3 ms·

Right* (depending on jurisdiction, ymmv). Getting from it articles that you cannot have otherwise is (except for the vanishingly few articles in the public doma

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.

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.