Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 21, 2018, 8:42 AM UTC

ksk wrote: post #95

jMyles wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By posting this link, are you trying to indicate a belief that I am exhibiting this fallacy? Can you explain how? GP asked, "Why are people breaking copyright law?" I thought I gave a reasonably solid explanation - some of the people in question aren't breaking copyright law while others (certainly a good number of people here on HN) don't regard copyright law as a legitimate imposition of state power in the informat…

You are applying propositional logic rigor to a comment made in a casual setting that you fail to apply to your own position. Let me show you how.. >Not everyone lives in a jurisdiction where copyright law exists. How many? How did you gather this data? > Among those who do, not everyone lives in a jurisdiction where this action is a violation of that law. How did you survey the jurisdictions of people accessing this…

Post by unixhero » Mon, May 21, 2018, 8:58 AM UTC

Kognito wrote: post #34

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #25

Not being in a scientific field, one of the previous times this came up I asked if any of the working scientists felt like SciHub had positively impacted their work: exposing them to more papers than they would have read, guiding them in different ways, etc. and the answer was a pretty overwhelming "ohmygodyes". From the outside, it's very difficult to see this as anything but a public good. It certainly seems like l…

As an undergraduate in the UK whose university doesn’t have the greatest subscription collection, Sci-Hub has literally enabled me to write my dissertation as there is no way I could have afforded the individual cost of the papers I’ve needed to reference. I can only imagine what it is like in poorer parts of the world in terms of access to subscriptions, or lack thereof.

Post by lucb1e » Mon, May 21, 2018, 9:06 AM UTC

s0rce wrote: post #68

ksk wrote: post #62

Why are people breaking copyright law, instead of questioning the researchers who voluntarily approach the journals? Why not ask the researchers if they'd consider sharing their work? Or convince them of an alternative means of publication. There is no one-handed clap.

It can take days to weeks to hear back from a busy researcher to get a copy of their paper. Half the time you skim it and determine that its not useful. Sci-hub is instant.

Post by kingkongjaffa » Mon, May 21, 2018, 9:08 AM UTC

albutr wrote: post #58

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #25

Not being in a scientific field, one of the previous times this came up I asked if any of the working scientists felt like SciHub had positively impacted their work: exposing them to more papers than they would have read, guiding them in different ways, etc. and the answer was a pretty overwhelming "ohmygodyes". From the outside, it's very difficult to see this as anything but a public good. It certainly seems like l…

Definitely a great resource, but (thankfully) it's almost completely redundant in a lot of fields. I'm willing to bet almost no one in my department has ever actually used it, or even heard of it, thanks to preprint servers like arXiv where almost everyone publishes their work for free on their own (usually either before or after publishing in a real journal, but some subfields have taken to exclusively publishing th…

Post by rocqua » Mon, May 21, 2018, 9:39 AM UTC

sktrdie wrote: post #124

This is awesome. If only we could share this huge dump of PDF files as a more structured format, perhaps using SQLite [1, 2], we could search through the torrents without having to wait for all of them to download beforehand. Although I guess the fact of having to "download them all beforehand" forces the data to be spread across various computers, hence increases availability of the data. One idea I had regarding th…