Who Owns Your Research: A Survey
J. Vitek, J. Gibbons for the SIGPLAN Executive Committee
March 30, 2015
Additional information and raw data available from http://janvitek.org/who.
There were 860 responses with 54% respondents being members of the ACM. Membership is higher in North America (75%) and lower in the rest of the world (49%). The majority of respondents are from Europe (53%) followed by the USA and Canada (37%). The geographic distribution of responses is shown in the following pie chart.
The respondent are divided between academia (80%) and industry (19%).
The relative seniority of respondents as measured by the time from their first publication is summarized in the following pie chart.
The following shortcuts appear in this document: USA to mean responses from North America, EU for responses that come from Europe, Senior for respondent who have published their first paper more than 20 years ago, Middle for those who have first published ten years ago, and Junior for authors who have published less than 10 years ago. ACM will denote respondent who are members of the ACM.
Observations: The survey was publicized by email to SIGPLAN and SIGPOPS members, and then virally through social media and personal connections. One possible explanation for the higher response rate from Europe is that the issues of open access are considered more important there.
Open Access is a Moral Imperative
On the question wether open access (OA) is a “moral imperative”, 73% of respondents agreed. The other responses where a “desirable features” and “not essential”.
The proportion of respondents who believe that adopting OA is a necessity depends on origin and seniority. The following table highlights the differences. Respondents outside of the USA were slightly more favorable to OA (47%). Seniority seemed to play a big role in attitudes, with more junior respondents having stronger feelings (37%). The most striking difference is between Senior USA Academics and Junior USA Academics the former favoring OA at 3% and the latter at 11%.
Focusing only on ACM members the propotion in favor is 66%.
In all groups the majority views open access as a moral imperative.
Observation: There seems to be little question that OA is a shared value for the community. The survey argued in favor of “Gold OA” because SIGPLAN feels that it is important that all paper be accessible. While “Green OA” allows authors to share their papers, it relies on authors to do so, and to make sure that OA links remain accessible. This can’t be guaranteed and won’t be true for older work of authors who do not have a web presence.
The question of how to fund OA divides respondents: 28% are in favor of author processing charges while 41% argue for increased conference registrations.
The remaining suggestions for funding OA are listed at the end of this document. A number of comments suggest that a Green OA model should be considered. Other suggest models based on voluntary donations similar to Wikipedia, on governmental and industry support, by increased ACM membership fees. Several comments point to arXiv as an example to follow. Lastly, some suggest cutting ACM’s expenses.
Many respondents feel strongly that authors should not be priced out of publishing. Some respondents have suggested that this can be achieved by setting the price of OA to be low enough or allowing exemptions for authors unable to pay.
When asked whether they would you support ACM reducing expenses and possibly scaling back on the “Good Works” to fund OA, 74% were in favor.
In the case an author processing charge was selected, how much would be a reasonable price (in USD) for a paper? 63% of respondents is willing to pay no more than $100 per paper. An additional 27% is willing to pay $200. The following pie chart breaks the price down.
The issue of copyrights is fairly clear cut with 71% in favor of leaving copyrights with the authors.
The next question was wether to look for another publisher if an open access option was not available within the ACM by 2017: 70% of respondents were in favor.
Looking closer reveals some interesting distinctions. The majority ACM members are in favor but sentiments are stronger in Europe.
The biggest difference in opinion is between the Senior USA ACM members who are almost evenly split (slight majority in favor) and the Junior respondents who are strongly in favor of doing what it takes to get OA.
Observation: The ECOOP conference was able to switch to an open access publisher that leaves copyright to authors within two months. Two years should be feasible, or at least there should be a clear plan for the transition.
Some of the comments on OA. All of them at the bottom of the file.
[8] I find the discussion of only two options (Gold and Green) a little confusing. Does a model like LIPIcs fall in the Gold option? Should there be a special notion of 'non-commercial' Gold (I don't know how to call it)? Just a thought… That being said, I think that Open Access is an absolute must, and that the way scientific publishing goes, is changing and will continue changing. Let us start with our own backyard: CS, conferences and then (different set of problems) journals, and then (again different set of problems) books
[11] Open access to scientific research is a must. The nominal fee can be charged from institutions at a wholesome price and should be made available at cheap prices to independent researchers.
[13] In this day and age, I take it as a given that research publications should be freely available on the Internet. That ship sailed several years ago.
[14] Older math journals had "page fees" which were paid when authors had grants, but could be ignored otherwise. I would be very opposed to charging authors unless there was a reasonable plan for waiving fees for those without grant support. Otherwise only the rich could afford to publish.
[15] Scientists say they're contributing to the world's knowledge, but without open access, they're only contributing to only a small elite's knowledge.
[16] Seems like cost is always raised as an issue. Some good study/report on how much the cost is, exactly where the money goes, and improved transparency in general would be great. I am a strong supporter of open access, given that most of the world outside of western nations are unable to access content without it. However, I would be willing to concede author processing fees and what not if I knew where the money is going, who is getting paid. I would like this information to be easily available. Then I can decide if the causes are ones I want to support.
[23] First, let's get something clear: The ACM already has publication charges for conferences. We just call them conference registration fees. I chose "through increased conference registration costs", but if we piggybacked on the arXiv, *and* we wanted to "pay our own way", the "increased cost" would be on the order of $5 per paper. Compared to current conference fees, $5 is a rounding error. I'm not convinced we *would* have to pay our own way: many workshops publish their proceedings in EPTCS, which piggybacks on the arXiv and, AFAIK, doesn't pay the arXiv for that privilege. (Aside: The statement that in Green OA, "[papers] may not be preserved in perpetuity, and [have] no centralized index" isn't really true if you put your papers on the arXiv. Yes, the ACM's publication contract has misleading (intentionally misleading, I suspect) language that tries to make you think you can't—some nonsense about giving me the right to post a "pre-peer review" version; that right is not theirs to give or take away. The ACM has no rights to my paper whatsoever until I sign the agreement. If I choose to post a *post*-peer review version one minute before I sign the agreement, the ACM is powerless to stop me.)
[25] The current mixed model (Gold OA at the choice of the authors and at a very high price) does not work. For example, the Max Planck Society is strongly supporting OA and paying for publication fees at OA journals, but does not fund the ACM OA fees because they are already paying for the DL subscription and they consider the ACM OA fees as double-charging. We should either have Gold OA for all articles at a reasonable cost or just switch to ArXiv or LIPIcs.
[26] The lack of Open Access has already cost us Aaron Swartz and is one of the biggest barriers to the continued viability of academia and scholastic involvement in the 21st century. People are already dismissing the role of "ivory tower" academic organizations as "dated." It's very hard to justify charging money for access to articles when joe bloggs can write a post that "seems legit" and thoughtful content is hidden behind a paywall. This is a moral and ethical issue about the future of our field. If you present it as such to members and ask if they would be ok with paying higher dues to enable this, I'm sure many would say yes.
[29] The "green" OA model is perfect, in my opinion. It allows authors to disseminate their work in a variety of ways while still allowing ACM to make their money, which overall I think they spend pretty well. I think long-term, free repositories like arXiv are important, but need not be the focus of ACM. I would definitely not use any publisher that prohibits publicly sharing my own papers, but ACM providing full-fledged "gold" OA is just not important to me.
[32] Gold OA has major biases, such as restricting the submission to authors who can afford; also, the publisher can put pressure on the reviewers to accept papers since it increases its income.
[37] My work is, de facto, already (Green) Open Access (it is publicly available on my or co-author's webpage). I have no incentive to pay an overhead for the "Gold Open Access" -- which does not mean I am not interested in Open Access, I strongly believe it is essential for public research. Any conclusion drawn from the lack of interest for paid Gold options is deceptive.
[38] I was first tempted to mark "desirable feature" in the first question. Then I realized that the majority of papers reports on research funded by public bodies e.g. From taxpayers money. In this light, it is unacceptable that these result are not freely accessible to the general public. OA may even make research more honest. For example, if everybody could easily check up on scientific studies quoted in the press, then we were less prone to manipulation by journalists. Also, some authors might be ashamed that they publish a ton of crappy papers (I'm primarily thinking of medicine, but I'm sure there are lots of papers written for the sake of incrementing a publication counter).
[39] The regular (big) increase of digital library subscription fees put universities in very difficult position. The current model is not sustainable and must evolve quickly. Institutions (universities) already pay (the salary of authors) for the scientific work, the redaction work, the review work, the scientific committee work, ... If they pay the reminding (through library subscription fees), the work must be put in open access AND the reminding work must be done by non-profit organization. Its is non ethical that universities offer big profits for commercial organizations.
[46] I'm generally happy with the policy of SIGPLAN conferences on Green open access (and they seem to meet the open access requirements in the UK where I am). However, if LIPIcs can do open access for a $15 charge, I would much prefer conferences to publish there than with the ACM.
[53] I don't think you can hope that SoCG will be back to ACM. You may avoid that other conferences leave.
[58] ArXiv and LIPIcs are good example of how it should work
[67] I think it's important to have as low a barrier of access as possible to everyone to be able to check research. If I (as a private person, not a researcher) read a story in a newspaper about some research, I want to be able to check the original source without paying. We can't educate the general public to be critical of so-called "science" and distinguish real science from pseudo-science if the general public has no access to real science. Lacking open access by a publisher, I think it is essential that authors retain the copyright or at the very least the right to self-publish their results. But open access by a publisher is preferrable because of peer review.
[69] I strongly object to your explanation of OA above and on the page that led me to this survey. Apart from being incorrect with respect to the generally accepted meaning of OA, see for instance Wikipedia, it is polemic that has absolutely no place in a survey. Why bother with all of the questions when what you really want is a single question asking if I agree with you and with YES as the only allowed choice? Any use of the results of this survey that does not explicitly explain that the survey starts with a redefinition of the meaning of OA is bogus and inappropriate. Please do not pretend that it is a neutral attempt to gather information. Even the title "Who owns your research?" is very misleading since ownership of the *research* is not the same as ownership of an article that describes the research, the right to publish such an article, or the right to access such a publication.
[71] Free access to scientific knowledge is a basic human right. Gold open access is the most direct way to protect this right. Using funds raised from non-open-access publications model to fund other things (even "good works" that I agree are worthy) is contrary to ACM's mission and indeed, morally questionable.
[72] Main funding agency in Sweden requires final version of all publications to be released under CC-BY from 2017.
[101] Essential for letting research have a societal impact. We want to practioners to read our research. Therefore it must be available, without a paywall. This calls for open access. Peerj and Usenix are teaching ACM what can be done. In line with peerj, I expect my membership costs to cover open access publication. For peerj I pay once in my life. For ACM I am willing to pay every year, whic is a lot more. I expect to get at least what I get at peerj for that.
[104] Open Access is becoming a fact of life. If traditional publishers (ACM, IEEE, Wiley, Springer, Elsevier) do not adhere to it at an affordable price for authors, authors will go away to the newcomers on the market that are offering free of charge open access solutions, since the "research publication market" is changing rapidly. In my view, all scientific research should be openly accessible at all times and to everyone. It is one of the main criteria of science to be reproducible and refutable. If research is not freely accessible, it becomes harder to reproduce it accept by the happy few. Another important aspect is take-up of academic research by industry. By making it open access it will become easier for companies to access the published material. Otherwise, they do not have any incentive to "buy" the scientific papers.
[116] I feel like ACM is missing out on at least tracking proper download statistics by not being open access. People at my research lab who hit the paywall either go to CiteSeer/scholar.google or ask one of us with personal subscriptions to grab them the paper, if they can't easily find it via search (mostly for older journal papers not at ACM).
[120] Open access is absolutely essential - unread research is worthless research, and we can't expect that the world as a whole will join the ACM and pay DL subscription fees just so they can _check_ if one paper per year is relevant to their problems. It exists in practice anyway, because various kinds of unofficial preprints are scattered around the Internet, but this practice undermines the importance of the DL. Finally, the research is most often funded by the general public. The public should have a right to it. In particular, keeping knowledge away from those with fewest resources is counter to the spirit of scientific inquiry.
[122] While open access reduces revenue on publications, it also reduces the cost, because a component of cost is access control. I believe we could keep publishing charges affordable. We should also be working with funding agencies to build support of open publication venues into grant funding as a matter of course, even possibly decoupled from grants to individual researchers. It would make a lot of sense for NSF, ERC, etc to negotiate lump-sum support of open digital libraries in lieu of publication charges on each individual grant.
[123] Publishing used to be a genuine community service, and it made sense for organizations like ACM to participate in it as a real community building exercise. This is no longer true, the (traditional) publishing model is now a hindrance to the community, and organizations like ACM should get out of this business and focus on the things that their communities need today. As an academic, my one and only goal is to have people read my work. When the best way to do this was with paper copies, it made complete sense for ACM to help me with this goal by printing and distributing paper copies. Now that digital copies are free, the traditional publishing model only gets in the way of this goal, by erecting cost, legal, and hassle barriers to getting my work read.
[125] There should be economies of scale through open access. As I mentioned above, in AI we have two FREE OA journals: JAIR and JMLR. They operate on a shoestring primarily through volunteer efforts. The AAAI similarly provides open access to all conference publications at no charge to either the author or the reader. Authors are not always in a position to pay publications charges.
[141] The role of academia is supposed to be to produce new knowledge and share it with the world. All researchers have an obligation to the general public. Open access is absolutely imperative, and I am embarrassed that the major publication venues I send work to do not support it. The reason for why open access would be so expensive is not clear to me. Authors take on the role of writing, formatting, and copy-editing their own work. Reviewers work for free. Conference organizers and journal editors work for free. Digital publication is cheap, and paper publication is increasingly unnecessary. What are the true costs of distribution? Knowledge is priceless. It should be price-less.
[167] Usenix makes Open Access and author-owned copyright available on all articles for free. Why can't ACM?
[184] Open access is a red herring -- what we need is *fair* access. I do not see why articles have to be available free of cost to everyone. Instead, we should try to ensure that groups that lack the ability to pay -- for instance, institutions in developing countries or students -- get discounted access to ACM publications. In some ways, the open access model that is being proposed is as unfair as the current "closed" model. Someone has to pay for open access. If this leads to publication fees and increased conference attendance fees, we will in effect be imposing an additional tax on those who lack the ability to pay. We need to think beyond a binary choice between open and closed. Visions of ACM
The respondents provided 431 textual comments about what they believed the ACM’s role should be. 62% of these responses were from members of the ACM. 10% of the textual response indicate that they expect the ACM to avocate for Computer Science as well as support the community of computing researchers and practitioners. This broad goal does not seem controversial, but what are the specific ways to reach that goal?
For most respondents the main activities of the ACM should be to facilitate the organization of scientific meetings (23% of responses), and to disseminate knowledge broadly and effectively (24% of responses). Some of the comments suggest that ACM could do more to support the volunteers who organize conferences and should strive to reduce registration costs. As for knowledge dissemination, respondent often equate this to dispensing with the paywall that limits access to the DL.
A number of the response indicated that the role of the ACM is unclear (7%) or expressed frustration with the association (8%). The respondents seemed to either feel that ACM was not fulfilling its role (often this was linked with complaints about the use of DL funds), or that the many of the traditional functions of an association like the ACM could be better performed by other means. There were also comments about the US-centric of policy efforts and the good works.
4% of comments mentioned that lobbying governmental agencies is an important role of the association. 1% mentioned working on policy matter and 3% mentioned the “Good Works”.
The comments show high levels of frustration with the organization and a disconnect between how the ACM views itself and what its members want it to be. Some representative comments are listed next, the complete list is at the bottom of this page.
[2] The Good Works are important. That's not to say there isn't bloat in ACM, but there is no other organization that maintains these important activities.
[7] To support computer science research and to advocate for computer scientists in society at large. Part of the latter role involves providing access to the actual research.
[13] Roles should be: To create a centralized platform for scientific material which is freely accessible to anyone. Unfortunately, roles seem to be: To create a centralized platform for scientific material so that it can charge people who want to access the material (of course, not paying back authors at all).
[14] It ought to be a scholarly, or scientific association, whose running certainly must be economically sustainable, but not driven by commercial notions such as increasing its gross income, etc. The drive should come from serving the scientific community, and that includes offering its members services at *very* streamlined costs, keeping in mind that this community is global, diverse (also in its financial capabilities) and constantly renewed (by the influx of young researchers). Sucking in the public resources that fund most of academic research in the world should not be a priority.
[23] To provide a safety net for risky conferences, and to update latex class files periodically. The association is pretty must an outdated model of collaboration. We have social networks that researchers can easily tap without membership to a professional organization.
[26] The ACM exists to organize activities and disseminate information. Research is for the benefit of all. An organization -- other than the researcher -- that profits from research isn't a publisher, it's a profiteer. The ACM can take the role of a producer, i.e., someone who pays a worker for work that can then be resold, but no one should charge for the dissemination of research and/or profit from someone else's labor without remuneration.
[37] The true role or purpose of an institution is what it actually does, so its primary role, from my perspective, is to take my money (or the money of the agency funding me, i.e. taxpayers' money) and set it on fire. If the ACM truly cared about "Good Works", it would stop trying to run a substandard version of the arXiv, stop trying to run "Webinars" for people in "industry", etc., and move to a donation model (dues plus an optional top-up donation) to fund any actual "Good Works". I don't think this will happen, partly because, considered as a charity, the ACM's administrative overhead would be laughably high.
[38] It is difficult to identify a single role. Certainly being one of the 2 significant publication/conference brands in the ICT sector is extremely important, as is being an advocacy group for the sector (although this is difficult if ACM wants to be an international organisation). Note: a lot of the ACM's good works activities seem US-focused, which (as someone in Oceania/Australiasia, a region not even mentioned in your survey!) influences my view on scaling them back.
[43] To enable the dissemination of science from out of individual labs and into the rest of the world. It also serves as a professional body to set an example of ethical and moral behavior, a stance currently at odds with the publication mechanisms.
[48] That's a good question, I don't know. I have no personal experience with the 'good works' you mentioned. I have no other experience with ACM then organizing conferences (which isn't always as smooth as one would expect, and which is way too expensive to casually attend them without having a paper there).
[84] It has become quite useless. It should get drastically closer to the community. E.g., organizing conferences with ACM is a real pain. Before changing the financial model for conferences and journals, ACM should become more efficient and less expensive. Credible alternative such as DROPS exist... the cost of publishing should not be as high as it used to be.
[107] In theory, to serve as a general scientific organization for computer science, and manage awards, funding, conference/journal management, and archiving in a unified way across all of CS. In practice, we get very little bang for our buck. ACM's resistance to OA is a symptom of this.
[111] I don't know. The ACM does a terrible job representing the actual interests of computer science academics on the ground. I guess it's just about "professional" interests (i.e. non-academic professional). It should be part labor organization, part political party, and part library.
[130] They could stop being evil. Put all publications in the public domain and put up a .torrent with the data, and they won't have to worry about hosting.
[136] To take a unified and strong position on all issues relevant to the scientific discipline of computer science, prioritizing scientific principles above economic and political concerns as much as possible.
[146] For a significant part of its current activity: "To diminish, and go into the West". When our field was small, the need for the ACM was greater. As the field grew, ACM had to grow to continue performing the same functions. At the same time computers ironically made those functions less necessary: people can self-organize and communicate, and physical journals and conferences are no longer the only way.
[160] I see the ACM as an umbrella organization for managing and coordinating the different subfields of CS, providing uniform overhead support for conference and journal support. This way each SIG doesn't need to figure out its own way of publishing journals, etc. I imagine that the ACM is also seen by some as computer science's (and maybe computer programming's) professional organization, like the APA or ABA. I certainly don't see it that way, since there don't really seem to be distinguishing characteristics between the ACM candidates for elected office, so there's no way for me to vote for people who would represent _my_ views.
[161] It is not the role of ACM to make large profits from conferences and publishing work of others. This has to stop and it will stop. ACM can just decide how they
will survive.
[180] I believe an open ACM is best for everyone. Legal copyright challenges are important to pursue in cases where the authors are not given their due credit. Outside of that we should push for getting our research out to as many people as possible.Our goals should be disseminate as widely as possible not to publish and make money.
[185] Represent CS research and education, and its societal impact. Publishing is a just a means. In a well functioning market this can be done by industry commercially, with reasonable not too high profit margins. As long as the publishing market is malfunctioning, ACM can publish themselves to teach the market a lesson. Making money on publishing to fund other activities means publishing is too expensive. as a member, I disagree with this existing practice.
[186] The ACM should be a professional organization for computer scientists and a publisher of Open Access computer science research. The former role should be funded by membership fees and other revenue separate from publication. Publication should aim at public dissemination of research, not at funding other activities.
[189] To help organize, facilitate, and animate the scientific community, by: - ensuring the scientific quality of publications (facilitating the review process, providing venues to publish new works and to update old ones) - ensuring quality and smoothness of the publication process (significant proofing with writing experts, possibly assistance with presentation/layout/typography… or ensuring the process is smooth and reactive) - assist conference organizers in providing safe and inclusive venues (code of conduct, encouraging participation from people of diverse origins, countering community-related biases…)
[197] Assume financial risk for conferences. Ensure a minimum of quality for venues operating under its label. Lobby congress.
[208] Unclear. Computing professionals (i.e. not necessarily researchers) would benefit from a professional association, in part to be treated as an actual profession (like, e.g., physicians). Researchers have different needs, including publication of results and organization of conferences. I'm not sure what the ACM is trying to do, but it looks like it's neither of those.
[210] To freely disseminate useful results on the internet, support conference/journal administrivia, run Grace Hopper/etc, and get the fuck out of the way. Everything else is a waste of money.
[211] A vampire sucking the blood of the SIGs. The primary role of the ACM *should* be to curate and archive our work for the long term.
[213] Organizing conferences, managing online library publishing publications to make research more accessible (e.g. ACM crossroads, ..) But after +7 years affiliated to ACM and regularly publishing in top conferences (e.g. CHI) I realized the organization is INEFICIANT (I would say the same for IEEE) Any progress/innovation will only happen externally (e.g. apps, websites using ACM metadata like http://confer.csail.mit.edu/) but definitely not within ACM.
[234] What I WANT it to be is an organization to support the research enterprise in CS. What it APPEARS to be is an industry group and publisher.
[240] The role used to be serving as a point of contact among researchers. That's an outdated role: we don't need ACM to play that role any more. We all can organize our own conferences and journals and web sites, thank you. ACM should scale back and focus on the things that we cannot do well ourselves. For example, you could do a better job of helping us to sift through all the bijillions of papers published each year to find the ones that are most interesting and useful. In addition, you could help funding entities to more easily make sense of whether researchers are having a real impact on the world outside academia. And you could apply to NSF for grants of your own to boost efforts to translate research into teaching and practice. Think of it this way: academic research has uncovered lots of gems--ideas of great value to other scientists, to students, and to the world at large. I don't know of any organization currently focused on discovering those gems and getting them out to the people who need them most. ACM could be that organization. In the meantime, from what I've seen so far, you have been overly focused on small ideas. You are worried about how you'll protect your market share from the rise of open publishing, how you'll compete. Think bigger. Your role is no longer to be a publisher and conference organizer. Your role is to develop a new business model as an intermediary that serves as a connection between research and impact. If ACM isn't going to do it, then who is?
[246] Perhaps ACM could remain an umbrella for the SIGs. I also wouldn't mind it publishing CACM at a nominal price. I would be delighted to see ACM get out of both publishing as well as hosting conferences.
[274] "The Association is an international scientific and educational organization dedicated to advancing the art, science, engineering, and application of information technology, serving both professional and public interests by fostering the open interchange of information and by promoting the highest professional and ethical standards." Open interchange of information is in the very mission of the organization. Out there in the real world, open is of course different than for free, but Gold OA is a much better model to achieve the goal and mission than the current one.
[301] The Good Works part seems to focus an awful much on the US when it is actually funded by researchers all over the world through conference attendance and subscriptions. This looks quite dodgy.
[309] a) Promoting (Evidence-Based) Research in Computing and working as an intermediary between researchers and practitioners b) Providing a key index (like the library) for all literature on computing c) Setting professional (and ethical) standards for computer scientists AND RESEARCHERS (!!) d) Don't get involved in any non-computing related stuff
[310] Spread high-quality research to the public for free since in my opinion scientific research results must be accessible to everyone so that everyone can validate the results and possible can help the scientific field improve at a faster pace
[311] The ACM should stick to organizing conference and making our work broadly accessible (and do both much better).
[314] I was shocked to learn that ACM operates its publishing at a profit. ACM should embrace and advocate gold open access, with the minimum possible barrier to participation. This seems to me to be an absolute first priority in my understanding of ACM's mission. The idea of "good works" *increasing* the APCs or subscription costs seems to me to be simply contrary to this most important of ACM's potential for good. Membership subscriptions are, on the other hand, an entirely appropriate means of funding good works.
[316] To serve its members. ACM ought not to try to get copyright for itself, to make money off its members (who, please don't forget, put in almost all of the work for free - writing reviews, generating content, organizing the conferences, etc.)
[360] The role of ACM is to support and promote the field of computer science and related disciplines. For this, it needs to combine activities that make money (at present, conferences + DL) to fund those that don't (the "Good Works"). The success of the DL is what allowed ACM to become the #1 society, ahead of IEEE CS, and yet the DL is cheaper than most DL, especially when subscribing through a consortium.
[361] Provide an organisational framework for conferences. Represent the CS community in an official capacity (although clearly the extent to which ACM actually does so is debatable, particularly as the nature of the community has changed). Do 'Good Works', although it may be worth considering a division of responsibility between those two things, since I can be supportive of the latter while disagreeing with the ACM's role as representative.
[405] Legacy. To paraphrase Clay Shirky in "Here Comes Everybody" once an organization exists the organization itself becomes a higher priority than whatever it was originally supposed to do, in this case distribute scientific knowledge as widely as possible. Obviously the organization is currently in the way of that goal. The papers should be in the public domain so they can be distributed. Perpituity will take care of itself if you get out of the way. The Place of Journals
Observation: Conferences have a natural means of raising money: they can ask for industrial sponsorship and they charge their attendees registration fees. It is thus conceivable that conferences may be self sufficient. Journals, on the other hand, don’t have a clear funding model. Can subscriptions be sufficient to cover their costs?
When asked where important results appear, 77% of respondents indicate that important results are first published in conferences.
Observation: In this respect CS seems quite different from other scientific disciplines. The selectivity, quality of reviews, and even length of CS conference papers are often on par with what other disciplines would call journal articles.
When asked wether they have published at least one paper in a journal in three years, 36% answer that they did not.
There is an interesting difference between authors of different seniority levels. Junior authors are much less likely to have published a journal paper in the last three years than Senior or Middle authors.
Observation: The fact that many respondent do not publish regularly in journals is not sufficient to conclude that journals are not relevant. But it does raise the question of their importance to a career in CS.
15% of respondents did not read a single journal paper in 2014.
89% of respondent have published in a conference in the last two years.
These numbers are stable accross age groups.
