Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday August 14 2018, @01:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the on-the-one-hand-information-wants-to-be-expensive…on-the-other-hand,-information-wants-to-be-free dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Despite two lost legal battles in the US, domain name seizures, and millions of dollars in damage claims, Sci-Hub continues to offer unauthorized access to academic papers. The site's founder says that she would rather operate legally, but copyright gets in the way. Sci-Hub is not the problem she argues, it's a solution, something many academics appear to agree with.

Sci-Hub has often been referred to as "The Pirate Bay of Science," but that description really sells the site short.

While both sites are helping the public to access copyrighted content without permission, Sci-Hub has also become a crucial tool that arguably helps the progress of science.

The site allows researchers to bypass expensive paywalls so they can read articles written by their fellow colleagues. The information in these 'pirated' articles is then used to provide the foundation for future research.

What the site does is illegal, according to the law, but Sci-Hub is praised by thousands of researchers and academics around the world. In particular, those who don't have direct access to the expensive journals but aspire to excel in their academic field.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-proves-that-piracy-can-be-dangerously-useful-180804/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14 2018, @02:31PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14 2018, @02:31PM (#721373)

    The academicians like being able to access the work of other academicians so why don't they get together and agree to a new open journal that would also allow the public to access their research, which would improve the openness of information to the public, such as people in the public interested in science?

    People actually do this, at least in some fields. The problem is that journals have a reputation, based on their decisions what to publish and what not to publish, and the reputation of a scientist in turn depends on the reputation of the journals they manage to get their publications in. New journals don't yet have any reputation, which means that publishing in them also means not much reputation building for those sending the papers in, which means people have incentive to continue sending their papers to the existing journals.

    Moreover, not all scientists feel the problem, as the journal is paid for by their institution, and thus the cost does not show up in their own research budget.

    And of course preprint archives like arXiv also help. If the paper is on arXiv, then it can be freely obtained from there, and the journal reference can be seen as just a mark of approval.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by eravnrekaree on Tuesday August 14 2018, @02:53PM (2 children)

    by eravnrekaree (555) on Tuesday August 14 2018, @02:53PM (#721387)

    It sounds like some of the costs of the journals are passed onto the students (via tuition) or to the taxpayer if the universities are public subsidized. Nice.

    • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday August 14 2018, @05:49PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday August 14 2018, @05:49PM (#721446)

      Considering that journals don't review shit anymore, and even journals with a supposedly "high reputation" simply rubber stamp approve any paper that pays the fee... it is no wonder the journals are simply leeches of public money.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday August 15 2018, @04:59AM

      by legont (4179) on Wednesday August 15 2018, @04:59AM (#721680)

      Research is financed by grants and universities take a sizable chunk of it for the "services". That's where money come from. BTW, scientists have no word whatsoever in determining how much they have to "share". However, they are expected to find the grants themselves and may be punished for under-performance.

      So, to answer your concerns, the "institutions" screw everybody.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14 2018, @03:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14 2018, @03:10PM (#721394)

    It think it's worth pointing out that the reputation you speak of is with the tenure committee members and the granting agencies. The scientists I know would be happy to publish anywhere if it carried equal weight with their tenure committee and the grant submissions.

    I'm no longer a scientist, but I hope my papers are available in Sci-Hub for any and all to read. I did the science to advance our collective knowledge, not line the pockets of a publishing company. That was a rude awakening when I entered grad school.