[TYPES] Types-list Digest, Vol 121, Issue 8
Marco Servetto
marco.servetto at gmail.com
Wed Dec 25 15:09:20 EST 2019
This seams to be a point against the "the best way is to just not
participate and choose open access alternatives" point of view. By
directly pressuring ACM and similar we could improve the situation on
the "old" documents too.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 05:52, Valeria de Paiva
<valeria.depaiva at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
>
> dear all,
> I'd like to add my 2 cents to this thread, replying to this bit of
> Roberto's message.
>
> >On the one hand, it created a gigantic legacy problem: even if we all
> started
> publishing Open Access today, what about the hundreds of thousands of
> articles
> published over the past decades, that are still behind a paywall?
>
> II would like to volunteer the information that the ACL the Association for
> Computational Linguistics
> https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/
> did exactly this. It made all the articles in their main conferences free
> and open access; and then they went back and
> digitalized and open-sourced their past! they made the already published
> papers also open source.
> Now if the computational linguists can do it, I fail to see why we cannot.
> To me, it seems a lack of will from our learned societies. But I don't know
> the numbers, of course.
>
> Happy holidays!
> Valeria
>
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 1:28 AM <types-list-request at lists.seas.upenn.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Send Types-list mailing list submissions to
> > types-list at LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/mailman/listinfo/types-list
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > types-list-request at LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > types-list-owner at LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Types-list digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: In a letter to the US White House, (Robert Rand)
> > 2. Re: In a letter to the US White House, (Gabriel Scherer)
> > 3. Open Access: a bit of background (Was: Re: In a letter to
> > the US White House, ACM opposes free distribution of
> > peer-reviewed journal articles) (Roberto Di Cosmo)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 21:11:42 -0500
> > From: Robert Rand <rnrand at gmail.com>
> > To: Peter Selinger <selinger at mathstat.dal.ca>
> > Cc: Types list <types-list at lists.seas.upenn.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [TYPES] In a letter to the US White House,
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > CAGKXo9deS4hC+Nj_anQ9de3nZ4KfH53Mg6bAPpOhhvgKtadHkw at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > I agree with Peter and Gabriel. The ACM seems intent on charging the same
> > amount per article and just shifting around who pays for it: from readers
> > to authors to conference-goers to (in their newest scheme) universities as
> > part of some sort of general tax. And we shouldn't be paying it.
> >
> > I would add that for publishing conference proceedings, EPTCS (which
> > publishes the conference proceedings for Linearity, ICLP, QPL and dozens of
> > other conferences) is a great option. EPTCS is free to everyone, and it
> > would be nice if more programming languages conferences switched to using
> > it.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 12:38 PM <selinger at mathstat.dal.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > [ The Types Forum,
> > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list
> > > ]
> > >
> > > I was recently invited to the editorial board of a new ACM journal. I
> > > refused to become an editor, on the grounds that the journal is not
> > > open access.
> > >
> > > I feel that as editors, we volunteer our time, and I have decided to
> > > do so only for journals that are truly open access. And by "open
> > > access", I do not mean some "gold" model based on author charges
> > > (currently $1300-$1700 per ACM journal article, see
> > > https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess). I mean journals that are
> > > free for both authors and readers.
> > >
> > > There are already many such journals, and they are usually
> > > community-run. Examples include Logical Methods in Computer Science
> > > (https://lmcs.episciences.org/), Compositionality
> > > (https://www.compositionality-journal.org/), and Quantum
> > > (https://quantum-journal.org/). There is relatively little in the way
> > > of interested groups of individuals starting new such journals.
> > >
> > > I think the best way to get rid of unreasonable publishing models is
> > > not to participate in them.
> > >
> > > -- Peter
> > >
> > > Jonathan Aldrich wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [ The Types Forum,
> > > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Gabriel. Furthermore, I think we should do something.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:54 AM Gabriel Scherer <
> > > gabriel.scherer at gmail.com>
> > > > 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 pay? unreasonable
> > > > > Gold Access author processing charges (APCs)?
> > > > >
> > > > > ?: 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 16:28:35 +0100
> > From: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer at gmail.com>
> > To: Peter Selinger <selinger at mathstat.dal.ca>
> > Cc: Jonathan Aldrich <jonathan.aldrich at cs.cmu.edu>, Types list
> > <types-list at lists.seas.upenn.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [TYPES] In a letter to the US White House,
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAPFanBGKj=
> > EOhoj9w1tUWMOHBrFSEfnoT4ri6L+HtmhtymUMww at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > I strongly agree with Peter: the most effective action against unreasonable
> > publishing models is to not participate in them. We are very fortunate to
> > work in a community where many sensible Open Access venues exist, so that
> > this decision comes at little to no personal cost.
> >
> > I created a webpage to document this policy (tentatively named "Keeping my
> > work Open"). To evaluate the impact on my work since I started applying it
> > in 2017, I listed venues to which I did or did not participate due to the
> > policy.
