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

["Jay Sun" <js9s@lycos.com>]

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. 

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

--

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:28:39  
 jeremy hunsinger wrote:
>>>
>barring any original development, frameworks are the best way to go.  
>though i use php and with that i use a second layer which gives us many 
>of the same tools as a framework.
>but as i tried to stipulate, the problem is that the tool is not the 
>solution, as cms/portal systems are unlikely to suffice for this type of 
>job.  the problem is that the community of users, between 
>writers/reviewers/publishers already have standards and practices that 
>don't map well onto those tools, and because of the profit oriented 
>nature of publishing, strange fact that most academic publishing does 
>not make profit, the tools that they use are usually in house 
>developments, which is the case with the journals at our library, and 
>the journals at john hopkins press, etc. and so as not to allow others 
>to compete on that ground, the source is closed.  our system, or at 
>least the code for one part of our system should be released in the next 
>month or so.
>>
>> What do you think of the more generalized web frameworks?  Zope,
>> OpenACS, et al.. are all pretty agnostic in terms of workflow and
>> presentation.  They require customization work, but I think can be
>> adapted to a wide range of requirements. Barring an open source
>> release from your organization :), they seem like to best choice for
>> the original poster.
>>
>> -- alan
>>
>> --
>> Alan Chen
>> Digikata LLC
>> alan@digikata.com
>> http://digikata.com
>>
>>
>jeremy hunsinger
>on the ibook
>www.cddc.vt.edu
>www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy
>
>