Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science • Hacker News Board

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#41

Post by tosseraccount » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

travjones wrote: post #19

I've used sci-hub a few times. It's a little buggy and not every article can be accessed, but it works well enough to try when I'm not on campus. $30 to read a single article is ridiculous anyway and presents a barrier to scientists who don't have, can't afford, or don't want to pay for access. I hope sci-hub stays up and improves for some time.

Most papers have some to all public funding behind them. Even papers from Stanford and MIT.

Shouldn't the public have free access? We paid for them.

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#42

Post by smanzer » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #34

smanzer wrote: post #21

Good for them. For the last article that I published, the publisher "value added" consisted of highlighting all the all-caps names in my document and asking me to define them as acronyms. Literally the only thing they did, and it wasn't even right.

Didn't they also hassle people to review it (for free of course). That's the only thing that would be a bit hard to replace by a totally free service.

They do. They route it to the editor (senior academic), who routes it to appropriate reviewers. I think that the editor does it for free too in many cases. I feel like running ads on the site would pay for the bandwidth, only thing a totally free service couldn't replace is the prestige :(

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#43

Post by smanzer » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

Rainymood wrote: post #39

(1) Isnt this illegal? (2) How do they get access to those papers?

(1) Yes. In USA anyway. Creator is not in USA, however. (2) Academics donate their institutional login credentials to the site.

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#44

Post by tombrossman » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #16

Jeaye wrote: post #13

Umm, "pirate website" that uses a secure.sci-hub.io, but not actually a secure connection. Really, Let's Encrypt has made this a no-brainer. Anyone making a site should be expected to be using SSL. Especially those making anything related to anything "pirate" or "secure."

Because if there's one thing pirates are known for, it's their commitment to your security.

Pirates that don't pay attention to security don't last very long, so I would tend to agree with that statement.

Try a quick survey of the most popular pirate sites and see how many support HTTPS. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#45

Post by DennisP » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

slantaclaus wrote: post #23

This is what Aaron Swartz was trying to do, right?

Allegedly. All we actually know is that he downloaded a large number of articles.

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#46

Post by smanzer » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:52 PM UTC

Previous HN discussion (article has neat details of how sci-hub works): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11074638

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#47

Post by yason » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

Is there a tarball of the data somewhere that one could download, redistribute and host somewhere (on the darknet, assumedly)?

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#48

Post by calibraxis » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:57 PM UTC

srean wrote: post #11

Hope widespread knowledge about its existence does not kill it.

Partly depends on whether people organize to support it, I guess.

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#49

Post by kasbah » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

mpclark wrote: post #37

lambdaelite wrote: post #20

Silicon Valley and YC don't exactly have a stellar reputation for ethical behavior. Having a "pirate website" at the top of the news page doesn't exactly change that perception. I totally get that journals are evil, and charging money for research generated with public funds is questionable. It's very frustrating as a small entity needing to view articles, and being asked to cough up $25-50. That said, there are legi…

I too am disappointed to see this here, though the young hotheads are obviously out in force today and relishing sticking it to the man. Surely we are better than this. One of the earliest lessons I was taught, and I taught my kids, is that if somebody else has something we want and doesn't want to share it, it's not OK to just take it.

Firstly, copying isn't the same as taking.

More importantly most of the scientists want their research to be read and studied as widely as possible but have their careers to worry about. The journal system is being widely criticised but academics are not in the best position to take action against it.

The dissemination of knowledge, with it's potential for reducing inequality and increasing social mobility, is much more important than the profitability of journal publishers and outweighs the risk of hurt feelings due to a sense of ownership of knowledge (which seems like a fallacy in itself) that anyone involved could possibly have.

Re: Sci-Hub: Removing barriers in the way of science

#50

Post by lambdaelite » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

supergreg wrote: post #38

lambdaelite wrote: post #20

Silicon Valley and YC don't exactly have a stellar reputation for ethical behavior. Having a "pirate website" at the top of the news page doesn't exactly change that perception. I totally get that journals are evil, and charging money for research generated with public funds is questionable. It's very frustrating as a small entity needing to view articles, and being asked to cough up $25-50. That said, there are legi…

Does YC wants to change that perception? In this other thread from today people suggest civil disobedience regarding copyright: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11092016

If they want to seriously engage regulated industries like finance, medical, energy, etc., they need to. As it stands now, an association with them is suspect.