[PET] PET Digest, Vol 49, Issue 8

Aleecia M. McDonald aleecia at aleecia.com
Fri Jun 15 20:01:18 BST 2012

On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:02 AM, R. Jason Cronk wrote:

> Perhaps a middle ground might be to flag those conferences that are not open access; a scarlet letter, if you will, saying "yes we'll allow the CFP posted on the list but not without a public reprimand."  How you actually accomplish this is up to you.


I wouldn't mind at all seeing a prefatory note of publication policy, and see the definitions / phrasing as moderator's privilege. I admit it's not something I've paid attention to when selecting venues in the past, and adding that as one of the considerations for where I submit would be a fine thing. 

That PETS is having trouble getting a publisher to support an open approach does seem like a rather strong argument against barring such CFPs outright.


More information about the PET mailing list