Considering that most authors do not believe that journals are where important results appear, why do they publish in journal? The following pie chart gives the main reasons: journals are favored because they allow long form results and because they publish completed research. It is also the case that respondent felt that their employer expects them to publish in journals.
The next set of pie charts shows the importance of the empployer’s expectation. Overall, 37% of senior authors believe that employers require journal papers while only 28% of junior authors believe the same.
Focusing on respondents from the EU these numbers increase to 47% and 34% respectively.
Further focusing on European respondents who are authors of journal papers, 50% of senior authors and 41% of junior authors believe they have to publish journal papers for career reasons.
Observation: While some researchers are confident that their employer has been educated to treat journals and conferences as equally valuable contributions. This seems to be less true in Europe. The fact that senior European authors, who know the requirements of tenure, believe so strongly that journals are needed for a succsessful career suggests that there is still a bias towards journal publications.
74% of the respondent are in favor of publishing some of out conferences as special issues of journals.
Focusing only on ACM members the proportion in favor is 74%.
Observations: SIGPLAN proposed to the ACM to publish the proceedings of the PLDI conference as a special issue of the TOPLAS. The proposal includes a beefed up reviewing model and the assurance that long version of PLDI papers can be submitted to another journal (even TOPLAS). SIGPLAN’s hope is that this proposal would reinvigorate journals and erase the artificial boundary between what most respondent believe is the venue where the most important results appear and what the rest of the scientific community thinks of as the norm.
State of the DL
Observations: Since the DL is a big cost center for the ACM, the following question probe the respondents feelings towards the ACM developing and maintaining its own storage and search solutions.
The ACM Digital Library splits respondents approximately as many feel that it makes it easy to find articles.
The opinions are similarly split as to whether the search facility that is part of the DL should be replaced by a commercial search engine.
More respondents are in favor of using a system such as arXiv to archive the ACM’s paper rather than maintaining a dedicated one.
The textual comments suggest quite some frustration with the DL, it’s functionality and the fact that it is behind a paywall.
ACM’s role Comments
## [1] Supporting conferences
## [2] The Good Works are important. That's not to say there isn't bloat in ACM, but there is no other organization that maintains these important activities.
## [3] An archive
## [4] Good question... I do not real understand what ACM is for... Most of the work e.g., to set up conferences is done by benevolents
## [5] To bring the computing community together.\n
## [6] To make things cost more. They don't seem to actually do anything else -- you can publish without them and organize conferences without them.
## [7] To support computer science research and to advocate for computer scientists in society at large. Part of the latter role involves providing access to the actual research.
## [8] Someone who is responsible for verification and providing trust that the paper is both of high-quality & authentic (results are not fraudulent).
## [9] Advancing the field of computer science.
## [10] advertise CS
## [11] Sanctioning conferences and journals to employers
## [12] (1) maintain digital library, (2) back SIG conferences, (3) fund Turing award.
## [13] Roles should be:\nTo create a centralized platform for scientific material which is freely accessible to anyone.\n\nUnfortunately, roles seem to be:\nTo create a centralized platform for scientific material so that it can charge people who want to access the material (of course, not paying back authors at all).
## [14] It ought to be a scholarly, or scientific association, whose running certainly must be economically sustainable, but not driven by commercial notions such as increasing its gross income, etc. The drive should come from serving the scientific community, and that includes offering its members services at *very* streamlined costs, keeping in mind that this community is global, diverse (also in its financial capabilities) and constantly renewed (by the influx of young researchers). Sucking in the public resources that fund most of academic research in the world should not be a priority.
## [15] The cost of cutting Good Works is too high of a cost.
## [16] Cretinous rent-seeking.
## [17] It is primarily a community of practitioners. I believe the library role should be in the hands of an institution with that as its charter.
## [18] Support the publication and presentation of leading scientific research in the area of computer science.
## [19] To organize conferences
## [20] open dissemination of peer-reviewed research -- authoritative, current, and unbiased
## [21] To advance computing as a science and a profession.
## [22] Support the dissemination of research and education in computer science by publishing articles and sponsoring conferences and workshops.
## [23] To provide a safety net for risky conferences, and to update latex class files periodically. The association is pretty must an outdated model of collaboration. We have social networks that researchers can easily tap without membership to a professional organization.
## [24] Advancing the state of the art of computing and assuring widespread dissemination of related knowledge
## [25] Publishing
## [26] The ACM exists to organize activities and disseminate information.\n\nResearch is for the benefit of all. An organization -- other than the researcher -- that profits from research isn't a publisher, it's a profiteer.\n\nThe ACM can take the role of a producer, i.e., someone who pays a worker for work that can then be resold, but no one should charge for the dissemination of research and/or profit from someone else's labor without remuneration.
## [27] To facilitate meetings and conferences
## [28] A curated list of research papers, with editorial commentary
## [29] Promote CS knowledge. \nFight for recognition about our profession and studies on every country.
## [30] ACM's primary role is to accelerate computing science innovation worldwide.
## [31] Organizing conferences.
## [32] To promote the advancement of computer science and computing.
## [33] Disseminate research results in CS and related areas. Thus the importance I see in making publications available to everyone.
## [34] Digital publishing
## [35] publish top journals and conferences
## [36] Promote and support computer science in the world at large
## [37] The true role or purpose of an institution is what it actually does, so its primary role, from my perspective, is to take my money (or the money of the agency funding me, i.e. taxpayers' money) and set it on fire.\n\nIf the ACM truly cared about "Good Works", it would stop trying to run a substandard version of the arXiv, stop trying to run "Webinars" for people in "industry", etc., and move to a donation model (dues plus an optional top-up donation) to fund any actual "Good Works". I don't think this will happen, partly because, considered as a charity, the ACM's administrative overhead would be laughably high.
## [38] It is difficult to identify a single role. Certainly being one of the 2 significant publication/conference brands in the ICT sector is extremely important, as is being an advocacy group for the sector (although this is difficult if ACM wants to be an international organisation). \n\nNote: a lot of the ACM's good works activities seem US-focused, which (as someone in Oceania/Australiasia, a region not even mentioned in your survey!) influences my view on scaling them back.
## [39] To serve the academic CS community\n
## [40] Support scientific research
## [41] Promoting the development of Computer Science as a field
## [42] to illuminate the light of scholarly analysis on the veritable cesspool of anecdotal data that passes for research in computer science by providing a venue and community that elevates the level of discourse and pushes the frontier
## [43] To enable the dissemination of science from out of individual labs and into the rest of the world. It also serves as a professional body to set an example of ethical and moral behavior, a stance currently at odds with the publication mechanisms.
## [44] It has no societal role per se. It is mostly self-serving.
## [45] To support high quality conferences and journals and to promote computer science research.
## [46] Good Works as you describe. Don't scale them down!
## [47] I am not sure it has one.
## [48] That's a good question, I don't know. I have no personal experience with the 'good works' you mentioned.\nI have no other experience with ACM then organizing conferences (which isn't always as smooth as one would expect, and which is way too expensive to casually attend them without having a paper there).
## [49] I agree with the ACM bylaws. There are however many different ways to achieve the goals.\nACN is not just a scientific society but may play a stronger role there.
## [50] Representing the interests of computer science (research) with governments and private institutions.
## [51] Digital Library, sponsorship and organization of top-notch conferences and more in general publications
## [52] As a society, to promote the computer science/informatics knowledge and share it with the maximum number of people.
## [53] promote american science
## [54] To further computing. In practise, the best way to do that is to allow as many people as possible to publish good work and as many as people as possible to read that work.
## [55] ACM is the umbrella under which almost all CS researchers are gathered. I think its main role is ensuring high standards for the quality of research published in various CS fields. In addition, accreditation programs is also important as they provide a way of ensuring the high quality of prospective CS researchers (and software engineers) of the future.
## [56] Supporting the organisation of conferences.
## [57] Promote computer science research
## [58] Making research available to everyone.
## [59] Animation of its community
## [60] CS advocacy
## [61] To verify the quality of articles.
## [62] Advancing our understanding of computer science and it's usr by the public, for the greater good.
## [63] ACM should support the development of the field as a whole and the dissemination of scientific results. By providing meeting grounds for people sharing interest in CS. Generally speaking; not just physical meetings.
## [64] Fostering research, and doing so by ensuring quality in publications.
## [65] Representing and organising the community? High-standards journals and conferences are extremely precious as they offer a solid alternative to private publishers.
## [66] To support CS research and education.
## [67] Certainly not to charge authors to read their own papers, and the papers of others they reviewed for free.
## [68] It is an association that represents computer professionals within society and politics
## [69] It is a bit unclear to me. It clearly seems to add to the cost of conferences (capitalizing on their names ? or due to increased costs ?). It does not offer a satisfactory digital library solution.
## [70] diffuse science (and make a very little money)
## [71] keep online a bunch of databases
## [72] Help to do research
## [73] Publisher
## [74] Insure the quality of conference and thus of the selected papers and insure the access of those pulications to a large public
## [75] Diffusion of science, not making money on the (free) work of researchers
## [76] Ensuring quality or published results.\nOrganizing publication levels and structuring the scopes of journals. \nArchiving, indexing, providing free access.
## [77] A brand for quality
## [78] Organising conferences and associated publications.
## [79] From my view as a professional programmer, it is to prevent me from browsing classic CS papers.
## [80] To support the CS community in academia and industry for making a impact on society's evolution.
## [81] Nurturing original and meaningful research by selecting only top conferences and journals, thus preventing proliferation of useless publications
## [82] Promoting the science of computation and the free access to science.
## [83] To support CS among other disciplines. For instance, a thorough reviewing of the existing conference and journal rankings by organizations such as the ACM would be highly desirable.
## [84] It has become quite useless. It should get drastically closer to the community. E.g., organizing conferences with ACM is a real pain. Before changing the financial model for conferences and journals, ACM should become more efficient and less expensive. Credible alternative such as DROPS exist... the cost of publishing should not be as high as it used to be.
## [85] Spam my mailbox\n\nPS: Put a unit to the price question... I don't know about what currency you are talking about.
## [86] Organize the scientific community and its policy (not its topics)
## [87] Conference organisation and management.
## [88] ACM acts as library where we can look for related work and find the researchers working on similar work.
## [89] making money.\n\nat least this is the impression from discussion that yield\nthe leave of SoCG
## [90] To support research in Computer Science and to influence government policies
## [91] 1. to organize conferences for researchers\n2. to organize training for professionals
## [92] Not clear
## [93] Conferences
## [94] To facilitate the advance of Computer Science as a scientific discipline.
## [95] Provide assistance in the organization of conferences.
## [96] To help scientific knlowledge (in general, and CS knowledge in particular) spread as much as possible.
## [97] Serving the computer science community.
## [98] Not clear.\nIf their are copyright, they should come at least partially to author. People should have access to paper and data for free. It is not normal in a numeric world that publisher makes money to give access to paper whereas, they don't work on layout, on review or writing. So I am not sure, we still need actor like ACM.
## [99] to provide a common place for sharing scientific and technical knowledge of the competing sciences, between practitioners and with the public
## [100] Lobbying the greater good on behalf of the computing discipline.\n\nProviding support for computing events.
## [101] Provide a framework for researchers to fund conferences, organize the reviews of the publications and publish the selected ones so they are easily accessible.
## [102] Supporting the computer science research community through conferences and publication.
## [103] To facilitate the widest exchange of computing knowledge
## [104] As a professional organization of computer scientists. Like an academy of sciences.
## [105] Bringing the community together, giving an overall view of the scientific progress in our discipline, disseminating results both to specialists and non-specialists.
## [106] organise and manage venues where computer scientists publish their research
## [107] In theory, to serve as a general scientific organization for computer science, and manage awards, funding, conference/journal management, and archiving in a unified way across all of CS. In practice, we get very little bang for our buck. ACM's resistance to OA is a symptom of this.
## [108] To support researchers and developers. The good works supported by ACM are also important.
## [109] promote free, open access, as reviews are free\n\nfind another business model (sure they will)
## [110] To act as an advocate for the discipline of computing and its practitioners.
## [111] I don't know. The ACM does a terrible job representing the actual interests of computer science academics on the ground. I guess it's just about "professional" interests (i.e. non-academic professional). It should be part labor organization, part political party, and part library.
## [112] Community building, especially through conferences and journals.
## [113] To ensure and support a certain standard in the quality of CS research.
## [114] To support the Computer Science community
## [115] promote research, diffusion of results for fields related to computer science.
## [116] support its members in their efforts to do research in Computer Machinery.
## [117] spread interesting ideas and practices (e.g. on education)\nspread the good works
## [118] provide a centralized index
## [119] Bring together researchers to further spur new ideas and provide an appropriated vehicle for distributing those ideas widely.
## [120] Learned society supporting academic and industrial computer science.\n
## [121] Making scientific results known: conferences and publishing
## [122] To promote the science of computing. Open access is an integral part of that mission.
## [123] Creating and supporting communities of researchers and practitioners.
## [124] #NAME?
## [125] A scientific peer community spear-heading the role of CS in the larger human context
## [126] Be a cheaper-than-Springer-but-still-bad publisher?
## [127] To serve the computing community.
## [128] It is an association that shall promote science, not sequestrate it.
## [129] Help authors and researchers in the process of information dissemination.
## [130] They could stop being evil. Put all publications in the public domain and put up a .torrent with the data, and they won't have to worry about hosting.
## [131] Freely disseminate computing knowledge
## [132] Provider of the Digital Library\nConference organizer\nJournal publisher\n
## [133] Supporting and improving computer science research.
## [134] Nothing really. It is a useless organization beyond its publication venues.
## [135] open access to research papers
## [136] To take a unified and strong position on all issues relevant to the scientific discipline of computer science, prioritizing scientific principles above economic and political concerns as much as possible.
## [137] Advancing computing as a science and profession.
## [138] To provide venues for publication.
## [139] To spread the knowledge of computer science.
## [140] Organizational framework for conferences, promoting CS in politics, education and industry
## [141] Hosting the digital library
## [142] Good Works
## [143] Act as a quality guarantee, all the papers, authors, committees of the acm must be of excellence
## [144] Act as a quality guarantee, all the papers, authors, committees of the acm must be of excellence
## [145] The advancement of computer science.
## [146] For a significant part of its current activity: "To diminish, and go into the West". When our field was small, the need for the ACM was greater. As the field grew, ACM had to grow to continue performing the same functions. At the same time computers ironically made those functions less necessary: people can self-organize and communicate, and physical journals and conferences are no longer the only way.
## [147] Administering conferences, awards, and so forth
## [148] Providing online access to published articles.\n\nSide note about the survey: There is no currency indicated in the question about "highest acceptable author processing charges". Should I assume USD?
## [149] To foster exchange of information among computer scientists.
## [150] ACM was founded to advance the science and techniques of computing. This is best served by open access. ACM is anyway providing access at a moderate price, compared to commercial publishers.
## [151] Providing open access to CS literature\n
## [152] Advancing the community, including good works and supporting conferences and journals.
## [153] * To ensure the quality of publications and the peer review process (unlike, for example, the IEEE).\n* To facilitate the organisation and diffusion of scientific work and results.\n* To police and guarantee an accepted ethical standard.
## [154] To promote and support computer science research.
## [155] support computer professionals
## [156] #NAME?
## [157] To give a framework and standard of good work.
## [158] select "respectable" conferences
## [159] Publish articles and organize conferences
## [160] I see the ACM as an umbrella organization for managing and coordinating the different subfields of CS, providing uniform overhead support for conference and journal support. This way each SIG doesn't need to figure out its own way of publishing journals, etc.\n\nI imagine that the ACM is also seen by some as computer science's (and maybe computer programming's) professional organization, like the APA or ABA. I certainly don't see it that way, since there don't really seem to be distinguishing characteristics between the ACM candidates for elected office, so there's no way for me to vote for people who would represent _my_ views.
## [161] It is not the role of ACM to make large profits from conferences and publishing work of others. \n\nThis has to stop and it will stop. \n\nACM can just decide how they will survive.
## [162] To facilitate conference planning and to support the volunteers who do most of the work.
## [163] ensuring the integrity of the peer-review process, and disseminating the results of the highest quality work in computer science
## [164] Make concesus on best practices based on research results emerge from the sea of published papers. Help researchers find an audience and potential users of their research through free dissemination.
## [165] to ensure the happy existence of a *single united community* of practitioners, researchers, educators, policymakers, etc.
## [166] Protect computer science compared to physics and bilogy
## [167] Being officious?
## [168] To spread knowledge and engage people (scientists and laymen alike).
## [169] To promote research in computer science and make it widely available,.
## [170] Branding
## [171] To discuss about the focuses and issues of the research activity in computer science. To be a vehicle to ease the collective thinking about what we do. To discuss about research quality standards. To foster the availability of research material, and the production of material about selected research topics in CS to be disseminated among the general public.
## [172] Provide an organizational structure for computer science research worldwide.
## [173] Maintain (and improve!) ACM Digital Library
## [174] Support conferences and journals, and making available works.
## [175] Putting on conferences and operating the DL.\n
## [176] foster the production good research and help disseminating it
## [177] To advance the field of Computer Science by supporting the publication and dissemination of research
## [178] To serve as a venue for disseminating scientific results.
## [179] Support the development of Science by providing venues to disseminate the results of research.\n
## [180] I believe an open ACM is best for everyone. Legal copyright challenges are important to pursue in cases where the authors are not given their due credit. Outside of that we should push for getting our research out to as many people as possible.Our goals should be disseminate as widely as possible not to publish and make money.
## [181] Promote access to good research. Many of my practitioner colleagues ignore CS research altogether. I joined because I want to be aware of scientific developments in computing. CACM alone is worth the cost of my dues.
## [182] ACM is an umbrella under which conferences and journals are organized. It's also ostensibly a quality filter.
## [183] Professional society. Umbrella for conference organization and long-term health of CS research and technical activity. Canonical place to find articles of record for top-tier CS research.
## [184] Make scientific results available to everyone.
## [185] Represent CS research and education, and its societal impact.\n\nPublishing is a just a means. In a well functioning market this can be done by industry commercially, with reasonable not too high profit margins.\n\nAs long as the publishing market is malfunctioning, ACM can publish themselves to teach the market a lesson.\n\nMaking money on publishing to fund other activities means publishing is too expensive. as a member, I disagree with this existing practice.
## [186] The ACM should be a professional organization for computer scientists and a publisher of Open Access computer science research. The former role should be funded by membership fees and other revenue separate from publication. Publication should aim at public dissemination of research, not at funding other activities.
## [187] dissemination
## [188] Is this a veiled threat? How about scaling back the DL itself, which offers next to no value?
## [189] To help organize, facilitate, and animate the scientific community, by:\n\n- ensuring the scientific quality of publications (facilitating the review process, providing venues to publish new works and to update old ones)\n\n- ensuring quality and smoothness of the publication process (significant proofing with writing experts, possibly assistance with presentation/layout/typographyâ€_ or ensuring the process is smooth and reactive)\n\n- assist conference organizers in providing safe and inclusive venues (code of conduct, encouraging participation from people of diverse origins, countering community-related biasesâ€_)
## [190] To support the broader needs of the CS research community.
## [191] To foster advancements and cooperation in the field of computing machinery.
## [192] Insuring conferences.
## [193] support scientific development in computing
## [194] cacm, making conference booking/registration easy
## [195] connecting computer scientists
## [196] \n1) serve as a venue for publication of research\n2) host and curate publications\n3) provide access to publications
## [197] Assume financial risk for conferences.\nEnsure a minimum of quality for venues operating under its label.\nLobby congress.
## [198] To support the organization of conferences.\n
## [199] What it says in the charter about operating in the public interest
## [200] To promote the discipline of computer science (and related fields) and to maximize its beneficial impact.
## [201] It's an "old boys" network of fellows who preserve and track computing's evolution and applications, promoting, awarding, refereeing, and adding a "brand" of quality.
## [202] #NAME?
## [203] To foster the computing community, of which I don't see much from the ACM.
## [204] Putting its name on things.
## [205] To curate and provide access to top-quality content in computing and related fields to all.
## [206] A trustworthy brand for scholarly publication.
## [207] Coordinate the publication and dissemination of research in computer science as widely as possible.
## [208] Unclear.\n\nComputing professionals (i.e. not necessarily researchers) would benefit from a professional association, in part to be treated as an actual profession (like, e.g., physicians).\n\nResearchers have different needs, including publication of results and organization of conferences.\n\nI'm not sure what the ACM is trying to do, but it looks like it's neither of those.
## [209] To provide organizational support to advance the state of computer science by disseminating knowledge.
## [210] To freely disseminate useful results on the internet, support conference/journal administrivia, run Grace Hopper/etc, and get the fuck out of the way. Everything else is a waste of money.
## [211] A vampire sucking the blood of the SIGs.\n\nThe primary role of the ACM *should* be to curate and archive our work for the long term.
## [212] Distributing computational knowledge as broadly as possible
## [213] Organizing conferences, managing online library publishing publications to make research more accessible (e.g. ACM crossroads, ..)\n\nBut after +7 years affiliated to ACM and regularly publishing in top conferences (e.g. CHI) I realized the organization is INEFICIANT (I would say the same for IEEE)\n\nAny progress/innovation will only happen externally (e.g. apps, websites using ACM metadata like http://confer.csail.mit.edu/) but definitely not within ACM.
## [214] To organize academic venues, especially conferences and workshops, and act as a kind of quality assurance.
## [215] To advance computing as a science and a profession by serving its members, the computing profession and the public at large with openly accessible leading-edge publications, conferences, and other relevant resources.
## [216] To foster a scientific community in computing.
## [217] To bring together the communities of researchers and advanced practitioners in computer science, primarily through conferences.
## [218] Conference organization, outreach
## [219] Credibility vendors for conferences, journals, and workshops.
## [220] To provide access to scholarly work.
## [221] to keep papers away from practitioners, further widening the gap between academia and industry
## [222] To support and encourage computer science as a scientific discipline with a strongly positive influence on industry --- throughout the world.
## [223] To facilitate the creation of new knowledge in computing.
## [224] Useless
## [225] Host conferences and offer access to knowledge through its digital library and journals. (Also: Advance society through technological and scientific progress.)
## [226] To serve as a rendezvous point for those in computer science.
## [227] Support CS research and maintain high quality of publications
## [228] Honestly, I don't know.
## [229] Disseminating research work. I think that ACM is doing just fine.
## [230] To promote research, development, and practice of computing and to meet the needs of its members as they do these things. In addition, ACM has a responsibility to society to ensure equal access to education and the products of research.
## [231] To foster the highest levels of collegiality and cooperation within the CS community, to promote and reward key advances/researchers in the field (i.e. through the Turing Award), and to make the results of CS research as widely available as possible.
## [232] tbd
## [233] To facilitate research and unite its members in sharing results to further the computer-related knowledge of mankind.
## [234] What I WANT it to be is an organization to support the research enterprise in CS. What it APPEARS to be is an industry group and publisher.
## [235] I think it has several, including conference organizer and promoter of the field. It is also the major publisher for computer science research.
## [236] Organizing and connecting researchers, practitioners, and information in the computing discipline.
## [237] Distribute balanced, peer-reviewed knowledge
## [238] Liberate and make accessible publications to the world
## [239] conferences
## [240] The role used to be serving as a point of contact among researchers. That's an outdated role: we don't need ACM to play that role any more. We all can organize our own conferences and journals and web sites, thank you.\n\nACM should scale back and focus on the things that we cannot do well ourselves. For example, you could do a better job of helping us to sift through all the bijillions of papers published each year to find the ones that are most interesting and useful. In addition, you could help funding entities to more easily make sense of whether researchers are having a real impact on the world outside academia. And you could apply to NSF for grants of your own to boost efforts to translate research into teaching and practice.\n\nThink of it this way: academic research has uncovered lots of gems--ideas of great value to other scientists, to students, and to the world at large. I don't know of any organization currently focused on discovering those gems and getting them out to the people who need them most. ACM could be that organization.\n\nIn the meantime, from what I've seen so far, you have been overly focused on small ideas. You are worried about how you'll protect your market share from the rise of open publishing, how you'll compete. Think bigger. Your role is no longer to be a publisher and conference organizer. Your role is to develop a new business model as an intermediary that serves as a connection between research and impact.\n\nIf ACM isn't going to do it, then who is?
## [241] guarantee of quality in research (through conferences and DL) and maintaining the level and recognition of the profession (through Good Works)
## [242] Advancing the profession and practice of computer science, and our understanding of computing.\n\nRelated to later answers: I would like to see ACM increase its relevance to working programmers, thereby increasing its professional membership, and use the increased dues revenue to fund OA publication.
## [243] To support the goals of the computer science research community.
## [244] To bridge the world of academia and industry
## [245] Organize the activities of academic Computer Science.
## [246] Perhaps ACM could remain an umbrella for the SIGs. I also wouldn't mind it publishing CACM at a nominal price.\n\nI would be delighted to see ACM get out of both publishing as well as hosting conferences.
## [247] To encourage, support, and disseminate computing research.
## [248] Representing CS and disseminating results
## [249] To support the research community.
## [250] It is increasingly becoming redundant.
## [251] Make sure all people have access to the best available research content
## [252] To further research and education in computing.
## [253] Professional help with conferences and publications. Advocacy. Good works.
## [254] To *facilitate* dissemination. It should minimize it operating costs.
## [255] Organize and ensure the quality of conferences.
## [256] Self-perpetuation
## [257] Holding conferences
## [258] I'm not sure it has one anymore
## [259] Advocating for an ethical, inclusive, and intellectual diverse field, in part via the facilitation of communication between researchers, industry (at all scales), and the general public.
## [260] To "advance computing as a science and profession". This in particular includes contributing to the free dissemination of scientific information.
## [261] None
## [262] To promote dissemination of high quality publications and research results through supporting peer-review processes, publishing journals and organizing conferences.
## [263] Being nice
## [264] To support and publicise the work of its members
## [265] To advance computer science as far as possible. Naturally, open access to computer science papers is one way to do this.
## [266] facilitating research
## [267] What ACM should be: 1- Organizer of high-quality conferences. 2- Publisher of magazines (CACM) and journals. 3- Organizer of a few, focused outreach activities.\n\nWhat ACM should not be: another Elsevier or another Springer.\n
## [268] Unifying curriculum development, political work, etc.
## [269] The dissemination of knowledge. They are clearly not achieving that role in today's digital society. With their pay-ways they basically keep the world in the dark pre-Internet ages.
## [270] supporting CS activities and promoting under-represented groups in CS (girls and women, minorities, third-world countries)
## [271] To organize computer scientists, i.e., help us achieve shared goals through collective action. Enabling public access to research is one such goal (hopefully it's shared rather broadly ;-).
## [272] Governance of common good; quality assurance
## [273] To promote science in general
## [274] "The Association is an international scientific and educational organization dedicated to advancing the art, science, engineering, and application of information technology, serving both professional and public interests by fostering the open interchange of information and by promoting the highest professional and ethical standards."\n\nOpen interchange of information is in the very mission of the organization. Out there in the real world, open is of course different than for free, but Gold OA is a much better model to achieve the goal and mission than the current one.
