2 ms·
It dooms subscription journals because it breaks their leverage. Right now, publishers offer take it or leave it bundles of hundreds of journals at prices the
by x0x0 9y ago
It dooms subscription journals because it breaks their leverage.
Right now, publishers offer take it or leave it bundles of hundreds of journals at prices the publisher set. If a library doesn't want to pay, the library/university system loses access to everything. And many people at the university can't do their work without such access.
SciHub existing allows negotiators for the universities and libraries to shrug and say whatever when Elsevier threatens to cut access to every Elsevier journal.
- CorvusCrypto 9y agoEven if this were the case, then it's still very easy to control the market because of the authorship fees coupled with the drive toward publishing in subscription-model journals (thanks again to Impact Factor). Maybe your advisor took care of some of those costs, but most journals do have a significant fee for submission alone, not to mention the re-submission after a review requires a significant change. Sci-Hub can't change that so it still doesn't doom them. Not to mention Elsevier, till exempel, WILL be cracking down on piracy especially after their grant from the US courts regarding Sci-Hub. Sci-hub hasn't doomed anything and the publishers still control academia. You should be mad about this, and you should blame academia itself. Push for open journals like PLoS One when possible and try to convince people to move off that god-awful Impact Factor metric and you might inflict damage on the big publishers.