Live data from Hacker News

Where Sci-Hub Is

whereisscihub.now.sh

111–120 of 185 posts

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#111

I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. Research papers through sci-hub only helps to make knowledge easily accessible. Humanity's progress depends on people who shared their knowledge, not by people who use it as a tool to rule and hold on to power. It will be nicer if whole sci-hub is able to move to IPFS network and accessible through a domain. The problem is IPFS do not offer anonymity…

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

The research is already funded differently, usually through (public) grants, salaries of the researchers and everybody on their teams (taxes, tuition), or even patent revenues.

Nobody makes money off of publications except for the publishers. Some publishers even demand money from the authors for their publishing "services".

The publishers themselves add very little value, as e.g. peer reviews are done for "free" (aka on the universities or peer-reviewers dime), or rather for the prestige that comes from being a reviewer.

What's more, a lot of the authors of what's published actually want to publish their work for everybody else to see. But they are currently caught between a rock and a hard place: they need the "reputation" that comes from publishing in "prestigious" journals but those journals or rather the parent publishing companies require signing a contract saying that the article may not be published elsewhere, not even on the authors personal website.

In short, the actual research work has been paid for already, academics (authors and peer reviewers) are fucked, the public (who often paid for the research already) is fucked, and the publishers are money-printing-machines.

You could easily replace the publishers with a few non-profit orgs that are funded by universities for a couple of hundred bucks per university per month, and make all the content available for "free" to everybody on the planet in perpetuity. There are over 25,000 universities worldwide, so if every university paid e.g. 200 bucks a month, it would come out as $5M per month, which is enough to fund the publishing end of every last scientific journal in existence and then some (assuming we keep not paying authors and peer reviewers through such publishing, like it is now)

If I was the regulator in charge, the first thing I would do is require all work that is - in part - paid for by public taxpayer funds or public university funds to be published under a free license, since the public already paid for the work. Similar to e.g. works created by US government - and some other governments - is automatically in the public domain already; that's why e.g. all those nice NASA pictures are "freely" available to everybody already, because the US federal tax payers already paid about $35 bucks on average per year to fund ALL of NASA.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#112
post #13

Did a mod edit the title? If so, this has to be the most useless edit -- it completely eliminates the whole point of the domain name.

This is one of my pet peeves about HN. The change post titles to match page titles, probably to prevent editorializing, but enforcement can be uneven.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#114
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a researcher. I write the articles in their books. They don't pay me for that. All of the articles are written by people like me. All of the articles are reviewed and edited by people like me. I even do the typesetting. I get paid by a tax-funded university. Publishers (such as Springer) use their money not to produce knowledge, but to sue people, market their conferences and journals, and pay their administrator…

Hmm... so you get nothing for it, you do all the work and yet you continue to do it? I presume you must be getting something out of the arrangement, else why on earth do you continue?

Having papers published in journals (especially prestigious ones like Nature) is how you attain status in the research community. Also most research institutions have some expectation that you will publish N papers a year on average (because it also enhances their status).

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#115
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a researcher. I write the articles in their books. They don't pay me for that. All of the articles are written by people like me. All of the articles are reviewed and edited by people like me. I even do the typesetting. I get paid by a tax-funded university. Publishers (such as Springer) use their money not to produce knowledge, but to sue people, market their conferences and journals, and pay their administrator…

Hmm... so you get nothing for it, you do all the work and yet you continue to do it? I presume you must be getting something out of the arrangement, else why on earth do you continue?

As many of us doing research, writing, reviewing, typesetting, checking proofs, organizing their dissemination conferences, administrative tasks, filling up IP forms, returning them, getting them checked by attorneys paid on our side, etc., etc., etc., do not get absolutely anything remotely in value to the price it costs to our institutions or peers to access our work.

We force ourselves though to do something so illogical and nonsensical because we are evaluated according to inefficient and silly performance bars that emerge from a herd of seemingly intelligent people each acting in their best interest (both those that seek showing their merit, and those that seek evaluating the merit of others), most of which do not have enough power and/or leadership to be the first ones to disrupt the current status quo. ['Tradegy of the Commons' theme]

Of course, I would not suggest any student to try to subvert it, as doing it "heroically" will only constitute an obstacle for themselves without doing anything to convince your rightly-so competitive peers to join your efforts rather than to overtake you. [edited: sentence corrected]

However, things are slowly changing, as people & institutions with the right amount of power and leadership are starting to take action.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

The research is already funded differently, usually through (public) grants, salaries of the researchers and everybody on their teams (taxes, tuition), or even patent revenues. Nobody makes money off of publications except for the publishers. Some publishers even demand money from the authors for their publishing "services". The publishers themselves add very little value, as e.g. peer reviews are done for "free" (ak…

> The research is already funded differently

Yes, I understand the hatred for academic publishers b/c they don't fund the research.

The comment above said 'knowledge should be free' and that is what I was responding to.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#117
post #86

Sci-Hub is such a marvelous resource. I like to read research papers for fun sometimes but I'm, let's put it gently, no scientist. So it'd be a huge waste of money for me to pay the steep prices of scientific journal subscriptions just to read 1-2 articles per month where I understand at most 75% of it. However, I still feel bad about accessing them without any benefit to the scientific teams. Is there any way to giv…

Just pay your taxes. I would also say "vote for politicians who make science funding a 1st class issue" but I don't know any.

But we do know who moved to and did reduce the funding on different levels in recent times.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#118
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm... so you get nothing for it, you do all the work and yet you continue to do it? I presume you must be getting something out of the arrangement, else why on earth do you continue?

As many of us doing research, writing, reviewing, typesetting, checking proofs, organizing their dissemination conferences, administrative tasks, filling up IP forms, returning them, getting them checked by attorneys paid on our side, etc., etc., etc., do not get absolutely anything remotely in value to the price it costs to our institutions or peers to access our work. We force ourselves though to do something so il…

> things are slowly changing, as people & institutions with the right amount of power and leadership are starting to take action.

Where exactly, what people and institutions?

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's your right to withhold information just as it would be your right to withhold water if you had the only well in town Information is like the food in my example, not the "only water supply" in yours. Leibniz and Newton independently developed calculus, for example. > you're thinking only of yourself. That's your right; take the low road if it makes you happy. It's not selfish to be compensated for your work. Au…

> It's not selfish to be compensated for your work. As far as I'm aware, authors get very little of the compensation for the work they're doing. > Authors can choose themselves whether they want to make some of their work freely available, just as a market can give away some food or not. Not if the established procedure for publishing is a journal.

Author compensation depends on the author and their ability to strike a good deal for themselves, just like the rest of us when we apply for jobs, they do it per piece of work.

As for journals, I understand the distaste academics have for these. This thread was about whether all published information should be free, not just journals.

Post reply on HN