Comment by bonoboTP
1 day ago
Academia can work fine with open access conferences and Arxiv preprint as machine learning and computer vision and other computer science fields show.
1 day ago
Academia can work fine with open access conferences and Arxiv preprint as machine learning and computer vision and other computer science fields show.
Arxiv is a good blueprint for what we should build on. Terry Tao gave a recent talk about how "canonicalization" is the key bottleneck. The limitation of Arxiv is that is non-canonical, non-peer reviewed. However, there is no reason that journals should have a monopoly on peer review (it should be noted that peer reviewers aren't even directly compensated for it, granted it is supposedly "priced in" to academic salaries.)
Yes. See ICLR for example, which is a peer-reviewed conference, on the OpenReview platform, with no publisher involved, the papers are just hosted on the OpenReview website. It's a similar situation with ICML. NeurIPS also doesn't involve any traditional publisher. Because why would they? There is an online platform to do the reviews, discussions, uploading the camera-ready etc. There is no real role for IEEE or ACM or Elsevier or Springer in this any more. Machine learning as a field has shown that it's perfectly doable, over many years now.