petersuber#COAR (@coar_repositories) is exactly right about what's wrong with the #ACS and #IEEE demands that their authors pay them a fee for the right to deposit their accepted author manuscripts (#AAMs) in #OpenAccess #repositories.
https://coar-repositories.org/news-updates/unfair-publisher-fees-for-deposit-into-repositories-highlight-the-need-for-authors-to-exercise-their-rights/
<blockquote>
* The charges applied are completely arbitrary and not based on any real service provision (for example, IEEE applies a fee to authors who want to apply a CC-BY licence to their AAM; and ACM applies a fee for removing the embargo period). They are just another funding stream for publishers that are already making huge profits.
* Deposit fees disadvantage authors who do not have funding to pay
* These fees amount to #DoubleDipping since the final published version of the AAM is made available behind a paywall with no discount
* This practice prevents universities and research organisations from creating an accessible record of their scholarly output.
</blockquote>
And COAR is exactly right about the solution: author #RightsRetention. When authors retain key rights, they don't need publisher permission to deposit their works in OA repositories -- or to use and reuse them in other important ways as well.
PS: See my similar argument on a related ACS move last year.
https://fediscience.org/@petersuber/112688754504974477
Unfair publisher fees for deposit into repositories highlight the need for authors to exercise their rights
Scientific knowledge is a public good Science and scholarship are about sharing and advancing knowledge, and many open access policies have been diligently designed in order to ensure that all thei…
IndiaNewsWatch
Adoro il Genio 
Prism Metanews