5 ms·

Some people (me included) consider "intellectual property" an oxymoron. But you do not need to go that far in the extreme to be supportive of scihub and similar

Some people (me included) consider "intellectual property" an oxymoron. But you do not need to go that far in the extreme to be supportive of scihub and similar entities: I am a scientist. I am paid from research grants, this is what makes it possible for me to write a paper. I am also involved in reviewing papers, but that I do for free. Then I pay a journal to store my paper (the journal did not pay the paper reviewers). Usually I even do most of the typesetting for the paper I write. Then I also pay the journal to get access to the paper. In this story, I do not feel any guilt "stealing" from a journal that did not contribute anything but prestige to the creation of that paper (and was already paid twice for it, before I even tried to read the paper).

golergka 5y ago
But do you not make a decision (however rational), to grant rights for your article, as an author, and your labour as a reviewer, to the journal? I'm not a scientist, and I don't know how this works, so this is an honest question. But as an outsider, it seems that the most important intellectual property of these publishers are not articles themselves, but famous journals that scientists all over the world are so eager to publish for. And if this suggestion is right, that don't those scientists actually get paid, although indirectly through eyballs instead of cash? Which they then convert into Hirsch index, and then, through grants and programs and tenures, into cash?
- krastanov 5y ago
  Yes, but there are a few more facts you should be aware of while forming your opinion: - The most prestigious journals (at least in my field) are not ridiculous prestige rackets like Elsevier. And they are (slowly) moving to open-access models. In these situations the authors of a paper are expected to pay processing fees ($1000 to $5000), but after that the paper is free to access by anyone. - A pretty standard workaround is to put your paper on a pre-print server before even submitting to a journal. Then some draft version of the paper is trivial to access even if the peer-reviewed version is behind a paywall. - The majority of scientists and paper writers are not tenured and do not have job security. Currently, their career growth depends on having done "good science" and regrettably the only trivially easy measure of "good science" is the prestige of journals you have published in. While pretty much all scientists agree that the system is bad, it is difficult to fight the system while your career depends on it. - Slowly, fields are switching to open-access journals. Their prestige is growing and soon the previous bullet point will not be an issue. - It really depends on the field as well. I rarely stumbled upon a physics paper that does not have some legal open-access option. Not so much with Engineering. So while I truly have no problem acting the way you expect me to act in your comment, my engineering colleagues would have much harder time, given that their community does not have as many prestigious open-access options or a habit of using preprint servers. - It is frustratingly slow, but it is very visible how the "prestige" currency is indeed switching from traditional journals to open-access journals (either ones that are free and community driven or paid, but paid only on submission, not on download)
refurb 5y ago
“Didnt contribute anything but prestige”? If that’s such a minor contribution, then instead of publishing with a journal you hate, publish with an open source journal? Put your money where your mouth is.
- krastanov 5y ago
  It is not really money at that point, is it ;) Also, why do assume I have not done that yet? But you can not expect this all to happen overnight, as people's scientific careers are on the line. Thankfully, it is slowly happening, with or without Scihub.
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  Thats not an option. I need some publications in "highly scored" journals to get my Phd. I dont have the option to publish in open access instead. Its not a matter of having a worse resume with less prestige but one of not getting my dissertation accepted. Its something forced onto me through a process created through corruption.

golergka 5y ago

But do you not make a decision (however rational), to grant rights for your article, as an author, and your labour as a reviewer, to the journal? I'm not a scientist, and I don't know how this works, so this is an honest question. But as an outsider, it seems that the most important intellectual property of these publishers are not articles themselves, but famous journals that scientists all over the world are so eager to publish for. And if this suggestion is right, that don't those scientists actually get paid, although indirectly through eyballs instead of cash? Which they then convert into Hirsch index, and then, through grants and programs and tenures, into cash?

krastanov 5y ago
Yes, but there are a few more facts you should be aware of while forming your opinion: - The most prestigious journals (at least in my field) are not ridiculous prestige rackets like Elsevier. And they are (slowly) moving to open-access models. In these situations the authors of a paper are expected to pay processing fees ($1000 to $5000), but after that the paper is free to access by anyone. - A pretty standard workaround is to put your paper on a pre-print server before even submitting to a journal. Then some draft version of the paper is trivial to access even if the peer-reviewed version is behind a paywall. - The majority of scientists and paper writers are not tenured and do not have job security. Currently, their career growth depends on having done "good science" and regrettably the only trivially easy measure of "good science" is the prestige of journals you have published in. While pretty much all scientists agree that the system is bad, it is difficult to fight the system while your career depends on it. - Slowly, fields are switching to open-access journals. Their prestige is growing and soon the previous bullet point will not be an issue. - It really depends on the field as well. I rarely stumbled upon a physics paper that does not have some legal open-access option. Not so much with Engineering. So while I truly have no problem acting the way you expect me to act in your comment, my engineering colleagues would have much harder time, given that their community does not have as many prestigious open-access options or a habit of using preprint servers. - It is frustratingly slow, but it is very visible how the "prestige" currency is indeed switching from traditional journals to open-access journals (either ones that are free and community driven or paid, but paid only on submission, not on download)

refurb 5y ago

“Didnt contribute anything but prestige”? If that’s such a minor contribution, then instead of publishing with a journal you hate, publish with an open source journal? Put your money where your mouth is.

krastanov 5y ago
It is not really money at that point, is it ;) Also, why do assume I have not done that yet? But you can not expect this all to happen overnight, as people's scientific careers are on the line. Thankfully, it is slowly happening, with or without Scihub.
cf141q5325 5y ago
Thats not an option. I need some publications in "highly scored" journals to get my Phd. I dont have the option to publish in open access instead. Its not a matter of having a worse resume with less prestige but one of not getting my dissertation accepted. Its something forced onto me through a process created through corruption.