3 ms·
It costs some money to get a DOI. Publishers can still be content aggregators and indexers, or curators. Sci-hub is merely an archive.
by pishpash 9y ago
It costs some money to get a DOI. Publishers can still be content aggregators and indexers, or curators. Sci-hub is merely an archive.
- jly 9y agoI agree there is value added by curation. But today, academic publishing is an industry worth over $10b, and they don't actually pay for the original access or license of the content or the editing and peer-review. Publishers do add value but not to the extent of the cost that's passed on to the public today.
- sillysaurus3 9y agoPaying $30 to merely look at a paper that may or may not be valuable is ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
- closeparen 9y agoYou aren't meant to pay the $30, you're meant to be inside the firewall at an institution.
- joelthelion 9y agoAnd that excludes 99% of taxpayers.
- closeparen 9y agoCorrect, but I think people are getting hung up on the price and rent-seeking aspect. The price is a farce. Really, what's happening is the restriction of knowledge to the ivory towers (and their VPNs).
- CamelCaseName 9y agoBut why is the price a farce? Why not make it some nominal amount? Universities will still buy subscriptions.
- contravariant 9y agoI'm not entirely sure about that. But luckily there is an easy way to find out. All we need to do is give Sci-hub free reign to publish scientific articles, and see what happens.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago> It costs some money to get a DOI Can't be too much, seeing as I can put a semi-unlimited number of PDFs up on Figshare and get DOIs for them for free.
- screye 9y ago> content aggregators and indexers, or curators This is an active Machine Learning task in a lab at my university. Given the kind of progress they are making, I don't see publishers finding much monetary value in this task in the future.