I'm a little confused. The ACM Author Rights and Publishing Policy states:

ACM authors hold the right to post copies of their own peer-reviewed accepted ACM works on any non-commercial repository or aggregation that does not duplicate ACM tables of contents, i.e., whose patterns of links do not substantially duplicate an ACM-copyrighted volume or issue. Non-commercial repositories are here understood as repositories owned by non-profit organizations that do not charge a fee for accessing deposited articles and that do not sell advertising or otherwise profit from serving articles.

However, the ACM Fair Access site states:

Can I publish the published version of my publication on arXiv? No. An ACM author cannot grant arXiv.org or any other publisher rights to distribute their works that have been published by ACM.

SHERPA/Romeo shows ACM as being a "Green Publisher", which would support the case that I can upload to ArXiv.

Dissem.in states that I can upload pre- or postprints under certain circumstances, but does not explicitly mention Arxiv, positively or negatively.

So, what is it? Can I submit a paper I published with an ACM Conference (ACM WiSec, if that makes a difference) to ArXiv or not? As I understand it, ArXiv is a non-profit, so it would fit the terms of the publishing policy. Or is this related to the rights you have to grant ArXiv upon submission?

If I can only publish a specific version of the paper, which one?

up vote 17 down vote accepted

This is a matter of obsolete documentation.

The current version of the "ACM Author Rights and Publishing Policy" you linked to is v9, last revised in 1/2016. This version says that authors have the right to:

Post the Accepted Version of the Work on (1) the Author's home page, (2) the Owner's institutional repository, (3) any repository legally mandated by an agency funding the research on which the Work is based, and (4) any non-commercial repository or aggregation that does not duplicate ACM tables of contents, i.e., whose patterns of links do not substantially duplicate an ACM-copyrighted volume or issue. Non-commercial repositories are here understood as repositories owned by non-profit organizations that do not charge a fee for accessing deposited articles and that do not sell advertising or otherwise profit from serving articles.

(emphasis mine.)

The previous version, v9 with a 5/2015 last revision date, only gave authors the right to

Post the Accepted Version of the Work on (1) the Author's home page, (2) the Owner's institutional repository, or (3) any repository legally mandated by an agency funding the research on which the Work is based.

The Fair Access FAQ page is from before January 2016, and reflects the old policy.

The current policy as of January 2016 does allow the accepted version of the work to be posted on "any non-commercial repository or aggregation that does not duplicate ACM tables of contents" such as arXiv.

malexmave confirms after contacting ACM:

FAQ was indeed outdated. Posting the peer-reviewed / accepted version to ArXiv and other non-commercial repositories is fine (but not the final version). Policy change does not apply retroactively, only to new papers under the new policy.

  • 1
    Now I am confused, only two days ago we signed an ACM copyright transfer agreement with the following terms: "(iii) Post the Accepted Version of the Work on (1) the Authors home page, (2) the Owner's institutional repository, or (3) any repository legally mandated by an agency funding the research on which the Work is based." There was no point (4) there? Have you seen the new terms in use in some ACM conferences already? – Jukka Suomela Mar 21 '16 at 19:47
  • 2
    @JukkaSuomela I'm not at all surprised that the copyright transfer form hasn't been updated. However, it does say on it, "ACM authors retain all proprietary rights other than copyright including a set of “Retained Rights” stated on the Form. (Also see the ACM Copyright Policy, §2.4, §2.5 and the Permissions Policy, §3 for further details)." (emphasis mine) The list of retained rights on the form need not be comprehensive. – ff524 Mar 21 '16 at 20:07
  • 1
    @ff524 Okay, I guess I'll have to contact the ACM, then. I'll leave this question open until then and will update you and accept your answer once the ACM gives a definitive statement. Thanks! – malexmave Mar 21 '16 at 20:10
  • 4
    @ff524 results are in. FAQ was indeed outdated. Posting the peer-reviewed / accepted version to ArXiv and other non-commercial repositories is fine (but not the final version). Policy change does not apply retroactively, only to new papers under the new policy. Feel free to add this to your answer so it isn't buried in the comments, I'll accept it now either way. – malexmave Mar 26 '16 at 8:45
  • 1
    How does this go hand-in-hand with Supplementary Material? I am assuming the final version doesn't have the Supplementary Material with it. So the final version + revisions + Supp Material is allowed on ArXiv? – Arturo Jan 3 '17 at 16:50

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.