6 ms·

Keep in mind that this article is published by Nature Publishing Group, which is a closed-access publisher just like Elsevier. Hence, they have an incentive to

by a3_nm 8y ago

Keep in mind that this article is published by Nature Publishing Group, which is a closed-access publisher just like Elsevier. Hence, they have an incentive to give readers the impression that it's a big deal for a university to cancel their subscription to closed-access articles. They do so by failing to mention the two obvious ways that people can use to get access to scientific papers without a subscription: (1.) preprints on open repositories and/or author websites, and (2.) Sci-Hub.

fabian2k 8y ago
Preprints are not an option in every field, they're very common in some fields but almost nonexistent in others. Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative, that is an issue. There are legal ways to get papers without subscription for a reasonable price (inter-library loans), but they take more time and effort.
- a3_nm 8y ago
  The fact that Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative is not a reason not to mention them. The existence of Sci-Hub is very relevant to what the article discusses.
  - subroutine 8y ago
    Thing is, there is no need for Sci-Hub if researchers (in the US) just took a few minutes to comply with the existing NIH public access policy. https://publicaccess.nih.gov https://publicaccess.nih.gov > To advance science and improve human health, NIH makes the peer-reviewed articles it funds publicly available on PubMed Central. The NIH public access policy requires scientists to submit final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds to PubMed Central immediately upon acceptance for publication. Why this duty is so often neglected escapes me, since: (1) it's to our great benefit (in a general greater good sense, yes, but here I'm saying it's to someone's great personal benefit) to make your research articles as easily accessible as possible (think: h-index). (2) It's not like PubMed / PMC is some obscure portal scientists rarely visit. It's where the majority of us begin our lit search. If you are writing a grant / thesis / dissertation it's practically our homepage. Basically I'm saying it's collectively odd behavior that we use PubMed as our primary portal to access research articles, but not bother to ensure our own research articles are easily accessible through this portal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/public-access/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/public-access/
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative It is just one criterion among the many criteria that you use for your decision process.
- mandelken 8y ago
  > Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative Depends on where you live. In my country it is perfectly legal for scientific or teaching purposes. And any article with a Belgian author has to be freely available by law max 3-6 months after publication (depending on the field). It can be argued that reading scientific articles is a basic human right, see art. 27 of the UN declaration: "Everyone has the right freely [..] to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by a3_nm 8y ago

fabian2k 8y ago

Preprints are not an option in every field, they're very common in some fields but almost nonexistent in others. Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative, that is an issue. There are legal ways to get papers without subscription for a reasonable price (inter-library loans), but they take more time and effort.

a3_nm 8y ago
The fact that Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative is not a reason not to mention them. The existence of Sci-Hub is very relevant to what the article discusses.
- subroutine 8y ago
  Thing is, there is no need for Sci-Hub if researchers (in the US) just took a few minutes to comply with the existing NIH public access policy. https://publicaccess.nih.gov https://publicaccess.nih.gov > To advance science and improve human health, NIH makes the peer-reviewed articles it funds publicly available on PubMed Central. The NIH public access policy requires scientists to submit final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds to PubMed Central immediately upon acceptance for publication. Why this duty is so often neglected escapes me, since: (1) it's to our great benefit (in a general greater good sense, yes, but here I'm saying it's to someone's great personal benefit) to make your research articles as easily accessible as possible (think: h-index). (2) It's not like PubMed / PMC is some obscure portal scientists rarely visit. It's where the majority of us begin our lit search. If you are writing a grant / thesis / dissertation it's practically our homepage. Basically I'm saying it's collectively odd behavior that we use PubMed as our primary portal to access research articles, but not bother to ensure our own research articles are easily accessible through this portal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/public-access/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/public-access/
wolfgke 8y ago
> Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative It is just one criterion among the many criteria that you use for your decision process.
mandelken 8y ago
> Sci-Hub is not a legal alternative Depends on where you live. In my country it is perfectly legal for scientific or teaching purposes. And any article with a Belgian author has to be freely available by law max 3-6 months after publication (depending on the field). It can be argued that reading scientific articles is a basic human right, see art. 27 of the UN declaration: "Everyone has the right freely [..] to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]