“The block, uncovered by the FT, affects articles from two journals – the Journal of Chinese Political Science and International Politics. The articles blocked all contain politically sensitive keywords such as Tibet, Taiwan and Cultural Revolution, the FT said.
In a lengthy statement, Springer Nature commented: “As a global publisher we are required to take account of the local rules and regulations in the countries in which we distribute our published content. China’s regulatory requirements oblige us to operate our SpringerLink platform in compliance with their local distribution laws. These local regulations, which are enforced by our distributors who are the officially appointed guardians of all content, only apply to local access to content.” …”
“Cambridge University Press reversed course Monday after facing a major backlash from academics over its decision to bow to Chinese government demands to censor an important academic journal.
The British-based publisher announced Friday it had removed 300 articles and book reviews from a version of the China Quarterly website available in China at the request of the government. But on Monday, it rescinded that decision after outrage from the international academic community….”
“Following a clear order from its Chinese importer, Cambridge University Press reluctantly took the decision to block, within China, 315 articles in The China Quarterly. This decision was taken as a temporary measure pending discussion with the academic leadership of the University of Cambridge, and pending a scheduled meeting with the Chinese importer in Beijing.
The academic leadership of the University has now reviewed this action in advance of the meeting in China later this week. Academic freedom is the overriding principle on which the University of Cambridge is based. Therefore, while this temporary decision was taken in order to protect short-term access in China to the vast majority of the Press’s journal articles, the University’s academic leadership and the Press have agreed to reinstate the blocked content, with immediate effect, so as to uphold the principle of academic freedom on which the University’s work is founded….”
“As academics and China focused academics, we are disturbed by the request by the Chinese government for Cambridge University Press to censor articles from the China Quarterly. As academics, we believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and information on all topics not just those we agree with. It is disturbing to academics and universities world wide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative.
We call upon Cambridge University Press to refuse the censorship request not just for the China Quarterly but on any other topics, journals or publication that have been requested by the Chinese government.
If Cambridge University Press acquiesces to the demands of the Chinese government, we as academics and universities reserve the right to pursue other actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals. …”
“The Harvard-China Project on Energy, Economy and Environment is pleased to announce that the Project’s faculty, researchers, and staff have adopted an open-access policy. They unanimously endorsed the policy on September 21, 2017 to grant Harvard a nonexclusive and worldwide right to distribute “the fruits of [their] research and scholarship as widely as possible.”
“The open access (OA) movement is gaining worldwide consensus as more and more countries are joining the effort to make research freely available. China has recently joined the ranks of the nations that are making a shift to OA. On May 15, 2014, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), a major basic-science funding agency, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), one of China’s most prestigious research institutions, announced that researchers associated with these institutions would need to give u…. Interestingly, more research-funding agencies in China are expected to follow a similar policy. While OA has been gradually gaining support in China in the past few years, this move might bring a major change to academia in China. The research output of China has multiplied over the years—the country’s contribution to the total global articles has increased from 5.6% in 2003 to 13.9% in 2012, according to the data calculated using the Science Citation Index (…—and thus, the most significant upshot of this move to OA is that a wealth of scientific knowledge would become available to the world. However, a downside is that while studies in the natural sciences will gain public access, the humanities will not benefit from this newly declared policy. Nevertheless, in the wake of the OA movement, China is making new forays, one of which is a growing interest in partnerships to start new OA journals as reported in BioMed Central.”
Following rapid development in the economy and huge investment in R&D, China is now widely recognised as one of the leading countries of the world in terms of the number of published journals and scientific articles. In 2015, there were over 10,000 journals in China, of which 4983 (49.76%) were in Science and Technology, according to the “Statistical Data of Chinese Science and Technology Papers 2015.
“Over the past two decades, China’s scientific community has started to embrace open science, increasing its number of data repositories and open-access journals, according to the [Nature Index 2017 China supplement].
However, strong policies and changes to academic culture are needed before science in the country can become fully open and transparent, and cultural change is also needed to boost participation in science communication among Chinese researchers, the supplement also said….”
Abstract: OA is to become the future of academic library exchanges in China. With the government’s support and promotion of OA, more and more Chinese academic libraries have been committed to participating in OA. The rapid development of OA not only has changed the model of traditional scholarly communication and brought a free communication environment of scholarly information, but also continues to impact on all aspects of academic libraries, including their role, collections, technology and services.