U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
This unfolding story deserves wider attention. ACM, the main academic society for computer science, has signed a despicable letter opposing open access. Computer scientists are shocked and figuring out how to protest. This is about the future of knowledge. https://twitter.com/search?q=ACM+open+access …
I linked to a Twitter search instead of a news article or even a blog post about the controversy because… there literally isn't one yet. If any science/tech journalist wants to cover this before the holidays, I bet you'll hear an outpouring of views from the CS community.
Those are good suggestions for individual protest. But it's time for collective action now. Every ACM conference should reevaluate its relationship with ACM. The other main computing-related organizations, IEEE & USENIX, did not sign the regressive letter.https://twitter.com/weskerfoot/status/1208212743028985856 …
This is a misconception. We all agree open access is the way to go. But we're stuck in a bad equilibrium—high-status venues controlled by traditional publishers attract strong papers, which further boosts their status. Only collective action can solve this.https://twitter.com/woodwardjd/status/1208210544076963845 …
This letter is awful, e.g. claiming that publishers finance peer review. It does not reflect true ACM values, IMO. ACM is a non-profit that does good work, has one of the cheapest and best digital libraries, and supports open access models. SIGs largely have financial autonomy.
Here is the ACM's response: https://www.acm.org/about-acm/opposition-to-zero-embargo-mandate … It does not excuse signing this awful, false, and typo-containing letter. But I am not ready to boycott an organization that I believe tries to do the right thing under the reality that publishing does have costs.
I can think of at least a few things.. 1) Don't provide peer review services for them 2) Cancel your membership 3) If your institution has a scholarly communications librarian, get to know them and support their work. They've most likely been advocating for real OA for years
I made my thesis CC-by-NC-ND. People like @mattblaze have refused to publish in avenues such as @IEEEorg for years now... but it is still unfortunately quite hard to undo the years of harm even though enough of us try to remedy, due to credibility of orgs such as @TheOfficialACM.
Is this surprising though? ACM has held this belief for a while. I remember getting almost shouted at by a prominent academic representing ACM when I politely refused to write an oped for them since it was going to be paywalled and not open access.
Most facts are invisible to most people.
Did you see the ACM response? I know that academic publishing is something of a world unto itself—a 
I don’t pretend to know, but I know that ordinary economic rules don’t stop at its borders, & ACM’s position seems quite thoughtful & nuanced.https://www.acm.org/about-acm/opposition-to-zero-embargo-mandate …
If @TheOfficialACM' s position is thoughtful and nuanced why didnt they write their own letter reflecting this position instead of signing something that very clearly is neither thoughtful nor nuanced?
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
