[Tccc] Research without Walls
Joe Touch
touch
Tue Oct 25 13:45:10 EDT 2011
Hi, Jakob,
On 10/25/2011 9:22 AM, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
...
> There may be good arguments in both directions, but accusing pledge
> signers of being egoistical, when what they are trying to achieve is
> free access to research articles for all, seems a bit far-fetched.
I think you are confusing what the signatories want to achieve with the
net effect of their actions.
I understand their goal - free access to research publications.
I don't agree with it. These three organizations, and their employees,
all benefit from a commercial model for *their* services. I don't
understand their limited view of the need for publishers to eat too.
Some further issues below...
Joe
> See below for a more detailed response to your points.
>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> I agree with others; this notably doesn't boycott submission, only peer review.
>>
>> That has a few net effects:
>> (1) - they're benefiting from the reviews of others without
>> pulling their own weight
>> (2) - they won't be on program committees anymore
>>
>> (1) is clearly irresponsible. First, they're clearly benefiting
>> from the reviews of others but not pulling their own weight.
>> Second, they're failing to train their own students in how to
>> review papers, which is a key part of their education as well as
>> preparing them for life after graduation.
>
> I don't think this is what (1) implies. Anyone can shirk their
> reviewing responsibilities in this way today, without signing the
> pledge. Those that choose to sign the pledge clearly have something else
> in mind.
>
> If I sign it, my intention would certainly be to continue carrying
> the same review load as I do today. I would simply reject requests
> from certain venues, and be more accommodating to others, as I now
> have more time to spare for reviewing. I would hope and expect that
> most of the pledge signers have a similar take on this.
Let's break that down:
a) you would potentially continue to submit to, e.g., IEEE venues, but
refuse to review those venues because IEEE charges for access to
publications
that is clearly selfish and hypocritical
If you don't endorse the actions of these venues, then you have an equal
obligation to NOT SUBMIT there too.
> With more quality reviewers available to venues with good copyright
> policies, these venues will undoubtedly rise in the ranks, gradually
> achieving the goal of the pledge.
IMO, the venue is impacted much more by the quality of the papers
submitted than by the quality of the reviews.
This is why, e.g., conferences in nice, warm places in the wintertime
become quite competitive for good papers.
I.e., I don't debate your logic on this point, except that it's at least
equally important to boycott submissions too -- the pledge doesn't make
a statement about that, though.
>> (2) has repercussions as well. They no longer help promote their
>> employer in the community (being listed on TPCs is an advertisement of
>> sorts). They also no longer are able to impact the community through
>> their participation in PC meetings, which include personal networking
>> opportunities and technical direction.
>
> Again, I don't think things have to happen this way. For example, a
> signer may reject an invitation to IEEE / ACM conference XXX based on
> their copyright policy, and instead participate in ACM/USENIX conference
> YY which has a better policy, or even use the spare time and
> availability of (highly qualified but pledged) reviewers to start a new
> online journal with a more appropriate policy.
I agree that they can participate in other meetings, but the issue here
is the breadth of existing meetings that are affected. AFAICT, this
policy discounts all IEEE conferences and all ACM conferences except
those sponsored by Sigcomm - and possibly many others.
That's shutting the door on a large community - which has repercussions.
I don't disagree that there are other venues, but there are repercussions.
>> Finally, I'm assuming that:
>> - Google now offers advertising for free
>> - Microsoft products are available for public download
>> - UC Berkeley no longer charges tuition
>
> You forget that these venues do not actually produce the papers: we
> do. They also don't fund them: the NSF, NIH and others do.
Google and Microsoft do fund research - both directly and indirectly.
All three organizations make money based on selling their products or
services. I find it hypocritical that they would discount the legitimacy
of someone else - a publisher - also making a living.
> A colleague of mine chimed in with these statistics today: "Elsevier
> (publishing, not the Reed Elsevier parent company) received 2 billion
> EUR in revenue in 2010 and kept approximately 36% of that as profit."
>
> What exactly is it that Elsevier does (not their volunteering
> reviewers and authors), that justifies $2B/year of funding, and 720
> million in annual profits?
A lot of publishers - and authors - make money selling books. Journals
are often loss-leaders. That's what I've heard. I appreciate that I
don't have inside info on this, but absent that info you're tarring an
entire industry inappropriately.
I'll note that you yourself published a number of papers in IEEE venues
- and the IEEE charges for access.
Is there some reason that's not legitimate? Is this about charging for
access to research, or for overcharging?
---
More information about the TCCC
mailing list