Change list policy for call for papers postings?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Weekly Summary #486

Call for Abstracts || Doctoral...

Jan Ainali

19 Sep 2021 19 Sep '21

9:10 a.m.

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 588 bytes)

Show replies by date

Dan Brickley

19 Sep 19 Sep

9:38 a.m.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 at 09:18, Jan Ainali <ainali.jan(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

We had this debate on some w3c lists, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2016Mar/0108.html compromise-conclusion: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2016May/0032.html (the posts jumble up names of 2 related lists but the result was same onboth) """ Following that survey, the majority view is that: 1. CfPs are not welcome on this (public-lod(a)w3.org <public-lod@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Calls%20for%20participation%20no%20longer%20allowed&In-Reply-To=%3Cb3f1b852-c11b-6652-1277-f9583a3087b3%40w3.org%3E&References=%3Cb3f1b852-c11b-6652-1277-f9583a3087b3%40w3.org%3E>) list. 2. *Some* CfPs are tolerable on semantic-web(a)w3.org <semantic-web@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Calls%20for%20participation%20no%20longer%20allowed&In-Reply-To=%3Cb3f1b852-c11b-6652-1277-f9583a3087b3%40w3.org%3E&References=%3Cb3f1b852-c11b-6652-1277-f9583a3087b3%40w3.org%3E>, especially if the string '[CfP]' appears in the subject line (for personal filtering). I will write to the semantic-web list separately but for this list the rule is simple: Calls for participation are not allowed on this list. No exceptions. None. This is in line with other lists maintained by W3C that do not allow such posts. Any future calls for participation posted to this list will be treated as spam"""

...

/Jan Ainali _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Dan Brickley

9:41 a.m.

Re-reading a second after hitting send, I realise my misinterpretation of these conclusions, which were not jumbled. The result was that one list is more tolerant of certain cfps, the other is no-cfps. Apologies for the extra noise. On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 at 09:38, Dan Brickley <danbri(a)danbri.org> wrote:

...

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 at 09:18, Jan Ainali <ainali.jan(a)gmail.com> wrote:

/Jan Ainali _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Antonin Delpeuch (lists)

9:42 a.m.

I agree with you, Jan! Antonin On 19/09/2021 10:10, Jan Ainali wrote:

...

I find all these academic call for papers/abstracts/submissions emails on this mailing list a bit spammy. I would be okay with them if the person mailing introduced it with a sentence or two why they believe it to be specifically interesting for the Wikidata community. Am I just grumpy and should delete and ignore, or do you too think we should introduce some guidelines for this? /Jan Ainali _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Federico Leva (Nemo)

10:17 a.m.

Il 19/09/21 11:10, Jan Ainali ha scritto:

...

I would be okay with them if the person mailing introduced it with a sentence or two why they believe it to be specifically interesting for the Wikidata community.

I agree. The Wikidata community also can't benefit from those publications unless they're made (libre) open access, so I think it would be fair to require that the announcements include a mention or link clearly showing that all the papers will be OA (preferably) or explaining how the authors can archive them (for free) under a free license (libre green OA) à la: https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/ https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/How_to_make_your_own_work_open_access From a search <https://link.lens.org/AFeru5oPGdg> it's easy to find good and bad examples. Bad is e.g. <https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/guide-for-authors> (claims embargos and all sorts of restrictions), rather good is e.g. <https://aclanthology.org/venues/emnlp/> (<https://aclanthology.org/faq/> states CC-BY). Recently I've started nudging frequent posters who neglect to explain how a CfP is relevant to the list. Most do not respond, so in practice the only option is placing them on moderation. If there are no objections, I'd also like to experiment with Mailman topics. We could place all obvious CfP in their own topic, and subscribers would then be able to set their preferences to not receive them. A more drastic alternative would be to discard all such messages as spam, but that might end up having quite some collateral damage. Federico

Peter Patel-Schneider

11:10 a.m.

On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 12:17 +0300, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: [...]

...

