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。

Science’s Pirate Queen

496 点作者 IntronExon超过 7 年前

27 条评论

afpx超过 7 年前
To me, Alexandra Elbakyan is kind of like a Martin Luther of science. That is, she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions. That may be a ‘sacrilege’ view here, given the audience of HN. And, in a way, I do feel somewhat nervous of people making decisions based on papers they read without understanding of the philosophy and practice of science. Yet, it’s unavoidable and already being done through popular journalism.<p>With sci-hub (and with some reference books obtained via libgen), science becomes accessible to everyone with basic scientific literacy - a surprising large number of people. I see these two tools together as enablers of a new generation of scientists. For instance, recently I have seen many of my collegues and friends sending me direct links to research papers. That’s crazy and would have never happened just a few years ago. These tools will drive the democratization of science. Just as I now see the religious kids at the coffee shop discussing their scripture, I hope to soon see science kids there discussing classic science papers - doing it not for economic or career reasons, but simply to understand and discover.<p>To me, that’s not an economic issue but one of morality.
评论 #16339699 未加载
评论 #16340209 未加载
评论 #16339476 未加载
评论 #16339505 未加载
评论 #16355850 未加载
评论 #16340069 未加载
评论 #16340986 未加载
评论 #16354356 未加载
评论 #16341265 未加载
namelost超过 7 年前
<i>That same year, the AAP and Elsevier also supported and lobbied in favor of a bill that would have prevented the government from requiring agencies to make research published through a journal Open Access at any point</i><p>I realize I shouldn&#x27;t be surprised, but that shocked me. God forbid taxpayers should have access to the research they paid for. How these organizations expect any public sympathy is beyond me.
评论 #16336960 未加载
评论 #16340167 未加载
评论 #16340083 未加载
ggm超过 7 年前
We are all interacting with this HN website over technology whose very underpinnings was the assumption <i>its freely available</i> -The protocol stack, the application-to-protocol bindings, the definitions which a program source code represents, the compiler tools..<p>Am I alone in seeing the contradictions, of people defending for-profit science publishing, using a vehicle whose very existence is predicated on government funded science and technology coming with &#x27;its free&#x27; as a requirement?
评论 #16338007 未加载
评论 #16338438 未加载
评论 #16337832 未加载
评论 #16338449 未加载
评论 #16338851 未加载
degenerate超过 7 年前
@Sci_Hub twitter:<p>&quot;Unfortunately, the Verge article about Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan has many inaccuracies&quot;<p>&quot;I&#x27;m going to publish a separate blog post explaining the inaccuracies later&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Sci_Hub&#x2F;status&#x2F;961829490803449856" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Sci_Hub&#x2F;status&#x2F;961829490803449856</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Sci_Hub&#x2F;status&#x2F;961836113731072003" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Sci_Hub&#x2F;status&#x2F;961836113731072003</a>
Finnucane超过 7 年前
&quot;Publishing powerhouses like Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have estimated its internal cost per-article to be around $3,700. Nature, meanwhile, says that each article sets it back around $30,000 to $40,000&quot;<p>I work in book publishing, not journals, so I may be missing something in Nature&#x27;s internal structure, but that seems like a lot to spend on one article. As in I think we spend less than that to do a whole book.
评论 #16337339 未加载
评论 #16339193 未加载
评论 #16337729 未加载
评论 #16337573 未加载
评论 #16337356 未加载
评论 #16337621 未加载
评论 #16338036 未加载
评论 #16339140 未加载
wasx超过 7 年前
&gt; But if America’s access were further restricted, it would be a blow to the site, and to many of the “capitalists” that use it.<p>The Verge are definitely misunderstanding Elbakyan when she says this:<p>&gt;&quot;the capitalists have started blocking Sci-Hub domains, so the site may not be accessible at the regular addresses.&quot;<p>Elbakyan is referring to Elsevier and the ACS and the other major publishes putting pressure on SciHub and making it inaccessible. No capitalists are using the service in the Marxist sense of the word &quot;capitalist&quot; which is definitely what Elbakyan was going for.<p>The Verge&#x27;s writing here misrepresents what she&#x27;s saying, and truly does change the message of what she has said. I think they need to edit and fix that.
评论 #16339151 未加载
评论 #16338624 未加载
killjoywashere超过 7 年前
First it was music, then it was movies, Google took books off the table by accident, now journal articles. You can see where this is going: small subscriptions for millions of subscribers world-wide. Amazon Prime, YouTube Red, or Spotify for scientists. My questions: 1) can I as an author get 30% like musicians on iTunes?, 2) will this make science more attractive as a career?
评论 #16338323 未加载
评论 #16339174 未加载
评论 #16338531 未加载
michaelbuckbee超过 7 年前
The article (and the discussion here) seems very focused on the legalities of Sci-Hub. But this misses the real question:<p>Has there been a noticeable impact on general scientific progress as a result?<p>I feel like there must at least be anecdotal stories of people reading, exploring and making connections they otherwise would not have been able to because free &gt; $35&#x2F;paper.