## [275] Sponsoring high quality conferences and journals in which rigorous peer review is used to select articles for publication.
## [276] It's outdated and has no role in the future
## [277] Brand name for CV.
## [278] Open Distribution and publishing of scientific works in CS.
## [279] To promote lifelong CS education and dissemination of research
## [280] Disseminate knowledge about computer and network science and engineering.
## [281] To support the computing community, by helping them grow and diversify, increasing breadth and depth in research, education, and impact.
## [282] 1) A brand supporting high-quality research\n2) Ensure that there is a single point of entry for accessing publications\n3) OA for publications
## [283] Organization, administration, and outreach for CS research.
## [284] to be an independent and high quality association for the promotion and advance of computer science
## [285] don't Know. Who is ACM?
## [286] ACM should focus on spring the computing community. Male money running profitable conferences, run a few on line publications, stop exploiting the career aspirations of young faculty.
## [287] Organising conferences.
## [288] Not a clue.
## [289] Provide valuable services to their members
## [290] I have no idea. I guess, to organize conferences.
## [291] Make sure that both paper and on-line publications cope with certain standards (availability, reading quality, etc.).
## [292] Helping in organizing conferences and storing the papers forever. If ACM cannot afford to store the papers, it can become only an index over Arxiv.
## [293] Disseminate the research.
## [294] ...to provide venues for the exchange of ideas and results; to support and nurture young scientists; to establish ethical standards for the discipline; to establish and maintain educational standards for the field.
## [295] Provide access to cheap editorial
## [296] As a central organizer and thought leader for those in the computing field
## [297] Disseminate the science and give support to authors to publish research of quality
## [298] Unknown
## [299] To function as a centralized organized for the education, organization, research, and proliferation of computing knowledge.
## [300] Representing the community in a broad sense, rather than be held captive to a rigid ideology.
## [301] The Good Works part seems to focus an awful much on the US when it is actually funded by researchers all over the world through conference attendance and subscriptions. This looks quite dodgy.
## [302] To support the research community in its mission -- to extend the scope of human knowledge and disseminate research findings.
## [303] To provide networking, resources, and publication venues for CS fields.
## [304] Make research available to the widest possible audience. Support the broad research community, as well as sub-groups of research communities in good scholarship and research.
## [305] Publishing
## [306] Provide a community for pursuit of knowledge in computer science and systems.
## [307] ensures free access to all articles in perpetuity (OA)\nNote to question: "What would be highest acceptable author processing charges per article (in $)?":\nI prefer "crowdfunding" then the limit will be adapted to the financial resources of the author (in a global society)
## [308] Promoting computer science, encouraging collaboration, and disseminating reseasrch results as widely as possible.
## [309] a) Promoting (Evidence-Based) Research in Computing and working as an intermediary between researchers and practitioners\nb) Providing a key index (like the library) for all literature on computing\nc) Setting professional (and ethical) standards for computer scientists AND RESEARCHERS (!!)\nd) Don't get involved in any non-computing related stuff\n
## [310] Spread high-quality research to the public for free since in my opinion scientific research results must be accessible to everyone so that everyone can validate the results and possible can help the scientific field improve at a faster pace
## [311] The ACM should stick to organizing conference and making our work broadly accessible (and do both much better).
## [312] support and dissemination of scientific results in the computer area
## [313] The main purpose of the ACM is to serve as a professional organization: that is, to maintain common infrastructure for conferences, to archive papers and make them widely accessible, and to provide a point of contact to direct government and policy-makers to subject experts.\n\n
## [314] I was shocked to learn that ACM operates its publishing at a profit. ACM should embrace and advocate gold open access, with the minimum possible barrier to participation. This seems to me to be an absolute first priority in my understanding of ACM's mission. The idea of "good works" *increasing* the APCs or subscription costs seems to me to be simply contrary to this most important of ACM's potential for good. Membership subscriptions are, on the other hand, an entirely appropriate means of funding good works.
## [315] Dissemination of current computing research and best practices
## [316] To serve its members. ACM ought not to try to get copyright for itself, to make money off its members (who, please don't forget, put in almost all of the work for free - writing reviews, generating content, organizing the conferences, etc.)
## [317] The primary role I see is in organizing conferences and publishing journals.
## [318] This has never been clear to me. It happens to be the publisher of some of the more prestigious conferences and journals in my field, and I occasionally see C.ACM. SIGPLAN plays an immediate and generally useful role; for the ACM as a whole it's less clear.
## [319] Umbrella org for conferences
## [320] CS is broad and diversified. Too often wheels are re-invented. Too often fundamental discoveries do not cross area boundaries, slowing down progress. There seems to be too little communication between SIGs. I would expect ACM to foster cross-fertilisation between different communities and help promote best practices in scientific development.
## [321] To unite professionals, teachers, and researchers in a way they can share resources and work together on advancing the field and solving challenges.
## [322] For me, the most important role is to support research through highest-quality conferences and journals, but it has a broader role to the computing community too.
## [323] Umbrella organization for conferences and journals
## [324] The reference scientific society for academic researchers in computer science
## [325] Facilitating community organization and disseminating published work.
## [326] Conference organizing and making publications available (or allowing authors to submit papers to somewhere where they *ARE* made available (without charge).
## [327] Facilitate and disseminate research in computing.
## [328] Support the organization of top conferences and dissemination of CS articles
## [329] Advancing computer science (training, networking, dissemination of results, lobbying, ...) at the global level. The current ACM is very much US-centric (although it is making progress recently). \n
## [330] Get research done. Shortly after that: communicate research. And also: build an *inclusive* community of researchers in support of goal #1.
## [331] To promote advancement of any issue related to Computing. For that purpose OA is a key tool to success in its endeavor.
## [332] supporting activities that would not otherwise be funded. helping organize conferences.
## [333] To help ensure the longevity of top-ranked conferences and journals. To provide a professional body for Computer Science and Software Engineering which, amongst other things, reflects on issues such as curricula, etc.
## [334] sorry, I do not know the ACM too well.
## [335] A professional society for safeguarding our credibility through quality standards.
## [336] To grow and support the computing community, to help set community standards and identity, and to help promote the image of computing in the eyes of the public
## [337] Promote research.
## [338] In my view, the ACM is a publisher and a provider of conference services.
## [339] To promote the health and productivity of computing research.
## [340] To promote and maintain the computing discipline through support of research and education.
## [341] self preservation.
## [342] Institutional support for the SIGs, and policy development and communication for the field as a whole.
## [343] Currently is just another business, based on nice ideas, but it seems like other editors.
## [344] To support the needs of the CS Community.
## [345] Sharing knowledge with access-free Internet archive. Costs management should not be very high (see ArXiv or PLOS)
## [346] To serve the computing community through a variety of professional activities.
## [347] Foremost: ensuring good and fast peer review; less important: assisting with copy editing, in particular to get reference lists and citations correct and complete (author names, page numbers, ...).
## [348] Promoting computing
## [349] To enable a broad dissemination of science and to animate the computing community.
## [350] Make the community exist. To this end, it should help researcher in the field, for example in editing REALLY open access journals, where nobody is charged (nor the author, nor the reader). It is POSSIBLE!!!
## [351] To serve the broad community of computing users and professionals (including industry, researchers and the general public)
## [352] As a professional organization, to foster professional connections that enable the field to advance. Publication is part of that, for sure, but so is stuff that I expect falls under "good works".
## [353] To be a professional body for Computing academics and researchers throughout the world.
## [354] To foster the advancement of computer science, by contributing to the collaboration of researchers and the dissemination of ideas.Also, it should be the guardian of quality and good practices
## [355] * To help create and disseminate new ideas in CS. \n\n* To support the communities doing the same.
## [356] Community building, lobbying government. It is *NOT* a publishing house.
## [357] To encourage computer science research, to disseminate the results of said research, to communicate non-research work from industry, and to foster communication between members.
## [358] To foster the diffusion and development of knowledge
## [359] ACM is a some kind of a unification entity and acts as a representative of computer science world wide.
## [360] The role of ACM is to support and promote the field of computer science and related disciplines. For this, it needs to combine activities that make money (at present, conferences + DL) to fund those that don't (the "Good Works"). The success of the DL is what allowed ACM to become the #1 society, ahead of IEEE CS, and yet the DL is cheaper than most DL, especially when subscribing through a consortium.
## [361] Provide an organisational framework for conferences. Represent the CS community in an official capacity (although clearly the extent to which ACM actually does so is debatable, particularly as the nature of the community has changed). Do 'Good Works', although it may be worth considering a division of responsibility between those two things, since I can be supportive of the latter while disagreeing with the ACM's role as representative.
## [362] Facilitate knowledge.
## [363] make it available to all for free
## [364] Organizing conferences.
## [365] To encourage improvements to the field of computer science (to the extent that "computer science" is a well-defined field).
## [366] Foster the computer science community, broaden its audience.
## [367] organise distribution of knowledge throug the organisation of conferences and management of journal, always with the help of researchers with an active position in an academic institution.\nACM provides the tools for them to do this work, and in exchange they get money to pay the people that make the system (i.e. ACM, not the researchers) work.\nTheir role is NOT to make money like a big company, but to act more like an association that is making enough money to live.
## [368] Coercing researchers into paying the ACM to sell their work and keep all the profits.
## [369] Information dissemination
## [370] The ACM is a professional organization of computer scientists that facilitates advancing the field through disseminating research, outreach programs that aim to increase diversity in the field, and through bringing top computer scientists together at conferences.
## [371] To socially represent legitime and proffessional interests of their members.
## [372] To support the computer science research community in promoting research
## [373] Representing the interests of its members.
## [374] Now that printed proceedings are disappearing, their task is not clear anymore. Primary role should be to guarantee convenient access to high-quality research.
## [375] Promotion of the computer science profession (inclusive of both academics and industry professionals).
## [376] To act as a professional organisation for computer scientists. This includes maintaining the digital library.
## [377] Help organize conferences. Acting as diplomat, leadership, etc. to encourage good practices.
## [378] to take peoples money and charge exoberiant fees for conferences
## [379] a free database with all articles on computer science
## [380] Organizing conferences, providing publication venues, and perpetual archiving of both papers AND DATA (this is not being done yet)
## [381] Help spread the knowledge about computer science research.
## [382] Speaking as a non-US researcher, for me it is to act as a high-quality publisher of computing research. I suspect within the US, there are probably different opinions, but it is only in the role of publisher that I am familiar with ACM.
## [383] Help people network and publish paper for free (ie zero cost for author and zero cost for reader).
## [384] Supporting Computer Science research and education.
## [385] Support CS research and education
## [386] I don't understand the question
## [387] Act as a repository of papers for academics. Industry-types don't generally seem to know or care about ACM's mission.
## [388] establish and maintain high quality publishing venues for computer science research; set minimum curriculum standards for computer science undergraduate education
## [389] structural backbone for research publication and communication
## [390] To serve its members - not its headquarters staff.\n\nI actually like its stated goals, but they seem to have been somewhat misplaced in efforts to support the organization rather than its members, or society.\n\nIt hugely annoys me that the volunteer work of people done in publications is treated as a cash cow for other activities.
## [391] run conferences
## [392] To provide a venue for scientific research to be moved forward and to give back to the community with these scientific findings.
## [393] Supporting/maintaining and enhancing the digital library
## [394] None, but several prestigious and useful conferences are "owned" by the ACM (even though they could perhaps just as well be independent).\n\nPerhaps the ACM is more relevant to Americans than to others.
## [395] Human knowledge belongs to the world!
## [396] Developing computer science in a wider sense.
## [397] To organise and disseminate research in computer science and similar areas.
## [398] To promote research in the use of computers.
## [399] Make research available to the masses through conferences and open access to papers.
## [400] Support for creation, exchange, and dissemination of computer science.
## [401] I would agree to pay a bit more for ACM registration to get access to the whole digital library. It should be free for people from third world countries.
## [402] I think the primary role should be to organize conferences and do "Good Works". I am happy to pay membership fees and conference fees to support ACM in those things.
## [403] To spread knowledge in computer science.
## [404] The ACM has both an advocacy role (to the external world) as well as bringing professionals together (via conferences/publications etc.). Conferences enable professionals to meet and hence they are of higher importance than journal publications.
## [405] Legacy. To paraphrase Clay Shirky in "Here Comes Everybody" once an organization exists the organization itself becomes a higher priority than whatever it was originally supposed to do, in this case distribute scientific knowledge as widely as possible. Obviously the organization is currently in the way of that goal. The papers should be in the public domain so they can be distributed. Perpituity will take care of itself if you get out of the way.
## [406] To lobby for computer science and software engineering issues politically, increasing visibility, and understanding of needs (including influence on education, research funding, political investments, motivated by needs of the job market, societal security and other future needs).
## [407] Providing a benchmark for scientific excellence in the field of computing
## [408] Giving guidelines for future directions of informatics. \nPromoting informatics within academia and industry. \nSupporting research and teaching of informatics.
## [409] facilitating the scientific exchange and publication process
## [410] Organize the CS community.
## [411] Provide services for its members.
## [412] organisational administration,\nbringing people together,\nlobbying body,\ncustodian of computing heritage and research\n
## [413] Scientific research and education
## [414] No one primary role, several critical ones, but support for scientific research in computing is one of these key roles
## [415] First is to serve its members with information (peer-reviewed research and other, like news and opinion).\n\nSecond, serve society as a whole.
## [416] Collective voice for computer scientists
## [417] Getting out of the way
## [418] The role of the ACM has become unclear.
## [419] To me, the primary (though not unique) ACM service has been creating communication in the field through conferences, journals and magazines and the SIGs
## [420] ACM serves as the entity that organizes activities of interest and of relevance to computing professionals. These activities include publishing journals, organizing conferences, developing training and educational materials (curricula, courses, professional development courses, etc.), representing the computing community's interests to governmental agencies (both funding and legislative).
## [421] Promotion of computing as a science and profession.
## [422] Journals and Conferences
## [423] I view the ACM as the primary supporter of academic computer science. With respect to publishing, this means that they help facilitate this imperative to create open access for publications and other works.
## [424] To keep the DL going to ensure the ongoing survival of that set of research.\nTo ensure that there are places for new research to show up and be published.
## [425] I don't know.\n\nMostly I see that they have managed to get the copyright of paper authors and stop them from posting their papers to their homes pages, arxiv etc.\n
## [426] promote technologies and science, and sociality of people/knowledge.
## [427] Dissemination of scientific knowledge.
## [428] To further the development and broad dissemination of knowledge about computers.
## [429] marketing brand -- some indication that ACM-sponsored conferences are good. but in fact, the actual research communities are what matters, so they could probably do well without the publisher...
## 426 Levels: ...OA Funding Comments
## [1] "???"
## [2] "Sell archives"
## [3] "Solicit donations from tech companies and universities"
## [4] "Industry Funding (since they create business/profits from it)"
## [5] "I do not care about OA so much"
## [6] "a bit of both"
## [7] "I don't see why these are mutually exclusive, and there are other options too: ACM dues; grants from NSF and other agencies; etc. "
## [8] "I suspect that civic-minded corporations such as Google would be happy to help fund this"
## [9] "Either model is problematic unless the fees can be waived if no grants are available to pay for it."
## [10] "Philanthropic means; shouldn't take that much $$ all things considered."
## [11] "Adsense"
## [12] "Crowdfunding, donation. I.e. Wikipedia"
## [13] "AdWords"
## [14] "share between both"
## [15] "government funding"
## [16] "funding agencies as publishers"
## [17] "Cut ACM's budget"
## [18] "By ensuring funding for iinstitutional archives and a federated access model"
## [19] "through relationships with cloud based companies that will donate free storage (Google, Microsoft, Amazon)"
## [20] "not sure but definitely neither of the above"
## [21] "Government and corporate funding"
## [22] "Institutional library access/archival charges"
## [23] "We should avoid any midel that moved the burden to the science producers, In particular In current days of severe shortage of research funding "
## [24] "through a combination of sources (author charges, registrations, ACM money, public research funding, etc.)"
## [25] "Voluntary support (as in asXiv)"
## [26] "University and Government institution"
## [27] "through governments, UNO, societies or charities"
## [28] "Make use of HAL or arXiv"
## [29] "No opinion."
## [30] "association fee"
## [31] "through institution's fundings"
## [32] "both options are the same in my opinion. The added cost will be incurred by the authors somehow."
## [33] "Grants"
## [34] "by academic institutions and governments"
## [35] "from institutions/libraries, like in the arXiv case."
## [36] "Through Green OA on ArXiV!!"
## [37] "None of them. Conference registration costs are already high due to the prices of the proceedings, in part. "
## [38] "arxiv model (institutional support)"
## [39] "gouvernemental aids"
## [40] "gouv"
## [41] "International funding"
## [42] "Voluntary (institutional) support"
## [43] "Not. There should be no cost."
## [44] "donations"
## [45] "How does `Logical Methods in Computer Science' work? Maybe I haven't thought about this enough, but what exactly needs funding in the archival process? Is it just about the ArXiV servers? "
## [46] "voluntary support"
## [47] "A combination of sponsorship, membership fees and (low) processing charges"
## [48] "through international institutions"
## [49] "Public funding"
## [50] "Through reduced publisher costs"
## [51] "Avoid mass physical printing"
## [52] "Institution grants"
## [53] "inherrent part of funding model"
## [54] "increased membership fees"
## [55] "should be free for developooing countries"
## [56] "through institutions, universities and foundations sponsoring archives and the minor editorial expenses attached to dematerialized publishing"
## [57] "memberschips"
## [58] "archival should be non-profit, volunteer"
## [59] "a mixture of author processing charges and increased conference registration costs"
## [60] "through paper elimination and community service"
## [61] "membership in associations"
## [62] "small subscription fee"
## [63] "Green OA, public money, Academic consortium"
## [64] "I am against the gold OA model."
## [65] "Online storage is almost costless..."
## [66] "through scientific, neutral (assoc) institutions "
## [67] "both author chages and attendance (split the cost)"
## [68] "Institutional support"
## [69] "http://arxiv.org/"
## [70] "public funding"
## [71] "public HAL archive"
## [72] "A combination of the above options, plus potentially an \"author subscription fee\""
## [73] "use of platform such arxiv or HAL funded by public administration"
## [74] "reducing wasteful spending of ACM on other activities"
## [75] "sponsoring"
## [76] "Means-based charge based on institution, like a progressive tax. Authors at Harvard should pay a lot more than those at some Eastern European university, for example."
## [77] "By using cost-free platforms such as arxiv."
## [78] "repositories (Hal, ArXiv...)"
## [79] "use arXiv or HAL"
## [80] "Boot Strapping Database, Calibrated Peer Review."
## [81] "sponsoring by corporations"
## [82] "sponsoring by government"
## [83] "Both"
## [84] "Institutional membership"
## [85] "lend some real-estate on ACM sites to advertisers and raise money from advertisements"
## [86] "FREE. See STACS, FSTTCS..."
## [87] "Through voluntary contributions and user supplied resources in a P2P datastore such as MaidSafe.net offering."
## [88] "Using free, public-funded services (hal.inria.fr)"
## [89] "government and companies funding"
## [90] "Both of the above"
## [91] "grants or wikipedia model"
## [92] "Combination of both + add revenue"
## [93] "like arxiv: voluntary support"
## [94] "Voluntary support"
## [95] "government funding, via public offer"
## [96] "institutional funding & donations"
## [97] "I think author-paid OA is a mistake; green OA is sufficient"
## [98] "More efficient archival."
## [99] "through author processing charges -- if at the same time subscription fees for institutions are dropped"
## [100] "libraries and independent archives"
## [101] "advertising"
## [102] "we already invest a lot of (mostly govermental) money in the research itself."
## [103] "learned societies' general budget"
## [104] "grants and voluntary work"
## [105] "mix of charge authors and find other sources, i.e. university support to guarantee open access to their staff, and donations"
## [106] "I don't consider archival should be paid."
## [107] "why should I pay?"
## [108] "It is not fair to require an author to pay to publish their own paper"
## [109] "public funding. paper archival is not expensive."
## [110] "Sponsorsips"
## [111] "Mix of subscriptions, donations, author charges, etc. No single method "
## [112] "storing pdfs isn't expensive"
## [113] "through subscription of research institutions: only authors affiliated with a subscribing institutution may publish."
## [114] "Stop publishing hard copies to save money"
## [115] "government, libraries"
## [116] "grant support, just like the arxiv does"
## [117] "separate funding, like arXiv"
## [118] "paid by universities/institutions/government who currently pay for journal subscriptions"
## [119] "Increased general membership dues and cuts in other areas."
## [120] "arxiv"
## [121] "through government grants for national or intl. institutions that provide indexing or archival services (Dagstuhl/Leibniz or arxiv). If IEEE/ ACM want the money, they should enter competitive proposals. "
## [122] "Affordable individual subscriptions"
## [123] "PeerJ model"
## [124] "Public funding"
## [125] "government infrastructure (like roads and the internet)"
## [126] "Advertising and Sponsorship"
## [127] "http://arxiv.org/"
## [128] "conference registration costs could be retargeted to online archival instead of book printing etc. Don't see why costs need to be increased."
## [129] "Through general membership dues. The inventors and conference goers shouldn't hold the entire financial burden"
## [130] "Government"
## [131] "Gov funding"
## [132] "Sponsorship by public (including libraries/national archives) and private foundations and institutions"
## [133] "existing conference registration costs should cover online archive costs"
## [134] "Corporate/Government Sponsorship"
## [135] "arxiv"
## [136] "through arXiv and library/university/national funding to arXiv"
## [137] "Institution or multi-institution managed online archives (see HAL in France, for example)"
## [138] "JMLR and JAIR operate without any processing charges."
## [139] "author processing via grants, with some proviso for helping those who don't have grant support"
## [140] "Voluntary contributions. Look at http://wer.inf.puc-rio.br/WERpapers/"
## [141] "sponsorship, crowdfunding"
## [142] "focus less on revenue and more on cost containment: go with OA Green"
## [143] "Increased professional organization membership."
## [144] "charge on membership fees"
## [145] "dontation, advertising, ..."
## [146] "green OA funded by public institutions"
## [147] "membership fees that give discount on conference fees"
## [148] "no idea, the burden should not fall on the authors, who already pay to produce the content"
## [149] "Grants and donations"
## [150] "micro-payments"
## [151] "abandoning organizational structures that have no purpose in a modern world"
## [152] "professional society membership fee increase"
## [153] "institutional fees, subsidies, donations"
## [154] "cooperative of research institutions"
## [155] "I do not propose OA, journals and archives should be paid by reader subscriptions"
## [156] "Through membership fees to professional bodies"
## [157] "0.1% of a countries budget for higher education should go to an international institution that, from this money, covers such costs. Any participating state may publish for free."
## [158] "both"
## [159] "tbd"
## [160] "Use arXiV for cheap, long-term archival. Cut on useless middle men (e.g. Sheridan). Possibly small ($50) author charges."
## [161] "national/international grants "
## [162] "institutions and gov agencies"
## [163] "Just sign the official version of the document: Any disk could serve it, then."
## [164] "tax money"
## [165] "This does not cost millions of dollars. That is ridiculous."
## [166] "Lower operating costs"
## [167] "institutional support + moderate costs (as lipics)"
## [168] "Why does it cost anything? Put in on the web. Done. "
## [169] "public funds"
## [170] "tax money spent on the military"
## [171] "make companies pay for reading articles, they monetise public research results"
## [172] "Grants"
## [173] "Associations should absorve the costs (e.g., ACM, IEEE, ...)"
## [174] "Public funding"
## [175] "both of the above"
## [176] "It should be posible to have it for free"
## [177] "I don't know"
## [178] "Through institutions and goberments charges"
## [179] "Voluntary support from third parties"
## [180] "arXiv"
## [181] "through reduced profits."
## [182] "reduced expenses, public funding, donations"
## [183] "crowdfunding"
## [184] "Voluntary institutional support or non-profit backing. The Internet Archive backs up the entire Internet based on donations and volunteers alone, surely the ACM can archive a bunch of PDFs..."
## [185] "crowdfunding (private and institutional)"
## [186] "No charges to the author; this prevents publication of independent authors. I propose a university/college flat fee, or even better, support by the state or country."
## [187] "public funds and sponsorship"
## [188] "through charges paid by the richer governments/research institutions "
## [189] "Donations from corporate and governmental bodies"
## [190] "hard to tell without knowing the expected cost for a minimal archiving solution"
## [191] "Prefer a green OA model "
## [192] "perhaps a combination of the two"
## [193] "no idea"
## [194] "authors may do it themselves"
## [195] "both of the above"
## [196] "The arXiv model seems like a good one. Author processing costs only acceptable if very low."
## [197] "reduce costs of conferences (meals, expensive hotels, coffee breaks, etc)"
## [198] "Through ArXiv"
## [199] "author but not per paper"
## [200] "Sponsorship"
## [201] "Retargeting the millions of $ currently spent for providing access to \"essential\" Journals at Universities should be sufficient"
## [202] "ACM Membership Fees"
## [203] "A p2p model"
## [204] "Either"
## [205] "through \"wealth-of-life\"-ponderated periodic charges payed by research institutions, somehow"
## [206] "moderated fee"
## [207] "I do not know"
## [208] "both of these favour established researchers who have funding"
## [209] "not-for-profit organizations"
## [210] "reduced publisher profits"
## [211] "Green Open Access"
## [212] "institutional subscritptions "
## [213] "Ad"
## [214] "arXiv does this in a very cheap way. No need to charge anybody!"
## [215] "Membership fee"
## [216] "public funding"
## [217] "Zero cost. See LMCS for an example"
## [218] "mixture of both"
## [219] "Taxes from the reseracher's home country."
## [220] "see my comment below"
## [221] " XXX"
## [222] "both of the above, plus increased ACM membership fees for non-students"
## [223] "Voluntary funding through a combination of academic and government sources, as well as some author processing charges"
## [224] "voluntary work"
## [225] "less margin by editors"
## [226] "Grants, donations"
## [227] "Like research itself"
## [228] "don't know"
## [229] "Will require redefinition of publishers' tasks. For example, USENIX is already able to provide Gold OA with reasonable fees."
