5 ms·

I think if you are a researcher, you should publish directly on sci-hub (is that even possible?) Make sci-hub the greatest and most prestigious scientific publi

by slim 5y ago

I think if you are a researcher, you should publish directly on sci-hub (is that even possible?) Make sci-hub the greatest and most prestigious scientific publication

smt88 5y ago
This would be wonderfully altruistic, but it would be career suicide as well.
- enriquto 5y ago
  This is simply not true. The world has changed a lot the last 10 years. In many scientific fields, you are actually expected to publish your "preprint" in the open and also your source code.
  - 542458 5y ago
    In what fields are you expected to publish your source code? In the fields I’ve interacted with it was always an “above and beyond” thing that nobody would raise an eye at you not doing.
    - enriquto 5y ago
      i was thinking about image processing or machine learning, but i'm sure this is the case in other fields as well. Reproducible research is a "hot topic" in many places, and for good reasons.
    - ta988 5y ago
      ecology, more and more biology, chemistry...
  - smt88 5y ago
    That's not at all the same as the proposal I was replying to. They seemed to be saying that people should only publish in Sci-Hub, making it a prestigious publication (that would appear in press releases, one assumes) instead of just a mirror.
jeroenhd 5y ago
I don't believe you can publish on Sci-Hub, but you can join the open access movement by publishing your work on sites such as Arxiv where anyone can read your work. If every scientist published their work on open access platforms, Sci-Hub wouldn't need to exist in the first place.
- stavros 5y ago
  Why do people not do that? As far as I know, publishing in Arxiv is as simple as uploading the PDF, so I'm wondering why scientists don't do that themselves by default. Does anyone know?
  - Fomite 5y ago
    In medicine/public health/etc. there are two reasons: 1) medRxiv was relatively new, and while the COVID-19 pandemic was its moment, there are a lot of concerns about pre-peer review stuff, and the public, press, etc. not treating it with appropriate caution. 2) Some journals heavily penalize or won't consider preprints, and some of these journals are quite good. This has gotten a little pushback recently as well.
  - spindle 5y ago
    FWIW, I once backed off publishing on Arxiv because their requirements for the exact format of my PDF were too restrictive. At the time I didn't feel stronly about it one way or the other, and if I was in the same situation maybe I'd persevere. But it would have taken an enormous amount of time to reformat my large and complicated PDF. I've heard the same complaint from others.
  - aabaker99 5y ago
    Some journals rules prohibit submitting to arxiv. Researchers still want to submit their research to these journals because they are prestigious. One of the main goals of researchers is prestige (for their work to be widely read, for getting grants, for attracting grad students and post doc laborers, etc.).
    - 5y ago
thrdbndndn 5y ago
> most prestigious The existing "prestigious" journals are prestigious because of the peer-reviewing process. How do we solve this problem with Sci-hub? I mean, you can publish your research anywhere (like your homepage) already if you choose to.
- 542458 5y ago
  It’s not really the peer review process that makes them prestigious. The peer review process employed by world-class journals doesn’t guarantee good science (see: all sorts of high profile retractions). And it’s not really a complicated system - it’s easy to clone, as the procedures are all public and the important players are all volunteers. But cloning the top journals’ peer review process wouldn’t make you a top journal. Many mid and low tier publications use the same peer review process as the high tier ones. It’s more of a bit of a tautology: the most prestigious journals are the most prestigious because they’re seen as the most prestigious - which means they get all the best submissions, the best people volunteer to be organizers, speakers, reviewers, and people pay attention to their proceedings increasing their citation numbers. This makes it a fairly self-sustaining system. It also makes it hard to break into. It’s no coincidence that the “best” publications also tend to be the oldest.
  - slim 5y ago
    That's why I think there's a chance for sci-hub to disrupt this. It's already doing great marketing-wise and attracting a lot of great researchers. If some of those researchers donate their research and their time to peer review - in protest against the current monopoly - it could be disrupted.
  - thrdbndndn 5y ago
    Point taken. I think ultimately the problem of academia publication isn't the openness of access (which obviously is good if we can have), but the whole system as you mentioned.
  - cinquemb 5y ago
    > This makes it a fairly self-sustaining system. It also makes it hard to break into. It’s no coincidence that the “best” publications also tend to be the oldest. I think that this is also means that it will be slow moving and very fragile to a new system that could incentivize people to undertake all the listed actions above that don't go thru/reliant upon the traditional process. Not saying that we are there yet, nor do I think willingly choosing to submit to any particular jurisdiction in hopes of a favorable outcome will have much effect in the long run (I think systems really change when old systems that served similar functions in some capacity are made obsolete), but as long as tech becomes cheaper, more people become knowledge able about the system as a whole and the incentives involved, more ways of pursuing research will emerge that will be more resilient than hoping for nation state judiciary approval.
aritmo 5y ago
You can just publish to a relevant journal, and make the PDF available easily to Sci-Hub. As in, put the PDF on your homepage along with the DOI so that Sci-Hub can easily pick up.

