[DMCA-Activists] Journal of Algorithms Editorial Board Revolts

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from New Yorkers for Fair Use Discussion list)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [fairuse-talk] Freedom to Tinker: Journal of Algorithms Editorial
Board Revolts(fwd)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:35:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Sulzberger <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden



 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Subject: Freedom to Tinker: Journal of Algorithms Editorial Board Revolts
 X-URL: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000514.html


    #RSS Home Time to Retire next

    Freedom to Tinker
    ... is your freedom to understand, discuss, repair, and modify the
technological
    devices you own.

    « Time to Retire "Hacking" | Main | "Hacking" Revisited »
    February 09, 2004
    Journal of Algorithms Editorial Board Revolts

    The editorial board of the Journal of Algorithms has resigned en masse,
to
    protest what they call price-gouging by Elsevier, the company that
publishes the
    journal. The journal's annual subscription price had risen to $700,
which is
    beyond the reach of many libraries, not to mention individuals.

    The resigning board includes very distinguished computer scientists such
as
    Donald Knuth. They have announced their intention to work on a new
journal,
    Transactions on Algorithms, to be published by ACM, the leading
professional
    society for computer scientists.

    It's surprising that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. The
value of a
    journal comes from the quality of articles in it; and this quality
derives mostly
    from the reputations of the editorial board members and the work they do
in
    choosing and editing articles. If a journal's management takes a
direction that
    the scientists on the editorial board don't like, there is something
they can do
    about it!

    Elsevier says they will find a new board and continue publishing the
journal, but
    it's hard to imagine that anybody in the field will take it seriously
anymore.

    Computer scientists are lucky, in that most of our best journals and
conference
    proceedings are published by our professional societies at reasonable
prices and
    terms. The new Transactions on Algorithms will be yet another example.
    Topic(s):
    Posted by Edward W. Felten at 11:30 AM | permanent link | Followups (3)
    Comments

    I agree. Furthermore, what's the value of the printed product? Why can't
these
    journals be blogs only? Blogs and web-publishing is perfect for
academia, where
    most articles ought to be universally-accessible but in fact are only
read by a
    few peers and grad students.
    Posted by: Michael Weiksner at February 9, 2004 02:51 PM

    "Computer scientists are lucky, in that most of our best journals and
conference
    proceedings are published by our professional societies at reasonable
prices and
    terms."

    Reasonable is relative. I buy conference proceedings in my field and pay
for them
    out of pocket, and they are usually in the $50-$100 price range. That's
better
    than $700 but still more than many people would pay.

    My real complaint, as Michael describes above, is that the online access
to these
    publications is restricted. Luckily I have a semi-hacked access (oops,
there's
    that word; I mean, I'm not sure I am supposed to have the access which I
have
    found that I do, using an old computer account) to the Springer-Verlag
LINK
    online service, for which I can get the Lecture Notes in Computer
Science series.
    But most people can't do this without what I understand is quite an
expensive
    subscription.
    Posted by: Cypherpunk at February 9, 2004 04:58 PM

    A few days ago I refused to referee for the Elsevier journal Theoretical
Computer
    Science because of its price-gouging, and (call it peer pressure if you
want) it
    makes me feel better that others are making a similar decision. It
occurred to me
    that both liberals *and* conservatives should want to boycott overpriced
    journals: liberals so as not to help greedy corporations, conservatives
so as not
    to work pro bono.
    Posted by: Scott Aaronson at February 9, 2004 05:38 PM

    yay! Gouging hurts...
    Posted by: joe at February 9, 2004 06:06 PM

    If there ever was a case for "disintermediation", it would seem to be
here.
    Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at February 10, 2004 08:33 AM

    People who are interested in this subject should enjoy Peter Suber's
Open Access
    News.
    Posted by: Seth Schoen at February 10, 2004 01:07 PM

    What is amazing is that I bet if Elsevier wanted to improve profits,
recognition,
    and sales they would lower the price to $50 per year instead and see a
50 times
    increase in their subscription rate. It seems that they are taking the
    unrealistic and unfortunate stance that if they were to raise it to a
$100000/yr
    and sell one copy they will win. THis is really a loss for everyone.
    Posted by: Robert Heckendorn at February 11, 2004 01:28 PM

    Why require dead trees at all? Take a look at the Journal of Vision or
look at
    the full historical index.

    It is free, available online, has HTML as well as PDF content, is lovely
to look
    at, and has top researchers in the field contributing to it. ACM is
swell and
    all, and their individual subscription prices are indeed much more
reasonable
    than Elsevier's, but I'd rather see them move towards a model like JoV,
where
    those who live in places where $50/year is still a lot of money can
still access
    the best literature.
    Posted by: Peter MacLeod at February 11, 2004 05:27 PM

    Publishing a journal online seems like a no-brainer. The ideal journal
would
    offer both online and dead-tree versions.
    Posted by: Ed Felten at February 11, 2004 06:06 PM

    The question is whether an organization like the ACM could tolerate
publishing an
    online version of a journal for free. Would people still join the ACM
and pay
    dues if the ACM journals were available for free online? Would anyone
still pay
    $50 for a dead-trees version if there was a free online version?

    I don't think the blog model is quite right for a journal--you still
need an
    editorial board. I can't see anyone getting a job (except in a new media
    department ;) based on a CV filled with only blog postings.
    Posted by: Peter MacLeod at February 12, 2004 12:42 AM

    A similar shift has happened in physics, with "preprint" servers like
    xxx.lanl.gov and arxiv.org drawing readers away from the journals that
the
    articles are supposedly preprints for. Some journals charge sizable fees
to
    subscribers and to authors --- that is, you have to pay them to publish,
and pay
    again to read it. Quite the racket. Combine the expense with the fact
that the
    online sources have fresher news, and it's not surprising that people
are willing
    to do without the traditional peer review process.
    Posted by: Wim L at February 12, 2004 12:50 AM

    oh, yeah.
    now (as i said in linking this story at
    my blog) for the real scandal: textbooks.
    Posted by: vlorbik at February 12, 2004 01:53 AM
    Post a comment
    Name:
    ____________________
    Email Address:
    ____________________
    URL:
    ____________________
    Remember personal info?
    (_) Yes (_) No
    Comments [HTML allowed]:

    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________
    Preview Post

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

----------------------------------------------------------- 
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
address@hidden with a subject of: unsubscribe fairuse-talk
List info at http://www.nyfairuse.org/lists.xhtml