scholarly journals Re-launch as British Journal of Chinese Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. iv-vi
Author(s):  
Gerda Wielander ◽  
Heather Inwood

Publication of issue 9.2 is an important moment for the journal, which launches with a new name on a new platform. Here, the editors explain the role of the journal as fully open access, academic journal promoting Chinese studies in the UK and beyond.

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-126
Author(s):  
Scott A. W. Brown

Fox and Godement’s (2009) Power Audit of EU-China Relations grouped the EU’s member states into four categories based on their national approaches to relations with, as well as their preferences for, the EU’s policies towards China. In this typology, the UK, at the time governed by New Labour, was deigned an “Ideological Free Trader”—seeking to facilitate greater free trade while continuing to assert its ideological position, namely in the areas of democracy and human rights. Since the Conservative Party took the reins of power in 2010 (in coalition with the Liberal Democrats until 2015), China’s prominence on the UK’s foreign policy agenda has arguably increased. This paper examines the direction of the UK’s China policy since 2010, and asks whether the label “Ideological Free Trader” remains applicable. Through qualitative analysis of the evolving policy approach, it argues that while early policy stances appeared consistent with the descriptor, the emphasis on free trade has grown considerably whilst the normative (ideological) dimension has diminished. Consequently, the UK should be redefined as an “Accommodating Free Trader” (an amalgamation of two of Fox and Godement’s original groups—“Accommodating Mercantilist” and “Ideological Free Trader”). At time of publication, the journal operated under the old name. When quoting please refer to the citation on the left using British Journal of Chinese Studies. The pdf of the article still reflects the old journal name; issue number and page range are consistent. Picture credit: Georgina Coupe


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cliff Morgan ◽  
Bob Campbell ◽  
Terri Teleen

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-61
Author(s):  
William Matthews

The canonised Yijing had a decisive influence over the development of so-called “correlative cosmology” in China’s early imperial period, presenting the cosmos as knowable through sixty-four hexagrams and classifiable according to eight trigrams. The exact nature of these correlative categories continues to inspire debate. On the one hand, they appear to be defined relationally, but on the other they purport to describe everything in the cosmos in terms of fixed principles. These apparently discordant properties can be reconciled by paying due attention to the role of scale. This is revealed through a focus on the hexagram images as two distinct but interrelated forms of analogy, as human constructs for symbolic manipulation and as empirical descriptors of cosmic circumstances. Adopting perspectives from cognitive linguistics and anthropology, this symbolic manipulation allows unknown situations to be understood metaphorically via the hexagrams, and then metonymically incorporated into a natural category of cosmic circumstances. This transition between metaphoric and metonymic relations is a function of scale, and is reflected in the Yijing’s correlative categories. These correspond to perceived absolute natural kinds, but maintain a relational character dependant on the salience of metaphorical and metonymic relations at different scales. At time of publication, the journal operated under the old name. When quoting please refer to the citation on the left using British Journal of Chinese Studies. The pdf of the article still reflects the old journal name; issue number and page range are consistent.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Eve ◽  
Tom Grady

In late 2020, COPIM, an Arcadia and Research England funded project, announced an innovative revenue model to sustainably fund open access (OA) monographs: Opening the Future. This initiative harnesses the power of collective library funding: increasing collections through special access to highly-regarded backlists, and expanding the global shared OA collection while providing a less risky path for smaller publishers to make frontlist monographs OA. We introduced this model at the 15th Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing 2020 but this is no ‘story so far’ conference presentation proposal. Since Opening the Future launched, we’ve seen several other collective library funding models emerge in quick succession, including MIT’s Direct 2 Open, Michigan’s Fund to Mission, and Cambridge University Press’ Flip it Open. In the same year, the UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) new policy was announced, and it included OA requirements for monographs. The landscape is clearly changing rapidly - in this presentation we will appraise our model in the context of this changing environment. The programme has had success since its launch. Within a few months the first publisher to adopt the model, CEU Press, had accrued enough library support to fund their first three OA monographs. Soon thereafter the initiative was recognised by the publishing community and nominated for an ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing. And the programme is growing; a second well-respected publisher, Liverpool University Press, launched with Opening the Future in June 2021. The COPIM project has now begun to turn its focus to the thorny problem of scaling up. But herein lies a tension. OA monograph publishing needs to be sustainable not just for publishers, but also for libraries. Opening the Future was designed to be low-cost and simple, slotting into acquisitions budgets and existing library purchasing workflows. However, as we bring the programme to more university presses and libraries, how do we ensure we are not just adding another circle to the OA labyrinth that libraries are attempting to navigate? How might Opening the Future scale without increasing the administrative and decision-making burden already on collections and scholarly communications teams, who are already picking through a tangle of transformative agreements, pay-to-publish deals, author affiliations, and legacy subscriptions?  In this session, we will engage the audience through these questions, as well as discuss the role of the programme in the wider policy landscape and how it is positioned alongside other emerging OA collective funding initiatives.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian O'Connor ◽  
May Copsey

