#1 2020-09-13 08:25:03

From: Great Britain, Dunan
Registered: 2020-09-13
Posts: 49

The ICSE 2013 proceedings were published by IEEE

Posted on Thursday January 01, 1970

Posted on Thursday January 01, 1970

Posted on Thursday January 01, 1970

Posted on Thursday January 01, 1970

Posted on Thursday January 01, 1970

Posted on Thursday January 01, 1970

Tag Archives: open-access.
Posted in          by                 A year ago, more than a dozen influential re search  funders in Europe launched.
This plan poses, from 2021 onwards, strict  requirements  on open access publishing of any research funded through the Plan S coalition.
To understand what this means for my field of research, software  engineering , I did some data collection.
My data suggests that 14% (one out of seven) of the published papers are affected, meaning that  conferences  may lose 14% of their papers, unless publishers take action.
The  European Union , which runs the  program of €100 billion (over 113 billion US dollars).
It is the successor to H2020, and includes funding for the prestigious personal grants of the  European Research  Council (ERC).
Twelve national research funding organizations, from various European countries, such as  (where I live), the  United Kingdom , and Austria.

The  of these Plan S “funders” (collectively called “Coalition S”)

is that  The coalition has taken an axiomatic approach to expressing its plans, starting with 10 , followed by a.
The results is a somewhat hard to understand document, in which there are  to become Plan S compliant.
In all forms of Plan S compliance the  license plays a key role.
As Plan S (under the header Rights and Licensing) :  This, thus, corresponds to the  license,  also known as  CC BY.
Note that this is a very generous license, essentially allowing anyone to do anything with the paper.
Traditionally, publishers do not like this, as they wish to keep exclusive  control over  who distributes the paper.
Strictly speaking.

Plan S does not require CC BY per se

but authors need to ask permission for any other license.
For the CC BY-SA “Share-Alike” variant of the license permission will be granted  automatically , but for CC BY-ND “No Derivatives” permission needs to be asked.
Coalition S explicitly indicates that CC BY-NC “Non-Commercial” is :  Given this CC BY starting point, Plan S distinguishes  to compliance:   Subscription-based venues: These by themselves are non-compliant, but can be made compliant if the author immediately (no embargo) deposits the Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a compliant repository with a CC BY license.
This license is a complicating factor, since many publishers  (they are self-archived, and no one else can do this — which is at odds with the sharing principle of CC BY).
If such restrictions exist, a way out can exist if the venue permits hybrid open access, in which authors can pay an extra fee to make their own article open access available with a CC BY license.
This model is offered by many publishers, but not by all.
Note, however, that in Plan S, while this route is “compliant”, Plan S does not refund the APC fees.
The 10 principles also address other issues relevant to open access: it requires that “the structure of fees must be transparent” (, suggesting that some of the current article processing charges are unexplainably high), and warns that the funders will monitor compliance and sanction non-compliant beneficiaries/grantees (, a direct threat to me).
To understand whether Plan S compliant publishing in my area of research, software engineering, is possible at the moment, I looked at the top 20 venues in the area of , according to.
In these top 20 venues, just three are gold open access:  and , both published by ACM , and  TACAS, published by Springer.
It is in these venues that authors funded through Coalition S, can safely publish, following the gold open access route to compliance.
Their open access fees will be covered by the Coalition S funders.
Since the  do not permit the use of CC BY without a fee, the hybrid route applies, in which (1) authors pay a fee; (2) the publisher distributes with CC BY; and (3) the author shares on a Plan S compliant repository.
Note that this route is compliant, but that the fee is not refunded by Coalition S.

This self-archiving route works for IEEE journals

but not for IEEE conferences.
This is because for IEEE conferences presently authors do not have the option to pay a fee to publish just their own paper open access (unlike ACM).
As stated by IEEE in their  on the “IEEE Policy Regarding Authors Rights to Post Accepted Versions of Their Articles”:           Note that other fields may fare better: top conferences in security (), AI (, ), or // sponsored by  are all full gold open access.
This, however, seems the exception rather than the rule.
Last but not least, Coalition S is working hard to expand the list of funders, talking to both China and , for example.
Also, Jordania and Zambia have already joined, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (though their presence in computer science research is limited, compared to, e.g., China).
Since conferences (with full length rigorously reviewed papers) are dominant in software engineering, I focused on these.
I picked two editions of  and  (for which I am a member of the steering committee) and for the smaller and more specialized  conference (which I happened to attend this summer).
The results (also available as ) are as follows:           The 14% I found is substantially higher than the estimate of 6% impact found by Clarivate Analytics (cited by the ), and the  itself.
If anything, this factor 3 or even factor 5 with ISSTA difference calls for a detailed assessment for each venue affected.
My data is based on what I saw in the acknowledgments: In reality it is likely that more papers are affected.
You can check your own papers in  — corrections are welcome.
The 14% figure relates to impact on the conference.
Individual researchers can be affected much more.
Our , for example, has been very successful in attracting substantial funding both from the EU and from the Dutch NWO.
As a consequence, for me personally, half of my publications will be affected.
For some new PhD students starting in my group funded on such projects all publications will be affected.
ACM, as one of the leading publishers in computer science, shared an update on their Plan S progress in their.

