Re: [seul-edu] Re: [Fwd: Re: Software for journal publish]

[Alan Chen <alan@digikata.com>]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:19:56AM -0800, Jay Sun wrote:

> You are right, the politics of "high academia" is a complete
> different animal. Effeciency is not a consideration, "common good "
> is not a consideration ( at least not a primary one), the "fame",
> "academic turf", "competitative advantages" are the primary ones.

From my experience, politics in system implementation (computerized or
otherwise) is certainly not limited to academics. Whenever anything
new is proposed there will be different opinions - this part of the
beauty (and paradox) of human nature. Personally, I've always enjoyed
the working on the line between computer systems and human interaction
- with only a very few exceptions. 

> This is similar to the puzzle how OpenSource companies can survive
> in the market, even VA now has to have some closed components to
> make SourceForge "competative". No software can map exactly to
> anyone's needs, either the users adjust or users customize the
> software, the joural publishing system is no different. It is a
> highly-customized system, although I would not say it is complex or
> difficult, and it is natural that those academic institutions want
> to wield those customizations into their competative advantages.  So
> we recommend some crude resemblance, you do you own customization(
> better than start from scatch), and we don't expect the
> customization will ever see the light of the day, and you should not
> expect any new recommanded systems closer to your needs than what we
> have recommanded already.  sad but true

The flip side of this argument is that academic journals don't rise
and fall on the strength of their peer review systems. (I'm
differentiating between the reviews and the system used to herd
reviewers :) Their core competitive space is the quality of their
papers and the quality of the reviews.  It is quite common for
companies/organizations within the same industry to promote common
interests while allowing competition in other areas. I would think
that a computerized open source academic journal system might fall
under the heading of "common interest".  After all, upkeep of the
review system is really a cost, not a direct generator of
revenue/reputation.


BTW, some of us think tha VC funded business startups "in the large"
aren't the way to go for developing Open Source businesses. For
businesses that serve niche markets this is certainly the
case. Sometimes starting small and evolving slowly gets you there
faster - see Aesop ;)

-- 
Alan Chen
Digikata LLC
alan@digikata.com
http://digikata.com