151–160 of 174 posts
"So they lie to their readers that Sci-Hub run by a woman is some kind of not a real thing but a ‘show’,..."
I'd like to point out that "...a one-woman show" is an expression in American English that does not carry any extra connotations of "show" such as fictional or a falsehood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the connotations that you are used to subconsciously ignoring are actually still there after all. btw, if I find a new species of donkey, I will name it after you.
and in turn, if I find a new species of invisible pink unicorn, the honor shall be thine. that is to say, neither of us will do either of these things; what are you even talking about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's the publishers stealing from the scientific community, universities and tax payers, and the politicians and bureaucrats are complicit. Not really. The publishers provide hardly any value, definitely not commensurate with their prices. So why don't the scientists simply walk away? Why not publish on the internet, why not simply upload to arxiv.org? It's because funding through quasi government agencies (NSF, NI…
The publishers provide hardly any value Here's an insider's view from having worked the tech side at a small scientific publisher. Prices are too high and the model is flawed [-1] but your opinion is not accurate, the publisher did a tremendous amount of work: First a distinction, two types of editors: The publisher's editors, each of which handled a batch of journals. The journal editor, who did not actually work fo…
"This isn't always how it works."
In my experience, "Other publishing staff: performed proof reading & copy editing, did the layout & type setting" was not done by the publisher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally.
> These papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally. I strongly disagree with this. Labor has value, and we shouldn't let capital alone dictate ownership. The people who do the research are more important than the bureaucrats who signed the checks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's the publishers stealing from the scientific community, universities and tax payers, and the politicians and bureaucrats are complicit. Not really. The publishers provide hardly any value, definitely not commensurate with their prices. So why don't the scientists simply walk away? Why not publish on the internet, why not simply upload to arxiv.org? It's because funding through quasi government agencies (NSF, NI…
The publishers provide hardly any value Here's an insider's view from having worked the tech side at a small scientific publisher. Prices are too high and the model is flawed [-1] but your opinion is not accurate, the publisher did a tremendous amount of work: First a distinction, two types of editors: The publisher's editors, each of which handled a batch of journals. The journal editor, who did not actually work fo…
Having worked as a researcher all my life in academia and the industry, I can only support Sci-Hub. Publishing as it works currently is an incredibly time consuming and expensive process funneling tremendous amounts of tax money into the pocḱets of publishers. To some extent the whole situation reminds me of the video and music content piracy era in the early 2000s. I hope there will be an equivalent of Apple Music/S…
Having worked as a researcher all my life in academia (but not in the industry), I can not support Sci-Hub. I know it's an unpopular opinion but I think it's the wrong approach. As scientists, I think we should be held to especially high moral standards. And there are two questions one should be allowed to ask: 1. Is is right to publish research results funded by tax money behind a paywall? 2. Is it right to circumve…
What's wrong with "circumventing" paywalls?
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies … for purposes such as … scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Having worked as a researcher all my life in academia and the industry, I can only support Sci-Hub. Publishing as it works currently is an incredibly time consuming and expensive process funneling tremendous amounts of tax money into the pocḱets of publishers. To some extent the whole situation reminds me of the video and music content piracy era in the early 2000s. I hope there will be an equivalent of Apple Music/S…
Having worked as a researcher all my life in academia (but not in the industry), I can not support Sci-Hub. I know it's an unpopular opinion but I think it's the wrong approach. As scientists, I think we should be held to especially high moral standards. And there are two questions one should be allowed to ask: 1. Is is right to publish research results funded by tax money behind a paywall? 2. Is it right to circumve…
[1] Two provisos: the costs of professional publishing a journal is per-issue; perhaps, per-paper. Not per-copy. A pay-to-publish model would put incentives in the right place, but is fraught with a whole stack of conflicts of interest. Which is being actively exploited. So, ... yeah.
Second, the consumer-pays model actively hurts researchers themselves, who would like to see their research disseminated as widely as possible. "If I do research funded by UK tax money and publish it, should that paper be freely available to Americans too, or only to UK tax payers?" Want to bet what researchers' answer to that question would be?
Fortunately for me, I was a computer scientist. In that field, researchers (almost?) universally make their papers freely available, often in complete disregard of their publishing venue's rules (with no consequences). So, to medicine and physics and what-not, I can only say phtththp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me personally that is way past that into "unethical" territory, and that justifies it. I'm very much in favor of solving the issue through different ways long-term, but until then, meh. But YMMV of course.
I don't think that unethical behavior can simply be justified by some other unethical behavior, especially when personal opinions are involved. Analogies are often not very useful but consider this: there's this traffic light close to my house and even though there's usually not much traffic, the red phase is much, much longer than any other light I've ever waited at. I don't know what they were thinking but it's cra…
Sci-hub is more like making a copy of the recipe than stealing the croissant. Making a copy doesn't deprive anyone of the original.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also quite a split between "should be compensated for their work" and "asking 30-50€ for a single paper download is a reasonable compensation".
That may be true. But I don't think a price that's higher than what one is willing to pay then justifies circumventing a paywall.
"[T]he question posed is whether a hypothetical monopolist can profitably impose a small but significant and non-transitory increase in price in the product market as defined. If the answer to the question posed is yes, and the price increase would be profitable for the hypothetical monopolist, then the market is correctly defined, and from here the analysis could go forward to determining whether antitrust laws are being violated if the company at issue has too much market power." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hypothetical_monopolist_test)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The publishers provide hardly any value Here's an insider's view from having worked the tech side at a small scientific publisher. Prices are too high and the model is flawed [-1] but your opinion is not accurate, the publisher did a tremendous amount of work: First a distinction, two types of editors: The publisher's editors, each of which handled a batch of journals. The journal editor, who did not actually work fo…
And all for the low, low price of $660/issue. ( https://ordering.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/Lite/Subs.aspx?doi=... ) " This isn't always how it works. " In my experience, " Other publishing staff: performed proof reading & copy editing, did the layout & type setting " was not done by the publisher.
But my point wasn't to say the high sub fees are okay, it was to rebut the idea that publishers add no value, when that is often (though not always) incorrect.
IIRC, the small publisher I worked for had net profits of about 10% on $5 million in revenue. Not unreasonable for handling pretty much every aspect of the process apart from final decisions on article inclusion and a few other high level details.
Even when I worked at the small company though, we hated Elsevier. Elsevier are little better than extortionists saying "nice library collection you have there. Shame is something happened to it. How about you pay us double this year?"