On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:31:33PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote: > > 10) Refused a journal review for the IEEE Transactions on Information > Forensics & Security, since they're not open-access. I forwarded my mail > to an IEEE publisher representative to make sure they knew my reason > for refusing; she had the audacity to reply that actually they *are* > open-access, since they have an option where they let an author pay > them three thousand dollars per article to not lock the pdf behind their > paywall. That's exactly the dead-end strategy the for-profit publishing > corporations are taking. Shame on IEEE for claiming to have my field's > best interests in mind. >
This might not be what you or I would mean by "open access", but it is not IEEE misappropriating your term either. Theirs is a meaning of "open access" that is long in use and not just by commercial publishers. For example, the favorite cited instance of open access in the wider press, PLoS, works on that model---actually like IEEE but less flexible: there's no option to have a paywall. You simply must give them thousands up front. (Although if you can claim hardship, you can avoid author fees.) I don't disagree with your overall sentiment, but your indignation over the term is no more likely to be a winning approach than fighting the broader media about the use of "hacker" (and possibly with less legitimacy since there the misappropriation of the term from its original use is unambiguous and well established). aloha, Paul _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
