5 ms·
The author's problem is with the academic publishing industry (which all pretty much operates in the same manner), not the ACM. Because academic publishing is
by jeffreymcmanus 16y ago
The author's problem is with the academic publishing industry (which all pretty much operates in the same manner), not the ACM.
Because academic publishing is deeply intertwined with the process whereby professors are awarded promotions and tenure, there is very little impetus for reform here. It will take a generation or more for this problem to go away.
- rflrob 16y agoFortunately (at least for me), biomedical research these days is largely an exception to this. Thanks to a Bush-era appropriations bill, anyone who takes NIH funding must ensure that their articles are published open-access on PubMedCentral within 12 months of the initial publication. It's not perfect, but it does at least solve the problem with old publications getting locked behind paywalls unreasonable to the value. We also have the PLoS series of journals, which are completely open access and Creative Commons "attribution" licensed.
- blahblahblah 16y agoAgreed. This problem isn't ACM's fault. Professional societies are too dependent upon journal publishers to force significant change. It is Congress that needs to step in and demand that all journal articles produced as a result of any federally-funded research project (not just NIH-funded ones) be subject to the 1 year post-publication open access rule. If Congress does that, then the journals have no choice but to comply or else the authors who supply the content will publish elsewhere.