[PET] Open Access?

Ben Laurie ben at links.org
Thu Jun 14 11:35:34 BST 2012


On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Nikita Borisov <nikitab at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I would prefer not to have such a restriction. I know a number of people
> (several on this list, surely) who have opted not to provide *review*
> services for non-open-access venues, but I don't know of anyone who has
> decided not to publish in non-OA venues.

Me :-)

> I think even if there are such
> people on this list, they would form a small minority. Overall, I think the
> pressure one would exert on publishers towards open access by implementing
> such a CFP forwarding policy would be minimal and its benefits would be
> outweighed by failing to get potentially relevant CFP information to PET
> list members.

In other words, you support the business of taking publicly funded
research and tying it up in commercial agreements?

> Also, wouldn't it mean that even the CFP for PETS would be forbidden, under
> the current agreements?

AIUI, PETS is, in practice, open access, despite the publisher's
attempts to prevent it.

> - Nikita
> [full disclosure: I'm planning to send a non-OA CFP to the list shortly!]
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am contemplating not allowing CFPs etc for
>> conferences/books/whatever that are not open access.
>>
>> Do people have opinions?
>> _______________________________________________
>> PET mailing list
>> PET at lists.links.org
>> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nikita Borisov - http://hatswitch.org/~nikita/
> Assistant Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Tel: (217) 903-4401, Office: 460 CSL
>
> _______________________________________________
> PET mailing list
> PET at lists.links.org
> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
>


More information about the PET mailing list