6 ms·

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 t

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.
    - class4behavior 8y ago
      If you allow illegal activity as a form of protest—when it is not the absolutely last option—, then you negate the legitimacy of the law in general. So even if you argue your illegal action was the best possible measure to move society forward, you still have to accept the consequences for breaking the law. In this case it is the presence of a legal device allowing to censor copyright-infringing sources which is bad; that is, censorship is not even limited to (very) serious crimes anymore. As a result the government is building the legal and physical infrastructure to manipulate communication via the internet. This will only embolden more authoritarian regimes in their pursuit to isolate and nationalize their internet infrastructure.
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]

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.
  - class4behavior 8y ago
    If you allow illegal activity as a form of protest—when it is not the absolutely last option—, then you negate the legitimacy of the law in general. So even if you argue your illegal action was the best possible measure to move society forward, you still have to accept the consequences for breaking the law. In this case it is the presence of a legal device allowing to censor copyright-infringing sources which is bad; that is, censorship is not even limited to (very) serious crimes anymore. As a result the government is building the legal and physical infrastructure to manipulate communication via the internet. This will only embolden more authoritarian regimes in their pursuit to isolate and nationalize their internet infrastructure.

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]