Archivists Are Trying to Make Sure a ‘Pirate Bay of Science’ Never Goes Down

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,871
Library Genesis is powered by Sci-Hub, an embattled website that provides users free access to scientific papers. Created in 2011 by hacker and scientific researcher Alexandra Elbakyan, Sci-Hub scrapes data from behind the paywalls of the world’s scientific journals and posts them for free online. Governments and private companies have attempted repeatedly to shut down Sci-Hub and sue Elbakyan, but the site remains.


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...-sure-a-pirate-bay-of-science-never-goes-down
 
Researchgate can die in a fire, mega gatekeepers and also hardly have access to the stuff you need. They request it and shit up search results as if they do have access, like pintrest used to be a few years ago. I was running a university R&D/study collaboaration effort to advance science in my field and it was to be published (I have no formal quals but people on board were PHDs ffs) and researchgate wouldn't let me access their shitty site. Fuck them and good to see people doing things like this. For non academics, papers can be tricky to get and require significant yearly investments to access what are freely published papers.
 
Around 85 people with families run journals where I work.

Plus an international team for the website.

To say nothing of the authors.

This stuff costs money.

People have no idea the amount of effort that goes in to peer review alone.

The fantasy of free everything would be contaminated with falsified data.

we do offer open access more and more.
The E. U. is starting to ban their researchers from contributing to non-profit journals that aren’t economically viable giving everything away for free.

I wonder how many people in this thread think their labor should be free.

Our journals also fund research awards and various stipends for undergraduates.
 
Last edited:
Retronym said:
Around 85 people with families run journals where I work.

Plus an international team for the website.

To say nothing of the authors.

This stuff costs money.

People have no idea the amount of effort that goes in to peer review alone.

The fantasy of free everything would be contaminated with falsified data.
Click to expand...


Only $89 for 24 hours access. C'mon. I'm not entirely against paying for credible research but that's ridiculous.
 
Retronym said:
Around 85 people with families run journals where I work.

Plus an international team for the website.

To say nothing of the authors.

This stuff costs money.

People have no idea the amount of effort that goes in to peer review alone.

The fantasy of free everything would be contaminated with falsified data.

we do offer open access more and more.
The E. U. is starting to ban their researchers from contributing to non-profit journals that aren’t economically viable giving everything away for free.

I wonder how many people in this thread think their labor should be free.

Our journals also fund research awards and various stipends for undergraduates.
Click to expand...

The problem is this: Vaccine deniers, flat earthers, moon landing 'truthers' and many more anti-science groups make their 'research'
available for free. The recent measles outbreak in Samoa has been tied to recent anti-vax movements in the area. People are dying because science denial is so easily accessible and available, while access to real, hard data and peer-reviewed research is always behind a tall, tall paywall.
 
Arcygenical said:
Only $89 for 24 hours access. C'mon. I'm not entirely against paying for credible research but that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You've obviously never had to buy an industrial standard. $89 to have a quick peek would be fantastic.
 
KazeoHin said:
The problem is this: Vaccine deniers, flat earthers, moon landing 'truthers' and many more anti-science groups make their 'research'
available for free. The recent measles outbreak in Samoa has been tied to recent anti-vax movements in the area. People are dying because science denial is so easily accessible and available, while access to real, hard data and peer-reviewed research is always behind a tall, tall paywall.
Click to expand...
You can always read the abstracts.
 
Arcygenical said:
Nope. But as an individual consumer looking to self educate? Its an inordinate sum tbh.
Click to expand...
An actual education costs many thousands. Reading about the research of others to try and circumvent paying for the work that has been done, this should have an associated cost. $89 for 24 hours is nothing.
I have no interest in reading scientific papers, but if i can for only $89, imo that is a great deal.

The internet has everyone thinking they can be doctors, or engineers, or whatever.

The idea that you should be able to self educate for nothing is insane, tbh.
 
Disclosure: My work has been published in a number of respected scientific journals, many of which are behind some degree of paywall.