See video of the presentation.The Royal Society of Chemistry recognises that researchers are increasingly being mandated to publish Open Access (OA), but do not always have the funding to pay for it directly. Our presentation would outline the RSC’s view on Open Access, and how as a society publisher we are supporting the funder-led evolution to Gold open access with a Gold for Gold initiative, ensuring academics can further increase the visibility of their quality research, and fulfil their funder mandate. The presentation will show how this initiative has been successfully piloted in the UK, which has been one of the first countries to mandate Open Access, and is now available to all our authors worldwide. The presentation will also cover some of the activities that the RSC is undertaking to support researchers with the dissemination of their research and to ensure the impact of this is maximised.


2009 ◽  
pp. 23-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Radygin

The article deals with key tendencies in the development of Russia’s market of mergers and acquisitions in the first decade of the 21st century. Quantitative parameters are analyzed by using available in the open access data bases for the years 2003-2008 taking into consideration new tendencies relating to 2008 financial crisis. An active role of the state played in the market of corporate control represents an important factor. Special attention is given to issues of development of Russia’s system of legal norms regulating the market of mergers and acquisitions.


Author(s):  
Feryad A. Hussain

Radicalisation to violent action is not just a problem in foreign lands. Research has identified numerous politico–psychosocial factors to explain why young people from the UK are now joining terrorist groups such as ISIS. Our understanding has been expanded by the accounts of “returnees” who have subsequently either self-deradicalised or joined a government deradicalisation programme in the role of an Intervention Provider (IP). These individuals are now key to the deradicalisation programme. This article presents the reflections of a clinical psychologist who worked within a social healthcare team managing psychosocial issues related to radicalisation, in conjunction with an allocated IP. The project involved individuals from the Muslim community and, as such, issues discussed are specific to this group. It is acknowledged that the process in general is universally applicable to all groups though specifics may vary (under Trust agreement, details may not be discussed). This article also aims to share basic information on the current Home Office deradicalisation programme and raises questions about the current intervention. It also offers reflections on how the work of IPs may be facilitated and supported by clinical/counselling psychologists and psychotherapists.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. K. Razumova ◽  
N. N. Litvinova ◽  
M. E. Shvartsman ◽  
A. Yu. Kuznetsov

Introduction. The paper presents survey results on the awareness towards and practice of Open Access scholarly publishing among Russian academics.Materials and Methods. We employed methods of statistical analysis of survey results. Materials comprise results of data processing of Russian survey conducted in 2018 and published results of the latest international surveys. The survey comprised 1383 respondents from 182 organizations. We performed comparative studies of the responses from academics and research institutions as well as different research areas. The study compares results obtained in Russia with the recently published results of surveys conducted in the United Kingdom and Europe.Results. Our findings show that 95% of Russian respondents support open access, 94% agree to post their publications in open repositories and 75% have experience in open access publishing. We did not find any difference in the awareness and attitude towards open access among seven reference groups. Our analysis revealed the difference in the structure of open access publications of the authors from universities and research institutes. Discussion andConclusions. Results reveal a high level of awareness and support to open access and succeful practice in the open access publications in the Russian scholarly community. The results for Russia demonstrate close similarity with the results of the UK academics. The governmental open access policies and programs would foster the practical realization of the open access in Russia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document