4 ms·

If sci-hub goes down it will significantly disrupt nearly every scientific researcher, in every field, all over the world. After getting used to a world where e

If sci-hub goes down it will significantly disrupt nearly every scientific researcher, in every field, all over the world. After getting used to a world where every paper is obtainable, it would be very difficult for people to go back. I’m not really a scholar or academic per se, but the independent research I do (which involves skimming thousands of papers per year, 99% of which are irrelevant or useless) would be an order of magnitude harder without sci-hub. Most paywalled papers I just would never bother to read, unless I happened to be sitting in a university library or something.

IshKebab 5y ago
For researchers in most universities almost every paper is obtainable without scihub.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  This is not true for most universities around the world. Only wealthy ones in first-world countries. All of my father’s academic colleagues in Mexico use Sci-Hub daily, and rely on it for access to literature. But beyond that, there are paywalled journals which Harvard does not subscribe to. There are journals which the University of California does not subscribe to. (Or pick your favorite university, and there will be some paywalled journals it does not subscribe to.) Almost all are on Sci-Hub. Moreover, even in the USA/Europe, there are many researchers who are not affiliated with any university, and many laypeople who look up scientific literature from time to time. For instance a great many paywalled papers are directly relevant to working computer programmers, but not worth $35/paper + bureaucratic hassle to evaluate.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Are the people whose work will be disrupted people who the top-tier scientific community care about? As a working programmer I'd like to have access to scientific papers, but realistically no researcher is going to care whether I do. If the pain isn't being felt by top-tier researchers and top-tier universities, I doubt anyone will be able to change it.
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      > no researcher is going to care whether I [read their papers] Researchers absolutely want people to read and use their work! That’s why they do it! Having some practical impact on people making things in industry is super gratifying to the researchers I know, much more than just having the same tiny circle of known collaborators read and cite each-other’s papers in theoretical or small-scale academic prototype work.
    - freshhawk 5y ago
      Yes. It includes many members of the top-tier scientific community. For many of them, the reason we get the benefits of these top-tier people is because of sci-hub.
  - dmos62 5y ago
    It's obscene that scientific literature is walled away from the public.
    - pell 5y ago
      Especially when the public often paid for said research at least in part.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Previously publishers did improve the papers and checked them. Those times are long gone and it is questionable what their purpose might be today. IP law has long been abused to stifle development instead of protecting it. In this case it might stifle scientific research.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - PicassoCTs 5y ago
    The Journal system is basically academic job protection for wealthier countries, but this factor is never talked about aloud, as it is a) unscientific and anti-enlightenment behavior and b) exposes the hypocrisy that is creating loads of competition for unskilled labor, while crippling the competition for mental labor. So why not call the system what is? The guild of knowledge. I still vividly remember when the eastern-block opened, and all those excellent Russian mathematicians who went into the west, were not recognized when it came to there degrees in europe. "The brightest minds of a generation work here" in the university brochure? Don't make me laugh.
  - xtracto 5y ago
    Exactly! I had the opportunity to both work in the academic field in Mexico and study in the UK and the difference of resources is abysmal: Access to Scopus, access to Elsevier and other editorials is something most researchers in Mexico can only dream about.
- markus92 5y ago
  I’m a researcher at a first world university. I used sci-hub to pirate my own papers cus we did not have a subscription to the journal anymore. I’m not paying $39 to read my own work!
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    As a researcher, I'm not sure why you didn't have a preprint copies as all other authors I have met did.
    - markus92 5y ago
      Wasn’t at home, don’t have them in my Dropbox.
      - candiodari 5y ago
        I think they meant, why not upload then on arXiv.org See https://arxiv.org/help/submit https://arxiv.org/help/submit. That will make your paper easily accessible to all. And, of course, to yourself, wherever you are.
        markus92 5y ago
        Wasn't allowed by the journal as it'd be considered prior publication. Used to be quite common in the medical field actually, COVID is slowly changing that luckily.
  - meej 5y ago
    Does your institution's library not offer interlibrary loan?
    - franga2000 5y ago
      Those aren't free in most libraries I've been to and don't apply to everything (don't quote me on this, but since journals are basically subscription services, their articles aren't actually owned by the library and they might not be able to loan them out further).
pvaldes 5y ago
If your peers thing that you need to cite the paper X because is relevant for the theme, you need to obtain it and pay for it. To decide to ignore parts of knowledge because you don't like its distribution mode is not an option. The result will be less science, slower science and independent scientists being pushed out of the road. They would try to recruit them later under the ridiculous 'citizen scientists' category ('missionary scientists' would be an even better term), but this is what we have. Every single people trying to break monopolies or introduce changes for the benefit of the entire humanity in the past two decades has been laminated as a public warning for newcomers.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- franga2000 5y ago
  > If your peers thing that you need to cite the paper X because is relevant for the theme, you need to obtain it and pay for it. Let's rephrase that: "If you can't afford the journal subscriptions that allow you to access all of the papers your peers think are relevant for you to cite, then you shouldn't release your research at all." Whose world ends up with "less science", again?

