8 ms·

Not really. Sure, you could go get the paper from the guy down the hall, but most universities don't have their own hub for publications that is accessible to t

Not really. Sure, you could go get the paper from the guy down the hall, but most universities don't have their own hub for publications that is accessible to their faculty.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
So there's some value in a central hub, which I assume also costs money to set up and run?
- sooheon 6y ago
  Which scihub provides. Journals are their own silos and require multiple exorbitant subscriptions.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    Sci hub benefits from having journals enforce standards, have editors, reviewers, and a ton of value added that they didn't pay for. I like Sci Hub, but it didn't create a lot of the value it provides - it does that on the $ of a lot of other actors. Even arxiv was getting flooded with crap and had to do some gatekeeping. Sci hub gets a huge benefit from the publishing industry at keeping out a flood of crap and pseudo science nonsense that floods most places that don't have such a process.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Journals don't pay reviewers either, as has been explained above.
      - ChrisLomont 6y ago
        >Journals don't pay reviewers either, Some do. And I am aware of that most don't, having published enough papers, reviewed papers, and been asked by journals to review for them. However, I never claimed reviewers were paid. I did state Sci Hub is getting benefits they didn't pay for, like keeping out crap, the value from being reviewed, uniform quality from known journals, etc. If I, having published academic papers, and in many cases keeping my own copyrights as I always try to negotiate that (and a surprising amount of journals will let you if you ask), want scihub to not publish my work, funded by me, and published by journals I selected, will they remove it? No? Then they are stealing the same as others. It's just their theft is popular since it lets people access stuff for free.
        madhadron 6y ago
        > I did state Sci Hub is getting benefits they didn't pay for, like keeping out crap, the value from being reviewed, uniform quality from known journals, etc. A few journal pay editors and reviewers, but the vast majority do not, so Sci-Hub is paying the same as anyone else. > will they remove it? Last time I checked, Sci-Hub doesn't host, it proxies, so your license to the journal to distribute the paper is still what applies. The journal has standing, but you don't. And the idea of uniform quality from known journals is laughable.
        ChrisLomont 6y ago
        >so Sci-Hub is paying the same as anyone else. You seem to be missing the point: Who is going to review for sci hub? Reviewers review for the journal the decide to - and that's based on the quality of a journal. I will review for a good journal. I won't for a bad one. Who would review for sci hub? I wouldn't, and I doubt many if any top researchers would either. Sci hub will accept the crappiest of stuff, so I (and pretty much anyone else doing solid reviews) would not bother. >Sci-Hub doesn't host, it proxies Did you check that or write it because you want to believe that? Sci hub pulls a copy to sci hub using stolen credentials when you ask for a copy. For example, here [1] is one of my papers that sci hub has copied and serves from their site. (not sure how long they cache copies, but it's not hard to see using chrome and viewing requests to tell where files come from). The paper even has a front page and watermarks added in 2016 from where it was downloaded from. So no, sci-hub didn't just proxy to the journal. [1] https://zero.sci-hub.do/5265/2478517301ba71ba89a837647f1a133a/lomont2002.pdf https://zero.sci-hub.do/5265/2478517301ba71ba89a837647f1a133...
        markdown 6y ago
        > Then they are stealing the same as others. It's just their theft is popular since it lets people access stuff for free. As has already been pointed out in this thread, the work has been bought and paid for by taxpayers. Your work is based upon the work of others, isn't it? I'm sure your work is filled with citations of other works that were taxpayer funded. Sure, there is the odd case like yours where you funded your own work. But to argue that the world should be denied access to all scientific knowledge because a tiny, minuscule portion of it was privately funded is pretty lame.

Not really. Sure, you could go get the paper from the guy down the hall, but most universities don't have their own hub for publications that is accessible to their faculty.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

So there's some value in a central hub, which I assume also costs money to set up and run?

sooheon 6y ago
Which scihub provides. Journals are their own silos and require multiple exorbitant subscriptions.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  Sci hub benefits from having journals enforce standards, have editors, reviewers, and a ton of value added that they didn't pay for. I like Sci Hub, but it didn't create a lot of the value it provides - it does that on the $ of a lot of other actors. Even arxiv was getting flooded with crap and had to do some gatekeeping. Sci hub gets a huge benefit from the publishing industry at keeping out a flood of crap and pseudo science nonsense that floods most places that don't have such a process.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Journals don't pay reviewers either, as has been explained above.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      >Journals don't pay reviewers either, Some do. And I am aware of that most don't, having published enough papers, reviewed papers, and been asked by journals to review for them. However, I never claimed reviewers were paid. I did state Sci Hub is getting benefits they didn't pay for, like keeping out crap, the value from being reviewed, uniform quality from known journals, etc. If I, having published academic papers, and in many cases keeping my own copyrights as I always try to negotiate that (and a surprising amount of journals will let you if you ask), want scihub to not publish my work, funded by me, and published by journals I selected, will they remove it? No? Then they are stealing the same as others. It's just their theft is popular since it lets people access stuff for free.
      - madhadron 6y ago
        > I did state Sci Hub is getting benefits they didn't pay for, like keeping out crap, the value from being reviewed, uniform quality from known journals, etc. A few journal pay editors and reviewers, but the vast majority do not, so Sci-Hub is paying the same as anyone else. > will they remove it? Last time I checked, Sci-Hub doesn't host, it proxies, so your license to the journal to distribute the paper is still what applies. The journal has standing, but you don't. And the idea of uniform quality from known journals is laughable.
        ChrisLomont 6y ago
        >so Sci-Hub is paying the same as anyone else. You seem to be missing the point: Who is going to review for sci hub? Reviewers review for the journal the decide to - and that's based on the quality of a journal. I will review for a good journal. I won't for a bad one. Who would review for sci hub? I wouldn't, and I doubt many if any top researchers would either. Sci hub will accept the crappiest of stuff, so I (and pretty much anyone else doing solid reviews) would not bother. >Sci-Hub doesn't host, it proxies Did you check that or write it because you want to believe that? Sci hub pulls a copy to sci hub using stolen credentials when you ask for a copy. For example, here [1] is one of my papers that sci hub has copied and serves from their site. (not sure how long they cache copies, but it's not hard to see using chrome and viewing requests to tell where files come from). The paper even has a front page and watermarks added in 2016 from where it was downloaded from. So no, sci-hub didn't just proxy to the journal. [1] https://zero.sci-hub.do/5265/2478517301ba71ba89a837647f1a133a/lomont2002.pdf https://zero.sci-hub.do/5265/2478517301ba71ba89a837647f1a133...
      - markdown 6y ago
        > Then they are stealing the same as others. It's just their theft is popular since it lets people access stuff for free. As has already been pointed out in this thread, the work has been bought and paid for by taxpayers. Your work is based upon the work of others, isn't it? I'm sure your work is filled with citations of other works that were taxpayer funded. Sure, there is the odd case like yours where you funded your own work. But to argue that the world should be denied access to all scientific knowledge because a tiny, minuscule portion of it was privately funded is pretty lame.