A finer point often missed on HN is how different publishing is across fields. In physics i have always been able post preprints to the web/arXiv and leave them up indefinitely. Their scientific content is identical to the journal formatted version and they show up in search often before the paid version. This is true even for the historically worst offenders (i.e. Elsevier)
Last I heard the situation in chemistry was still completely different. The ACS is also known for bullying cash strapped college libraries into exorbitant and unnecessary journal subscriptions.
I had dinner with the arXiv creator once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ginsparg). What I understood is is that before the arXiv, all "good" universities would each mail each other copies of preprints, and so researchers there would have access to the newest research developments. Eventually, they'd get published, but that takes a while, so anybody not in this circle would be far behind and have a hard time being relevant in his field (theoretical particle physics).
So the arXiv was a more modern, scalable, democratic replacement of what was already popular within the culture of the field.
Yes, everyone uses scihub (and author websites, etc) from time to time.
A related question is "who pays the per-paper fee". Well, not me, and none of my colleagues. However, I've learned that the fees do get paid, but not by individuals. Rather, it's libraries that are paying, to fulfil interlibrary loan requests for papers in journals with high subscription costs and low readerships. If the number of requests times the price per request is lower than the yearly subscription cost, this can be the only way to stay within budget.
Where I work, research grants let me cover journal "page charges", but they do not let me subscribe to journals, nor contribute to the library budget. This has always struck me as crazy, for the yearly cost of many journals is under the cost of publishing a single paper. Heck, we have researchers publishing in the journal of whatever, paying several tens of thousands of dollars per year ... and our library cannot afford to subscribe, so we can see our work.
Yes, you read that right: in many cases, authors have to pay to publish, and then pay again to read.
Some progress is being made, though. Many granting agencies now encourage researchers to publish in open-access mode. That would seem great, except that they did not increase grants to compensate for the extra cost. Money spent on those fees is money that cannot go to support graduate students.
As others have noted (here, and in dozens or hundreds of similar discussion threads), things are different from field to field. I work in a field where it's just as important to read old papers as new ones. That means that the solution of authors posting to their websites is not always viable. Probably a third of the papers I read (in support of teaching) are from people who died long before the web got started.
Governments shouldn’t be paying significant amounts of tax payer money in page fees or open access fees. There should be a small cap on what will be paid, a requirement work is open access and deposited in public databases, and that’s it. It’s outrageous that tax payers are spending $5000 so someone can publish in a Nature type journal, and a waste compared to the additional postdoc and researcher salaries all these page charges could instead go to pay for. Unfortunately, the incentives in academia are such that as long as grants will provide such funds researchers will publish in these journals, so I think this can really only be fixed by funding bodies reducing the money they provide for publications. At the end of the day, I don’t think any journal should be getting more than ~$200-$300 for publishing an article. They simply don’t add much value at this point beyond the prestige of their name.
>Many granting agencies now encourage researchers to publish in open-access mode.
I can't see why the government wouldn't publish all works under an open license when they (ie tax-payers) paid for the research. In the UK we have a national archives that has all the infrastructure - surely it should have all experimental results and all published, and unpublished, conclusions from that work.
The only reason I can see not to do that is to lock up research for private gain. That's acceptable if the researchers are prepared to forgo tax-payer funding, otherwise ...
This seems like another of those situations where government make terrible contracts on behalf of citizens/subjects/tax-payers.
Yeah, progress is being made. It's an open secret that traditional journal publishers add no value in the 21st century. Zero, zilch. Their time is up, and they know it... In some fields more than others so far, but it will come for the rest eventually.
As far as I'm concerned a paper hasn't been stolen unless it's been accessed without the authors' permission.
Why would anyone not do this? Do people enjoy enriching copyright monopolists by paying hundreds of dollars for 24h access to one paper that may or may not have dubious methodology? That's fucking stupid and these paid journals can't go bankrupt soon enough.
If you talk with non-scientists, you'll realize that most people are happy to pay the fees as they don't really understand how things work in the background. While they think they are supporting science by paying the fees, the reality is that everyone is paying the publisher and the publisher takes all the fees to themselves.
