7 ms·

This was demanded by Elsevier and Springer, as the copy of the order shows https://torrentfreak.com/images/scihuborder.pdf https://torrentfreak.com/images/scihu

by xorand 8y ago

This was demanded by Elsevier and Springer, as the copy of the order shows https://torrentfreak.com/images/scihuborder.pdf https://torrentfreak.com/images/scihuborder.pdf . Every researcher who still is an editor of one of their journals is responsible for this. Any academic manager who supports these journals, either by buying them or by counting impact factor points, is responsible of this. People should know that all of these people who support this are paid from their pockets.

99052882514569 8y ago
Is responsible for what? I support efforts to use open-access journals whenever possible and putting these ungodly abominations out of business. But that's up to researchers and funding agencies, not up to "the Pirate Bay of science" or any other site that breaks the law. And while I don't think it's immoral or anything to use it, I do think it's somewhat shrill and disingenuous to act like its blockage is some kind of a civil rights/ free speech issue. It's a paper pirating site, guys. Getting blocked and closed down is part of the game. Calm down.
- woofcat 8y ago
  While this area isn't my expertise. My understanding is that a large percentage of papers published have some Government funding. I would really like to see research which is conducted with the public's money required to be entered into the public domain and currently that doesn't seem to be the case.
  - teh_infallible 8y ago
    NASA comes to mind..
- leereeves 8y ago
  Let's be clear who's being "pirated" from. Elsevier and Springer don't pay for the research, or for the rights to the paper, or even the peer review. The only compensation they're giving anyone is "exposure". Given how little that is worth these days, the validity of the copyright assignments they hold are questionable at best.
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    I believe what was being referred to is the legal standpoint. The paid journals are an absurdity, but there is only one right course of action: Not using them. Submit no content, pay no subscriptions. Let them whither and die. With more and more universities joining in on open access, this should become easier and easier. However, they still legally hold the rights to what they have, and thus releasing their content in public is still illegal. You'd have to get the original authors to legally release it elsewhere, which they might not even have the rights to. Killing them by stealing the content which they legally yet immorally sell and have the rights to is neither just nor impressive, and gives them a chance to cry "Foul!". Do not give them that chance.
    - enriquto 8y ago
      > gives them a chance to cry "Foul!". Do not give them that chance. They can cry whatever they want. I want them to disappear in great pain!
      - arghwhat 8y ago
        Then don't give them the legal weaponry to fight back.
        smsm42 8y ago
        They already have the weaponry. They have captured the content people need to advance science and learning. That's already lost, we can't re-fight that battle. The choice now is to either use SciHub to access that content by other means, or voluntarily avoid doing this - thus granting them the spoils of the victory, and hope to maybe, maybe have some content free in the next one. I don't see how not voluntarily granting them the spoils makes anything worse for me - the legal system is always on their site, and that won't change in my lifetime. So it's either no access to papers for me, and hoping that maybe my grandkids will have some - or SciHub.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      > the content which they legally yet immorally sell The real foul is when the government enforces immoral laws.
- xorand 8y ago
  They are responsible for the effects of their choices. Researchers who are editors of Elsevier and Springer journals are responsible for the locking of public funded research. The editors bring public money to publishers pockets. The academic managers are even more responsible. They pay these publishers for nothing, presently, because either the old articles are in their libraries, or all of the newer articles are already available from a variety of sources, like arXiv or researchers themselves. Academic managers also decide on the researchers carriers and research funds access, based on impact factor points, which implicitly is helpful for these publishers. The world is changing, but slowly, see for example the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment http://www.ascb.org/dora/ http://www.ascb.org/dora/ Editors and managers live in a bureaucratic fantasy, in total disregard of researchers needs. This can be deduced from the use patterns of sites which are legal everywhere, like arXiv.org, or for sites which are not legal everywhere, like SciHub or LibGen. These are not used because researchers are too poor to pay the publishers, although I have yet to find one researcher who is willing to pay to read a research article from his personal pocket. These sites are used because they satisfy a need: fast, full access to research.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
terryschiavo22 8y ago
Any chance of getting a SFW version of that link? I can't click on a torrentfreak.com link, even if it probably is benign.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Kiro 8y ago
  What do you mean? TorrentFreak is a news site.
  - corpbuzzz 8y ago
    His employer's filters might be blocking it since it includes "torrent" in the url. That's a pretty common rule in Schools and Universities, for example.
- jszymborski 8y ago
  Here's a mirror whose URL is more petty-tyrant firewall friendly https://archive.fo/7x6Ui https://archive.fo/7x6Ui
- lucb1e 8y ago
  I don't click on links such as reddit/r/funny or something, but torrentfreak I consider on topic enough as an IT security consultant that I click it and will defend its legitimacy if ever questioned. The site reports on internet freedoms in an uncensored and to the point manner that I like a lot. If you have a fascist firewall, consider using Tor with the FascistFirewall=1 setting (https://2019.www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en#FascistFirewall https://2019.www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en#Fasc...).
fhood 8y ago
Just remember. Not everybody studies particle physics. There are fields where there are no other options.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  That's bullshit. Universities and professors have all the power; they just choose not to use it. The journal name means a lot, but so do the names of universities and well-respected researchers.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    This requires collective action. An individual can't meaningfully influence the situation.
    - andbberger 8y ago
      Certainly they can. What's forcing you to publish in nature? Just like... don't. If someone down the line is judging you based on what journal your work ended up in and not the quality of the work... well you probably don't want to work with them anyway
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        Are you in academia? Not trying to be snarky here -- genuinely want to know your perspective. As an outsider, everything I know about it leads me to believe that academia is so competitive that you really can't afford to just "not publish in top journals" and be picky about who you work with/what offers you take.
        andbberger 8y ago
        I am in academia, I just don't care to play the game. An academia that cares about journal over quality of work isn't really one I want to be a part of, so either way I'll be happy with the outcome.
      - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by xorand 8y ago