## [230] "bittorrent"
## [231] "there should be no price"
## [232] "http://arxiv.org/"
## [233] "any source possible, cost per paper should be LOW"
## [234] "Voluntary support by institutions"
## [235] "copyright release is more important than archive"
## [236] "Institutions' funding"
## [237] "fund raising, external grants"
## [238] "through learned societies; not sure archiving is the main cost in publishing though"
## [239] "through normal conference registration costs"
## [240] "I don't think additional funds are necessary"
## [241] "I think that one or more national/legal deposit libraries should provide and pay for a suitable archive"
## [242] "Cost of printing book and journals"
## [243] "A combination of these. Author processing charges are okay, but should come with waivers for poor countries and other special circumstances "
## [244] "The above options may affect student authors. We need find other ways."
## [245] "The above options may affect student authors. We need find other ways."
## [246] "Institutional support for archiving service"
## [247] "via grants"
## [248] "Through institutional funding"
## [249] "mix of voluntary author processing + donations"
## [250] "Put them in the public domain. It will happen automatically."
## [251] "By reducing other expenses"
## [252] "S3 doesn't cost that much"
## [253] "government funds"
## [254] "Some combination of author-charges and conference registration seems reasonable..."
## [255] "Just don't lock the stuff away, allow sharing"
## [256] "government"
## [257] "the one-time author membership charge"OA General Comments
## [1] I've always found it odd to go after ACM while Elsevier still has any foothold whatsoever in CS.
## [2] Authors upload their papers online either way
## [3] Not sure what it is. Sounds a bit like a fad.\n
## [4] I think copyright assignment to the authors is essential. In addition, clear licensing of all software artifacts related to the publication process (e.g., the conference/journal LaTeX style files) under a permissive license is helpful.
## [5] Who pays? Should be the reader or author.
## [6] It seems to me that the reported ACM publication costs are ridiculously high.
## [7] Is it really Open? Why do people have to pay?
## [8] I find the discussion of only two options (Gold and Green) a little confusing. Does a model like LIPIcs fall in the Gold option? Should there be a special notion of 'non-commercial' Gold (I don't know how to call it)? Just a thoughtâ€_\nThat being said, I think that Open Access is an absolute must, and that the way scientific publishing goes, is changing and will continue changing. Let us start with our own backyard: CS, conferences and then (different set of problems) journals, and then (again different set of problems) books
## [9] It is a moral atrocity that the ACM conducts itself as it does in this regard, but who cares, because AITO has a conscience.
## [10] Any alternative as a long term plan is shameful.
## [11] Open access to scientific research is a must. The nominal fee can be charged from institutions at a wholesome price and should be made available at cheap prices to independent researchers.
## [12] PeerJ CS is looking really good
## [13] In this day and age, I take it as a given that research publications should be freely available on the Internet. That ship sailed several years ago.
## [14] Older math journals had "page fees" which were paid when authors had grants, but could be ignored otherwise. I would be very opposed to charging authors unless there was a reasonable plan for waiving fees for those without grant support. Otherwise only the rich could afford to publish.
## [15] Scientists say they're contributing to the world's knowledge, but without open access, they're only contributing to only a small elite's knowledge.
## [16] Seems like cost is always raised as an issue. Some good study/report on how much the cost is, exactly where the money goes, and improved transparency in general would be great.\n\nI am a strong supporter of open access, given that most of the world outside of western nations are unable to access content without it.\n\nHowever, I would be willing to concede author processing fees and what not if I knew where the money is going, who is getting paid. I would like this information to be easily available. Then I can decide if the causes are ones I want to support.
## [17] Charging for printed materials, paper journal subscriptions, physical artefacts, or even access non-scholarship prose (book reviews, editorials, etc) or access to all materials for a short time (suppose less than one year) might be a way to continue using publications as a source of funding without damaging the culture or the profession's access to knowledge and research.
## [18] It will happen, whether existing publishers want it or not
## [19] It's the right thing if we want computer science to prosperate.
## [20] A creative commons license would likely "accelerate computing science innovation worldwide." My image is of a female CS researcher in India behind a paywall.
## [21] I am very much in favor of open access, but I am also a pragmatist—I understand that the bills must be paid. I also appreciate the effort and expense that goes into running a library as opposed to a mere document collection. I am a strong proponent of libraries and librarians.
## [22] there is so much fraud in open access that the model is already broken. I would rather kill off all the pay to play publishers and keep ACM's paywall intact.
## [23] First, let's get something clear: The ACM already has publication charges for conferences. We just call them conference registration fees.\n\nI chose "through increased conference registration costs", but if we piggybacked on the arXiv, *and* we wanted to "pay our own way", the "increased cost" would be on the order of $5 per paper. Compared to current conference fees, $5 is a rounding error.\n\nI'm not convinced we *would* have to pay our own way: many workshops publish their proceedings in EPTCS, which piggybacks on the arXiv and, AFAIK, doesn't pay the arXiv for that privilege.\n\n(Aside: The statement that in Green OA, "[papers] may not be preserved in perpetuity, and [have] no centralized index" isn't really true if you put your papers on the arXiv. Yes, the ACM's publication contract has misleading (intentionally misleading, I suspect) language that tries to make you think you can't—some nonsense about giving me the right to post a "pre-peer review" version; that right is not theirs to give or take away. The ACM has no rights to my paper whatsoever until I sign the agreement. If I choose to post a *post*-peer review version one minute before I sign the agreement, the ACM is powerless to stop me.)
## [24] Because academics at my institution are required to fund all of their activities through grant/consulting income, early career academics would struggle to find funding for open access fees.
## [25] The current mixed model (Gold OA at the choice of the authors and at a very high price) does not work. For example, the Max Planck Society is strongly supporting OA and paying for publication fees at OA journals, but does not fund the ACM OA fees because they are already paying for the DL subscription and they consider the ACM OA fees as double-charging.\n\nWe should either have Gold OA for all articles at a reasonable cost or just switch to ArXiv or LIPIcs. \n
## [26] The lack of Open Access has already cost us Aaron Swartz and is one of the biggest barriers to the continued viability of academia and scholastic involvement in the 21st century. People are already dismissing the role of "ivory tower" academic organizations as "dated." It's very hard to justify charging money for access to articles when joe bloggs can write a post that "seems legit" and thoughtful content is hidden behind a paywall.\n\nThis is a moral and ethical issue about the future of our field. If you present it as such to members and ask if they would be ok with paying higher dues to enable this, I'm sure many would say yes.
## [27] Our research needs to be available for everyone to see, otherwise so much of it goes to waste.
## [28] Copyright should not go to the publisher though either. Public domain would be better.
## [29] The "green" OA model is perfect, in my opinion. It allows authors to disseminate their work in a variety of ways while still allowing ACM to make their money, which overall I think they spend pretty well.\n\nI think long-term, free repositories like arXiv are important, but need not be the focus of ACM.\n\nI would definitely not use any publisher that prohibits publicly sharing my own papers, but ACM providing full-fledged "gold" OA is just not important to me.
## [30] The top priority for CS research is to adjust to the mainstream of scientific publication practice, to avoid being considered a weird or lesser discipline when compared with classical disciplines with stable publication pratices. \nSwitching to an open access model should be done with care to avoid making the situation even worst.
## [31] In my opinion, green open access is also a viable option at least for some venues.
## [32] Gold OA has major biases, such as restricting the submission to authors who can afford; also, the publisher can put pressure on the reviewers to accept papers since it increases its income.
## [33] editor board is the most important element
## [34] The most important thing is for everyone to be able to freely access research. I believe, morally, that authors should retain copyright, but I'd be prepared to compromise on that if readers have free access to the research in perpetuity.
## [35] I am all for Open Access, especially for research conference/journal papers. But given the increasing rise of Artifacts submitted with accepted papers, would OA also include those? Would that be an issue for researchers working in the industry?
## [36] Your premise is specious. Green OA combined with long-term archival is perfectly possible! See the journal "LMCS" for instance.
## [37] My work is, de facto, already (Green) Open Access (it is publicly available on my or co-author's webpage). I have no incentive to pay an overhead for the "Gold Open Access" -- which does not mean I am not interested in Open Access, I strongly believe it is essential for public research. Any conclusion drawn from the lack of interest for paid Gold options is deceptive.
## [38] I was first tempted to mark "desirable feature" in the first question. \nThen I realized that the majority of papers reports on research funded by public bodies e.g. From taxpayers money. In this light, it is unacceptable that these result are not freely accessible to the general public. \nOA may even make research more honest. For example, if everybody could easily check up on scientific studies quoted in the press, then we were less prone to manipulation by journalists. Also, some authors might be ashamed that they publish a ton of crappy papers (I'm primarily thinking of medicine, but I'm sure there are lots of papers written for the sake of incrementing a publication counter).
## [39] The regular (big) increase of digital library subscription fees put universities in very difficult position. The current model is not sustainable and must evolve quickly.\nInstitutions (universities) already pay (the salary of authors) for the scientific work, the redaction work, the review work, the scientific committee work, ... If they pay the reminding (through library subscription fees), the work must be put in open access AND the reminding work must be done by non-profit organization. Its is non ethical that universities offer big profits for commercial organizations.
## [40] It's a necessity.
## [41] OA fees usually are paid with tax payers' money, so they should only be used to cover publication cost, not to increase publishers' revenues or for cross funding of other activities.\n\nI am against paying high OA fees for the promise of perpetual free availability of my work. Frankly, I don't believe that any organization is in a position to guarantee that.
## [42] Really, authors do all the work at no cost including reviewing, editting and publishing, publications should be freely accessible
## [43] Any information is free by nature. Any limitation to information access is immoral. All information already exists in nature, as in the digits of Pi, we just discover it.
## [44] It's already happening, don't say you didn't see it coming.
## [45] Essential to allow new countries to enter the research community
## [46] I'm generally happy with the policy of SIGPLAN conferences on Green open access (and they seem to meet the open access requirements in the UK where I am). However, if LIPIcs can do open access for a $15 charge, I would much prefer conferences to publish there than with the ACM.
## [47] "Open Access" is also about access to data, i.e. software, experimental results, ... Typesetting, i.e. preparation of the manuscript, is often underestimated by the authors, this causes costs that are higher than people think.
## [48] one of the requirements to give some relevance back to academia
## [49] Articles should be put under a GPL type licence : any work based on it should be freely made available
## [50] Open access is essential for guaranteeing perennial access to publications.
## [51] I am strongly against a model where the authors have to pay for being published.
## [52] Several times I have faced the issue of not being able to access papers that I wanted.
## [53] I don't think you can hope that SoCG will be back to ACM.\n\nYou may avoid that other conferences leave.
## [54] OA is a nice idea in principle. However, it requires universal uptake otherwise academic institutions suffer from double-dipping (paying tor APCs and subscriptions). It also requires changing in funding models with lines allowed in grants to cover APCs (not allowed at the present in the UK). And what about research not funded from a grant? Universal OA would lead to a huge shift in costs away from those who consume research towards those who generate it, and this needs to be managed.
## [55] Scientific communities should be inclusive:\n\n1. Access to scientific results should be feasible to anyone in the world, independently of their financial situation or institutional affiliation.\n\n2. Publication of scientific results should be feasible to anyone in the world, independently of their financial situation or institutional affiliation.
## [56] Open Access is a high priority for me.
## [57] The results of research must be available to everyone freely, forever, to maximise the advancements in research and industry.\n\nAuthors should retain copyright since they made the works.
## [58] ArXiv and LIPIcs are good example of how it should work
## [59] Information wants to be free. Paywalls are hindering the progress of mankind.
## [60] Currently, the only added value of publishers in academic publishing is in providing a permanent archive. OA fees, if any, should support that, not the publishing edifice.
## [61] In the case of public funding, the work belongs to the citizen. Open Access is a mean to ensure they have access to what they paid for with taxes.\nIn the general case, easing the access to knowledge will help enterprises to innovate, and avoid researchers to reinvent the wheel.
## [62] Taxpayer funded research should be in the public domain.
## [63] As an American I'd rather academics provide their classes to the public for free (i.e., free university tuition) than provide their conference papers to the public for free. So Open Access is, in some sense, a moral imperative, but a very, very weak one compared to other ones that scientists should champion.
## [64] I disagree with the initial comment at the top of the form. I like Green OA very much. A centralised index is not necessary when the various repositories can easily crawled.
## [65] Open access is a must. The cost of maintaining the presence of a file and associated meta-data on the Internet is not high, especially when mortised by over a large number of files. The one-time costs are the production of metadata and the reviewing process itself. Hence, I don't agree with the large fees being proposed by publishers.
## [66] There are many versions of Copyrights, which makes your last question meaningless.\n\nIt seems logical that Scientific papers should be published as Creative Commons non-commercial attribution, i.e. free to reproduce for non-commercial applications, as long as proper authorship is attributed.
## [67] I think it's important to have as low a barrier of access as possible to everyone to be able to check research. If I (as a private person, not a researcher) read a story in a newspaper about some research, I want to be able to check the original source without paying. We can't educate the general public to be critical of so-called "science" and distinguish real science from pseudo-science if the general public has no access to real science.\n\nLacking open access by a publisher, I think it is essential that authors retain the copyright or at the very least the right to self-publish their results. But open access by a publisher is preferrable because of peer review.
## [68] Open Access should be the norm, not the exception. Most of the academic research is funded by governments, so it's absurd that the distribution of knowledge generated by it is not freely accessible.
## [69] I strongly object to your explanation of OA above and on the page that led me to this survey. Apart from being incorrect with respect to the generally accepted meaning of OA, see for instance Wikipedia, it is polemic that has absolutely no place in a survey.\n\nWhy bother with all of the questions when what you really want is a single question asking if I agree with you and with YES as the only allowed choice?\n\nAny use of the results of this survey that does not explicitly explain that the survey starts with a redefinition of the meaning of OA is bogus and inappropriate. Please do not pretend that it is a neutral attempt to gather information.\n\nEven the title "Who owns your research?" is very misleading since ownership of the *research* is not the same as ownership of an article that describes the research, the right to publish such an article, or the right to access such a publication.
## [70] A higher APC is acceptable as long as there are mechanisms for supporting authors who can't pay it, eg from developing countries. If there are no such waivers, then the APCs need to be kept low (~$200 rather than ~$700).
## [71] Free access to scientific knowledge is a basic human right. Gold open access is the most direct way to protect this right. Using funds raised from non-open-access publications model to fund other things (even "good works" that I agree are worthy) is contrary to ACM's mission and indeed, morally questionable.
## [72] Main funding agency in Sweden requires final version of all publications to be released under CC-BY from 2017.
## [73] expansive OPEN Access is NOT the solution. It is even worse than closed access (labs pay twice). ACM does 10% at most of the work, they shall not get 100% of the benefit.
## [74] It is a good idea, mainly for undergraduate students that does not have enough money to pay for some publications.
## [75] From a moral point of view, using public funds or free software to produce closed-access research is theft from the public.
## [76] Knowledge is a common good.\nScientific discoveries depend on it and there's no proof that a breakthrough could not be made by developing countries.
## [77] The real issue is that publishers get the money and do not give a dime to the authors. If this is to continue, it better be open access.
## [78] Paywalls are a most effective way to stop what would be useful research from having any effect on the real world.
## [79] Open Access has the power to accelerate research, in particular by allowing the participation of scientists from less advanced countries.
## [80] I think reader-pays actually makes sense because it creates an incentive for quality filters that doesn't exist in the case of author-pays.
## [81] I object that scientific publishers profit excessively from the work of authors and reviewers and charge unfair amounts to individuals and institutions to read the results which were obtained under funding from governments and other corporations.\n\nI do not think that the ACM fits into this category.\n\nI do not agree with the extreme position that everything should be made available at somebody else's expense. Nor with the idea of non-organized, non-validated, and non-authenticated repositories as an archival means (as for arxiv).\n\nI appreciate the ACM's attempt to find an informed compromise.
## [82] I agree that the public should have open access to public funded research. But, in that case, the public also has to fund the archival of papers.
## [83] someone has to pay - that's a fact. Servers and access cost money.
## [84] the currently practiced model that institutions pay twice -- the publisihing charges of OA and subscriptions for non OA material -- should be avoided
## [85] I think it's a great opportunity, but it needs to be done carefully.
## [86] Bad idea if authors pay. There will be a temptation to increase the fees and accept more papers. There will be "creep".
## [87] Not having open access is a relic from past days were actual cost was associated with distributing papers. \n\nNowadays, Open Access is mandatory. \n\nWikipedia runs on donations only.
## [88] We should move to an open access model and it should be as inexpensive as possible for authors.
## [89] let's just put it all on arxiv, throw them a sensible amount of money, and have done with it\nKickstarter-style donation in support of a single fund - the more we get, the more past and future years are "unlocked" to be free forever. No author fees. Also solicit donations from big companies, rich people, etc. - not just academics!
## [90] I would prefer Open Access for the material I produce, if the costs were not prohibitive.
## [91] I am not so bothered by the current "Green" OA model. However, I would be very upset if that went away.
## [92] I am in favor of the traditional publishing model. My institution pays a subscription and I have access to all of the papers I need from ACM, IEEE, Elsvier, Springer, etc...
## [93] Authors retaining copyright is *highly* desirable, although not strictly essential.
## [94] I understand that a publisher goes through a great deal of effort to output good work. But I don't think the ACM should be aiming to make a profit out of published works. There are lots of graduate students who would be willing to volunteer in helping with the publishing process for free conference passes. \n\nOur research as scholars is meant to further our fields and improve modern society. Making it available to everyone is the next step.
## [95] With or without open access per se, the notion of a paper I can't share with friends on Twitter is deeply weird in 2015.
## [96] Concerning copyright: for (the few) journals who do a consequent job in the refereeing process, I consider that the version "the journal keeps the copyright of the final version, the authors keep the copyright of the submitted one" is reasonable. \n
## [97] it's the future. embrace it or become obsolete.
## [98] "Open Access" means nothing if the author has to pay a fee to publish. True open access should be the result of research institutions (academic or not) redirecting the budget they presently spend in journal subscriptions to the support of online journals, whose publications must be freely downloadable and to which researchers may freely submit, as long as they are affiliated with a supporting instution.\n\nThe model would be something like ArXiv + editorial board + peer-reviewing, or preferrably an interactive version of it: a pre-print is submitted, it is freely downloadable by anybody and any researcher from a supporting institution may post comments or reviews (possibly moderated by editors); in the meantime, the editors send the paper to referees, who may also post their anonimous reviews if they wish; after all designated referees turn in their review (hopefully in a reasonably short period of time), the editor decides whether the paper is accepted, in which case its status changes from "pre-print" to "publication"; in both cases, dowload keeps being free to everybody and posting of comments/further reviews keeps being open to all supporting instiutions.
## [99] I do not sign copyright assignment forms any more. And if I'm compelled to sign them, I still put a "preprint" online for free.
## [100] Personally, I believe that it is essential that the "version of record" for research results be available from a small number of stable and well-known locations. Fragmentation of versions of records across a larger number of publishers and/or "grass-roots" sites like arxiv.org is detrimental to the field. I strongly support the roles of ACM DL and IEEE DL as the unifiying "go-to" location to find CS research results, especially archival ones (from 5+ years in the past).
## [101] Essential for letting research have a societal impact.\n\nWe want to practioners to read our research. Therefore it must be available, without a paywall. This calls for open access.\n\nPeerj and Usenix are teaching ACM what can be done.\nIn line with peerj, I expect my membership costs to cover open access publication.\n\nFor peerj I pay once in my life. For ACM I am willing to pay every year, whic is a lot more. I expect to get at least what I get at peerj for that.
## [102] It would be best if we could make OA mandatory (w/fees) and then have scholarships to cover hardship cases. It's a lot easier for me to write something off at work if they don't think they are funding my political causes or elective luxuries.
## [103] Open Access is obviously even more appropriate in CS than in other fields, where print-quality work is produced for free by authors. As far as I can tell, 0 value is added by anyone not working for free in today's CS publication system.
## [104] Open Access is becoming a fact of life. If traditional publishers (ACM, IEEE, Wiley, Springer, Elsevier) do not adhere to it at an affordable price for authors, authors will go away to the newcomers on the market that are offering free of charge open access solutions, since the "research publication market" is changing rapidly.\n\nIn my view, all scientific research should be openly accessible at all times and to everyone. It is one of the main criteria of science to be reproducible and refutable. If research is not freely accessible, it becomes harder to reproduce it accept by the happy few.\n\nAnother important aspect is take-up of academic research by industry. By making it open access it will become easier for companies to access the published material. Otherwise, they do not have any incentive to "buy" the scientific papers.
## [105] It is a must for publicly funded research. There should be no negotiation on this point.
## [106] I think open access to all papers will be extremely welcome. In the broadest terms, research is here to advance humanity as whole. I.e. everyone should be able to use its results unhindered.
## [107] Open Access is important: it is the 'right thing' for research funded by government grants and it opens our work to a broader community and increases the impact.\n\nMoreover, we do not need to be subsidizing the publisher lifestyles of the upper echelons of the ACM in NYC. As publishers, they add no value to our work. They should get real jobs.
## [108] w.r.t the price -- i think it should two two-tiered. $200 is the max i would personally pay as a graduate student, but $700 or $1000 is more reasonable if we have grant funding. i believe this is comparable to what PLoS charges
## [109] I do not have a strong opinion on exactly what level of author fees is or is not acceptable, but I do feel that they should be minimized to the maximum extent possible; charging authors to publish, instead of charging the general public to read, just moves the problem around. I only selected "$100" for that question because I had to select something.
## [110] It's important, but everyone violating copyright and uploading final papers to personal websites + google scholar works for me.
## [111] Open Access is the lifeblood of science. I currently do not hesitate to bend the rules in order to provide open access to my papers even if the publisher claims copyright.\n
## [112] Publishing open-access research *is* a good work and is the good work that the ACM has the greatest comparative advantage in doing.
## [113] Not just a fad.
## [114] Naive open access is important. But it's impact pales in comparison to participatory open access (e.g. wikipedia, github).
## [115] I now only review for open access journals, and always prefer OA for publishing my own work whenever possible.
## [116] I feel like ACM is missing out on at least tracking proper download statistics by not being open access. People at my research lab who hit the paywall either go to CiteSeer/scholar.google or ask one of us with personal subscriptions to grab them the paper, if they can't easily find it via search (mostly for older journal papers not at ACM).
## [117] Check out this paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023420\n"On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study"
## [118] I do not feel that retaining copyright on my work is essential if the other option is the current ACM copyright agreement.
## [119] Open Access can do more good for computer science than any arrangement since the Internet
## [120] Open access is absolutely essential - unread research is worthless research, and we can't expect that the world as a whole will join the ACM and pay DL subscription fees just so they can _check_ if one paper per year is relevant to their problems. It exists in practice anyway, because various kinds of unofficial preprints are scattered around the Internet, but this practice undermines the importance of the DL.\n\nFinally, the research is most often funded by the general public. The public should have a right to it. In particular, keeping knowledge away from those with fewest resources is counter to the spirit of scientific inquiry.
## [121] Open Access -- now.
## [122] While open access reduces revenue on publications, it also reduces the cost, because a component of cost is access control. I believe we could keep publishing charges affordable. We should also be working with funding agencies to build support of open publication venues into grant funding as a matter of course, even possibly decoupled from grants to individual researchers. It would make a lot of sense for NSF, ERC, etc to negotiate lump-sum support of open digital libraries in lieu of publication charges on each individual grant.
## [123] Publishing used to be a genuine community service, and it made sense for organizations like ACM to participate in it as a real community building exercise. This is no longer true, the (traditional) publishing model is now a hindrance to the community, and organizations like ACM should get out of this business and focus on the things that their communities need today.\n\nAs an academic, my one and only goal is to have people read my work. When the best way to do this was with paper copies, it made complete sense for ACM to help me with this goal by printing and distributing paper copies. Now that digital copies are free, the traditional publishing model only gets in the way of this goal, by erecting cost, legal, and hassle barriers to getting my work read.
## [124] As a student researcher, it is immensely valuable when I have access to past works. I would gladly allow Open Access to my own works so that others could share that convenience.
## [125] There should be economies of scale through open access. As I mentioned above, in AI we have two FREE OA journals: JAIR and JMLR. They operate on a shoestring primarily through volunteer efforts. \n\nThe AAAI similarly provides open access to all conference publications at no charge to either the author or the reader. \n\nAuthors are not always in a position to pay publications charges.
## [126] OA is clearly a desirable feature, and ideally it should be the goal of the ACM. However, there are other issue to consider such as inclusiveness and discrimination: large OA fees may hinder researchers who are unable to afford the fees, thus creating an artificial disparity between haves and have-nots.
## [127] Open Access is essential - research is heavily funded by monies which are supposed to benefit entire societies. Entire societies can only fully benefit from information that is openly available to all.
## [128] none
## [129] The cost of PDFs currently seems grossly expensive, and the price poorly-motivated. When the internet is covered with sites like imgur, tumblr, youtube, and soundcloud (not to mention dozens others), citing hosting fees for papers is laughable at best. We must maintain a development team, sure, but the disparity in price is even beyond that. These funds, as explained, are going primarily into Good Works. Unfortunately, while these "Good Works" are a nice idea, paywalling our ideas in order to help potential researchers seems worse than giving the papers away.
## [130] Open Access in some form is critical, though the current model is, I think, marginally acceptable. I could personally live with a non-OA model more easily if access charges were more reasonable and more convenient to pay. But I think that disadvantages some parts of the world in ways we should not.\n\nA $700 processing charge seems high to me, though $200 sounds difficult to manage. Something in the middle may be OK; I haven't looked at the finances.
## [131] It's the only way forward to advance human knowledge in a fair way to every student where ever they are.
## [132] Researchers would throw a huge fit if you ever try to prevent OA Green. So given that OA Green is going to happen, I don't believe (spin it all you like) that OA Gold is actually necessary. Don't waste your time. You're thinking too small.
## [133] The inability of science to freely turn its tools upon its own output severely hinder the advance of science. And the paid subscription limits the benefit of scientific inquiry to wealthier institutions.
## [134] If work is available open access and authors can reuse material under an appropriate CC license, then it is OK to not retain copyright. Otherwise, the author should retain copyright.
## [135] I believe that the issue of source code also needs to be resolved along with Open Access. The source code and data used by papers should also be accessible for both reproducibility and understanding.
## [136] Open Access is desirable, but given that most university libraries (I suppose) subscribe to the DL, it is not an imperative. Furthermore, individual ACM members can purchase DL access at a reasonable price. Therefore I do not view implementing OA as a necessary goal.
## [137] Green OA funded by public institutions is a moral imperative for public funded research.
## [138] Ensuring OA is the biggest issue in the field.
## [139] Science works better with open access.
## [140] Looking forward, Open Access is a must.
## [141] The role of academia is supposed to be to produce new knowledge and share it with the world. All researchers have an obligation to the general public. Open access is absolutely imperative, and I am embarrassed that the major publication venues I send work to do not support it.\n\nThe reason for why open access would be so expensive is not clear to me. Authors take on the role of writing, formatting, and copy-editing their own work. Reviewers work for free. Conference organizers and journal editors work for free. Digital publication is cheap, and paper publication is increasingly unnecessary. What are the true costs of distribution?\n\nKnowledge is priceless. It should be price-less.
## [142] Without free and open access to scientific information, for everyone everywhere, there can be no progress in science.
## [143] I believe that "open access" is totally bad for reseach. There is nothing like free lunch anywhere in the life. Publishing journals and maintaining online repositories costs money. Somebody has to pay for it. When readers pay for subscriptions, publishers are motivated to sustain high quality of the journal or the repository, through the solid selection process. When the cost is moved over to authors, publishers have no motivation towards readers, they do not need them. On the contrary, they have motivation towards authors, to accept as much as possible, provided that authors pay. It is irrevelant whether authors pay by their personal money, or their employers pay on behalf of them.\n\n
## [144] Good
## [145] I think open access is very important, because the government (i.e. the public) supports research and should also gain advantages.
