Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
Mendeley growing rapidly; alternative model for repositories
John MacColl, Mendeley scrobbles your papers, HangingTogether, September 24, 2009.
Comment. To me, the better analogy may be Napster. I don't necessarily mean that pejoratively: both Napster and Mendeley watch a folder on the user's computer and automatically share files in that folder. That takes the effort out of sharing, which means more documents get shared. It also means that metadata will often be incomplete or inaccurate. In addition, since there's less emphasis on copyright compliance, I'd suspect that some authors may share documents in ways that violate their publisher's contract -- more so than traditional repositories. In short, the Mendeley model seems to have some major advantages over traditional repositories, but also some significant shortcomings vis-à-vis traditional repository goals. I think there's a place for both in a healthy scholarly communications ecosystem, with both competition and collaboration. See also our past posts on Mendeley. Update. See also Dorothea Salo's comments. |