On 17-Feb-10, at 6:19 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
However, I think Jean-Claude is more focussed on “ought” than “is”.
True, he
proposes an existing service (Brazil's SciELO) as a model for the
future,
but given the way that researchers are motivated by their institutions
and
their funders today, I suspect the model we are more likely to see
emerge --
in the near term at least -- is the one that is apparently becoming
common
in China (
http://tiny.cc/5a58S).
Comment: China is unique, in many respects. It is unlikely that this
model would be replicated outside of China. It is also quite possible
that China will rapidly assess and address the issues; the pace of
change in general in China in recent years is astonishing.
One aspect of the Chinese experience that is unique is the speed and
scale of its modernization project, resulting in huge numbers of new
scholars needing to publish, without an existing scholarly system for
them to fit into. This is a situation that would be impossible to
replicate elsewhere on anything like this scale.
The other uncommon element for Chinese scholars is a government
committed to tight control of information dissemination. Rapid
adoption of, and support for, scholar-led open access publishing using
tools such as OJS could very quickly eliminate the bottleneck
described in the above article.
Heather Morrison, MLIS
PhD Student
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Received on Thu Feb 18 2010 - 16:52:30 GMT