Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×
Earth Network The Internet China Communications Networking United States Wireless Networking News Science

Who's Downloading Pirated Scientifc Papers? Everyone (sciencemag.org) 145

sciencehabit quotes a report from Science Magazine: In increasing numbers, researchers around the world are turning to Sci-Hub, the controversial website that hosts 50 million pirated papers and counting. Now, with server log data from Alexandra Elbakyan, the neuroscientist who created Sci-Hub in 2011 as a 22-year-old graduate student in Kazakhstan, Science addresses some basic questions: Who are Sci-Hub's users, where are they, and what are they reading? The Sci-Hub data provide the first detailed view of what is becoming the world's de facto open-access research library. Among the revelations that may surprise both fans and foes alike: Sci-Hub users are not limited to the developing world. Some critics of Sci-Hub have complained that many users can access the same papers through their libraries but turn to Sci-Hub instead -- for convenience rather than necessity. The data provide some support for that claim. Over the 6 months leading up to March, Sci-Hub served up 28 million documents, with Iran, China, India, Russia, and the United States the leading requestors.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who's Downloading Pirated Scientifc Papers? Everyone

Comments Filter:
  • Isn't the idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2016 @08:46PM (#52010093)

    Isn't the idea that you can pirate scientific papers sort of anti-knowledge?

    • I wonder how much of the user data was skewed by the Slashdot Effect, or some equivalent thereof.
    • Re:Isn't the idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Thursday April 28, 2016 @09:34PM (#52010299)

      Isn't the idea that you can pirate scientific papers sort of anti-knowledge?

      No, what's anti-knowledge is the idea that research papers can be locked up behind paywalls. As a scientist, the intellectual property you worked years to create is your research itself. The paper is just a formal description of it, and that paper should be free to the world so that your peers can review it and, by building on your work, appreciate and honor your efforts.

      • Re:Isn't the idea (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2016 @11:01PM (#52010675)

        I think that's what they meant, that it's anti-knowledge to consider this 'piracy'. As a publishing academic, I agree, scientific papers are created to be shared so that they can be assessed, critiqued and improved by others, and to be available for contributing to the public good.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Isn't the idea that you can pirate scientific papers sort of anti-knowledge?

        No, what's anti-knowledge is the idea that research papers can be locked up behind paywalls. As a scientist, the intellectual property you worked years to create is your research itself. The paper is just a formal description of it, and that paper should be free to the world so that your peers can review it and, by building on your work, appreciate and honor your efforts.

        Don't confuse the scientific content of the paper and the paper itself. Those are not the same thing. Value of the scientific content is one thing, and I agree that it should be it free (arxiv already provides this at least for physics papers) and the paper itself. The paper (or journal) also has value. It has economic and scientific value to professional scientists although no value for laypersons. A scientist's carrier advancement is based on the importance of the journal he publishes in. So unless this p

        • Re:Isn't the idea (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:05AM (#52012211)

          "It has economic and scientific value to professional scientists although no value for laypersons."
          Who are these laypersons? Is there a certified scientist label that you can get? I have a bachelor in science as one of my degrees is that good enough?
          Do I need to stay in academia to be one of those scientists where such papers have values?
          Or can I be a person interested in a topic and would like to dig further to expand my own knowledge? Or am I forced to the depth of Wikipedia because I am not a real Scientist?

          Science should be more acceptable and it doesn't need to be dumbed down. Normal Scientific journalism confusing a hypothesis and a theory all the time, jumping to conclusions or oversimplifying statements. If a topic is interesting enough, it would be nice for me to dig past all the media hype and look at the real findings.

          But because I am not a real Scientist (Having to turn in my Science Card when i got a MBA) I should have to just be dumb to science and just trust those real guys at their words, without me having any understanding.

      • On one hand, as a researcher you want to explore and document new and interesting/amazing things while being able to share those things with the world. On the other, you want to be seen as reputable so you look to publish your paper with a "known good" journal in your field, while avoiding those "crap science printing press" publications that are known for just throwing anything through the printer.

        It seems to me that sharing the knowledge as widely as possible is much like just pushing it through the cr

        • It's hard to separate greedy bastards from legitimate need for international travel, office space, editorial salaries, etc.

        • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:24AM (#52012307)

          Peer review is what separates the wheat from the chaff. Like all other parts of the publishing process, peer review can operate even more easily as part of an online site than on paper. But in the time when science was published on paper, some journals accumulated more prestige than others. The only reason these journals still exist is they coast on the prestige acquired in the days of paper. Because journals, even the most prestigious of them never paid the reviewers who defined the very exclusivity of the publication, there is no reason for reviewers not to jump ship to the online world. Researchers and libraries will do it because it saves them a pile of money, while reviewers will be in the same financial position as always. There is no reason whatever to keep churning out those dead-tree buggy whips.

      • Re:Isn't the idea (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JoeMerchant ( 803320 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:17AM (#52012273)

        Scientific journals developed as ivory towers of knowledge. In the beginning, the fees they charged were somewhat justified by costs of publication and distribution, but even then it was mostly about the editorial work and peer review. If an article made it into a prestigious journal, it was assumed to have a high chance of being valid and of some importance.

        As costs of publication and distribution dropped to zero, the journals maintained their paywalls as some kind of "exclusive club" status - all their readers (who mattered to them) had access through institutional subscriptions, the subscription fees propped up the journals' (probably bloated) offices, staff, travel habits, etc. After all, there's still the editorial process to maintain, peer review to orchestrate, etc.

        It took hundreds of years for the journals to get to where they were in the late 1900s, it's not surprising that it is taking a few decades for them to come around to deal with the implications of instant free information sharing. It's just ironic that they were founded on principles of "free" exchange of information, but when the costs of exchanging information fell away it exposed how much tax they were placing on this exchange.

    • Why should I pay €90 to read the latest ISO from IEEE on interval arithmetic computations? (http://www.techstreet.com/ieee/products/vendor_id/4431)
      Why should anyone pay to do his research?

      In my book paywalls are anti-knowledge and the Russians/former USSR citizens show us the way.

    • The idea that you can is pro-knowledge.

      The idea that anyone should have to is anti-knowledge.

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday April 28, 2016 @08:47PM (#52010095) Homepage

    For every scientific paper you pirate and share. It's bullshit to keep that stuff behind paywalls.
    I also applaud everyone that finds a way to pirate college textbooks and share them.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Do you give your work/time away for free? (I am assuming you work)

      • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday April 28, 2016 @09:13PM (#52010193) Journal

        Do you give your work/time away for free?

        The person who did the work/put in the time isn't going to see anything from the money that goes to a scientific journal or textbook publisher. As someone who's written a textbook, I can tell you that very few authors are paid based upon the sales of that textbook.

        And scientific journals? The authors/researchers were paid before the paper was even submitted to the journal.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          And scientific journals? The authors/researchers were paid before the paper was even submitted to the journal.

          Authors are often not paid to write the paper, they are paid to do the work. They write the paper often on unpaid time because it is of benefit to their career. Also, some of the most interesting papers are on work that was never funded, just stuff done in someone's spare time.

          • Authors are often not paid to write the paper, they are paid to do the work.

            If you work in academia and not industry, then publishing is an essential part of "doing the work".

            • by Anonymous Coward

              That may be fine, but having it published and having it openly available to the public should be synonymous.

              I've written and had published a few papers. I can understand the review process done by the journal experts before my papers were published. And I can understand they wanting some exclusivity to the paper ... for some time period.

              But once the journal is in print for a few months, the articles should be free to the world. The added value to the publisher should be made up by sales of the journal to

        • by Sir Holo ( 531007 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @01:03AM (#52011035)

          Do you give your work/time away for free?

          The person who did the work/put in the time isn't going to see anything from the money that goes to a scientific journal or textbook publisher. As someone who's written a textbook, I can tell you that very few authors are paid based upon the sales of that textbook.

          And scientific journals? The authors/researchers were paid before the paper was even submitted to the journal.

          CORRECTION: We scientists (and he taxpayers that usually pay for our work) pay THREE TIMES for it. Plus, we exert effort FOR FREE to the publishers – BY LAW.

