Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–237 of 237 posts

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#231

Post by return0 »

devishard wrote: post #228
return0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The onus is on the scientists. Elsevier does its job. If you were given a golden ring as a gift every day, I bet you would end up opening a jewelry shop as well. Even if scientists want to use alternative open access publishers, it's a game of who blinks first. They won't do it because their colleagues don't.

> The onus is on the scientists. Elsevier does its job. If you were given a golden ring as a gift every day, I bet you would end up opening a jewelry shop as well. The idea that Elsevier is somehow not responsible for their actions because they're just doing their job is abhorrent, and I entirely reject it. If what you do is actively harmful to society, the onus is on you to fix it. Yes, the onus is also on scientist…

I disagree. They have a choice, yet they choose them instead of the alternatives, and they knowingly accept all the access policies, even checking the "accept the terms" checkbox. TBH this whole thing seems like a simple problem to me - publishing is not the purpose of science. Elsevier can't fix the problem that scientists don't have a way to assess the quality of other scientists' work.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#232

Post by semi-extrinsic »

dougmccune wrote: post #165
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In STM you can make the legit argument that all published research should be open access and the cost of that should come out of the same funding that funded the research. There is no cost of publishing your/my papers as open access. Just follow these easy steps: 1. Write paper, send to journal 2. Do the peer review hokey pokey until paper is accepted 3. Upload preprint version to preprint server (arXiv etc.), with…

That hokey pokey you refer to does cost money. So yes, you can use a system that has costs associated with it, then attempt to ensure those costs can't be recouped. But if that's successful the system will collapse. I assume you'd think that would be good in this case. But I find it funny reasoning to say you should opt-in to publisher-facilitated peer review while trying to tear it down. Wouldn't avoiding publishers…

Yes, it costs money, but it's not being paid for by Elsevier. Referees receive zero money, editors receive zero (or perhaps a nominal fee). The copyediting costs a bit, but it is low-skill labor and can mostly be optimised away (many journals already accept camera-ready copies directly from the authors).

What I see publishers mainly providing is ranking and filtering (and branding to some extent). ACS has their top level journal (JACS) and several subfield-specific journals, and usually there are ACS journals with different prestige in each subfield. ACS, APS and other non-profit science organisations do a fairly good job at it IMO.

Forbidding for-profit publishers would be my preferred option.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#234

Post by maxander »

return0 wrote: post #231
devishard wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The onus is on the scientists. Elsevier does its job. If you were given a golden ring as a gift every day, I bet you would end up opening a jewelry shop as well. The idea that Elsevier is somehow not responsible for their actions because they're just doing their job is abhorrent, and I entirely reject it. If what you do is actively harmful to society, the onus is on you to fix it. Yes, the onus is also on scientist…

I disagree. They have a choice, yet they choose them instead of the alternatives, and they knowingly accept all the access policies, even checking the "accept the terms" checkbox. TBH this whole thing seems like a simple problem to me - publishing is not the purpose of science. Elsevier can't fix the problem that scientists don't have a way to assess the quality of other scientists' work.

> Elsevier can't fix the problem that scientists don't have a way to assess the quality of other scientists' work.

You are aware, I hope, that Elsevier curates the content of its journals by literally sending the papers to other scientists and asking their opinion, right? And that the scientists don't get paid for this work, they do it our of goodwill to the scientific community. That's peer-review, and its one of the most preposterous things for any for-profit entity to have a hand in.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#235

Post by foepys »

tzs wrote: post #229
chrismonsanto wrote: post #123

> Meanwhile, academic pirates continue to flood to Sci-Hub, domain seizure or not. I realize readers of torrentfreak.com have a different relationship with the word "pirate" but-- This is not piracy. You are entitled to read work from Sci-Hub, as your taxes funded the researchers who created the work. We academics want you to read our work, we do not benefit in any way from publisher paywalls. We continue to publish…

> You are entitled to read work from Sci-Hub, as your taxes funded the researchers who created the work. Am I entitled to a joy ride in an F-15, as my taxes funded its purchase?

Yes, you are. You only have to fulfill the requirements to make sure you don't destroy it within a few seconds and aren't a danger to others. It may take a few years but you can get a fully tax-funded education on flying an F-15.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#236

Post by mariuolo »

collinmanderson wrote: post #206
oneloop wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would a sort of decentralized DNS be possible?

Though even if we decentralize DNS, ICANN controls all of the underlying IP addresses.

> Though even if we decentralize DNS, ICANN controls all of the underlying IP addresses.

IANA would have to un-delegate a whole range from RIPE.

I don't see that happening unless they want to fracture the network.

Perhaps Elsevier will be able to force ISPs to blacklist that particular IP, but nothing more.

I also suspect they will move the domain under a ccTLD, not subject to the whims of ICANN.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#237

Post by tptacek »

foepys wrote: post #235
tzs wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are entitled to read work from Sci-Hub, as your taxes funded the researchers who created the work. Am I entitled to a joy ride in an F-15, as my taxes funded its purchase?

Yes, you are. You only have to fulfill the requirements to make sure you don't destroy it within a few seconds and aren't a danger to others. It may take a few years but you can get a fully tax-funded education on flying an F-15.

No you are not.

Only a tiny subset of people who want to fly fighter jets get to do that, even if they select the Air Force as a career. The superset of people who are excluded from flying fighter jets includes a large number of people who are safety-qualified to fly them.

The opportunity to fly fighter jets is approximately as difficult to obtain as admission to an Ivy League school. Zero is the number of reasonable people would say that anyone is "entitled" to admission at a selective college.

Post reply on HN