Commentary 72 A second look at CoRR s strengths and weaknesses. A Response to the Commentaries on CoRR Joseph Y. Halpern Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14850 halpern@cs.cornell.edu Abstract This paper responds to specific comments on, suggestions about, and analysis of ACM s Computing Research Repository (CoRR), agruing that CoRR is both viable and suitably placed amid current online publishing alternatives. H.3.7 Digital libraries online publishing, information retrieval, document management. Keywords: archiving, collaboration, copyright, journal policies, preprints I thank Les Carr, Wendy Hall, Steve Hitchcock, Stevan Harnad, David Armbruster, James Prekeges, and A. J. van Loon for their comments on my article. I agree with most of the points made by Carr et al., Armbruster, and Prekeges; while I think van Loon makes some interesting points, my impression is that he has a number of serious misconceptions of how CoRR works and some deep misunderstandings of what the research community wants and what matters to us (at least, in the fields that I am most familiar with computer science, mathematics, physics, and economics). Let me respond to their comments in turn. First, with regard to Carr et al., it goes without saying that I strongly support
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/a-response-to-the-commentaries-on-corr-oBvQOxQNQs