31–40 of 144 posts
Related to this, I have one question. Suppose one is going to write a paper and he need to add a reference of another paper which he has got from Sci-hub. So is there any check or any sorts of things of originality of reference paper ? (I don't know exactly how publishing works)
Related to this, I have one question. Suppose one is going to write a paper and he need to add a reference of another paper which he has got from Sci-hub. So is there any check or any sorts of things of originality of reference paper ? (I don't know exactly how publishing works)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is: where do you place control of that gate, and what consequences derive from that. Counterpoint: if closed-access journals are no longer the constraint, how does that change the overall academic landscape? For better or worse? Information filters will remain, and they will remain imperfect.
My perhaps biased belief is they aren't any real constraint. Closed journals do have more power than they should, but they are also an effective signaling mechanism: if something is in X you know it's worth paying attention to over the hundreds of thousands of other papers that will get pushed out every year. My personal academic experience has been that as the lowliest student at a uni you get access to everything a…
You'll also find that the question of who controls the mafia itself is of utmost significance to those who control the mafia.
Your comment is rather wide the point.
Likewise, if research output is difficult to access, the feedback loop between ideas and implementation is broken; folks outside academia can't easily comment on the cutting edge work in a field, and academics only have to worry about what other academics think of their work.
I wonder if closed-access publishing is part of why academia seems so insluated from the "real world". People write for their audience, and if the general public can't read academic papers, then academics are going to write as if only other academics are reading. Likewise, if research output is difficult to access, the feedback loop between ideas and implementation is broken; folks outside academia can't easily comme…
Another problem is that even if all the research in the world were freely available, only a small portion of the population would still seek it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Elsevier and others want to keep their monopolies they need to justify the following: How it is possible that they take: - free labor (reviews done by scientists) - free content (articles created by government money mostly) Then they magically become owners of that content and are permitted by society to charge obscene amount of money. Also fuck you and your ignorance, that is why we cannot have nice things.
Was the last bit of incivility really necessary?
What are some street slang bits against a billion dollars money making depravity that keeps the world from spreading the know-how needed to solve problems right now at the front door?
I'll never understand why disrespectful words are more comment-worthy than disrespectful actions at a global scale. At least the former can be ignored. If you really feel that upset help the OP to find the right words to adequately express his overwhelming emotions.
See, I'm old enough to remember this battle starting for music and movies. We know how that ended.
But now, it's for the very knowledge that drives our civilization.
"Stallman was right", oh how that statement is going to get tested.
Being easy to circumvent is a big reason why these for profit journals still exist.