The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
blogs.lse.ac.uk
The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
1–10 of 247 posts
Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#2Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#3Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#4if most experiments can’t be replicated how important are these papers on sci hub?
Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#5Nevertheless, I prefer this platform because I disagree with the publishing model of most publishers. Let's not get into the details here, but there is all kinds of shoddy editorship happening all over the place---I have seen at least one blatant case of plagiarism in an Elsevier journal: no one cares. I have experienced very strange 'reformatting' queries; my highlight being a journal that forces you to convert your lovingly-crafted vector graphs into JPG just 'because'.
On top of all that, add the fact that the interface of many publishers is egregiously bad to use. It takes a lot of clicks to download a single PDF, often opening multiple windows for that purpose or redirecting you a few times. Sci-Hub streamlined this process: you put in a DOI, and you get a PDF. Not an ePDF that is super laggy (looking at you, Wiley!), but a normal PDF that I can download, annotate, print, decorate my wall with.
Thus, I disagree with the article: the single minimalist interface is definitely something that contributes to Sci-Hub's popularity.
Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#6Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#7I'll make a slight counterpoint however. It costs between $1-$5k (very rough numbers) to publish in open access journals usually. That's not nothing, but it defrays the management costs that come with a run-of-the-mill journal operation. For more flashy/fancy journals those costs are claimed to be higher (Nature asserts $40k).
Maybe that's inflated, Nature certainly has some incentive to fudge the numbers. Still, I don't think it's that far off considering the volume of submissions (hence # editors), the general press coverage work they do and just putting out a magazine every week with usually about a dozen publications and two dozen original articles.
If we take it at 1/2 that cost, clearly the average lab can't afford $20K to publish. How do we solve that particular issue? Seems we're back to the "how do you finance good journalism/short-turnaround publications?" question. Don't have answers, but want to get opinions.
EDIT: To clarify, I think most publications would be fine under a fairly small contribution, I'm more curious about the very select, super expensive marquee journals.
Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#8I am part of a well-funded university, so I have access to all the papers without using Sci-Hub. Nevertheless, I prefer this platform because I disagree with the publishing model of most publishers. Let's not get into the details here, but there is all kinds of shoddy editorship happening all over the place---I have seen at least one blatant case of plagiarism in an Elsevier journal: no one cares. I have experienced…
And editorship is highly variable, even at the highest end. I remember catching an article in Nature where two curves in separate panes were clearly copy-pasted yet claimed to be different conditions in the legend.
Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#9if most experiments can’t be replicated how important are these papers on sci hub?
Re: The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub (2019)
#10Sci-hub has been critical to me as I developed the idea for my current startup. If it didn't exist, I could have gotten most of the papers from friends in academia, but it would have been dramatically harder and slower. I use it, I support the concept. I'll make a slight counterpoint however. It costs between $1-$5k (very rough numbers) to publish in open access journals usually. That's not nothing, but it defrays th…