171–180 of 225 posts
Hope widespread knowledge about its existence does not kill it.
http://libgen.io/ which archives the sci-hub's newly accessed papers distributes the copies through BitTorrent. Libgen itself is also mirrored in multiple locations. Even if Sci-hub is taken down, it shouldn't take long for another to pop up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No doubt $30 is expensive, but many journals do provide free access to their content in developing countries.
Kindly give a few examples. Tired of seeing $$ to read beyond the abstract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another option: pay $5 to actual editors and designers, and $15 to reviewers. And save $10. Remember, the publisher typically doesn't even help with paper formatting, never mind copyediting. Unpaid reviewers (who allegedly agree to work for some 'reputation' — BS, they're anonymous) delegate the actual scientific review to the least busy student of those capable to write a syntactic semblance of a positive review. An…
Where do you get good editing and design work for $5? Most reviewers don't want $15 from the author. Quoting http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-20... : > Reviewers divided over incentives: Just over half of reviewers think receiving a payment in kind (e.g. subscription) would make them more likely to review; 41% wanted payment for reviewing, but this drops to just 2.5% if the author had to cove…
I think people haven't totally thought this open access thing through. First, publishing costs money, even in the digital age. It costs money to comb through submissions and decide which ones are worth pursuing. It costs money to hassle scientists into reviewing the submissions. It costs money to convert every submission into the same format. It costs money to develop and host a website to disseminate the articles. A…
Taypayers, as it is now. The difference is, with parasitic incumbents gone, the price will fall down massively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you get good editing and design work for $5? Most reviewers don't want $15 from the author. Quoting http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-20... : > Reviewers divided over incentives: Just over half of reviewers think receiving a payment in kind (e.g. subscription) would make them more likely to review; 41% wanted payment for reviewing, but this drops to just 2.5% if the author had to cove…
I suspect the parent meant $5 per sale; if you were selling millions of copies of papers, you'd have a substantial editing and design budget.
When does it end? I'm reading papers from the 1960s and '70s - where should I send the $5? Do I adjust for inflation? And how do I send Deutsche Marks to West Germany?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just checked, the two most popular public torrent sites have COMODO CA default-on https. These sites do want to maintain security, so their users can keep coming back rather than getting copyright strikes or worse fines and getting scared off. That doesn't stop them from putting viruses in the ad banners, but that is not getting their users arrested.
Except that torrent sites are not necessarily completely used for pirating.
So what is the strategy once Springer starts getting their domains taken down? With torrents this was never a big deal once there was the DHT - it didn't matter which search engines where taken down or which trackers, the torrents lived to see another day. This website at this stage seems particularly easy to take down as it is a centralized weak link. Centralized services work great when they are legitimate: Netflix…
1. The data is stored via lib Gen as torrents (for the PDFs), and a metadata database that is mirrored by hundreds of people.
2. In case of a domain takedown the site can be resurrected at a new domain very quickly - as recently happened when the sci-hub.org domain was taken down after Elsevier sued the Sci-Hub founder.
3. There's an onion site, which can't be disrupted by a centralised domain service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arxiv is by its nature open access; Arxiv does not charge for access. On the other hand, the articles that this site hosts require payment to access. The journals typically charge $30 / article, or roughly $2,000 / year subscription. Note that for both the open access or paid journals, researchers do NOT receive any compensation when users download articles. That is, despite the research being mostly paid by taxpayer…
How come all papers i have come across at the arXiv are readily downloadable as PDF?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely. We should also start owning the term and framing the debate around it. Cast it in positive anti-establishment terms. Like pirate radio, Robin Hood, V4vendetta. Lone, beleaguered hero(s) fighting for the peoples against tyrannical and oppressive regimes.
What might help is if someone started a file sharing site and named it after a place where pirates hung out and incorporated a pirate ship and the word "pirate" into their logo. Then maybe if it became popular these so-called "pirates" could cast off the shame of being tarnished by an image they clearly don't embrace at all.
I think people haven't totally thought this open access thing through. First, publishing costs money, even in the digital age. It costs money to comb through submissions and decide which ones are worth pursuing. It costs money to hassle scientists into reviewing the submissions. It costs money to convert every submission into the same format. It costs money to develop and host a website to disseminate the articles. A…
I think your post has a bit of confusion, because as far as I know, the platforms themselves are not doing the peer review, they're just hosting the content.
The big complaint about these platforms is that the institutions that send out the papers to these platforms do so completely independent of the authors. The platforms do not fund the authors, the institutions do, and for whatever reason, the institutions continue to deal with the platforms.
The platforms themselves are quickly becoming irrelevant. Hosting costs are dropping radically, and the curation methods used by the platforms are very out-dated and more focused on anti-piracy techniques instead of making the information they're hosting accessible. The only reason they're staying relevant is due to the requirement that institutions publish to them, it's not as a result of actual service provided.
The current platforms are a legacy item and they are inhibiting research. Like a lot of old legacy services, at a time they made sense, but more and more they don't.