[TYPES] In a letter to the US White House, ACM opposes free distribution of peer-reviewed journal articles
Derek Dreyer
dreyer at mpi-sws.org
Sun Dec 22 17:48:25 EST 2019
> Further, ACM does many positive things beyond archiving articles.
According to Crista Lopes on Twitter (I'm not sure if she's on this list):
"I studied @TheOfficialACM’s finances a few years ago, when I was
Treasurer of SIGPLAN. As far as I can tell, the ACM DL paywall is a
small business whose revenue serves entirely to pay the staff who
works for it — sales and support ppl. Very little of it flows
elsewhere... As far as I can tell, the ACM could operate based only
on conferences’ revenue, and ditch the paywall entirely, and
everything good would still happen — staff and all. But that would
mean getting rid of the DL staff. Whose salaries come [from] the DL
paywall."
Derek
>
> 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