It states:   The ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

, meanwhile, sets an example on how to progress within the current setting.
The research papers of three of its key conferences are published as part of the.
This is a Gold Open Access journal  in which different volumes are devoted to different conferences.
The POPL, OOPSLA, and ICFP conferences have adopted this model, and hence are fully open access.
To quote the  by :   Furthermore, last year, .

We as ACM SIGSOFT members elected  as our chair

In his  he wrote:   The other main non-profit society publisher in software engineering is the IEEE.

IEEE publishes various conferences and journals in software engineering on its own

such as ICSME, MODELS, RE and ICST.

Several major conferences are co-sponsored by IEEE and ACM together

such as  and.
Note:  — use this information at your own risk.
License: Copyright (c) Arie van Deursen, 2019.
Licensed under.
, , , ,.
Posted in          by                 , Elsevier cut off thousands of scientists in Germany and Sweden from reading its recent journal articles, when negotiations over the cost of a nationwide open-access agreement broke down.
Universities across Europe have started to realize this.
The , , , and  universities have negotiated at the national level with publishers such as Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Oxford University Press, and Elsevier (the largest publisher).
In many cases deals have been made, with more and more options for open access publishing, at prices that were acceptable to the universities.
However, in several cases no deals have been made.
The Dutch universities could not agree with the , the French failed with , and now Germany and Sweden could not come to agreement with.
A common point of contention is that universities are only willing to pay for journal subscriptions if their employees can publish open access without additional article processing charges — a demand that directly challenges the current business model in academic publishing.
In all these negotiations it is crucial that universities take back ownership of what they produce.
Every single researcher can contribute, simply by making all of their own papers available on their institutional ( for my university) or subject repositories (e.g., ).
This helps in two ways:      Nevertheless, during my two years as department head I have seen many researchers who fail to see the need or take the time to upload their papers.
I have begged, prayed, and pushed, wrote a green open access  to address any legal concerns researchers might have, and wrote a  on how to upload a paper.
Despite all this, my department barely meets the university ambition of having 60% of its 2018 publications available as ( or gold) open access.
To the credit of my departmental employees, however, they do better than many other departments.
Also  uploaded to conference sites have typically been less than 60%, suggesting that the culture of self-archiving in computer science leaves much to be desired.
© Arie van Deursen, 2018.
Licensed under.
Euro image credit: ,.
, , , ,.
Posted in          by                 In a move that I greatly support, the ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages (SIGPLAN), is exploring various ways to adopt a truly Golden Open Access model, by rolling out a  asking your opinion, set up by.
Even though I myself am most active in ACM’s Special Interest Group on Software Engineering SIGSOFT, I do publish at and attend SIGPLAN conferences such as OOPSLA.
And I sincerely hope that SIGSOFT will follow SIGPLAN’s leadership in this important issue.
ACM presently supports  (self-archiving) and a concept called “Open TOC” in which papers are accessible via a dedicated “Table of Contents” page for a particular conference.
While better than nothing, I agree with OOPSLA 2017 program chair Jonathan Aldrich who explains in his  that  is much preferred.
The article processing charges of $400,- are presented as a given: They may seem in line with what commercial publishers charge, but they are certainly very high compared to what, e.g.
charges for ECOOP (which is less than $100).
These costs of $400,- come from ACM’s desire (need) to continue to make a substantial profit from their publishing activities, and should go down.
Shining examples of open access computer science conferences are the , , and  events.
Full golden open access of all content, and no extra charges for authors — these conferences are years ahead of the ACM.
Do you have an opinion on “author pays” versus “participant pays”.
Fill in the.
, , ,.
Posted in          by                 In 2016, .

TU Delft  Elsevier  as its database to keep track of all publications from its employees

At the same time, TU Delft has adopted a  policy.
This means that for papers published after May 2016, an author-prepared version (pdf) must be uploaded into Pure.