评论 #16338495 未加载
评论 #16339165 未加载
评论 #16338630 未加载
评论 #16339087 未加载
评论 #16341443 未加载
评论 #16342444 未加载
lambdadmitry超过 7 年前
Finally an article that dips into Elbakyan&#x27;s worldview and motivations. I _hate_ the typical lazy coverage which projects American &quot;civil rights hero&quot; stereotype on her. She isn&#x27;t, she is borderline crazy person (that is, self-proclaimed &quot;communist&quot; supporting Putin&#x27;s crony capitalism) with no fear of consequences and with incentives aligned with the majority of scientific community. It can be made into a _much_ richer and personal story than your typical &quot;fight the man&quot; trope, but most journalists can&#x27;t be bothered.
评论 #16339666 未加载
icelancer超过 7 年前
Sci-Hub&#x27;s Twitter says there are &quot;many inaccuracies&quot; regarding the Verge article.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Sci_Hub&#x2F;status&#x2F;961829490803449856" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Sci_Hub&#x2F;status&#x2F;961829490803449856</a>
philonoist超过 7 年前
In good old days, there used to be DC++. Currently I use what is touted as the best client for it AirDC++.<p>Why can&#x27;t peer to peer file sharing like Direct Connect be used for such purposes? People have successfully used i2p, torrents, emule,etc.?<p>Can they be tracked and shut down?
评论 #16337709 未加载
romwell超过 7 年前
Knew from the title it&#x27;s going to be about SciHub.<p>As someone who is just out of a grad programme and no longer has access to the university network, I&#x27;m incredibly thankful to her.<p>I wish putting papers on ArXiV were the norm in all disciplines, not just math&#x2F;physics&#x2F;cs, but until that happens, this is the answer (and when it does, SciHub will essentially become a mirror). The licensing deals that the publishers have made with countries like Germany are still extortion, and aren&#x27;t a solution.<p>You can learn more about SciHub, and LibGin (a similar project for science books which mirrors SciHub articles) from Wikipedia: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sci-Hub" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sci-Hub</a><p>The Wiki page also lists mirrors, in case any of the domains are blocked.<p>If you have some bitcoin to spare, SciHub is donation-supported, and you can help the fight to make science available to the people that do it - and everyone else.<p>----------------------------<p>For those out of the loop: currently, access to papers done by scientists (paid for by government&#x2F;their home institution), typeset by the same scientists, reviewed by their peers (for free) and distributed electronically costs bug bucks to access.<p>The publishers still cite hosting&#x2F;maintenance costs as a justification, and yet when someone manages to do the same for free (e.g. SciHub), the publishers go to war.<p>SciHub demonstrates that hosting costs are not a justification for atrocious access fees (to the tune of $30 to see one paper!), and yet the racketeering scheme (a relic from the days of Guttenberg&#x27;s press) still, somehow, persists.<p>To address this problem, people in certain disciplines (math, physics) currently publish their pre-prints online on sites like ArXiV and their own university pages. However, these self-publication methods are not peer-reviewed, and so are not a direct solution to the problem. Some big-name scientists have started open-access online journals, but it&#x27;s hard to get everyone on board, as academic performance evaluations are based on publications in well-established journals -- so only established academics can afford to be published in new journals when more established alternatives are present, but have little motivation to do so, since the university pays the access fee anyway.<p>SciHub is the interim solution to this chicken-and-egg problem. The long-term solution is still SciHub, but legal. Alexandra Elbakyan has done the footwork on the implementation side, the rest of the battle is going to be social (getting the academics on board) and legal (preventing the publishers like Elsevier from crushing the initiative, and, in the long run, destroying their monopoly on providing access to government-funded research altogether -- which means, effectively, wiping them out altogether).<p>All of this is talked about in the article in more detail.
评论 #16337210 未加载
评论 #16337167 未加载
ohum超过 7 年前
Sci-hub, and the availability of research, have been and is, something to be grateful for.<p>It seems like fear is the motivating function for restriction of knowledge, and that is understandable.<p>&quot;Science&#x27;s...Queen&quot;
mirimir超过 7 年前
Requisite: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;scihub22266oqcxt.onion" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;scihub22266oqcxt.onion</a>
aaavl2821超过 7 年前
The academic publishing model, and academic research in general, will be dramatically different in 15 years, maybe fewer<p>In california, venture capital already funds more research than the NIH ($5B vs $1.5-2B). Much of this is one step later stage than academic research but increasingly they overlap directly. VC funding for life science research is skyrocketing, and NIH funding is declining. In January 2018 alone there was $1B invested in seed or series a biotech deals which is more than Stanford gets from the NIH in two years<p>The fact is that the publication bias is ruining scientific quality. Anywhere from 40-75% of academic science isn&#x27;t reproducible, either because of chance, poor quality control &#x2F; documentation, cherry picking data or outright fraud. The list of researchers and universities that VCs and pharma will work with is quite small, and many VCs are just funding the basic science themselves rather than invest in stuff that just doesn&#x27;t work half the time <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lifescivc.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;03&#x2F;academic-bias-biotech-failures&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lifescivc.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;03&#x2F;academic-bias-biotech-failures...</a><p>Young scientists are treated horribly by the academic world, with brilliant PhDs and postdocs with 15 years of research experience in top labs making barely minimum wage with no hope of tenure. Many universities make it very hard for students to explore non academic jobs because they realize they have the most highly educated captive workforce the world has ever seen<p>If a good alternative to working in academia opens up, things will change fast
评论 #16338004 未加载
评论 #16338020 未加载
评论 #16338191 未加载
wiz21c超过 7 年前
What is an &quot;open&quot; paper ? I mean, the paper is a very succinct description of the research done. For example, if one demonstrates how one builds a CNN but at the same time, doesn&#x27;t provide the data set used to build it, then it&#x27;s worthless. In the same vein, if one provides explanations on how to detect motion in a picture but doesn&#x27;t provide the full source code of its detection pipeline, then it may be super tough to rebuild that code (because it assumes the paper actually gives all the <i>necessary</i> information, not the &quot;general idea&quot;))<p>So, how open is open ?
