[racket-dev] ACM publishing and ArXiv

Nope, I responded to Jon's question. 



On Sep 30, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Robby Findler wrote:

> The original thread started with a post claiming that ACM is hurting
> its members and I understood your comment to be standing up for the
> ACM (in this specific way).
> 
> Robby
> 
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> The word 'acm' isn't meant literally here. Any body that
>> classifies things would work.
>> 
>> And yes, since 2001 good search has replaced most of
>> classification. But not all.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> 
>>> I think that means "no" actually. The ACM had nothign to do with what
>>> papers that one choose to cite, nor did they have anything to do with
>>> google scholar.
>>> 
>>> (The ACM has something to do with which links appear between papers in
>>> the digital library, for example.)
>>> 
>>> Robby
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Stephen Chang <stchang at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Did Stephen find it because of the ACM somehow?
>>>> 
>>>> I guess so. It was cited in an acm paper (haskell workshop). I think I
>>>> found it originally by looking at citations on google scholar, but
>>>> they probably pulled their information from acm-related papers.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>>>>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ACM conference also classify your paper so
>>>>>> that people who look for related work and
>>>>>> may not have quite the right keywords find
>>>>>> it anyway.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ;; ---
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yesterday Stephen found a paper on tracing
>>>>>> in a lazy language that, despite its title,
>>>>>> and despite claims in the introduction,
>>>>>> comes awfully close to what John published
>>>>>> in essence in ESOP '01.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But they wrote it in 98 or so.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why didn't we find it? The authors published
>>>>>> in some obscure Australian conference.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So what exactly is the benefit of publishing with ACM these days? Is it just to prove that your paper was peer reviewed?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 09/30/2011 12:02 PM, John Clements wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 10:07 AM, John Clements wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In case you didn't catch Stephanie Weirich's post of this on plus.google.com, here's some very interesting information about ArXiv and ACM and where copyrights intersect.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It may be that you can avoid much of this by only publishing "draft" versions of your paper on ArXiv; I Am Not A Lawyer.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Oh for heaven's sake.  Neglected to post the link.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://r6.ca/blog/20110930T012533Z.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>>> 
>> 
>>