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

A World Without Sci-Hub

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#181

Post by wrycoder »

btrettel wrote: post #160
wrycoder wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Deepdyve?

Is there a list of journals or publishers that are on Deepdyve? Seems to me that the only way to know if an article is on there is to sign up.

Yes, look at https://www.deepdyve.com/browse/

As an example of a topical search with no login:

https://www.deepdyve.com/search?query=COVID-19

Another search:

https://www.deepdyve.com/search?author=Doyle%2C+W.+T.

And a page from that search:

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-association-of-physics-...

You get only one page when not logged in, but Deepdyve has all of American Journal of Physics, which is really nice.

Deepdyve has been submitted several times to HN over the past decade, but it never generates any interest. That's surprising, considering the interest in SciHub.

You can't read the full text w/o signing up for the free trial. Without registering, you can't bookmark articles or add them to folders, either.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#182

Post by mandmandam »

nefitty wrote: post #150
mandmandam wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can question my agenda all you like, though I think it's against the 'guidelines' here. But the fact is that the world agrees with me. More people on this planet think that America is more dangerous to democracy, peace and stability than Russia or China, or Iran, or Pakistan. Thank you for the vivid illustration of my point though. I had nearly added a line about how deflection kicks in like an automatic reflex t…

I'm arguing in good faith here. Isn't Russia actively using information warfare to destabilize enemy democracies? Isn't China using cyber warfare to cause economic harm to other countries? What is it about the USA that is worse than that? People here are brainwashed on Facebook? I'm just honestly not sure what the argument you're making is besides, "Polls say people in other countries think America is bad for democra…

You say you're arguing in good faith, but your argument relies on profound ignorance.

Read some Snowden, Chomsky, Assange; as well as past and recent history concerning US actions in South America, Africa, Europe and Asia.

This starting point might be one of the longest Wikis I've ever seen, but it's honestly just the tip of the iceberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

I think the major turning point for global opinion was the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. It was very clear to anyone with the capability of independent thought that it would be a quagmire (Rumsfeld said it himself a few years earlier ffs), and that we went in for oil, resources, and contractor profits. It could hardly have been more obvious.

And then all that shit about black sites and torture started coming out. With photo evidence. And zero consequences.

And then Obama ran on a platform of closing Abu Ghraib and reigning in the banks who committed acts of global economic war, only to promote the individuals responsible. Himself and Biden then expanded the war to other countries, while increasing bombing and drone campaigns.

I don't remember photos coming out of Russians in hoods sodomizing prisoners held without trial, or the Chinese.

I don't recall China being responsible for 60 million+ refugees and millions of civilian deaths in the last two decades.

I don't remember any other country in the history of the world spending trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars only to feed global terrorism and disastrously destablize regions.

Your ignorance of these basic, basic facts is not shared by the rest of the world, and that is why those polls have the results they do time and time again.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#183

Post by throwaway38941 »

deepburner wrote: post #175
throwaway38941 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The scandal in my opinion is that a professor or phd candidate is paid by the state to do research and then the state has to pay again to license the contributions their employees made. Meanwhile the taxpayer who already paid for the research cannot access that research for free. Ignoring the fact that you can indeed get the research for free if you e-mail the researchers... Who is going to pay for unlimited online…

you're phrasing it like web hosting is some gargantuan unheard of task. > It is not free to publish journals, or keep tens of thousands of them, with millions of articles, around indefinitely, for instant access by anyone on the web. it's not free but it's pretty cheap. you can pay a tiny fraction of what the public universities are currently paying for access to these journals to maintain a repository of scientific…

If you do some research and then want to publish it in a journal, there is a large scope of work on the publishing side which includes hosting. Scihub just redistributes what journals have already spent the money to vet, edit, proof and publish. The "cost of access" is paying for all of the aforementioned work. So there is a lot more to do, and pay for, that is not being captured by people looking from the sidelines going "why is nobody giving me free cake?"

If all you want to do is say "we have pre-pubs on a free FTP server", sure, that's cheap as hell. But it doesn't replace the journals, it doesn't address research funding models, it doesn't move scientific progress forward.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#184

Post by jtbayly »

spansoa wrote: post #164
jtbayly wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting it on the “dark web” is just a different, more effective barrier than the money barrier the industry wants.

> more effective barrier Tor, or more specifically the Tor Browser Bundle is not some huge hurdle to overcome if you want to browse certain content. I imagine for the audience of Sci-Hub, downloading then using Tor is no biggie. The only real hurdle may be discovery of the right .ONION but once you search for `The Hidden Wiki` on DuckDuckGo you will be soon in Onionland and there are plenty of search engines and dire…

I can't think of anybody else that has Tor on their computer, or knows how to get it or whether it's safe, or why they should get it. I have had Tor on my computer for years, and I've never heard of 'The Hidden Wiki'.