My position on this is highly mixed. I think both sides have some very valid points. Please excuse this bulleted list of unfiltered thoughts. I'm pretty sure at least one of them will be only half-written but I'll hit 'post' anyway:
  • This research is often on the bleeding edge of the bleeding edge. Having it out there and more accessible ("financially unburdened") serves as an incredible inspiration not only to other researchers, but even to children in the form of 3rd party summaries and reporting on the publication (ie, someone like Wired covering a new publication). The value of that inspiration cannot possibly be overstated, IMO. It's a wonderful competitive motivator for other people directly connected to the science, and it's really great at spurning both related and tangential ideas and research. And who on [H] doesn't remember being a kid reading stuff like Popular Science and the dreams seeded by it? How about that show 'Beyond 2000?'
    • A counterpoint is that the reporting on publications is [generally] not bound by the journal's paywall rules so long as the reporting is summary rather than simple re-publication.
  • A massive portion of the published research is publicly funded. Should that not then also make the full output public domain? You can't spell 'publication' without 'public.'
  • The publications don't operate for free. Without them, where would we be? Probably with a million other researchers self-publishing on our own websites. I bet some of them would even use frames and have MIDI tracks set to autoplay. That's not a good solution. While many still believe that digital bits are free, the reality is that they are not. Electronic distribution still comes with various costs, plus there is an increasing operational cost associated with simply running the journal to begin with (among other aspects, there's stuff like managing infosec and basics like reviewing the many submissions which exceed the total that end up being published).
  • For centuries, there have been different forms of paywalls in place in order to gain access to published research. This goes back to when it truly was difficult to make physical copies of the written research. The printing press helped a lot here, but even after that, there was still an meaningful cost to replication and distribution. Many foresaw some opportunity, but nobody complained. Why is that a problem now? Of course, just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it should be that way.
  • Also for centuries, the concept of "bots" and significant activity by bad actors was deemed impossible on the publication side. In fact, by dint of being tied to the physical world, that type of malicious activity was, simply, impossible. What non-financial tools do we have available today to curtail that type of activity? I suppose that's really a problem more on the publishing side than on the reading side, but it's still worth some consideration as publishers/journals do want to serve their audience and that presents some risk.
One potential adjustment to the system might be to increase public funding to the publications themselves. This would help increase access for readers, which is great. This also might lead to the government "picking favorites" - or at least some people having the impression that that's how it's working. Is it better to lean too far towards helping the researchers or the readers?

Anyway, there's some verbal diarrhea. Feel free to flush.
 
Retronym said:
Around 85 people with families run journals where I work.

Plus an international team for the website.

To say nothing of the authors.

This stuff costs money.

People have no idea the amount of effort that goes in to peer review alone.

The fantasy of free everything would be contaminated with falsified data.

we do offer open access more and more.
The E. U. is starting to ban their researchers from contributing to non-profit journals that aren’t economically viable giving everything away for free.

I wonder how many people in this thread think their labor should be free.

Our journals also fund research awards and various stipends for undergraduates.
Click to expand...
Seing how much shit passes for peer reviewed these days and how much corruption, in-group, self serving, ideological, money over quality and other kind of preference there is, plus the relative cheapness of digital distribution (could even be served by any of the public universities or even P2P-ied for 0 cost), not to mention most of it is publicly funded to begin with, I find it hard to justify any kind of paywalled journals.
 
Retronym said:
Around 85 people with families run journals where I work.

Plus an international team for the website.

To say nothing of the authors.

This stuff costs money.

People have no idea the amount of effort that goes in to peer review alone.

The fantasy of free everything would be contaminated with falsified data.

we do offer open access more and more.
The E. U. is starting to ban their researchers from contributing to non-profit journals that aren’t economically viable giving everything away for free.

I wonder how many people in this thread think their labor should be free.

Our journals also fund research awards and various stipends for undergraduates.
Click to expand...
Nobody said the people that do peer reviews should work for free Mr. strawman. But a knowledgable public is in everyone's best interest(unless you run a theocratic regime)
Especially since most research is conducted at universities already ran by governments. Compared to the cost of research the cost of publishing is negligible.
So 99% of funds to research 1% to publishing and making it available for people is preferable to 100% funds to reserach and putting the results behind paywalls that the general public has no hope of breaching.
I can't count the times I bounced off a paywall when I tried to follow up on scientific results published in tabloid journalism. So these days I don't even try.
Perhaps there should be a compromise, free if you just want to look, but paid if you want to cite the result in your own research.
 
Retronym said:
People have no idea the amount of effort that goes in to peer review alone.
Click to expand...

And yet reproducability of many studies is at an all time low. Peer review is becoming a joke even in the hard sciences. Gotta make sure you keep getting that government or industry grant.

Retronym said:
You can always read the abstracts.
Click to expand...

That seems to be what the media does already for me. Then there are times that the data in the study doesn't match with the conclusion, summary or abstract.

I have some sympathy here for researchers but if its public funded in any serious way (say 25%+) and even more importantly if used to make public/government policy, I want the whole report and nothing but.
 
Meeho said:
Seing how much shit passes for peer reviewed these days and how much corruption, in-group, self serving, ideological, money over quality and other kind of preference there is, plus the relative cheapness of digital distribution (could even be served by any of the public universities or even P2P-ied for 0 cost), not to mention most of it is publicly funded to begin with, I find it hard to justify any kind of paywalled journals.
Click to expand...

Then read the free journals. That should be all you need. Right?
 
travm said:
I shouldn't be, but I'm shocked. The idea that someone should pay for the labour of others is a terrible thing to think?
Click to expand...

It was already paid for, the institutions who decided to horde it all like lost pokemon cards are the ones ripping us off. Your idea of self education shouldn't be free is what's more shocking. Why shouldn't someone be able to educate themselves freely? It's what libraries existed for in the first place.
 
It sounded like they didn't meet your standards.