The Wikidata community also can't benefit from those publications unless they're made (libre) open access, so I think it would be fair to require all the papers will be OA (preferably) or explaining how the authors can archive them (for free) under a free license (libre green OA) à la: https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/ https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/How_to_make_your_own_work_open_access

I think this is too strong. There is no reason that the Wikidata community cannot benefit from publications in venues that are not open access. Of course open access makes publications more accessible and more in line with Wikidata goals but to my mind a publication that is not open access can provide a benefit to the Wikidata community.

...

From a search <https://link.lens.org/AFeru5oPGdg> it's easy to find good and bad examples. Bad is e.g.https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/gu…

(claims embargos and all sorts of restrictions), rather good is e.g. <https://aclanthology.org/venues/emnlp/> (<https://aclanthology.org/faq/> states CC-BY).

I think that you should have searched further and found out more about the open access policy of the Journal of Web Semantics. In https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/open-a… there is "In accordance with funding body requirements, Elsevier does offer alternative open access publishing options. Visit our open access page for full information."

...

Federico

peter

Dan Brickley

11:24 a.m.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 at 11:11, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 12:17 +0300, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: [...]

While "can't benefit from those publications" over-states the case, choosing to allow (contextualized, appropriate, etc.) CfPs associated with events/publications that are in line with Wikidata goals does make sense. Giving a positive nudge and benefit to likeminded efforts seems fine. The challenge is that this isn't a strict boolean (eg exclusive elite expensive events with open proceedings, or more inclusive/accessible participation but old-style publication…), and policing those grey areas is work for someone. I guess refining policing wiki rules is what some folks do for fun around here, so maybe I should switch to listening mode at this point… Dan

...

From a search <https://link.lens.org/AFeru5oPGdg> it's easy to find good and bad examples. Bad is e.g.

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/guide-…

(claims embargos and all sorts of restrictions), rather good is e.g. <https://aclanthology.org/venues/emnlp/> (<https://aclanthology.org/faq/> states CC-BY).

Federico

peter _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Federico Leva (Nemo)

11:41 a.m.

Il 19/09/21 13:10, Peter Patel-Schneider ha scritto:

...

"In accordance with funding body requirements, Elsevier does offer alternative open access publishing options. Visit our open access page for full information."

I did read it, and it says "This journal has an embargo period of 24 months". Of course one can just ignore such abusive requests and archive anyway under a cc-by license the so-called preprint, which will be 99 % the same thing, but authors may not know that. Advertising such journals on this mailing list might be appropriate if the poster explains how to ignore abusive requests from the publisher. In the specific case, some exceptions are admitted by the publisher for Plan S compliance but only to certain authors funded by certain funders. The result is a very complicated situation <https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/14154> and a very low open access rate of some 20 % <https://link.lens.org/y11mtZdDtHg>. I don't mean to single out JWS as particularly egregious: this is typical of most venues controlled by closed access publishers (including ACM, IEEE etc.). I only mentioned JWS because it was recently advertised on this list (and Wiktionary-l). I don't see any benefit in using Wikimedia properties to advertise for-profit endeavours which are clearly incompatible with the Wikimedia mission and values, as well as Wikidata's very reason of existence. The anti-OA venues usually have enough marketing power to get known without our help. Il 19/09/21 13:24, Dan Brickley ha scritto:

...

I guess refining policing wiki rules is what some folks do for fun around here, so maybe I should switch to listening mode at this point…

Personally I found everyone's contributions to this discussion useful so far. The most effective policy will be one which enjoys consensus among researchers and wiki contributors alike. Federico

Luca Martinelli [Sannita]

11:56 a.m.

Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L.

Peter Patel-Schneider

12:52 p.m.

It is a bit unclear what the policy of this mailing list is. All that I can find is from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Mailing_list 1. Wikidata - Discussion list for the Wikidata project. This doesn't provide much guidance. Before determining the policy for CfPs it appears to me that there should be a better determination of what posts are acceptable and unacceptable in general. My view is that posts to the mailing list should have a connection to Wikidata. This would include, for example, CfPs for venues that are about Wikidata or that cover Wikidata. (So WikidataCon is in; HIS'21 is out; NaBIC 2021 is out; IAS 2021 is out; the JWS special issue on community-based KBs and KGs is in; IBICA'21 is out.) I would not require that venues are free access (as that would rule out almost every conference). But who is going to bell this cat? peter On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 12:56 +0200, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] wrote:

...

Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L.

Nicolas VIGNERON

1:08 p.m.

Hi, Maybe not a full ban (or maybe, I wouldn't be against it) but at least some clear rules to avoid these spam. My 2 cents: An example of mail that should absolutely be avoided (and not just on this mailing list) is when a similar mail is sent several times in a short timespan. We had almost the same mail sent in 2 days this week ! (not to blame this person in particular, this is not the first time it happens and it's bad communication). Also, senders should strive to make an effort to tell us how the call is related and/or could benefit to/from Wikidata (very often it's unclear, we shouldn't have to guess why we are receiving these calls). Cheers, ~nicolas Le dim. 19 sept. 2021 à 12:57, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] < martinelliluca(a)gmail.com> a écrit :

...

Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Estermann Beat

5:13 p.m.

Dear all, If there is an obvious thematic link to the topic of the list, then let the message through; if not, discard it; if in doubt, ask the sender to clarify the link. This should go for any message sent to the list; there is no need for any specific rules regarding CfPs, event announcements, etc. My 2 cents, Beat From: Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com> Sent: Sonntag, 19. September 2021 14:09 To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project <wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? Hi, Maybe not a full ban (or maybe, I wouldn't be against it) but at least some clear rules to avoid these spam. My 2 cents: An example of mail that should absolutely be avoided (and not just on this mailing list) is when a similar mail is sent several times in a short timespan. We had almost the same mail sent in 2 days this week ! (not to blame this person in particular, this is not the first time it happens and it's bad communication). Also, senders should strive to make an effort to tell us how the call is related and/or could benefit to/from Wikidata (very often it's unclear, we shouldn't have to guess why we are receiving these calls). Cheers, ~nicolas Le dim. 19 sept. 2021 à 12:57, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] <martinelliluca@gmail.com<mailto:martinelliluca@gmail.com>> a écrit : Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>

Jan Ainali

5:20 p.m.

Beat, do you suggest that all messages should be moderated? Because right now it is not, and I was hoping that we could keep like that and just ask people to not spam the list (and if they do, put them individually on moderation). Jan Ainali Den sön 19 sep. 2021 kl 18:14 skrev Estermann Beat <beat.estermann(a)bfh.ch>ch>:

...

Dear all, If there is an obvious thematic link to the topic of the list, then let the message through; if not, discard it; if in doubt, ask the sender to clarify the link. This should go for any message sent to the list; there is no need for any specific rules regarding CfPs, event announcements, etc. My 2 cents, Beat *From:* Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com> *Sent:* Sonntag, 19. September 2021 14:09 *To:* Discussion list for the Wikidata project < wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org> *Subject:* [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? Hi, Maybe not a full ban (or maybe, I wouldn't be against it) but at least some clear rules to avoid these spam. My 2 cents: An example of mail that should absolutely be avoided (and not just on this mailing list) is when a similar mail is sent several times in a short timespan. We had almost the same mail sent in 2 days this week ! (not to blame this person in particular, this is not the first time it happens and it's bad communication). Also, senders should strive to make an effort to tell us how the call is related and/or could benefit to/from Wikidata (very often it's unclear, we shouldn't have to guess why we are receiving these calls). Cheers, ~nicolas Le dim. 19 sept. 2021 à 12:57, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] < martinelliluca(a)gmail.com> a écrit : Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Estermann Beat

5:33 p.m.

