TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Robin Hood of Science

164 点作者 salmonet超过 9 年前

10 条评论

beloch超过 9 年前
While at university, you just take having free access to journals for granted. When you leave academia the withdrawal hits you. A lot of journals will make an article free <i>if</i> the author pays extra. (For those unfamiliar with how journals work, you submit your work, they get other scientists to review it for them for free, and then they charge you to publish it if the reviewers are all happy enough). The result of this practice is that you don&#x27;t automatically know if an article will be possible to view or not. You can&#x27;t just say, &quot;Oh that&#x27;s in Journal X, there&#x27;s no point in looking it up because it won&#x27;t be free&quot;. You have to check and be randomly denied!<p>The effect of this is that you can no longer freely follow the rabbit hole of an interesting chain of references, nor will you read articles outside your bailiwick for fun because they popped up on a blog somewhere. Even if you carefully restrict the journals you&#x27;re interested in reading, subscriptions will total several thousand per year. Single articles will be priced at $40-50, which is just nuts when you&#x27;re reading for curiosity. Even if it pertains to your job, it&#x27;s a chore to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to make your company pay for it. The end result is that, once you leave university, you&#x27;re cut off from legally obtaining access to a lot of interesting stuff. How does restricting knowledge in this manner serve science or industry?<p>In physics, arxiv is pretty freakin&#x27; awesome... for <i>recent</i> stuff. If you&#x27;re following a reference chain, you go off the reservation pretty darned quick. I admit, I&#x27;ve been guilty of using some slightly more labor intensive means of obtaining articles without paying for them, but it&#x27;s a pain. I honestly hope somebody succeeds in making all of history&#x27;s scientific publications freely and easily available online in a very permanent way. Hell, that research was practically all funded with public money anyways! Why should private companies like Elsevier be collecting money for research Schrödinger conducted on the public dime before anyone alive was born?<p>Sci-Hub is new to me, but it looks promising. This is something the world needs.
评论 #11078536 未加载
评论 #11078574 未加载
评论 #11078537 未加载
entee超过 9 年前
No question scientific publishers are effectively a racket. The problem is that as a researcher you&#x27;re stuck. If you want tenure, you need a publication in a big journal. There are a few that are open access in some domains, notably biology, but even there Plos Biology et. al. doesn&#x27;t quite have the cachet of Nature&#x2F;Science&#x2F;Cell.<p>In other fields, it can be even harder to find a good open access solution. In chemistry for example, I can&#x27;t think of one. You can pay to have ACS or other publishers make something open access, but that&#x27;s more money out a researcher&#x27;s pocket that&#x27;s not going toward better science.<p>Sure, publishing has costs, but nowhere near what gets charged. Also, much of the labor of reviewing papers is also provided to publishers free of charge, scientists review each other&#x27;s work for no fee before acceptance in a journal that will charge dearly for it.<p>We as tax payers pay for this work, the people we pay to do it are caught in a catch-22 situation where they can either hand over their work to someone who will charge an arm and a leg, or be pushed out of science.
评论 #11077597 未加载
评论 #11077989 未加载
nycticorax超过 9 年前
I don&#x27;t want to defend Elsevier, but this article was just egregiously one-sided. Surely an article like this should examine whether this model is sustainable, or what it would really mean if these for-profit publishers disappeared. (Some of them, for instance, employ full-time editors to sift through papers and pick the best ones. How does this sifting happen in the brave new world of universal free access?)<p>Also they quote &quot;Robin Hood&quot; thus:<p>&quot;Elsevier, in contrast, operates by racket: If you do not send money, you will not read any papers.&quot;<p>Ummm, that&#x27;s how most businesses work. If you want a sandwich, you have to pay for it first... Not all businesses are rackets.<p>&quot;Robin Hood&quot; continues...<p>&quot;On my website, any person can read as many papers as they want for free, and sending donations is their free will. Why can Elsevier not work like this, I wonder?&quot;<p>Ummm, because they&#x27;re a for-profit company, and their officers have a obligation to try to maximize profit for their share-holders?<p>Again, I don&#x27;t want to defend Elsevier, but I think a better article would have acknowledged that there&#x27;s more than one side to this issue.
评论 #11078779 未加载
评论 #11078514 未加载
评论 #11079004 未加载
biehl超过 9 年前
Legacy science publishers are one of the best examples of copyright fail - how times have changed such that the current rules are no longer aligned with reasonable goals of current society.
nycthbris超过 9 年前
Isn&#x27;t this effectively what Aaron Swartz got in trouble for?
评论 #11077701 未加载
评论 #11077998 未加载
评论 #11078578 未加载
评论 #11077321 未加载
mighty-fine超过 9 年前
Is it possible for anyone who wants to to just mirror the entire database? How big is it anyway?
评论 #11095807 未加载
KKKKkkkk1超过 9 年前
I applaud what sic-hub is doing, but am curious why doesn&#x27;t Elsevier simply block the IPs that sci-hub is using. I imagine that once a university gets blocked, whoever shared their credentials at that university will get similar treatment to what Aaron Swartz experienced. I for one would never take that kind of risk.
评论 #11079134 未加载
jakub_h超过 9 年前
Expected LibGen. Was not disappointed.
评论 #11079136 未加载
bainsfather超过 9 年前
The website is:<p>sci-hub.io<p>searching for scihub returned results for other organisations.<p>Anyone use it much? How complete is it? I just tried it and got the nature paper about deepmind&#x27;s go playing program, which was nice.
dang超过 9 年前
Although we just had <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11070192" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11070192</a>, this article appears to give more information, so we won&#x27;t treat it as a dupe.