Dear Otto,
Although I'm not supposed to have read the Springer bid (I
presume), I prepared a few comments below (seconded by Harry R).
BTW, we have never seen any competing bid, like the BCS one. So,
no comparison is possible. And there is no Google bid (at this
stage).
Best regards,
Guy
Overall, the Springer (SSBM) proposal looks interesting.
I will skip its strenghts, to focus on its weaknesses/concerns.
1. Such DL will likely bind IFIP to SSBM in the long run, even after
the current agreement. The next bid from SSBM to remain IFIP's
publisher will not be easy to circumvent if SSBM "owns" our
DL. And SSBM can of course exploit that to propose a less competitive
proposal with maybe higher cost for IFIP.
2. It is stated that this proposal is a one-year trial! Nobody knows
how SSBM will change the rules later.
3. If this proposal is accepted, it would be wise to set up a
procedure that makes sure IFIP can get back its publications (IFIP
actually holds the copyrights, not SSBM) if SSBM ceases to be IFIP's
publisher.
4. IFIP should keep the copyrights of anything published by SSBM (open
access or not).
5. The IFIP-LNCS series is as important as the IFIP series, while the
SSBM proposal leaves IFIP-LNCS completely out, for unknown reasons.
I'd advise to include IFIP-LNCS in this agreement. Note that IFIP-LNCS
proceedings are already more expensive than standard LNCS. If they
become open access, their price may increase even more. To
complensate, we may suppress printed copies, which are useless and on
which IFIP gets almost no royalties anyway.
6. Electronic-only (E-only) publications will be the usual scenario
for all conferences, not only for the small ones. Therefore, the
proposal should extend E-only publications to all our conferences.
Moreover, conference organizers should be allowed to prepare a local
CD-ROM with the proceedings to be given to the participants (under
IFIP copyrights). Note however that IFIP is presently bound to the
agreement requesting at least 22 titles (with > 50 copies and >
200 pages) per year, but this should not be accepted in the
future.
7. On page 8, we find "conference organizers will receive
both the print and the electronic product". What does it mean?
Will Springer prepare CD-ROMs for conference organizers? Any
associated extra cost?
8. Budget-wise, this proposal costs a lot. But I'm not sure it's
possible to find another less costly solution. IFIP should request
funding from UNESCO to support its open access DL (at least
partly).
9. What is an STM publishing facility?
That's all I see for now.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Guy
Leduc Phone : +32 4 366
26 98
Université de
Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91
Réseaux
Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89
Research Unit in Networking
(RUN)
Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be
EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1,
BELGIUM
http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/
Interested in an open source toolbox for network traffic
engineering?
Try TOTEM: http://totem.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/
At 9:15 AM +0200 11/16/06, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear all,
please study the open access proposal made by Springer SSBM and
comment on it.
Best regards
Otto
---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ----------------
Betreff: SSBM open access proposal
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 18:14 Uhr
Von: Joe Turner <turner@cs.clemson.edu>
An: Arrigo Frisiani <arrigo.frisiani@unige.it>
, Eduard Dundler <eduard.dundler@ifip.or.at>
, Jerry Engel <g.engel@computer.org>
, Jan Wibe <jan.wibe@plu.ntnu.no>
, R. Meersman <meersman@vub.ac.be>
, Roger Johnson <rgj@dcs.bbk.ac.uk>
, Otto Spaniol <spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
, Ron Waxman <ron.waxman@computer.org>
To IFIP Publications Committee:
Attached is a proposal from SSBM for a method of addressing IFIP's
wishes for an open access repository for electronic documents. I
also
have attached my initial analysis of this proposal.
The Publications Committee has been asked to review the proposal and
to
make a recommendation regarding the proposal to the IFIP Executive
Board. Our recommendation should assess the strengths and
weaknesses of
the proposal. We should not try to say whether the proposal
should be
accepted or rejected until we have a clearer picture of the
alternatives, although we could potentially say that it should be
rejected if we find it unacceptable. We also could recommend
further
negotiation to improve parts of the proposal that we find
objectionable.
Keep in mind that we have two possible alternatives at this time:
the
BCS proposal and providing in-house facilities to implement a version
of
the prototype that was done by Dipak. However, we do not have
the level
of analysis and detail that is provided in the SSBM proposal for
the
other two possibilities, although the BCS proposal is so
straightforward
that there may be no need for additional detail. A good way
of
proceeding at this point would be for us to focus on the strengths
and
weaknesses of the SSBM proposal, keeping in mind the other two
proposals
(as well as the possibility of additional options) but not trying to
do
much comparison. If we can reach a decision on the viability of
the
SSBM proposal and its points that should be improved if possible,
then
that would be a very useful result to present to the EB.
Please study the SSBM proposal and send your comments and questions
to
the PC members. Please also include any comments on my
analysis. It is
my hope that my analysis can be used as the first draft of our
report,
adding our summary analysis and recommendation(s) at the end, but if
it
cannot be easily modified to reflect our opinion then we can
create
another document.
The EB will meet in December, but the agenda is essentially full and
it
is unlikely that they will have enough time to consider the
proposal
then. Klaus has requested that we send our recommendation as
soon as
possible, hopefully within a few weeks, so he can decide what
further
action is needed. So please try to send your comments to the
group by
November 24, and we can have a discussion of the proposal and the
comments by email.
Joe
----------------- Ende Weiterleitung -----------------
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IFIP Open Access Pro#4D6EF6.pdf
(PDF /CARO) (004D6EF6)
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Analysis 111506.doc (WDBN/«IC»)
(004D6F07)
_______________________________________________
ifip-tc6 mailing list
ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
--
________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Guy
Leduc Phone : +32 4 366
26 98
Université de
Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91
Réseaux
Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89
Research Unit in Networking
(RUN)
Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be
EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1,
BELGIUM
http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/
Interested in an open source toolbox for network traffic
engineering?
Try TOTEM: http://totem.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/