This material submitted by absentee colleagues was read at the business meeting. Ellipses "..." denote short omissions from the source email, due to time, or difficulty of reading (eg url's). The context of these emails is not included here and was only briefly summarized at the meeting. New Journal Announcement LOGICAL METHODS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE Dear Hal: We are writing to inform you about a new open-access, online, refereed journal: "Logical Methods in Computer Science" As an open-access publication, the journal will be freely available on the web. This new journal will be devoted to all theoretical and practical topics in computer science related to logic in a broad sense. You can find the homepage at (the website will open in late June). http://www.lmcs-online.org The journal will open to submissions on September 1, 2004. You may have heard about the various developments in the past couple of years in regard to the Open Access movement. ... The open-access idea is that knowledge, including scientific knowledge, should be widely and readily available to society, in a stable and long-term form. The Internet and electronic publishing provides an evident means to that end. Not unrelated are concerns arising from the increasingly high prices charged commercially. ... There are already a few open-access journals in Computer Science, ,,, We are convinced that now is the time to start one in our area of logic and computer science. ... Yours Sincerely, Jiri Adamek, Gordon D. Plotkin, Dana S. Scott and Moshe Y. Vardi. =================================================================== Statement from JACM JACM will continue to take the Best Paper awardee(s) into JACM, as with FOCS. The thinking is that one or two of the best papers at each STOC/FOCS appear in the JACM, but not four to six in a self-contained special issue ... . ===================================================================== ED BLUM - JCSS 1) JCSS began the concept of Special STOC and FOCS Issues at least 25 years ago. (I'll have to check the precise number in our files.) 2) With one exception (1997) JCSS has published a STOC Special Issue every year. 3) JCSS regards these Special Issues as an archive of the best research done by the SIGACT/Theory community. The long history of this archive reflects the trends in Theory of Computing over 2-3 decades, from the days when the area was a-borning to its maturation. JCSS has been a staunch supporter of this area and remains so. The archival function will continue to serve as a record of SIGACT scientific activity and a standard for the scholarly level of such activty. 4)The JCSS Editorial Board and its publisher Elsevier are committed to the publication of STOC and FOCS Special Issues . 5) Special Issue Guest Editors have been appointed with consultation of the SIGACT Chair and editors active in SIGACT/FOCS. Guest Editors have full authority to organize their Special Issues. Guest Editors are often invited to become members of the Editorial Board, thereby providing continuity of purpose. 6) All papers published in the Special Issues are refereed according to JCSS standards for regular issues. 7) JCSS publishes Special Issues in other areas of computer science. The JCSS Special Issues are an established medium of peer-reviewed publication of the same high-quality that has been and is the hallmark of JCSS regular issues. =================================================================== JCSS BOARD (final statements, in order made) JEFF ULLMAN I sympathize with your concern that JCSS not be penalized for the actions of the publisher. However, I also feel that publishers today actually impede the flow of information, rather than enable it. They used to perform an essential service, but thanks to the Web, their role needs to be rethought. I would be much happier to volunteer my time to a JCSS that was an on-line journal, free to all who cared to benefit from its articles. ======================================================================= AL AHO I think it is very important to have JCSS give special recognition to outstanding papers in the premier theoretical CS conference. This has been a long-standing tradition of this conference and it draws distinction to the authors, to the field, to STOC, and to JCSS. I don't see any reason to change something that is working very well. ======================================================================= JOHN HOPCROFT I agree with Aho. JCSS has provided the community with an important service for 25 years. Lets not change a relationship that is working well. ======================================================================= JOHN SAVAGE I agree with John and Al. I would add, in support of Ed, that it is unwise to make a major decision on short notice and in the absence of complete information. If a serious move is entertained to terminate the longstanding relationship between STOC and JCSS, I strongly urge that a committee be constituted to study the issue and that they be charged with writing a comprehensive report to be presented to the community before a recommendation for action is put on the table. ======================================================================= DICK KARP I am writing to urge you to keep open the possibility of working with JCSS to create a JCSS-STOC 04 special issue, continuing a tradition that has served the SIGACT