Re: Reply to Semantics Proceedings Inquiry

Also, last I heard, Elsevier are still not releasing their citation lists 
through Crossref (maybe of more concern to web data interests than HTML vs PDF?). -- see who's missing?


On 06/02/2018 11:38, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 03:14:35 +0100, Sarven Capadisli <> wrote:
>>> * Who will pay for the APC for the OA articles?
>>> APC is fully covered by Semantics.
>> How much of each registration fee is essentially given to Elsevier?
>>> This year we were offered to publish open access in the Elsevier Procedia
>>> Series at a fee of $ 50.- per article. We thought this was a reasonable
>>> offer also for the community given that Elsevier also takes care of all the
>>> overhead associated with editing, indexing, etc.
> I must commend SEMANTiCS for going Open Access -- I note that the
> proceedings from 2017 at ACM are still not available from
> so I don't know if they are Open Access or not.
> $50/article is not particularly high APC cost, so I would not complain
> about that. If we assume the article is made available for the next 20
> years that is $2.50/year for hosting a PDF, metadata and respond to DOI
> resolution.
> I must say however that it's puzzling that you have gone with Elsevier,
> given their track record of working against author interests, charging
> libraries extraordinary high fees, and lobbying against Open Access.
> lists a bit of history.
> Myself and 16000 other researchers have signed
> to boycott Elsevier, and would therefore
> not be willing to submit or review for SEMANTiCS this year.
> I will admit that things have changed for the better in recent years -
> with more Open Access options -- however many of the Elsevier journals
> charge APC of around $2000 to publish OA in a hybrid open/closed
> journals which the libraries still pay fortunes (e.g. £1.5M/year) to
> subscribe to.
> At least such an APC gives you a HTML rendering and hosting (no doubt
> painstakingly re-assembled from the submitted PDFs) -- but that does not
> seem to be the case with Procedia.
> You get what you pay for - the $50 will apparantly only give
> SEMANTiCS an ACM-like hosting of PDFs and DOI resolution, no
> indexable/linkable HTML version - judging from previous issues:
> And I think that it is not acceptable for a conference which is trying
> to cover Web Semantics, Linked Open Data and to specifically
> disallow authors from using web, HTML and those technologies for
> submitting their articles. HTML was invented 28 years
> ago (before PDF!), I am not sure what we are waiting for..
> Is there perhaps still a kind of cult belief that Computer Science
> papers need to look the same way as in 1964 to be "academically
> acceptable"? I certainly feel there is much more PDF/LaTeX worshipping
> in CS than in other fields. is
> certainly a nice paper for its time - but that does not mean we have to
> constantly try to replicate that style.

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2018 17:02:56 UTC