171–180 of 247 posts
This is because some of the research (actually I would wager that at least >half, but don't have any figures to back this claim), is supported by public funds and hence should, by definition, not be copyrightable
I am part of a well-funded university, so I have access to all the papers without using Sci-Hub. Nevertheless, I prefer this platform because I disagree with the publishing model of most publishers. Let's not get into the details here, but there is all kinds of shoddy editorship happening all over the place---I have seen at least one blatant case of plagiarism in an Elsevier journal: no one cares. I have experienced…
> Thus, I disagree with the article: the single minimalist interface is definitely something that contributes to Sci-Hub's popularity. I'm trying to understand what you disagree with in the article. If anything, it complements sci-hub's "alleged seamlessness."
Sci-Hub, more so than RG, therefore seems to have a greater potential for disrupting the current order of things and poses a significant threat to publishers and librarians, who cling to the mistaken belief that the key to Sci-Hub’s success is its alleged seamlessness (a single sign-on), which if they can replicate will go away.
The author is arguing that seamlessness is not Sci-Hub's only advantage versus traditional channels, but that "Much of the growth of Sci-Hub is therefore ideological", "publishers are seen as the enemy, whose greediness erects unnecessary barriers, thereby obstructing the advancement of science" and that "Sci-Hub is seen as a ‘Robin Hood’ figure"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am brazillian. Here people BUY pirated stuff, sometimes more expensive than the original. The reason is convenience and good service. When you buy pirated software and games from the street dealer, you get: often, better support than the publisher (specially for popular software, you ask him what is bothering you, he probably memorized the solution and tells you, while publisher support often is completely null, Go…
Ok you might want to watch this short documentary. Your fun 'pirated' games and software with 'better support' might cost you dearly when your daughter or your girlfriend/wife gets filmed by a hacker, using your own webcam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFS3p0emftw - "Security awareness: Filmmaker explores RAT malware, buys access to random PCs for just 15 cents a piece - made short film about his experience" Movie…
I also don't have a daughter, but I am Brazilian. Just adding a data point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have a PhD in physics. I have zero problem with anyone downloading any of my papers from scihub. Out of curiosity: why don't you just host your papers on your website then - or, if you do, why don't you think it's enough?
Im not sure if it's legally flawless to upload the published journal article to your Website and open it up to the public. As far as i know, you're only allowed to pass it on a personal, per-request basis. This explicitly refers to the final peer reviewed article and not to the manuscript, which can make a great difference.
Why does everyone talk about sci-hub and no one about library genesis? The latter is a way more comprehensive repository.
Rule #2 about [REDACTED]: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT [REDACTED]
I love sci-hub and have often used it, but the above idea has always been rattling around in my head and gives me pause.
I am part of a well-funded university, so I have access to all the papers without using Sci-Hub. Nevertheless, I prefer this platform because I disagree with the publishing model of most publishers. Let's not get into the details here, but there is all kinds of shoddy editorship happening all over the place---I have seen at least one blatant case of plagiarism in an Elsevier journal: no one cares. I have experienced…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're still providing a valuable service for free. Why can't everyone get paid?
Reviewers are getting paid from the university, as are the paper authors. The problem is that the journals exploit the taxpayers and grant providers.
I am part of a well-funded university, so I have access to all the papers without using Sci-Hub. Nevertheless, I prefer this platform because I disagree with the publishing model of most publishers. Let's not get into the details here, but there is all kinds of shoddy editorship happening all over the place---I have seen at least one blatant case of plagiarism in an Elsevier journal: no one cares. I have experienced…
> I am part of a well-funded university, so I have access to all the papers without using Sci-Hub. I don't know how well funded your university is—some are so much so as to make the caveat I'm about to mention a bit silly—but, for many reasonably funded universities, a statement like yours has to be qualified with "I have access for now …". Publishers can, and do, up their prices unreasonably at any time, and, at my…
(I can sort of see the idea of making a price grab and then not having access to future articles, but having _no_ access even to past articles is a horror scenario)
Sci-Hub and Library Genesis are indispensable. What Alexandra has basically done is start a revolution. Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. I would like to donate towards their efforts, too sad they accept only bitcoins.