International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.sciencealert.com/this-wo ... -an-attempt-to-open-up-science
Published: Feb 13, 2016
Author: FIONA MACDONALD
Post Date: 2016-02-13 10:27:44 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 771
Comments: 13
A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles - almost every single peer-reviewed paper every published - freely available online. And she's now refusing to shut the site down, despite a court injunction and a lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the world's biggest publishers. For those of you who aren't already using it, the site in question is Sci- Hub, and it's sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn't afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it's since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court - a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science. "Payment of $32 is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them," Elbakyan told Torrent Freak last year. "Everyone should have access to knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation. And that’s absolutely legal." If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that's because it kinda is. But in this story, it's not just the poor who don't have access to scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees. Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge. But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing. "They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals." That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci- Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies). This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love. It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think: "In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge." That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages. But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model. "I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits". She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said. Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas. "If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong." To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money. Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tooconservative, pinguinite, nolu chan, cz82, Jameson, Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Here ya go
https://twitter.com/Sci_Hub
Everyone does have access. And that access costs everyone $32. "I obtained these papers by pirating them." You obtained these papers by stealing them. Perhaps you would understand that if we "pirated" your bank account.
Wow! You really do not understand that Elsevier did not make or own these millions of scientific reports.
Fine. Then steal the article directly from the writer.
Attaboy!
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You expect white to understand that? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Another communist heard from! If the Internet is free, the content should be free. Right?
Knowledge should be (and is) free. It's only pricks like you who think otherwise. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You would feel differently if you had any.
Well, if you want that knowledge to be collected from around the world, vetted, sorted, cataloged, archived, and available instantly online, that'll cost you $32. Otherwise, find it yourself for free.
A bit of background, a story known to all the techies and web people and people in science. InformationWeek: Swartz Suicide Puts JSTOR Academic Database In Spotlight, 2013 Swartz, a Stanford University dropout, was just 14 when he helped write the RSS specification and created the initial version of web.py, a Python-based framework that is used by a number of Web aggregation sites. He helped design the Creative Commons licenses, a popular legal infrastructure between copyright owners and licensees for distributing information. And he was part of popular news aggregation site Reddit, after his wiki platform Infogami merged with it in November 2005. Swartz's activism included founding of the progressive political site Demand Progress, and he led opposition to SOPA, a proposed anti-piracy act that the U.S. Congress dropped in 2012 amid an Internet outcry. JSTOR is a digital library of more than 1,600 academic journals, 15,000 books, and 2 million primary source objects, according to the non-profit's FAQ. The charges against Swartz, announced in July 2011 by the Massachusetts U.S. attorney's office, allege in part that he hardwired a laptop into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on-campus network in 2010 to download nearly 5 million academic journal articles from JSTOR. JSTOR issued a statement on Sunday: "We are deeply saddened to hear the news about Aaron Swartz ... He was a truly gifted person who made important contributions to the development of the Internet and the Web from which we all benefit." The statement goes on to say JSTOR "regretted being drawn into [the case] from the outset, since JSTOR's mission is to foster widespread access to the world's body of scholarly knowledge," and notes the service had dropped its civil charges against Swartz in June 2011, once he had returned the JSTOR data he had in his possession. Swartz, 26, who pled not guilty to the charges, faced 35 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines, according to press reports. His federal computer fraud trial on 13 felony counts was to begin April 1. (On Monday the Department of Justice dropped its charges against Swartz, a standard practice if a defendant dies before trial.) Swartz was very widely admired. The way the feds drove him to suicide was heartless and people are still angry. So that plays a certain role in people's minds. These aren't separate matters. Swartz was a big player and so is this Russian neuroscientist (among others). There is a hardcore ideological element out there, led by people Swartz and this Russian woman, who are determined to make science publications free. They don't want readers or researchers charged to read or publish. Some of these online databases of articles like JSTOR have no good reason to charge so much. Or charge at all.
I try to educate him. I am a nice guy :)
#2. To: All (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
"Everyone should have access to knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation."
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
obtained these papers by stealing them. Perhaps you would understand that if we "pirated" your bank account.
#5. To: A Pole (#4)
"You really do not understand that Elsevier did not make or own these millions of scientific reports."
#6. To: misterwhite (#3)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#7. To: A Pole (#4)
You really do not understand that Elsevier did not make or own these millions of scientific reports.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#8. To: Deckard (#6)
#9. To: misterwhite (#8)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#10. To: Deckard (#9)
(Edited)
Knowledge should be (and is) free.
#11. To: Deckard (#9)
"Knowledge should be (and is) free."
#12. To: A K A Stone (#1)
This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.
Computer prodigy and Internet activist Aaron Swartz's suicide last week brought the spotlight on one of his download targets, the digital academic library JSTOR, and quickly drew comments from partisans on either side of the content and copyright debate.
#13. To: Deckard (#7)
You expect white to understand that?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]