Not exactly dead, but on a stale due to a legal dispute. However, they have started a new project that fits a legal grey-area called sci-net where people can ask for or help others get access to papers by getting them from their institutional login and sharing on the platform. Not as practical as sci-hub, but better than nothing and less prone to be taken down
well fuck. there go those whitepapers i wrote about, i really don’t remember, and cited articles i’d copied off the whatsit database years before before i’d lost access through the university
For those who aren’t scientists, no. You don’t need legal access. You don’t necessarily need any access at all (though imo it’s negligent to cite without having read the paper)
Ooh, this is actually a more controversial take among academics than you can imagine!
Around week 3 of my course I ask the question “what percentage cut do academics get for published articles”. They are always appalled to learn it is 0% (we get nothing, we are literally paid in exposure).
Below are some other issues with the journal industry as a whole:
Happens often to me. I know nobody in research who would care about it. Most people will likely congratulate you for not paying for access. Nobody likes the way journals do business.
Have another one! Knowledge (and doing research) should be free and not only for people who can pay for it. Look up how ridiculously expensive and complicated it is to access those publications.
I read the source of my citations, but nowhere am I required to cite the citations of my source. If you don’t wanna “try” to access my resources… well, that sounds like a “you thing”. Good luck, cause my paper remains
Not really, you need to know (enough of) the content of what you’re citing to make sure that the citation makes sense. The actual info you need to write down for the citation is easily available. How you accessed it is irrelevant.
My mate Anna has a great archive of papers. Look her up some time!
are the papers from annas archive redundant with scihub, or are they from a different source?
Scihub is one of Annas sources iirc.
Papers in Anna’s archive are mostly from sci-hub. There’s something not available on sci-hub, but not much.
Real problem is that sci-hub was the organization doing the archival on large scale and it is now dead.
Not exactly dead, but on a stale due to a legal dispute. However, they have started a new project that fits a legal grey-area called sci-net where people can ask for or help others get access to papers by getting them from their institutional login and sharing on the platform. Not as practical as sci-hub, but better than nothing and less prone to be taken down
I have seen that, but did not understand how to sign up.
I’m no scientist but I imagine if you want to cite someone, you need to access their research legally
No one checks for that, and if they did, they’re the ones with the burden of proof
well fuck. there go those whitepapers i wrote about, i really don’t remember, and cited articles i’d copied off the whatsit database years before before i’d lost access through the university
You clearly are not :)
I’ve cited enough off just expanded abstracts to say, how would they even know? It’s probably better than what I did, lol.
For those who aren’t scientists, no. You don’t need legal access. You don’t necessarily need any access at all (though imo it’s negligent to cite without having read the paper)
I’m so glad we have the ability to hold back science through bureaucracy.
I’m not sure how anyone would ever know
Ooh, this is actually a more controversial take among academics than you can imagine!
Around week 3 of my course I ask the question “what percentage cut do academics get for published articles”. They are always appalled to learn it is 0% (we get nothing, we are literally paid in exposure).
Below are some other issues with the journal industry as a whole:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serials_crisis?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal_publishing_reform?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controversies%3Fwprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge?wprov=sfla1
Happens often to me. I know nobody in research who would care about it. Most people will likely congratulate you for not paying for access. Nobody likes the way journals do business.
Fuck you Elsevier.
> says something really dumb and bad
> angry edit that people call out their smelly mouth filled with corn
It’s everyone’s fault but your own.
Have another one! Knowledge (and doing research) should be free and not only for people who can pay for it. Look up how ridiculously expensive and complicated it is to access those publications.
I read the source of my citations, but nowhere am I required to cite the citations of my source. If you don’t wanna “try” to access my resources… well, that sounds like a “you thing”. Good luck, cause my paper remains
Paywalling knowledge is the same as bypassing it
Not really, you need to know (enough of) the content of what you’re citing to make sure that the citation makes sense. The actual info you need to write down for the citation is easily available. How you accessed it is irrelevant.