## [146] Green OA (e.g. arXiV) already works very well. Any gold OA solution that ACM could offer would have to be very cheap and significantly better than green OA to get accepted by the community.\n
## [147] Legal Open Access is an absolute must. It's a pity nowadays authors achieve de facto "open access" by breaking all the artificially imposed rule (like copyright law) and simply posting all their papers on their websites. This practice is great, it should just be legal.
## [148] I don't really get this debate. Papers I cannot download through Google Scholar just do not exist. Just make sure (1) copies on authors' or institutions' pages are the final, archival versions, and (2) a free copy is guaranteed to be available somewhere on the net 10 years after poublication or so. What's so hard about providing these two basic services?
## [149] Somewhat embarrassing that it's not the universal standard, in CS as well as in other fields.
## [150] I like the idea of open access, but it is not essential in my opinion. Authors have a choice where they publish their work, and most people I know choose to publish in venues sponsored by ACM and IEEE that make dissemination of results possible under very reasonable terms: working at most universities and research labs usually provides free access an DL subscription is affordable otherwise. I rarely publish in journals published by commercial publishers, because they tend to have lower stature/impact in my field. If they were to adopt an open-access model that is too expensive to authors, I would simply stop publishing there altogether. Assigning my copyright to ACM does not bother me because their terms of use seem very reasonable.
## [151] Academia is laughably behind!
## [152] Providing open access to scientific knowledge resulting form publicly-funded research is a moral imperative and a duty to the tax payer.
## [153] OA Gold is preferred. But OA Green is better than no OA at all (which is the situation at some other publishers). So I favor ACM more than these others.
## [154] Fact: Essentially all scientific works (books, journals, etc.) can be accessed freely in national, public, and university libraries. Fx. people can go to university libraries since 500+ years and read books freely.\n\nWho will fund OA for, say, 100 years? Who will run OA PDF-servers (if this technology still exists) in 100 years? \n\nPublishers exist since hundreds of years and need to make profit. Unless all scientific publishing is done by non-profit organizations, there will always be some profit making involved. AGREE, profit from publishing scientific works should NOT be EXCESSIVE, and this seems to be the issue OA tries to approach.
## [155] Our research is funded by taxpayers, and it does not make sense that (a) private companies own it and make money from it and (b) we have to pay to be able to access the work of our colleagues.
## [156] USENIX has the right model.
## [157] this is the way all scientific knowledge should be available
## [158] OA doesn't seem hard: in the worst case, just encourage authors to put their papers online for free on their own sites. You can even have an exclusivity cause for a month or two if you like, like freelance journalists often have. Then after that, we can post it where we want.
## [159] costs should not be transferred to authors.
## [160] I do not know what "the 'Good Works'" are.
## [161] Science is for all.
## [162] There is no such thing as “in perpetuityâ€ù in the sense most readers will take. ACM can easily disappear; new administrations can change the rules and practices. I have an extensive body of work that I want future readers to be able to read, and ACM is not a place I am looking for that.\n\nACM and the DL should always keep in mind that the “contentâ€ù that makes DL valuable is provided by the scientists OA might seek to ding for publishing it in this manner. I know that the payment is for the nature of the publication (free to readers), but to many it feels like paying ACM to monetize their work.\n\nI am an anti-affiliationist - my identity as a researcher / writer does not depend on who employs me. In the absence of other information, affiliation might provide a clue, but that was more the case when the parts of the scientific world was separated, not when connected by the web / google / etc. Therefore, I favor approaches that make individual subscriptions to the DL more prevalent and more affordable. Although my employer has a subscription to the DL that I can use, I don’t use it and have my own subscription. I find it of high value. I write a lot of philosophical / essay-like pieces on computing that rely on technical ideas and works, so I refer to the DL about 10-20 a week. This work is independent of my employer.
## [163] From an idealistic standpoint, we should strive for OA. Science isn't done in a bubble, though non-OA models suggest so. To me, the entire point of science is to globally increase knowledge, and this isn't possible without the capability to disseminate knowledge freely. Putting paywalls up hinder knowledge transfer. Similarly, putting the cost on authors discourages putting new knowledge into the pool.\n\nThis is all well and good, except ultimately if a given medium refuses to become OA, then scientists are in a bind. The moral imperative may be to boycott the medium, but if the medium is high-profile then this is self-destructive, to the point of being career suicide for anyone who isn't already well-established. To me, perceived long-term benefits of going to an OA model do not outweigh the enormous short-term benefits of sticking with a non-OA model.
## [164] Other industries have begun to open research materials to everyone and had favorable results in opinions polls related to these efforts. I believe the CS industry is a innovative field that can and should be at the forefront of research techniques and publication processes.
## [165] ACM authors can retain their copyrights now.
## [166] Open Access (OA) is important to me. But, as a junior tenure-track faculty, I cannot simply change publishers or consider not reviewing/submitting work submitted to major established conferences/journals. It's important for me for OA to come from within these organizations, otherwise I feel powerless towards helping OA take root in the CS research community.
## [167] Usenix makes Open Access and author-owned copyright available on all articles for free. Why can't ACM?
## [168] There really is no alternative to open access.
## [169] A moral necessity.
## [170] We have an absolute imperative to publish OA. My understanding is that ACM is moving towards being consistent with this imperative. The remaining issue is the cost. We can afford it - but it's a moral issue to be milking authors who can't easily afford it to support good works they may not benefit from. I would like to see ACM taking a lead on this.
## [171] I think the idea of charging the authors (!), who have produced the work, for publishing it is ridiculous. The membership fees we are paying to ACM are already high enough. How expensive can it be to set up a web server somewhere that hosts the archived papers? This should be possible using only a tiny fraction of our existing membership fees - and ACM is doing so much other stuff that seems non-essential, including sending me paper spam every once in a while.
## [172] I prefer the green OA approach where authors retain copyright and provide free versions of their own papers. ACM DL also allows links for free access from authors' own sites
## [173] Again, a moral imperative.
## [174] I am against requiring authors to pay to publish. One, many schools will not pay the fees, meaning they will look elsewhere. But more importantly, as a member of our promotion and tenure committee on and off for years, I can attest to the fact that the "pay to publish" models are very much frowned upon in general. The reason is that it is difficult to distinguish the "reputable" journals that require a fee to publish from the ones that will publish anything as long as they get paid.
## [175] Highest acceptable APC should depend on the quality of peer review provided. A lightly-reviewed distribution should not cost as much as one where reviewers are expected to analyze the material closely and perhaps even reproduce results.
## [176] There are really two different issues here: open access of published results and the age-old journals vs. conferences debate. The ACM must have an OA policy that meets the requirements of funding agencies (e.g., RCUK), but it is not clear how to fund that.\n\nW.r.t. to the second issue, I am not in favor of publishing our conferences as special issues of TOPLAS.
## [177] I think open access at no cost is infeasible in practice; to make it work, it would require a seismic shift where universities/governments fund open access model directly rather than funding libraries that then pay to have access.\n\n
## [178] I luke-warmly support open access. I think de facto it already exists (for recent work) when people put their papers on their home page.\n
## [179] Essential to progress in science. Open Access is my first priority when choosing which journal to send a paper to.
## [180] It's a tricky question. I'm definitely for OA, but given my desire to advance my career as a PhD student, I need to publish, and I don't have a lot of options for doing so (in my sub-field studying computational narrative, there are 3-5 conferences/year that my work fits well in, and only 1.5 major journals I can think of). My decision to submit something really depends on how my progress lines up with conference deadlines than any single other factor. Waiting six months to a year to submit something in order to publish at a conference that offers OA is not really an option.\n\nThat said, I think that Green OA is actually a huge step forward over no OA. My institution happens to have a digital repository where I can make papers available "in perpetuity" insofar as that's possible. Not everyone has access to such a service at their institution, but there are also places like arXiv available. I think that in many cases, Green OA achieves the same result as Gold OA for the end-user, especially given search services like Google Scholar that index across the entire web. If someone publishes something and I know an author's name and the title, chances are much greater that I can't access the paper because of a paywall than that it's freely available in some form but I can't find it. Obviously as time goes on and unreliable hosting starts to mean that some Green OA papers aren't available for free any more, there's a problem with that model, but such papers would presumably still be available behind paywalls, so the situation isn't *worse* than the no-OA situation, and if authors retain copyright, where there's demand they'd be able to re-upload old papers.
## [181] As a practical matter, research that is not openly available at the end of an online search will not be read or cited much, and so permanent archive is largely irrelevant. In order to advocate for research to play an effective leadership role in our field, our professional associations should be working toward 100% open access of the best work.
## [182] Give authors to option to place work in the public domain.
## [183] Research funded from from public money should be public.
## [184] Open access is a red herring -- what we need is *fair* access. I do not see why articles have to be available free of cost to everyone. Instead, we should try to ensure that groups that lack the ability to pay -- for instance, institutions in developing countries or students -- get discounted access to ACM publications. \n\nIn some ways, the open access model that is being proposed is as unfair as the current "closed" model. Someone has to pay for open access. If this leads to publication fees and increased conference attendance fees, we will in effect be imposing an additional tax on those who lack the ability to pay. We need to think beyond a binary choice between open and closed.
## [185] The question of authors retaining copyright is too simplistic. The question is who should get what rights? E.g., an OA repository should have a right to reproduce, perform, etc., any work that it hosts, in perpetuity, royalty-free, etc.
## [186] Authors and readers both benefit from OA. I really don't care if\ncommercial publishers die off. For professional societies such as\nACM, it's harder to be absolutist, but USENIX has shown that it is\npossible to run an OA-only society with no charges to authors.\nMy sense is that ACM could reduce its OA costs by making the\nstaff more efficient (and firing Sheridan Printing -- I hate working\nwith them); it would be nice to see an honest accounting of the costs here.
## [187] Creative commons licenses should be applied.
## [188] Don't speak of Open Access when you charge the author: It is open access for the readers only! Many people have difficulties to get enough money to publish in the "authors pay" model. This is some kind of racketeering!
## [189] Authors are funded by taxpayers or companies. The copyright should rest with them, *NOT* publishing houses, who do not add value.
## [190] Research is for the good of all people on the planet and should be freely available. I understand there is a cost to making the work available. If funding for the research comes from tax revenue, I believe the tax revenue should pay to make the work available to the public who funded the work. If funding comes from private funds, then the private funder should make the determination on how the work is shared.
## [191] While I support the idea of Open Access in principle, I find that the positions on OA are so polarized that it is impossible to have a conversation.\n\nWhat we are seeing is a massive move towards Gold OA, which in my opinion is the worse possible option. We see publishers (including ACM!!) entering the game of charging both authors and readers, and we are turning scientific publishing into a vanity press. For what benefit?\n\nToday, it is really hard to say what is the actual, measurable benefit of OA for the research community. Everybody else seems to benefit from it but the researchers: commercial publishers have a new source of income, predatory publishers live off it, industry gets free access to research results. By contrast, if my department had to pay author fees for all the papers published by its faculty, it would triple or quadruple the cost of the current subscriptions to my institution (even if we assume it would replace these subscription, which obviously is not the case today).\n\nSo I think OA is a good idea IN PRINCIPLE, but we haven't found the proper way to implement it yet. I think a reasonable solution would is the following:\n1) Green OA by institutional repositories for recent publications;\n2) OA to all publications that are older than a few years (3-5 years?) by the traditional publishers (including ACM).\n\nThis way, you get the funding for Green OA from research institutions for recent works and you ensure OA in perpetuity after that from the traditional publishers. And you kill Gold OA, which becomes useless. Institutions would still subscribe to the DL to get easy access to the most recent works.\n
## [192] Absolutely essential, and to the extent that other orgs in CS, e.g., USENIX, are following that approach it makes ACM 'look bad' to not do so.
## [193] More important than retaining copyright is maintaining open access to papers.
## [194] If our goal is to further our knowledge of computer science, open access is the way to do it - the more people have access to the body of knowledge, the more that body of knowledge will grow and be used in many ways.\n\nWhile most academic institutions have subscriptions to services like the ACM DL, many (if not most) developers in industry do not have such access, so open access would help the transfer of ideas from academia to industry.\n\nFinally, I think open access requires a different view of the service that publishers provide. In the Internet age, authors can distribute their papers effectively for free (by posting on their website). The critical service is the peer reviews that say a paper is worth reading and disseminating. Effectively, an acceptance through peer review is a "seal of approval" that acts as a filtering criterion for those looking for valuable papers in their area. So the key question is, who should pay for the work that goes into the seal of approval process?
## [195] Scientific information should be shared freely. Much of it is funded by taxes, meaning the results should be freely available to the people who paid those taxes. Furthermore, science depends on a free exchange of ideas, which is severely hampered when publishers hold the copyright and charge exorbitant fees to access the work.
## [196] The ACM has a duty to preserve research published through it in perpetuity. While authors have the ability to provide free copies of their papers on their personal pages, those pages are transient while ACM will archive the paper forever.\n\nI believe it is important that the ACM does not safeguard research publications behind a paywall. However, I realize that the paywall itself is responsible for a large portion of the ACM's income. So I am not sure what the organization would look like should we remove that source of income. From this survey, it appears that changing the role of journals would be a decent way to decrease overhead, which is a step toward no longer requiring funds from the paywall.
## [197] Actual interest on science dissemination mean to adopt a Open Access policy. Any effort on that direction, for sure, will be very appreciated
## [198] this is the way it should be
## [199] Papers that cannot be indexed and accessed easily for free (including via institutional subscriptions, but this is not generally available) are in many cases as good as thrown into the dust bin of publishing. Practically all literature search today is via Google, and the full text must be available at the click of a link for the paper to have an impact.
## [200] I like the current ACM setup, especially the new option where authors retain copyright of their work, ACM have a licence to publish, and authors can post the paper on their own and their institution's web site. I always post my papers on my own website, so as far as I am concerned, my research is open access.
## [201] Msot of the time, when "open access" wording is used, it does not open access. It means having authors, who provide their papers, pay for them to be published. This is a perverted meaning. Author are producing papers, they should not pay to have them published.\nSo I'm not happy having "open access" being used by editors and publishers. It's marketing only.\nTrue open access means access open to all for free (and at no charge for the author). And that is possible because the costs are drammatically decreasing:\n- writing is done by the authros, who arealready paid for this\n- reviewing is done by the research community, for free (that's part of the job), supported by free online tools (Easychair, Scienceconf, etc.)\n- publication is done on the web, in open archives, which are free and open for all to access (paid by institutions that maintain them).\n
## [202] Author retains copyright; agrees to creative Commons license to ensure open access.
## [203] USENIX seems to be doing a decent job of providing high-quality open access, without ACM's excessive fees - and bureaucracy.
## [204] Open access is good. Retaining copyright is good - authors made the papers why should they not have copyright? ACM should still earn something t o keep them in the black so that they can still provide this venue for pushing our field forward.
## [205] We live in a complex world and there are complex problems surrounding the publication culture in computer science and software engineering. Open access in general can be seen as another threat to high quality ground breaking research results. I like the idea that to publish a paper one must pay a fee for this reason too; first think hard then write a paper as opposed to select a deadline and imagine which result might fit (a) the forum and (b) the time frame. I'd hope we would all read less and learn more.\n\n
## [206] Generally the copyright is owned by the employer of the author. So the author doesn't own the copyright anyway.
## [207] Information wants to be free (both as in freedom and as in beer).
## [208] As long as DL is reasonably priced, nearly anyone who wants access to a paper from ACM can obtain it.
## [209] The paywall should fall apart. Scientific publication should be available for free. It should be possible to find ways to reduce the cost of the publication process.
## [210] Honestly, I am a fan of what you call Green OA. My ideal scenario:\n\nI submit a paper to an ACM publication, it is accepted.\nACM gets a non-exclusive, perpetual license to publish my paper online in the DL.\nAdditionally, ACM gets an exclusive, limited-term (10-20 year) license to publish my paper in print.\nI retain copyright and am free to provide my paper online, or otherwise grant license to others to publish online.\n\nIn that scenario, ACM could charge whatever it wanted for access to the DL or print publications, and I would be fine with it, because my work was still available open access via my own site or other sites. I think people would still pay for the DL, for its indexing, but not paying for the DL would not prevent finding a specific paper via google.\n\nSo to summarize: To me, people should be paying ACM as a publisher for indexing and editorial... for the convenience of having vetted, high-quality publications in one place and well organized... not for the papers themselves. The papers themselves should be freely available, but ACM certainly doesn't have to make them freely available if it doesn't want to. As the author retains copyright, it is their responsibility. Likely I would use something like arXiv. Why duplicate effort with them? There is only one Wikipedia, after all.
## [211] Open access is important especially if we start emphasising reproducibility etc.
## [212] The final question doesn't even admit a proper answer, neither the authors nor the publisher should retain copyright, the work should be in the public domain.
## [213] It is the wave of the future. Find a way to do it.
## [214] Conferences should NO LONGER have formal proceedings - Open Access should in this case always be available at very low cost, maybe from conference registrations. Conferences should only be for networking and disseminating preliminary work. ONLY journals should count as formal publications. In that case, the costs of publishing for OA should be charged to the institutions the authors belong to. Authors, nevertheless, must retain copyrights. The current journal vs. conference system we have in informatics is not adequate anymore, and in fact has led to MANY bad papers to be formally published. Also, has led to researchers submitting many more papers to conferences, and hence a lot more time reviewing bad papers (papers that even the authors themselves think that are bad!). I know this is not about OA anymore, but about the (bad) conference vs. journal systems we have in informatics.
## [215] makes sense to everyone apart from publishers
## [216] I like it, I use it, but also if the "right" place for some work is an ACM conference, then I'm sending it to that ACM conference regardless of the publishing model.
## [217] It's simply imposed on UK researchers by funding councils - there is no alternative
## [218] It's not essential to me that I retain copyright. It is essential to me that I retain the rights to distribute my own work, for non-profit purposes, e.g., to other researchers and to students And that there is exactly one version of record, not multiple, subtly different versions — that make scholarship much harder.
## [219] I certainly agree that open access is a moral imperative for academia. I am sensitive to the fact that getting there may be a rocky road, but it is something that our field must work towards asap in the least self I destructive way possible.
## [220] Please provide Open Access.
## [221] great, but need to bear in mind the associated costs for both the authors and the publishers.
## [222] open access works in favor of authors by making it easy for others to find and cite their work.
## 223 Levels: ...DL Comments
## [1] Google scholar is much better
## [2] Not useful. Hard to search, no statistics. Best way to get s paper is via author's webpage
## [3] Well done.
## [4] I do not have a preference whether archiving should be achieved via ArXiv. As long as the papers are openly accessible and reliably stored, I would be fine with ArXiv or another host.\n\nAlso, I find that scholar.google.com is far more useful than the DL's search facilities. The only reason I would prefer a DL search would be if its search technology were implemented using free/open software and managed in a transparent fashion.
## [5] It's *terrible*.\n
## [6] The DL maintains a nice library of articles, however its search features can be improved or made more accessible by better documentation and user-friendly features.
## [7] It's good to have paper archiving. The rest is unnecessary. Google search is all you need.
## [8] Access should be free to all. Individuals and (especially) corporations should be encouraged to make voluntary contributions.
## [9] The digital library is pretty reasonable as it is. It is essential for authors to be able to post their own papers on their own sites.\n\nThe real problem with all of this is who is going to pay to maintain the DL and the expenses of journals.
## [10] For a computer science library, the search feature is so atrocious that it is an embarrassment to the entire association. It is fantastically bad. I can search for exact titles and get several pages of unrelated articles. Workflow: I know the article exists. I was just on the page. But wait, I have to log in through my university's library in order to get access to download the article. Okay, I'm on the site through the library's portal. Search for copy-pasted title. Nothing. Flip a table and find the article on an author's website.
## [11] If it had critical mass, it could have been a great place track comments and reviews about articles. But being closed prevents it from ever achieving that. Now I only go there for old articles that I can't easily access from Google Scholar or CiteSeer.
## [12] Overall, I am pleased with the ACM DL except for its search functionality. I access the ACM DL through an institutional subscription, which makes it convenient for me, but I appreciate that it is not open to everyone (which is the point of this survey!). It would be useful for the ACM DL to archive "artifacts" in addition to papers, e.g., software an datasets.
## [13] I usually find things inside the DL using Google, then just click the link inside the DL. ACM's search engine is a joke.
## [14] Too expensive for many practitioners
## [15] The ACM spends millions of dollars running a "digital library" in which all, or nearly all, of the BibTeX entries for conferences miscapitalize the conference name *even for ACM conferences*, e.g., "international conference on Functional programming", "symposium on Principles of programming languages", etc. I have lost count of how many bibliographies are riddled with errors because the ACM can't hit the shift key.\n\nWe should have replaced the DL with the arXiv decades ago, but better late than never.
## [16] I access the DL content exclusively through other means (via google, google scholar, dblp, etc).
## [17] Google, dblp, and CiteSeer are much more convenient for finding articles.
## [18] I'd love to see some "Good Work" money spent on hiring a plucky web dev team to improve usability.
## [19] I like it, but I usually search using other mechanisms, and follow links to the DL.
## [20] It must become free to access soon on become obsolete.
## [21] What is DL?
## [22] I never use the DL search interface directly. Rather, I use Google Scholar for searching, which often brings me to a DL page.
## [23] The questions above are not the right ones. The major issues with DL are:\n- it does not cover key CS conferences and cover some key conferences only partially and sometimes randomly.\n- it does not count citations correctly.\n\nWhat I would really like would be to see DBLP and ACM DL to merge and provide full coverage, access to papers and citation counting.
## [24] 1) I have no idea what "DL's archiving facility" is.\n2) Google Scholar is my go-to search engine for publications.
## [25] I never use it, unless somebody redirects the download of a paper to the DL.
## [26] DL search is irrelevant: that's what Google (and/or Google Scholar) is for.
## [27] Search needs to be improved a lot! I personally go to Google Scholar first to find papers I'm looking for.
## [28] I never use the DL, always go through google scholar. However, I would really prefer not to use a commercial search engine.
## [29] I will never use a service that requires non-academics to pay a fee to access the articles -- my own memories of being repeatedly denied access during my early studies are too stingy. The Author-izer service goes in the right direction, but I don't see much benefits over arXiv. I feel little loyalty for an organization that uses its position of power to force me to surrender my copyright -- this is immoral.\n
## [30] The DL is a convenient and easy to use archival service, but it's main benefits are completeness and consistency, which could be preserved while lowering costs.
## [31] The ability to chase references is great. \nThe bibltex entries cannot be used as is: DBLP does a better job in this respect. \nThe search facility is arbitrary and unpredictable (or briefly out, it's bad).
## [32] The DL is a great resource.
## [33] It serves its purpose, but should be freely available.
## [34] Becoming obsolete.\nGoogle attends tp most of today's needs
## [35] (none)
## [36] I never even new it existed
## [37] Define DL ?
## [38] Never used, I always go directly to an author's homepage.
## [39] It serves me as a bibtex source (the bibliographic citations are usually good).\n\nThe references list in article pages should always contain a link for every reference. If it is not available in the DL, its DOI link should be used.
## [40] The DL is an excellent resource that needs to be preserved. It's a fantastic service to the research community that far exceeds that of other organisations, both for-profit and not-for-profit.
## [41] Good things about the DL:\n\n - Good coverage of old articles published by ACM.\n\n - Decent coverage of additional materials for articles recently published by ACM.\n\nBad things about the DL:\n\n - I never use the DL to *search* for articles, because the search function appears to be not working. For example, entering the exact title of an article that I know is in the DL sometimes doesn't include this article in the search results.\n\n - I sometimes use the DL to download bibtex records, but the quality of these records is low and they have to be extensively hand-edited to become useful.
## [42] The paywall often prevents me from reading an article.
## [43] It's ok, but the paywall makes most things inaccessible for people outside universities. Companies may still be able to buy access, but individuals do not. Papers should be freely available to everyone, preferably with a simple search interface, such as on ArXiv.
## [44] The one feature of the DL I use the most is bibtex export, when I want to cite a paper.
## [45] Archiving works great, but the paywall makes the DL cumbersome and hard-to-use. Open Access would solve all problems above in a snap.
## [46] It should be free.
## [47] I try to avoid using it as it's an unpleasant interface.
## [48] I think the DL and broader ACM publication process is run very inefficiently. I am amazed to see $0.8M spent on marketing ($33 for each of the 24k members) and $1.4M on staff costs and overheads. Looking at the ACM myself I see a lot of "value add" work that I consider superfluous. Having worked as a PC and GC for several conferences I see processes which are cumbersome, bureaucratic, and staff intensive.\n\nA move to OA should be considered alongside the broader evolution or replacement of the publishing system -- either within the context of the existing DL, or within the context of a SIG moving to a separate system in isolation, or within the context of a move to a new umbrella organization in place of the ACM. (I would make the same observations about the ACM more broadly.)\n\nConcretely, I suggest:\n\n* Extend HotCRP to handle all of the processing needed to collect material for use by the ACM DL -- copyright approvals, bibliographic information, etc. Pay Eddie or someone with similar programming expertise to do this. Switch to this as the sole way of adding conferences to the DL. Interacting with it will be easier for PCs than interacting with the ACM's current systems (removing the need for e.g. publication chairs to be cut-n-pasteing between different ad-hoc formats). \n\n* Review the way the DL is hosted. Comparing with commercial AWS prices, the infrastructure costs look massive for the volume of material involved -- is this just in machines at the ACM's expensive NYC HQ? \n
## [49] ACM does a great job in scanning old articles and making them available in the DL. Ideally this should be open to anyone, but it's unreasonable to expect ACM to do this for free.
## [50] Google?
## [51] a good value of the DL would be good bibtex entries for articles, but there is no easy way to submit corrections to the bibtex downloadable from acm
## [52] It's a complete and utter embarassment.
## [53] The DL does not appear to deliver good value for money. A less expensive gold OA version of the DL would be highly desirable. This requires rethinking about funding, but funding via conferences appears feasible, if the current infrastructure to market the DL is removed.
## [54] It's behind a paywall. I rather use arXiv's RSS feeds, Google Scholar's update option, and simply the lists of conference accepted papers to keep up-to-date.
## [55] What is DL?
## [56] I don't know it.
## [57] For me, the DL only ever appears as the page on which I can download the paper - I search for articles using DBLP (mostly) and Google Scholar.
## [58] Works fine, but access is too expensive. I'm happy with author archiving with indexing by DBLP + Google. The main problem is that authors are sloppy about removing obsolete versions of their work.\n
## [59] It's much easier to search it through Google. The search facilities are dire.
## [60] It's well-done (except maybe for search) but needs to be less pricey.
## [61] Not an ACM core mission to run the library.
## [62] Definitiv storage, not search is the key
## [63] I think DL makes very easy to find papers on the Internet.
## [64] The search engine algorithm could be improved :-) the quality of the results is sometimes poor and Google Scholar works better.