There seems to be a rationalization leaning towards free stuff.
 
travm said:
An actual education costs many thousands. Reading about the research of others to try and circumvent paying for the work that has been done, this should have an associated cost. $89 for 24 hours is nothing.
I have no interest in reading scientific papers, but if i can for only $89, imo that is a great deal.

The internet has everyone thinking they can be doctors, or engineers, or whatever.

The idea that you should be able to self educate for nothing is insane, tbh.
Click to expand...
How much is a library card again?
 
NickJames said:
It was already paid for, the institutions who decided to horde it all like lost pokemon cards are the ones ripping us off.
Click to expand...

Typically, the grants fund the research but do not fund the publication of the research or even require it. If you're looking for reform, that might be a place to start.
 
Armenius said:
I've never paid anything for a library card in 30 years. Where do you live that you need to pay anything for a library card?
Click to expand...

Well I was like 6 at the time so I really can't even remember if the money was for lunch or the card. It was part of a 1st grade field trip lol. Also I haven't stepped foot inside a library in roughly the same time span. I tend to just order books I am interested in.
 
travm said:
I shouldn't be, but I'm shocked. The idea that someone should pay for the labour of others is a terrible thing to think?
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that's a step up from the dark ages when knowledge was forbidden. Besides, is making money the end goal of science? I really don't know
 
NickJames said:
It was already paid for, the institutions who decided to horde it all like lost pokemon cards are the ones ripping us off. Your idea of self education shouldn't be free is what's more shocking. Why shouldn't someone be able to educate themselves freely? It's what libraries existed for in the first place.
Click to expand...
You may educate yourself, do your own research, it's not free. I was only referring to educating yourself with other people's work. The point of this thread.
 
Overall I'm seeing two issues here:

The cost of research, and the cost of review and publishing must all be addressed, and on the other hand, organizations are trying to treat research papers like patents, using paywalls as sources of income despite the initial research, peer review, and any attributable hosting costs being long since covered.

The further issue is that since the research and its review has already been funded and completed, it should be reasonably made available for academic uses. In my opinion, $89/day is absolutely reasonable for commercial entities looking to develop products and services, but very much not so for those studying, and that's the gap that seems to be at the heart of the question.

I absolutely support providing as much education as possible to as many as possible as inexpensively as possible.

This is one of the few things that government has the potential to make a positive impact in. Obviously the scientific community has been falling short with respect to policing their own, and that's not an issue here despite being worthy of mention, but more importantly, the bar for public access to research needs to be uniform and lower.
 
There's a lot of private grant organizations that are now mandating publications funded through them have open access--HHMI being a big one in this realm. We're in the midst of a sea change in this regard. Similarly, you have things like this happening: https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/uc-and-elsevier/

So, yes, publicly funded research should be made more accessible -- but we need to figure out how to move forward to simultaneously maintain quality (more now than ever before, I'd argue) and pay the people making that happen. Reviewing papers sucks and there's zero compensation for it, so it's added to an already (overly) long demand on my time. Since I already make a joke of a salary (my salary will jump to 2.5x its present amount going to industry from my postdoc), you want me to do this stuff for free?

I'm sympathetic to a lot of the viewpoints, and I think in certain realms journal publishers have abused their position, but simultaneously I have worked with some extremely professional editors and we *absolutely* need those people involved to disseminate the research we all are doing.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
The further issue is that since the research and its review has already been funded and completed, it should be reasonably made available for academic uses. In my opinion, $89/day is absolutely reasonable for commercial entities looking to develop products and services, but very much not so for those studying, and that's the gap that seems to be at the heart of the question.

I absolutely support providing as much education as possible to as many as possible as inexpensively as possible.
Click to expand...

It is unusual for an institution to not provide free journal access to its students, postdocs, and faculty. The institution may pay the journals for the access, but from the perspective of the students, it is free.
 
Thunderdolt said:
It is unusual for an institution to not provide free journal access to its students, postdocs, and faculty. The institution may pay the journals for the access, but from the perspective of the students, it is free.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though that 'institutional' limitation is kind of what I'm getting at. A US university would be expected; a poor provincial school in rural India, or Africa? These places are getting cheap phones, cheap cell towers, and cheap solar power to get them connected to the world, but they're going to have trouble paying for access to papers written in the UK or Japan that can help them correlate their knowledge.
 
Thunderdolt said:
It is unusual for an institution to not provide free journal access to its students, postdocs, and faculty. The institution may pay the journals for the access, but from the perspective of the students, it is free.
Click to expand...

I'm an engineering postdoc doing research at an academic hospital. I do not have access to many of my usual and relevant journals, but if I need anything clinically-related, we have a contract to supply it. The institution pays a huge amount for access to those journals and it makes sense for them not to have the publications in my niche field (within the context of where I work). When I was at the University of California for my Ph.D, we had access to almost everything (although I know the med students had access to some medical journals I didn't, but that was a rare occurrence); I linked above that UC system isn't playing with Elsevier to the same level as it was, so the times, they are a changin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top