Archivists Are Trying to Make Sure a ‘Pirate Bay of Science’ Never Goes Down – VICE

“It’s hard to find free and open access to scientific material online. The latest studies and current research huddle behind paywalls unread by those who could benefit. But over the last few years, two sites—Library Genesis and Sci-Hub—have become high-profile, widely used resources for pirating scientific papers.

The problem is that these sites have had a lot of difficulty actually staying online. They have faced both legal challenges and logistical hosting problems that has knocked them offline for long periods of time. But a new project by data hoarders and freedom of information activists hopes to bring some stability to one of the two “Pirate Bays of Science.” …”

 

Unlock Knowledge – Get this Extension for ? Firefox (en-US)

“This add-on currently appends https://whereisscihub.now.sh/ to URLs and redirects to sci-hub and libgen, so you can access journals and books for free from many unethical paywalls.

Our motivation: Guerilla Open Access Manifesto by Aaron Swartz
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost….”

Worldwide inequality in access to full text scientific articles: the example of ophthalmology [PeerJ]

Abstract:  Background

The problem of access to medical information, particularly in low-income countries, has been under discussion for many years. Although a number of developments have occurred in the last decade (e.g., the open access (OA) movement and the website Sci-Hub), everyone agrees that these difficulties still persist very widely, mainly due to the fact that paywalls still limit access to approximately 75% of scholarly documents. In this study, we compare the accessibility of recent full text articles in the field of ophthalmology in 27 established institutions located worldwide.

Methods

A total of 200 references from articles were retrieved using the PubMed database. Each article was individually checked for OA. Full texts of non-OA (i.e., “paywalled articles”) were examined to determine whether they were available using institutional and Hinari access in each institution studied, using “alternative ways” (i.e., PubMed Central, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and Online Reprint Request), and using the website Sci-Hub.

Results

The number of full texts of “paywalled articles” available using institutional and Hinari access showed strong heterogeneity, scattered between 0% full texts to 94.8% (mean = 46.8%; SD = 31.5; median = 51.3%). We found that complementary use of “alternative ways” and Sci-Hub leads to 95.5% of full text “paywalled articles,” and also divides by 14 the average extra costs needed to obtain all full texts on publishers’ websites using pay-per-view.

Conclusions

The scant number of available full text “paywalled articles” in most institutions studied encourages researchers in the field of ophthalmology to use Sci-Hub to search for scientific information. The scientific community and decision-makers must unite and strengthen their efforts to find solutions to improve access to scientific literature worldwide and avoid an implosion of the scientific publishing model. This study is not an endorsement for using Sci-Hub. The authors, their institutions, and publishers accept no responsibility on behalf of readers.

Pirate website Sci-Hub is making the world’s academic research free to all. But at what cost? | The Star

“Sci-Hub remains a one-woman show. According to Elbakyan, she does all the programming, server configuration as well as communication with users and media on her own. Sci-Hub’s expenses are a few thousand a month, covered by user donations. Payments are in bitcoin only. PayPal shut down her account in 2013 after a complaint from Elsevier about Sci-Hub’s copyright infringement. Donations have dropped off as a result, said Elbakyan. “People send donations to PayPal accounts very actively, unlike bitcoin.” …”

Pirate website Sci-Hub is making the world’s academic research free to all. But at what cost? | The Star

“Sci-Hub remains a one-woman show. According to Elbakyan, she does all the programming, server configuration as well as communication with users and media on her own. Sci-Hub’s expenses are a few thousand a month, covered by user donations. Payments are in bitcoin only. PayPal shut down her account in 2013 after a complaint from Elsevier about Sci-Hub’s copyright infringement. Donations have dropped off as a result, said Elbakyan. “People send donations to PayPal accounts very actively, unlike bitcoin.” …”

Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll?

Abstract:  This article uses Alan B. Krueger’s analysis of the music industry in his book Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life as a lens to consider the structure of scholarly publishing and what could happen to scholarly publishing going forward. Both the music industry and scholarly publishing are facing disruption as their products become digital. Digital content provides opportunities to a create a better product at lower prices and in the music industry this has happened. Scholarly publishing has not yet done so. Similarities and differences between the music industry and scholarly publishing will be considered. Like music, scholarly publishing appears to be a superstar industry. Both music and scholarly publishing are subject to piracy, which threatens revenue, though Napster was a greater disrupter than Sci-Hub seems to be. It also appears that for a variety of reasons market forces are not effective in driving changes in business models and practices in scholarly publishing, at least not at the rate we would expect given the changes in technology. After reviewing similarities and differences, the prospects for the future of scholarly publishing will be considered.

 

On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci?Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University – Manley – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Key points

 

The 2017 Sci?Hub judgement has, to date, proven unenforceable, and it appears that enforcing the 2019 OMICS judgement will similarly prove challenging.
Business developments and changing expectations over sharing digital content may also undermine the impact of the ongoing cases against ResearchGate and Georgia State University.
Stakeholders should consider these limitations when deciding how to resolve scholarly publishing disputes….”

Elsevier Says It’s Infringing To Link To Sci-Hub; Hypocrite Elsevier Links To Sci-Hub All The Time | Techdirt

“Academic publishing giant Elsevier really, really, really hates Sci-Hub, the site that offers up access to lots of academic research. Elsevier has sued the site directly and tried many times to get it blocked (which, to date, seems to have only helped it get more attention). Last week, Elsevier got all legal-threaty against Citationsy, a site that helps scholars create citations. Elsevier claimed that Citationsy was infringing its copyright by linking to Sci-Hub….

But, here’s the issue: as Martin Paul Eve pointed out, Elsevier, itself, points to Sci-Hub pretty damn often….”

Elsevier sends copyright threat to site for linking to Sci-Hub / Boing Boing

“Sci-Hub (previously) is a scrappy, nonprofit site founded in memory of Aaron Swartz, dedicated to providing global access to the world’s scholarship — journal articles that generally report on publicly-funded research, which rapacious, giant corporations acquire for free, and then charge the very same institutions that paid for the research millions of dollars a year to access.

 

In a field of giant, corrupt monopolists, Elsevier is still notable for its rapacious conduct, so it’s not surprising to learn that the company has sent a copyright threat to a to Citationsy, a service that helps scholars and others create citations to scientific and scholarly literature, alleging that merely linking to Sci-Hub is a copyright infringement.

Citationsy points out that Elsevier owns one of its competitors, the “very mediocre” Mendeley….”