[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 412 KB, 1056x327, commies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12310608 No.12310608 [Reply] [Original]

What is your opinion on sci-hub?

>> No.12310628

>>12310608
>What is my opinion on sci-hub!

>> No.12310637

>>12310608
>Why is my opinion on sci-hub.

>> No.12310638

>>12310608
sneed

>> No.12310644

>>12310608
Chuck.

>> No.12310671 [DELETED] 

>>12310608
>Why is my nigger on sci-hub.

>> No.12310703

>>12310608
>Where is my sci-hub on opinion?

>> No.12310734

>>12310703
>>12310671
>>12310644
>>12310638
>>12310637
>>12310628
dicks.

>> No.12310747

>>12310608
It's a good step.
Journals are predatory as fuck when you go into the history of them. Their whole business model was started by a jew scammer.
>scientists do the work of creating article and submit it for free
>scientists do the work of reviewing article for free
>universities/scientists get charged monopoly prices to view the content
>only ones paid are the editors
>only ones profiting are the owners
You just need to look at their profit margins to know shit is fucked up.

>> No.12310821

>>12310734
/pol/tards are everywhere in 4chan coping; this will be over soon when their stupid election is done.....

I think sci-hub is great; we can advance human civilization and not just fill the injustice of journal publishers who do not give a penny to researchers. What the community really needs is a portal repository, like libgen, but for researchers to publish their work. Arxiv is a good cause as well.

>> No.12310825

>>12310734
That's mean and uncalled for.

>>12310821
>/pol/tards are everywhere
>rent free

>> No.12310828

>>12310821
return to your place of origin, le edit,

>> No.12310831

>>12310608
based, all forms of DRM should be gotten rid of even if it destroys new production of movies, tv, books etc. any any restriction of educational material is inherently immoral

>> No.12310832

>>12310825
it's not a baseless assumption, there's a marked increase in trolling every election.

>> No.12310836

>>12310832
I haven't noticed a difference. The last four years were full of /pol/ content honestly.

>> No.12310837

>>12310608
sci-hub and alexandra elbakyan are both extremely based and should show everyone that commies are mostly right
publishers are literal parasites and are a shining example of everything wrong with the current state of the world
so fuck publishers, pirate or support whatever work you want to consume directly
and pro tip: many scientists will send you a pdf of their research if you email them because they hate publishers just as much

>> No.12310840

>>12310837
>many scientists will send you a pdf of their research if you email them because they hate publishers just as much
this was insane to me, I don't work in a sci field or have a sci background in the slightest but pirated a paper I was interested in, emailed the guy to talk about it and mentioned his other paper was outside my price range (couldn't find it anywhere for free) does he know anywhere it might be sold cheaper and he just sent it to me for free no fuss

>> No.12310846

>>12310840
Often when papers are published the journals only claim copyright on the layout, not the content. That's why they can send it out for free and why many papers are on preprint archives with a different layout.

>> No.12310867

>>12310832
Nigga, are you implying people only say "nigger" on this board during elections? Are you this new?

>> No.12310869

>>12310867
No, I say nigger here all the time, but there's a noticable increase in trolling on other boards whenever /pol/ goes into overdrive.

>> No.12310871

>>12310867
he is saying that there is a noticable increase in people trolling and spamming slurs whenever /pol gets upset, not that that ONLY happens during elections

>> No.12310877
File: 36 KB, 1260x333, wat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12310877

>>12310871
did you post that before my post loaded?
if so, it's interesting how both of us used the phrase noticable increase.

>> No.12310880

>>12310877
yeah i posted my reply before refreshing, funny coincidence

>> No.12311060

>>12310608
it saved my ass.

>> No.12311111

>>12310821
We are reaching new levels of rent free with each passing day
lol

>> No.12311114

>>12310608
based and infoanarchistpilled

>> No.12311140
File: 41 KB, 620x414, 144129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12311140

>>12311111
>11111

>> No.12311158

>>12310821
this

>> No.12311316

>>12310837
>>12310840
It's not that they hate publishers, it's that they don't get any money out of it and have no incentive not to give you their copy of the paper.

