ACM Is Now Open Access(acm.org) |
ACM Is Now Open Access(acm.org) |
Corporate https://libraries.acm.org/subscriptions-access/corporate-pri...
Government https://libraries.acm.org/subscriptions-access/government/dl...
Academic Institutions https://libraries.acm.org/acmopen
Individuals https://dl.acm.org/action/publisherEcommerceHelper?doi=10.55...
Also, the 'Basic Edition' provided for free to individuals without institutional/individual accounts, the ACM explains, does not include niceties such as 'Advanced Search' (e.g., filters), which requires an upgrade https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55017806873_c9ba2490c1_b...
First thing that comes to mind for me are the series of articles presented at HOPL conferences, History of Programming Languages.
HOPL II (1993) https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/154766
HOPL III (2007) https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/1238844
HOPL IV (2021) https://dl.acm.org/do/10.1145/event-12215/abs/
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1165555.1165556
Aggregability is NP-Hard... Useful the next time someone insists that it's possible to find a "perfect" model for a non-trivial ML problem. (I get this ask 1-2 times per month.)
Ask HN: Favorite Articles in the ACM Digital Library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46460953
> Authors from institutions not participating in ACM Open will need to pay an APC to publish their papers, unless they qualify for a financial or discretionary waiver. To find out whether an APC applies to your article, please consult the list of participating institutions in ACM Open and review the APC Waivers and Discounts Policy. Keep in mind that waivers are rare and are granted based on specific criteria set by ACM.
It is reasonable to say: well if they aren't providing anything of value then the market ought to bypass them. The reality is that the publishers have been very canny in protecting their position, and sharp practice is rife.
There are other platforms that can offer a similar service for much cheaper, but scientists incentivised to publish on established journals that have a higher impact metrics.
Is there anything specific about them doing that? Most of the publishers are now moving to open access model (where they charge authors thousands and still not paying for reviewers) so not sure about their claim here.
I don't know how submission works for non-Western subsidized countries; but, just wading through the pre-AI submission process was a 50+-hour a week job for one, tiny, niche conference. Making the cost $1000 cuts that down by at least 2 orders of magnitude.
On the flip side ... paying the reviewers just seems like a bad idea? Reviewers need to be skeptical AF. Even the best scientists can throw out turds every now and then.
Sorry, it's not obvious to me - how might payment for reviewers affect their decision making?
We need to keep pushing for other journals, IEEE, Springer, Elsevier, to be open access and free for all.
> By “open access” to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself
Here’s the actual link to content https://dl.acm.org/
https://openalex.org/works?page=1&filter=primary_location.so...
Always provide a DOI-style link, for example: https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/30/2/001
These can be easily changed to actual working links with a simple browser substitution rule: replace the "doi.org" with "sci-hub.se" or whatever.
Just a few things to consider:
- ACM is not a for-profit publisher like Springer or Elsevier. Any profits made from their/our publishing activities subsidize e.g., outreach activities, travel stipends for developing countries, and potential losses from e.g. conferences. - In my experience, ACM is one of the very few publishers in computer science where you can generally trust the published papers. - Keeping a long-term digital library is not just "putting PDFs on a server" but involves a lot of additional costs. The ACM HQ is rather lean IMHO, but there are multiple people involved in developing the Digital Library, handling cases of copyright infringement and plagiarism, supporting volunteers, etc. Also, the ACM DL contains a rising number of video recordings of conference talks, etc. Additionally, there are several contractors to be paid. For example, authors no longer generate their own PDFs but submit the LaTeX/Word manuscripts to a central service (TAPS), developed and operated for ACM by an Indian company, Aptara. - In the past, subscriptions to the ACM Digital Library were a major, stable source of income for ACM. ACM has to be careful to not get into financial trouble by giving away their crown jewels without generating sufficiently stable alternative income sources.
> ACM has to be careful to not get into financial trouble by giving away their crown jewels without generating sufficiently stable alternative income sources.
The attitude that the work of science belongs to these publishers is what grates me the most. Yes, ACM is not as bad as Elsevier, but this attitude is still fundamentally wrong. They are in the position they are mostly by historical accident, able to extract rents because it requires a lot of coordination to switch.
Why do I call it rent extraction despite the ACM doing stuff? Suppose the ACM charged separately for using their video platform. Would anyone pay for that?
> For example, authors no longer generate their own PDFs but submit the LaTeX/Word manuscripts to a central service (TAPS), developed and operated for ACM by an Indian company, Aptara
And what good is that? Why should we pay for a separate company to run pdflatex for us? The system exists primarily to check that we’ve put ACM branding in the paper.
Sometimes people also say that the real service is long term storage of pdfs, but let me preempt that right now: there are government sponsored long term storage facilities like Zenodo that are likely to outlast ACM. Second, commercial storage paid for indefinitely using an annuity would cost less than $1 in present value for hosting the pdfs of a conference, about 0.0001% of ACM publication fees.
I don't think spam is a huge issue. The conference websites and submission portals are niche and random people don't tend to find them or care enough to go through the trouble.
They charge that much because they can.
I guess the journals could turn around and pay the PI? But, then what? The "reviewers" still aren't being paid; just the PI? The incentive then is for the PI to have as many grad students as possible just reviewing papers. (FREE. MONEY.) If there was ever a dynamic I've been in where one agent doesn't need MORE power, it's the PI-grad-student one.
And, I've not even considered (in depth) the Bad Actors™ in such a situation. I'm just thinking about basic humans humaning along...
Our "sister" lab over in computational biology had a few PD's, but was 2x as big, and had easily 5x the funding.
