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.
No, the government paid researchers, then the journals stole the common good, which was paid for, and hid it behind a paywall with prices so high it never gets read. Imagine where we would be without the journals restricting access to the pinnacle of society's years of effort.
Scientists do not make money from publishing papers. They get no money from people accessing it. Currently getting published in high-impact journals affect one's career, but as citations matter individual scientists stand to gain from this "piracy".
I'm not part of academia, but I like reading CS papers for my own intellectual stimulation. I regularly go through the latest on arxiv, but some times you want to follow some references to older stuff, and that's when you end up having to reach out to Jacobson because you can't find a copy of his seminal paper, etc.
You're right, I'm a nobody, but that also means no one is really losing anything when I read these papers. I would never pay for a paper anyhow, it's just not going to happen. I'm also not directly using results in my work (which quite frankly is too mundane for most of the stuff I'm interested in).
I haven't used scihub, but I wouldn't hesitate to do it.
Do you give your work/time away for free? (I am assuming you work)
Hi, published scientist here. And the answer is:
YES!
All my papers are available on my website for free.
Where it could actually make a difference and where it applies, the source code is available on me website (and github) for free.
Next question please!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Of course I give away my papers for free. I'm a scientist. I get zero money for my publications, my review work, my editorial work and anything else related to publications. I've even edited typeset several books for free. All of this for commercial publishing companies who make an insane amount of money with it. The only thing that publishing companies like Springer do is to send the final version to India for the final typesetting in LaTeX and put out the printed versions about one and a half years later. That system is possible because as a scientist I'm paid by the government.
The problem is that I'm not allowed to put the original, quotable paper on my web pages, only earlier drafts. The papers you need for quoting are behind expensive paywalls, and every time someone accesses one of those articles to do his work, somewhere some tax payers are paying for a very expensive subscription. Or, they can pay $39 for a single article themselves - their choice (hahaha). For the publishers, this is like an endless source of money with minimum amount of work. That's why Springer, DeGruyter and small number of other publishers have sucked up and monopolized nearly all of the previously independent journals. It doesn't matter which journal I choose, I always end up with one of the three or four companies - like with record labels.
See the problem now?
"It has economic and scientific value to professional scientists although no value for laypersons."
Who are these laypersons? Is there a certified scientist label that you can get? I have a bachelor in science as one of my degrees is that good enough?
Do I need to stay in academia to be one of those scientists where such papers have values?
Or can I be a person interested in a topic and would like to dig further to expand my own knowledge? Or am I forced to the depth of Wikipedia because I am not a real Scientist?
Science should be more acceptable and it doesn't need to be dumbed down. Normal Scientific journalism confusing a hypothesis and a theory all the time, jumping to conclusions or oversimplifying statements. If a topic is interesting enough, it would be nice for me to dig past all the media hype and look at the real findings.
But because I am not a real Scientist (Having to turn in my Science Card when i got a MBA) I should have to just be dumb to science and just trust those real guys at their words, without me having any understanding.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.