> >
> > http://gasche.info/open_access.html
> >
> > The summary is that this principle is not limiting: most venues in
> > Programming Languages research have sensible policies (I include PACMPL,
> > thanks to the generous support of SIGPLAN to fund APCs, and ETAPS since
> > 2018), and that the Closed Access venues I encountered had fairly direct
> > replacements in all cases.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 7:37 AM <selinger at mathstat.dal.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > I was recently invited to the editorial board of a new ACM journal. I
> > > refused to become an editor, on the grounds that the journal is not
> > > open access.
> > >
> > > I feel that as editors, we volunteer our time, and I have decided to
> > > do so only for journals that are truly open access. And by "open
> > > access", I do not mean some "gold" model based on author charges
> > > (currently $1300-$1700 per ACM journal article, see
> > > https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess). I mean journals that are
> > > free for both authors and readers.
> > >
> > > There are already many such journals, and they are usually
> > > community-run. Examples include Logical Methods in Computer Science
> > > (https://lmcs.episciences.org/), Compositionality
> > > (https://www.compositionality-journal.org/), and Quantum
> > > (https://quantum-journal.org/). There is relatively little in the way
> > > of interested groups of individuals starting new such journals.
> > >
> > > I think the best way to get rid of unreasonable publishing models is
> > > not to participate in them.
> > >
> > > -- Peter
> > >
> > > Jonathan Aldrich wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [ The Types Forum,
> > > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Gabriel. Furthermore, I think we should do something.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:54 AM Gabriel Scherer <
> > > gabriel.scherer at gmail.com>
> > > > 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 pay? unreasonable
> > > > > Gold Access author processing charges (APCs)?
> > > > >
> > > > > ?: 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 18:21:38 +0100
> > From: Roberto Di Cosmo <roberto at dicosmo.org>
> > To: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer at gmail.com>, Types list
> > <types-list at lists.seas.upenn.edu>
> > Subject: [TYPES] Open Access: a bit of background (Was: Re: In a
> > letter to the US White House, ACM opposes free distribution of
> > peer-reviewed journal articles)
> > Message-ID: <20191224172138.GC32219 at traveler>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > Dear all,
> > I'd like to contribute to this very interesting thread by offering
> > some
> > background on the Open Acces debate, that started almost a quarter of a
> > century
> > ago, and that may help younger collegues to get an idea of why we ended up
> > where we are today.
> >
> > It's important to recall that, no matter the official statements one can
> > read
> > here and there, the goals of researchers on one side, and traditional
> > scientific
> > publishers on the other, *have always been quite different*: researchers
> > wanted
> > access to publications as broad and efficient as possible, and a means to
> > signal
> > excellence of their work; publishers wanted to run a healthy business, and
> > a
> > monopoly on their own areas (via mandatory copyright transfer and
> > ownership of
> > the publication trademarks).
> >
> > It just turns out that in the pre-Internet era what publishers offered also
> > satisfied the goals of researchers: the difficult divorce started some
> > twenty
> > years ago, with the generalisation of the Internet, when sharing papers on
> > the
> > Web became a *more efficient* means of distibution than having copies of
> > journals or proceedings sent to thousands of libraries all over the world,
> > and
> > the publishers' own goals started to become an obstacle to the free
> > dissemination of science.
> >
> > Unfortunately, before this divorce started, northern emisphere researchers
> > (*), as
> > well as funding agencies, had broadly agreed to the conditions imposed by
> > publishers, in particular mandatory transfer to them of exclusive
> > copyright,
> > which were not necessary to achieve the researcher's goals.
> >
> > This had quite disastrous consequences.
> >
> > On the one hand, it created a gigantic legacy problem: even if we all
> > started
> > publishing Open Access today, what about the hunderds of thousands of
> > articles
> > published over the past decades, that are still behind a paywall?
> >
> > On the other hand, and maybe even worse, it accustomed all the players
> > (including governments and funding agencies) to accept the idea that the
> > publishing houses actually *own* the copyright to the articles we write,
> > while
> > they actually *extort* this copyright from the authors themselves, by
> > forcing
> > them to relinquish their rights in order to be published, a provision that
> > is in
> > direct violation of the spirit of copyright itself (in France, it is
> > actually in
> > violation of the letter of copyright law, see article L.131-4 of the CPI).
> >
> > You can find a trace of this line of thinking in the wording used in the
> > letter
> > that started this whole thread, where it mentions "intellectual property"
> > that belongs to the publishers.
> >
> > A broader and longer analysis of what is at stake can be found in this
> > early
> > account I wrote 15 years ago, when some of us had the illusion that Open
> > Access
> > was going to win soon :
> >
> > Scientific Publications: The Role of Public Administrations in The ICT
> > Era, Upgrade, 2006
> > + available at: http://www.dicosmo.org/FSP/FATOS-Upgrade-03-2006.pdf
> > + french original version available at
> > http://www.dicosmo.org/FSP/FreeAccessToScience.pdf
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Roberto
> >
> > (*) in Latin America the situation is quite different
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Types-list mailing list
> > Types-list at LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU
> > https://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/mailman/listinfo/types-list
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Types-list Digest, Vol 121, Issue 8
> > ******************************************
> >
>
>
> --
> Valeria de Paiva
> http://vcvpaiva.github.io/
> http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~vdp/
More information about the Types-list
mailing list