4 ms·

Parallel construction it is, then.

by Baeocystin 8y ago

mjevans 8y ago
Cite the official published source.
- LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  I wonder how this dichotomy of "use Wikipedia and SciHub, but you don't cite them directly" affects the ethics of graduates.
  - smt88 8y ago
    Citing Wikipedia directly is silly when Wikipedia often has its own citation of a primary source that you can use instead. Wikipedia is explicitly not a primary source by design. SciHub is different because it replicates primary sources. I'd argue that it's unethical to keep publicly funded science behind a paywall, so perhaps the ethical question you're implying is more nuanced than that of simple "piracy".
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    People cite Wikipedia all the time in peer-reviewed journal papers. Many e.g. high school teachers recommend that their students not cite (any) encyclopedias directly, because they want the students to learn how to read and cite primary sources. Reading a secondary source for an overview then diving into primary sources is a perfectly fine and ethical way to do research. I can’t see how schools and teachers advising students to read secondary sources for context but then follow their references to primary sources to read for the details would cause any kind of ethical compromise. There is no reason to cite SciHub (just like there is no reason to cite Academia.edu, ResearchGate, some professor’s personal webpage with a hosted preprint, Google Scholar, etc.) whether or not someone uses it.
  - tnecniv 8y ago
    Sci-Hub isn't a thing that you cite. It gives you a publication from a conference / journal. That's what you cite. Citing Sci-Hub would be like citing google.
  - geofft 8y ago
    I think you have a point and a lot of replies are missing it. Tacit acceptance of Sci-Hub is tacit acceptance that some laws don't matter and everyone knows it. That's certainly an ethical stance with implications. It's not necessarily a bad stance (D&D would call it "chaotic good") and it is I think my own stance, but once you decide that laws are secondary to your personal and professional needs if you don't get caught, you're likely to use the same argument in other respects. Citing the original paper instead of the Sci-Hub URL only increases the extent to which you're pretending to follow the law. Wikipedia has primary sources linked, yes, but it has its own biases. It tries not to, but it still has them to some extent, perhaps just in terms of what sections have been written and what haven't based on editors' interests. If you use Wikipedia to find primary sources, you're filtering your research through those biases. That has direct implications, and indirect implications for ethics in that you've decided this filtering is acceptable to you and also that it's acceptable (and perhaps required) not to acknowledge it. (And yes, of course there are other biases in terms of what university libraries stock, what previous academics have written about, what funding agencies are interested in, etc. I'd say that how much you pay attention to these potential biases and whether you see them as significant is also a question of ethics.)
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      How many grad students for generations have been smoking dope despite the laws against it? Using sci-hub despite the law is not a significant departure from the status quo of grad students ignoring dumb laws when it suits them. Sci-hub does not present a uniquely deleterious effect on the ethics of grad students. Also, even if sci-hub were legal, you still wouldn't cite the sci-hub url. That's not how things are cited.
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      > once you decide that laws are secondary to your personal and professional needs if you don't get caught, you're likely to use the same argument in other respect I don't think it's that clear cut. If you drive above the speed limit, or smoke weed in a state where it's not allowed, or pirate some DVDs, you're not automatically going to progress to more serious crimes. People seem to be perfectly capable of "ahh let's ignore this stupid law" and not start sliding down some slippery slope.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    Nobody needs to cite scihub. Download the papers you need off of it, cite them.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  Citations should always be in some standard form, including author, year, paper title, journal. But for a web link, just put the DOI. A reader can either click it or paste it into scihub, as they prefer.

Parallel construction it is, then.

mjevans 8y ago

Cite the official published source.

LeifCarrotson 8y ago
I wonder how this dichotomy of "use Wikipedia and SciHub, but you don't cite them directly" affects the ethics of graduates.
- smt88 8y ago
  Citing Wikipedia directly is silly when Wikipedia often has its own citation of a primary source that you can use instead. Wikipedia is explicitly not a primary source by design. SciHub is different because it replicates primary sources. I'd argue that it's unethical to keep publicly funded science behind a paywall, so perhaps the ethical question you're implying is more nuanced than that of simple "piracy".
- jacobolus 8y ago
  People cite Wikipedia all the time in peer-reviewed journal papers. Many e.g. high school teachers recommend that their students not cite (any) encyclopedias directly, because they want the students to learn how to read and cite primary sources. Reading a secondary source for an overview then diving into primary sources is a perfectly fine and ethical way to do research. I can’t see how schools and teachers advising students to read secondary sources for context but then follow their references to primary sources to read for the details would cause any kind of ethical compromise. There is no reason to cite SciHub (just like there is no reason to cite Academia.edu, ResearchGate, some professor’s personal webpage with a hosted preprint, Google Scholar, etc.) whether or not someone uses it.
- tnecniv 8y ago
  Sci-Hub isn't a thing that you cite. It gives you a publication from a conference / journal. That's what you cite. Citing Sci-Hub would be like citing google.
- geofft 8y ago
  I think you have a point and a lot of replies are missing it. Tacit acceptance of Sci-Hub is tacit acceptance that some laws don't matter and everyone knows it. That's certainly an ethical stance with implications. It's not necessarily a bad stance (D&D would call it "chaotic good") and it is I think my own stance, but once you decide that laws are secondary to your personal and professional needs if you don't get caught, you're likely to use the same argument in other respects. Citing the original paper instead of the Sci-Hub URL only increases the extent to which you're pretending to follow the law. Wikipedia has primary sources linked, yes, but it has its own biases. It tries not to, but it still has them to some extent, perhaps just in terms of what sections have been written and what haven't based on editors' interests. If you use Wikipedia to find primary sources, you're filtering your research through those biases. That has direct implications, and indirect implications for ethics in that you've decided this filtering is acceptable to you and also that it's acceptable (and perhaps required) not to acknowledge it. (And yes, of course there are other biases in terms of what university libraries stock, what previous academics have written about, what funding agencies are interested in, etc. I'd say that how much you pay attention to these potential biases and whether you see them as significant is also a question of ethics.)
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    How many grad students for generations have been smoking dope despite the laws against it? Using sci-hub despite the law is not a significant departure from the status quo of grad students ignoring dumb laws when it suits them. Sci-hub does not present a uniquely deleterious effect on the ethics of grad students. Also, even if sci-hub were legal, you still wouldn't cite the sci-hub url. That's not how things are cited.
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    > once you decide that laws are secondary to your personal and professional needs if you don't get caught, you're likely to use the same argument in other respect I don't think it's that clear cut. If you drive above the speed limit, or smoke weed in a state where it's not allowed, or pirate some DVDs, you're not automatically going to progress to more serious crimes. People seem to be perfectly capable of "ahh let's ignore this stupid law" and not start sliding down some slippery slope.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  Nobody needs to cite scihub. Download the papers you need off of it, cite them.
jacobolus 8y ago
Citations should always be in some standard form, including author, year, paper title, journal. But for a web link, just put the DOI. A reader can either click it or paste it into scihub, as they prefer.