              1. Write a proposal for funding –US Federal law prohibits of using research funding for these efforts. It is on our own personal dime.
              2. Win a grant, which pays for you & your students to do the work (on the public dime)
              3. Write a manuscript to share the results with the world – US Federal Law prohibits the use of Federal funds for write-up. It is on our own personal dime.
              4. Submit it to a rapacious for-profit scientific journal – any owned by Elsevier – for review- / referee-ing.
              5. Referees are other scientists in your field, again legally required to perform the service unpaid.
              6. If accepted, Your second $$ outlay comes in the form of "page charges." Yes, you pay them to publish you work – once it's deemed important by the 'FREE' referees for the journals.
              7. The article might be printed, but is more likely to be in the form of a PDF, one that that the authors are these-days required to submit in electronic form, following stringent guidelines. The scientific authors essentially do the page-layout. Again for FREE.
              8. The publishers charge your institution tons of money for subscription to the journals, whether it is in-print, or simply a PDF

          Scientific publication charges are a huge, multi-level scam. At one time, it did cost them money to print and mail paper copies of journals. These days, they have outsourced almost every aspect of the labor required to produce a Scientific Journal Article, but somehow, mysteriously, their prices keep going up far faster than inflation.

          It is no wonder that sites like J-Stor, Research-Gate, Sci-Hub, and others are popping up all over the place.

          Personally, even though I have access to basically any journal known (at my large University), I go to Research-Gate simply because it takes 1/10th of the time to access the article I am seeking. My Uni has already paid for access, so I have a limited license to make a copy, but the big publishers make it an absolute, time-consuming pain in the ass to get a PDF of a given article. (Most of which I trash after glancing-through, as titles and abstracts are frequently inadequate.)

          • If much of the work is writing, formatting and reviewing these papers, how hard would it be for a group of scientists, a university, or an enterprising individual to set up an indie science journal? Doesn't have to be free, but charge a reasonable subscription or access fee and use that to pay for hosting, some staff, and perhaps even printing. If so many scientists are dissatisfied with Elsevier, perhaps they could devote their time to a better alternative instead?
            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              It's pretty hard. You need a lot of gravitas to generate momentum for a journal. There are thousands of spam-level journals out there ( ref beall's list of predatory publishers [scholarlyoa.com] ) who just want papers and don't offer/care about peer review. You would need several field-leading researchers to support it by submitting to it, reviewing for it, and citing from it. And you would have to tend that reputation for quality very carefully.

              I suspect anyone in that position is so well established that they barely not
            • by xvan ( 2935999 )
              What nobody tells you is that scientists have a scoring system based on impact.

              Impact, is some sort of magic formula based on:

              a) the score of you publisher.
              b) the impact of the works that reference your paper

              The score of a journal is based on some magic average impact of the works published on it.
              The score of an institution and of a scientist is based on the total impact of the works produced.

              So, as a scientist, your entire career can be reduced to a number. Many institutions have minimum quota
          • "Scientific publication charges are a huge, multi-level scam"

            Even with access, you don't get a copy of the papers on your system: you get the right to access a copy on *their* system. Which means, if, for example, your University goes "OMFG, we can't afford this journal anymore!", after several years of insane price increases, and fails to renew their subscription .... *poof*, you have nada, no stored papers, nothing.

        • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @07:56AM (#52011901) Homepage

          I say WAHHH to them.

          Because you have NO RIGHT to sell your book on Algebra, that has not changed in 100's of years for $150. 95% of the content in your book is plagiarized from other sources.

          90% of all college textbooks are overpriced by 1000% and incredibly few have any real content that was added from version to version. they simply reorder chapters and "practice problems" to force students to buy a new $150 copy every year. So I support fully anyone that steals from the den of thieves that is academic publishing.

          You area hero to the world if you steal from that pit of villany.

      • I'm curious. Whenever you read a book or some other piece of text, your credit card gets charged? If not, you've just taken someone's work for free.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No, but as a tax payer, I paid for most of those papers. I expect to see the results for any public-funded work.