But when you mention this to non-scientists, they'll gasp in non-belief.
My employer pays for papers we need on a per-paper basis, and recently got subscription for one of the publishers as that was cheaper. They simply want to avoid lawsuits.
I'm sure that outside of workplace, every employee uses sci-hub.
I work as a scientist, and I never download pirated papers. Why? Mostly because I don't have to - almost all relevant papers are accessible to me straight up, either because the authors / publishers have made the paper available for free themselves or because I have access to the publication through my university's library.
But I am in Computer Science - I know that the situation is not at all the same in other disciplines.
I think if you want to be cited, it is kind of silly to publish at a venue where your paper is not immediately accessible - there's usually enough other papers to cite, so it's in your own interest to be available.
That said, regarding the original question ("why would anyone not do this"), I know from previous discussions here on HN that I'm part of a small minority, but I wouldn't do it because I find it unethical. There's lots of things that I wouldn't mind having / owning but I cannot afford them. Just because they might be available through non-official channels for free does not mean that using that option is the right thing to do.
In this line of thought, I also think it is irrelevant whether putting publicly funded research results behind a paywall is ethical on the publisher's side: two unethical acts don't make an ethical one.
I don't see why it would be a controversial bill in Congress to simply exempt scientific publications (broadly construed) from all copyright law. Springer and Elsevier (the latter not even an American company) would be losers, but I doubt they spend more than a couple $mil on lobbying per year between the two of them. The benefit to humanity seems pretty clear.
This seems entirely within the scope of Congress's power under the Copyright Clause, and need not be tied up with other more controversial aspects of intellectual property law. There was a time when one could have made a case that permitting copyrights on scientific publications would "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (e.g. because only journal publishers were in a position to efficiently provide copy editing, nice formatting, and distribution). None of that has been relevant for decades, so it seems to me that one could even make a case that the status quo violates the Copyright Clause, since enforcing journal copyrights pretty clearly diminishes rather than promotes the progress of science.
There are two reasons this would be controversial, and neither of them are practical.
1) Other industries that are highly dependent on copyright (film, television, music) would viewers this as an existential threat. If Congress is willing to adjust copyright like this, we are also threatened.
2) Currently all politics is highly partisan. Support of an idea from one side invites counter from the other. I think it’s also worth noting that there is seemingly a strong element within one party that pushes hard against institutional science, making it even more difficult to distribute essential research.
Can anyone tell me where I can download a copy? /s
More seriously though, my first attempt to request an article for a journal resulted in an article similar to this being delivered. The subject matter was different, but it was better described as an editorial than research. Even though editorials have nearly zero value for academic research, the page fees were identical to research papers. The lack of clarity about what was being delivered was frustrating. The necessity research the articles themselves, prior to purchasing one, simply adds to the cost (e.g. through labour).
I still think if the research is paid or subsidised by tax payers money it should be freely accessible. Maybe EU should do something good and make it part of the rules. All wishful thinking of course
We need to come up with a way to disrupt this extortion and put these jokers out of the money.
Note that I deliberately avoid calling the publishing racket a business, because these criminals-in-spirit and their empires produce nothing of value: they are lining their pockets by exploiting other people’s work, while those being exploited have no choice but to play into the publishers’ hand; enabling the publishers’ power brokerage further their encroachment on public information by gifting them the most precious fruits of their labor.
I worked incident response for one of these publishers. The grind was constant and unending and they very rarely made decisions to improve the security of the documentation, meaning we were constantly on high alert to respond…usually on holiday weekends…like Labor Day.
I’m torn, because I see both sides of it…moreso now that I’m not receiving a paycheck to keep it safe.
* Not that long ago people's sole access to papers was through insanely expensive journals, with prices that are absolutely unthinkable for a large portion of the world's population.
* Arxiv sort of changed that and a lot of information is widely accessible, granted you don't live in a country with high amounts of censorship.
* On the subject of the first point, I'd argue that piracy affects the overall situation very little. People who need those papers for whatever reason and need to use them/cite them will be forced to purchase them regardless. Similar to software, movies and so on.