## [65] Remove the paywall, liberate the works and make it easy to mirror.
## [66] I don't use the DL's search engine. Google gives me the page I need.\n
## [67] I do not currently use the DL search and discovery features at all, though perhaps I should. Google scholar fills that role for me, although I did not conduct a reasonable comparison of the functionality.
## [68] All it needs to do is serve the papers. I can google for them to find them.
## [69] The DL's search results are of very poor quality. It doesn't follow that the only solution is outsourcing to Google et al.\n\n"Replaced with arXiv" is a bit specific; "replaced with arXiv or something like it" is much harder to disagree with.
## [70] I like the DL very much. As much as IEEE Xplore.
## [71] The procedures for workshop organizers applying to the DL, and for authors submitting to the DL, is truly bad. High ceremony, high accidental complexity, and high workload for DL staff, workshop organizers and workshop authors - and for something that should be simple and easy to automate.
## [72] The Digital Library is rich both in content and functionality. It would be useful to integrate it better with a reviewing system such as e.g. Easychair so that the delay for publication is minimised.
## [73] Not open + insufficient CS literature coverage means I never use the DL for finding CS papers. \n\nI retrieve much much more often papers from arXiV than from the ACM DL (even though I'm paying for the latter).
## [74] It has a lot of value that ArXiv and the like miss, from bibliographic database info to supplemental content.
## [75] It is great for ACM publications, but less good for everything else (notably for Springer's LNCS series; less important for IEEE results in computing).
## [76] The DL is the best library in the field. Maybe some "social network" features, where articles could build a "reputation" would be useful, but I do not feel any drastic changes are required.
## [77] I am a big fan of ACMs DL. it is comprehensive and well mentained -- e.g., the meta-information usually has a very good quality, and even if this is not the case, it is fixed within a couple of days after submitting a request for corrections. this is in particular true for the hyper-linked list of references (and citation), which makes it easy to find related work (even when a search by keyword would not bring these works up). I thus hardly use the search of the DL.\n\nthe search functionality could be imroved, though. searching for keywords does not work well. even when searching for a complete paper title it sometimes failes to find the paper. however, google often delivers links to the ACM DL anyways. so, this is not a real issue -- collaborations with (several) search engine providers would not be a bad idea though.\n\n\n\n
## [78] None.
## [79] It surprises me every time I search for, say, "POPL '97" that the DL doesn't turn up the proceedings of POPL '97.\n\nI don't think we should use a commercial search engine, though---that means even less control.
## [80] The DL is extremely slow and unreliable. However, it does include some nice meta-data (e.g. papers' reference lists) that ArXiv does not include.
## [81] The DL includes citations without full text links, which isn't particularly useful.
## [82] sciencedirect > springerlink > ACM DL in user experience\n\n
## [83] What is the DL?
## [84] I hardly ever use the DL. I either Google the article or use DBLP.\n\nComment about the survey: you ask\nHave you read a paper published in a journal in the last year?\n\nI answered yes, but I never read the paper in the physical-copy journal. I almost always read the paper from the web, either from arxiv or the author's institutional web site (or from hand-me down pdfs retrieved by others). Once in a while I will rely on my institution's subscription to the electronic version of a journal.
## [85] I usually use google to find papers in the DL. I don't regularly peruse the DL looking for new papers to read. If I want to know what papers have appeared in the latest POPL, I look at the conference website.
## [86] What exactly is the problem here? Who has been sued? What is wrong with author-izer? Is open access in CS research actually the moral problem of our time? Why are you worried about ACM rather than Elsevier?
## [87] Google Scholar or DBLP do a better job in finding a paper in DL.
## [88] The ACM DL should follow the concepts of the IEEE DL
## [89] The search engine needs to be improved.
## [90] I hate that it takes extra steps to get to the DL when I'm not at my work computer.
## [91] The search facility of ACM DL is near-to-be a joke. Seriously. Google looks into ACM DL much better than ACM it self.
## [92] Make it be arXiv for CS.
## [93] The sad fact is that ACM DL links are rarely in the top search engine results when I look for articles. I understand that this is somewhat out of the control of the ACM. I have much better luck searching the DL directly, or for the best results, by using my own library's search engine.
## [94] I used to subscribe, but now I don't (but I'm still an ACM member). This is mostly a political decision for me. ACM hangs on to closed access because of financial considerations. I can't help to perpetuate that. I would happily pay to support the DL if it were open access.
## [95] The paywall is unacceptable.
## [96] I find the DL essential for finding prior work and knowing that I have found the version of record.
## [97] I always search via google scholar.\nThen I reach the DL results, which I then avoid because of the paywall.\nOnly if there is no preprint and I really need the paper do I activate my organizational vpn to access the DL.
## [98] The DL is worse than DBLP, ArXiV, CiteSeer and Google Scholar at their respective tasks.
## [99] arxiv and google currently work better than the DL.\n\nIn the DL's defense, it works better than IEEE Xplore, which is an unmitigated disaster (so things *could* be worse).\n
## [100] It's an obstacle to accessing publications.
## [101] It would be OK if it were free. As-is, it tricks authors into thinking their results are sufficiently available, when that is not the case. Of course the IEEE and non-ACM venues do the same.
## [102] I put *all* of my work on arXiv because the DL is so awful: closed access (predominantly), horrible search (ask *anyone* who has used it), and awful bibtex entries (why can't they get capitalization for their own conferences right?).\n\nI see ZERO value added by the DL over arXiv other than the fact that more people use the DL (which is important, but can change).
## [103] It should be made much easier to browse by conference and by author name, as these are the vast majority of my searches.
## [104] i would use it directly if it had a better phone or tablet app. i'd like to be able to read articles from conferences or cacm on the go, but the current app is terrible.
## [105] "The DL’s archiving facility should be replaced with ArXiv": if that's the most straightforward way to move toward open access, sure.\n\n"The DL’s search facility should be replaced by a commercial search engine": No, the DL's search facility is much better tuned for its job. I regularly use the DL to find a paper and then a commercial search engine to find a linkable version of it. (I refuse on principle to link to anything that isn't open access.)
## [106] Google does a better job for search, dblp for bibtex, and arxiv for archiving.
## [107] Don't ever use it. Google Scholar does a MUCH better job.
## [108] Archiving cannot possibly be that big an expense if done sensibly. I'd like to know the actual cost per year per paper that the ACM incurs.
## [109] DL is useful and appropriate, has archive/search/indexing features and control that ArXiv does not have. Relying on some search engine like Google is demonstrably dangerous, as recent Google product cancellations show (how long will Google Scholar last?).
## [110] I don't know much about ArXiv
## [111] Can't use it because it's too expensive.
## [112] The digital library is more carefully curated than ArXiv, which makes it more valuable as a content discovery mechanism.
## [113] I hate the DL. It's not compatible with other major ways of accessing scholarly articles, and the paywall is infuriating, because it adds several additional steps (many of which fail frequently) for authentication. It also means I can't easily share publications on social media, because most people have no access to it.
## [114] It's not terrible. The only massive usability bug I always hit is that login should leave you on the same page instead of requiring you to do the backbutton+refresh dance to get a download link.
## [115] It's sometimes useful for navigating references and a few other tasks, but I'm sure these could be accomplished better (and at lower cost) through other means. I've never even bothered to try their search.
## [116] It is a worthless piece of shit, only useful for pedantic academics who are stupid enough to trust its metadata, and self-serving ACM staff who enjoy pretending that anyone has ever enjoyed using the DL.
## [117] It's fantastic having everything, especially the old papers, preserved and available online. But it is damned hard to find stuff.
## [118] It sucks big time\nI now only use https://scholar.google.com/ which is not ideal as it aggregates articles without currate the sources
## [119] I typically find things in the DL through other search engines or through links, typically from authors' Web pages or Google Scholar. The DL is much better than SpringerLink or one of the other paywalls, and I think it has an important role to play as a permanent, unchanging URI to link to. A URI of note, if you will, as our own Web pages change from time to time, often when we change employers. In practice, though, people usually just link to preprints and various other places, because sharing research is the most important thing.
## [120] In the questions above I have interpreted "commercial" as "good", and "ArXiv" as "eternal archive service demonstrating and enjoying public trust in its open access and long-term viability".
## [121] I use the ACM DL a lot, and pay for a personal subscription to it. And yet, the search functionality is a complete disaster. I use Google to find papers in ACM DL. Now and again I try searching within the DL; I always give up and go back to Google. On the other hand, I use DL to trace a thread of research back through citations. I really want both: Good search, and good tracing through citations (which Google is surprisingly bad at).
## [122] It annoys me when someone links to the DL, rather than a copy of the paper directly, because it means extra hoops to jump through to download the article. Primarily, if I am not on campus (my institution, like most, subscribes to the DL), I either have to jump through hoops or wait until next time I'm on campus to read it. \n\nThis is not the position that ACM should want to be in. If the DL is to continue to exist, I should be *happy* when someone provides a link to it!
## [123] It provides useful stats about conference acceptance rates
## [124] Search doesn't work. This seems fixable even without a commercial search engine.
## [125] I think the DL is sometime inaccurate and when papers may be IEEE or may be ACM (as in, when I can't remember), Google does a better job.\n\nWhen I want a unified front for my students to go find papers, as in a class, having a list of DL links is nice. A million disparate homepage links on the web is not ideal. Nor is locally hosting the pubs.
## [126] what is the DL
## [127] Too much paywall.
## [128] What is the DL?
## [129] Google Scholar does a better job than DL at finding the links, references and citations for papers I'm looking for. It also suggests paper that may be of interest for me given my past searches. Overall, I have been using other DL (ACM, IEEE eXplore) only to complete bibtex entries on papers I already have, when Google's entries were missing some information.
## [130] I'm a big fan of putting things in arXiv, but I am not very knowledgeable about all of the details of archiving a document. I don't know whether arXiv captures all of the necessary metadata.
## [131] I like the DL, it's friendly and well designed. That said, I've never used its built-in search functions; I always arrive at DL via Google. While I like arXiv's egalitarian nature in theory, it's become a morass of non-peer reviewed garbage. Academics can just ignore the garbage, but people in the press cannot tell the difference. I've been asked to comment on many "significant research findings" that came from non-peer reviewed papers in arXiv that were just plain wrong.
## [132] none
## [133] PageRank for papers please!
## [134] The DL is not at all useful. ACM should channel that money into supporting the arxiv, and helping create a PubMed like entity for CS (integrating bibliographic information from ALL venues/publications etc and then using DOI to route to the right place). I'd say the DL is almost there, but the search is awful.
## [135] I tend to use Google Scholar more, but I find the DL occasionally useful. I haven't explored ArXiv.
## [136] I have never accessed it except through links from google searches.
## [137] I've had trouble searching on ArXiv as well. I think we need something better than ArXiv and DL, though it may build upon commercial search engines and ArXiv.
## [138] It's best for those of us in the privileged universities. Students from developing countries don't have access to it. It's unfair!
## [139] What does "the DL" mean ???
## [140] I often find papers via scholar.google.com or via DBLP, but prefer to then click through to the DL for the authoritative version.
## [141] Existing search engines (DL, Google Scholar, Microsoft Research), etc, all do a pitiful job of helping me to actually find out which research is making an impact on the world. At best, they tell me what research has the highest citations. But we all know that academia is an echo chamber to a certain extent. Tell me what research is being used by people OTHER than other researchers. Tell me what research is having an impact on students, industry, government, standards, and the rest of the world outside of our little laboratories and computing clusters.
## [142] The DL can be a powerful hub for computing research. I would like to see the DL be an open archive than to outsource that to arxiv.
## [143] I think that DL is a fine repository, but that there is nothing particularly special to distinguish it from arXiv or IEEE Xplore. \n\nI currently primarily access DL via external search engines in any case (mostly Google Scholar). I do not think it is wise to try to compete with Google for search engine efficacy, but also think it would be a bad idea to assume that Google and other search engines will continue to provide good service in the long term.
## [144] It should be open access
## [145] Can be great by simplifying and outsourcing to Google Scholar and ArXiv
## [146] The DL is only searchable via Google. If you use the DL search itself to try to find something, it hardly ever turns up the right paper.
## [147] Hard to flip through articles similar to hard-copy proceedings.
## [148] Get rid of the popup ads, please.
## [149] It will be there even after Google decides to kill off Google Scholar.
## [150] Confusing. I only use DBLP as an entry point.
## [151] It's not particularly pleasant to use. For full-text search, Google Scholar does better. For finding a particular reference, DBLP is better. For long-term archival, I trust arXiV more.\n
## [152] I don't have a comment about DL.\n\n\n\nI live in Australia, not Asia or any of the options given in the last question.
## [153] The digital paywall.
## [154] All publications should be open-access. Other organizations and communities have switched to this quite some time ago.
## [155] It's a great source of authority. I usually search with Google Scholar, then use the ACM DL and other, similar sites to fetch official PDF copies and BibTeX files.\n
## [156] In the age of cloud computing, we could get creative about who provides the actual storage service for scientific papers. Negotiating a special deal with a cloud provider can also allow for a certain degree of ease in calculating the long-term storage and access costs that authors must pay into the system.
## [157] Maintaining the DL is essential. Commercial search engines have their own interests and policies, and there is no guarantee that they will provide unbiased information that reflects a high-quality peer review process. Whatever is deciced should not harm the DL.
## [158] Directory with PDFs + google would work better
## [159] i usually geht there via Google scholar
## [160] It should all be open
## [161] The ACM DL is outdated and should either be modernised or replaced by a system that assumes open access, supports pre-prints and revisions, favours community discussions about publications/pre-prints, allows open access to reviews when relevant, and ties into open-access-to-data platforms.
## [162] I don't care about DL search as long as Google can index it. I presume that ArXiv can handle archiving more cheaply, so I favor that, to save $$.
## [163] Will this be technology be around in 100 years? I doubt.
## [164] Waste of resources and effort. Unless papers ate open, it's useless to find them there, and better results from Google scholar including actual usable links to papers.
## [165] Dump it.
## [166] I'm always disappointed when I can only find a paper in the DL.
## [167] I use the DL all the time and have my own subscription to it even though my employer has one. I use google to find candidates for papers I want to read or refer to, then grab them out of the DL. I also am affiliated with an educational nonprofit that has a well-established conference program (The Hillside Group that does the PLoP conferences - 3 to 6 a year). We often co-locate with Splash. We also publish our proceedings in the DL so that academics can get career credit for their publications. The DL sometimes welcomes us and sometimes doesn’t - mainly because they occasionally decide to believe (very wrongly) that Hillside is an industry promotional group rather than a legally registered educational nonprofit. When we remind the folks at the DL of that, they re-welcome us. This needs to be regularized (not the vacillation, but the publication policy for groups like Hillside).\n\nI believe such non-ACM but ACM-friendly conference venues should be part of the DL’s future. Journals too.
## [168] I use the DL nearly every day and find it very useful. It can be better for sure. I'm not sure if arxiv is a better place to house manuscripts...I imagine that that is tied to open access decisions. Also not sure what using a commercial search engine would do: ACM does have quite a bit of metadata about papers and authors. If that can be preserved in a better search tool, then great.
## [169] One valuable archive provided by the ACM DL that is not provided by e.g. arXiv is linked citation trails, both forwards and reverse citations, which is incredibly useful. Google scholar does this, but I find myself wading through a lot of garbage results, unlike the ACM's curated
## [170] What the hell is the DL?
## [171] Search in the ACM DL is totally useless. For instance, if you type in "PLDI" in the search bar you do not get the list of PLDI conferences, sigh.
## [172] I find stuff via Google (which frequently leads to the DL, but just as likely to author web sites)
## [173] The DL is a fine tool; it's only the access restriction that is bothersome.
## [174] a) The DL is one of the only libraries which allow complex queries. This feature should be kept. \nb) The DL should include at least metadata of all articles of competing publishers as soon as possible.
## [175] I don't know what the DL is.
## [176] Meta data has value the implementation does not.
## [177] the DL search feature is totally useless unless one knows the complete title, and one needs to use google to find papers on it based on keywords.
## [178] An example of the shoddiness of the DL that particularly irks me is the low quality of the Bibtex it exports -- conference names and even *author* names are often mangled, even for ACM conferences!
## [179] I'm not sure how the DL forms part of ACM's mission.\n\nIt's acutely embarrassing to work with colleagues in industry who should be users of research published by ACM but don't have access to it. DL serves as an index to things they can't have.
## [180] The current search feature is atrocious.
## [181] Honestly, these days I usually just go to Citeseer for most papers, and only turn to the digital library when forced.
## [182] The lack of public access is a recurrent annoyance.\n\nOrganised curation of bibliographic information is useful, though the DL bibtex data often has errors.\n\nOrganised bibliometric useful is not desirable, in my view.
## [183] Do not use\n
## [184] One of ACM's best services to the community.
## [185] I'd like to see limited access (e.g., 10/year) for DL included in membership. I don't subscribe to DL because I get my publications on paper and I really resent paying twice for the same content.
## [186] ArXiv is not indexed by Scopus/ISI. While it may be debated whether using bibliometric data based on Scopus is useful, the reality is that countries (such as Italy), granting agencies, and other organizations are increasingly relying on it for promotions, distributing funding across disciplines, and allocating grant money.
## [187] The DL is mainly useful for\n\n(1) finding old articles that don't exist on the web\n(2) statistics about conferences (# submissions, acceptance rate)\n(3) source for bibtex (a lame reason, but it's convenient)\n\nFor recent papers (that people put on their home page), Google and Google Scholar are far better.\n\n
## [188] It's insanely expensive, and really hurts my student's ability to do research and pursue "leads" during the exploratory stages of research. It's a pathertic situation for an organization that's essentially taking extreme advantage of its members...for its own benefit.
## [189] Its citation graph functionality remains superior to Google Scholar's; I otherwise find that my core article-tracking activities - searching for specific articles, tracking activities of other researchers, curating a personal library of references - are better handled by other existing (free) software.
## [190] It works for me.
## [191] I've never used the DL to search for papers. Instead I use Google Scholar since it aggregates across a variety of sources, and can almost always find at least a trace of what I'm looking for. Once I find a result, on the ACM DL or elsewhere (and it's often elsewhere), I try to get quality bibliography info from the host site, and sometimes have to use the host site's search functionality to find the paper I'm looking for when Google doesn't have a direct link.
## [192] The DL does provide an excellent service. However, it is not completely clear that it is an efficient service in terms of cost.
## [193] The desire by most publishers to feature their own papers and not other publishers papers means that I will always search with commercial engines. I am happy with the DL archive function, and I don't support "archive any and all compilations of formatted text" (ArXiv).
## [194] If it's only on the DL, it may as well not exist. Even unindexed personal copies of papers on the open web are better.
## [195] Would benefit from better integration with other search engines (e.g. Google Scholar)
## [196] I typically search for articles on Google Scholar, and I think there are ways of archiving articles that are cheaper than the DL. For instance, as suggested above, we could replace the DL's archiving facility by ArXiv.
## [197] As the impact of CS broadens out far beyond the ACM community, it is getting hard to create bridges to some traditionally non-CS communities because they don't want to publish in our DL and we don't want to do so in theirs.
## [198] Merge it with ArXiV, and have ACM give ArXiV proportionate financial support.
## [199] It is absurd to reinvent the wheel for every field
## [200] I have institutional access, so it's fine for me. But in a previous job,\nsome of my colleagues had no access, and it was a fucking pain.\nIf ACM could make the DL entirely OA, the field would be better off.
## [201] The ACM DL is still far, far better than IEEE's solution.
## [202] I have no clue what DL stands for
## [203] I almost never uses it, but sometimes when a search engine directs me to it, since it is really uneasy to use.
## [204] DL + Google seems to work perfectly well even without official "badging" - I see no reason why ACM should duplicate effort here.
## [205] I mainly use it to search forward and backward citations (for which it is very useful). I really dislike the outdated classification scheme for ACM papers -- few of my papers seem to fit the categories, and I can't imagine how to use the scheme to find papers of interest (say, papers in areas similar to my own).
## [206] google scholar has supplanted it in my research (for search and indexing)
## [207] I have no problems with the DL -- except that its hard to provide updates to papers.
## [208] Most people do not realize that the DL is run on a shoestring. It's not surprising that it's search engine is terrible, given the resources put into it. But I assume everybody knows that you should search the DL with Google by using "site:acm.org" in the query. So there is no need for ACM to spend money on using a commercial engine.
## [209] DL expenses could be significantly reduced by partnering with other providers of similar services, potentially as part of a donation to support the goals of ACM. Furthermore, DL could increase its value to the community by extending its scope to cover other sources of content in CS, e.g., other conferences, such as USENIX, and thus potentially bring in revenue for ACM.\n\nTo the extent that the DL could provide an authoritative registry of CS papers it could have value: currently the approach I take if I find something on the DL is to immediately go to Google and look for versions published by authors that are more accessible.
## [210] I've rarely used the DL as anything more than the "official" source of a paper. Its citation tracking and bibtex formatting are poor in comparison to other sources, though (e.g. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, dblp).
## [211] It's useful as a repository of papers and they seem to have almost everything. I'm fortunate to be part of a university who pays the fees so I can access the DL from campus, but otherwise most everything would be behind a paywall for me.\n\nGoogle also works well to find papers hosted on authors' web sites. This is what I would primarily use if my university didn't provide DL access.
## [212] I am not familiar with the DL's search facility because I frequently use Google Scholar. But I do believe it is important to have a decent way to categorize / catalog / search papers in the DL.\n\n> The DL fulfill its role of being a convenient portal to find CS research results\n\nI voted '1' because I am not able to use the DL to read papers from home without configuring some sort of VPN or proxy through the university. This is the opposite of convenient.
## [213] Good platform, however Scholar from Googe offers better search choices. On the other side, to offer a close protocol (like systematic review) as part of search platform would be a very added value.
## [214] The search algorithm and result page need improvement, otherwise it's a great resource.
## [215] If people are unable to access the DL without subscription, it does not fulfill its role as a convenient portal. Science is not limited to academia.
## [216] Typing a conference acronym in the search box should immediately bring you to the archive for that conference, not to a jumble of papers appearing in this conference over different years or citing papers that have appeared in it.\n
## [217] DL is a repositiory of papers. So it should be within an open archive (ArXiV or others).
## [218] Using google one gets a link into DL. DL holds the information. The indexing is external.
## [219] Relic.
## [220] Make it open access
## [221] The bibtex data from the DL is frequently wrong.\n\nI don't think the ACM DL search is great - but at least it's far less bad than IEEE. Besides: I usually use Google to find stuff, so the value of in-DL search is low.\n\nACM provides zero transparency into the technology underneath the DL, so I have no feel for whether it is competent/safe/secure, or whether ArXiv is better or worse - but at least doing things in the open is likely to be more carefully scrutinized, and less error-prone.
## [222] not necessary
## [223] The DL is an important source of older publications for which funding should be allocated to maintain it in the future.
## [224] The DL is great. It's a pity that it has to be a source of income for the ACM rather than being run on a non-profit basis. But I guess the ACM needs income like any other organization. Generally I'm very happy with the DL.
## [225] (It would be nice if you would expand the acronym "DL". I assume you mean the ACM Digital Library.)\n\nI appreciate that the ACM Digital Library is staffed by real librarians rather than just search bots. When I have had trouble with the archiving, someone has been available to help.
## [226] I like using DL. It is a valuable resource.
## [227] I think the value of the DL is the indexing and organization, not file storage. arXiv could handle that.
## [228] The main responsibility of the DL should be to preserve articles in perpetuity.
## [229] It is an excellent service -- but then I do not pay for it.
## [230] I have never found anything using the DL search, but Google already provides good enough results to not require any change.\n\n[Meta comment: you're missing a continent in the last question]\n
## [231] I think that hosting is secondary for DL. But if moving to Arxiv would reduce cost (for either Arxiv or ACM) I would support it.
## [232] None.
## [233] It is not clear to me what purposes the DL serves: its archive role is better served by the ArXiv, and its indexing facilities are not significantly better than those of DBLP.
## [234] I love the DL. It is far better than some other computer related DLs.
## [235] Don't use it much.
## [236] I think that making the DL available for a sufficiently low cost to education/research institutions worldwide very nearly achieves the goals of OA.
## [237] The DL is great. I use it everyday. I use it to get bibtex entries, I use the citation facilities to find relevant work, I use it to get copies of papers, I use it to find people who are doing work in particular areas, etc.\n\nIt is indispensable because it saves me time.
## [238] The DL has done a great job of archiving history. It does a really poor job of indexing, and in my view, should just give up on that. Whether or not it should continue archiving or just pay ArXiv to do it depends on how much it costs — something that has been almost impossible to discover.\n\nIt would see quiet likely that one competent web designer could in 6 months create a front end for ACM that uses Google as a search engine and ArXiv as a storage repository, and save millions of dollars.
## [239] A common, open portal for all CS publications is essential. Who should house and how we search that is inconsequential as long as a person can use this portal to find CS work out there.
## [240] It may not be that user friendly - but ArXiv, for all of its moral high ground, is a lot *less* user friendly.
## [241] not so convenient to use
## [242] don't use it unless it shows up in a search result
## 241 Levels: ...Journal Comments
## [1] Supplementary
## [2] None. It is a waste of time, to write for and to review. I stopped both activities few years ago
## [3] They are the same currency as journals in other scientific fields and we simply cannot buck the system.
## [4] We need to make conferences less important if journals are to be widely used.
## [5] Their importance is overblown, certainly in programming languages and systems.\n
## [6] Not essential
## [7] Actually, publishing the papers of a conference as a special issue of a journal serves a different purpose than publishing them as a volume of proceedings: different time scale, different level of finishing. I think that the good conference papers should be turned to longer-lasting, richer, journal papers (whether in a special issue or not), and that there is also an essential place for journal publications, for papers that are not well fitted for conferences (wider scope, longer, whateverâ€_). Personally, I highly value journal publications when evaluating an application.
## [8] Useless.
## [9] Meh.
## [10] I expect journal papers to be more thorough and "baked" than conference papers and I believe they still play a valuable role.
## [11] Allowing authors to explain their work in detail without the artificial size limits is very useful in providing a better understanding of the work. The thorough reviews by experts also helps in ensure quality while providing useful feedback to the authors.
## [12] They could be good if the review process was open.
## [13] I like the model of TACO2 and PVLDB. Which get the best of both worlds. \n\nIt is unfortunate that man CS researchers loose interest after submitting to conferences. I do not know how, but I think it would be good do something so that people will not take the easy route of conferences.
## [14] good for mathy and theorem/proof-oriented work
## [15] They are less important than they used to be. Plenty of important results are published informally on the web.
## [16] Journals are important to present completed results as conference papers are often incremental and several papers are required to see the full result (and often notation changes between papers). We still are conference driven, but it would be good to encourage more researchers to publish larger results in journals.\n\nThe biggest problem with conference-only results is that the details cannot be checked by referees because either there is not enough space or the referee does not have time to carefully check the results.
