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

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#111

Post by gaxozx625 »

joshuaissac wrote: post #43
Ansil849 wrote: post #40

Is there any word about when sci hub is going to start adding new articles again? It's currently only useful as an archive of old research articles. New papers from the last year are not available. I never understood the rationale for stopping new content, though I believe it had some relation to some court case in India...but I don't understand why that was a reason to stop adding articles, and why it hasn't been re…

They had resumed adding articles after receiving legal advice that the Delhi High Court injunction only applied for a few months. https://mobile.twitter.com/ringo_ring/status/143435621720862...

No post body was provided.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#112

Post by octoberfranklin »

_Wintermute wrote: post #78
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.

... which is due to the sheer amount of cash being dumped into medical research. Because congressmen get cancer.

There are several medical subfields that on their own get more funding than the entire NSF (i.e. all other science).

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#113

Post by anon_123g987 »

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

HN thread from 18 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30082138.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#114

Post by aurizon »

hda2 wrote: post #106
aurizon wrote: post #89

The publishers now encode their papers with individual identifiers, that generationP calls UUIDs on all pdf's. That means they can trace it back to the institution(and perhaps the actual prof?) They have then sent nastygrams to threaten them with fees or loss of access to the institution - potentially serious punishment. What is needed is a way to run the papers through an OCR recognition program to create renewed te…

> I am not sure how Sci-hub can get past this Quite trivially, actually, thanks to the good old analogue hole: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30084193 All sci-hub would have to do in this case is download the same paper through three or more accounts (different institutions, networks, countries?) at three different times, rasterize them and keep the common denominator. If a pixel has no common denominator, they…

Yes, that would mush their secret sauce...

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#115

Post by silvercove »

OmicronCeti wrote: post #66
raziel2701 wrote: post #63

Alexandra Elbakyan is a titan and a saint. I couldn't have been able to finish my research without access to papers my institution wasn't subscribed to.

I snuck her into my own dissertation acknowledgements: https://imgur.com/bDgtBAE

No post body was provided.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#117

Post by aurizon »

medstrom wrote: post #102
aurizon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea about Germany, but they may well be more law abiding?

No, that's absurd. More likely a different factor. Some googling and lo and behold: starting with Germany, the universities of several European countries cancelled their agreements with Elsevier, pressuring Elsevier to give them better deals, including open access by default. I imagine it lessens the need for Sci-Hub.

A good beginning

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#118

Post by Lyapunov_Lover »

mNovak wrote: post #58
nicoburns wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "open access" means that the paper is available to readers for free. Making the authors pay is typically termed "gold open access".

I've never heard the term "gold open access", but I know plenty of "open access" journals that charge a fee to authors.

Yeah, I think people are mostly confused here. Open access is a thing when we're talking about peer-reviewed journals. arXiv hosts preprints, meaning they are available before the peer-review process has proceeded. So calling arXiv papers "open access" is misleading, because that label carries the assumption of peer review. And I've never heard of "gold open access" either. Researchers paying to have their papers published is standard, open access or not. That's just how it works. If someone is using the term "gold open access" I'm just going to assume they have no idea how science publishing operates.

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#119

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

Hendrikto wrote: post #53
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #18

i 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 product…

> 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? Scientists do do that themselves. That‘s why it is called peer review. Journals take scientists work for free, they just pre-select papers, but don‘t do the review.

are you saying you rely on "pre-selection" of the journals and for that the demand exorbitant prices? why dont you rely on peer-review data on scihub itself?

is the pre-selection such an important thing that these companies necessarily have to remain in business?

Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database

#120

Post by [deleted] »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #119
Hendrikto wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Scientists do do that themselves. That‘s why it is called peer review. Journals take scientists work for free, they just pre-select papers, but don‘t do the review.

are you saying you rely on "pre-selection" of the journals and for that the demand exorbitant prices? why dont you rely on peer-review data on scihub itself? is the pre-selection such an important thing that these companies necessarily have to remain in business?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN