Joachim Gudmundsson and Pat Morin are discussing the possibility of establishing a new open access computational geometry journal, which would be completely free, for both readers and authors. So far, there are three relevant posts at Joachim's blog:
At this moment, the poll results are almost unanimously in favor of the new journal, but with only ten votes, that's not saying much. Obviously the idea needs strong support from the computational geometry community before it can get off the ground. David Eppstein suggested raising this issue at the next SOCG business meeting (<steering-committee> Done! </steering-committee>), but certainly there are stakeholders who won't be at Aarhus. So speak up now!
I'm generally supportive, but I do have some concerns.
Is this just a screw-you replacement for Elsevier's ridiculously overpriced Computational Geometry: Theory & Applications (like similar efforts against Journal of Algorithms or Topology and Its Applications [pdf]), with the same topical coverage? Or is this journal intended to serve a broader need that the computational geometry existing journals do not? Will this be yet another journal for the SOCG+CCCG community, or will it also solicit high-quality results on metric embeddings, compressive sensing, manifold learning, computer-aided design, discrete differential geometry, nonholonomic motion planning, and other subfields at the intersection of geometry and algorithms that DCG, CGTA, IJCGA, SOCG, and CCCG traditionally discourage (or at least fail to attract)?
It's not enough to have potential readers ad writers clamoring for a free journal. The journal also needs a strong, committed, and outgoing editorial board. The success of Discrete & Computational Geometry is largely due to the tireless efforts of its founding editors, Eli Goodman and Ricky Pollack. Is there enough commitment from the community to make a new journal thrive? Joachim proposes a large and rotating editorial board, with 3-5 year terms, as a way to cut down on the workload. That's a fine idea, but then who chooses the editors? And who makes sure they continue to hunt down the best papers?
The lone and (of course) anonymous voice of dissent on Joachim's blog ("God. No. There is enough crap out there already.") has a point. The computational geometry community (traditionally defined) doesn't need yet another journal. Three computational geometry journals is already at least one too many. The only real way to make this fly, at least as a traditional computational geometry journal, would be to convince the editorial board of CGTA to resign en masse, like the boards of J. Alg and Top. Appl. did, and adopt the new home Joachim and Pat are building for them.