[PET] PET Digest, Vol 49, Issue 8

L Jean Camp ljcamp at indiana.edu
Thu Jun 14 16:55:46 BST 2012

I disagree with the proposal. This is particularly true since event
organizing is one way for junior people to build reputation. And as
such, they almost never have a voice in the publication policy.
Changes in publication have come from organizing individuals in
flagship events (e.g., IEEE S&P), chairs or leadership in events, or
working within professional organizations. For example, the ACM
library did not become open based on unrelenting demands but instead
because of hours and hours of work of members of the organization.
IEEE Xplore is being pushed by members, as well as by event
participants and attendees, to be increasingly open. Refusing to
forward CFPs would not be an effective approach, and would certainly
not harm publishers.

>> 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?

No Ben. In other words some human beings are marginally capable of
recognizing their own uniquely  privileged role in the world. For
example, a person who was born on third base, believes he hit a
triple, is in a company that will never fire him, and is oblivious to
those junior people who need tenure & funding can see such issues in
black and white.

Those who have had to deal with, work with those who are dealing with,
or are capable of empathy for individuals who are engaged in the
university system (with its demands for publication and funding) would
understand that the question is not so black and white.

>> 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.

Thus it is possible to move forward on a more evolutionary basis.

Having shared my thoughts, I note that you run the list. I recognize
that you have the right to do as  you please.


>> - 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
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> PET mailing list
> PET at lists.links.org
> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
> End of PET Digest, Vol 49, Issue 8
> **********************************

Prof. L. Jean Camp
Net Trust
Economics of Security
Congressional Fellow

More information about the PET mailing list