TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

New Sci-Hub domain

235 pointsby matthbergabout 8 years ago

12 comments

nikcubabout 8 years ago
Just a heads-up that the self-installed plugin uses an extension update_url that points to an http endpoint and the extension is unsigned (hence developer mode) - so it would be easy to hijack the update process<p>You&#x27;re probably better off installing the alternative in the Chrome web store (search sci-hub)[0]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;sci-hub-links&#x2F;olcgjijbclchlliaffaghajlbfppkbkl" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;sci-hub-links&#x2F;olcg...</a>
评论 #13806139 未加载
bennofsabout 8 years ago
Does anyone know what&#x27;s up with that chrome plugin for searching? Feels weird to me that it would require a plugin.
TazeTSchnitzelabout 8 years ago
I was like “wow, how&#x27;d they get on that TLD reserved for academia?”, but then I realised that .ac is most likely a country code, unlike .ac.uk which is GB&#x27;s .edu
评论 #13804654 未加载
评论 #13805725 未加载
shp0ngleabout 8 years ago
Why new domain? Sci-hub.cc (the domain currently advertised on sci hub Twitter) seems to be still working.<p>But yeah back up domains are useful, I guess.
评论 #13805716 未加载
hackuserabout 8 years ago
This domain has been known for awhile and has been mentioned many times on HN:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;duckduckgo.com&#x2F;html&#x2F;?q=%22sci-hub.ac%22%20site%3Aycombinator.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;duckduckgo.com&#x2F;html&#x2F;?q=%22sci-hub.ac%22%20site%3Ayco...</a><p>BTW, how does one distinguish a &#x27;real&#x27; sci-hub domain from a spoof?
评论 #13807198 未加载
animexabout 8 years ago
So are these guys the Pirate Bay of research papers so they keep having to fight DCMA&#x2F;Domain seizures?
评论 #13806319 未加载
bshimminabout 8 years ago
I love the joyously mixed metaphors of the imagery - pencils and walls and keys and a raven!
评论 #13805315 未加载
dredmorbiusabout 8 years ago
What the academic publishing world calls &quot;theft&quot;, the rest of us call &quot;research&quot;. Why Sci-Hub is so popular.<p>Because it works. It delivers information and knowledge to those who need it.<p>Because information and knowledge are public goods. As CUNY&#x2F;GC says, an &quot;increasingly unpopular idea&quot;,1,2 but an absolutely correct one.<p>Because it democratises information.<p>Because much the world cannot afford to pay US&#x2F;EU&#x2F;JP&#x2F;AU prices for content. Including many of those in the US&#x2F;EU&#x2F;JP&#x2F;AU. And most certainly virtually all outside. Billions and billions of people.<p>Because the research is (often) publicly funded, conducted in public institutions, and meant for the public.<p>Because information and markets simply don&#x27;t work. Deadweight losses from restricted access and perverse incentives for publication both taint the system.<p>Because much the content, EVERYTHING published before 1962, would have been public domain under the copyright law in force at the time, and much up through 1976 and the retrospective extensions of copyright it, and multiple subsequent copyright acts, have created.<p>Because 30% profit margins are excessive by any measure. Greed, in this case, is not good.<p>Because the interfaces to existing systems, a patchwork fragment of poorly administered, poorly designed, limited-access, and all partial systems are frankly far more tedious to navigate than Sci-Hub: Submit DOI or URL, get paper.<p>Because unaffiliated independent research is a thing.<p>Because the old regime is absolutely unsustainable. It will die. It is dying as we write this.<p>Because the roles of financing research and publication need not parallel the activity of accessing content. Ronald Coase&#x27;s &quot;Theory of the Firm&quot; (1937, ), a paper which should be public domain today under the law in which it was created and published, and should have been by 1991 at the latest, but isn&#x27;t, tells us why: transactions themselves have costs.<p>Because journals no longer serve a primary role as publishers of academic material, but as gatekeepers over academic professional advancement. This perpetrates multiple pathologies: papers don&#x27;t advance knowledge, academics are blackmailed into the system, and access to knowledge is curtailed<p>Because what the academic publishing industry calls &quot;theft&quot; the world calls &quot;research&quot;.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;4p2rwk&#x2F;what_the_academic_publishing_industry_calls_theft&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;4p2rwk&#x2F;what_th...</a><p>I use Sci-Hub extensively, it&#x27;s one of a few of my go-to sources for information, which I&#x27;m using in large amounts (1000s of articles and books) for an area of large and broad scope.<p>Others includie BookZZ &#x2F; Book4You and LibGen, both also democratising information in opposition to the copyright cartel.<p>The Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, Hathi Trust, and a number of largely special-purpose archives also serve my needs, but the simple truth is that a large and comprehensive archive is itself useful on account of reducing search and access frictions. As the US Library of Congress discovered when it became the largest book collection in the United States in the early 20th century, and hence a magnet for scholars. It might not have <i>everything</i>, but odds were good that it had <i>any particular thing</i>. Shoe-leather costs being somewhat higher for trekking between Cambridge, MA and DC in those days than navigating through websites is today.<p>What&#x27;s truly pathetic is that oftentimes its the <i>indices themselves</i> which aren&#x27;t online. I&#x27;ve been stymied repeatedly in trying to access old periodicals because there are no generally available indexes that don&#x27;t require academic affiliation or on-site access.<p>The frustration de jour is in trying to find access to several works published between 1920 and the 2nd century AD, all out of copyright, but for which there appear to be no digital copies available.<p>Programmers are familiar with various charts of timings that they should be familar with. My own lookup time has just bumped from 2 minutes to 2-4 weeks, and that clock starting when I reach the ILL desk.<p>And since the question &quot;but how will you pay for it&quot; inevitably arises: Universal Content Syndication.<p>Treat information as the public good it is.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;1uotb3&#x2F;a_modest_proposal_universal_online_media_payment&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;1uotb3&#x2F;a_modes...</a>
评论 #13803081 未加载
评论 #13805898 未加载
lordnachoabout 8 years ago
Is there any connection between this and libgen? That also has a bunch of papers.
评论 #13805308 未加载
评论 #13803273 未加载
smailiabout 8 years ago
Slightly off topic but when did they move off &quot;.com&quot; and why? Or were they always on &quot;.ac&quot;?
评论 #13802893 未加载
评论 #13802956 未加载
评论 #13802980 未加载
评论 #13802934 未加载
评论 #13803045 未加载
libeclipseabout 8 years ago
It&#x27;s funny that the reason that most scientific journals quote for charging for papers is because they spend time and effort reviewing the research -- but we all know how big of a problem unreproducible research is.
评论 #13803410 未加载
评论 #13803212 未加载
评论 #13803506 未加载
tmalsburg2about 8 years ago
This is not the solution to our problems with scientific publishing. Academics need to stop complaining about Elsevier et al. and submitting to their journals at the same time. Institutions need to stop awarding funding and giving jobs to the people who publish in the most glamorous journals. We all need to stop obsessing about silly publication metrics.
评论 #13802974 未加载
评论 #13803087 未加载
评论 #13802950 未加载
评论 #13802983 未加载
评论 #13803216 未加载
评论 #13803174 未加载
评论 #13802984 未加载