Comments on: ACM and SIGGRAPH Members – Vote for Open Access! http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/acm-and-siggraph-members-vote-for-open-access/ Tracking the latest developments in interactive rendering techniques Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:17:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Naty http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/acm-and-siggraph-members-vote-for-open-access/comment-page-1/#comment-411 Naty Thu, 20 May 2010 14:38:22 +0000 http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/?p=1354#comment-411 ACM itself should be investigating alternative funding models which benefit its members and the computing community; the one it has picked (paywall on publications) restricts access to publications, to the detriment of authors and readers. Note "funding models", not "business models". ACM is NOT a business, and the fact that ACM leadership thinks of it as one is the very core of the problem. I have read the two linked CACM articles; they completely ignore the great benefits of a true, "Gold" Open Access model and focus myopically on the current funding model. I refer you again to the letter in support of the Federal Research Open Access Act (which your Publications Board has opposed): http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/docs/FRPAA-open-letter-2010.php. Note that besides the original 27 signatories, additional ones can be found here: http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/institutions.shtml - a total of 114 academic institutions. Open Access is inevitable - by opposing it ACM is standing on the wrong side of history and doing a disservice to its members and the computing community as a whole. ACM itself should be investigating alternative funding models which benefit its members and the computing community; the one it has picked (paywall on publications) restricts access to publications, to the detriment of authors and readers. Note “funding models”, not “business models”. ACM is NOT a business, and the fact that ACM leadership thinks of it as one is the very core of the problem.

I have read the two linked CACM articles; they completely ignore the great benefits of a true, “Gold” Open Access model and focus myopically on the current funding model. I refer you again to the letter in support of the Federal Research Open Access Act (which your Publications Board has opposed): http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/docs/FRPAA-open-letter-2010.php. Note that besides the original 27 signatories, additional ones can be found here: http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/institutions.shtml – a total of 114 academic institutions. Open Access is inevitable – by opposing it ACM is standing on the wrong side of history and doing a disservice to its members and the computing community as a whole.

]]> By: Moshe Vardi http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/acm-and-siggraph-members-vote-for-open-access/comment-page-1/#comment-410 Moshe Vardi Thu, 20 May 2010 13:59:53 +0000 http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/?p=1354#comment-410 Demanding ACM to adopt open access without considering ACM's business model is a naive and simplistic approach. ACM's publication costs are around $12M per year. Proponents of open access should describe an alternative business model and argue that it'd be better than the current one. For more thoughts on this, see http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/7/32075-open-closed-or-clopen-access/fulltext and http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/2/69353-open-access-to-scientific-publications/fulltext Moshe Vardi Demanding ACM to adopt open access without considering ACM’s business model is a naive and simplistic approach. ACM’s publication costs are around $12M per year. Proponents of open access should describe an alternative business model and argue that it’d be better than the current one.

For more thoughts on this, see
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/7/32075-open-closed-or-clopen-access/fulltext and

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/2/69353-open-access-to-scientific-publications/fulltext

Moshe Vardi

]]> By: Real-Time Rendering · Voting Time! http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/acm-and-siggraph-members-vote-for-open-access/comment-page-1/#comment-407 Real-Time Rendering · Voting Time! Wed, 19 May 2010 11:18:49 +0000 http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/?p=1354#comment-407 [...] tops. While you’re at it, vote in the ACM SIGGRAPH elections. Who to vote for? Here’s Naty’s take. Disappointingly, very few candidates have responded so far to his questionnaire (a few [...] [...] tops. While you’re at it, vote in the ACM SIGGRAPH elections. Who to vote for? Here’s Naty’s take. Disappointingly, very few candidates have responded so far to his questionnaire (a few [...]

]]> By: Shadow007 http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/acm-and-siggraph-members-vote-for-open-access/comment-page-1/#comment-402 Shadow007 Mon, 10 May 2010 12:50:43 +0000 http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/?p=1354#comment-402 Great initiative, Thanks ! Since I'm a "real-time rendering/raytracing" hobbyist, with almost no money to put in, I don't have access to publications except through pre/post prints, and could not justify spending more money on it... In the meantime, although I don't add much money into research (except through taxes of course, which would justify my getting access to research), I think and hope that through the knowledge gained and exchanged with other people my interest is at least partially paying off. Of course one problem for the ACM is to stay financially viable... and it needs to be put in the ballance. Great initiative, Thanks !
Since I’m a “real-time rendering/raytracing” hobbyist, with almost no money to put in, I don’t have access to publications except through pre/post prints, and could not justify spending more money on it…
In the meantime, although I don’t add much money into research (except through taxes of course, which would justify my getting access to research), I think and hope that through the knowledge gained and exchanged with other people my interest is at least partially paying off.
Of course one problem for the ACM is to stay financially viable… and it needs to be put in the ballance.

]]>