- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:02:02 +0000
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
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?). https://i4oc.org -- see who's missing? #g -- On 06/02/2018 11:38, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 03:14:35 +0100, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> 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 > https://2017.semantics.cc/proceedings > 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. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controversies > lists a bit of history. > > Myself and 16000 other researchers have signed > http://thecostofknowledge.com/ 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: > https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/procedia-computer-science/issues > > And I think that it is not acceptable for a conference which is trying > to cover Web Semantics, Linked Open Data and schema.org 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. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1002164 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