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

[Dirk Riehle]

Hi Laurent,

thanks for the advice.

The pros I see:

- I agree that we may not need the publisher's reputation any longer. In 
particular, if the ACM SIG (sponsoring organization) lends its credibility and 
does not insist on using the ACM digital library. Then we have the ACM stamp 
of approval anyway.

The cons I see:

- None in general, but the particular proposed site, scienceconf.org is not 
exactly promising: Typos on the front page, sloppy behavior, partly broken (in 
Chrome). Can't find much information about licenses and whether they are 
willing to accept a plain publishing permission instead of a license.

Cheers,
Dirk

On 20.03.2013 22:43, Laurent Romary wrote:
> Dear all,
>   I do not see the point of a reputable publisher if they already have their own reputation as a conference. Why don't they publish on an open public platform (e.g. http://www.sciencesconf.org/?lang=en ; which is anchored on an OA publication repository).
> Cheers,
> Laurent
>
> Le 21 mars 2013 à 03:30, Daniel Mietchen a écrit :
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA & HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>
>

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