On the other hand, I know people who have searched for papers and downloaded them from Scihub.

I don't think you know "the audience" for Sci-Hub. It's meant to make the content public, not free for the right people who already know tons of stuff about the dark web.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#185

Post by dang »

NmAmDa wrote: post #3

"Swartz potentially faced more jail time for downloading academic papers than he would have if he had helped Al Qaeda build a nuclear weapon. " Too much for the American values.

Please don't take HN threads on flamewar tangents. This was a doozy. Such discussions are predictable, tedious, attract the same minority of commenters over and over and bore/drive away everybody else.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#186

Post by dang »

mandmandam wrote: post #40
mettamage wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's things like this that make me believe that the US isn't a truly free society. It simply pretends it is. But all nations have their problems. The US simply has more than one might think.

More than an American might think maybe. The rest of the world sees America as the numero uno threat to democracy, peace, and stability. And when that fact is pointed out to Americans, with evidence and polls and sources, it makes no impression somehow (in my experience). It's simply incompatible with their programming, and the data is rejected. Try it.

Nationalistic flamewar is off topic here and personal attack, which this crosses into, will get you banned.

Another thing we ban accounts for is when they use HN primarily for flamewar or political or ideological battle. Those things are against the guidelines/rules* because they destroy the site for its intended purpose. I mention this because your account is repeatedly posting flamewar comments and/or unsubstantive comments. Would you please stop that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

* re your previous remark about that - I use both terms (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#187

Post by dang »

nefitty wrote: post #60
mandmandam wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than an American might think maybe. The rest of the world sees America as the numero uno threat to democracy, peace, and stability. And when that fact is pointed out to Americans, with evidence and polls and sources, it makes no impression somehow (in my experience). It's simply incompatible with their programming, and the data is rejected. Try it.

Not sure what your agenda is, but you're clearly ignoring the uniquely fashy things China and Russia are doing.

You broke the site guidelines badly with this comment—not just the obvious one asking people not to post insinuations like this, but also the one about political and ideological battle.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#188

Post by NmAmDa »

dang wrote: post #185
NmAmDa wrote: post #3

"Swartz potentially faced more jail time for downloading academic papers than he would have if he had helped Al Qaeda build a nuclear weapon. " Too much for the American values.

Please don't take HN threads on flamewar tangents. This was a doozy. Such discussions are predictable, tedious, attract the same minority of commenters over and over and bore/drive away everybody else. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

I am sorry for that. I didn't intend that. Thank you for pointing to the guidelines and I will take this more to heart when commenting.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#189

Post by einpoklum »

Someone wrote: post #94
einpoklum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there is a way around it. You publish in an established venue, but also put the paper on a public website. This is possible legally using the "standard trick": https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/119002/7319 ... and is in relatively wide practice.

You often don’t need any trick. Major publishers nowadays allow you to put something nearly identical to the published paper online. See for example https://www.elsevier.com/authors/submit-your-paper/sharing-a... : You can always post your preprint on a preprint server. Additionally, for ArXiv and RePEC you can also immediately update this version with your accepted manuscript. Please note that Cell Press, The Lancet…

Well, that partial change is the result of people just posting their papers and ignoring more draconian previous copyright transfers. Still, not remotely sufficient. The point is that with this text, you only have the specific rights defined by Elsevier, and those are kind of limited. It's not at all clear what rights people who copy the paper have.

So, for example:

* There's an "embargo period" during which you're censored, you need to shut up, can't post your article. Preposterous.

* In many venues, you need to use custom links to Elsevier's "Science blocked and obfuscated". I mean "ScienceDirect"... yeah, right...

* You seem not to have rights to post new versions, or other derivative works.

* Stuff I haven't thought of because I'm not an IP lawyer.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#190

Post by YeBanKo »

ravitation wrote: post #176
pacbard wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could even be argued that the barricade around scientific research is what kept the epistemic "superiority" of academia and academics. Opening up the tools to review the scientific literature gives people the power of "doing their own research" without having the tools and skills to decide whether a paper they have found on whatever topic is good research. It's possible that this democratization process has opened…

I see this all the time... I work in medical research (basic science, not clinical), and I see people "cite" papers, based solely on their titles, without understanding, or likely even reading, the nuanced findings of the actual papers. It's dangerous because it gives people, often with secondary agendas, the illusion of scientific backing when there really isn't any (or when it's far more nuanced). I'll just note th…

No amount of increase of general scientific literacy will allow public in general to read/understand highly specialized fields. And most fields end up being highly specialized. But access to source can allow someone to validate the claims by a journalist or a public officials trying to bend conclusion to support their view. On top of it, it allows wider cross functional view, when someone with a data science background can check statistical reasoning used in, let’s medical research paper, etc.
Post reply on HN