5 ms·

Activists mobilize to fight censorship and save open science

68 points by andyxor 5y ago

andyxor 5y ago
A brief introduction to Sci-Hub for developers: https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/nh5dbu/a_brief_introduction_to_scihub_for_developers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/nh5dbu/a_brief_intr... https://www.reddit.com/r/libgen/comments/jb1hts/p2p_free_library_help_build_humanitys_free/ https://www.reddit.com/r/libgen/comments/jb1hts/p2p_free_lib...
YouthfulMarxism 5y ago
Interesting fact about Mrs. Elbakyan is that she was Putin and Crimea annexy supporter. Which she was aggressively bullied for in russian academia (which is majorly liberal) during 2017. She closed SciHub access from Russia whichafeter saying: "Boil in your shit by yourself". She had a honor of a parasitic insect being called by her name not much longer after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiogramma_elbakyanae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiogramma_elbakyanae
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  This is going to be interesting for people who are against cancel culture and for cancel culture. Should Elbakyan be cancelled?
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  It has long been my understanding that she is a Stalinist, an ideology I consider truly abhorrent. But you know what? I don't give a shit. Actions speak louder than words and I like what she does. If I like what she's doing, then why should I give a shit that she believes things I think are beyond dumb?
  - YouthfulMarxism 5y ago
    Are you saying that crowd judgement and cancel culture is wrong? What if she was racist or worst of all crimes Trump supporter?
refurb 5y ago
I find the arguments against Elsivier weak: - authors can publish in any journal they choose, including open access journals - author choose to publish in Elsivier journals because of the prestige (hence Elsiviers curation and impact factor is what people pay for) - so basically authors want to publish in prestigious journals, but don’t want to pay for it, but aren’t willing to sidestep those same journals and publish in open access journals Seems like the problem is not Elsivier but the institutions that demand they publish in high impact journals?
- thewakalix 5y ago
  It's a multipolar trap. Assigning blame to a specific person or group is ineffective. But Elsevier is the part that needs to directly change.
- japanuspus 5y ago
  This argument assumes that authors are free to choose other publishing venues. In truth, the present regulatory regime in most countries uses publishing records as a major indicator of research quality, making it desirable or researchers to publish in as high-impact journals as possible. As a tragedy of the commons, the upside of a high-impact publication for the researcher is much larger than the marginal cost of buying access to that same work. Even for well-established researchers who are not themselves dependent on publishing track-record, there will most often be junior researchers on the team who are.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > authors can publish in any journal they choose, including open access journals Not if they want to have their academic jobs and get grant funding for their research. The entities that have sweetheart deals with companies like Elsevier aren't scientists; they're universities and governments. And universities and governments control academic jobs and grant funding. The real fix is for it to be required by law that any research that was funded by government grants must be published with open access.
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
csbartus 5y ago
This case depicts the global profit-pandemic. Profit before all, profit before people. People share the cost, companies share the profit. This model will break. A treshold is reached, scientists revolt. A similar case, recently, in Europe popped up in football / soccer. Supporters and players defy the creation of a Superleague focused on higher profits for a select few. Profit-seeking eats the world. A healthy regulation is needed. People first, profit next would be a sustainable trade-off.
- dannyw 5y ago
  Without wanting to get too political, the only reason publishers have the current model is because our legal system grants it as such with copyright. I wouldn't be surprised if abolishing copyright meant a more vibrant music and film industry; with more indie producers and less mega labels and producers.
  - Rochus 5y ago
    > because our legal system grants it as such with copyright First and formost because scientists are forced by contract to transfer their IP right of the publication to the publishing company if they want to publish there. > if abolishing copyright meant a more vibrant music and film industry Copyright as such was originally a good idea and was intended to provide authors with an income. But it has been corrupted over time like so many things (e.g. patent law) so that today the artists and authors benefit the least. Big publishing companies and collecting societies profit the most. So it's not copyright that needs to be abolished, but the opportunities for abuse.
abbassi 5y ago
What if we seed without VPN?
dang 5y ago
Recent and related: Rescue Mission for Sci-Hub and Open Science: We are the library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27154266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27154266 - May 2021 (52 comments)
oolonthegreat 5y ago
can someone explain to me why these multi billion dollar scientific publishing companies exist anyway? scientists write the papers and other scientists do the peer review, what does the company do? do they have a group of scientists on payroll to provide "high quality peer review" or something? what is the business model here?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  They were needed at some point. They did corrections and even peer reviews. Now it is just a lucrative enterprise. But they sill serve as reference for how many papers someone published and how often someone gets referenced. The reputation of the journal is relevant as well. I think this worsens the replication crisis.

