1 / 20

Publications Report

Publications Report. Yannis Ioannidis, SGB Publications Advisor Joe Konstan, Publications Board co-Chair. Outline. In-Cooperation Proceedings OpenTOC Conference/Journal Issues CHORUS, Federal Mandates, … Other Pubs Board Activities Q&A and DISCUSSION. In-Cooperation Proceedings.

berrye
Download Presentation

Publications Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Publications Report Yannis Ioannidis, SGB Publications Advisor Joe Konstan, Publications Board co-Chair

  2. Outline • In-Cooperation Proceedings • OpenTOC • Conference/Journal Issues • CHORUS, Federal Mandates, … • Other Pubs Board Activities • Q&A and DISCUSSION

  3. In-Cooperation Proceedings Definitions • Archived in the DL: Actual content (paper) stored in & served from DL • Exposedin the DL: Metadata stored in the DL, incl. links to full content elsewhere • Hostedby the DL: Published by others, archived in the DL

  4. Policy Change on DL Archival

  5. Policy Change on DL Archival • If an in-coop event wants to be archivedin the DL, it has to be published by ICPS • If an in-coop event is published by someone else, it can be exposed in the DL • High-quality important content (e.g., in danger) can be hosted in the DL

  6. Notes on DL Exposition • Being exposed in the DL • Treated exactly like all ACM publications … • All services, aggregations, groupings, classifications, analytics, … • … except for link leading to publisher’s website • SIG decides on • in-coop status • DL exposition

  7. Notes on DL Hosting • Future adoptionof quality content by failing publishers • ACM must be authorized by authors • Better done from beginning, if such possibility • Vetting by the pubs board, as usual

  8. Vetting on DL Hosting PUBS BOARD

  9. OpenTOC Definitions on 3-year ACM experiment • Open-Surround: Open Access from DL for 1mo around a conference • OpenTOC: Open Access from DL for 1yr after conference on SIG or conference site • Revenue impact to be assessed at end

  10. Observations • 326 sponsored conferences • 236 openTOC • 62 actually put in place (for 19 SIGs) • Most downloads • around conference • during 1st year • during 2nd year

  11. OpenTOC decision • Indefinite OpenTOC • Definitive version of proceedings contents openly available from DL indefinitely

  12. Survey Results

  13. Conference/Journal Issues • Background • Jointly-staffed Conferences Committee • Publishing Conference Papers in Journals • Extended versions • Journal-first • Journal-integrated • Draft Report Provided to SGB • Sent to you in backup

  14. Conference/Journal Issues • Highlights … • Recognition that quality research is often published in conferences, and that conference publication is not uniformly recognized • Much of what we publish in conferences would qualify as journal publication in other fields • Encourage continued collaborative arrangements with Transactions (journal-first and journal-integrated) • Create a new Proceedings of the ACM line for top-quality conference proceedings.

  15. Proceedings of the ACM • Model • Series of PACM (e.g., PACM Programming Languages; PACM Software Systems) which have issues for individual proceedings; governance under design • Proceedings based on quality and review process (includes review by experts; at least one revision) • PACM would replace the proceedings for those conferences – working on financial model to support conference use/access • Expectation of mechanism for direct submission without conference attendance

  16. Feedback Sought! • Issues • Jaudelice de Oliveira (jau@coe.drexel.edu) • Roch Guerin (roch@acm.org) • Criteria for Selection • Options for Direct Submission • Management Structure • Joe Konstan (konstan@acm.org) • Business Model • Goal is to match proceedings costs to the extent possible

  17. CHORUS, Federal Mandates, … • Current decisions • Keeping longstanding policy of author rights to make mandatory deposits • 12 month embargo (consistent with US Agency defaults) • Serve version of record (alternative was author-prepared version) • Serve version in the full ACM DL • Future discussions • Services we can provide for authors? • Seek voluntary author payments?

  18. CHORUS, Federal Mandates, … • Overview • Funder OA Mandates (US, Europe, World, Foundation) • Variations: deposit/link; embargo; cost • CHORUS – Publisher solution targeted initially at US Government mandates • Automatically ties together capturing funding data (FundRef), required deposit/reporting, open access within publisher DL • NSF: using DOE Pages model, negotiations with CHORUS

  19. Other Pubs Board Activities • ICPS • New EiC, editorial board • Numbers growing significantly • many proposals from US, Australia, France • Creationof gold OA journal suspended • Work on new search engine, DL services, … • New taxonomy and backward compatibility • Very active books program • Graduate textbooks, monographs, doctoral dissertation award winners, history accounts of computing pioneers, … • Soliciting books!

  20. Q&A and Discussion

More Related