[PET] PET Digest, Vol 49, Issue 8
syverson at itd.nrl.navy.mil
Sat Jun 16 14:28:44 BST 2012
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:01:18PM -0700, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
> 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
A simple "not a public access venue according to Ben's Whimsy (cf.
post <url> for criteria)" or similar seems acceptable to me.
I like this because it doesn't as much force a choice
whose affects are disproportionate wrt influence on change
and responsibility ofr the status quo, but it still adds to
the visibility and attention to the issue, which helps (e.g.,
Aleecia deciding where to submit). I expect this actually is
more likely to have influence than simply not listing CFPs.
(It's hard for people to notice a non-occurrence or properly
attribute if they do notice.)
More information about the PET