* On a personal note, I don't recall using anything other than Arxiv for the past 8-9 years or so with the exception of one notable example involving a medical paper which was published in another location and it wasn't free. That said I purchased it, even if it set me back around 250 euros iirc. It wasn't work related in any shape or form, it was for personal reasons but I could afford it and it only seemed fair. Generally I like supporting people's hard work even if I can't benefit hugely from it - I bought several books that the authors published for free online, just to support them. Even one I found here on HN.
Who are you supporting, though? The scientists won't see a single euro of that.
To me, the problem is that the balance is heavily skewed towards the publishers. Scientists provide the articles at no cost (or even have to pay to be published!), reviewers do their work for free, and then you have to pay hundreds of euros for a single copy of a single paper?
While I understand that a paper has some overhead costs, the current fees are inexcusable. Scientists are forced to publish in "high-impact" papers so they can't choose another one, and you can't properly do science without reading papers. This gives the publishers a virtual monopoly - and they seem to be quite happy to squeeze every single euro out of it.
It's just rent-seeking, and I believe it goes against the very nature of science itself.
> it was for personal reasons but I could afford it and it only seemed fair. Generally I like supporting people's hard work
FYI authors of published papers don't see any of this money, it all goes to the journal so there isn't really a case to be made for buying papers to support the researchers. Even the peer-review process is unpaid work.
If you contact the authors they're allowed to send you copies for free and most are happy to do so.
> Generally I like supporting people's hard work even if I can't benefit hugely from it - I bought several books that the authors published for free online, just to support them. Even one I found here on HN.
I don't know how it works in medicine, but, at least in math, I benefit not at all financially if someone buys one of my papers. (Book purchases earn their authors a pittance.)
I would personally way rather someone download one of my papers from the arXiv than that they pay the journal. Journals are parasitic vestiges currently used only for status signalling, and I can't afford not to play that status game as an author, but I don't want you to have to play it as a reader, too. (tempay (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28423848) made the same point slightly earlier, and brought up the important point that, also, most authors are willing to send you a copy for free if you don't otherwise have access to it.)
> * On the subject of the first point, I'd argue that piracy affects the overall situation very little. People who need those papers for whatever reason and need to use them/cite them will be forced to purchase them regardless. Similar to software, movies and so on.
Why? I can cite any paper I want in my paper, who checks where and how I read it? People don't even check if I read something at all. Are you implying that it's unethical to cite papers without buying them? Because then you fundamentally disagree with the whole thing. Papers are researched by authors and mostly funded by governments or private grants. These journals are just mooching off the whole thing.
> and need to use them/cite them will be forced to purchase them regardless
Not at all, but, they will review a lot more of them before deciding which ones to cite if sci-hub is available. BTW arxiv is for physics math and cs, while the closed access problem is mainly affecting life sciences which don't use arxiv, and are only partially using biorxiv / medrxiv. There's still a very archaic culture there, mainly because there's no other easy way to ascertain some scientists' value.
> People who need those papers for whatever reason and need to use them/cite them will be forced to purchase them regardless
What? Will they reject your paper if you don't present a receipt you paid to access it? I published two articles in Physical Review Journals, virtually all papers I cited came from Sci-Hub.
> Generally I like supporting people's hard work even if I can't benefit hugely from it
Scientists won't get a penny of the money you're paying, BTW. It makes no sense to compare it to books.
You did not support anyone's hard work. The researchers who wrote the paper receive none of the money paid to publishing companies, nor do the peer reviewers, and sometimes not even the editors (and in my experience, paid editors from Springer introduce more errors than they fix).
Before the Internet, before TeX and related tools, those fees were needed to cover the cost of printing copies journals and shipping them to libraries. Prior to the 1970s academic publishers were typically run by universities and charged only break-even fees, and few complained because there was no better alternative that could effectively spread academic research around. Then a bunch of commercial publishers began eyeing academic journals (probably because they knew they would never have to pay the authors) and from the 1980s onward academic publishing has been for-profit. Instead of going away when the Internet rendered printed journals obsolete, these companies have instead opted to not print most journals and charge fees for online access.
