• OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    “Sci-Hub uses stolen user credentials and phishing attacks to extract copyrighted journal articles illegally”

    That’s patently false and slander. If Nature.com published this themselves, Sci-Hub has a legal case here

    Edit: Not the case, it seems like Nature was forwarding the comment from publishers and asking Alexandria to respond

    Edit2: If you have a Reddit account, upvote this so we can get more people to donate: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/rik317/scihub_founder_alexandra_elbyakhans_answer_to/

  • ree@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 years ago

    I couldn’t do research without scihub.

    Fuck walled garden.

    On the other end, publishing peer-reviewd articles cost the author a significant sum ( 1000-ish € ) and an academic career doesn’t exist without published articles.

    What a shitty system.

    • Salamander@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      This is a solution that publishers are pushing forward. Plan S is an example of such plan. Obviously they are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart - the idea is that the person who publishes (the researcher) pays a large publishing fee to cover the costs of publishing and the markup. Several grants in Europe now require researchers to publish open source. This solution does mean that part taxpayer’s money that was previously allocated to research is now transferred to the publishers. This model can work as long as the publishers are not looking to make unfair profits.

      This solution also enables a mechanism that allows publishers to leech off research grants. My e-mail inbox is full of “predatory open source journals”, which will easily accept your paper as long as you pay the open source fee. If the money is made at the moment of publishing, and not really dependent on the distribution of the work, then the publishers are motivated to publish as many articles as possible without being too concerned about whether the final product will be of high quality. There is a good possibility that as journals move to this model, high impact journals will also be more willing to lower their reviewing standards if this means collecting more publishing fees.

      • Christian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        That mostly makes sense to me, but it seems likely that a cheapening of reviewing standards would backfire long-term and push the best papers away from traditional publishers, which could then become a more widespread trend pretty quickly after it starts. Maybe I’m being too optimistic.

        This model can work as long as the publishers are not looking to make unfair profits.

        This line made me laugh.

  • YouLookGraphics@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    LMAO I can’t even take Nature’s “”“reply”“” seriously

    I couldn’t do anything science related shit without Sci-Hub. Fuck these publishers.