Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sci-Hub statistics and database

sci-hub.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#71

Post by Ansil849 »

sa1 wrote: post #69
Ansil849 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why keep old papers and stop adding new papers - that probably depends on the terms of the injunction. As per the official tweet that has already been mentioned in this thread [1]: > how about the lawsuit in India you may ask: our lawyers say that restriction is expired already So according to the owner's official Twitter, this is no longer a valid reason, and yet new papers are still not accessible. Why is that? […

Haven't got around to adding yet?

That is not how scihub used to function. Scihub used to have an engine, named Plato, which would fetch papers automatically if not already in their database. For the last year now, this essential service has not been operational. This is what the issue I am raising is about.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#72

Post by sa1 »

Ansil849 wrote: post #71
sa1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't got around to adding yet?

That is not how scihub used to function. Scihub used to have an engine, named Plato, which would fetch papers automatically if not already in their database. For the last year now, this essential service has not been operational. This is what the issue I am raising is about.

It's clear what you're talking about. Software bitrots over time. Plato might need fixes, might have a huge backlog, lots of stuff can happen.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#73

Post by [deleted] »

The_rationalist wrote: post #10
p1esk wrote: post #2

Interesting. 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?

Machine learning publication rate is small, at least by assuming that paperswithcode contains most of the publications.

[deleted]

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#75

Post by mohammad_ali85 »

generationP wrote: post #67
Ansil849 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw that tweet, but it doesn't change the material reality: try plugging in some DOIs from recent article from the last year, and they will not be there. Scihub used to be a great resource, now it's only a resource for old research. Still useful for background material, but not for current work. I also don't understand why the Indian court case has any impact on new article availability. The owner is not Indian. Th…

I have a hunch that the downfall of the "Plato" real-time downloader wasn't the Indian court case but rather the fact that it helped publishers trivially identify the university accounts through which the downloads were happening. Even if the appearance of papers were delayed by a random number of days, there are other pitfalls now, and most importantly, publishers started caring. In particular, Elsevier now slaps UU…

This might be the twitter thread you’re referring to? https://twitter.com/json_dirs/status/1486120144141123584

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#76

Post by generationP »

mohammad_ali85 wrote: post #75
generationP wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hunch that the downfall of the "Plato" real-time downloader wasn't the Indian court case but rather the fact that it helped publishers trivially identify the university accounts through which the downloads were happening. Even if the appearance of papers were delayed by a random number of days, there are other pitfalls now, and most importantly, publishers started caring. In particular, Elsevier now slaps UU…

This might be the twitter thread you’re referring to? https://twitter.com/json_dirs/status/1486120144141123584

Yep, thank you!

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#77

Post by baybal2 »

Ansil849 wrote: post #51
derbOac wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I read was that the Indian judicial system tends to be favorable to things like Sci Hub in its interpretation of copyright, and Sci Hub wanted to act in good faith with regard to that court, so as to have a fairly solid basis in international law for operating, should it rule in Sci Hub's favor. I might be off in this understanding, but that's what I understood.

Yeah, I have heard this reasoning, but it seems muddled. How is keeping the site online so old articles are available but no new articles are added acting in "good faith"? It's not like the old articles are any less copyrighted than the new articles, so this doesn't make sense to me. The court case has also been delayed for over a year now, so if it is delayed indefinitely, like it seems to be, then we will also not…

In India, courts have famously few remedies against no-show from plaintiffs.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#78

Post by _Wintermute »

pmoriarty wrote: post #11

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?

I think it's due to the sheer number of biomedical papers published each year, coupled with comp-sci, maths and physics papers being less likely to be behind a paywall.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#79

Post by nefitty »

dagw wrote: post #70
roywiggins wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't seem to actually work though. https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/ibm-watson-health-failu...

Did Watson fail because they where bad at their job or because the problem is much harder than people assumed?

I think the marketing got ahead of the tech. I would classify that as a business failure.
Post reply on HN