total-cost increase for academic entities that
>>
>> publish in ACM proceedings.
>>
>> This is frankly explained on the (current version of) the ACM Open
>> documentation page:
>> https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess#acmopen
>>
>>> Today, ACM Publications and the ACM Digital Library platform are funded by
>>>
>>> selling "read" or "access" licenses to approximately 2,700 universities,
>>>
>>> government research labs, and corporations from around the world. The
>>>
>>> income generated from the sale of these licenses [...] is approximately
>>>
>>> $20M+ annually
>>>
>> The vast majority of [ACM] articles are authored by individuals affiliated
>>
>>> with ~1,000 institutions, which is roughly 1/3 of the institutions that
>>>
>>> license “access” to the ACM Digital Library. So, the main challenge for ACM
>>>
>>> is how to generate roughly the same income from 1/3 the number of
>>> institutions over the long term, as ACM transitions from selling
>>> institutional "access" to an institutional "OA publication" model and more
>>>
>>> and more of the articles published in the ACM DL are published in front of
>>>
>>> the subscription paywall.
>>>
>> A transition to fair Open Access practices would require the difficult
>>
>> decision of giving up on licensing revenue.
>> The ACM does not seem willing to do it, and cannot be trusted to do it
>>
>> eventually.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:08 PM Roberto Di Cosmo
>> <roberto at dicosmo.org> <mailto:roberto at dicosmo.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Gabriel for bringing this to this list: it was indeed shocking to
>>>
>>> see ACM
>>> (and many other learned societies) in the list of signatories of this
>>>
>>> letter.
>>>
>>> The fact that many small learned societies do not feel ready to jump into
>>>
>>> a pure
>>> open access model right away does not justify their signature on a letter
>>>
>>> containing highly debatable (that's an euphemism) statements like the ones
>>>
>>> you pinpoint.
>>>
>>> By a curious coincidence, I got almost at the same time an ACM newlsetter
>>>
>>> (Blue
>>> Diamond) containing among other announcements, this one:
>>>
>>> ACM OPEN: A New Transformative Model for Open Access Publication
>>>
>>>
>>> Over the past year ACM Publications staff have been working
>>> collaboratively with
>>> a group of large research universities in the United States to
>>>
>>> develop an
>>> entirely new and innovative model for Open Access publication that
>>>
>>> has the
>>> potential to transition ACM into a predominantly Open Access
>>> publisher over the
>>> next decade or sooner.
>>>
>>> You can find details of the proposed model at
>>> https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess#acmopen
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> --
>>> Roberto
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:53:05PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>>>> [ The Types Forum,
>>> http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
>>>> Dear types-list and SIGPLAN,
>>>>
>>>> I have long been of the opinion that our scientific publications
>>>> should be Open Access, and that editors should not request more than
>>>>
>>>> a fair price (cost of publication, which Dasgtuhl estimates at $60
>>>> per article). In particular, I believe that copyright transfer
>>>> agreements, as imposed by most editors including the ACM, is deeply
>>>>
>>>> unethical: the publishers are not the authors of our scientific
>>>> production and they should not force us to give our copyright to
>>>> them. A non-exclusive publishing agreement should be enough.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not you agree with this position, you may be interested in
>>>>
>>>> the content of the following letter to the US White House that
>>>> a coalition of scientific publishers, *including the ACM*, signed and
>>>>
>>>> support.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://presspage-production-content.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/1508/coalitionletteropposinglowerembargoes12.18.2019-581369.pdf
>>>
>>>> press release from the coalition of editors:
>>>>
>>> https://newsroom.publishers.org/researchers-and-publishers-oppose-immediate-free-distribution-of-peer-reviewed-journal-articles
>>>
>>>> (This letter was written in the context of a proposed US legislation
>>>>
>>>> to force more scientists to publish their work in Fair Open Access
>>>> venues. I haven't been able to find a precise link to a discussion of
>>>>
>>>> this proposed legislation.)
>>>>
>>>> The following parts of the letter co-signed by the ACM are
>>>> particularly juicy:
>>>>
>>>>> [We] have learned that the Administration may be preparing to step
>>>>>
>>>>> into the private marketplace and force the immediate free distribution
>>>>>
>>>>> of journal articles financed and published by organizations in the
>>>>>
>>>>> private sector, including many non-profits. This would effectively
>>>>>
>>>>> nationalize the valuable American intellectual property that we
>>>>> produce and force us to give it away to the rest of the world for
>>>>> free.
>>>>> This mandate [...] would make it very difficult for most American
>>>>> publishers to invest in publishing these articles. As a consequence,
>>>>>
>>>>> it would place increased financial responsibility on the government
>>>>>
>>>>> through diverted federal research grant funds or additional monies
>>>>>
>>>>> to underwrite the important value added by publishing. In the coming
>>>>>
>>>>> years, this cost shift would place billions of dollars of new and
>>>>> additional burden on taxpayers.
>>>> In my discussion with many of us, I regularly hear that the ACM is
>>>> "not evil" (the SIGPLAN, of course, is pure good!) and that placating
>>>>
>>>> its weird views (for example, that it really does cost $700 or $900 to
>>>>
>>>> publish an article as Open Source) is good for our research
>>>> community. It do not see how this argument is compatible with the ACM
>>>>
>>>> signing this letter.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that many of our activities, which we collectively trained
>>>>
>>>> ourselves to see as harmless administrative details of our research
>>>>
>>>> work, are in fact empowering the ACM to make those claims. Should we
>>>>
>>>> accept to give away our copyright, or payน unreasonable
>>>> Gold Access author processing charges (APCs)?
>>>>
>>>> น: The SIGPLAN decision to cover APC costs for PACMPL articles is
>>>> shielding many of us from paying APCs. But many of the smaller
>>>> conferences, symposiums or workshops in our community whose
>>>> proceedings are handled by the ACM are still limited to "pay
>>>> $900" (or "pay $25 per page") as the only Open Access option, with
>>>> copyright transfer as the only free choice, which is effectively
>>>> keeping those proceedings Closed-Access.
>>> --
>>> Roberto Di Cosmo
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Computer Science Professor
>>> (on leave at INRIA from IRIF/University Paris Diderot)
>>>
>>> Director
>>> Software Heritage https://www.softwareheritage.org
>>> INRIA
>>> Bureau C328 E-mail : roberto at dicosmo.org
>>> <mailto:roberto at dicosmo.org>
>>> 2, Rue Simone Iff Web page : http://www.dicosmo.org
>>> CS 42112 Twitter : http://twitter.com/rdicosmo
>>> 75589 Paris Cedex 12 Tel : +33 1 80 49 44 42
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> GPG fingerprint 2931 20CE 3A5A 5390 98EC 8BFC FCCA C3BE 39CB 12D3
>>>
>>>
>
More information about the Types-list
mailing list