It's interesting how sci-hub's papers on medicine dwarf those in many other fields like comp-sci, math, and physics. I wonder if that reflects the number of papers in those fields, or if sci-hub just has a non-representative sample. If the latter, why?
Sci-Hub statistics and database
11–20 of 150 posts
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#12Interesting. Medical field dominates research in terms of publications. Chemistry produces double the papers compared to physics, and humanities are smaller than biology but larger than physics. I wonder where machine learning papers fit in - CS or Math or both?
It is note worthy that most of physics (at least high energy physics) ist published on arxiv.org and open access. I don't know if sci hub bothers with publications that are available freely from an official source.
Good point. If so, this data is a lot less interesting :(
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#13How come we don't have extensive software for helping doctor decision making by making use e.g of bayesian inference while feeding on the available superintelligence that enable those 24 millions paper? Expert systems long passed the hype curve and it's time for them to cycle up again!
[deleted]
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#14Interesting. Medical field dominates research in terms of publications. Chemistry produces double the papers compared to physics, and humanities are smaller than biology but larger than physics. I wonder where machine learning papers fit in - CS or Math or both?
It is note worthy that most of physics (at least high energy physics) ist published on arxiv.org and open access. I don't know if sci hub bothers with publications that are available freely from an official source.
Sci-hub will grab and serve anything with a DOI (or at least used to; I don't know if they have started ingesting papers again after turning it off a while ago). I have found open access papers there before. It's simpler to just paste the DOI into sci-hub than to check to see if it's one of the few open access articles in a mostly paywalled journal.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#15Here's a notebook that fetches Sci-Hub mirrors from Wikidata and tests them. I also included an iOS Shortcut to add to your Share screen. When you're on a site that Sci-Hub recognizes and you use the shortcut it will try to fetch the paper.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#16What's the most popular paper on all of scihub? By field?
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#17It's interesting how sci-hub's papers on medicine dwarf those in many other fields like comp-sci, math, and physics. I wonder if that reflects the number of papers in those fields, or if sci-hub just has a non-representative sample. If the latter, why?
It does appear to be the latter. I just searched for several famous ML papers (attention is all you need, lottery ticket hypothesis, capsules, etc) and they are not there. I think if someone counted all papers that have been ever published anywhere, the picture would be a lot different.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#18i asked this question here and at many places before. why do people "rely" on an organization that sifts through hundreds of thousands of papers and then charge exorbitant prices for providing this service?
if we use the amazon analogy, is amazon with millions of products worse than a boutique cat food seller that specializes in a specific cat food for a specific cat breed? maybe. but what about the "rest" of products?
why are our scientists made to rely on elsevier et al to sift through the junk and find for them the perfect paper instead of doing it themselves? is science now such a cutthroat quick competition that it requires you to give a company the priviledge to work for you so that you dont have to do your own due diligence?
in india, we have a lot of local research that is done on open databases like shodh ganga and many more. but if you have to access foreign research material, better luck your university has an agreement with elsevier and others to pay them millions for a login. the alternative, go to scihub and find what you need.
i understand the whole quality/delivery debate but doesnt the average user already know who the big players in the specific domain are and who are trusted? or you want discoverability at the hands of a "trusted third party" without doing the legwork yourself.
then at the other end you have non-academics like me. I might have heard of a research paper in some article and i cannot read it without paying an arm and a leg. why? if we use the whole ebook/book argument that compensation is commensurate to the sales so more popular book means more money to the author but here authors arent compensated but elsevier so why should i pay elsevier? because they filtered through 1000 papers to provide 10 and for that privilege, they require unlimited royalty for ever? why?
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#19Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#20How come we don't have extensive software for helping doctor decision making by making use e.g of bayesian inference while feeding on the available superintelligence that enable those 24 millions paper? Expert systems long passed the hype curve and it's time for them to cycle up again!
I think Watson does something like this.