community well over a long period. To this end, I ask you to help Ed Blum identify candidates acceptable to SIGACT who might serve as Editor of such an issue. I recognize that serious issues have arisen about Elsevier's policies. These issues should be explored in depth and without haste. While this is being done, it would be well to keep an open mind and not to foreclose the possibility of continuing the successful tradition of JCSS-STOC special issues. ====================================================================== RICHARD LADNER The JCSS-STOC relationship has been around a long time and it has served our community well. I don't think we should terminate that relationship without a thorough investigation. It is very healthy that there be a public debate at the STOC business meeting about whether to continue this relationship. I am hopeful that both sides will be heard fairly and that the pricing policies of the computer science on-line suite of Elsevier's Science Direct including JCSS are explained to all of us. With STOC in just a few days, I hope there is there is time for both sides to present their best cases. It makes sense for the membership to have an advisory vote at the meeting, but only if all the information necessary to make an informed decision is presented. ... I support continuing the relationship of STOC and JCSS, unless I can be convinced it hurts our research community to continue it. ====================================================================== MOSHE VARDI While I have little sympathy at this point for commercial publishers such as Elsevier, I agree with the other voices who call for avoiding acting in haste. The issues should be throughly studied. RON FAGIN I agree with the sentiments expressed by Dick in his note below. ================================================================= DON KNUTH [Don is a JCSS Editor but his opinion was not solicited in the above discussion, which was motivated by the desire to present the JCSS view at the Business Meeting.] Part of Don's reactions in a private email were read, with his permission: You asked about JCSS special issues. My own take on this issue, as I guess I've said before, is that the long-range interests of science will be served best if we transition to a world in which few if any journals are run by forprofit firms. Of course all transitions are painful. But after spending a lot of time looking at what has been happening, I found that the facts speak for themselves. So I presented them to the JALG board of editors, and I've put them on the web for other boards of editors to see. I believe the vast majority of computer scientists who become familiar with the facts will agree with the idea that we ought to do all we can to expedite the transition to the direction that optimizes the future of science. ... But if I were in early- or mid-career, I would definitely decide that henceforth I would submit papers only to nonprofit journals, and I would referee or edit papers only for nonprofit journals. Thus I would strongly urge all conferences with "special issue" traditions to begin immediately to boycott the forprofit journals. Already we are seeing many university libraries forced to cancel subscriptions to the Elsevier journals; to me this is reason enough to begin the boycott now. ... Addendum: In fact, I had hoped that other journal editors would independently come to that conclusion. But idont want to push them myself; that's not my style.When I wrote to the JALG board last fall, I also sent copies of the same letter to the chief editors of all boards on which I currently serve. Naturally I respect everyone's rights to their own opinions, even if they choose to continue to believe, for example, that what once was Academic Press is still an academic press. But really, I believe the editors can retain exactly the power structure they have now, and serve the community much better, by switching to another publisher instead of sticking with the monopolists. =========================================================== III.c. OPINIONS Special issues generate a host of admin problems. They relect a highly controversial selection of 5-7 papers out of 60-70 of a FOCS/STOC. There should be no special issue. ------------------------------------------------------------- [The previous statement was read at the meeting. It was an abbreviation of the following statement, which was prepared in advance for the meeting, but due to a miscommunication was not presented: Regarding STOC/FOCS special issues. My opinion is that there is no point in having them at all (in any journal). Special issues just generate a host of adminstration problems and the only reason to have them is if they serve some good cause. For example, a special issue on some area is a good way to focus attention to that area. Likewise, a special issue to commemorate some special event. None of these applies to a STOC/FOCS special issue. I don't see the point of having a special issue that contains a selection of 7-15 papers out of 60-70 papers presented in a given FOCS/STOC. Furthermore, the presumption and/or pretense that this selection reflects the "best papers in the said conference" is harmful as well as HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL: 1) Any selection is harmful, so one should stick to selections that cannot be avoided (e.g., a program for FOCS/STOC must be selected because the community wants 60-80 presentations rather than 200-300). There is NO objective reason to select the "best 10 papers in FOCS". (Same for any selection of the "best paper"...) 