Hello Guy, Harry, Peter and other TC6 delegates,
this message was sent to Joe Turner and the others of IFIP publication committee. I repeat it here for you since I wouldn't like that IFIP PucComm sees to whom our information is directed.
Best regards Otto
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Dear Joe and others,
please find below some comments on the SSBM proposal.
Personally I think that without inclusion of IFIP-LNCS this proposal cannot be accepted at all.
But there are more points which need discussion (see below).
Best regards Otto
-----------------------------------------
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. TC6 is one of the more important TC6s when it comes to publishing (and therefore IFIP revenue) but we are not being given reasonable time to consider proposals such as Springer's, proposals which could have a fundamental effect on the way we operate.
10. If we go to Springer (or any publishing house), we have to make sure that we don't suffer in the same way as happened when Chapman & Hall got taken over and servers were arbitrarily shut down. (Going out of business is one thing, changing policy is another)
11. Springer say that they will have to modify the framework to include Open Access - in other words: it doesn't include it now!