      • by Potor ( 658520 ) <farker1@gmail . c om> on Thursday April 28, 2016 @09:52PM (#52010419) Journal
        I actually write books. In my case, I earn much more from rank promotion than I do from royalties. When people pirate my books, I lose VERY little.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Actually there is some interesting moves in the provision of course texts for free on Leanpub.com. The best example is probably Roger Peng https://leanpub.com/u/repen by all accounts he makes a reasonable return from donations

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Scientists do the research, scientists do the peer review, scientists even do the fucking layout for some journals and they do it for less than free. You sign over copyright to the publisher and pay them a fee ($2000 is not unusual when I was an academic 10 years ago) for the privilege of publishing in thier journal. Excepting some of the journals run by scientific societies or entities like PLoS, all of the scientific publishers are parasites. They just happen to be parasites with ownership of important

      • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Thursday April 28, 2016 @10:40PM (#52010613)

        Do you give your work/time away for free? (I am assuming you work)

        When you publish in an Elsevier journal, you sign away any IP in the paper, and get no royalty from them. Worse still is that everyone who sees your paper has to do so through an institution that has to pay an expensive subscription for access.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        No, the government paid researchers, then the journals stole the common good, which was paid for, and hid it behind a paywall with prices so high it never gets read. Imagine where we would be without the journals restricting access to the pinnacle of society's years of effort.

      • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @03:52AM (#52011415) Journal

        Do you give your work/time away for free? (I am assuming you work)

        Hi, published scientist here. And the answer is:

        YES!

        All my papers are available on my website for free.

        Where it could actually make a difference and where it applies, the source code is available on me website (and github) for free.

        Next question please!

      • by ( 4475953 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @05:04AM (#52011547)

        Of course I give away my papers for free. I'm a scientist. I get zero money for my publications, my review work, my editorial work and anything else related to publications. I've even edited typeset several books for free. All of this for commercial publishing companies who make an insane amount of money with it. The only thing that publishing companies like Springer do is to send the final version to India for the final typesetting in LaTeX and put out the printed versions about one and a half years later. That system is possible because as a scientist I'm paid by the government.

        The problem is that I'm not allowed to put the original, quotable paper on my web pages, only earlier drafts. The papers you need for quoting are behind expensive paywalls, and every time someone accesses one of those articles to do his work, somewhere some tax payers are paying for a very expensive subscription. Or, they can pay $39 for a single article themselves - their choice (hahaha). For the publishers, this is like an endless source of money with minimum amount of work. That's why Springer, DeGruyter and small number of other publishers have sucked up and monopolized nearly all of the previously independent journals. It doesn't matter which journal I choose, I always end up with one of the three or four companies - like with record labels.

        See the problem now?

      • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

        What you pay for in scientific journals is the publishing and only the publishing, not the research itself.
        It used to be significant and useful work pre-internet. It involved typesetting, printing and physical distribution. You pay, that's normal.

        Now, things have changed, a lot. Scientists do most of the typesetting themselves, and on the internet, there is no more printing and distribution is essentially free.

      • I was about to say that lots of people give away some of their time for free (organizing social events, amateur sports teams, etc.) but I realized that's because where I live you actually tend have some spare time and you're probably in the USA and so won't have any.

      • > Do you give your work/time away for free?

        Yes, I do. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/... [wikibooks.org] and check the edits on any page. For that matter, look at all of Wikipedia.

    • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Thursday April 28, 2016 @11:28PM (#52010755)

      Agree 100%.

      This shenanigans of modern science having a whitepaper behind a paywall with _no ability_ to reproduce the data, let alone look at it to verify the initial analysis was correct is total bullshit and the complete antithesis of what Science is all about.

      Science was the first open source philosophy; namely to share questions, data, and results for the benefit of everyone; not sell them off to the highest bidder all in the name of greed / capitalism. This modern behavior is a complete perversion of Science, Knowledge, and Truth.

      --
      Cult, noun; a myopic belief held by a group that their "way" is the only way. Examples include stupid justice whiners, fundamental theists, fundamental atheists, pseduoskeptics such as Randi, etc.

