Hmmm… 
Not 100% sure how I feel about this. I do think all peer-reviewed research papers should be available to the public, but if no one paid for them, journals would have to find funding elsewhere. With piracy, I guess that would be from the researchers, which would make scientific research less profitable and, in the end, diminish it.
But when I think about it, maybe that wouldn’t be such a big issue. Researchers mostly get access to their journals from universities and other organizations that they are affiliated with, so they indirectly pay for it already. If today’s journals went extinct, universities could cooperate to fund new journals and pay for it that way. The general public isn’t going to pay for research papers anyway, so if I’m thinking correctly now, the only funding that would be lost would be from professionals who subscribe to a few journals to keep themselves up to date. And they are mostly affiliated with professional organizations, which could also cooperate to fund new journals and then just increase the membership fee.
It would be interesting to read some good information on this dilemma.
The truth is prior to sci-hub a lot of the general public was put off accessing research papers by charges of $30 or so to download a full paper. In essence it meant people were denied information that should have been readily available to them.
This denial serves to make people cynical about scientific research. After all if it’s kosher why put unnecessary barriers up to people accessing the research?
Where should the publishing companies drive to maximise profits end and people’s right to information that may affect them begin?
Would there really be a need for sci-hub if publishing companies were charging reasonable amounts for access to those papers?
In essence it is the publishing companies wanton greed that ensures that a site like sci hub exists.
I’ve never understood why the highest paid folks are in the sports profession, and the teachers make the least.
Information that is for the good of all should be free, after all, this is how things get better.
I agree… no one should have a monopoly on info… and you never know who will make the next big break through so everyone should have access to it…but I can see the downfall of this with the whole diminished funding part…
While I agree that people’s right to information is very important, I think it is even more important that research is well-funded and maintains a high level of quality. Most people will hardly learn much from reading complicated research papers, and this information can be communicated in better ways, although that obviously doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be available to everyone who wants to learn. But if we somehow damage the current system of funding and quality controlling research through peer reviewed journals, that are not cheap to run, that could have far-reaching and very destructive consequences for science and for the public’s trust in it that might not be easy to repair. The court might be doing what’s best for the public in this instance. I don’t know enough about this, but it’s apparent to me that it’s not an easy issue to resolve.
The current system is not optimal, but just disposing of it strikes me as an instance of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.
I may or may not have looked at the directions for time crystals… it may or may not have been the most legal way…but guess how much closer I am to making my own time crystals… it might as well have been written in some undiscovered alien language…lol I will stick to the scifi aspect…
Because no one cares about the scientific research.
Not until they need it anyway, then they’ll pay anything for answers.
So shortsighted…
Publishing companies like Elsevier don’t fund research to any great degree, though. Most of that is federally funded through grants to schools, which is why academics and researchers are so frustrated with Elsevier et al. The research has already been paid for by the government, and researchers have to pay exorbitant prices to access research in their field, and the only ones who profit are the publishers.
Edit: Here’s a good explanation of the process. Universities and researchers don’t get paid for their articles, don’t receive further funding for research, lose copyright to their work, and are served takedown notices for posting their own work. The fees charged to access the work are prohibitive both on an individual level and an institutional level.
The publishing of scientific research is a business based on copyright, and whether to copyright or not is the sole prerogative of the publisher and researcher.
The open-access argument will have a chilling effect on scientific research.
Actually what happens is that in order to publish, they’re required to relinquish copyright. Academics and researchers say the opposite: paywalled papers inhibit scientific research, not the other way around.
If the content producers retained copyright or received any benefit from publishing with places like Elsevier, it would be a different story. But academic publishing is one seriously messed up, exploitative business that hinders rather than helps scholarship.
rhubot… you know a lot about a lot are you sure your not Gandalf?
lol rhubot the white… the giant spell slinging cat… that’s actually scary…lol
It is. The benefit is that the journals are high-profile, so publishing in them gets your paper noticed. But the trade off is that you lose all rights to your work - if you post it or otherwise make it available on your own, Elsevier will bring legal proceedings against you - and researchers must either pay between 30 and 85 dollars per paper to access your work or be affiliated with an institution that can pay the tens of thousands of dollars annually required for a journal subscription. Schools like Harvard are being priced out of subscriptions.
Prior to SciHub, researchers had IRC channels and twitter groups where they solicited papers from other researchers under the table. Researchers generally don’t have hundreds of dollars to spend on papers that they don’t know will be useful until they have already purchased them.
Adding to the frustration is that this research is publicly funded for the most part, but the results are put out of reach of the people who paid for it.
I firmly support copyright law, particularly in how it protects and encourages creators. I was incredibly startled when I learned how this system works.
Thanks for the reply.
It’s all going to Sh it in a hand basket.
Since when should info that is done to benefit society (hopefully) held ransom for profit?
Have we really evolved into something better? Money makes the world go 'round…
