Slashdot Mirror
Who's Downloading Pirated Scientifc Papers? Everyone (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit quotes a report from Science Magazine: In increasing numbers, researchers around the world are turning to Sci-Hub, the controversial website that hosts 50 million pirated papers and counting. Now, with server log data from Alexandra Elbakyan, the neuroscientist who created Sci-Hub in 2011 as a 22-year-old graduate student in Kazakhstan, Science addresses some basic questions: Who are Sci-Hub's users, where are they, and what are they reading? The Sci-Hub data provide the first detailed view of what is becoming the world's de facto open-access research library. Among the revelations that may surprise both fans and foes alike: Sci-Hub users are not limited to the developing world. Some critics of Sci-Hub have complained that many users can access the same papers through their libraries but turn to Sci-Hub instead -- for convenience rather than necessity. The data provide some support for that claim. Over the 6 months leading up to March, Sci-Hub served up 28 million documents, with Iran, China, India, Russia, and the United States the leading requestors.
The person who did the work/put in the time isn't going to see anything from the money that goes to a scientific journal or textbook publisher. As someone who's written a textbook, I can tell you that very few authors are paid based upon the sales of that textbook.
And scientific journals? The authors/researchers were paid before the paper was even submitted to the journal.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you give your work/time away for free? (I am assuming you work)
When you publish in an Elsevier journal, you sign away any IP in the paper, and get no royalty from them. Worse still is that everyone who sees your paper has to do so through an institution that has to pay an expensive subscription for access.
Your post is jaw-droppingly ignorant.
....
Just about every computer scientist is unaffiliated with any institution that pays the extortion for access to these papers, covering a wide range of topics such as artificial intelligence, data compression, image processing, graph theory, statistical analysis,
Your seem to be amazed that I might want to see the 1977 Frei and Chen paper on a complete set of basic functions for both line and edge detection in images. You seem to think that I would be satisfied with the commonly used but inferior Sobel or Prewit operators which dont distinguish between lines and edges and so forth.
There is a reason that almost nobody uses the Frei and Chen's masks even though its superior.. and it has everything to do with access.
"His name was James Damore."
It's pretty hard. You need a lot of gravitas to generate momentum for a journal. There are thousands of spam-level journals out there ( ref beall's list of predatory publishers ) who just want papers and don't offer/care about peer review. You would need several field-leading researchers to support it by submitting to it, reviewing for it, and citing from it. And you would have to tend that reputation for quality very carefully.
I suspect anyone in that position is so well established that they barely notice how crappy journals are.
I don't see a problem with those results not becoming publicly available.
Suppressed is another word for that. And it has caused a few problems in the pharmaceutical field.
Peer review is what separates the wheat from the chaff. Like all other parts of the publishing process, peer review can operate even more easily as part of an online site than on paper. But in the time when science was published on paper, some journals accumulated more prestige than others. The only reason these journals still exist is they coast on the prestige acquired in the days of paper. Because journals, even the most prestigious of them never paid the reviewers who defined the very exclusivity of the publication, there is no reason for reviewers not to jump ship to the online world. Researchers and libraries will do it because it saves them a pile of money, while reviewers will be in the same financial position as always. There is no reason whatever to keep churning out those dead-tree buggy whips.