Stream: Miscellaneous

Topic: JFP goes author pays


view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 21 2021 at 20:25):

Does anyone know how they will do means-testing to check whether you deserve the "lack of funding" exception? https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2021/11/11/journal-of-functional-programming-moving-to-open-access/

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 21 2021 at 20:57):

and for any current and future editors-in-chief of other Coq-relevant journals: please do not go author pays! See, for example, arguments here.

view this post on Zulip Pierre-Marie Pédrot (Nov 22 2021 at 09:43):

When do we turn sci-hub into an actual publishing platform with peer-review and stuff?

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (Nov 22 2021 at 09:44):

Indeed, Gold Open Access is seriously problematic, however, @Karl Palmskog I have many issues with the blog post you shared. To start with, it seems to be written by someone who isn't aware of the various open access models: the title itself is problematic by equating "open access" with "gold open access". Then, it seems to defend that publishers do a real work, when all the real work of publishers nowadays is handled graciously by researchers (editors, reviewers...). My issues do not stop there. It briefly mentions the new lucrative "open access" publishers, without entering into the details of what a scam they are, follows an implicit defense of the "link tax". And it really gives no proper argument against the author-pay model and for alternative models.

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (Nov 22 2021 at 09:45):

@Pierre-Marie Pédrot Sci-hub is a good solution for accessing paywalled content, but we don't need it when authors are behaving ethically, by resorting to Green Open Access, that is self-archival in arXiv, HAL and such.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 09:46):

@Théo Zimmermann the gist of the argument is summarized in the final comment:

even if the cost of publishing a paper were to be, say, $25, asking the authors to pay is the most perverse option of all! It’s completely outrageous to demand that the people who do the work also pay for it to be officially published. It would be like requiring that the people who write Wikipedia articles would be the ones solely responsible for paying Wikipedia’s operation.

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (Nov 22 2021 at 09:47):

It's a bad argument because authors are not the ones who actually pay: it's their institutions that do, and these institutions also end up paying for access to articles written by their own researchers (for free) with the previous model. The only way out is the Diamond Open Access model, and it's a shame that this blog post doesn't really introduce it.

view this post on Zulip Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias (Nov 22 2021 at 09:47):

Pierre-Marie Pédrot said:

When do we turn sci-hub into an actual publishing platform with peer-review and stuff?

There was https://dissem.in/ , but seems down now?

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 09:48):

if you want a long breakdown of green vs. gold and the like, this blog post is not the place. I don't really care about green vs. gold, I care about not having to pay when I do all the work...

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 09:49):

most institutions I've worked at give minimal support and force employees to pay out of pocket for months

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (Nov 22 2021 at 09:50):

For those who read French, there is a very good introduction to the various Open Access models here: https://pablo.rauzy.name/openaccess/introduction.html

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 09:50):

then you're not even guaranteed they will reimburse you, since they can come up with new administrative hurdles on the fly. Let's be clear that in all senses, the author pays, either with time or out of pocket

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (Nov 22 2021 at 09:51):

Karl Palmskog said:

most institutions I've worked at give minimal support and force employees to pay out of pocket for months

That's not something I was aware of. And it seems like a better argument to me than the one made in the blog post.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 09:53):

I mean, this is standard economics. If something has a price tag, just because there is the possibility of reimbursement, this does not mean that the cost in the economic sense to the person doing the transaction disappears.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 10:04):

I think PMP is on to something: probably a lot of journals/conferences could just become overlays on top of green open access. For example, already some journals are a thin layer on top of arXiv submissions. This is what I personally prefer (though not necessarily using arXiv)

view this post on Zulip Bas Spitters (Nov 22 2021 at 11:53):

http://www.lmcs-online.org/ has a good model

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 12:22):

the blog post I referenced is from 2013, and according to Wikipedia:

In 2013, Fuchs and Sandoval published one of the first systematic definition of diamond open access

Hence, not surprising DOA was not covered at that time.

view this post on Zulip Pierre-Marie Pédrot (Nov 22 2021 at 12:29):

Regardless of the actual content, am I the only one for which a naming scheme that sounds like Pokémon versions triggers ontological suspicion? This looks straight out of a marketing campaign. What next, Accor Arena Open Open Access Deluxe?

view this post on Zulip Pierre-Marie Pédrot (Nov 22 2021 at 12:30):

(The current Zeitgeist is really depressing, within or outside research.)

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 12:31):

my take is that "green open access" is the only thing one should care about, everything else is likely the result of publishing industry lobbying. Publishers like Frontiers are making big money on being "gold open access".

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 12:40):

in almost any study, one can see that "gold" means "gold for the owners", e.g., from the Wikipedia article on diamond OA:

In DOAJ we find that the majority of OA diamond journals (54.4%) publish 24 or fewer articles per year; only 33.4% of [author pays] journals have a similar size [i.e., they publish more]

view this post on Zulip Paolo Giarrusso (Nov 22 2021 at 15:55):

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned ACM using gold open access (currently"means-tested", IIRC through a checkbox)

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Nov 22 2021 at 15:57):

they use different approaches for different venues, right? Isn't the gold stuff for JACM?

view this post on Zulip Paolo Giarrusso (Nov 22 2021 at 15:57):

That's especially relevant given the overlap between communities of JFP and ICFP, whose proceedings are now published in the gold open access PACM

view this post on Zulip Paolo Giarrusso (Nov 22 2021 at 16:00):

link: https://dl.acm.org/journal/pacmpl. They also publish POPL; PLDI has remained separate for other reasons.


Last updated: Aug 03 2024 at 00:02 UTC
https://coq.gitlab.io/zulip-archive/stream/237655-Miscellaneous/topic/JFP.20goes.20author.20pays.html
coq.gitlab.io
CC-MAIN-2024-33
18998
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MN2IMJ6IOIM5ROU6Q7LRRDPB2ZBY3SUX
<urn:uuid:687f2ba8-e1b3-4c36-b2ec-fa70cf014864>
2024-08-03T00:50:15Z
35.185.44.232
text/html
sha1:ZGPWZP6HUTSES5P33QP4JXRD6VSNQA3N
<urn:uuid:9a9f114f-ccb9-4729-af41-5b3a19577956>
https://coq.gitlab.io/zulip-archive/stream/237655-Miscellaneous/topic/JFP.20goes.20author.20pays.html
response
<urn:uuid:0330699e-9d75-44a4-a92d-3f6fa1aab318>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-59
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/