I am very happy with this commitment to  (and TU Delft is )

This decision also means, however, that we as researchers need to do some extra work, to make our author-prepared versions available.
Anyone can browse publications in , available at.
All pages have persistent URL’s, making it easy to refer to a list of all your publications (such as ), or individual papers (such as my recent one on ).
For all recent papers I have added a pdf of the version that we as authors prepared ourselves (aka the ), as well as a DOI link to the publisher version (often behind a paywall).
To enter publications into pure, you’ll need to login.
On , in the footer at the right, you’ll find “Log into Pure”.
Use your TU Delft netid.
Import via Elsevier , found via “Import from Online Source”.
This is by far the easiest, if (1) your publication venue is indexed by Scopus, (2) it is already visible at Scopus (which typically takes a few months), and if (3) you can find it on Scopus.
To help Scopus, I have set up an  author identifier and  it to my Scopus author profile.
Import via Bibtex, found via “Import from file”.
If you click it, importing from bibtex is one of the options.
You can obtain bibtex entries from DBLP, Google Scholar, ACM, your , or write them by hand in your favorite editor,  and then copy paste them into Pure.
Each can be a file (pdf), a link to a version, or a DOI.
For pdfs you want to upload, make sure you check it meets the  under your publisher allows self-archiving.
The “accepted author manuscript”.
This is also called a , and is the version that (1) is fully prepared by you as authors; and that (2) includes all improvements you made after receiving the reviews.
Here you can typically upload the pdf as you prepared it yourself.
The “final published version”.
This is the.
It is likely that the final version is copyrighted by the publisher.
Therefore, you typically include a link (DOI) to the final version, and do not upload a pdf to Pure.
If you import from Scopus, this field is automatically set.
Embargoed, meaning that the pdf cannot be made public until a set date.
Can be used for commercial publishers who insist on  from institutional repositories in the first 1-2 years.
The  of the academic publishers permits authors to archive their accepted manuscripts in institutional repositories such as Pure.
However, publishers typically permit this under specific conditions, which may differ per publisher.
You can check out my  if you want to learn more about these conditions, and how to find them for your (computer science) publisher.
In my Green Open Access FAQ I provide an answer to the question.
I typically enter publications once accepted, and share the Pure link with the accepted author manuscript as  on  or on conference sites (e.g.
)    I  entry into pure.
I  with the author-prepared version to the resulting pure entry.
The Pure page for your paper including all meta-information and all versions of that paper () in principle is stable, and its URL provide a permanent link (unless you delete it).
You can also directly link to the individual pdfs you upload ().
However, these are more volatile: If you upload a newer version the old link will be dead.
Moreover, in some cases the (TU Delft) library has moved pdfs around thereby destroying old pdf links.
Add a footnote to your post-print stating: This manuscript version is made available under the.
Josh Bolick on this.
I prefer bibtex entries that have a url back to the place where all info is.
Therefore, I wrote a  to scrape a Pure web page (mine, yours, or anyone’s), that adds such information.
I use the bibtex entries produced by this script to populate  as well as our  with publications from Pure that link back to their corresponding pure page.
16 March 2017: Version 0.5, updated approval states based on correction from.
© Arie van Deursen, 2018.
Licensed under.
, , , ,.
Posted in          by                    Disclaimer: , so if you want to know things for sure you’ll have to study the references provided.
Use at your own risk.
In Green Open Access  you as an author archive a version of your paper yourself, and make it publicly available.
This can be at your personal home page, at the institutional repository of your employer (such as the one from ), or at an e-print server such as.
Following the  of ‘s  project, pre-prints refer to the version before peer-review organized by a publisher.
Following the , a post-print is a final draft as prepared by the authors themselves after reviewing.
Thus, feedback from the reviewers has typically been included.
A () synonym for postprint is “Author-Accepted Manuscript”, sometimes abbreviated as AAM.
A () synonym is “Version of Record”, sometimes abbreviated as VoR.
The  project  does a great job in keeping track of.
You’ll need to check the status of your journal, and if it is green you can self-archive your paper (usually under certain publisher-specific ).
In the RoMEO , green open access means that authors can self-archive both pre-prints and post-prints.
Since the publisher holds copyright on your published paper, it can (and usually does) impose constraints on the self-archived versions.
You should always check the specific constraints for your journal or publisher, for example via the.
In the meta-data of the self-archived version you need to add a reference to the final version (for example through its ).
The repository in which you self-archive should be non-commercial.
Thus,  and institutional repositories are usually permitted, but commercial ones like ,  or  are not.
Some publishers (such as ) allow self-archiving of pre-prints only, and not of post-prints.
This is referred to as yellow open access in.
Yellow is more restrictive than green.
refers to journals (or conference proceedings) that are completely accessible to the public without requiring paid subscriptions.
Often, gold implies green, for example when a publisher such as ,  or  adopts a  license — which allows anyone, including the authors, to share a copy under the condition of proper attribution.
The funding model for open access is usually not based on subscriptions, but on Article Processing Charges, i.e., a payment by the authors for each article they publish (varying between $70 () up to $1500 () per paper).
: Green, e.g., , see also the.
For ACM conferences, often the author-prepared camera-ready version includes a DOI already, making it easy to adhere to ACM’s meta-data requirements.
Note that some ACM conference are gold open access, for example the ones published in the.
: Green, e.g.,.
The IEEE has a  that the IEEE makes a version available that meets all IEEE meta-data requirements, and that authors can use for self-archiving.
See also their.
: Green, e.g., , ,.
Pre-print on arXiv, post-print on personal page immediately and in repository in some cases immediately and in others after a 12 month embargo period.
: Mostly green, e.g., ,.
Pre-print allowed; post-print with  license on personal page immediately and in institutional repository after 12-48 month embargo period.
To  the embargo you can publish the pre-print on arxiv, update it with the post-print (which is ), and update the license to  as required by Elsevier, after which anyone (including you) can share the postprint on any non-commercial platform.
: Mostly yellow, i.e., only pre-prints can be immediately shared, and post-prints (even on personal pages) only after 12 month embargo.
: Gold (creative commons) and  green.
: Gold since 2008.
Published with.
Authors retain their copyright.
-based proceedings: Conferences publishing their papers via Dagstuhl’s Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics , such as , , ….

