Getting 403 Forbidden. Did my isp block it, or it this an error on their end?
Sci-Hub statistics and database
121–130 of 150 posts
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#122It'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?
The answer is right there on the page: the database covers >95% of publications among major publishers.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> published on arxiv.org and open access Don't use the term "open access" like this. A paper published on arXiv is free to read, and was freely published. "Open access" is a scam by the big publishers, where they don't take money from the readers , but make the authors pay. Or, putting it another way, anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers.
> anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers.
This is not true and comments like this are damaging to science.
Open Access papers are still peer-reviewed and by far not all of them make it into the journal. You can't pay your way into those journals.
Of course there are shady pseudo-journals which just cash in on the fee, do not carry out peer review and just dump the paper on the internet. But any scientist should be able to tell such scam journals from serious ones.
True, some journals, like many of the Frontiers series or PLOS One, make it very hard to be rejected in peer review. As long as your paper is reasonably well written and doesn't contain falsehoods it will almost certainly make it to publication. Still, you don't "pay your way into those journals".
Granted, many of papers in those journals report mere incremental progress. But these journals are still attractive for scientists to publish in, for obvious reasons. Publishers like PLOS use those journals as cash cows to fund their higher-tier offerings.
It is fair that the author pays for publication in those journals, since the most benefit is often for the author, not the reader. For the progress of science these offerings are not so useful, unfortunately.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#124Sci-hub is sometimes the last resort to obtain a resource that is otherwise unobtainable. But what has become of the old way of obtaining unaccessible papers: Ask the authors for a copy?
Sites like ResearchGate make this very easy. And often a simple email does the job, too.
Advantages:
* It is legal
* The author gets feedback that someone out there reads their research
* Making direct contact to your peers is a good thing.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#125The 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…
Makes me wonder how much they'd have to offer me to accept the task of implementing such tracking algorithms to modify other people's scientific papers for the purpose. Certainly I won't be the cheapest, but still. Either some developer is very vested in the idea of keeping science a secret or someone got a very nice bonus. Edit: also the sysadmin that keeps this database safe without 'accidental' data loss on UUID t…
It seems to me that this type of tracking, under the guise of guarding rights is against the GDPR = unlawful tracking that they are harassing Google and FB with?
Is not justice's sword 2 edged?
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> published on arxiv.org and open access Don't use the term "open access" like this. A paper published on arXiv is free to read, and was freely published. "Open access" is a scam by the big publishers, where they don't take money from the readers , but make the authors pay. Or, putting it another way, anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers.
> anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers. This is not true and comments like this are damaging to science. Open Access papers are still peer-reviewed and by far not all of them make it into the journal. You can't pay your way into those journals. Of course there are shady pseudo-journals which just cash in on the fee, do not carry out peer review and just dump the paper on t…
[deleted]
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some truth to "publish or perish". Scientists are expected to publish in prestigious journals.
A typical PhD dissertation these days is 3 publications in high-quality journals. It is explicitly required at most schools.
so there is "prestige" in getting in a reputed journal and not the fact that the paper is peer reviewed by good scientists. the reputation of the journal matters. cool.
isnt there a need of change in the "social ideology" of such schools and this whole elitism would go away?
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pub…
I mean, these terms are defined and widely understood, so, um, no.
"gold open access" is where you publish to a peer-reviewed open-access journal, which may or may not involve the author paying for the privilege.
"green open access" is where you publish to any peer-reviewed journal, and then the author self-archives the paper somewhere, like an institutional website, arXiv (as a "post-print", not a pre-print), or even Sci-Hub.
There are discussions involved about copyright and license and so on, but that's the gist of it.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#129Sci-hub is sometimes the last resort to obtain a resource that is otherwise unobtainable. But what has become of the old way of obtaining unaccessible papers: Ask the authors for a copy? Sites like ResearchGate make this very easy. And often a simple email does the job, too. Advantages: * It is legal * The author gets feedback that someone out there reads their research * Making direct contact to your peers is a good…
It's too time consuming and has an undefined likelihood of success. People will naturally flock to alternative methods, such as sci-hub, that are faster and until recently were near guaranteed to have the desired content.
Re: Sci-Hub statistics and database
#130It'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?
Math and comp-sci researchers use https://arxiv.org heavily and thus people usually do not need something like sci-hub.
Relevant xkcd - https://xkcd.com/2085/