141–150 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone briefly describe how decentralization is achieved in archive.org?
As far as I can tell the storage is quite centralized. At least I remember them allegedly moving all their porcelain to Canada when that elephant entered the room...
https://blog.archive.org/2016/11/29/help-us-keep-the-archive...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will neither admit nor deny supplying my credentials to Sci-hub.
I don't think you'll have to. Both hidden and conspicuous watermarks are common in trade book PDF downloads. RIAA members poisoned the Bit Torrent well. I'm neutral on the matter, but there are some obvious paths of recourse for publishers who don't want people sharing their credentials. (Disclaimer: I work for Crossref, which is an organisation in the scholarly publishing space.)
We think journals make a lot of sense and that the problem is that journals don't control the toolchain.
I notice there's a lot of interest on HN around this subject from time to time. If you work with a journal and want to get in touch or have questions feel free to write me at rwalsh [at] scholasticahq.com
I wish we as scientific community could make some secure, anonymous, shared hosting work for this. With sci-hub as authority and everyone else being able to allocate as much of their local disk space for this. edit: Before someone suggests IPFS: IPFS is not suitable. a) it is not anonymous and b) it duplicates everything for its block storage so you have to have twice the space...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
To be clear to everyone else, the parent and the grandparent have just described respectively conference papers and journal papers. Journal papers are usually a bit longer and represent more work, conference papers are usually shorter and take a bit less time. This of course is a generalization. For example, a PhD thesis might be the full written-up version of 3-4 conference papers you'd have published in the course…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Researchers get paid salaries by their institution. They are not paid for their publications directly, nor for reviewing or editing. All the money from journal subscriptions, book sales and per-article download fees go to the publishers of the journals.
No need to be paid directly when the indirect dollar-value of publication in the right journal can be six figures or more. With such incentive, it's no wonder many researchers skew their work towards whatever increases their chance of publication; dreaming of a Nobel Prize (apparently many in academia spend a lot of time fantasizing about it).
The vast majority of scientists never receive any of these prizes. A lot work in fields where no such prizes exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Researchers want you to pirate their paper as often as possible. You can only cite papers you've read, after all. The only royalty check I've ever seen from research I did is for a chapter of a book, and it was less than a dollar. Royalties don't matter.
> The only royalty check [...] was less than a dollar. And to think that royalty is usually associated with crowns and gold and jewels and such ...
"I remember once, when the money baskey was empty, Dad told Mother that "a royalty was due." I hung around that day because I had never seen a king (I was eight) and when a visitor showed up I was disappointed because he didn't wear a crown. There was money in the basket the next day so I decided that he had been incognito (I was reading The Little Lame Prince) and had tossed Dad a purse of gold-it was at least a year before I found out that a "royalty" could be money from a patent or a book or business stock, and some of the glamour went out of life."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, that doesn't work for academic papers. You usually access them anonymously anyway through your institution (which has a subscription). So even if they watermark (and I don't think they do), they can only watermark the institution.
There are plenty of instances of big-name publishers sending nastygrams to whole institutions and/or cutting them off for perceived abuse.
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…
If academics cannot get together to fix a model so absurdly broken their problem solving capabilities come into question. They had access to the Internet before the general public, they would have realized the ridiculousness of the journal model decades ago. You can't always be a victim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
As an academic, my main interest is that others are able to read my work. If piracy is how they obtain access, then that's fine by me.