The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#231

Post by einpoklum » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #122

einpoklum wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are these intermediaries still around? Because publishing a decent journal - even online but certainly in the real world - involves a whole lot of work: Administrative, some technical, some networking, some advertizing, maintaining relations within the relevant fields etc. That's all when we ignore the peer review itself which requires domain expertise.

> Administrative, some technical, some networking, some advertizing, maintaining relations within the relevant fields etc. Taking into account that they don't really do peer-review and don't pay for it either, and that their editing is close to nonexistent (and as likely to introduce errors as to improve anything), all the other costs seem to be a self-perpetuating loop - the work is being done just to support itself…

I have never been involved in running an academic journal. But I have been involved in a group which published a periodical. And from my experience I can tell you that you're dead wrong. Without all that work, there is no journal, no publication, no readership, and limited interest and exposure of people to the content.

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#232

Post by einpoklum » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #195

einpoklum wrote: post #108

> Sci-Hub ... an out and out copyright pirate Arrr! Shiver me timbers. > papers harvested (illegally) illegaly? Maybe, in some world states; but not in others. Also, the illegality is temporary. Think of Marijuana in the US (and many other places). A significant fraction of the population uses it. It took them a good number of decades, but they're gradually legalizing it. With scientific publications - Sci-Hub and Li…

> I wonder why it's banned there. Any superficial explanation you may get, it's really because central governments are stupid. Absolutely powerful central governments are absolutely stupid. But, well, it's their loss.

That's a valid point, but it might be the case that it's not actually banned.

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#233

Post by einpoklum » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

afiori wrote: post #141

TeMPOraL wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Administrative, some technical, some networking, some advertizing, maintaining relations within the relevant fields etc. Taking into account that they don't really do peer-review and don't pay for it either, and that their editing is close to nonexistent (and as likely to introduce errors as to improve anything), all the other costs seem to be a self-perpetuating loop - the work is being done just to support itself…

My understanding is that the real job of a publisher in academia is brand recognition.

That's part of it, sure.

It's not meaningless, either. If you have a hundred venues for publication - what should you choose to follow? What should a library subscribe to? What do you recommend to students? etc.

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#234

Post by einpoklum » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

anticensor wrote: post #185

xamuel wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, how does that research assessment treat papers with multiple authors? Does it only give credit to the first author, or does it divide credit by the number of authors?

Turkish higher education committee ignores multi-author papers completely and only counts single-author or advisor-student papers, in the first appointment of professors; and severely discourages multi-author papers in reassessments.

... which is another silly approach. So a pair of researchers who always work together on projects supposedly never publish :-(

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#235

Post by davalapar » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 2:38 AM UTC

sct202 wrote: post #150

Alexandra Elbakyan is very brave especially considering all the US based lawsuits that are thrown at her. Aaron Swartz was trying to do something similar at around the same time, and he got the book thrown at him and he didn't even launch anything.

I've just read the wikipedia page about her, that's halfway awesome and fucking crazy.

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#236

Post by thulecitizen » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 6:16 AM UTC

htfu wrote: post #229

thulecitizen wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both 'appked' and 'macbed' websites have guides for disabling both Gatekeepr and SIP (now they are derivative websites because the domains keep getting banned/confiscated): macappdownload dot com slash fix-damaged-app-message macappdownload dot com slash how-to-disable-system-integrity-protection-in-macos These guides are all over their websites, especially at the download stage, where there is a short list of 'downl…

My question was "Any examples of something that requires disabling SIP in cracked version and not original?", this (while certainly possibly relevant) is not an answer to that.

To me this is an answer. I think somehow you're not understanding what I am implying.

These guides I linked to are there because when the software is being installed, it asks for these guides to be applied, to make the apps work. The modifications added to the cracked applications by the crackers take them off Apple's trusted developers list. So the only way to get some of them to work is to disable SIP and GateKeeper. This move then makes the user's computer vulnerable to all malware, because most forget to turn them back on. They also often don't know about the importance of these security features in the first place.

I am not concerned for your safety - I trust you will be safe. I am scared for the user I described above.

I hope this make it clearer.

I won't bother replying to more of your messages until you can show that you've actually tried this all out on a VM, because otherwise we just won't be talking about the same thing.

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#237

Post by anticensor » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 6:26 AM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #234

anticensor wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turkish higher education committee ignores multi-author papers completely and only counts single-author or advisor-student papers, in the first appointment of professors; and severely discourages multi-author papers in reassessments.

... which is another silly approach. So a pair of researchers who always work together on projects supposedly never publish :-(

They do anyway, because there is no negative consequences for publishing multi-author papers, just not rewarded at first appointment (this is mainly because they failed to figure out which fields have their authors ordered and which have it unordered).

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#238

Post by wrycoder » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #109

michaelt wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

University of California terminated a $10 million / year subscription to Elsevier [1] but $10 million per year divided between 21k academics and 280k students [2] is only $2.76 per person per month. Of course, how you square that with the journals that charge $30+ for a single paper and $600+ a year for an individual subscription is, perhaps, your point... [1] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/1/18245235/…

Is there a single commercial source with the same or more coverage as sci-hub for $600/yr or less? I’ve got a half dozen subs in a kind of Venn diagram and still am missing things. I’m in a position to pay for convenience, but while paying, am constantly annoyed it’s worse for the user. Same story in film/tv.

Deep Dyve?

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#239

Post by pastage » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

markus92 wrote: post #104

chdlr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree for the first part: Review usually does not happen during paid hours or is even somehow formally accredited by universities.

At my university, reviewing is explicitly mentioned to be on your own time: we cannot write any hours for it.

That honestly seems like a bigger problem, if researchers are not paid for reviewing who will do it?

Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)

#240

Post by Fnoord » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 12:58 PM UTC

bergstromm466 wrote: post #215

Accujack wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Adwind Remote Access Trojan typically spreads by phishing e-mails. Which is why you shouldn't believe everything you read. By the way, this last sentence: >Movies and other media files that don't run any scripts are ok if you're careful and know what you're doing, but installing pirated software is an invitation to get blackmailed and extored by darknet hackers. Is entirely wrong. If you're worried about malware,…

Dangerous for Windows maybe? Most cracked OS X apps make you disable Gatekeeper or System Integry Protection. Game over. So yes, to me that is an invititation.

Even without disabling Gatekeeper and SIP it is possible to insert malicious code into the OS somewhere because of full read and write access to the home directory and what not.

You could run the application in a VM without networking capabilities.