The cost of journal access does not in any way pay for the research itself, and neither the researchers nor the peer reviewers ever see a dime. It is money which is stolen from science and from the public.
That is like the most clueless comment on that topic ever. You are either trolling or working for one of the publishers ;-)
a) Of course people who need to read the paper professionally will just pirate it (if they don't have access through their institution). After all, citing a paper doesn't imply that you "own" it.
I requested a published paper in statistics from my local public library, and they sent it to me the next business day, I think from the University of Massachusetts library system. So going through a public library may be an alternative to downloading an illicit copy.
Before any reader accepts this article's premise as accurate, I suggest they visit /scimag/recent which is a list of the most recently added (requested) papers. From what I have seen the papers requested/added seem consistently skewed toward certain categories of users, e.g., persons interested in computing/neuroscience/psychology or persons interested in social/political issues. Also, browsing major scientific journals such as Science and Nature through /scimag/journals/[journal-no] reveals large portions of the archives for these publications are missing. It could be that the readership of these journals already has access through university/company sucbscriptions, and that readership has not expanded much into the rest of the population despite being potentially available through Sci-Hub.
Arxiv and allies are good. But many journals still do not allow you to pulish a preprint. So if you send to arxiv or other, they will reject your paper because it is not "new anymore". Seen that recently (chemistry).
It's not pirated if the tax payer paid for it... the copyright is invalid. I know it's just semantics, but let's not give evil corp words to make their parasitic scheme seem legitimate.
The one thing that's obvious to me now from these comments is that the angriest people have the least insight into what publishing is, why it exists, and why the system continues to work the way it does. Nobody ever explains in these comments to these angry people, so HN just becomes a machine that takes in ignorance and churns out outrage.
First off, just because a tax payer paid for research does not mean publishing should be free. That's like saying just because the government pays workers to use pencils, that pencils used by government workers should be free. The company is still doing work, whether it's for a taxpayer or not. It still needs compensation for the cost of doing business.
Secondly, commercial publishers perform a vital role, which is why they still exist. If they didn't serve a necessary role people would have stopped using them. This is obvious, because nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head saying you have to publish your research in X place. But nobody wants to think of why these commercial journals are necessary, because it might be the fault of single other than the publishers, so people intentionally stop thinking to avoid the realization.
The only name of a publisher that anyone here knows is Elsevier, which further demonstrates ignorance. They're not the biggest publisher, they're not the most expensive publisher, and they aren't the only organization that pursues legal challenges when their content is pirated. But since it's the only name anyone on here has ever heard, they treat them like The Great Satan. That image further polarizes and enforces ignorance of publishing.
Payment models vary widely depending on the circumstances and organizations (or individuals). Mostly publishers are trying to find sustainable models to pay for the jobs they perform, which includes hosting, indexing, referencing, editing, proofing, and facilitating peer review, as well as publishing the journals as a whole. If you don't want to pay for any of that, liked over said before, the whole research community would need to do those jobs for free. But even in OSS, companies pay OSS developers to work on code. So somebody has to pay for it. If you're so outraged at the profits of publishers, then get off your ass and build the replacement. But people just like to complain, not fix things.
I like where you are going with this. What would that business look like?
Would this be a new journal with a different way of making money or some kind of aggregator service?
Seems like an aggregator service would be the most appealing way to access the data for the end user.
I'd say these entrenched journals are being very cautious with an aggregator because the raw text data would be super valuable to companies, so they are probably going to try their hardest to limit usage of the data for individual access and bulk access. That's not to say an aggregator is not going to happen.
[+] [-] yummypaint|4 years ago|reply
Last I heard the situation in chemistry was still completely different. The ACS is also known for bullying cash strapped college libraries into exorbitant and unnecessary journal subscriptions.
[+] [-] cozzyd|4 years ago|reply
So the arXiv was a more modern, scalable, democratic replacement of what was already popular within the culture of the field.
