4 ms·

I wonder if sci hub (and potentially even abandoning certain copyright laws) leads to less publications due to less financial incentives. I can imagine that no

I wonder if sci hub (and potentially even abandoning certain copyright laws) leads to less publications due to less financial incentives. I can imagine that nobody is going to write books professionally anymore if copyright laws to protect intellectual property were abandoned.

Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
Publishers are not paying scientists for papers, they are extorting exclusive copyrights promising exposure and fame, using psychological pressure founded on the "publish or perish" mentality. They are a big part of the problem, but SciHub is not the answer. We need a free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project. The big journals would still lure with fame and sell to readers with pre-selection and garnishment, but they can not be allowed exclusive rights. See: their most important customers are not individual readers, the journals sell bulk access to the very universities they get their content from. A few generations ago they were needed to distribute knowledge, and we are thankful for that, but their technology has become outdated and ineffective. Nowadays their money engine no longer relies on providing access to scientific knowledge, but on limiting it. They need to loose that power, so society can move forward.
- jraph 6y ago
  Yes, scientists have everything to gain from their work being as visible as possible. And many themselves rely on Sci-Hub to get papers for which their lab don't pay expensive access to. And they don't receive money when their papers are bought. The loosing ones are publishers and they kind of deserve it if you ask me. They make scientists pay with money to publish their work, and with time for unpaid reviews, and yet they make a profit out of it, which, for the record, is often paid with public money on both sides. This is quite clever when you think about it. Publishers had their use when we needed publications to be printed on papers but now their role is more arguable. Should private publishers collapse, scientists would figure out a way to publish their papers another way and that might be for the best. (edit since you added your second paragraph: hopefully using something like the "free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project" that you mention)
ipaddr 6y ago
People will continue to write books professionally and this will encourage more. Most of these books are written not to make a profit but to enrich a profile / a personal brand. This brings in a wider audience and perhaps a bigger following / rep.

Jon_Lowtek 6y ago

Publishers are not paying scientists for papers, they are extorting exclusive copyrights promising exposure and fame, using psychological pressure founded on the "publish or perish" mentality. They are a big part of the problem, but SciHub is not the answer. We need a free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project. The big journals would still lure with fame and sell to readers with pre-selection and garnishment, but they can not be allowed exclusive rights. See: their most important customers are not individual readers, the journals sell bulk access to the very universities they get their content from. A few generations ago they were needed to distribute knowledge, and we are thankful for that, but their technology has become outdated and ineffective. Nowadays their money engine no longer relies on providing access to scientific knowledge, but on limiting it. They need to loose that power, so society can move forward.

jraph 6y ago
Yes, scientists have everything to gain from their work being as visible as possible. And many themselves rely on Sci-Hub to get papers for which their lab don't pay expensive access to. And they don't receive money when their papers are bought. The loosing ones are publishers and they kind of deserve it if you ask me. They make scientists pay with money to publish their work, and with time for unpaid reviews, and yet they make a profit out of it, which, for the record, is often paid with public money on both sides. This is quite clever when you think about it. Publishers had their use when we needed publications to be printed on papers but now their role is more arguable. Should private publishers collapse, scientists would figure out a way to publish their papers another way and that might be for the best. (edit since you added your second paragraph: hopefully using something like the "free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project" that you mention)

ipaddr 6y ago

People will continue to write books professionally and this will encourage more. Most of these books are written not to make a profit but to enrich a profile / a personal brand. This brings in a wider audience and perhaps a bigger following / rep.