评论 #16339016 未加载
评论 #16339121 未加载
MaysonL超过 7 年前
I wonder what would happen if Apple bought Elsevier, and made all of its journals available on any Apple device for $100&#x2F;yr? A reasonable thing to do with its cash hoard, no? Amazon, or Bezos, could probably raise the money to swing a hostile takeover.
评论 #16337770 未加载
评论 #16337940 未加载
znpy超过 7 年前
I wonder if she needs financial support for lawyers and stuff. I would gladly make a donation.
评论 #16345436 未加载
daddosi超过 7 年前
Dumb question:<p>How make a free high impact journal?
评论 #16346048 未加载
frankzander超过 7 年前
Modern heros
fwdpropaganda超过 7 年前
What&#x27;s the reason this entire thing isn&#x27;t already entirely over torrent?
评论 #16338527 未加载
M_Bakhtiari超过 7 年前
Considering that scientific publishing is a racket[1], I find it very hard to have any sympathy whatsoever for the likes of Elsevier<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15993603" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15993603</a>
ybrah超过 7 年前
I like to see this for what it is, piracy. If I want access to a paper, I have sci-hub and that&#x27;s beneficial to me. I&#x27;m saying its a good thing.<p>Sidenote: those pictures are creepy.
incompatible超过 7 年前
It&#x27;s interesting how Elbakyan generally receives only praise in discussions like this. Do no supporters of capitalism want to denounce this self-styled communist and complain about the harm done to the profits of law-abiding businesses like Elsevier?
评论 #16337344 未加载
评论 #16337640 未加载
评论 #16337687 未加载
评论 #16337384 未加载
rasengan0超过 7 年前
Who&#x27;s the thief? and who are they hurting?<p>I have a response but that comment reply will cost 0.000000001BTC
indubitable超过 7 年前
Can somebody explain the exact process for free access that people would propose? Most options seem to come with significant and foreseeable &#x27;unforeseen consequences.&#x27;<p>For instance if the idea is that research is submitted to a private journal, as typical, but then the journal is not allowed to charge a fee then that is going to rather lower their prioritization of submissions from public research.<p>A far worse idea would be government covering the journal fees which would do the exact opposite and overly incentivize public research as companies could send their publication fees through the roof and still have them paid due to government price insensitivity.<p>Maybe another idea would to have a public government research journal where all research that received public funding is freely available. But this also runs into many problems. One would be that the fundamental point of a journal is to work as a filtering mechanism. We might argue that a lot of mediocre science gets published today, even in more reputable journals. And that&#x27;s after some odd 80%+ of papers, for those more reputable journals, is rejected. A government clearing house would lose its purpose as a quality filter. And it would also run into the same problems as #1 if we then have the authors submit it in the private industry, where publishing rights&#x2F;exclusivity are typically part of the model.<p>So what&#x27;s the idea?
评论 #16337951 未加载
评论 #16338367 未加载
meri_dian超过 7 年前
Here&#x27;s one thing I don&#x27;t understand about the call for open access.<p>Academic papers are not read by the general public because they are dense and usually very technical, accessible to researchers in that field but not really to many others.<p>Given this, the subtext to arguments for open access that journal fees are stifling scientific awareness or potential research by depriving the public seems incorrect.<p>Because a relatively small specialist community actually consumes scientific literature, I don&#x27;t see paid journals as some egregious societal inefficiency.<p>Universities make so much money nowadays that it&#x27;s certainly a travesty if researchers have to pay for access to these journals themselves, but the point remains that it just doesn&#x27;t seem like that big of a deal that the public doesn&#x27;t have free access to scientific journals.
评论 #16337653 未加载
评论 #16337221 未加载
评论 #16338425 未加载
评论 #16337232 未加载
评论 #16337590 未加载
评论 #16337227 未加载
评论 #16337331 未加载
评论 #16337212 未加载
评论 #16337299 未加载
评论 #16337532 未加载
评论 #16339205 未加载
评论 #16337293 未加载
评论 #16337217 未加载
评论 #16338209 未加载
评论 #16339236 未加载
评论 #16337282 未加载