[+] [-] bluenose69|4 years ago|reply
A related question is "who pays the per-paper fee". Well, not me, and none of my colleagues. However, I've learned that the fees do get paid, but not by individuals. Rather, it's libraries that are paying, to fulfil interlibrary loan requests for papers in journals with high subscription costs and low readerships. If the number of requests times the price per request is lower than the yearly subscription cost, this can be the only way to stay within budget.
Where I work, research grants let me cover journal "page charges", but they do not let me subscribe to journals, nor contribute to the library budget. This has always struck me as crazy, for the yearly cost of many journals is under the cost of publishing a single paper. Heck, we have researchers publishing in the journal of whatever, paying several tens of thousands of dollars per year ... and our library cannot afford to subscribe, so we can see our work.
Yes, you read that right: in many cases, authors have to pay to publish, and then pay again to read.
Some progress is being made, though. Many granting agencies now encourage researchers to publish in open-access mode. That would seem great, except that they did not increase grants to compensate for the extra cost. Money spent on those fees is money that cannot go to support graduate students.
As others have noted (here, and in dozens or hundreds of similar discussion threads), things are different from field to field. I work in a field where it's just as important to read old papers as new ones. That means that the solution of authors posting to their websites is not always viable. Probably a third of the papers I read (in support of teaching) are from people who died long before the web got started.
[+] [-] krull10|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|4 years ago|reply
I can't see why the government wouldn't publish all works under an open license when they (ie tax-payers) paid for the research. In the UK we have a national archives that has all the infrastructure - surely it should have all experimental results and all published, and unpublished, conclusions from that work.
The only reason I can see not to do that is to lock up research for private gain. That's acceptable if the researchers are prepared to forgo tax-payer funding, otherwise ...
This seems like another of those situations where government make terrible contracts on behalf of citizens/subjects/tax-payers.
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|4 years ago|reply
That makes me sick. I'm sorry that you had to suffer this indignity.
[+] [-] stathibus|4 years ago|reply
As far as I'm concerned a paper hasn't been stolen unless it's been accessed without the authors' permission.
[+] [-] PartiallyTyped|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbrown|4 years ago|reply
Not defending the publishing system, but that’s what indirects are for.
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capableweb|4 years ago|reply
But when you mention this to non-scientists, they'll gasp in non-belief.
[+] [-] AmIDev|4 years ago|reply
I'm sure that outside of workplace, every employee uses sci-hub.
[+] [-] kleiba|4 years ago|reply
But I am in Computer Science - I know that the situation is not at all the same in other disciplines.
I think if you want to be cited, it is kind of silly to publish at a venue where your paper is not immediately accessible - there's usually enough other papers to cite, so it's in your own interest to be available.
That said, regarding the original question ("why would anyone not do this"), I know from previous discussions here on HN that I'm part of a small minority, but I wouldn't do it because I find it unethical. There's lots of things that I wouldn't mind having / owning but I cannot afford them. Just because they might be available through non-official channels for free does not mean that using that option is the right thing to do.
In this line of thought, I also think it is irrelevant whether putting publicly funded research results behind a paywall is ethical on the publisher's side: two unethical acts don't make an ethical one.
[+] [-] cmg111|4 years ago|reply
Many scientists are juicy targets.
[+] [-] sflicht|4 years ago|reply
This seems entirely within the scope of Congress's power under the Copyright Clause, and need not be tied up with other more controversial aspects of intellectual property law. There was a time when one could have made a case that permitting copyrights on scientific publications would "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (e.g. because only journal publishers were in a position to efficiently provide copy editing, nice formatting, and distribution). None of that has been relevant for decades, so it seems to me that one could even make a case that the status quo violates the Copyright Clause, since enforcing journal copyrights pretty clearly diminishes rather than promotes the progress of science.
[+] [-] sircastor|4 years ago|reply
1) Other industries that are highly dependent on copyright (film, television, music) would viewers this as an existential threat. If Congress is willing to adjust copyright like this, we are also threatened.
2) Currently all politics is highly partisan. Support of an idea from one side invites counter from the other. I think it’s also worth noting that there is seemingly a strong element within one party that pushes hard against institutional science, making it even more difficult to distribute essential research.
