6 ms·

That is a genius hack. ("Genius" might be redundant.)

kergonath 5y ago
That is a huge problem if you acknowledge using an illegal platform in your professional work, including for your co-authors. Almost the opposite of genius, actually.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Ah, but Sci-Hub isn't illegal. There's nothing wrong with visiting the Sci-Hub home page, nor with using it as a convenient way to access open-access papers.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Right* (depending on jurisdiction, ymmv). Getting from it articles that you cannot have otherwise is (except for the vanishingly few articles in the public domain, which are not really likely to be found on Sci-Hub anyway. I tried). Saying that the work could not have been done without it is basically admitting that you got papers outside the subscriptions of your institution. It is also against the policy of all the institutions I know, so could be grounds for termination. And again, this could apply to your co-authors as well. I am really not endorsing the subscription model, but putting something like that in your articles' acknowledgments really is not smart.
    - amelius 5y ago
      > Saying that the work could not have been done without it is basically admitting that you got papers outside the subscriptions of your institution. Not really. It could also mean: Scihub offers an efficient way to explore scientific articles, and without it, I (the scientist) wouldn't have bothered with all the different paywalls to even check if papers were worth reading. And as such, I would not have reached the same results.
      - kergonath 5y ago
        It does not make the work possible, though. Just more convenient.
        amelius 5y ago
        No because a scientist can only deal with so much bureaucracy. After a certain limit, they will go into "I will invent it myself" mode. And here is a different argument. Scientists often have brilliant moments while e.g. showering. So they could have written: "this work would not have been possible without showers". The statement itself does not imply anything about whether they paid for the water or not. Or even if they took a shower. Perhaps the thought of a shower triggered the eureka moment.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      > Saying that the work could not have been done without it is basically admitting that you got papers outside the subscriptions of your institution. Isn’t that exactly the point? How is it not hindering scientific progress if you do not have access to research that you don’t pay for. It’s not like the journals themselves fund the research, they’re just getting a free ride.
      - amelius 5y ago
        > if you do not have access to research that you don’t pay for. The situation is worse as most of the research is already paid for by tax money.
- mcguire 5y ago
  How so? Might not want to mention it in the same footnote as the grant number.
- userbinator 5y ago
  That reminds me of a phrase I've heard in relation to file sharing and such: "if everyone runs the red light together, there is nothing to be afraid of".
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Doing it and claiming to have done it in a professional setting are quite different though. I am perfectly willing to believe that a lot of researchers use Sci-Hub (though from my experience they tend to use Researchgate more); I am certain that the number of people who would shout about doing it on the rooftops is nowhere near even a small minority.
    - enriquto 5y ago
      What you say does not correspond to my personal experience. As a single data point, in my research group all twelve phd students and five postdocs use SciHub regularly. Some of the faculty don't know it even exists, others do.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    That metaphor backfirews pretty hard IMO, is that intentional?
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      How so? Everyone running a light together is the expected behavior if you change the color of the light. In other words, it describes nothing that isn't occurring constantly everywhere. Where does the metaphor backfire?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - mb7733 5y ago
        The metaphor backfires because if everyone runs red lights they will collide with one another, as well as with those going through green lights.
- breck 5y ago
  Courageous, I would say. More important than genius.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Yes, that would fit better.
  - amelius 5y ago
    If you don't have the courage, you can also do it indirectly: simply reference a paper that states that it would not be possible without Scihub. Then, your paper would not be possible without Scihub either :)
- jfoutz 5y ago
  I had a snarky remark about Galileo and Copernicus, but it’s probably not relevant.

That is a huge problem if you acknowledge using an illegal platform in your professional work, including for your co-authors. Almost the opposite of genius, actually.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Ah, but Sci-Hub isn't illegal. There's nothing wrong with visiting the Sci-Hub home page, nor with using it as a convenient way to access open-access papers.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Right* (depending on jurisdiction, ymmv). Getting from it articles that you cannot have otherwise is (except for the vanishingly few articles in the public domain, which are not really likely to be found on Sci-Hub anyway. I tried). Saying that the work could not have been done without it is basically admitting that you got papers outside the subscriptions of your institution. It is also against the policy of all the institutions I know, so could be grounds for termination. And again, this could apply to your co-authors as well. I am really not endorsing the subscription model, but putting something like that in your articles' acknowledgments really is not smart.
  - amelius 5y ago
    > Saying that the work could not have been done without it is basically admitting that you got papers outside the subscriptions of your institution. Not really. It could also mean: Scihub offers an efficient way to explore scientific articles, and without it, I (the scientist) wouldn't have bothered with all the different paywalls to even check if papers were worth reading. And as such, I would not have reached the same results.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      It does not make the work possible, though. Just more convenient.
      - amelius 5y ago
        No because a scientist can only deal with so much bureaucracy. After a certain limit, they will go into "I will invent it myself" mode. And here is a different argument. Scientists often have brilliant moments while e.g. showering. So they could have written: "this work would not have been possible without showers". The statement itself does not imply anything about whether they paid for the water or not. Or even if they took a shower. Perhaps the thought of a shower triggered the eureka moment.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    > Saying that the work could not have been done without it is basically admitting that you got papers outside the subscriptions of your institution. Isn’t that exactly the point? How is it not hindering scientific progress if you do not have access to research that you don’t pay for. It’s not like the journals themselves fund the research, they’re just getting a free ride.
    - amelius 5y ago
      > if you do not have access to research that you don’t pay for. The situation is worse as most of the research is already paid for by tax money.
mcguire 5y ago
How so? Might not want to mention it in the same footnote as the grant number.
userbinator 5y ago
That reminds me of a phrase I've heard in relation to file sharing and such: "if everyone runs the red light together, there is nothing to be afraid of".
- kergonath 5y ago
  Doing it and claiming to have done it in a professional setting are quite different though. I am perfectly willing to believe that a lot of researchers use Sci-Hub (though from my experience they tend to use Researchgate more); I am certain that the number of people who would shout about doing it on the rooftops is nowhere near even a small minority.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    What you say does not correspond to my personal experience. As a single data point, in my research group all twelve phd students and five postdocs use SciHub regularly. Some of the faculty don't know it even exists, others do.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  That metaphor backfirews pretty hard IMO, is that intentional?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    How so? Everyone running a light together is the expected behavior if you change the color of the light. In other words, it describes nothing that isn't occurring constantly everywhere. Where does the metaphor backfire?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mb7733 5y ago
      The metaphor backfires because if everyone runs red lights they will collide with one another, as well as with those going through green lights.
breck 5y ago
Courageous, I would say. More important than genius.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Yes, that would fit better.
- amelius 5y ago
  If you don't have the courage, you can also do it indirectly: simply reference a paper that states that it would not be possible without Scihub. Then, your paper would not be possible without Scihub either :)
jfoutz 5y ago
I had a snarky remark about Galileo and Copernicus, but it’s probably not relevant.