4 ms·

Personally I'd never include Scihub into my workflow in a way that shows up in a publication. But I'm happy and amused that others do. :D

azangru 7y ago
Yes. I am surprised that authors don't see the difference between linking (if link they must) to the authoritative source of the article as opposed to the distribution channel they happened to use to get hold of the full text of the article. To me, it feels like irresponsible bibliographic practice.
- yorwba 7y ago
  All four examples involve citations of the authoritative source that in addition have a link to the actual distribution channel they used. That seems to me to be more responsible bibliographic practice than simply omitting that information. Similarly, if the original article is written in a language you don't speak, you should also cite the translation you used.
  - azangru 7y ago
    To me, a link to an authoritative source would be a link to the web page (or pdf file) on the site of the journal that published the paper. You wouldn't link to your friend's mailbox if it was your friend who sent you a copy of the article; why would you link to scihub for basically the same?
    - Sargos 7y ago
      The problem is they might change that page or file in the future. You have no guarantee that what you're reading is the original version of the paper.
      - azangru 7y ago
        Absolutely. But that is the problem with online publishing in general.
- fourthark 7y ago
  Especially since many of the examples in the article are just the original URL with `.sci-hub.org` pasted after the domain! And the sci-hub link does not work while the original does! Example from article: http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.org/science/article/pii/S0140700708000236 http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.org/science/article/pii... vs https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140700708000236 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014070070...
  - YaxelPerez 7y ago
    sci-hub.tw does work
nesadi 7y ago
It surprises me that there are people that do. Everybody I know uses sci-hub, but you wouldn't know it looking at their papers.
- segmondy 7y ago
  These people know exactly what they are doing, they're the revolutionary fighters.
sampo 7y ago
> Personally I'd never include Scihub into my workflow in a way that shows up in a publication. Clearly it was not meant to. Especially if you look at reference 4 here [1], it looks like the internal format of whatever reference database the authors used, was accidentally leaked into to references. Probably missing commas somewhere. HYPERLINK “http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11661-007-9094-9”\t“_blank” [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389215017782?via%3Dihub#bibl0005 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921...

azangru 7y ago

Yes. I am surprised that authors don't see the difference between linking (if link they must) to the authoritative source of the article as opposed to the distribution channel they happened to use to get hold of the full text of the article. To me, it feels like irresponsible bibliographic practice.

yorwba 7y ago
All four examples involve citations of the authoritative source that in addition have a link to the actual distribution channel they used. That seems to me to be more responsible bibliographic practice than simply omitting that information. Similarly, if the original article is written in a language you don't speak, you should also cite the translation you used.
- azangru 7y ago
  To me, a link to an authoritative source would be a link to the web page (or pdf file) on the site of the journal that published the paper. You wouldn't link to your friend's mailbox if it was your friend who sent you a copy of the article; why would you link to scihub for basically the same?
  - Sargos 7y ago
    The problem is they might change that page or file in the future. You have no guarantee that what you're reading is the original version of the paper.
    - azangru 7y ago
      Absolutely. But that is the problem with online publishing in general.
fourthark 7y ago
Especially since many of the examples in the article are just the original URL with `.sci-hub.org` pasted after the domain! And the sci-hub link does not work while the original does! Example from article: http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.org/science/article/pii/S0140700708000236 http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.org/science/article/pii... vs https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140700708000236 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014070070...
- YaxelPerez 7y ago
  sci-hub.tw does work

nesadi 7y ago

It surprises me that there are people that do. Everybody I know uses sci-hub, but you wouldn't know it looking at their papers.

segmondy 7y ago
These people know exactly what they are doing, they're the revolutionary fighters.

sampo 7y ago

> Personally I'd never include Scihub into my workflow in a way that shows up in a publication. Clearly it was not meant to. Especially if you look at reference 4 here [1], it looks like the internal format of whatever reference database the authors used, was accidentally leaked into to references. Probably missing commas somewhere. HYPERLINK “http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11661-007-9094-9”\t“_blank” [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389215017782?via%3Dihub#bibl0005 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921...