Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

Dear Sarven,
I guess that all people belonging the semantic web community have been
enriched from this discussion.
I'm sure that there are a lot of aspect about how ideas, material,
research outcomes, etc. can been shared and disseminate through all
the world.
However, my personal (very personal) feeling is that the next edition
of ESWC will not be able to solve everything... and with this, I don't
want to discredit the huge amount of work that all the organization
committee is doing.

So, I would invite you to collect all the things that you don't
consider fair, and to apply them when you will sit on your desk for
organizing your conference.
Anyway, if you don't want to do this, please at least remove my
address from the discussion, because I'm not interested in continuing
reading it.

Thanks and have a nice day.
Mauro.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
> On 2014-10-02 13:50, John Domingue wrote:
>>>
>>> As well as being irritating, UK academics submitting to ESWC run the
>>> risk that their papers will not be open to REF submission; even if they
>>> are, we have to go to additional efforts to ensure they are green OA
>>> published. This is also true of ISWC which makes the semantic web a
>>> pretty unattractive area to do research in.
>>
>>
>> for both ISWC and ESWC the PDFs are freely available e.g. see [1]
>>
>> John
>>
>> [1] http://2014.eswc-conferences.org/program/accepted-papers
>
>
> It is great that some agreements between the conferences and the publishers
> allow open access e.g., [1].
>
> However, lets not forget that:
>
> 1) a good chunk of publicly funded research is produced and reviewed for
> "free", meanwhile:
>
> 2) the public still ends up paying for the research submissions i.e.,
> institutions pay their fees to subscribe to the periodicals from the
> publisher.
>
> So, not only are we working for free, we are paying again for the research
> that we've produced. And all meanwhile, insisting on making it easier and
> preferable by the publisher.
>
> Having said that, there is no need to pile on the publisher. After all, they
> have a business and the intuitions are willing to pay for their services and
> products. That's "okay".
>
> Many in the SW field are interested in discovering the research output at
> great precision, without having to go through the publisher, or having to
> use a common search engine to look for keywords endlessly for something
> mildly relevant. We are all in fact working towards that universal access of
> information - I think TimBL said a few things on that silly little topic.
> IMO, this is where it comes apparent that the level of openness that's
> offered by the publisher is superficial and archaic.
>
> The SW community can do much better by removing the unnecessary controls
> that are in place to control the flow of information. This is whereabouts we
> should wake up. :)
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>

Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 11:33:13 UTC