4 ms·

It is note worthy that most of physics (at least high energy physics) ist published on arxiv.org and open access. I don't know if sci hub bothers with publicat

It is note worthy that most of physics (at least high energy physics) ist published on arxiv.org and open access. I don't know if sci hub bothers with publications that are available freely from an official source.

p1esk 5y ago
Good point. If so, this data is a lot less interesting :(
philipkglass 5y ago
Sci-hub will grab and serve anything with a DOI (or at least used to; I don't know if they have started ingesting papers again after turning it off a while ago). I have found open access papers there before. It's simpler to just paste the DOI into sci-hub than to check to see if it's one of the few open access articles in a mostly paywalled journal.
anon_123g987 5y ago
> published on arxiv.org and open access Don't use the term "open access" like this. A paper published on arXiv is free to read, and was freely published. "Open access" is a scam by the big publishers, where they don't take money from the readers, but make the authors pay. Or, putting it another way, anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  No, "open access" means that the paper is available to readers for free. Making the authors pay is typically termed "gold open access".
  - mNovak 5y ago
    I've never heard the term "gold open access", but I know plenty of "open access" journals that charge a fee to authors.
    - Lyapunov_Lover 5y ago
      Yeah, I think people are mostly confused here. Open access is a thing when we're talking about peer-reviewed journals. arXiv hosts preprints, meaning they are available before the peer-review process has proceeded. So calling arXiv papers "open access" is misleading, because that label carries the assumption of peer review. And I've never heard of "gold open access" either. Researchers paying to have their papers published is standard, open access or not. That's just how it works. If someone is using the term "gold open access" I'm just going to assume they have no idea how science publishing operates.
      - chaosite 5y ago
        I mean, these terms are defined and widely understood, so, um, no. "gold open access" is where you publish to a peer-reviewed open-access journal, which may or may not involve the author paying for the privilege. "green open access" is where you publish to any peer-reviewed journal, and then the author self-archives the paper somewhere, like an institutional website, arXiv (as a "post-print", not a pre-print), or even Sci-Hub. There are discussions involved about copyright and license and so on, but that's the gist of it.
  - remuskaos 5y ago
    I wasn't aware that there were different distinct forms of "open access", so I had to read it up on Wikipedia. From what I understand, publications on arxiv are either gratis or libre open access. Either way, we don't pay anyone any fee to publish on arxiv.
- 13415 5y ago
  Not that I want to defend open access fees but the way you describe it is incorrect. Paying for open access fees with large publishers like Springer is an option that is separate from the review system, you can only choose it once your paper has been reviewed and accepted.
- remuskaos 5y ago
  As I wrote on another comment, I wasn't aware that there are multiple forms of open access. Since it appears that arxiv (again, at least high energy physics) employs mostly either gratis or libre open access, and since the Wikipedia article explicitly calls it an open access archive, I see no harm in calling it that either. "arXiv (pronounced "archive"—the X represents the Greek letter chi [χ])[1] is an open-access repository of electronic preprints and postprints[...] "
- tokai 5y ago
  Open Access has a precise definition: https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration Publishers do misuse the concept though. They try to stay clear of using the term when they do. They use terms like Free Access or some of the more dubious colour variants of OA that doesn't provide all the freedoms that the Berlin Declaration of OA defines. Interestingly articles uploaded to arXiv with the arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license are not OA as the reader is not allowed to redistribute the paper.
- periheli0n 5y ago
  > anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers. This is not true and comments like this are damaging to science. Open Access papers are still peer-reviewed and by far not all of them make it into the journal. You can't pay your way into those journals. Of course there are shady pseudo-journals which just cash in on the fee, do not carry out peer review and just dump the paper on the internet. But any scientist should be able to tell such scam journals from serious ones. True, some journals, like many of the Frontiers series or PLOS One, make it very hard to be rejected in peer review. As long as your paper is reasonably well written and doesn't contain falsehoods it will almost certainly make it to publication. Still, you don't "pay your way into those journals". Granted, many of papers in those journals report mere incremental progress. But these journals are still attractive for scientists to publish in, for obvious reasons. Publishers like PLOS use those journals as cash cows to fund their higher-tier offerings. It is fair that the author pays for publication in those journals, since the most benefit is often for the author, not the reader. For the progress of science these offerings are not so useful, unfortunately.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

p1esk 5y ago

Good point. If so, this data is a lot less interesting :(

philipkglass 5y ago

Sci-hub will grab and serve anything with a DOI (or at least used to; I don't know if they have started ingesting papers again after turning it off a while ago). I have found open access papers there before. It's simpler to just paste the DOI into sci-hub than to check to see if it's one of the few open access articles in a mostly paywalled journal.