IEEE : The ‘mega-journal’ from IEEE covering all IEEE’s fields of interest

: The successful (nonprofit) mega-journal that also publishes computer science papers.
Many venues in Artificial Intelligence, including , the , , the , or the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems ().
Specialized conferences  or journals such as the  or.
Funding agencies (, , , …) as well as universities (, , , , , …) are increasingly demanding that all publications resulting from their projects or employees are available in open access.
My own university TU Delft , like many others, on green open access:   The Dutch national science foundation NWO has a preference for gold open access, but accepts green open access if that’s impossible (““).
You should only do this if you are certain that the publisher’s  pre-prints are compatible with a  license.
If that is the case, you probably are dealing with a golden open access publisher anyway.
For example,  insists on a set statement indicating   Furthermore, a Creative Commons license is.
So once you picked it for your pre-print, you effectively made a choice for golden open access publishers only (some people might consider this desirable, but it seriously limits your options).
Yes, you can, but you are only compliant with  if you share your postprint, with a , immediately (no embargo).
But, unfortunately, the  of the eventual paper.
As a way around, in some (most) cases (e.g., ACM, IEEE journals, Springer) you are allowed to distribute your postprint with a CC BY license if you actually pay the  open access fee.
These fees are not refundable under Plan S, but this  is compliant with Plan S.
Your employer may require that you use your institutional repository (such as the ).
This helps your employer to keep track of how many of its publications are available as open access.
The higher this number, the stronger the position of your employer when negotiating open access deals with publishers.
Institutional archiving still allows you to post a version elsewhere as well.
Subject repositories such as  offer good visibility to your peers.
In fields like physics using arXiv is very common, whereas in Computer Science this is less so.
A good thing about arXiv is that it permits versioning, making it possible to submit a pre-print first, which can then later be extended with the post-print.
You can use several.
If you intend publishing your paper, however, you should adopt arXiv’s  license (which just allows arXiv to distribute the paper) instead of the more generous  license — which would likely conflict with the copyright claims of the publisher of the refereed paper.
is a commercial eprint server  a  license.
It is intended to share drafts that have not yet been peer reviewed for formal publication.
It offers good visibility (a  attracted 15,000 views), and a smooth user interface for posting comments and receiving feedback.
Articles can not be removed once uploaded.
The PeerJ Preprint service is compatible with other golden open access publishers (such as PeerJ itself or ).
and  are researcher social networks that also offer self-archiving features.
As they are commercial repositories, most publishers will not allow sharing your paper on these networks.
The  provide useful information on this.
The  state the following:   In both cases, the safer route is to use  such as your home page or institutional repository for self-archiving, and only share links to your papers with ResearchGate or Academia.edu.
gold typically implies green, i.e., the license of the journal is similar to , allowing anyone, including the authors, to share a copy under the condition of proper attribution.
From that perspective, publishers who want to be the greenest should in fact want to be gold, making their papers available under a permissive  license.
An example is.
Among the non-golden publishers, the greenest are probably the non-commercial ones, such as  and : They require simple  that are usually easy to meet.
The , “the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society”, claims to be.
Based on their tolerant attitude towards self-archiving of post-prints this may be somewhat justified.
Furthermore, their  mechanism permits setting up free access to the publisher’s version.
But greenest is gold.
So I look forward to the day the ACM follows its little sister  in a full embrace of golden open access.
The  offers the  mechanism to provide free access to the Publisher’s Version of a paper, which only works from one user-specified URL.
For example, I can use it to create a dedicated link from my   to the publisher’s version.
What several conferences do instead, though, is collecting links to pre- or post-prints.
For example, the on line program of the recent  conference has links to both the publisher’s version (through a DOI) and to an author-provided post-print.
For OOPSLA, 20 out of the 52 (38%) of the authors provided such a link to their paper, a number that is similar in other conferences adopting such.
As a conference organizer, you can do your best to encourage authors to submit their pre-print links.
Or you can use your influence in the steering committee to push the conference to switch to an open access publisher, such as  or.
For authors, green open access typically costs no money.
University repositories, , and  are all free to use.
You need to find out the specific  under which the publisher of your current paper permits self-archiving.
The fact that open access is free for authors does not mean that there are no costs involved.
For example, the money to keep  up and running comes from a series of , including TU Delft.
/ : Green Open Access conditions and restrictions for all journals and publishers.
Acknowledgments: I thank  (TU Delft) and  (LMU Munich) for valuable feedback and corrections.
© Arie van Deursen, November 2016.
Licensed under.
, , , ,.
Posted in          by                  One of the most useful changes to the  International Conference on Software Engineering this year, was that the  contained links to preprints of many of the papers presented.
Preprint linking is based on the idea that authors, who do all the work in both writing and formating the paper, have the right to  the paper they created themselves (also called ).
Authors can do this on their personal home page, in institutional repositories of, e.g., the universities where they work or in public preprint repositories such as.
Sharing preprints has been around in science since decades (if not ages): As an example, my ‘alma mater’  was founded in 1947, and has a  dating back to that year.
These technical reports were exchanged (without costs) with other mathematical research institutes.
First by plain old mail, then by email, later via ftp, and now through http.
While commercial publishers may dislike the idea that a free preprint is available for papers they publish in their journals or conference proceedings,  do in fact allow (some form of) self-archiving.
For example, , , , and  (the publishers I work most with) explicitly permit it, albeit always under specific conditions.
These conditions can usually be met, and include such requirements as providing a note that the paper has been accepted for publication, a pointer to the URL where the published article can be found, and a copyright notice indicating the publisher now owns the copyright.
For ICSE, doing full preprint linking at the conference site was proposed and conducted by , after an earlier set of preprint links was collected on a separate  by.
Dirk Beyer runs , the organization hired by ICSE to collect all material to be published, .

