Statement on reviewing

As of 2014 I no longer review for any conference or journal that limits access to research in order to sell reviewed papers or charges an open access processing charge more than $100. Below is the letter I send in response to each request to review from one of these venues. Reviewers are a critical part of a conference or journal’s operation. Boycotting is a powerful way to push for change!

I’m sorry but I no longer review for journals which limit access to research in order to sell freely submitted research publications or charge an open access processing charge more than $100. I do not appreciate a business making a profit off my effort as a reviewer by charging other researchers to read articles or publish them. I instead urge your journal to follow a format similar to:

– The Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR)
– Proceedings of the Very Large Data Bases (PVLDB)
– Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)
– International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)
– International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)
– Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (MIDL)

These two articles echo my reasons for not supporting this model of publishing (I also do not support “pay to publish” open access journals):

http://jmlr.org/statement.html

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/joalet.pdf

I believe the only way to provide equal access to research materials is to have freely accessible papers from the journal or conference itself which are free to publish and free to read. The PhD institution and the community college I attended did not have the necessary subscriptions for me to read most papers. In order to fix this we need the publishing industry to be open by default. Preprint servers (arxiv, bioarxiv) are not the solution because they do not allow the indexing and search infrastructure to work correctly. I believe that reviewing only for open venues is the best way to push for change as it will make it harder to profit from limiting access to articles.