ACM Digital Library
Shares rank 3 of 6 academic paper archives by recommenders
People recommend its trusted computer science papers and its move to open access. Critics say premium features and paywalled search remain, and that 'open access' is overstated.
People recommend its trusted computer science papers and its move to open access. Critics say premium features and paywalled search remain, and that 'open access' is overstated.
26 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 9
- criticize it
- 17
- approval share
- 35%
Recommended in 4 of 13 months
- November 2025: not recommended
- December 2025: recommended
- January 2026: recommended
- February 2026: recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: not recommended
- May 2026: not recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: recommended
- August 2026: not recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 9 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, not met.
- 0.5 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 4 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Free and open access to all research
“the fact that they went open access and now all of the research is freely available to all is absolutely amazing”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “Wither ACM? Publish and Perish?” “reward, not punish, ACM for making its own material open-access”
Comment from 9 Dec 2025 in “No more O'Reilly subscriptions for me” “I'm glad it's finally happened.”
Comment from 1 Jan 2026 in “ACM Is Now Open Access”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Premium tier paywalls features and search
“there is a really bad HCI issue. The pillbox on the right includes "cited by" and it has a note saying that the pillbox is a Premium feature”
Comment from 31 Dec 2025 in “Petition: Restore Free and Open Access to the ACM Digital Library” “the ACM is introducing a "premium" membership tier behind which various features of the Digital Library will be paywalled”
Comment from 18 Dec 2025 in “Beginning January 2026, all ACM publications will be made open access” “these previously free and open DL facilities became "Premium Access" features”
Comment from 31 Dec 2025 in “Petition: Restore Free and Open Access to the ACM Digital Library” - Comment from 2 Jan 2026 in “Ask HN: Favorite Articles in the ACM Digital Library”
- Comment from 1 Jan 2026 in “ACM Is Now Open Access”
Open access claims overstated
“'Fully Open Access' does not mean completely free”
Comment from 1 Jan 2026 in “ACM Is Now Open Access” “It seems that the "open access" is more marketing than something reality based they actually want to do.”
Comment from 28 Jul 2026 in “Now Is the Time to Give LLMs Access to the ACM Digital Library” “it is open like open in openai”
Comment from 28 Jul 2026 in “Now Is the Time to Give LLMs Access to the ACM Digital Library” Seen as self-interested and hypocritical
“the ACM is hardly a bastion of anything but self interest and greed”
Comment from 29 Jul 2026 in “Now Is the Time to Give LLMs Access to the ACM Digital Library” “ACM should give everything away for free.”
Comment from 29 Jul 2026 in “Now Is the Time to Give LLMs Access to the ACM Digital Library” “This is a masterclass in hypocrisy.”
Comment from 28 Jul 2026 in “Now Is the Time to Give LLMs Access to the ACM Digital Library” AI summaries are often wrong
“we've added a worse, AI generated summary and making that the first thing you see instead”
Comment from 18 Dec 2025 in “Beginning January 2026, all ACM publications will be made open access” “the AI summaries are often factually incorrect”
Comment from 11 May 2026 in “Show HN: TikTok but for Scientific Papers”
Other academic paper archives people recommend
The four most recommended other academic paper archives, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
See all 6 academic paper archives, rankedWhat people said
26 of the 27 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“ACM should give everything away for free.”
“the ACM is hardly a bastion of anything but self interest and greed”
“This is a masterclass in hypocrisy.”
“it is open like open in openai”
“It seems that the "open access" is more marketing than something reality based they actually want to do.”
“the fact that they went open access and now all of the research is freely available to all is absolutely amazing”
“the AI summaries are often factually incorrect”
“they keep changing the rules”
“Or is the download link just very well hidden in their crappy PDF viewer?”
“ACM is not a for-profit publisher like Springer or Elsevier.”
“the search function on the ACM website is paywalled”
“In my experience, ACM is one of the very few publishers in computer science where you can generally trust the published papers.”
“'Fully Open Access' does not mean completely free”
“I'm glad it's finally happened.”
“This might have a material impact on improving professional standards in the industry.”
“and at the same time paywalled metadata”
“there is a really bad HCI issue. The pillbox on the right includes "cited by" and it has a note saying that the pillbox is a Premium feature”
“these previously free and open DL facilities became "Premium Access" features”
“I stopped my ACM subscription after they broke their deal with access to O’Reilly platform.”
“they were still pushing the digital library subscription as recently as two months ago”
“the ACM is introducing a "premium" membership tier behind which various features of the Digital Library will be paywalled”
“we've added a worse, AI generated summary and making that the first thing you see instead”
“Fail! No way to read the paper without paying or pirating by using scihub”
“It just took them 30 years :)”
“I despise the idea of paying to publish”
“reward, not punish, ACM for making its own material open-access”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.