Dear Jan, Personally, I haven’t been particularly annoyed by the amount of “spam” to this list. To me, a “reactive” moderation approach is absolutely fine to me. List admins could just let senders know after the fact that off-topic messages are not welcome. Senders known to post mainly unrelated stuff can be put on individual moderation. So, the current practice as you describe it, looks perfect to me. Cheers, Beat From: Jan Ainali <ainali.jan(a)gmail.com> Sent: Sonntag, 19. September 2021 18:21 To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project <wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? Beat, do you suggest that all messages should be moderated? Because right now it is not, and I was hoping that we could keep like that and just ask people to not spam the list (and if they do, put them individually on moderation). Jan Ainali Den sön 19 sep. 2021 kl 18:14 skrev Estermann Beat <beat.estermann@bfh.ch<mailto:beat.estermann@bfh.ch>>: Dear all, If there is an obvious thematic link to the topic of the list, then let the message through; if not, discard it; if in doubt, ask the sender to clarify the link. This should go for any message sent to the list; there is no need for any specific rules regarding CfPs, event announcements, etc. My 2 cents, Beat From: Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com<mailto:vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com>> Sent: Sonntag, 19. September 2021 14:09 To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project <wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>> Subject: [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? Hi, Maybe not a full ban (or maybe, I wouldn't be against it) but at least some clear rules to avoid these spam. My 2 cents: An example of mail that should absolutely be avoided (and not just on this mailing list) is when a similar mail is sent several times in a short timespan. We had almost the same mail sent in 2 days this week ! (not to blame this person in particular, this is not the first time it happens and it's bad communication). Also, senders should strive to make an effort to tell us how the call is related and/or could benefit to/from Wikidata (very often it's unclear, we shouldn't have to guess why we are receiving these calls). Cheers, ~nicolas Le dim. 19 sept. 2021 à 12:57, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] <martinelliluca@gmail.com<mailto:martinelliluca@gmail.com>> a écrit : Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>

David McDonell

5:43 p.m.

👍I agree with Beat’s sentiments. In the grand scheme of things, the noise factor is fairly low. 👊 —David On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 12:34 PM Estermann Beat <beat.estermann(a)bfh.ch> wrote:

...

Dear all, If there is an obvious thematic link to the topic of the list, then let the message through; if not, discard it; if in doubt, ask the sender to clarify the link. This should go for any message sent to the list; there is no need for any specific rules regarding CfPs, event announcements, etc. My 2 cents, Beat *From:* Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com> *Sent:* Sonntag, 19. September 2021 14:09 *To:* Discussion list for the Wikidata project < wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org> *Subject:* [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? Hi, Maybe not a full ban (or maybe, I wouldn't be against it) but at least some clear rules to avoid these spam. My 2 cents: An example of mail that should absolutely be avoided (and not just on this mailing list) is when a similar mail is sent several times in a short timespan. We had almost the same mail sent in 2 days this week ! (not to blame this person in particular, this is not the first time it happens and it's bad communication). Also, senders should strive to make an effort to tell us how the call is related and/or could benefit to/from Wikidata (very often it's unclear, we shouldn't have to guess why we are receiving these calls). Cheers, ~nicolas Le dim. 19 sept. 2021 à 12:57, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] < martinelliluca(a)gmail.com> a écrit : Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

-- David McDonell Co-founder & CEO ICONICLOUD, Inc. "Illuminating the cloud" M: 703-864-1203 EM: david(a)iconicloud.com URL: http://iconicloud.com

Stacy Allison-Cassin

5:55 p.m.

