Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers • Hacker News Board

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#91

Post by saladeen » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:05 AM UTC

dotdi wrote: post #7

Nazzareno wrote: post #4

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.

You probably just paste DOI codes there like most of us. Originally, sci-hub supported searching for codewords/topics (by using Google Scholar), but then their IPs got banned from Google Scholar and the workaround is to install this extension. It modifies Google Scholar pages so that all links to paywalled articles are replaced with links to sci-hub pdfs of same articles. Google would never approve this extension, so you need to install it in dev-mode.

But again, for most people's usage, it's completely unnecessary. Paste DOI -> get pdf works without any 'extensions' necessary.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#92

Post by lawl » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:06 AM UTC

erikbye wrote: post #31

This reminds me of Aaron Swartz's fight. People have made great sacrifices for this. Information that can lead to or enhance knowledge and learning shouldn't be behind closed doors.

Aaron Swartz's death brings tears to my eyes to this day. Even if I have never met him, or talked to him. Or actually ever really heard of him until he had to take his life.

There's a great documentary about this extraordinary guy I assume most have already seen, but I'll post it again anyways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#93

Post by azangru » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:08 AM UTC

xwvvvvwx wrote: post #13

Sci-Hub represents everything that is good about the internet.

Well, not really.

Sci-Hub has a founder. A founder that may be sometimes be a benevolent dictator, and sometimes not. For example, very recently, this very founder got offended by Russian social media, in which some academics said something unflattering about her, and a biologist apparently named a newly discovered species of parasitic wasp after her. So she blocked Sci-Hub for all Russian IPs. For about a week. And lifted that ban after a number of humble petitions in Russian social media asking her to change her mind.

To represent everything that is good about the internet, Sci-Hub should have been impersonal. Like archive.org perhaps, or pubmed, or thepiratebay. Unfortunately, it is not.

But it's definitely a good thing we have it, anyway.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#94

Post by saladeen » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:10 AM UTC

fiala__ wrote: post #71

The only thing that worries me about SciHub is the fact that according to her Wikipedia article, the founder shows the exact symptoms of a freedom fighter turned Putin's mouthpiece, similar to Assange etc. I have a problem with academic freedom being preached from hotel rooms paid for by the most repressive, warmongering and manipulative regime in Europe.

Russia is not the most repressive regime in Europe. Are you forgetting Belarus?

My 2c: you also show all symptoms of being a Soros/ShareBlue shill, considering how you try to weave in unrelated politically charged smear content targeting Ass-Angel, into a discussion about a site enabling academic freedom.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#95

Post by JohnStrange » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:14 AM UTC

roystonvassey wrote: post #18

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!

Almost all top journals are in the hands of just a few global players such as DeGruyter, Elsevier, Springer, Sage, and Oxford Journals. These companies have lured independent journals into their traps by offering free Editorial Management Systems and other help to them or buying them. They have been doing that for many decades, with the result that there are only very few independent journals run by universities themselves left.

We are trying to fight this by making our own open source journals, but it will take decades to replace to old, well-established journals if it happens at all. Until then, if you don't publish in a sizable number of firewalled/copyrighted top journals, your career will end at the postdoc level.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#96

Post by eatplayrove » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:15 AM UTC

dobecker wrote: post #63

eatplayrove wrote: post #20

For those who use Telegram, there is a Telegram bot, where you send it the DOI or the URL and it sends you the PDF -- so much easier than legally accessing the file.

would be great if you could share the contact

should have mentioned in my comment: @scihubot

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#97

Post by fsloth » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:15 AM UTC

roystonvassey wrote: post #18

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!

ELI5: Simplistically, academics don't get paid to write papers. The most important thing they get from writing papers is peer prestige. Which they need to be employed in an academic role. The academics are paid by the institutions which hire them, from research grants, and so on. The only link with financial renumeration and the papers is that the better reputation an academic has, the the better their financial situation is.

Publishers require expensive subscriptions from academic universities to be able to read their published papers.

So actually it goes the other way around. Academics have to pay to read papers, and to write papers.

Scihub does not steal a dime from any original contributor. They actually save money from them.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#98

Post by saladeen » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:16 AM UTC

sleepychu wrote: post #84

dangom wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bot doesn't always find what the website does, though.

Sounds like a bug :-)

The site returns direct pdf links only for paywalled journals. If you put in a DOI for an article that's hosted on a free-access journal, the site redirects you to the article's page on the journal, so you can download the pdf directly from them. This behavior might be the cause?

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#99

Post by azangru » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:19 AM UTC

fiala__ wrote: post #71

The only thing that worries me about SciHub is the fact that according to her Wikipedia article, the founder shows the exact symptoms of a freedom fighter turned Putin's mouthpiece, similar to Assange etc. I have a problem with academic freedom being preached from hotel rooms paid for by the most repressive, warmongering and manipulative regime in Europe.

I regard SciHub as a useful tool for accessing research papers when I need them. The founder's political stance is irrelevant. I am a bit disappointed by her snap decision to block access to Sci-Hub from Russian IPs for the brief while that she felt offended by someone from the Russian academia, but that disappointment is only about that she allowed her personal grievances to influence the service. That hurts reliability of this instrument somewhat.

Re: Sci-Hub: Public access to research papers

#100

Post by Pica_soO » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 10:20 AM UTC

Vinnl wrote: post #77

Pica_soO wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They basically work as a "neutral" refree and communication medium between competing groups and meta groups (universitys) and create a neutral evaluation of the goods these rivaling organisations produce. The reason they are not replaced is for the same reason, stocktrading places can not simply be "replaced"- aka you cant open up a competing wall-street.

> create a neutral evaluation of the goods these rivaling organisations produce Well... They mostly facilitate the evaluation of the goods. The evaluation itself is still done by scientists and scholars that are not employed by the publishers.

If those would routinely abuse the power bestowed upon them, they would threaten the magazines. Its in there own best interest to not abuse there review-powers, or there reputation could be ruined by the very same marketplace.

You cant just open another marketplace at the same location, because that has you at a automatic disadvantage. You could however ruin the marketplaces reputation, trying to shift customers to yours. You can also, wrap the market-place as in- provide a vital layer they need to function, and thus turn them into a organella of a bigger market-place.