OK, I’ll commit heresy here.

 

I’ve long thought the phrase “open access” was something of a misnomer, because it quickly came to connote something more that just “access”, especially when you think about the permissions that something like CC-BY allow.  That’s a LOT more than just “access”.  Some have tried to differentiate some of that difference by using “public access” rather than “open access”, when the only thing actually granted is “access” (well, and generally the ability to download/retain).

 

It’s way too late to do anything about this now, but I think the label “open access” should just apply to “access”.  In that case, what ACM is doing truly would be “open access”, since all papers associated with ACM Open customers are free to access by anyone.  Then we needed a second definition, maybe “open use” or the like, which encompasses the other parts of “open” that are beyond just “access”.  CC-BY materials would be both “open access” and “open use”, where in this example the ACM content would be “open access” but NOT “open use”, since ACM does not grant permission to do the other things associated with CC-BY (or most of its variants).  

 

OK, feel free to break out the virtual rotten vegetables and start winging them my way.

 

Mel

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mel DeSart     (he/him/his)

Head, Engineering Library and Head, Mathematics Research Library

University of Washington                  

Box 352170                                       [log in to unmask]

Seattle, WA   98195-2170                  office: 206-685-8369

 

“It is not written in the stars that I will always understand what is going

on -- a truism that I often find damnably annoying."

 

                              Robert A. Heinlein, from his novel "Friday"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

I have to wonder if I’m missing something fundamental here, because I don’t see how any document can simultaneously be OA (according to even the broadest and most liberal definition) and also be subject to a restriction on making it publicly available.

 

In other words, if ACM retains an exclusive right to publish, then the article is simply not OA.

 

Right?

 

---

Rick Anderson

University Librarian

Brigham Young University

(801) 422-4301

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

Hello, earlier this year we had signed an agreement for ACM Open, allowing our authors unlimited open access publishing in all ACM journals and conference proceedings. After signing this agreement, it came to our attention that ACM was providing our authors with two options when they submit their articles for publication: 1) Creative Commons licensing and 2) an option that gives ACM the exclusive rights to publish their work. When authors select this second option, ACM labels the article as Open Access on their website, but does not allow the author to publish this article in the institution’s repository or any other publicly accessible site. This is misleading as it goes against the Budapest Initiative's widely accepted definition of open access and it’s disappointing to us that ACM provides this option given their public statements declaring their commitment to open access. We have asked ACM to remove this option, but they have refused saying that they are unable to customize this for an individual institution.

 

Unfortunately, our authors have selected this second option for nearly half of the articles published since we started the program, so we are unable to add these articles to our repository.

 

For those of you that have an agreement for ACM Open:

·         Are you finding that your researchers are also selecting the option that gives ACM the exclusive right to distribute their work? For an example of “open access” ACM articles with and without the CC license, see the following (the license type is in the footer on the first page of each PDF):

o    Article with a CC license: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639592.3639615

o    Article that gives ACM the exclusive right to publish: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3623509.3633365 

·         Have you tried pushing back on this with ACM and, if so, have you been successful in getting them to remove this option?

·         Are you aware of any other publishers who are doing this?

 

ACM does say that they are planning to remove this option when they go fully open access in 2026; however, that will not affect the articles that authors are currently publishing.

 

As a side note, this experience has added to the many lessons I’ve learned while negotiating read & publish agreements. We will now be adding the Budapest Initiative’s definition of open access to all licenses we negotiate and include language ensuring that authors are only able to sign OA licenses with a Creative Commons option.

 

I would love to hear about your experiences negotiating with ACM and/or any suggestions you have regarding this. Please feel welcome to contact me either on or off the list.

 

Jessica Harris

Electronic Resources Management Librarian

 

The University of Chicago Library

1100 E. 57th St.   Room/Suite 170   Chicago, IL 60637

United States of America

T 773.702.0228

[log in to unmask]

Pronouns: she/her/hers What is this?

lib.uchicago.edu

 

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]