[+] [-] jakecopp|4 years ago|reply
> View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
The irony!! I can't access this link!
[+] [-] unbad505|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] II2II|4 years ago|reply
More seriously though, my first attempt to request an article for a journal resulted in an article similar to this being delivered. The subject matter was different, but it was better described as an editorial than research. Even though editorials have nearly zero value for academic research, the page fees were identical to research papers. The lack of clarity about what was being delivered was frustrating. The necessity research the articles themselves, prior to purchasing one, simply adds to the cost (e.g. through labour).
[+] [-] josh_fyi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wdb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bborud|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karxxm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eurasiantiger|4 years ago|reply
Note that I deliberately avoid calling the publishing racket a business, because these criminals-in-spirit and their empires produce nothing of value: they are lining their pockets by exploiting other people’s work, while those being exploited have no choice but to play into the publishers’ hand; enabling the publishers’ power brokerage further their encroachment on public information by gifting them the most precious fruits of their labor.
[+] [-] chalst|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Damogran6|4 years ago|reply
I’m torn, because I see both sides of it…moreso now that I’m not receiving a paycheck to keep it safe.
[+] [-] pacman2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bernardv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axegon_|4 years ago|reply
* Not that long ago people's sole access to papers was through insanely expensive journals, with prices that are absolutely unthinkable for a large portion of the world's population.
* Arxiv sort of changed that and a lot of information is widely accessible, granted you don't live in a country with high amounts of censorship.
* On the subject of the first point, I'd argue that piracy affects the overall situation very little. People who need those papers for whatever reason and need to use them/cite them will be forced to purchase them regardless. Similar to software, movies and so on.
* On a personal note, I don't recall using anything other than Arxiv for the past 8-9 years or so with the exception of one notable example involving a medical paper which was published in another location and it wasn't free. That said I purchased it, even if it set me back around 250 euros iirc. It wasn't work related in any shape or form, it was for personal reasons but I could afford it and it only seemed fair. Generally I like supporting people's hard work even if I can't benefit hugely from it - I bought several books that the authors published for free online, just to support them. Even one I found here on HN.
[+] [-] crote|4 years ago|reply
To me, the problem is that the balance is heavily skewed towards the publishers. Scientists provide the articles at no cost (or even have to pay to be published!), reviewers do their work for free, and then you have to pay hundreds of euros for a single copy of a single paper?
While I understand that a paper has some overhead costs, the current fees are inexcusable. Scientists are forced to publish in "high-impact" papers so they can't choose another one, and you can't properly do science without reading papers. This gives the publishers a virtual monopoly - and they seem to be quite happy to squeeze every single euro out of it.
It's just rent-seeking, and I believe it goes against the very nature of science itself.
[+] [-] tempay|4 years ago|reply
FYI authors of published papers don't see any of this money, it all goes to the journal so there isn't really a case to be made for buying papers to support the researchers. Even the peer-review process is unpaid work.
If you contact the authors they're allowed to send you copies for free and most are happy to do so.
[+] [-] JadeNB|4 years ago|reply
I don't know how it works in medicine, but, at least in math, I benefit not at all financially if someone buys one of my papers. (Book purchases earn their authors a pittance.)
I would personally way rather someone download one of my papers from the arXiv than that they pay the journal. Journals are parasitic vestiges currently used only for status signalling, and I can't afford not to play that status game as an author, but I don't want you to have to play it as a reader, too. (tempay (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28423848) made the same point slightly earlier, and brought up the important point that, also, most authors are willing to send you a copy for free if you don't otherwise have access to it.)
[+] [-] newswasboring|4 years ago|reply
Why? I can cite any paper I want in my paper, who checks where and how I read it? People don't even check if I read something at all. Are you implying that it's unethical to cite papers without buying them? Because then you fundamentally disagree with the whole thing. Papers are researched by authors and mostly funded by governments or private grants. These journals are just mooching off the whole thing.