Hello, all. I also agree with Beat. I do not find this list to be overwhelmed with useless content. I appreciate various kinds of calls for contributions and overly strict rules and moderation are unnecessary. I also agree with Peter in that I don’t think an aggressive stance on the perception of the openness of the end product is necessary. Oftentimes one can make post-prints or other forms of the publications or presentations available in on an open platform and reading a particular call without nuance can unnecessarily limit research and conversation. I trust many on this list are able to make informed choices regarding whether something aligns with the “values” and needs of the Wikidata and Wikimedia community at large in regards to both the appropriateness of the venue and in relation to OA. Stacy Stacy Allison-Cassin, PhD Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream Faculty of Information University of Toronto Stacy Allison-Cassin, PhD Associate Librarian (on leave) Department of Student Learning and Academic Success Scott Library, York University From: David McDonell <david(a)iconicloud.com> Date: Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:44 PM To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project <wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? 👍I agree with Beat’s sentiments. In the grand scheme of things, the noise factor is fairly low. 👊 —David On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 12:34 PM Estermann Beat <beat.estermann@bfh.ch<mailto:beat.estermann@bfh.ch>> wrote: Dear Jan, Personally, I haven’t been particularly annoyed by the amount of “spam” to this list. To me, a “reactive” moderation approach is absolutely fine to me. List admins could just let senders know after the fact that off-topic messages are not welcome. Senders known to post mainly unrelated stuff can be put on individual moderation. So, the current practice as you describe it, looks perfect to me. Cheers, Beat From: Jan Ainali <ainali.jan@gmail.com<mailto:ainali.jan@gmail.com>> Sent: Sonntag, 19. September 2021 18:21 To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project <wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>> Subject: [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? Beat, do you suggest that all messages should be moderated? Because right now it is not, and I was hoping that we could keep like that and just ask people to not spam the list (and if they do, put them individually on moderation). Jan Ainali Den sön 19 sep. 2021 kl 18:14 skrev Estermann Beat <beat.estermann@bfh.ch<mailto:beat.estermann@bfh.ch>>: Dear all, If there is an obvious thematic link to the topic of the list, then let the message through; if not, discard it; if in doubt, ask the sender to clarify the link. This should go for any message sent to the list; there is no need for any specific rules regarding CfPs, event announcements, etc. My 2 cents, Beat From: Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com<mailto:vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com>> Sent: Sonntag, 19. September 2021 14:09 To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project <wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>> Subject: [Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings? Hi, Maybe not a full ban (or maybe, I wouldn't be against it) but at least some clear rules to avoid these spam. My 2 cents: An example of mail that should absolutely be avoided (and not just on this mailing list) is when a similar mail is sent several times in a short timespan. We had almost the same mail sent in 2 days this week ! (not to blame this person in particular, this is not the first time it happens and it's bad communication). Also, senders should strive to make an effort to tell us how the call is related and/or could benefit to/from Wikidata (very often it's unclear, we shouldn't have to guess why we are receiving these calls). Cheers, ~nicolas Le dim. 19 sept. 2021 à 12:57, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] <martinelliluca@gmail.com<mailto:martinelliluca@gmail.com>> a écrit : Back on point, please. In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now? L. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> -- David McDonell Co-founder & CEO ICONICLOUD, Inc. "Illuminating the cloud" M: 703-864-1203 EM: david@iconicloud.com<mailto:david@iconicloud.com> URL: http://iconicloud.com

Peter Patel-Schneider

12:13 p.m.

On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 13:41 +0300, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

...

Il 19/09/21 13:10, Peter Patel-Schneider ha scritto:

"In accordance with funding body requirements, Elsevier does offer alternative open access publishing options. Visit our open access page for full information."

Also from https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/open-a… Details on gold open access articles User rights All articles published gold open access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. It thus appears to me that there is no embargo for these papers. My understanding, although this should be confirmed with the journal, is that anyone can pay the open access fee and then the published version of their paper will open access immediately upon publication. It further appears to me that authors funded by a funder that subscribes to Plan S principles will have their funder pay the free.

...

In the specific case, some exceptions are admitted by the publisher for Plan S compliance but only to certain authors funded by certain funders. The result is a very complicated situation <https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/14154> and a very low open access rate of some 20 % <https://link.lens.org/y11mtZdDtHg>. I don't mean to single out JWS as particularly egregious: this is typical of most venues controlled by closed access publishers (including ACM, IEEE etc.). I only mentioned JWS because it was recently advertised on this list (and Wiktionary-l).

I see that the v2.sherpa.ac.uk page indicates that submitted versions of paper have no restrictions applied by the journal. It appears to me that this allows authors of any paper in the journal to make their paper available under terms that satify the Wikidata goals, even to the point of making the version available under a CC0 license.\

...

I don't see any benefit in using Wikimedia properties to advertise for-profit endeavours which are clearly incompatible with the Wikimedia mission and values, as well as Wikidata's very reason of existence. The anti-OA venues usually have enough marketing power to get known without our help.

My point here is not to defend the publisher of the journal but to argue that the journal might not be "bad". peter

989

days inactive

989

days old

wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

16 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Antonin Delpeuch (lists)
Dan Brickley
David McDonell
Estermann Beat
Federico Leva (Nemo)
Jan Ainali
Luca Martinelli [Sannita]
Nicolas VIGNERON
Peter Patel-Schneider
Stacy Allison-Cassin