31–40 of 114 posts
However, note that they are very anarchic when it comes to commercial books, not just journal articles!
E.g. from the Sci-Bay search results, this is $131 on amazon.com, and quite possibly the authors do want the royalties.
[BOOK] Intelligent optimisation techniques: genetic algorithms, tabu search, simulated annealing and neural networks D Pham, D Karaboga - 2012 - books.google.com ... Cited by 916 Related articles All 3 versions [Download Book]
Can someone help dispel my ethical concerns over using papers like this? Eg sci-hub. Any and all arguments, on both sides are very welcome.
So, you reading articles off of scihub and expanding on the contained work within directly benefits the author. Just make sure to cite the author if you yourself publish! (Which is actually much less difficult than you might think. Even a blog post can contribute to the field).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how they are doing it, but Google Scholar does not have an API, and scraping is against their TOS. > Don’t misuse our Services. For example, don’t interfere with our Services or try to access them using a method other than the interface and the instructions that we provide. Despite this, there is scholar.py [0], which can extract files from Google Scholar, though it explicitly doesn't work around the rat…
or try to access them using a method other than the interface Unless this actually exploits something and hacks into Google's servers to get to the content, which would be something quite different, it wouldn't really be distinguishable from someone manually visiting the site in a browser, volume aside. IMHO the pervasive attitude today of somehow requiring permission or an explicitly sanctioned "API" to access what…
However, Google doesn't agree and the current court precedent doesn't either. So I tried to address the parent's concern from that viewpoint.
Can someone help dispel my ethical concerns over using papers like this? Eg sci-hub. Any and all arguments, on both sides are very welcome.
It allows for open-access of the epitome of human progress, which is something unavailable to low-income communities. It's copying data, not stealing from a museum, so it's not as if any journal is losing much, if anything. There's no real ethical downside - allowing people who wouldn't normally have access to research helps to reduce inequality, and allows human progress to advance a lot quicker than if it weren't o…
I agree with you in spirit - tax payer funded research outputs should be publicly available - but this is what got Aaron Swartz: it is unlawful.
https://sci-bay.org/article?link=https://pdfs.semanticschola...
Can someone help dispel my ethical concerns over using papers like this? Eg sci-hub. Any and all arguments, on both sides are very welcome.
A timely request: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/19/the-dark-rule-utilitari... "So this is my argument that Sci-Hub can be ethical. Universalized it would destroy the system – but the system is bad and needs to be destroyed. And although this would break the law, a very slight amount of law-breaking might be a beneficial solution to inadequate equilibria that could be endorsed even when universalized."
The system needs to be reformed, and that is currently happening, peacefully. Perhaps not everywhere at once and perhaps not as quickly as you might prefer, but open access publishing has made great strides in just a few short years.
This doesn't liberate the millions (probably) of academic articles whose authors relinquished their copyright to big publishers, but it is resulting in new tensions like Germany and Elsevier butting heads (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00093-7) and SciHub and exciting new legislation
No destruction or 'very slight law-breaking' necessary, nor mealy-mouthed 'inadequate equilibria' lies-to-self necessary either. Change is happening, the world doesn't need to go all Mad Max.
Google Scholar definitely and intentionally offers no API. I don't see this lasting long...
For example this (which sucks): https://sci-bay.org/article?link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...
Versus the actual article: https://elifesciences.org/articles/24234