It's a badge of honour. It shows that you are doing something worthy,
and makes it more likely that someone will pay for you to go to the
conference.
Scientific publication ceased to be about communication years ago.
Phil
Sarven Capadisli writes:
> Hi!
>
> If we subscribe to science, free and
ISWC and ESWC are a particular problem because they are both Springer. I
pulled my paper from publication last year, as they would not do an open
access option.
So, with the situation as it stands, I cannot publish any semantic web
research in either of these two conferences.
Phil
Alexander Gar
the question is simple. both, eswc and iswc are prominent conferences
because of a serious review process, a well structured set of
committees working hard at the time of organization... but most of
all, because we the community have accepted both conferences to be
important. this will not change.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Rowe, Matthew wrote:
> As authors of accepted papers, don't we have the right to disseminate our
> work as a pre-prints anyway? I just put mine online anyway, and always have
> done (and will do) for people to download and read.
>
> Yes, you have the right. Unfort
As authors of accepted papers, don't we have the right to disseminate our work
as a pre-prints anyway? I just put mine online anyway, and always have done
(and will do) for people to download and read.
Matthew
On 14 May 2013, at 10:12, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> ISWC and ESWC are a particular pr
Perhaps, although if you have given away your copyright, they could
remove this from you at any time, with no justification. And I don't
have the right to download your work, analyse it, and generate aggregate
data sets on the basis of this.
I published my paper in Future Internet. In the future
Dump Springer, and just publish the results on arXiv. If ESWC cannot
organise a conference at 800 Euro a pop, without cash from Springer,
then perhaps they should try getting a cheaper venue.
Better still, let's separate out the committees, the publication, and
the conference. The committees can
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
>
> Dump Springer, and just publish the results on arXiv. If ESWC cannot
> organise a conference at 800 Euro a pop, without cash from Springer,
> then perhaps they should try getting a cheaper venue.
>
> Better still, let's separate out the
Public-LODer, on behalf of the EUCLID project
(http://euclid-project.eu/) I would like to thank you for feedback to
date on our Linked Data educational curriculum. Based on our own
training materials, a Web-based visualisation and public SPARQL endpoint
based on monitoring this list (together
ACL has been doing this (open everything) for a long time, for conferences,
workshops and journals, and it works very well, in a very simple format (
http://aclweb.org/anthology-new/ ) - if a similar initiative & body were to
take this role for I/ESWC, it would be surely welcome. It also causes few
Hi,
Do you actually know that Springer is paying something ?
I don't think publishers pay, usually.
best,
Andrea
Il giorno 14/mag/2013, alle ore 10:51, phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip
Lord) ha scritto:
>
>
> Dump Springer, and just publish the results on arXiv. If ESWC cannot
> organis
not sure if they pay. I know we do pay, and with current prices I
would expect conferences like ESWC and ISWC should be able to support
a more open policy. The ISWC2013 proceedings are not free of charge,
see http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-642-35172-3
this is my issue with the whol
Hi
as far as I know the conference organizers have to pay to springer for
the proceedings (i think it's around 30 eur per hardcopy or around 10
eur per e-Version)
marko
On 14.5.2013 13:58, Alexander Garcia Castro wrote:
not sure if they pay. I know we do pay, and with current prices I
wou
Hi,
Can I respectfully suggest that there are better forums for discussing
Open Access and reinvention of scientific publishing?
Cheers,
L.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Alexander Garcia Castro
wrote:
> not sure if they pay. I know we do pay, and with current prices I
> would expect confe
what if the journal is not well known, or known within a very
specific/small community and with a low or inexistent impact factor.
then, what is the added value? reputation is made by the community,
not entirely by the publisher. the core of the work, writing,
gathering papers, distributing to revi
Dear all,
obviously, this is a heated discussion, and I usually wouldn't try to
engage here because it's full of all kinds of pitfalls, but there certainly
are some aspects that need clarification and maybe, I can contribute a
little.
As for myself, I am a scientist and a founding member of the Op
Hi Sam,
Why don't you use Google or Bing? Typically the first or second result
which are not from the wikipedia site would be what you want. I did this
before and it ran pretty well.
Best regards,
Lushan Han
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Sam Kuper wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As I am something
Christian Chiarcos writes:
> (4) One should probably ask someone from publication business for
> confirmation, but in my understanding, arxive.org serves as a *pre*print
> server, and if your contract gives you (or your contributors) the right to
> make private copies available online, there is no
*** DEADLINE EXTENDED TO 20th MAY 2013 ***
Final Call for Papers
1st International Workshop on the
Digital Preservation of Research Methods and Artefacts (DPRMA 2013)
http://dprma.oerc.ox.ac.uk/
rebholz/ebi writes:
> Apart from the scientific work around a journal (gathering papers,
> distributing to reviewers, reviewing, decision making) there is other work:
> proof reading, layout issues and also marketing the journal. Usually,
> acadmics are not so fond of this part of the work.
If
Affiliation (for the text name) and domain of the lead Author's email should
give you a little "uncertainty" with which to resolve DBpedia. Their rules
are very fussy and not as much "uncertainty" as you would like, but it is a
start. The REGEX to chop up email addresses is here:
http://www.
On 14/05/2013, Gannon Dick wrote:
> Affiliation (for the text name) and domain of the lead Author's email should
> give you a little "uncertainty" with which to resolve DBpedia. Their rules
> are very fussy and not as much "uncertainty" as you would like, but it is a
> start.
IIUC, this strateg
On 14/05/2013, Lushan Han wrote:
> Why don't you use Google or Bing? Typically the first or second result
> which are not from the wikipedia site would be what you want. I did this
> before and it ran pretty well.
I tried this several days ago, but found that searching within
Wikipedia (as outlin
There is NEVER going to be 100% free science and open access online publishing.
The problem right now is business models. Adobe Software has just shown the new
way to go a MONTHLY subscription rate for their Creativity Cloud.
Traditional science publishers whose key cash cow is the publishing in
PubMed was assembled with those three assumptions (+ peer review). The problem
I referred to as "solved" was the Search Stack logic. The result set is
different from queries of Page Rank based data stores (Web Search Engines). You
might have better luck with DDG (https://duckduckgo.com/ BTW) N
All,
for the record, the ISWC series publishes its proceedings freely accessible on
the Web outside Springer Link.
I personally negotiated this right with Springer when I chaired ISWC 2006.
This was negotiated for the whole series, not just that year.
This was backed by SWSA, who promotes the conf
Daniel, I may not be understainding this but it seems that ISWC2012
http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-642-35172-3 has a price
tag of 51.16 Euros.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote:
> All,
> for the record, the ISWC series publishes its proceedings freely accessibl
27 matches
Mail list logo