>> No.12311422

>>12310821
How would you make it popular if somebody got technical capacity?

>> No.12311426

>>12310608
Necessary for many reasons. Fuck paying hundreds of dollars just for accessing one paper. That money doesn't even get reinvested in proper research, but probably on the illegal prostitutes of the journal owners.

>> No.12312046

Regardless of ethics, it's useful.

>> No.12312430

>>12310608

I have legitimate journal access through my employer but I still use sci-hub regardless, it's just easier.

The journal publishers are parasitic but it is necessary for someone to be the gatekeeper otherwise the literature would just get flooded with irreproducibile crap (even moreso than it does currently)

>> No.12312476

>>12312430
Why can't the gatekeeping process be free? The people revising papers aren't paid anyway, it seems to be just a matter of replacing the current publishers by 100 % open access journals.

>> No.12312731

>>12310608

My prof :

> Well, the situation is rather simple. I do not have access to the articles I wrote

>> No.12312782

>>12312476
The whole business is propped up by the idea that some journals bestow prestige upon the submitters.

>> No.12312997

>>12311316
Precisely. Same is true for peer review - you don't get anything out of it and it shows.
Nature and Lopez-Otin
Nature and Voinnet
Nature and Dunoyer
Nature and Macchiarini
Nature and Pedro
Nature and Semenza
and that's just the one high impact factor, h-index blowing publisher that happens to be taken seriously in the joke of a field of bioastrology (medicine and anything that touches bio-anything).

>> No.12313102

>>12310608

The sci-hub is great, it lets you check articles, without begging your superiors for money to subscribe some Jewish journals.

T. an actual scientist with PhD working at research institution.

>> No.12313126

>>12310608
I am a tenured researcher and I hate publishers with a passion. Even with the magical uni credentials, sci-hub is easier to use that the crappy website most publishers propose.

(Also in our field a lot of people have their stuff either on their webpage or on arxiv, so it's not that important for recent research but for old papers it's quite practical.)

>> No.12313623

>>12310828
>autorrect changes "leddit" to "le edit"
It looks like the phoneposter has a guilty pleasure.

>> No.12313825

imagine if the us scraped a bit off of the military budget and threw it toward NASA / offsetting the gatekeeping of journals. top tier PR move too.

>> No.12313976

Regarding open access, I published last year and the journal offered a simultaneous open access publication. After clicking through a convoluted UI the price for open access publication was 8000$, or 2000$ of my university had a contract with them
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO FUCKING PUT A PDF ON A WEBSITE

>> No.12314739

>>12313825
>and threw it toward NASA
Until the people responsible for the Challenger disaster are tried it would be a waste of money. They have not even been investigated! NASA in general and the Challenger disaster in particular are common examples for dysfunctional organisations in books on organisation theory.

You would be better off shovelling the money to Elon Musk et al. >>12310275

>> No.12317012

>>12310608
based

>> No.12317013

>>12310608
I want to fuck her big milkies then lick her feet

>> No.12317117

>>12313825
NASA is a shadow of its former glory
retirement home living on the achievements of its predecessors

>> No.12317195

>>12310608
It's amazing. I've used it and library genesis for many assignments instead of just using watered-down information on websites

>> No.12317441

>>12310608
Highly based individuals.

>> No.12317448

>>12312782
That's all the more reason to take it down.

>> No.12317497

>>12310821
>immediately begins screeching about /pol/ boogeymen
You really, truly need to fuck off back to plebbit.