IshKebab 5y ago

For researchers in most universities almost every paper is obtainable without scihub.

jacobolus 5y ago
This is not true for most universities around the world. Only wealthy ones in first-world countries. All of my father’s academic colleagues in Mexico use Sci-Hub daily, and rely on it for access to literature. But beyond that, there are paywalled journals which Harvard does not subscribe to. There are journals which the University of California does not subscribe to. (Or pick your favorite university, and there will be some paywalled journals it does not subscribe to.) Almost all are on Sci-Hub. Moreover, even in the USA/Europe, there are many researchers who are not affiliated with any university, and many laypeople who look up scientific literature from time to time. For instance a great many paywalled papers are directly relevant to working computer programmers, but not worth $35/paper + bureaucratic hassle to evaluate.
- lmm 5y ago
  Are the people whose work will be disrupted people who the top-tier scientific community care about? As a working programmer I'd like to have access to scientific papers, but realistically no researcher is going to care whether I do. If the pain isn't being felt by top-tier researchers and top-tier universities, I doubt anyone will be able to change it.
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    > no researcher is going to care whether I [read their papers] Researchers absolutely want people to read and use their work! That’s why they do it! Having some practical impact on people making things in industry is super gratifying to the researchers I know, much more than just having the same tiny circle of known collaborators read and cite each-other’s papers in theoretical or small-scale academic prototype work.
  - freshhawk 5y ago
    Yes. It includes many members of the top-tier scientific community. For many of them, the reason we get the benefits of these top-tier people is because of sci-hub.
- dmos62 5y ago
  It's obscene that scientific literature is walled away from the public.
  - pell 5y ago
    Especially when the public often paid for said research at least in part.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Previously publishers did improve the papers and checked them. Those times are long gone and it is questionable what their purpose might be today. IP law has long been abused to stifle development instead of protecting it. In this case it might stifle scientific research.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- PicassoCTs 5y ago
  The Journal system is basically academic job protection for wealthier countries, but this factor is never talked about aloud, as it is a) unscientific and anti-enlightenment behavior and b) exposes the hypocrisy that is creating loads of competition for unskilled labor, while crippling the competition for mental labor. So why not call the system what is? The guild of knowledge. I still vividly remember when the eastern-block opened, and all those excellent Russian mathematicians who went into the west, were not recognized when it came to there degrees in europe. "The brightest minds of a generation work here" in the university brochure? Don't make me laugh.
- xtracto 5y ago
  Exactly! I had the opportunity to both work in the academic field in Mexico and study in the UK and the difference of resources is abysmal: Access to Scopus, access to Elsevier and other editorials is something most researchers in Mexico can only dream about.
markus92 5y ago
I’m a researcher at a first world university. I used sci-hub to pirate my own papers cus we did not have a subscription to the journal anymore. I’m not paying $39 to read my own work!
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  As a researcher, I'm not sure why you didn't have a preprint copies as all other authors I have met did.
  - markus92 5y ago
    Wasn’t at home, don’t have them in my Dropbox.
    - candiodari 5y ago
      I think they meant, why not upload then on arXiv.org See https://arxiv.org/help/submit https://arxiv.org/help/submit. That will make your paper easily accessible to all. And, of course, to yourself, wherever you are.
      - markus92 5y ago
        Wasn't allowed by the journal as it'd be considered prior publication. Used to be quite common in the medical field actually, COVID is slowly changing that luckily.
- meej 5y ago
  Does your institution's library not offer interlibrary loan?
  - franga2000 5y ago
    Those aren't free in most libraries I've been to and don't apply to everything (don't quote me on this, but since journals are basically subscription services, their articles aren't actually owned by the library and they might not be able to loan them out further).

pvaldes 5y ago

If your peers thing that you need to cite the paper X because is relevant for the theme, you need to obtain it and pay for it. To decide to ignore parts of knowledge because you don't like its distribution mode is not an option. The result will be less science, slower science and independent scientists being pushed out of the road. They would try to recruit them later under the ridiculous 'citizen scientists' category ('missionary scientists' would be an even better term), but this is what we have. Every single people trying to break monopolies or introduce changes for the benefit of the entire humanity in the past two decades has been laminated as a public warning for newcomers.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
franga2000 5y ago
> If your peers thing that you need to cite the paper X because is relevant for the theme, you need to obtain it and pay for it. Let's rephrase that: "If you can't afford the journal subscriptions that allow you to access all of the papers your peers think are relevant for you to cite, then you shouldn't release your research at all." Whose world ends up with "less science", again?