3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThing 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/