>> No.12317527
File: 1.72 MB, 666x716, Random motion of particles.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12317527

>>12312430
>otherwise the literature would just get flooded with irreproducibile crap (even moreso than it does currently)
I would say that there would be next to no difference (or possibly even less irreproducible crap) for the very simple reason that many people publishing are going to alter their own data in order to conform with what the publisher wants to see and hear most. There is a strong bias towards getting positive results, meaning people will tend to avoid publishing negative results like the plague. And one way to avoid a negative result is to torture the fuck out of the data and then tweak a few knobs here and there to get a more impressive result.
Submitting the actual honest findings will not get you published and your career will be on indefinite hold. Lots of people would certainly act outraged to find someone gave false data, but it is an open secret that it happens left and right. And the people that have built their careers on it will obviously not want these types of findings damage their OWN credibility, so they will be even more fanatical in the way they demonstrate their distaste for the people that do it: it helps their image to have people see them as this righteous advocate of the truth and it shifts eyes from them.

>> No.12317760

>>12310747
>scientists do the work of creating article and submit it for free

It's not free. They have to pay the journal.

>> No.12317780

>>12317760
B-b-but muh h-index, muh impact factor! Are you implying that the papers i write should be read and cited based on merit, rather than on what journal i paid to publish in? Preposterous! You science denier!

>> No.12317782

>>12312430
No, we need peer review but we certainly don't need those journals. Peer review process can be accomplished by other means. Its absurd to charge for a peer review that is done free by other colleagues

>>12312476
Agree, if journals are not going to pay reviewers, at least, we can replace them with OA

>> No.12317789

>>12317760
This is literally the worst shot going on. When I started being a PhD student I didn't know you have to fucking PAY those leeches who profit off of your work.
They should be abolished. All we need these days is capable reviewers and a website.

>> No.12317851

>>12317789
>They should be abolished. All we need these days is capable reviewers and a website.

Indeed they should. I mean, we should legislate in order to prohibit those practices. It makes me sick that public universities are wasting public funds in order to get access to those journals

>> No.12317854

>>12317789

And who would pay those reviewers for their work?

>> No.12317862

>>12317854
The reviewers are like janitors here.
they don't get paid, only the owner does.

>> No.12317924
File: 22 KB, 400x400, bog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12317924

>>12317854
>he thinks they pay anyone
No Anon, you pay them money to post what someone else has reviewed for free.
>you pay with your taxes for universities to be able to read it
>you pay with your time because you do not receive compensation for the articles you review as a reviewer
>and then you pay on top of that with your own wallet
>first when you read it and then when you publish something on it
And for what? So they can proclaim themselves to be ultimate authority on what is and isn't science based on the work they didn't do?

>> No.12317964

>>12317854
Reviewers only get prestige, and not much of taht even.

>> No.12318024

>>12310608
Why do i need browser extension for search?

>> No.12318244

>>12318024
You don't? You can easily just find out a working country code, such as .st and not bother with any extensions.

>> No.12318281

>>12317964
>>12317862
>>12317924
It's also worth mentioning that scientific reviewing is looked on as a duty as a scientist, such as mentoring grad students or giving presentations. Most professors I know (who are lawful good) try to review as many papers as they send in so they feel like they are giving as much as they are taking.

>> No.12318340

>>12318244
exblain

>> No.12318355

>>12318024
>>12318340
What browser extension? Just paste your DOI into the search field and hit enter, it's literally that easy.

>> No.12318421

>>12318355
I don't have particular DOI, i want to browse the contents.

>> No.12318426

>>12318421
Browse papers on any other site, copy the DOI of what you find and paste that into sci-hub.

>> No.12318474

>>12318281
I can appreciate this attitude. Unfortunately the presence of vigilante reviewers such as Clare Francis suggests this process is not good enough.

>> No.12318575

>>12318474
>Clare Francis
Who?

>> No.12318619

>>12318575
The masked vigilante of the scientific community:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Francis_(science_critic)
This has been going on since at least 2006.

>> No.12318673

>>12318619
There are others too such as 11jigen who is only mentioned in the Japanese Wiki:
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/11jigen