Live data from Hacker News

Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

sci-hub.cc

61–70 of 166 posts

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#61
post #45

Sci-Hub's an important player in the transition to Open Access. Note, however, that many papers are already available elsewhere (e.g. ArXiv), legally. You can use the OAButton [1] or Unpaywall [2] extensions if you hit a paywall to find a free version. They're not perfect, and solve a problem that shouldn't exist, but it's nice that they're there. [1] https://openaccessbutton.org/ [2] http://unpaywall.org/

Yes, many papers are available ... somewhere ... if you know precisely where to look for them and find them.

The great thing about Sci-Hub, and a not-inconsequential element of its success, is that it is very nearly universal. Content is simply available in the archive in a tremendous number of cases. And is directly referenceable by DOI (or, when it's working, direct search).

The size of an archive matters as it reduces search costs across archives (this is a reason why archives tend to "a single max-size dump" dynamics). If you look at lists of the world's largest libraries, for example, it's pretty much the U.S. Library of Congress, and ... everything else. Even at the university library level, the largest collections tend to be fairly uniform at about 15-20 million volumes (Harvard, University of California, etc.).

The fact that a scholar can go to one such institution and have access to their entire archive is a compelling advantage. Shoe-leather adds up when you're crossing provincial or national borders.

Similar dynamics drove the adoption of single scholarly languages -- Greek, Latin, Arabic, Latin (again), French, German, and (in a battle with German and Russian) English following the 2nd world war, given that works had to be translated only to one language (English) rather than mulitiple.

Similar arguments, compounded by the insane costs of scribe and codex formation, applied in the pre-print era.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#62
post #28

ELI5: I'm not from academia so please help me understand. Are researchers who publish these [firewalled/copyrighted] papers likely to lose out on their earnings if this is 'open-sourced'? I'm honestly asking as I try to think through the whole 'open-source' paradigm and how it fits in a (mostly) capitalist, libertarian world. Thanks!

1. You produce novel research. 2. You submit novel research to the best journal you think will publish it. 3. The editor (the only person involved actually paid by the journal) invites other researchers to volunteer their time to peer review your research. 4. Assuming your research bears up under scrutiny and the peer reviewers are not actually competitors who decide to filibuster (this happens), your paper passes pe…

Not all fields suffer from this to the same degree. For example, I am a fledgling computing scientist. I mostly publish in ACM-related conferences and workshops, where ACM is an organisation run by and for academics and professionals in the computing field, not a for-profit publisher. My submission experience is:

1. You produce novel research.

2. You submit novel research to the best conference or workshop you think will publish it.

3. The editor (a volunteer) invites other researchers to volunteer their time to peer review your research.

4. Assuming your research bears up under scrutiny and the peer reviewers are not actually competitors who decide to reject (this supposedly happens, but is rare), your paper passes peer review.

5. Congratulations! The conference or workshop agrees to publish your novel research. For this, you generally must show up to the conference or workshop to present your work in person. This costs money (conference registration), and also travel cost and such. However, if you were going to the conference anyway, there is no added expenditure.

6. Having been paid by you to publish your work, ACM sells your paper at somewhat exorbitant prices to university libraries (unless you paid them lots extra to just make it available for free). However, at no cost to you, you are also explicitly allowed to post a "pre-print", identical to the published paper, on your personal/university website, where it will be promptly found by Google. However, the hosting is your own concern. (You can also upload the preprint to arXiv.)

It's a decent procedure. ACM also publishes journals, which do not require you to present anything in person. I do not know whether any author-borne costs are involved if you go that route.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#64
post #7

It scares me actually, when trying a search I got this: поиск временно недоступен. пожалуйста, используйте DOI или прямые ссылки search temporarily unavailable, please use DOI or direct links If you're using Google chrome, you can install Sci-Hub extension to use search. To do this: Download the extension and unpack it. You get the "Sci-Hub" folder with code. Open Chrome and navigate to chrome://extensions, or just o…

I am an avid user of Sci-hub and I never saw this before.

It's the message that shows up when you try searching. It says that "search temporarily unavailable, please use DOI or direct links" and then under that "If you're using Google chrome, you can install Sci-Hub extension to use search", with instructions. I've installed it in the past and it does work, but I was also wary about enabling developer mode and Chrome would nag me on startup each time that it was unsafe so I ended up disabling it. Here's the full text: https://pastebin.com/6RnRJYUa.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#66
What the academic publishing industry calls "theft" the world calls "research": Why Sci-Hub is so popular

https://redd.it/4p2rwk

A piece I'd written a year or so back on why Sci-Hub is such a compelling option for academic and independent researchers. It's been picked up by a number of OA sites in the past few months.

As for Internet research gems, I'd also like to note a self-created resource that could use love, the Online Etymology Dictionary, produced by Douglas Harper. Unlike Sci-Hub, this is original work largely created to support Harper's own etymological explorations. I've found it tremendously useful, and very much in the spirit of the original web (of which it is very much a part).

https://redd.it/75k35m

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#67
post #62
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You produce novel research. 2. You submit novel research to the best journal you think will publish it. 3. The editor (the only person involved actually paid by the journal) invites other researchers to volunteer their time to peer review your research. 4. Assuming your research bears up under scrutiny and the peer reviewers are not actually competitors who decide to filibuster (this happens), your paper passes pe…

Not all fields suffer from this to the same degree. For example, I am a fledgling computing scientist. I mostly publish in ACM-related conferences and workshops, where ACM is an organisation run by and for academics and professionals in the computing field, not a for-profit publisher. My submission experience is: 1. You produce novel research. 2. You submit novel research to the best conference or workshop you think…

So does the piracy affect you? Are you in favor of sites like sci-hub?

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#68
post #34

After I graduated I gave off the credentials to my university's online library to my sister, who studied at another university, which didn't have the proper literature even though its profile(agricultural engineering) was much closer to her field than mine(computer science/electrical engineering). She should have had access to that literature without all this.

That worked great for your sister. What about those researchers living let's say in Brazil, where Universities cannot afford huge subscription prices? The only alternative is SciHub...

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#70
post #60
post #44

I'm surprised that this isn't old news for every HN reader. Did something change that I'm overlooking?

Indeed. How can scihub be on #1 on the HN homepage?

I think it is evidence that there a lot more new HN users than old HN users now. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just an observation.
Post reply on HN