anon_123g987 5y ago

> published on arxiv.org and open access Don't use the term "open access" like this. A paper published on arXiv is free to read, and was freely published. "Open access" is a scam by the big publishers, where they don't take money from the readers, but make the authors pay. Or, putting it another way, anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers.

nicoburns 5y ago
No, "open access" means that the paper is available to readers for free. Making the authors pay is typically termed "gold open access".
- mNovak 5y ago
  I've never heard the term "gold open access", but I know plenty of "open access" journals that charge a fee to authors.
  - Lyapunov_Lover 5y ago
    Yeah, I think people are mostly confused here. Open access is a thing when we're talking about peer-reviewed journals. arXiv hosts preprints, meaning they are available before the peer-review process has proceeded. So calling arXiv papers "open access" is misleading, because that label carries the assumption of peer review. And I've never heard of "gold open access" either. Researchers paying to have their papers published is standard, open access or not. That's just how it works. If someone is using the term "gold open access" I'm just going to assume they have no idea how science publishing operates.
    - chaosite 5y ago
      I mean, these terms are defined and widely understood, so, um, no. "gold open access" is where you publish to a peer-reviewed open-access journal, which may or may not involve the author paying for the privilege. "green open access" is where you publish to any peer-reviewed journal, and then the author self-archives the paper somewhere, like an institutional website, arXiv (as a "post-print", not a pre-print), or even Sci-Hub. There are discussions involved about copyright and license and so on, but that's the gist of it.
- remuskaos 5y ago
  I wasn't aware that there were different distinct forms of "open access", so I had to read it up on Wikipedia. From what I understand, publications on arxiv are either gratis or libre open access. Either way, we don't pay anyone any fee to publish on arxiv.
13415 5y ago
Not that I want to defend open access fees but the way you describe it is incorrect. Paying for open access fees with large publishers like Springer is an option that is separate from the review system, you can only choose it once your paper has been reviewed and accepted.
remuskaos 5y ago
As I wrote on another comment, I wasn't aware that there are multiple forms of open access. Since it appears that arxiv (again, at least high energy physics) employs mostly either gratis or libre open access, and since the Wikipedia article explicitly calls it an open access archive, I see no harm in calling it that either. "arXiv (pronounced "archive"—the X represents the Greek letter chi [χ])[1] is an open-access repository of electronic preprints and postprints[...] "
tokai 5y ago
Open Access has a precise definition: https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration Publishers do misuse the concept though. They try to stay clear of using the term when they do. They use terms like Free Access or some of the more dubious colour variants of OA that doesn't provide all the freedoms that the Berlin Declaration of OA defines. Interestingly articles uploaded to arXiv with the arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license are not OA as the reader is not allowed to redistribute the paper.
periheli0n 5y ago
> anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers. This is not true and comments like this are damaging to science. Open Access papers are still peer-reviewed and by far not all of them make it into the journal. You can't pay your way into those journals. Of course there are shady pseudo-journals which just cash in on the fee, do not carry out peer review and just dump the paper on the internet. But any scientist should be able to tell such scam journals from serious ones. True, some journals, like many of the Frontiers series or PLOS One, make it very hard to be rejected in peer review. As long as your paper is reasonably well written and doesn't contain falsehoods it will almost certainly make it to publication. Still, you don't "pay your way into those journals". Granted, many of papers in those journals report mere incremental progress. But these journals are still attractive for scientists to publish in, for obvious reasons. Publishers like PLOS use those journals as cash cows to fund their higher-tier offerings. It is fair that the author pays for publication in those journals, since the most benefit is often for the author, not the reader. For the progress of science these offerings are not so useful, unfortunately.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]