99052882514569 8y ago

Is responsible for what? I support efforts to use open-access journals whenever possible and putting these ungodly abominations out of business. But that's up to researchers and funding agencies, not up to "the Pirate Bay of science" or any other site that breaks the law. And while I don't think it's immoral or anything to use it, I do think it's somewhat shrill and disingenuous to act like its blockage is some kind of a civil rights/ free speech issue. It's a paper pirating site, guys. Getting blocked and closed down is part of the game. Calm down.

woofcat 8y ago
While this area isn't my expertise. My understanding is that a large percentage of papers published have some Government funding. I would really like to see research which is conducted with the public's money required to be entered into the public domain and currently that doesn't seem to be the case.
- teh_infallible 8y ago
  NASA comes to mind..
leereeves 8y ago
Let's be clear who's being "pirated" from. Elsevier and Springer don't pay for the research, or for the rights to the paper, or even the peer review. The only compensation they're giving anyone is "exposure". Given how little that is worth these days, the validity of the copyright assignments they hold are questionable at best.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  I believe what was being referred to is the legal standpoint. The paid journals are an absurdity, but there is only one right course of action: Not using them. Submit no content, pay no subscriptions. Let them whither and die. With more and more universities joining in on open access, this should become easier and easier. However, they still legally hold the rights to what they have, and thus releasing their content in public is still illegal. You'd have to get the original authors to legally release it elsewhere, which they might not even have the rights to. Killing them by stealing the content which they legally yet immorally sell and have the rights to is neither just nor impressive, and gives them a chance to cry "Foul!". Do not give them that chance.
  - enriquto 8y ago
    > gives them a chance to cry "Foul!". Do not give them that chance. They can cry whatever they want. I want them to disappear in great pain!
    - arghwhat 8y ago
      Then don't give them the legal weaponry to fight back.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        They already have the weaponry. They have captured the content people need to advance science and learning. That's already lost, we can't re-fight that battle. The choice now is to either use SciHub to access that content by other means, or voluntarily avoid doing this - thus granting them the spoils of the victory, and hope to maybe, maybe have some content free in the next one. I don't see how not voluntarily granting them the spoils makes anything worse for me - the legal system is always on their site, and that won't change in my lifetime. So it's either no access to papers for me, and hoping that maybe my grandkids will have some - or SciHub.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    > the content which they legally yet immorally sell The real foul is when the government enforces immoral laws.
xorand 8y ago
They are responsible for the effects of their choices. Researchers who are editors of Elsevier and Springer journals are responsible for the locking of public funded research. The editors bring public money to publishers pockets. The academic managers are even more responsible. They pay these publishers for nothing, presently, because either the old articles are in their libraries, or all of the newer articles are already available from a variety of sources, like arXiv or researchers themselves. Academic managers also decide on the researchers carriers and research funds access, based on impact factor points, which implicitly is helpful for these publishers. The world is changing, but slowly, see for example the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment http://www.ascb.org/dora/ http://www.ascb.org/dora/ Editors and managers live in a bureaucratic fantasy, in total disregard of researchers needs. This can be deduced from the use patterns of sites which are legal everywhere, like arXiv.org, or for sites which are not legal everywhere, like SciHub or LibGen. These are not used because researchers are too poor to pay the publishers, although I have yet to find one researcher who is willing to pay to read a research article from his personal pocket. These sites are used because they satisfy a need: fast, full access to research.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

terryschiavo22 8y ago

Any chance of getting a SFW version of that link? I can't click on a torrentfreak.com link, even if it probably is benign.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Kiro 8y ago
What do you mean? TorrentFreak is a news site.
- corpbuzzz 8y ago
  His employer's filters might be blocking it since it includes "torrent" in the url. That's a pretty common rule in Schools and Universities, for example.
jszymborski 8y ago
Here's a mirror whose URL is more petty-tyrant firewall friendly https://archive.fo/7x6Ui https://archive.fo/7x6Ui
lucb1e 8y ago
I don't click on links such as reddit/r/funny or something, but torrentfreak I consider on topic enough as an IT security consultant that I click it and will defend its legitimacy if ever questioned. The site reports on internet freedoms in an uncensored and to the point manner that I like a lot. If you have a fascist firewall, consider using Tor with the FascistFirewall=1 setting (https://2019.www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en#FascistFirewall https://2019.www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en#Fasc...).

fhood 8y ago

Just remember. Not everybody studies particle physics. There are fields where there are no other options.

nerdponx 8y ago
That's bullshit. Universities and professors have all the power; they just choose not to use it. The journal name means a lot, but so do the names of universities and well-respected researchers.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  This requires collective action. An individual can't meaningfully influence the situation.
  - andbberger 8y ago
    Certainly they can. What's forcing you to publish in nature? Just like... don't. If someone down the line is judging you based on what journal your work ended up in and not the quality of the work... well you probably don't want to work with them anyway
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      Are you in academia? Not trying to be snarky here -- genuinely want to know your perspective. As an outsider, everything I know about it leads me to believe that academia is so competitive that you really can't afford to just "not publish in top journals" and be picky about who you work with/what offers you take.
      - andbberger 8y ago
        I am in academia, I just don't care to play the game. An academia that cares about journal over quality of work isn't really one I want to be a part of, so either way I'll be happy with the outcome.
    - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]