2) The selection of the "best 10 papers in STOC/FOCS" is highly controversial. (Same for the selection of the "best paper"...) If a committee selects the "best 60-80 papers" (as done in FOCS/STOC), then it is likely not to miss the 10-20 that should not be missed. If a committee selects the "best 10 papers" then the outcomes are likely to be among the best 40-60. 3) Who is going to select the "best 10 papers in STOC/FOCS" and with what authority? Typically, the selection is done by one or two members of the PC. What does it reflect? Furthermore, what if (as is the case!) some papers decline the invitation to the corresponding special issue? What if some great paper is not included due to other considerations (e.g., its length, its expected completion time)? In general, I want to speak against the tendency to rank work. At times, a ranking is needed, but when it is not needed then it only serves to increase competitiveness. Some competitiveness is very healthy for science but too much is not healthy. My impression is that we (TOC) have more than enough competitiveness already. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When there were no best paper awards, being in a special issue was a roundabout way of indicating that the papers were in some way considered the best of the conference. Now the community has a way of explicitly indicating this. If these papers are already going to go to JACM, there is no need for a "second best paper" special issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================== PRICING INFORMAION ON JOURNALS University of Colorado Consortium (4 campuses) Journal of the ACM. List price $225 (6 issues). We obtain via ACM Digital Library ($2848 for 2004) which includes: Unlimited simultaneous users, all journals, transactions, proceedings, newsletters, and Online Guide to Computing. List price for the complete digital library is about $9,000. Purchase negotiated through the Great Western Library Association (GWLA). SIAM Journal on Computing. List price $480 (6 issues). We obtain via SIAM Academic Membership ($4104 for 2004) which includes: Multiscale Modeling and Simulation; SIAM Journal on Dynamical Systems; SIAM Review; SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics; SIAM Journal on Computing; SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization; SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics; SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis; SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications; SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis;SIAM Journal on Optimization; SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing; Theory of Probablility and Its Applications; SIAM News Journal of Computer and System Sciences ($1748 for 2004, 8 issues) includes: Online access for all four campuses of CU as long as one campus retains a subscription. We were able to eliminate duplicate subscriptions. The ability to access Health Sciences titles was a great benefit to our users since we had not collected extensively in the medical sciences in the past. Increased research emphasis on biotechnology and related fields has fueled demand for greater access to medical titles. ======================================================================= Cornell Library JACM print subscription $225 SICOMP print subscription to SICOMP (which comes with a free electronic subscription) $480. JCSS: In 2000 it was published by Academic Press and at that time we canceled our paper subscriptions to all Academic Press journals in the Engineering Library. The price for e-only then was $1308.20. Academic Press has since been bought up by Elsevier and since 2004 we have been e-only for all of Elsevier in Engineering Library as well. For 2005 we are paying Elsevier $1876.60 for e-only access to this title. =============================================================== ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY ED BLUM ... The issues involved in the current controversy over how publication should be implemented are vital. Therefore, they should be studied carefully from all sides before making changes to working systems. ... Both [Elsevier and SIAM] charge for downloading an article. If you are a paid-up member of SIAM, access is free. Elsevier charges $30. per article . They have informed me that their charges will soon drop to about $2. ... ... Elsevier claims that price/page is no longer a good measure of user cost. In view of the web browsing that is offered , total cost/download is a better metric. Elsevier also claims that no library pays catalog price, but rather a negotiated consortium price. Since the economic issue appears to be the major one for many users, this issue needs detailed study. ... As far as i have been able to determine, the copyright priveleges afforded to authors are pretty much the same for Elsevier journals as for ACM and SIAM journals. Both publishers retain the copyright but grant rights to authors to reproduce their own papers. ... The Elsevier Foundation makes research grants . I have suggested they increase the scale as a way to give back to the community they serve. ==========================================================================