3 ms·
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 distr
by 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 agoAll 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 agoTo 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?
- fourthark 7y agoEspecially 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 agosci-hub.tw does work