Live data from Hacker News

Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

bjoern.brembs.net

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#121

Can anyone explain why it is not possible to publish your work as a PDF or to a free/open platform at the same time you submit it to the journal? It this somehow prevented legally in the terms of the journals?

Yes, it is prevented legally. When a journal agrees to publish your work they require you to sign over copyright to them.

The terms may vary on the transfer of copyright, but in general you are not authorized to self-host a free version of your article. You can sometimes pay the journal a significant amount of money to make it open access to the public.

Some authors, myself included, ignore the agreement and still host free copies.

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#122
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for your money here refers both to a potential reader, and the the author of the article.

The latter is a point that's often forgotten, and is very true. I used to do research a long time ago, prior to deciding I'm not quite academia material. If I ever get nostalgic, I literally have to pay between 30 USD and 100 USD just to get PDFs of articles that I wrote. Of course, this is upsetting only on a personal level, but the entire process is extremely toxic to learning.

I don't think it's just on a personal level. The lack of access to journal articles is actually quite detrimental to public discourse. Last year I got into an online debate with a relative about the legacy of Rachel Carson. He was claiming that she purposefully misrepresented the findings of two journal articles to overstate the danger posed by DDT.

I wanted to see for myself, but it would cost me $45 each for these two 5-page papers that were 50-years-old. Luckily, I have a relative who is a Professor and she got me the papers, which I then directly quoted in the thread to show Carson was quoting the papers verbatim.

My relative responded by claiming I was lying. With dozens of friends and family members munching popcorn and watching our debate, the only thing I could to to defend myself was to post the papers online illegally in my defense.

I won the debate (or at least was able to walk away from it knowing nothing would convince my opponent), but in the process of researching this subject, I have found dozens of publications making the same false claims about Carson and her legacy. With few readers being able to fact-check the claims by simply having access to two 5-page 50-year-old papers the debate is complete he-said/she-said.

I fully support this civil disobedience. Defending the name of a historical figure is one thing, but when people can't get access to health research, it endangers lives.

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#123
post #116

Can anyone explain why it is not possible to publish your work as a PDF or to a free/open platform at the same time you submit it to the journal? It this somehow prevented legally in the terms of the journals?

I'd also be interested in this answer. What I have done is email researchers directly asking for a PDF and they have been happy to give me one. Often some of the authors have their own site where they add links to their own papers. Now, is this because these authors are exercising their own right to distribute their work, and many other authors don't want to expend that effort? The copyrights don't change after all,…

It all depends on the terms of the copyright transfer, which is based on the historic relationship between author and publisher.

It used to be that when you published a paper and transferred copyright, you received a number of copies of the publication for yourself. You could send these out to others who wanted a copy. This was especially important before xerography machines were common, as it was difficult to make your own copies.

Even in the 1990s, an academic researcher might get a postcard asking for a reprint to be sent in the mail.

So research publishing has long had a tradition where the author has a limited right to redistribute copies directly. (To be certain, the publisher made the reprints so this wasn't part of copyright but rather a codified expectation of the author/publisher relationship.)

This tradition was carried over into electronic publication Why? Consider the 1990s and early 2000s when the transition to electronic journals took place, and imagine the authors up in arms for having that distribution ability taken away.

This is why you can get a copy from the author. It's sometimes also formally specified that author may also distribute a copy on a personal or research web page. Sometimes this permission is for the author's final draft version, and not the proof copy used for the publication.

But there wasn't a tradition of sending the paper to a tertiary reprint service.

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#124

One aspect of Aaron Swartz's case that I found both interesting and way under-reported, was that he supposedly was going to perform meta-analysis against the collected documents. And that a previous meta-analysis of a similar sort had revealed some surprising and useful results. With all the pieces locked up, it is difficult if not impossible to do such science and statistical analysis. In other words, it is antithet…

Tangentially related: is anyone here familiar with automated analysis of research papers? I feel this is a field that would perfectly lend itself to machine learning, or similar approaches. It would require extraction of meaningful data, be therein lies the rub. There are several large projects looking into collecting/sharing scientific data, mainly focusing on persuading and empowering researchers to share their ful…

The field is called text mining or literature data mining.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_mining

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#125
A simple fair circumvent: Any freely published article should not be allowed to be cited by a non-free one.

This puts the power into the hands of the author, who could decide if they want this as part of the open license. Rather than the current robinhood type system.

Does this already exist, anyone seen anything similar?

(edited, typo)

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#126
post #125

A simple fair circumvent: Any freely published article should not be allowed to be cited by a non-free one. This puts the power into the hands of the author, who could decide if they want this as part of the open license. Rather than the current robinhood type system. Does this already exist, anyone seen anything similar? (edited, typo)

There's no law which would allow somebody to enforce such a thing. Citing somebody's work doesn't have a copyright effect.

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#127

This whole story and the narrative of "civil activist Alexandra Elbakyan" sickens me to no end. In reality, Alexandra is an avid supporter of Putin's regime and a borderline fascist (in the original sense of cooperative state). Last year, when Dynasty non-profit fund (which sponsored thousands of Russian researchers, mostly in natural sciences) got expelled from Russia because of political reasons, she welcomed it be…

So maybe this shows that people don't fit neatly into categories like "good" and "bad", they can do both, and shades of grey in-between.

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#128
post #126
post #125

A simple fair circumvent: Any freely published article should not be allowed to be cited by a non-free one. This puts the power into the hands of the author, who could decide if they want this as part of the open license. Rather than the current robinhood type system. Does this already exist, anyone seen anything similar? (edited, typo)

There's no law which would allow somebody to enforce such a thing. Citing somebody's work doesn't have a copyright effect.

Couldn't it form part of the access agreement to the free article?

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#129

One aspect of Aaron Swartz's case that I found both interesting and way under-reported, was that he supposedly was going to perform meta-analysis against the collected documents. And that a previous meta-analysis of a similar sort had revealed some surprising and useful results. With all the pieces locked up, it is difficult if not impossible to do such science and statistical analysis. In other words, it is antithet…

Tangentially related: is anyone here familiar with automated analysis of research papers? I feel this is a field that would perfectly lend itself to machine learning, or similar approaches. It would require extraction of meaningful data, be therein lies the rub. There are several large projects looking into collecting/sharing scientific data, mainly focusing on persuading and empowering researchers to share their ful…

Andrej Karpathy (OpenAI) does this to an extent with machine learning papers from arXiv: http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/

Re: Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

#130
post #17

I've said in a previous comment, sci-hub is pure civil disobedience of the noble kind. In fact i thought it would be impossible to ever sue her, because there is no moral argument that can outweigh what she offers. I use sci-hub all the time because my institution doesn't have access to all the sci journals, and i want access to ALL the knowledge for which millions of taxpayers have paid for (but they don't know wher…

According to MLK, civil disobedience is only just when you accept the penalties prescribed by law.
Post reply on HN