2 ms·

scihub does that already tbh. And arxiv/biorxiv

• Vinnl 8y ago
  Sure, but Sci-Hub is not a sustainable long-term solution, still relies on the traditional paywalled publishing system, and doesn't legally make works available under an open license. arXiv and other preprint servers are limited in their reach. We're certainly not in Open Access utopia yet, and anything that brings that closer should be commended, in my opinion, not criticised for not achieving other goals such as improving the system of peer review.
  • buboard 8y ago
    I don't know. Open access has been advocated for 15+ years, but scihub has the most impact in everyday work. At this point i think we should push for governmental intervention that retroactively abolishes the copyrights for all existing publicly-funded works or otherwise mandates the creation of publicly-accessible copies.
    • Vinnl 8y ago
      Yes, Sci-Hub has been a great boon. It's still not a sustainable long-term solution though, and not only do we need to abolish copyright for existing published work (whose copyright will already eventually -but only after far too long a time- expire), but also make sure that future published work will become immediately available to access and re-use. That's what this is about. (Note that Plan S was initiated by governmental organisations, so there's the governmental intervention for you.)