## [17] The argument that CS moves too quickly for journals is a bug, not a feature. We are flooded with superficial crap only to be later inundated with more unrelated superficial crap. I don't see commitments to evaluate one's research to a point that they are convincing to people that do things other than write papers. The lack of attention to journals means that we as a community are essentially rewarding researchers for playing with tinker toys and punishing researchers for taking the time to produce quality work.
## [18] Archival/long form of papers can always be published as eprint versions. I don't see journals as being useful anymore.
## [19] The word journal for other disciplines that is not as high as our conferences and even some of our workshops (like PEPM). Those who "under name" these activities as merely conferences and workshops do a grave disservice to younger researchers.
## [20] i used to read journals 25 years ago.\nIn past 15 years I usually find what I need for free online.
## [21] Few researchers (will) perform cover to cover reads of journals. More likely we will use a Google Scholar-like service (hope ACM DL) to email us when new papers are published that contain our favorite keywords.
## [22] I don't see the importance of journals in CS. Longer form material can be made without them, and conferences do a better job at peer review. Material I've reviewed for journals typically is 3rd or 4th tier.
## [23] At least in my areas of CS, conferences are more important than journals.
## [24] With the wide availability of conference proceedings, I think journals now play a secondary role. Conference papers have many advantages over journals these days: \n- opportunity to present at the conference\n- faster review cycle\n- more prestigious in many fields of CS
## [25] journals are traditionally unimportant, but I believe people are slowly realizing that conference acceptance is semi-random. We are not a grown up discipline. As we mature, journals will become more important. Confererences-as-journal issues just perpetuates the problem.
## [26] Journals allow to communicate results in long form so that they are more understandable to other scientists. Conference papers tend to be more of an announcement of a result than an explanation of a result.
## [27] The pressure to publish in journals by my employer (a major university) is paramount. The relative importance of conferences in CS is not something of which they can be convinced.
## [28] Journals help faculty members justify their existence/get paid. Most practitioners are unfamiliar with the latest proceedings of journals related to their special interest topics. Open access can improve this situation by lowering the barriers to the frontiers of knowledge providing more incentive for the curious in the community to get involved.
## [29] Journal publications help your publication record look normal. Other fields don't tend to publish good work in conferences, so having our good work in conferences makes it easy for the value of research / publications to be diminished in the eyes of general funding organizations.
## [30] Medium of distribution not important long term. Journals probably don't have a future, though.
## [31] While conferences are the best way to get important results out fast, overall, I prefer the longer format and more-detailed and iterative review process of journals. My main complaint about journals in my field (PL/SE) is the absurdly long delay between acceptance and publication (typically 1-2 years).
## [32] I don't see the point of subjectively identifying "best" papers. The reviewing process is bad enough. Why multiply this effect?\n\nBesides, what is the point in republishing a paper immediately after the conference? Yes, the journal version could be slightly longer, but in general it seems unlikely that the journal version features new insights. If you need the journal paper for your employer, you need to fix your employer (which of course is difficult) rather than hacking the system to make conference papers reappear as journal papers.
## [33] Only promotions committee at my Uni demands journals. Not my research colleagues.
## [34] They aren't important for communicating ideas, they are only important for the bean counters.
## [35] It's about time we make this transition.
## [36] Papers in some CS conferences deserve to be considered as journal papers ( in particular when compared with the 4 page experience reports appearing in eg Chemistry journals ). \nBut there are conferences and conferences you cannot discuss the thing in such simplistic terms. there are zillions of conferences in CS. But top conferences should regularly publish their papers as a journal issues.
## [37] I work both in computer graphics and computer vision. In the first field, papers from major conferences (such as SIGGRAPH and Eurographics) are automatically published on special issue of major journals. This is a main advantage with respect to the second field, for which several years are necessary to get a paper accepted in a journal: when papers are published, results are not up to date anymore.
## [38] Our conference system is broken. We submit too much and our reviews are too often worthless. We use the conference system -- submit, reject, submit -- as a bad version of multiple revision rounds in a journal. We complain that no other subject understands why we like conferences, yet there are 6 months between submission deadlines and conferences.
## [39] I think the main importance of journals is that they provide a media for publishing a more complete version of a conference paper, mainly due to the page limit restrictions enforced on conference papers (for obvious reasons such as reviewing time). In my experience, people usually go for conference publications first ti push their results out then maybe augment it with more results/proofs in the journal version.
## [40] The high number of conferences and the associated too short reviewing delays, makes journal style deep, many rounds, long time reviewing necessary to validate results.\n
## [41] We should pay more attention in journals and journals should gain importance in our discipline.
## [42] It is very important as it is the only way to publish *complete* and fully reviewed results (the latter is not possible due to the conference timeline)
## [43] Right now they are underrated, because even high calibre authors choose to publish in conferences for quick turnaround. They miss the chance to lean back, contemplate the results, and present them in full.
## [44] A multi-round reviewing process is the major difference with conferences.
## [45] Journals are too often abused as publication venues for immature work. Too many workshop-level events have special journal issues. Journals should be all about high-quality completed research (i.e., no "future work" section, no ongoing work, and thorough evaluations).
## [46] I think of CS conferences as a magnified form of math conferences. Math conferences are just for announcing results, which then appear for real in journals. In CS, it is frequently the case that conference papers cannot be thoroughly checked for correctness, be it for lack of time or because full proofs aren't yet written down. So journals seem essential for such papers that don't fit the conference format.
## [47] Journals' articles allow the writer to give a wider view of his subject.
## [48] My impression is that they are less important now than 30 years ago.\nMany important results are presented at conferences and never written up in an accessible manner, which is a pity.\nAn important role that journals could take is the archiving of experimental data (e.g., virtual machines, input files, observations) that make results reproducible. Many conferences and authors do this already, but it is not archived beyond the publication date.
## [49] The importance of conferences in CS is a total nonsense. Conferences shiukd be on invitation after journal publication. Conference reviewing is an heavy charge that delays the reviewing of jounal which should be prioritary
## [50] The review process in journals is far better and more rigorous than in conferences. I don't blame anybody, but the short review deadlines and the page limit in conferences lead to pay much more attention to the "quality" of the results than to their correctness (proofs are often put in appendix, or omitted, needless to say that they are not carefully checked by the reviewers). \nFor this reason, I think that journals in CS are extremely important.\n
## [51] As I researcher, I do not differentiate between journal or conference papers.
## [52] They are unimportant in my field.
## [53] Seems to be historical to me; most interesting things I find through conference proceedings.
## [54] Some conference proceedings are actually as good as very good journal issues; some journal issues are actually as bad as mediocre workshop proceedings. Journals in CS are forced to find their place with regard to the dominating conference culture (and not vice versa). Journals need be broader in scope to aggregrate the most important results from the zoo of conferences; 3-5 CS OA megajournals might be enough (PeerJ CS, ...). Journal EiCs should need to disclose income from commercial publishers to make their conflict-of-interest more transparent.
## [55] Journals should have a more central place in CS and replace conferences as the main means of disseminating science : one should not use a page limit as an excuse not to include full proofs in a published paper.
## [56] Conferences have taken way too much importance in individual assessments of researchers.
## [57] Journal papers should be papers intended to last for a longer time than conference papers (although it is not the case in my field for now).
## [58] If journals don't provide open access they will die out to blogs which are essentially free to operate.
## [59] When trying to understand a work journal papers help in understanding a work in more detail
## [60] Conferences and journals serve different purposes in our field, and we should not confuse the two. I see no merit at all in publishing PLDI articles in issues of TOPLAS.
## [61] Journals are important because they allow for the publication of the final word on a piece of research, in a polished form. However, conferences are more important because they generally allow for faster publication.
## [62] Too many conference papers state results without proofs and the extended versions never appear
## [63] Journal do not have the scheduling and length constraints of conference proceedings. I would like to see unabridged journal versions for every paper, *even if they do not include new results*. Journal papers should be easier to read (more pedagogical), and should form a stable base on which to build further research.
## [64] Other fields view non-journal papers as non-publications. CS moves faster and thus likes conferences. In the internet era, I think that both these ways of "publishing papers" are obsolete anyways. Conferences are great for in-person interaction, and the web takes care of everything else.
## [65] They are not important. However some places prefer them to conferences due to historical reasons
## [66] Important provided a number of conferences fail to provide sufficient quality of review processes and allow publishing of papers of low quality
## [67] Overlay journals make the most sense for the CS field, since the journal form of a paper is generally a longer, improved version of one or several quickly disseminated conference papers.
## [68] There are three types of publication that matter in CS: topic-specific conferences (which may not be elite publication venues, but are where the specialists and experts in your field publish), elite conferences (e.g., ICSE, SPLASH), and journals. The line between the latter two is now sufficiently blurry that I see no point in trying to publish in an elite conference, given that the amount of work required is about the same as a journal paper.
## [69] As journals allows longer presentation of the results, they help for reproducibility. Indeed, the conference format allows to present results but\nthere is often not enough room to present crucial information needed for the reproducibility of the work.
## [70] They are of marginal importance to my areas of CS (SIGPLAN/SIGOPS/SIGARCH intersection, e.g. ASPLOS). I publish there when students I work with are pushed toward journal publications.
## [71] I think journals are an atavism.
## [72] For me, journal publications are the only thing that forces me to write work up properly and in full detail. In my opinion, most theoretical work (like mine) that is published only in conferences is not even remotely reproducible. Work published in journals is at least closer to being reproducible.\n\nI have also written several papers where the technical details were so involved that reviewers basically said I should publish in a journal instead. I couldn't blame them: in the space limits of a conference paper, it is simply not possible to explain really deep math in detail.\n
## [73] In the UK the RAE/REF has meant that the pattern of publication has swung towards journal publication, even if the value of this in every case is by no means clear.
## [74] Journal, conference, whatever -- I just want to see less annual pressure to produce, produce, produce. I've been shocked at what kinds of mistakes and ambiguities leak through the conference peer review system. But when people's careers depend so heavily on regular paper publication, I guess I can understand it as a sympathetic gesture.
## [75] In the current system, I see two important roles for CS journals---which are not necessarily played by the same journals---:\n\n(1) archival of completed, important results, which have gone through some more thorough reviewing process, and\n\n(2) outlet for less fashionable, but nevertheless well worked-out results.
## [76] I have only ever found journals useful for long form papers / results. I have seen value in journals collating the most significant papers from one or more conferences, e.g. special issues. Unfortunately the actual results published in journals typically have more to do with the time and persistence of the authors rather than the quality of the research.
## [77] In many CS areas (eg systems, distributed systems, networking, databases and security), conference publications count more than journal publications. I would never submit my best work to a journal first.
## [78] At least in my field, journals are not so important. Sometimes they are percieved as more important by decision makers (i.e. weighted higher in some metrics), but in practice the conferences are where real research is done, and the journals are usually where the summaries appear. Of course there is value in having a summary, especially for the more well-explored topics, but for the bleeding edge, conferences are the important thing.
## [79] Conferences should have rolling deadlines, and papers should be published in PeerJ or some other fast-ish journal.
## [80] Journals are for publication of complete presentations of finished research after careful review. The fact that acceptance in POPL, PLDI etc. is highly competitive doesn't mean that the published papers are equivalent to journal articles: the style of reviewing is completely different and the work is usually not mature enough.
## [81] Our convention of longer-form journal papers is a good one to maintain. But we've fallen into a practice of a slightly-extended-conference-paper as a journal paper; that's counter-productive, as it confuses readers and dilutes citations. On the other hand, there's no reason why we should limit ourselves just to long, thoughtful journal papers; other scientific disciplines have no problem with rapid-publication, short-form journal articles - like our conference proceedings, in fact - and I don't see why ACM shouldn't encourage those too.
## [82] Journals provide much better reviews than conferences.
## [83] We need to align with the rest of the scientific community (where journals are more important) as best as we can.\n\nConferences could have multiple deadlines with some work appearing only in journal edition and other presented in a conference (subject to deadlines and suitability).
## [84] Important journals in Programming Languages: JFP (for functional programming). I'm aware on nothing similar outside of functional programming.
## [85] Journals are a very important way of make available our researches, the main results found.
## [86] The main reason for which many European researchers publish on journals is that their employer expect them to do so. On the other hand, we have conferences like OOPSLA (with almost 20-pages-long papers!) and PLDI that provide a more accurate reviewing process than many journals. I think we have to close the gap between conferences and journals, and I like the idea of publishing papers from a high-quality conference as a special issue of a journal, as long as it does not prevent further submission of extended versions in the future.
## [87] Not all results fit in the scope or format of available conferences. Journals enable a broader range of results to be published.
## [88] Journals are under-utilized and under-valued in CS. There is a difference between early presentation of preliminary results and full presentation of results after they have withstood maturing over some time. With the current value system in CS, it is not in authors' best interests to spend the time and effort to publish good journal papers.
## [89] We need to focus more on completed research than just vague ideas
## [90] Publishing conference proceedings in a journal is fine. But the other direction is more important: presenting journal publications at conferences. We need to get rid of the idea that conferences are primarily for publishing new results. Conferences are for presenting and discussing. We need all good conferences to accept presentations of papers published elsewhere (in journals). And we need to get rid of the idea (among faculty, management etc.) that it's only appropriate to send junior researchers to conferences if they're presenting a paper.
## [91] Given that typically journals have longer cycles of acceptance/publishing, I think journals do not have value in CS as per diffusion of latest knowledge is concerned.
## [92] On my field, the best conferences are the only important venues to publish high impact research. We use journals only because other scientific areas do not believe on any publication that does not appear in a journal...
## [93] On my field, the best conferences are the only important venues to publish high impact research. We use journals only because other scientific areas do not believe on any publication that does not appear in a journal...
## [94] Journals are less important and do not really support the pressure prompt that many CS researchers need to send their papers. De facto they become venues where to publish results in a more comprehensive way a second time...
## [95] The explosion of poor quality journals has muddied the waters, but still journals with a good reputation have a better review process than conferences with a good reputation.
## [96] ...but it might be more hassle than it's worth to prepare a separate journal version of a conference paper for a special issue. Ideally it should be no extra work over the original camera-ready!
## [97] Journals should gain in importance relative to conferences.
## [98] Journals have been little used in CS due to their long turnaround time.\nJACM, in particular, was notorious for his delays. However, I think they should regain their role as the main publishing outlet.
## [99] What is important in journals:\n- allow results to be presented in full, including proofs, and detailed experiments\n- allow in depth reviews with possibility for authors' comments\n\nJournals, with full open access, review time of no more than 6 months, should be the primary means of publication in CS, with associated conferences (asin the pair PVLDB/VLDB) providing the means for informal and direct exchanges.
## [100] I'd like to see more journal-first models where publishing in the journal leads to presenting in the conference.
## [101] They seem to be more important outside of CS. This seems to affect the evaluation of CS researchers.\n\nThat said, there is obviously a compromise to find between timely publication (three years for a TECS article is too long!) and the rigour of peer-review (too many authors seem to ignore the recommendations of reviewers). The approach of using shepherds and two or three rounds of deadlined reviews might be a good compromise. Especially if authors are required to provide running implementations and/or mechanized proofs (to avoid having to review all those tedious papers full of details better checked by a machine).
## [102] I think journals are less important in computer science than in other fields. This is not necessarily a good thing, but it is mainly a consequence of the fast pace of research in our field, with which journals can note cope. Practically, a journal paper is today available to readers 2-3 years after the actual research has been done.
## [103] we need better - less parochial - reviewing in general
## [104] as indicated above, I like publishing in journals for various reasons -- the more important once are better (argued) reviews and the possibility to publish longer papers.\n\nconference on the other hand to publish "faster" -- in times of time from submission to publication. it also has a strong social component, which is not so much present for journals.\n\nboth styles are important and equally advantageous, depending on the situation.
## [105] They need to reflex the advances and development on the field
## [106] In my field (High performance computing), best papers are published in conferences.\nThe only reason to publish in a journal would be because my employer (that employ both computer scientist and other types of scientists) evaluates me and thinks journals are better than conferences
## [107] I learn more from journal articles than conference articles, and I strive to publish journal articles that aren't merely better typeset versions of my conference papers.\n\nI worry about bean counting, though no one I know openly admits to it. I'm pre-tenure, so it's a thing I (try not to) think about.
## [108] I don't think we should publish our best conferences as journals. I've heard the argument that some universities make hiring/promotion decisions based on journal publications and this puts CS at a disadvantage. I don't buy that argument. CS is doing relatively well in academia. The CS community has succeeded in explaining our publishing model to universities.\n\nAll that said, I strongly prefer a journal-based publication model. I like the ability to submit a paper when it's ready not because of a looming deadline. I also think journals provided higher quality reviews on average. In particular, journals are better at matching papers to subject matter experts. Unfortunately, I don't think a switch to a journal-based model is likely to ever happen.
## [109] They are not important.
## [110] I think that today in CS journal publications (elsevier, etc.) do not necessarily guarantee quality. CS is a relatively new science compared to physics, mathematics, etc. and as a consequence the community is more organized around conferences than journals. In CS a publication at POPL or CAV is instance better regarded than a publication in any CS journal.\nLots of journal issues are based on a few best papers selected in average CS workshops anyway. To me, most CS journals exists for a business purpose rather than a scientific purpose.\nIn France, the government had to pay Elsevier a large amount of money to get access to papers published by french researchers on government funds, which is outrageous.
## [111] Conferences are a bad model because they take too long between submission and decision; Nature and Science can turn around in 2 weeks and there's no point having a huge review cycle when most profs leave it to the last minute anyway. Make it a 1-month gap and tell prospective PC members that if they can't cope, don't sign up for the PC.\n\nBest model is VLDB - monthly journal and then the most interesting papers all year are invited to conference. Ensures most "decent" research is not held hostage in overlong, overcompetitive conference review pipeline, and also that what does appear at the conference is a considered, high-confidence selection.
## [112] They're useful for lessons learned, and where extra details have space to be written down. Publishing good conf results as a journal wouldn't accomplish that. The 10-20% new work criterion for a journal is a good one, because it makes authors do the last mile of cleanup that could otherwise be left behind, since there's no credit to be gained from it at further conferences.
## [113] At least in Argentina, the main reason to publish in Journals in CS is to make oneself ranks in scientific institutions (like CONICET, the national bureau of science) higher.\nOn the other hand, when reading conference publications, I usually suffer from the lack of detail in definitions and/or proofs, and sometimes I would see some more examples backing a statement.\nI would prefer to encourage the publication in conferences, to make institutions understand about the way we work in the CS community, and to foster researchers to make available (e.g. in arXiv) long versions of their published conference papers, with a link to the long version being included in the short one.
## [114] Personally I prefer conferences over journals. Journals are fine to summarize results, but publishing a journal paper takes much more time and effort compared to a conferences option. Waiting one and half year to publish your results is really not ok with me.
## [115] Not all research contributions fit into 12 pages.
## [116] At my university we only care about publishing at conferences.
## [117] The only thing I feel strongly about wrt journals is that people who believe journals are more important than conferences, period, regardless of community norms—and that therefore areas that publish in conferences are less scientific than those that publish in “prestigiousâ€ù journals—are morons.\n
## [118] Despite what some believe, journals are still critical. Even in our best conferences, the level and depth of review is much shallower and biased than in journals. Journals allow for the interaction between the authors and reviewers to ensure that high quality research is published. Conferences have an important place, but they do not take the place of journals.
## [119] The beancounting aspect seems to be a necessary evil. I like the PLDI solution pretty well, though I see problems with it (e.g, are ALL conferences going to become journals? if not, which ones?).
## [120] Right now, the field doesn't have high impact factor journals, and this is a big issue when CS goes head to head with other disciplines. It's embarrassing, really. The only path to high impact factor journals in CS is to take the best conferences and reclassify their proceedings as journal publications. What we are doing to ourselves is completely crazy! -- no other field publishes research papers -- much less highly regarded research papers -- in collections tagged as "conference proceedings". We need to fix this asap.
## [121] With the exception of CACM, which is one of the few publications all nearly all computer scientists read, I see the role of "journals" to be increasingly irrelevant. Conference proceedings, on the other hand, are continually a source of new and exciting ideas, and the conferences themselves are an essential ingredient in the collaborations that generate those ideas. If we need to change the name of "conference proceedings" to "journals" to appease academic bureaucrats, then fine, but in the age of digital publication the distinction is largely meaningless to me.
## [122] It is difficult to be in CS because of the conference priority. It is hard because if graduate students apply to departments other than CS or the faculty above the CS department isn't aware of the routine then it downgrades our research potential.
## [123] The reviewing process for conferences is too shallow to be reliable, and this is unavoidable given the very short time the reviewer has to prepare his/her report (the remark holds fo). \n\nJournals are absolutely fundamental, much more reliable, with detailed proofs, better writing, less "tiny" results. But it is scary to see how hard it is to find good referees (more or less in time, with detailed reports) for journals.
## [124] I think that the importance of conference proceedings in CS is an anomaly that should be corrected. Conferences should only serve as a means of communicating and sharing research. Publications should appear only in online journals with relatively fast reviewing processes (i.e, 3/4 months, something in between present conferences and journals), possibly selected by the PC of conferences from the submissions (which would be reviewed very lightly instead).\n\nThe online, interactive system I suggest above favors this: a conference submission would actually be a pre-print submitted to an online journal/archive; it is lightly reviewed by the conference PC; after the conference, a selection of papers goes on to the final reviewing process; the accepted papers eventually become "jpurnal publications".
## [125] Journals may or may not be important, but the new conference/journal hybrids (e.g., PVLDB) are likely to be our future.
## [126] Journals have relatively low impact on my sub-discipline of CS. I appreciate the capability for longer and more complete papers that journals enable, but with the switch to electronic forms of publishing I don't see that the traditional tight page limits for final versions of conference papers are essential going forward.\n\nI think publishing conference papers as pseudo-journals is a step backwards to accommodate out-dated academia-specific concerns. We should not be doing this. We should be leaning forward and dragging academia into the modern era.\n
## [127] In long temr CS cannot afford to be too different from other fields. When competing for grants or faculty positions, we should follow a compatible publication culture.
## [128] Journals provide little benefit to CS publication.
## [129] This depends on the domain of CS. In software engineering for example, the most important conferences are considered more prestigious by the community than journals.\nOn the other hand, there is an important cultural gap between Europe and US/Canada. In many European universities, journals continue to be considered much more important than conferences, so for CS researchers it is sometime difficult to publish in conferences because they have no incentive (it is not evaluated well by their universities).
## [130] faster review cycles would result in faster dissemination and make journals more relevant.
## [131] It depends on the speciality, I suppose. But my experience with journals is that the publication process ensures that by the end, the results are outdated, authors are burn out about the paper they're trying to publish, and they got little or none of the feedback compared to meeting people from related domains at a conference venue.
## [132] I don't find the conference vs. journal debate to be very interesting.\n\nA more interesting topic would be setting up venues for meaningful post-publication review of research results.
## [133] I have mixed feelings about our conferences becoming more like journals, but I think this is orthogonal to issues of open access.
## [134] I prefer to publish extended (or even regular) versions of top papers in journals, like they increasingly do in SIGGRAPH
## [135] i think shifting the emphasis to journals would help shift the emphasis from quantity of publications/results to quality.
## [136] The distinction between conferences and journals is obsolete.
## [137] Journals would matter a lot more if they could review papers in a reasonable time. 6 months is not reasonable, Science and Nature have at most 1 month between submission and review.
## [138] They could be important if they would provide more in-depth vetting of submissions and thus higher prestige. Alas, they've maneuvered themselves into a corner where a "straight to journal result" is about as impactful or prestigious as a straight to DVD movie.
## [139] Journals typically "require" some increment of added/changed content, say 30%, to accept work first appearing in conferences. Yet, what if the only thing needed for some conference work is just more thorough review, careful editing and perhaps some additional figures that didn't fit due to page count? Is there nothing between the beauty contest of conference acceptance and the original, long-form journal article? \n\nA second point is that journal articles no longer follow the advice of "length appropriate to contribution" -- it's now unusual to find very short journal articles, even when the ideas merit a short presentation.
## [140] Journals are only useful when they also provide the archival of code and data.
## [141] I think we need to phase out the primary reliance on conference for publishing in CS. The artificial deadline of conference publication encourages people to write too many papers with too small an increment on research results.
## [142] Journal papers are often the only form of a result that is complete and reproducible. CS conference papers are often incomplete and seldom even correct.\n\nThat said, I think the order is incorrect. I'd prefer to see complete work in a journal summarized at a conference rather than listen to the half-baked conference version of work that isn't actually finished but made it over the "publication bar" for the year. A bar which is impacted more by the chosen venue location than anything related to research.
## [143] I think we need venues to present longer / larger / more complete work than conferences, and journals fit that niche nicely.\n\nBy publishing conference papers in journals, we would lose some of that. I do understand the need to pacify bean counters, but I'm not sure that would be a good compromise.\n\nIMO, it already looks like larger research projects are discouraged by our emphasis on conferences. Bringing journals closer to conferences may make matters worse.\n\nOf course, some authors already just publish longer versions of what are essentially conference-paper-sized ideas, which defeats the point, but I don't think we should let concerns about such isolated bad practices shape the discussion.
## [144] shrug, i don't care. It is nice to get more thoughtful reviews and not waste so much time on compressing results into 2 columns. But, the status quo is that nobody outside of academia/rich big companies has access to papers whether they are "journal" or "conference" papers.
## [145] I'll only comment on the importance of journals in programming languages. Journals should play a critical role in preserving valuable results in long form---important results cannot always be chopped up into 12-page pieces, at least not without losing essential knowledge. However, the journals as currently constituted are failing their audience. Journals have increasingly become a boutique venue for theorists to publish very long, detailed technical developments. Other parts of the subdiscipline appear to have abandoned journal publication completely.\n\nFinally, there are few incentives to publish work in a journal (as opposed to developing a new result for a prestigious conference).
## [146] Journals need to be upgraded to serve as reliable archives of validated research and as a solid basis for further research.
## [147] The chief advantage of journals is multi-round reviewing. We should be looking to a hybrid that is timely like conferences but provides for rounds of reviewing and revision.
## [148] Journals are mostly irrelevant in my part of CS.\n\nOne can certainly argue that this might not be a healthy state of affairs, but for the time being, it's the way it is.
## [149] Journals have a better reviewing model, but the current journals mostly do not live up to this promise.
## [150] I think conference proceedings are effectively a journal and should be treated that way. I think conferences should continue as they are because they permit in-person interaction concerning our top results.
## [151] i don't read journals because i'm not made of money
## [152] The journal model allows for some more back-&-forth and improved articles. The history of reviews from one revision to the other is preserved. There is too much that appears in conferences that never gets refined.\n\nI don't think the issue of conferences vs. journals is important, but some elements of the review process with journals matters more. The PVLDB approach seems worthwhile at large.\n\nFunding agencies are also viewing the cost of conferences (travel, registration, etc.) and if grant sizes decreased then many conferences may have to disappear.
