[Open-access] Criteria for conference to move to Open Access

Thu Mar 21 02:30:27 UTC 2013

Dear all,

below please find a request originally sent to okfn-de: the organizers
of OpenSym (formerly known as WikiSym) have been asked by the
Wikimedia Foundation (a major sponsor of the event) to move to OA by
next year[1], and now they are looking for the best way to go about
that.

Thanks for any feedback,

Daniel

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_Wikisym/2013_WikiSym_OpenSym_Conference

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org>
Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Subject: [okfn-de] Meinung zu Open Access Publishern
To: okfn-de at lists.okfn.org

Guten Tag,

es gab vor kurzem auf dieser Liste ein Reaktion zu unserer Konferenz
OpenSym http://opensym.org -- konkret die Frage, warum die
Konferenzpapiere nicht Open Access gestellt werden. Die Gruende sind
historisch etc. aber tatsaechlich wuerden wir auch gern dahin kommen,
Open Access zu publizieren. Unter den aktuellen Modellen faellt uns
aber die Wahl eines Publishers nicht leicht, wenn wir denn unseren
aendern wollen. Unten an deswegen der Versuch einer Liste von
Anforderungen. Feedback erwuenscht! Und danke dafuer schon einmal,

Dirk Riehle

Looking for Suitable Publisher for 2014

After reviewing our situation, we have identified the following requirements:

1. Reputable publisher (must). Obviously a must.

2. Established publisher (nice). The more established, the better, as
long as the open access option is proper.

3. Non-profit publisher (nice). Many of the problems in publishing,
including overcharging for open access publishing, stems from the
for-profit motives of the publishers. Thus, we prefer a stable
non-profit publisher.

4. Known in computer science (nice). With a strong background in
computer science, we prefer a publisher who has a proper reputation in
computer science. This requirement may become less important over
time.

5. Open access option (must). The publisher must allow for a proper
open access option. The cheaper the better as long as the publisher is
solid and has a long-term perspective.

6. Reputable license choice (must). The available open access licenses
should be widely acknowledged and should include the CC-BY and
CC-BY-SA families. A publication permission (no copyright transfer) is
also acceptable.

7. No copyright transfer (nice). For those authors, who reject open
access (or can't pay the fees) the publisher should only request a
publication permission rather than require a copyright transfer.

8. Allows for self-publication (must). With open access being an
option, rather than a requirement, it is important that the publisher
allows for self-publication (on the conference website and the
authors' own websites).

9. Reasonable and minimal service choice (nice). The publisher should
allow for the submission of whole proceedings only and not require the
purchase of additional editorial services (and impose consequent
cost).

Requirements 1, 5, 6, and 8 are musts, requirements 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 are
desirable but not required.

At present, the ACM Digital Library, our current publisher, does not
offer 5 and 6, which are musts. They have made a recent announcement
that they will provide these options, but details have not yet been
provided.

Feedback is welcome!
--
Website: http://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550

_______________________________________________
okfn-de mailing list
okfn-de at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-de
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-de