381–390 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn’t at home, don’t have them in my Dropbox.
I think they meant, why not upload then on arXiv.org See https://arxiv.org/help/submit . That will make your paper easily accessible to all. And, of course, to yourself, wherever you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If sci-hub goes down it will significantly disrupt nearly every scientific researcher, in every field, all over the world. After getting used to a world where every paper is obtainable, it would be very difficult for people to go back. I’m not really a scholar or academic per se, but the independent research I do (which involves skimming thousands of papers per year, 99% of which are irrelevant or useless) would be a…
If your peers thing that you need to cite the paper X because is relevant for the theme, you need to obtain it and pay for it. To decide to ignore parts of knowledge because you don't like its distribution mode is not an option. The result will be less science, slower science and independent scientists being pushed out of the road. They would try to recruit them later under the ridiculous 'citizen scientists' categor…
Let's rephrase that:
"If you can't afford the journal subscriptions that allow you to access all of the papers your peers think are relevant for you to cite, then you shouldn't release your research at all."
Whose world ends up with "less science", again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a researcher at a first world university. I used sci-hub to pirate my own papers cus we did not have a subscription to the journal anymore. I’m not paying $39 to read my own work!
Does your institution's library not offer interlibrary loan?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think persistence will win this one because the moral dilemma is pretty weak here. Unlike with the software and arts, we don’t need to seek a funding model for the researchers when we take their work for free. It’s my impression that it’s a matter of adaptation before the free access becomes the norm. Therefore technical help and civil disobedience should eventually do the job. In this case, we are stealing from th…
free is a flawed concept - energy and time went into publishing each paper meaning someone paid. If the authors want to give permission, then she ought to seek it for each paper she's put on her website or seek permission from whomever owns the copyright. Otherwise it's theft. And no amount of civil disobedience can justify theft.
Without SciHub uploading the newest articles, the vast majority of institutions and individuals are unable to access the latest science. This results in the pace of global scientific advancement slowing way, way down. That means that cures to diseases, for example, are either not discovered or the progress toward discovering cures is delayed months, years, or decades. That means people die who did not have to die except for the greed and corruption of the publishing companies and the academic publishing system. It means people suffer unnecessarily. It means progress toward climate change solutions is stifled. It means species that didn't have to go extinct, may go extinct. It goes on and on. It means progress in all fields, in all nations is stymied. It means you, your family members, and your friends may suffer and die from diseases and endure calamities that were entirely unnecessary to experience.
The moral argument involved in this debate is ENTIRELY different than Napster. No one dies because they don't get to hear J Lo's latest hit.
There is a giant difference between moral and legal. It was illegal for Rosa Parks to not give up her seat for a white person. A white person in Montgomery, AL circa 1955 may have attempted to claim that Ms Parks was guilty of "theft" - that she "stole" a seat from a white person. But by doing what she did, she sparked a movement that has begun to create a different and better world for African Americans. Was Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white person an immoral act?
What Alexandra is doing is illegal according to the laws of many nations. But is it immoral? I argue that not only is what Alexandra doing moral, but there is a moral imperative for the work begun by her to continue. If anything, Alexandra ought to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for her courage and dedication to the betterment of all humanity. I'm not kidding.
I can't think of anyone who has done more for the scientific development of mankind in the last 10 years than Alexandra.
I do not meet that qualification. But I'd be willing to wager that at least one person frequenting this forum does. If you meet the qualifications to nominate a person for a Nobel Peace Prize, please consider nominating Alexandra. The deadline is midnight CET, Jan 31.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s like if I said “i want to be able to attend the most prestigious school but I don’t want to pay for it”. I think it's interesting to note that in many European countries the top schools are free to attend.
Sure, but it's because the gov't subsidizes the cost of schools. Are you suggesting they subsidize the cost of journal subscriptions to the point they are free?
Given how beneficial sci-hub is, there ought to be some way that the scientific community can formally recognise this, as a way of legitimizing her cause. Some ways I can think of: * Get her elected as rector of a university. Contraversial figures are sometimes elected as Rector, at least in the UK, because students are the electorate. However for the same reason this isn't considered especially prestigious by people…
Honorary doctorate, maybe?
This is insult to the intelligence of the publishers.
This article from Elsevier is amusing. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/allegations-linking-sci-hub... This is insult to the intelligence of the publishers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does your institution's library not offer interlibrary loan?
Those aren't free in most libraries I've been to and don't apply to everything (don't quote me on this, but since journals are basically subscription services, their articles aren't actually owned by the library and they might not be able to loan them out further).
My own academic library where I work used to have a per-semester limit and charged for requests over it but we eliminated it for a number of reasons, one of which was that it was skewing our acquisition decisions. When we did charge, the cost was less than what you'd pay at a publisher's website.
It is true that some vendor content doesn't allow ILL, but it's in the minority. In 2009 the Information Delivery Services Project found around 15% of publishers do not permit ILL at all while 46% permit it with no restrictions. The rest are in-between, applying restrictions like no lending outside of the US or to commercial entities. https://idsproject.org/documents/IDS%20Project%20licensing.p...