## [153] With the wide availability of conference papers in the digital library, through the author's website, etc. journals become less and less important.
## [154] Very important. I think conferences are terrible venues for 'peer reviewed' research -- we should use conferences as meeting places not as publishing places.
## [155] In computer science, importance of journals is artificial and mainly driven by editors/publishers of journals. journal papers are typically extended versions of conference papers without additional scientific findings, and due to rather long publication cycles are often outdated.
## [156] Journals provide higher-quality reviewing than conferences, primarily because the referees for a paper are not selected until the paper is submitted. In contrast, on a conference program committee, the reviewers are recruited first, and then the papers are assigned on a "best match" basis (with load balancing). The result is the conference reviewers are often not very knowledgeable about the specific area of computer science covered by the paper. I think conference reviewing could be made to match the quality of journal reviewing, but we need infrastructure (such as a "college of reviewers") to make this happen.
## [157] The importance is mixed. I like the freedom they offer in terms of no page limits and looser deadlines. However, the review process is so long that work often feels stale by the time it's published. I really like the idea of ACM creating a dedicated pathway from conferences to journals, as this should help expedite the reviewing process.
## [158] not sure journals are particularly important to CS
## [159] Journals contain long-form writings with intricate details that present much more precise discussions of results. They are useful for seeing well-expanded ideas, covering full versions of sketches to proofs and results in conference papers.
## [160] Archival/long form results. Removes the pressure of the noisy review process. Publish and then review vs review and then publish.
## [161] I have been nothing but frustrated by the current state of CS journals, both as a reviewer (crappy submissions, reviewing mostly-previously-published work, etc) and as a submitted (extremely long turnaround time, one reviewer dominating the editor's decision, low visibility).
## [162] I think they're almost irrelevant. As far as I can tell people in industry don't read them, which means they have very little influence on practice. Conferences are a fine alternative, except that we need them for the occasional paper that doesn't fit a conference format.\n\nI think we should discourage republication of expanded conference papers in journals, unless the conference paper was really deficient in some crucial way. I don't think it's a good use of reviewing resources.\n\nThe longer reviewing cycle may benefit more theoretical areas. But my impression is that acceptance decisions unavoidably reward persistance too much, and end up being even more random than for conferences.
## [163] They are important to publish extended work that can't fit within the page limits of conferences.
## [164] In terms of archiving, all of the sciences started out as conference-centric, and all of them (except CS) eventually transitioned to being journal-centric. The same will eventually happen with CS. It's just part of a science maturing. I don't know whether we're at that point, but I wouldn't sweat it too much one way or the other. It will happen when it happens. Why are you so worried about this? You shouldn't be a publisher anyway as much as a curator of research and a channel directing research toward impact.
## [165] They allow to publish complete proofs, and require that these proofs are refereed. Conference publications do not provide this.
## [166] I think we would do well to increase the use of journals versus conferences.
## [167] Rather than having CS start to play the "journal game" with other fields, I think CS needs to be more aggressive in pushing its model of quality conferences into other fields. \n\nI do cross-disciplinary research involving biology, and the biology conferences that I attend are terrible compared to CS conferences, because there is no real publication associated with them, and no real peer review involved in the selection of speakers.
## [168] In the biomedical science, for one example, journal submissions are reviewed in 2-4 weeks. In CS, it can take up to one year. This is the single most important problem with journals in CS today, and why conferences are still preferable. Journals that instituted an initial pre-screen review for 2-4 page abstracts, and guaranteed 2-week turnaround on those, with then 6-week turnaround on longer papers, would change the field.
## [169] Journal articles allow to present results in full details. In particular, all proofs are provided and checked by reviewers.
## [170] While journal papers are not considered "important" by the vast majority of CS academics, they should be. Assuming that a journal submission is not a conference paper + proofs/artifacts:\n(a) A journal paper allows one to present completed research. One is more careful about proofs and other artefacts. One can take the time to achieve elegance in definitions, in implementations, in engineering.\n(b) A journal submission is refereed; a conference submission isn't. \n
## [171] Almost none at the moment. (Some academics need them because their institution metrics only understand journals, but those are primarily third-tier institutions.)
## [172] We've already won the argument that conferences are key in CS. There's no point in switching back to journals.
## [173] There are undeniable shortcomings of nearly all major conferences in CS that journals do not suffer from:\n - competition for reviewers (can be and is often gamed by submitting multiple papers, thus favoring large, well-financed research groups), \n - direct competition with other papers for a single reviewer, \n - multi-staged reviewing process, which allows factoring in comments and helps improving papers\n\nConferences had the advantage of faster turnaround times, but with the shortcomings mentioned above this is not true anymore, or at the very least has become questionable. Since all other academic fields favor journals over conferences, I believe this can be read as a sign of CS growing up.
## [174] Not very important
## [175] In CS some conferences are the front-line of innovation. Journals are publishing ideas which are about 3 to 4 years old.
## [176] Journals should take on the role of being the main archival option for completed research, and conferences become a safe space to publish more experimental work (which should still be valued highly be institutions) that would benefit from community feedback.\n\nConference registration costs are skyrocketing, making it harder to publish papers in conferences for financial reasons.
## [177] This questionnaire includes a lot of demagogy and unfair selection options. Why is it titled "who owns your research?" Does it refer to the publishers, who now "own" my research and it should not be so? No, the research results ownership certainly depends on legislature of the researcher country, but generally the logic is that the "prestigeous part" of ownership belongs to the researcher, while the right to use it (to patent, to sell, etc.) belongs to the institution which paid the research. \n\n"Gold model" is no guarantee of perpetual access. Someone has to pay for computer and humand resources required perpetually ...\n\n"Open access to scientific results is...", no option to select otherwise.
## [178] Combined journal/conf model
## [179] Journals offer great opportunities to publish results that don't fit the conference format, e.g. comprehensive accounts of completed projects, or short notes. However, CS journals do a very poor job:\n- Too many journals competing for too few submissions. What is the _Nature_ or the _Science_ of CS?\n- Excessive reviewing and publication delays (e.g. years instead of months).\n- Incompetent editors who think their duty is to make authors suffer.\n- Occasional unethical behavior (e.g. selecting reviewers that have obvious conflicts of interest with the submission).\n\nACM transactions are particularly bad in my experience. As an author, I was treated much more professionally by journals from Springer or Cambridge University Press.\n\nSo, it's time to reboot the CS journal system entirely, starting with ACM's.\n
## [180] I work at an Electrical & Computer Engineering department and the importance of journals seems higher here, historically.
## [181] I wish more CS researchers would actually *complete* their work, not keep churning half arsed conference papers at an impressive rate. In particular I wish CS researchers would pay more attention to their proofs and the quality and reproducibility of their experiments. Moving towards a system in which Journals are given a fair amount of importance could help achieve this. A system in which completed versions of papers get submitted to journals would in my opinion be the best.
## [182] For many researchers around the globe, journals are the only items considered in a CV by funding agencies. I believe it would help a lot if conferences allow the quick publication of special issues in journals. Perhaps not directly (i.e., a conf. paper = a journal paper), but a direct invitation to the author to submit an extended version of the work in a special issue, with conf. like reviewing times (where reviewers just needs to review the diff between the conf. version and the extended one).
## [183] There are lots of crappy journals.
## [184] The way conferences are refereed is a big failure. There is no room for research across two research domains. Only journal allows some king of transdisciplinary research (not always).
## [185] I really dislike the fact that this survey is conflating a discussion about open-access publishing models with a discussion about conferences vs. journals. Each of these topics is difficult as it is, and it is, in my opinion, very unhelpful to combine them.
## [186] Commercialization of universities ruins science, and this seems to be a point to address. Access to education should be free to qualified students.
## [187] Public institutions have resorted to Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as a standard way to measure the quality of researchers for every purpose in every field. So no matter which is the tradition in CS, in Spain we have to get out papers published in JCR journals if we want to get funded and make progress in our job.
## [188] Depends on the area. In all important areas, the best works are in conferences. In a handful of areas, journals are okay as second tier venues, but in most areas they are write-only, serving no purpose other than paying cv of author and editors.
## [189] main point for me is that they allow to publish more complete work, including more experimental validations
## [190] ridiculous. everyone should read:\nDeep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank\nBjörn Brembs1*, Katherine Button2 and Marcus MunafÃ_3
## [191] A terribly slow process that needs to be accelerated
## [192] I think journals are where good research goes to die. They're long, they take ages to write, they take ages to publish, and they often only regurgitate already-published work. They feel completely pointless to me.
## [193] Conferences are good for disseminating good ideas faster than journals (not always, though) but there is too many's "for lack of space reasons..." Besides, if conferences publications count as journals, not many people finish their work and introduce validation, more thorough experiments, etc. And asking for validation, etc in conference papers does not make sense. In general, I see conference papers as a preliminary publication of a work, prior to a more complete paper that contains not only the ideas, but also the proofs, validation, case studies, etc.
## [194] Journals when done right provide a kind of review and shepherding that can improve the presentation of results and ideas. Conference review at the moment in the part of the CS world I live in has devolved into rewarding only very incremental results. I have founded several conference venues to battle that - one within ACM.
## [195] Journals play an important long-form and long-range role in CS that I believe is not the same as simply publishing conference papers as journals. If journals as we know them disappear, then we're headed toward a model that promotes tiny, incompletely explained and incompletely developed results that are given less overall peer review (not by minutes, but by thought and depth).
## [196] Journals are seen as secondary to conferences in significance of works presented, primarily due to the delayed nature of journals. With increasing interest in digital distribution, I believe the significance of journals will increase moving forward.
## [197] The decline of journals is a tragedy to our field.
## [198] Conferences are for preliminary versions of papers; journals are for final versions. Conferences and journals should be linked. Every conference should have a journal special issue, and every paper accepted to the conference (not just a subset of accepted papers) should be invited to the special issue. The conference will typically have a page limit and the journal will not. However, there should be no stigma against submitting the conference paper *unchanged* to the special issue. There should be no "30% extra material" requirement. The journal paper should not be regarded as an "extended version" of the conference paper, but as a final version (which may contain extra material beyond the conference paper, or may not). This way every conference paper can get the in-depth peer review only a journal can provide.
## [199] Journals in my experience do not provide better reviews.\n\nInstead of making conferences special issues, we should get them indexed by Scopos. We already have two citations forms in the DL for conferences such as PLDI, etc., let's not make it even more impossible to correctly site work in the conferences.
## [200] Not important.
## [201] Should become more important.
## [202] Fading.
## [203] in computer systems (I am more from the SIGOPS community), the time for review of journals is too long and the quality of the reviewing process is not always as good as it should be, especially compared to top conferences. In particular, I would prefer if journals have clearly identified reviewing boards with the insurance that the paper will get reviewed by members of this board rather than by individuals chosen by the editor herself. I think the pVLDB model is very good and combines well the advantages of conferences and journals, and should be considered for the other fields.
## [204] in CS conferences are equally important - if not more
## [205] Turning our leading conferences into journals is largely a measure to make life easier for colleagues in smaller countries, where grant proposals for CS are often reviewed by non-computer-scientists who do not know how the CS publication model differs from the rest of science. Basically, if we had a Journal of POPL it would make it easier for them to explain how prestigious the venue actually is. \n\nThe precise mechanics of this are up for debate (I favor the VLDB model), but ironically the most important thing is actually just to change the name.
## [206] The importance of journals is relatively low, with a handful of exceptions only.
## [207] I think Computer Science is being harmed by the domination of competitive conferences:\n * the criterion for acceptance is competitive, rather than the merit of the science. This is really poisonous - it corrodes the integrity of what we do. PCs find themselves judging papers, rather than improving them.\n * in contrast, the best journals have tight review deadlines but enable re-review of revised papers, which are better as a result. \n\nHowever, CS journals have developed a poor reputation - for slow turnaround, and weak reviewing. I would like to see the energy that currently goes into conference PCs redirected towards making journal publishing work better for the research community.
## [208] I fail to see the value of journals in modern times. When I submit a paper to SOSP, I get back nine quality reviews. Last time I submitted a paper to ToN, I got three cursory reviews. Is this the 'in-depth' review process journals are supposedly offering? My conference papers are archived just as journal papers are. And I personally do not know _anyone_ who actually reads journals these days. (Yes, my institution pays for them, but I never see anyone go near them in the library.)
## [209] Conferences in CS provide the de-facto final venue for many scientific results, often playing the role that journals have in other disciplines. This creates confusion in policy makers and weakens our area. An easy-to-understand publication model would be to assume that there is only one formal publication of any scientific result, and journals are the natural venue for this. How to solve this? A solution could be to: (i) create a direct link between selected top conferences and journals and (ii) always consider conference proceedings as informal. Publications in top conferences would therefore lead directly to a journal version (e.g., as SIGGRAPH does), while other conferences would get back to their traditional role of bringing people together, providing a forum for exchanging ideas, and no longer publication factories to feed the publish-or-perish syndrome.
## [210] I have always thought that conferences were much more important than journals in CS, as that is where the new and exciting things show up first. However, most universities (from the promotion and tenure process point of view) place very high value on journals publications.
## [211] Most (if not all, except CS) scientific fields mainly publish on journals, this raises the usual problem in academic instituitions when deciding about money allocation among different disciplines.
## [212] Papers published in journals seem to be much more thorough than technical blog posts, so - highly important.
## [213] Although journals are important, i believe conferences are more important for CS because they offer the possibility of networking and f2f meetings
## [214] A journal is not a collection of conference papers. We should organize our journals and conferences like any other science domains. Journals are publication venues, conferences are networking venues. The conference publication model is inefficient, expensive for the authors, unfair for authors from poor countries, and harmful for the planet. We would all be better off with a journal publication culture + a handful of global networking events. The last thing we should to is to infect the ACM journals with the inefficient conference publication model. This will even widen the gap between CS and other science domains. If this model becomes mainstream, we will be the only domain where journal publications will require one to give presentations at conferences.
## [215] I recently stopped building my system for a bit in order to rush out a paper describing it in a half-finished state, as opposed to taking the time to finish my system and writing it up once complete. I did this because in CS conference publications are important, and for my work, there are a few conferences with much greater relevance than any of the journals I know about [1]. This kind of behavior is commonplace I think, and it has a real impact on the quality of our communication about our work.\n\n[1] This point is worth emphasizing: in emerging or otherwise marginal subdisciplines, conferences are usually the first venues for publication, followed much later if at all by journals. Computer science as a discipline is fragmented enough and growing in enough directions that conferences have come to dominate the publication model.
## [216] The best role for an editorial board would be to collect conference papers on a specific topic that are most noteworthy and worth reading. Today's ease of publishing, and wide variety of publishing forums, means that separating the wheat from the chaff is becoming the most pressing need for the community.
## [217] I come from Physics, where conferences are an opportunity to share research to an audience, but journals are where the quality results are printed after decent peer review. Moving into CS I find the dominance of conferences as bizarre and leading to poorly presented works.
## [218] accuracy of journal refereeing process (free from deadlines) is the only gurantee of scientific validity of results
## [219] Journals can be of value as a source of archival articles. However, it seems to me that our conferences are, in effect, journals with a fast turnaround time. In my experience, the quality of reviews in flagship SIGPLAN conferences is at least as good as that in SIGPLAN journals. Features like author response, double-blind reviewing, and two-phase reviewing form a reasonable substitute for the multiple rounds of author-reviewer interaction supported by the traditional journal publication process. I believe that we should eradicate the artificial distinction between journals and flagship conferences.
## [220] We seem to be at a point of criticality. Conferences don't entirely cut it, so there's good reason to look to journals, particularly their ability to engage in in-depth, iterative review and feedback, to vet important works. On the other hand, the WWW threatens to replace peer-reviewed journals with a kind of post-modern meritocracy of good works. The question of whether important work first appears in conferences of journals overlooks growth of blogs and other non-traditional forums.
## [221] I understand that many people who hold power over CS funding are journal-focussed, and if they need to be appeased for the good of the\nfield, so be it. But the reality in Operating Systems and Networking is\nthat conference reviewing is darned serious, and the journals are\nbroken ... and I would hate to push authors towards broken journals\njust because some bureaucrats insist on that. So, publishing high-quality\nconferences as journal issues seems like the best option.
## [222] Journals offer a more tolerant review cycle.
## [223] For me, journals are the important publication venues. This is in direct contrast to my employer who requires journal publication. To fulfill both, journals are often extended conference papers.
## [224] A remark on a biased question above: "In your field, where do important results first appear? " The answer (not proposed) is "on open archives such as arxiv or ECCC".
## [225] CS journals are sometimes not well run (I've experienced review/publication delays of > 1 year) but I've also had much better experiences with journals. It is a shame that the journal model in CS seems to be "second-class" (both in terms of visibility within CS and to other communities where journal publications are expected). Other disciplines (such as biology) show that journal publication can be fast, responsive and competitive (reviews within 4-6 weeks, publication within 3 months) but there are few, if any, CS journals like this.\n\nIn many countries (outside the US) only journals count from the perspective of track record or promotion, which means that researchers often cannot justify submitting work to conferences, or get appropriate credit for it within their career progression.\n\nI see no reason why the model of VLDB (also adopted by ICLP and apparently now PLDI) of cross-listing the proceedings of major conferences as a "journal" should not be adopted more broadly; this might be a better compromise between the expectations of the broader scholarly community and the needs/preferences of CS (conference-centric).
## [226] I mainly value journals as a venue for synthesizing mature work across several papers. I see value in having such retrospective work available. In practice, I haven't read a journal article in some time (setting aside decade-old articles when journals were more the primary venue). The sense that journals are just collecting up conference papers makes me less inclined to look at journals.
## [227] Without requiring extension - the papers are long enough as conference papers.
## [228] The importance of journals is to provide deeper coverage of a topic area and can be an important part of earning a PhD.
## [229] Allow for combining multiple papers and telling a bigger end to end story accessible to people beyond the immediate community.
## [230] Statistics from the ACM DL show that journal papers get way more downloads than conferences. In that sense, they have more impact. This is, I believe, because people from other fields trust journals more than conferences, and/or because they get lost in the number of conferences and it's hard to know their quality if you are not in the field.\nI think journals still have a role in CS, to publish more mature results and to reflect on larger research efforts than those reported in conferences.
## [231] Very low. In such a fast-moving field, with a high volume of new content creation, I very rarely look at journals. To the extent that journals serve a purpose as a repository for extended versions of selected papers, they clearly need to be part of OA, otherwise nobody will look at those papers. However, it seems reasonable for journals to charge a fee to authors that wish to publish such an extended paper.
## [232] Little to none.
## [233] Things go fast, most journal contain outdated information, but still it is needed for bureaucratic reasons (prestige, imposed by hierarchy, etc) and not for humanist reasons.\nStill, journals are useful when they are not used for the aforementioned objectives, which is quite rare, most of the time people abuse the system.
## [234] I see journals as a place to archive significant results that have had the chance to develop and stood the test of time. This strikes me as a very different role from other fields, where journals are the normal publishing direction.
## [235] I do not publish in journals. I understand that others feel like it is a valuable way to publish longer-form versions of papers, and others cling to the nostalgic notion that "real" sciences are built upon journal publications.\n\nBut if none of us are interested in publishing in journals, and our top work is published elsewhere, it is clearly not worth keeping journals in their current form and budget. In addition, it's important to remember journals for their original intent: to preserve important scientific results. We now have electronic mediums through which we can preserve and archive our results, and disseminate them with very low cost. Of all of the scientific fields out there, we should be the field looking forward, and pushing science forward by archiving not just our papers, but software artifacts and data sets, which cannot be preserved through a journal publication.
## [236] A local study showed as journal and conference papers have similar impacts. Therfo\n\nhttp://sccc.ucv.cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Caracterizacion-de-las-Publicaciones-en-Ciencia-de-la-Computacion.pdf
## [237] The publication of long-form articles and survey articles of fields should be promoted. There's far too much "salami publishing" of minor incremental research results.
## [238] waste of time
## [239] Main importance is a more relaxed reviewing procedure where there is no deadline so discussions with the editors are possible, and reduced (or no) page limits. But ACM journals specifically often are so competitive and elitist that they publish so few papers as to make themselves irrelevant to the general progress of the field.\n
## [240] In my field, journals are a place to publish capstone papers, potentially joining together several related conference papers, into a paper that allows a more in-depth view of a topic than page-limited journals.
## [241] The journal should be used after the idea has been properly evaluated. Many results in conferences end up not going anywhere.
## [242] Given the current system, journals add nothing
## [243] Journals are not central in my publication strategy
## [244] Best summarized in the following quote "If you want and care about other people using your research results in their projects or reproducing your research, write a journal paper with all the details. If you don't, just stick to conferences". This assumes that journals actually publish long papers (25+ pages) and the editors actually find good reviewers, both of which are not true for many IEEE Computer Science journals.
## [245] conferences as prestigious publication outlets are a leftover from the good old times protected by equally old people caring for their investments
## [246] It seems to vary by field. In mine (systems), they are largely irrelevant: the vast majority of interesting stuff comes from conferences.\n\nAs conferences move away from printed proceedings, length limitations seem to matter less, and a key (potential) advantage of journals goes away.\n\nDouble-publication (conference+journal) is generally a bad idea; few people seem to do major revisions of a conference paper before submitting to a journal.\n\nMeanwhile, ACM seems totally focused on journals, and treats conferences as second-class citizens. (Example: does it provide any support at all for program committee/publication chairs? Nope. Does it charge 16% of income for any conference associated with it? Yup.)
## [247] there is absolutely none
## [248] We need a way to integrate all the research in one umbrella.
## [249] I would not care about open access conference proceedings as much as open access peer reviewed online papers (like peerj). Classical journals are of the past; let our field jump ahead into the future.
## [250] They are the only peer reviewed medium for publishing long formats and proofs and detailed explanations.
## [251] They are the only peer reviewed medium for publishing long formats and proofs and detailed explanations.
## [252] In the US universities largely "get it" that the best research venues CS are the top conferences such as PLDI and POPL. At my university in Europe promotion decisions are made centrally and CS faculty are in direct competition with faculty from other departments. With the best will in the world, it is difficult for a promotions committee to accept CS conference publications as high quality publications, while at the same time discounting conference publications in other fields.
## [253] Longer format is better. Longer lead time results in better presentations.
## [254] CS *must* switch to journals at some point. Conference publications have numerous flaws due to the process itself: without journals, we are building on a foundation of sand.
## [255] I read more conference papers that journal papers. When you know your field, paper published in journals have already been published in part in conference.
## [256] I think they are valuable for completed research, but not necessarily more prestigious.
## [257] For some areas it would be important to have a rigourous review so journals are important.
## [258] Not particularly relevant any more. A few prestigious journals remain that I would consider publishing in, but conferences usually provide significantly higher impact and competition.
## [259] With regard to publishing conference proceedings in journals, there is no need for this. The conference is already published in an archival form, available through the same means as a journal. If anything, I would be in favor of merging the two, i.e., eliminating journals and allowing long articles in conference proceedings with longer turn-around times on reviewing.
## [260] I strongly believe that CS has to grow up and use journals more. This way we can compete on equal foot with other areas.\n\nI do not believe that promoting conferences to journals is helpful. Conference results are way too often deadline driven, hectic and incomplete (regardless of the conference acceptance rate).
## [261] I'm in theoretical computer science. If I see a paper published in a conference with no accompanying journal version, I can be reasonably sure that it has been through no substantive peer review (due to fast turnaround requirements) and that it omits most of the proofs (due to stringent space requirements). In other words, I have very little reason to believe that the result is correct unless I personally know the authors and trust their judgement. This makes me very reluctant to use the paper's results in my own work.
## [262] As stated above, ONLY journals should count as formal publications. Conferences should play a much less important role from this respect. Conferences should only be used for networking and presentation of preliminary results - or completed work under a journal review process, which one understands can take some time. However, if one check times carefully, because conferences have formal proceedings its preparation process is also quite long - sometimes as long as for journal publications: at least 2 months of review, 1 for camera-ready versions, and 3 before the conference takes places: so 6 months from submission and the day the work is presented to the relevant scientific community. An efficient journal can take just as much time fully reviewing a paper: 6 months. So, clearly, our current conference vs journal system can be highly improved.
## [263] I think that CS needs a place to publish works not subjected to the resource constraints of conferences (e.g, limited number of slots and small page count), and that journals could fit this role.
## [264] "SIGPLAN proposed changes to the reviewing model of PLDI so that the proceedings of that conference appear as an issue of TOPLAS without precluding resubmission of longer versions of PLDI papers to a journal. "\nI think many other conferences should follow this model.
## [265] I use journals to publish a more rounded version of older results, never for new results.
## [266] relatively unimportant inside CS\nvery important to institutions (non-CS specialists)
## [267] In long term a switch to journals, if processing could be sped up considerably, would help synchronize with other fields in academia
## [268] Journals are worthless to me. My employer would like to publish more in journals but if I am going to take the time to prepare a manuscript, I want to present it in a symposium because I know the key audience will be there. I will browse an annual conference proceedings but rarely read more than the titles of the papers in the journals I get. Even "fast" journals are usually too slow for me ... I already got the information from a conference.\n\nI don't care for conferences -> special issues because I think it wastes the paper and effort. Even when the paper is a little different, it is never substantial enough for me to re-read it.\n\nTo me journals are old-fashioned and more corruptable ... In my opinion, PC meetings do a much better job of identifying quality papers.\n
## [269] It's variable between different subdisciplines of CS. Conference review processes can be thorough but don't have the same quality *assurance* as journals
## [270] Journals are important. Much of the work that appears in conferences is not checked carefully (the review load and time constraints make it impossible for careful review). Consequently, conference review focuses on novelty and whether there are any obvious flaws. Of course, because of page limitations (again due to reviewer overload) many important details cannot be included.
## [271] I'm and old guy with tenure; counting publications does't matter to me. But it does matter to department sand labs, and it does matter to younger professionals with names to establish. It matters in committees where Computer scientists are compare to physicists. So we really should deal with the re-branding issue.
## [272] I personally view journals as the place to long-form surveys of research agendas (that span several papers). Conferences are certainly the venue where most publications should go. I don't have a preference on the importance of one or the other. I'll only comment that changing priorities now will negatively impact those chasing tenure now without much foreseeable benefit.
## [273] Journals are good for peer review but they shouldn't stop people accessing the research.
## [274] important for some research topics (e.g., the ones on empirical studies involving human subjects) to receive better reviews
## [275] Journal publication is expected at some institutions, but the "long form results" rarely have the longevity found in other fields of science.
## 274 Levels: ...Repeatability
The survey is a Google form with a summary of responses available here.
The survey was introduced with the following document intended to provide context here.
The raw data in CSV format is here.
The R Mardown code that produced the summary (including the statistics) is here.
Acknowledgments
The survey was prepared by Jan Vitek for the SIGPLAN EC with input from Mike Hicks, Shriram Krishnamurthi and Alex Wolf.