Support for random order

[kuldeepmeel]

I would like to propose that ACM Reference.bst handle the random author ordering. Currently, AEA supports it (https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/policies/random-author-order). To be consistent with respect to AEA, we can add an additional field "nameorder" in the bib entry.

If this sounds interesting, I would be happy to make the changes to .bst and create a pull request.

[borisveytsman]

I think this must be decided by ACM publishing people. @Craig-Rodkin, do you have any suggestions?

[Craig-Rodkin]

Thank you for your inquiry.

This change is not something that ACM staff can decide. I will add your request to the list that the ACM Publications Board is currently reviewing.

[kuldeepmeel]

Hi @Craig-Rodkin : I thought I will follow up to inquire if the request was reviewed by ACM Publications board.

[rionda]

17 months later, and nobody knows what the outcome of this decision was, not even whether it was ever discussed (and from Twitter, it seems that it wasn't).

[kuldeepmeel]

Hi @Craig-Rodkin : I am again pinging about this.

[Craig-Rodkin]

Hi, ACM has reorganized and I'm no longer in the ACM Publications Department, nor part of the ACM Publications Board.

Given the above, I can tell you that your request is on the list of topics for the ACM Publications Board to discuss. As there are many topics in the queue, I'm unsure when your request will be added as a meeting agenda item.

[scottdelman1]

I can confirm that this topic has been added to a list of topics to be discussed with the ACM Publications Board, although this is a very long list so it is likely to be months before I can provide you with any substantive feedback on your idea. I also came across a paper in ArXiv you might find interesting...

See https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01393

-Scott Delman ACM Director of Publications

[kuldeepmeel]

Dear Scott, I do appreciate the implied sense of humor in your post but feel compelled to put on record. A parody paper, while obviously hilarious and providing comedic relief, is no substitute for serious and thoughtful science.

Here is some serious scholarly work that ACM publication board may refer to:

[1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20161492 [2] https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/policies/random-author-order

As you can see in the above paper, author orders matter and random author order tries to achieve a fairer system. It is a well thought out proposal that also received immediate backing of American Economic Association, which implemented all the necessary LaTeX packages. All ACM can do at this point is to copy what AEA did. I do hope that as a computing association, we can probably do better than economists in a matter that falls within our expertise.

-- Kuldeep S. Meel ACM Lifetime Member

[scottdelman1]

Kuldeep,

Thanks for this. I will absolutely share these works with the ACM Publications Board when the topic comes up for discussion. I promise that the Board will take this proposal seriously, but there is also a high threshold for making such a significant change to both our policy and practice related to author ordering. When the topic does come up for discussion, it will likely make sense to invite you to give a brief presentation to the Board before they discussion the issue. Realistically, based on the “docket” of proposals and issues the Board is dealing with, this isn’t going to happen this year, but it is on the list so it will eventually rise to the top of the list and I will reach back out to you when it does. FYI, one of the next issues the Board is dealing with is a proposal to update our Peer Review Policy in connection with the use of Generative AI technologies in the Peer Review process for ACM Publications. Earlier this year, the Board went through a process of updating ACM’s Authorship Policy to address the use of these technologies, but is now dealing with their use in Peer Review. There are many other important topics under consideration, so please believe me when I say that the Board is very active and as a result proposals do take a lot of time to be discussed and decided on. Looking at the history, somehow your original proposal / post did fall through the cracks and on behalf of ACM I am very sorry this happened, as I could not find a record of this issue being brought to the Pubs Board in recent years. In any event, it’s on the docket and will be discussed.

Regards,

Scott Delman ACM Director of Publications

Assoc. Computing Machinery 1601 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, New York 10019 Office: +1-212-626-0659 Mobile: +1-212-729-7515 Fax: +1-212-869-0481 Email: @.**@.> Skype: scott.delman https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottdelman ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0381-0696

From: Kuldeep S. Meel @.> Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:40 AM To: borisveytsman/acmart @.> Cc: Scott Delman @.>, Comment @.> Subject: Re: [borisveytsman/acmart] Support for random order (#389)

Dear Scott,

I do appreciate the implied sense of humor in your post but feel compelled to put on record: A parody paper, while obviously hilarious and providing comedic relief, is no substitute for serious and thoughtful science.

Here is some serious scholarly work that ACM publication board may refer to:

[1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20161492 [2] https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/policies/random-author-order

As you can see in the above paper, author orders matter and random author order tries to achieve a fairer system. It is a well thought out proposal that also received immediate backing of American Economic Association, which implemented all the necessary LaTeX packages. All ACM can do at this point is to copy what AEA did. I do hope that as a computing association, we can probably do better than economists in a matter that falls within our expertise.

-- Kuldeep S. Meel ACM Lifetime Member

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/borisveytsman/acmart/issues/389#issuecomment-1682504731, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BB7GJ32FP3GETC2C3QLVCYDXVY3NXANCNFSM4MZISRQA. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>