Anyone who has ever read this blog before knows that I'm a huge supporter of moving our Computational Linguistics journal to open access. Those who talk to me, know I'm in favor of more drastic measures, but would be content with just this one small change. I'm not here to beat a horse (living or dead), but to say that this appears to be something on many people's minds. I just got an email for voting for new members of the ACL board. I think only members get to vote, but I don't see anything that says that everyone can't view the statements. The list of candidates with their statements is here.
What I find promising is how often open access CL is mentioned! Indeed, both candidates for VP-elect say something. Ido writes:
Among other possibilities, the proposal to make CL open access, with a shorter reviewing cycle, seems worth pursuing. Additionally, we can increase the annual capacity of journal papers and include shorter ones.And Jan writes:
Third, ACL's role is to help the widest possible dissemination of the field's results, including novel ways such as electronic and open-access publications, training workshops and summer schools (to attract excellent "new blood").The issue comes up again for one of the Exec members. Hwee Tou says "I believe some issues of current concern to the ACL membership include the role of open access journals..."
Obviously I'm not here to tell anyone who to vote for. Indeed, since both candidates for VP mention the issue, it's not really a dividing point! But I'm very very very pleased to see that this has become something of an important front.