And get it ready for inclusion in the ACM/IEEE Digital Libraries

As part of this collection process, ICSE asked the authors to provide a link to a preprint, which, if provided, was included in the.
The ICSE 2013 proceedings were published by IEEE.
In their recently updated , they indicate that “IEEE will make available to each author a preprint version of that person’s article that includes the Digital Object Identifier, IEEE’s copyright notice, and a notice showing the article has been accepted for publication.” Thus, for ICSE, authors were provided with a possibility to download this version, which they then could self-archive.
Track / Conference #Papers presented #Preprints Percentage    85 49 57%    31 19 61%    19 6 31%    13 3 23%    16 7 43%    64 36 56%   Total 228 120 53%      I hope and expect that for upcoming ICSE conferences, more authors will submit their preprint links.
As a comparison, at the recent  conference, 75% of the authors submitted a preprint link.
The natural solution is to publish preprints not just on individual home pages, but to submit them to repositories that are likely to have a longer lifetime, such as , or your own.
An interesting route is taken by , which instead of preprint links simply provides a dedicated preprint search on Google Scholar, with authors and title already filled in.
If a preprint has been published somewhere, and the author/title combination is sufficiently unique, this works remarkably well.
uses a mixture of both appraoches, by providing a search link for presentations for which no preprint link was provided.
Thanks to the  move, there now may be a momentum to make a full swing transition to green open access in the software eningeering community.
I look forward to 2014, when all software engineering conferences will have adopted preprint linking, and 100% of the authors will have submitted their preprint links.
Let us not miss this unique opportunity.
I am grateful to , for setting up preprint linking at ICSE, and for providing feedback on this post.
adopted preprint linking, and shows another good use of it: Prior to the conference every day one or two preprint  through the conference’s  Twitter account.
For 2013,  has included preprint links in its  as well.
, , , , ,.
Search               (1).
Post to                                                                 bloggers like this:.



Board footer

Powered by FluxBB