  • Hostage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vlijmen Fileer ( 120268 ) on Thursday April 28, 2016 @09:07PM (#52010167)

    "... Downloading Pirated Scientifc [sic] Papers"??
    You mean:
    "Freeing scientific papers that were being held hostage"

  • by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Thursday April 28, 2016 @09:08PM (#52010171)
    How much of this is because when someone googles the relevant terms it shows them Sci-Hub results and not their local restricted library? I.e., how may people are deliberately pirating papers versus being counted as pirates because that's where Google took them to?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The answer to your question is "none of it." Scihub doesn't provide a way to browse the available papers and therefore isn't indexed by search engines. You have to find the DOI or the title of the paper and enter it into the Scihub search box. It then serves you a PDF of the paper.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Psst. Hey journals.

    If you didn't make your papers so damn awkward to get to in the first place, people wouldn't need these kind of sites.

    It's your fault.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      A single paper is like 38 bucks for me to access. Will I really get 38 bucks of value out of that paper? Can I afford 10 of those? 100? 10,000?

      The value provided by sci-hub to any would-be gentleman scientist is immense. To a plebian like me, it is incalculable.

      • by xvan ( 2935999 )
        Playing devil's advocate here, but you're saying that you are not bounded to any academic/research institution or company were you could access those papers for free / get someone else would pay those papers?

        I'm all for piracy, but how did you came up to need access to those papers at all? Hitting a paywall after reading a divulgation article doesn't qualify as a need more than the need for a playboy magazine.

        Being a plebeian and not being part of the Academy means that most likely the value of sci-hub
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm not part of academia, but I like reading CS papers for my own intellectual stimulation. I regularly go through the latest on arxiv, but some times you want to follow some references to older stuff, and that's when you end up having to reach out to Jacobson because you can't find a copy of his seminal paper, etc.

          You're right, I'm a nobody, but that also means no one is really losing anything when I read these papers. I would never pay for a paper anyhow, it's just not going to happen. I'm also not direct

        • by ( 4475953 )

          I'm living in a small, comparatively poor country in Europe, and I'm a scientist, so let me explain the situation to you.

          Via expensive subscriptions we have access to a constantly and seemingly randomly changing selection of journals at our institute. Sometimes I can just download what I need "for free" (free for me, it still costs the tax payer a lot of money, of course), another time I cannot access it. Anything that falls on the borderline to neighbouring disciplines I cannot access - which happens to be

        • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @05:30AM (#52011589)
          Your post is jaw-droppingly ignorant.

          Just about every computer scientist is unaffiliated with any institution that pays the extortion for access to these papers, covering a wide range of topics such as artificial intelligence, data compression, image processing, graph theory, statistical analysis, ....

          Your seem to be amazed that I might want to see the 1977 Frei and Chen paper on a complete set of basic functions for both line and edge detection in images. You seem to think that I would be satisfied with the commonly used but inferior Sobel or Prewit operators which dont distinguish between lines and edges and so forth.

          There is a reason that almost nobody uses the Frei and Chen's masks even though its superior.. and it has everything to do with access.
        • Being a plebeian and not being part of the Academy means that most likely the value of sci-hub to you is 0. If that isn't the case, I'd really like to hear of your situation.

          Plenty of people finish an M.A. and want to take some time off to travel the world or whatever before they start a PhD. Their formal relationship to the university is terminated, so they cannot access the university's subscriptions (not all universities offer alumni access to databases), but they need to keep up with what's happening i

  • or is the site down? It is sci-hub.io right?

  • I first heard of sci-hub via a /. story not too long ago. Subsequently, when the "Prescription Meds Get Trapped In Disturbing Pee-To-Food-To-Pee Loop" [slashdot.org] story was posted a couple of weeks ago, linking to a paywalled academic paper, I followed my usual steps:

    • 1) try the link, sometimes the paper turns out to be free to read;
    • 2) hit the university home pages of the authors, who often have at least the final draft as a free to read PDF;
    • 3) punt...