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
Not at all, but, they will review a lot more of them before deciding which ones to cite if sci-hub is available. BTW arxiv is for physics math and cs, while the closed access problem is mainly affecting life sciences which don't use arxiv, and are only partially using biorxiv / medrxiv. There's still a very archaic culture there, mainly because there's no other easy way to ascertain some scientists' value.
[+] [-] doliveira|4 years ago|reply
What? Will they reject your paper if you don't present a receipt you paid to access it? I published two articles in Physical Review Journals, virtually all papers I cited came from Sci-Hub.
> Generally I like supporting people's hard work even if I can't benefit hugely from it
Scientists won't get a penny of the money you're paying, BTW. It makes no sense to compare it to books.
[+] [-] betterunix2|4 years ago|reply
You did not support anyone's hard work. The researchers who wrote the paper receive none of the money paid to publishing companies, nor do the peer reviewers, and sometimes not even the editors (and in my experience, paid editors from Springer introduce more errors than they fix).
Before the Internet, before TeX and related tools, those fees were needed to cover the cost of printing copies journals and shipping them to libraries. Prior to the 1970s academic publishers were typically run by universities and charged only break-even fees, and few complained because there was no better alternative that could effectively spread academic research around. Then a bunch of commercial publishers began eyeing academic journals (probably because they knew they would never have to pay the authors) and from the 1980s onward academic publishing has been for-profit. Instead of going away when the Internet rendered printed journals obsolete, these companies have instead opted to not print most journals and charge fees for online access.
[+] [-] ddevault|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] auggierose|4 years ago|reply
a) Of course people who need to read the paper professionally will just pirate it (if they don't have access through their institution). After all, citing a paper doesn't imply that you "own" it.
b) None of the authors saw any of your 250 euros.
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|4 years ago|reply
No.
[+] [-] thomasahle|4 years ago|reply
You are right to do that. However books are different from papers in that you assume some of the money you pay will go to the actual author.
[+] [-] lloda|4 years ago|reply
Why?
[+] [-] n3k5|4 years ago|reply
Wikipedia has more up-to-date stats about total download numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Usage_and_content_stat...
[+] [-] fouc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bostonian|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ta988|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomxor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TrinaryWorksToo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xbadcafebee|4 years ago|reply
First off, just because a tax payer paid for research does not mean publishing should be free. That's like saying just because the government pays workers to use pencils, that pencils used by government workers should be free. The company is still doing work, whether it's for a taxpayer or not. It still needs compensation for the cost of doing business.
Secondly, commercial publishers perform a vital role, which is why they still exist. If they didn't serve a necessary role people would have stopped using them. This is obvious, because nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head saying you have to publish your research in X place. But nobody wants to think of why these commercial journals are necessary, because it might be the fault of single other than the publishers, so people intentionally stop thinking to avoid the realization.
The only name of a publisher that anyone here knows is Elsevier, which further demonstrates ignorance. They're not the biggest publisher, they're not the most expensive publisher, and they aren't the only organization that pursues legal challenges when their content is pirated. But since it's the only name anyone on here has ever heard, they treat them like The Great Satan. That image further polarizes and enforces ignorance of publishing.
Payment models vary widely depending on the circumstances and organizations (or individuals). Mostly publishers are trying to find sustainable models to pay for the jobs they perform, which includes hosting, indexing, referencing, editing, proofing, and facilitating peer review, as well as publishing the journals as a whole. If you don't want to pay for any of that, liked over said before, the whole research community would need to do those jobs for free. But even in OSS, companies pay OSS developers to work on code. So somebody has to pay for it. If you're so outraged at the profits of publishers, then get off your ass and build the replacement. But people just like to complain, not fix things.
[+] [-] jackhodkinson|4 years ago|reply
Would this be a new journal with a different way of making money or some kind of aggregator service?
Seems like an aggregator service would be the most appealing way to access the data for the end user.
I'd say these entrenched journals are being very cautious with an aggregator because the raw text data would be super valuable to companies, so they are probably going to try their hardest to limit usage of the data for individual access and bulk access. That's not to say an aggregator is not going to happen.