[racket-dev] ACM publishing and ArXiv

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
>>>
>
>