W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2017

Re: With footnotes (was Re: Open Access to Journal of Web Semantics (JWS))

From: Steffen Staab <staab@uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:59:58 +0200
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <C05B0D2E-B74B-4204-8265-9632C35DD1A7@uni-koblenz.de>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>

> Am 09.08.2017 um 13:11 schrieb Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>:
> On 2017-08-09 12:45, Steffen Staab wrote:
>> Dear Alexander and other likewise participants in the discussion,
>> I think this discussion lacks information about  (1) how the preprint
>> server of JoWS is operated and
>> (2) how archival services need to be operated in general. Hence, I think
>> you should inform yourself
>> before you utter strong claims.
>> (1) The preprint server of JoWS is under full control by the community.
>> It is financially supported by Elsevier.
>> Authors do not pay a dime to have their paper there.
> Misleading.
> Apparently JWS preprints reflect the published works - pending proof,
> but we can put that aside for a moment. Institutions are already paying,
> ie. the taxpayers, to access the published works. Are you thinking that
> the fees that Elsevier charge are not in any way allocated towards the
> existence and maintenance of such preprint server?
>> (2) Setting up an archival service is simple (indications are also given
>> in the thread below, dozen more nice ideas fly around). 
>> Running an archival service is conceptually difficult and costly.
>> The issue is not even the amount of money by itself (about >10K per year
>> for a moderate size journal like JoWS). 
>> The issue is that there are no established ways to channel money into
>> such a task (the service provider cannot 
>> charge the head librarian for such a thing, unless it is a kind of
>> publisher). Note: nothing stops the community from improving
>> the preprint server. If you offer free work to do it, I guess you will
>> be very welcome. 
> How do you come to the conclusion that it costs >10K per year to run
> such service yet it is "free"? Elsevier is not doing this for fun.

I have operated the preprint server for 6 years. 

But obviously you know everything much, much better than the people who do things.


> There is zero incentive to improve Elsevier's preprint server for free.
> Ludicrous.

>> JoWS has found an excellent compromise with Elsever in order to offer a
>> valuable service to the community at large,
>> if you want more: roll-up your sleeves! 
> Many in the community are working on improving the state of the art in
> knowledge representation, discovery, dissemination... Many are taking
> the initiative to improve the scholarly system so that it works in ways
> that's closer to its concerns and needs.
> JWS on the other hand still operates in a bubble. No "Web Semantics"
> knowledge there other than the PDFs in its preprint server. It doesn't
> set the incentives or even equipped to handle it. Archaic, if not obsolete.
> Here is a suggestion, since the publishing methods at JWS/Elsevier have
> *nothing* to do with "Semantic Web" or free and open access - wrt
> citable things - then perhaps no future CFPs should appear in this
> mailing list. Is the JWS company prepared for that or do you still
> insist that asking the Semantic Web community to provide LaTeX to the
> for-profit company, making the works inaccessible, and publishing in PDF
> is appropriate? Where is the "Web" and/or "Semantics" in "Web Semantics"?
>> Kind regards,
>> Steffen Staab
>> JoWS EiC 2008-2014
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Friday, 11 August 2017 09:00:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:51 UTC