by slim 5y ago

I think if you are a researcher, you should publish directly on sci-hub (is that even possible?) Make sci-hub the greatest and most prestigious scientific publication

smt88 5y ago

This would be wonderfully altruistic, but it would be career suicide as well.

enriquto 5y ago
This is simply not true. The world has changed a lot the last 10 years. In many scientific fields, you are actually expected to publish your "preprint" in the open and also your source code.
- 542458 5y ago
  In what fields are you expected to publish your source code? In the fields I’ve interacted with it was always an “above and beyond” thing that nobody would raise an eye at you not doing.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    i was thinking about image processing or machine learning, but i'm sure this is the case in other fields as well. Reproducible research is a "hot topic" in many places, and for good reasons.
  - ta988 5y ago
    ecology, more and more biology, chemistry...
- smt88 5y ago
  That's not at all the same as the proposal I was replying to. They seemed to be saying that people should only publish in Sci-Hub, making it a prestigious publication (that would appear in press releases, one assumes) instead of just a mirror.

jeroenhd 5y ago

I don't believe you can publish on Sci-Hub, but you can join the open access movement by publishing your work on sites such as Arxiv where anyone can read your work. If every scientist published their work on open access platforms, Sci-Hub wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

stavros 5y ago
Why do people not do that? As far as I know, publishing in Arxiv is as simple as uploading the PDF, so I'm wondering why scientists don't do that themselves by default. Does anyone know?
- Fomite 5y ago
  In medicine/public health/etc. there are two reasons: 1) medRxiv was relatively new, and while the COVID-19 pandemic was its moment, there are a lot of concerns about pre-peer review stuff, and the public, press, etc. not treating it with appropriate caution. 2) Some journals heavily penalize or won't consider preprints, and some of these journals are quite good. This has gotten a little pushback recently as well.
- spindle 5y ago
  FWIW, I once backed off publishing on Arxiv because their requirements for the exact format of my PDF were too restrictive. At the time I didn't feel stronly about it one way or the other, and if I was in the same situation maybe I'd persevere. But it would have taken an enormous amount of time to reformat my large and complicated PDF. I've heard the same complaint from others.
- aabaker99 5y ago
  Some journals rules prohibit submitting to arxiv. Researchers still want to submit their research to these journals because they are prestigious. One of the main goals of researchers is prestige (for their work to be widely read, for getting grants, for attracting grad students and post doc laborers, etc.).
  - 5y ago

thrdbndndn 5y ago

> most prestigious The existing "prestigious" journals are prestigious because of the peer-reviewing process. How do we solve this problem with Sci-hub? I mean, you can publish your research anywhere (like your homepage) already if you choose to.

542458 5y ago
It’s not really the peer review process that makes them prestigious. The peer review process employed by world-class journals doesn’t guarantee good science (see: all sorts of high profile retractions). And it’s not really a complicated system - it’s easy to clone, as the procedures are all public and the important players are all volunteers. But cloning the top journals’ peer review process wouldn’t make you a top journal. Many mid and low tier publications use the same peer review process as the high tier ones. It’s more of a bit of a tautology: the most prestigious journals are the most prestigious because they’re seen as the most prestigious - which means they get all the best submissions, the best people volunteer to be organizers, speakers, reviewers, and people pay attention to their proceedings increasing their citation numbers. This makes it a fairly self-sustaining system. It also makes it hard to break into. It’s no coincidence that the “best” publications also tend to be the oldest.
- slim 5y ago
  That's why I think there's a chance for sci-hub to disrupt this. It's already doing great marketing-wise and attracting a lot of great researchers. If some of those researchers donate their research and their time to peer review - in protest against the current monopoly - it could be disrupted.
- thrdbndndn 5y ago
  Point taken. I think ultimately the problem of academia publication isn't the openness of access (which obviously is good if we can have), but the whole system as you mentioned.
- cinquemb 5y ago
  > This makes it a fairly self-sustaining system. It also makes it hard to break into. It’s no coincidence that the “best” publications also tend to be the oldest. I think that this is also means that it will be slow moving and very fragile to a new system that could incentivize people to undertake all the listed actions above that don't go thru/reliant upon the traditional process. Not saying that we are there yet, nor do I think willingly choosing to submit to any particular jurisdiction in hopes of a favorable outcome will have much effect in the long run (I think systems really change when old systems that served similar functions in some capacity are made obsolete), but as long as tech becomes cheaper, more people become knowledge able about the system as a whole and the incentives involved, more ways of pursuing research will emerge that will be more resilient than hoping for nation state judiciary approval.

aritmo 5y ago

You can just publish to a relevant journal, and make the PDF available easily to Sci-Hub. As in, put the PDF on your homepage along with the DOI so that Sci-Hub can easily pick up.