68 points by andyxor 5y ago

A brief introduction to Sci-Hub for developers: https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/nh5dbu/a_brief_introduction_to_scihub_for_developers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/nh5dbu/a_brief_intr... https://www.reddit.com/r/libgen/comments/jb1hts/p2p_free_library_help_build_humanitys_free/ https://www.reddit.com/r/libgen/comments/jb1hts/p2p_free_lib...

YouthfulMarxism 5y ago

Interesting fact about Mrs. Elbakyan is that she was Putin and Crimea annexy supporter. Which she was aggressively bullied for in russian academia (which is majorly liberal) during 2017. She closed SciHub access from Russia whichafeter saying: "Boil in your shit by yourself". She had a honor of a parasitic insect being called by her name not much longer after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiogramma_elbakyanae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiogramma_elbakyanae

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sudosysgen 5y ago
This is going to be interesting for people who are against cancel culture and for cancel culture. Should Elbakyan be cancelled?
wearywanderer 5y ago
It has long been my understanding that she is a Stalinist, an ideology I consider truly abhorrent. But you know what? I don't give a shit. Actions speak louder than words and I like what she does. If I like what she's doing, then why should I give a shit that she believes things I think are beyond dumb?
- YouthfulMarxism 5y ago
  Are you saying that crowd judgement and cancel culture is wrong? What if she was racist or worst of all crimes Trump supporter?

refurb 5y ago

I find the arguments against Elsivier weak: - authors can publish in any journal they choose, including open access journals - author choose to publish in Elsivier journals because of the prestige (hence Elsiviers curation and impact factor is what people pay for) - so basically authors want to publish in prestigious journals, but don’t want to pay for it, but aren’t willing to sidestep those same journals and publish in open access journals Seems like the problem is not Elsivier but the institutions that demand they publish in high impact journals?

thewakalix 5y ago
It's a multipolar trap. Assigning blame to a specific person or group is ineffective. But Elsevier is the part that needs to directly change.
japanuspus 5y ago
This argument assumes that authors are free to choose other publishing venues. In truth, the present regulatory regime in most countries uses publishing records as a major indicator of research quality, making it desirable or researchers to publish in as high-impact journals as possible. As a tragedy of the commons, the upside of a high-impact publication for the researcher is much larger than the marginal cost of buying access to that same work. Even for well-established researchers who are not themselves dependent on publishing track-record, there will most often be junior researchers on the team who are.
pdonis 5y ago
> authors can publish in any journal they choose, including open access journals Not if they want to have their academic jobs and get grant funding for their research. The entities that have sweetheart deals with companies like Elsevier aren't scientists; they're universities and governments. And universities and governments control academic jobs and grant funding. The real fix is for it to be required by law that any research that was funded by government grants must be published with open access.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago

csbartus 5y ago

This case depicts the global profit-pandemic. Profit before all, profit before people. People share the cost, companies share the profit. This model will break. A treshold is reached, scientists revolt. A similar case, recently, in Europe popped up in football / soccer. Supporters and players defy the creation of a Superleague focused on higher profits for a select few. Profit-seeking eats the world. A healthy regulation is needed. People first, profit next would be a sustainable trade-off.

dannyw 5y ago
Without wanting to get too political, the only reason publishers have the current model is because our legal system grants it as such with copyright. I wouldn't be surprised if abolishing copyright meant a more vibrant music and film industry; with more indie producers and less mega labels and producers.
- Rochus 5y ago
  > because our legal system grants it as such with copyright First and formost because scientists are forced by contract to transfer their IP right of the publication to the publishing company if they want to publish there. > if abolishing copyright meant a more vibrant music and film industry Copyright as such was originally a good idea and was intended to provide authors with an income. But it has been corrupted over time like so many things (e.g. patent law) so that today the artists and authors benefit the least. Big publishing companies and collecting societies profit the most. So it's not copyright that needs to be abolished, but the opportunities for abuse.

abbassi 5y ago

What if we seed without VPN?

dang 5y ago

Recent and related: Rescue Mission for Sci-Hub and Open Science: We are the library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27154266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27154266 - May 2021 (52 comments)

oolonthegreat 5y ago

can someone explain to me why these multi billion dollar scientific publishing companies exist anyway? scientists write the papers and other scientists do the peer review, what does the company do? do they have a group of scientists on payroll to provide "high quality peer review" or something? what is the business model here?

raxxorrax 5y ago
They were needed at some point. They did corrections and even peer reviews. Now it is just a lucrative enterprise. But they sill serve as reference for how many papers someone published and how often someone gets referenced. The reputation of the journal is relevant as well. I think this worsens the replication crisis.