    But not this time. I surfed directly to the sci-hub home page, an

  • by Anonymous Coward

    A more legal alternative to Sci-Hub is ResearchGate. They depend on the authors uploading their papers, not scraping them from journals. I used my university alumni email to join, but don't believe it is necessary to gain access. So far I've had about 1:4 success with it when seeing articles referenced online. Unfortunately, the latest papers are not always there, but sometimes you get lucky.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      When I was in Science, it was suuuuper illegal to post your papers anywhere once they had been accepted by a journal. One of the girls in my lab actually had to request permission to use one of her own tables (that she had published in a paper in that very same journal) in a follow-up. As I was leaving Science, it had become legal policy that any research funded by NIH grants had to be posted publicly within a few months of acceptance. Publishers in the Big League, so to speak, holding the work I did hostag

    • I used my university alumni email to join, don't believe it is necessary to gain access

      There are other ways to join, but join you must if you want ResearchGate to work for you. This still creates a barrier to entry: without established academic credentials of some kind, you can't read the papers there. Certainly, you can't do so anonymously.

      • by ( 4475953 )

        ResearchGate sucks, they are a German company of evil spammers and bombard you with unsolicited emails very much like LinkedIn. I'm sure they will let everyone and his grandmother join in order to augment their small user base. Academia.edu is okay, though.

  • What's the relationship between Sci-Hub and GenLib, if any? Are they collaborative efforts or just independent efforts that arose in response to need?

  • Some critics of Sci-Hub have complained that many users can access the same papers through their libraries but turn to Sci-Hub instead -- for convenience rather than necessity.

    How is that a critic in any way, except to the alternatives?

  • What on Earth is the chance of encountering a ship on the high seas that carries scientific papers?
    And then you go ahead and brutally rob the owners of said papers?
    I'm sorry but this sounds like pure fantasy, at least in the 21st century. Unless the author fell prey to decades of propaganda and actually meant to refer to copyright infringement.

    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]

    US Supreme Court rules that copyright infringement does not easily equate to theft:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/... [findlaw.com]

    Stop perpetuating

  • Interesting... This site is officially blocked by the NHS in the UK. All our connections use "zscaler" to intercept requests, and redirect them. Interestingly, I was connecting to https://sci-hub.cc/ [sci-hub.cc] - the certificate does not look to be a fake one, permitting a MITM attack. How is the page I am seeing being delivered?
  • Nobody here cares about technology. What you care about is getting everything for free. Why isn't this site called napsterdot if that is all that matters?
  • Pirated papers can only end badly. It's not possible for academics to refer to a paper obtained from pirate source. Once such activities are revealed, there's significant pressure from universities to cancel the credit people got from using pirate papers. This means some people are going to lose their Phd over issue of using the pirate site.

    But it is sad that elsevier has not managed to make their service convinient enough that researchers could access the same data legally. There's high chance that scienti

    • It's not possible for academics to refer to a paper obtained from pirate source.

      What a ridiculous claim. A PhD committee has no way of telling where you got your cited publications from. It is extremely common for students and researchers to visit another city for a few days to use libraries there and look at some publications they don't have access to at their own institution. It is extremely common for students and researchers to make use of interlibrary loan. No one will know that an item in your biblio

      • > A PhD committee has no way of telling where you got your cited publications from

        Yeah, when they try to check your publications, and they end up in a paywall of 2 million bucks, it's dead obvious that you're not that rich to get access to it. Or it might take longer to access the papers than it took for you to create your work? It'll be dead obvious when you refer to bunch of amazing papers that noone else has proper access.

        • Yeah, when they try to check your publications, and they end up in a paywall of 2 million bucks, it's dead obvious that you're not that rich to get access to it.

          "Paywall" assumes that the person got the paper online. As I said, there are plenty of ways to get an article without paying, whether writing to the author to kindly ask for a PDF or xerox, visiting another institution whose library has the journal, or using inter-library loan.

          Or it might take longer to access the papers than it took for you to

          • > Inter-library loan takes 2 weeks, even for very obscure publications.

            Is this the reason why people use pirate sites for the papers? The extra 2 weeks?

            • Is this the reason why people use pirate sites for the papers? The extra 2 weeks?

              Why wait two weeks when you can get the material instantly? Also, often when one requests a journal article through inter-library loan, it is often sent to your e-mail as a fairly low-quality scan, but if you get the same article through Sci-Hub, you get a high-resolution PDF that is a lot easier on the eyes.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...