Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone • Hacker News Board

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#221

Post by hanklazard » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

finfet1 wrote: post #49

leot wrote: post #18

Elsevier and others can go something themselves. Their behavior over the last two decades has been little more than reprehensible rent-seeking. Whatever goodwill they had disappeared as they sapped with increasing ruthlessness the dollars of students and non-profits. See, e.g., one of many such figures: http://www.lib.washington.edu/scholpub/images/economics_grap... It is absurd and dishonest to call Sci-Hub "piracy"…

Totally agree. I have gone through academia and am now in industry; the other day I wanted to read and browse basic papers in IEEE Explore for basic knowledge on new topics. Since I am no longer a student, I am willing to pay money - as much as hundreds to get unlimited access. Instead, for hundreds, IEEE explore offers a measly ("generous") 25 downloads a month or some such non-sense It just seemed so miserly of the…

"Anyone that has gone through research and academia knows that you often need to browse many papers to even find the ones worth reading."

Exactly. And without the monthly subscription plan (something I wasn't even aware of until this comment thread), the going rate seems to be around $30 per paper--rent-seeking to the point of highway robbery. One thing that these publishing companies could have done long ago was allow some sort of "free preview" of the full text or "full refund within 10 min" option to help deal with this problem. I have no idea how this would be done technically to prevent "pirating" but, as it is, the pay-per-paper system is completely disconnected from the way researchers browse papers.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#222

Post by DarkContinent » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

return0 wrote: post #184

nailer wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A publication in "Science" or "Nature" What excludes the academic from also publishing elsewhere?

Even if they could (and they can publish their preprints), scientists rarely bother. That's because they want to communicate their science to people who matter to them (e.g. grant giving bodies), not to the general public.

Which raises the question of why we the taxpayers should be funding this research if it's not easily available for the public good.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#223

Post by bradleyjg » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #220

dalke wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journals are used as a proxy for quality. A publication in "Science" or "Nature" is generally regarded as being better than a publication in, say, the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science". Bibliographic metrics, like the number of publications and where they are published, are use as a proxy for the quality of someone's research. It can affect grant funding and career advancement. Researchers can publish…

I'm confused by this. The researchers don't get paid for their paper, and it seems like the peer reviewers don't get paid for doing the peer review: http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-scie... So why exactly are publications locking these papers behind massively expensive paywalls when writing them and reviewing them are being done for free?

Who gets paid more: a tenure track professor doing research or an Associate Dean for Research?

This is the same phenomenon.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#224

Post by hanklazard » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

impendia wrote: post #217

nailer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand academia (genuinely): Couldn't the researchers simply publish their own papers? Make torrents etc? Or are they prevented from doing that somehow?

This is actually common, at least in mathematics: Researchers simultaneously submit to a traditional journal and to the preprint server http://arxiv.org . Usually I don't have any difficulties finding contemporary papers. It is papers from, say, thirty years ago, that are usually stuck behind paywalls.

Interesting. I wonder why nothing of that sort exists for the biomedical sciences? Maybe it's been tried but these publishers won't allow it?

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#225

Post by gautamdivgi » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #220

dalke wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journals are used as a proxy for quality. A publication in "Science" or "Nature" is generally regarded as being better than a publication in, say, the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science". Bibliographic metrics, like the number of publications and where they are published, are use as a proxy for the quality of someone's research. It can affect grant funding and career advancement. Researchers can publish…

I'm confused by this. The researchers don't get paid for their paper, and it seems like the peer reviewers don't get paid for doing the peer review: http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-scie... So why exactly are publications locking these papers behind massively expensive paywalls when writing them and reviewing them are being done for free?

You confuse two things. The main career goal of a researcher in academia is generally moving up to the tenure track. The method to measure this progress is typically a)publication in journals with a high impact factor and b) Being on the technical review committee of said journals.

The reason researchers publish in these journals is it gives them street cred. There are several open access journals - but scanty participation since their impact factor is unknown and does little to promote the researchers career.

Speaking as someone who has published myself, the paywalls are highway robbery. But, imho - it is a problem only the researchers can solve by concertedly supporting open access journals and getting involved in them (maybe a yc research idea???). The established professors would need to take the lead on this - not the underlings.

Personally - I've seen the "light" and stayed back in industry as opposed to moving into academia as I had hoped. The rat race for funding & publications & street cred seemed a lot worse there.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#226

Post by bcook » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

alanwatts wrote: post #219

bcook wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it does not feel wrong, it must be right? We should strive for a logical explanation that transcends emotional response.

The idea of "Right vs Wrong" or "Good vs Evil", is a debate mostly based on emotions rather than logic.

My post was not comparing good or evil. I was saying that simply because you feel something does not make it so.

1 + 1 = 2, regardless of how I feel about the numbers or operators.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#227

Post by wsfull » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

If the cost to students attending universities that have adequate subscriptions is small -- previously, commenters suggested this portion of their tuition amounted to only a small annual fee -- then what would be the reasons the publishers would not offer individual subscriptions at similar cost to the public? As any serious student knows, the "a la carte" prices are absurd -- how successful have they been with this idea?

One silly idea deserves another:

Generally, journals manage their subscriptions through filtering on IP address ranges.

Imagine a customer-ISP agreement that had an option whereby a subscriber could "opt in" to academic journals for a few extra dollars per month.

These subscribers might then be assigned addresses in certain designated ranges by their ISP.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#228

Post by topstriker515 » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

I'm not familiar with the procedure of publishing a paper, so please excuse my ignorance. What's preventing someone from submitting their work to publishers AND uploading it to an open access platform? They can rely on the journal for quality-review/validation/etc. while still allowing for wide dissemination.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#229

Post by dalke » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:26 PM UTC

DarkContinent wrote: post #222

return0 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they could (and they can publish their preprints), scientists rarely bother. That's because they want to communicate their science to people who matter to them (e.g. grant giving bodies), not to the general public.

Which raises the question of why we the taxpayers should be funding this research if it's not easily available for the public good.

Copyright, according to the US Constitution, exists for the public good:

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

You may disagree with that conclusion, but there's 200+ years of belief that it's possible to be "for the public good" and be covered under copyright which restricts redistribution. The short term loss is outweighed by the long term gain, or so the belief holds.

Bear in mind that the copyright term back then was decades shorter than it is now.

That said, grant organizations are turning towards requiring publication either in an open access journal, or by having papers restricted for only a short time, rather than the full length of copyright.

Re: Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone

#230

Post by throwanem » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #209

ryanlol wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This blanket downvoting is somewhat odd, what is it I'm saying that's so disagreeable? For afaik I've only presented facts about the time Swartz would probably have spent incarcerated.

Your first comment is open to interpretation (it doesn't say would not still or in and out of or something like that) so people are reacting pretty much entirely based on their existing emotions. They don't care about analyzing the likely outcome of the case had he lived, it's brought up to share anger and outrage over the injustice.

> They don't care about analyzing the likely outcome of the case had he lived, it's brought up to share anger and outrage over the injustice.

Precisely. He didn't have to kill himself, and if he'd put a bit more forethought into what he was doing, we'd probably be discussing this in a thread around an interview with him rather than with Ms. Elbakyan. But nobody wants to hear that, because it detracts from the story of this generation's Bobby Fischer.