See lib gen and r/datahoarders, there are torrents available split into chunks, I think it was 77 terabytes last I checked
An interesting question I think, is what value add does Sci-Hub provide, because obviously it wasn’t happening before Alexandra made it happen, does it outgrow her or is she holding it together?
First the interface problem needs to be solved, after that we get a good picture of adoption.
That there are gigantic torrents available is almost useless. A popcorn time type of GUI client is needed that allows search, can dl the right chunks reasonably fast, seeds the rare chunks, has tit for tad implemented for a group of torrents. Could even do full text search by downloading all possible candidates after applying some bloomfilter.
I think it's sorta decentralized. You can download the SQL files (couple GB) from the libgen site and search in it for the IPFS hashes you want, then download p2p from IPFS. A more decentralized way of searching those databases for the hashes would be trickier.
I am afraid the basic problems are still not solved with regards to proof of authorship and file integrity - how do I know the pdf I’m downloading is what was published?
I’m just in a “be careful what you wish for” state of mind, if there was no one in charge of sci-hub, the publishers could go on attack and fill the database with noise, copies of papers with numbers and methods altered.
Right it’s not insurmountable, authors can publish public keys and sign the files - it’s a UI/UX problem like everything else in crypto.
Keybase makes it fairly easy, but people still have to learn what it means and why it’s trustworthy - my bet is things don’t change, there is a small percentage of people who understand how to verify the source, and the general population who either believes anything or nothing.
In the context of scientists and professionals tho maybe it is achievable to do some outreach and get people on eg keybase, something user friendly
Most people I've been advocating Keybase to, just assumed it's yet another place where you create an account and hence you must trust them (now owned by zoom, boo-hoo).
I found it well explained etc, but it's hard to reach everybody.
Lets say Zoom wanted to sell Keybase. Lets say they wanted to sell it to someone like myself, who would run it in a non profit like a utility, similar to Let's Encrypt. Lets say I'd then integrate it with Stripe Identity and gov IDP providers (US: login.gov, UK: gov.uk verify). This would then allow you to publicly sign damn near everything with an identity you could choose to (but not be required to!) connect to your IRL identity.
That sounds what's needed, an extension of your IRL identity with top notch tooling to manage signatures (what PGP/GPG should've been) instead of docusign and similar that are charging an arm and a leg to "sign" PDFs with generated initials and signatures. We could go further; the signature is human readable in the rendered PDF (or whatever), and the Internet Archive takes a snapshot as an oracle notary when published, similar to Certificate Transparency for certs, but for all sorts of digital artifacts (the Internet Archive's snapshots have been used by a court of law for evidence authentication, so it's a trusted system [1]).
Unfortunately that's not practical. When you download from a uni gateway, pdfs are often auto-watermarked with the source. That way the authors have no idea what checksum you see. And the places which don't do that yet could easily start padding the end of the pdf with a random number of spaces to stop verification efforts.
It would be kind of neat if that could be layered so that one could not only verify that their source-provided copy is legit, but also that the underlying paper itself has also not been modified.
It should be pretty easy to do, to be fair. There are many ways. The easiest would be to have a compressed file (or whatever) that is signed with the source you downloaded it from (and the digest published), and the PDF itself would be signed with the authors' private key. It is not the best way to do it, but it could work.
In the context of sharing data between people, people use checksums with the same meaning as cryptographic hashes, as anything else would break for nearly all use-cases.
Digital signatures are actually overkill. The same infrastructure one uses to discover the authorship of a paper can distribute file hashes without any loss of autentiction, and I don't think anybody needs the non-refutation feature they bring. Maybe there is a nice use case for a paper authorship database with a PKI, but to my view the idea goes against an open scientific community that I think is much more valuable. (But again, maybe there is a way to have both.)
All you really need is a searchable database that points you to the torrent containing the paper you want. Then just download the part of the torrent that you need.
Long as the seeders stick around, this is decentralized, simple, and very hard to block.
Pretty sure this already exists, too, though it's extremely unpolished.
Authors, publish your papers in your personal webpage. Do not promote paywalls. To all others, donate and support decentralization efforts. To those that are particularly wealthy, please think about supporting financially too
Most if not all journals in my field allow you to upload the final accepted PDF that you have typeset in latex yourself to arxiv. We even put "accepted in $journal" and the DOI in the comment field. This includes all the changes you have made in response to referee comments. What you can not upload is the finial language-edited and nicely layouted version that the journal has build from your submission.
All journals I have ever published to (in theoretical physics) explicitly allow the authors to put the journal PDF of their article on their personal or institutional websites. They also allow to have a "reprint" (identical content to published version, but not the exact same PDF) to be on the arXiv. I'm not aware of any journals in the field that don't allow this. I'm sure they exist, but I would not consider them for publication.
You usually have institutional access. If not, I suppose you can ask the publisher to email you the pdf. Or you might be able to download it from the the submission website. I don’t understand: you really don’t have PDFs of your own papers? Did you leave academia and delete your data?
The big publishers have worked very hard to step this being straightforward :(
> You really don’t have PDFs of your own papers?
Absolutely not. Where would I have _legally_ have got them from? (This was 25 years ago) For my first paper, I have a copy of the paper journal for that month, kept as a souvenir.
That makes sense. Sorry if I was a bit incredulous ;-) I've been publishing for about 10 years, so I'm only talking about the current situation. Things might have been quite different before academic publishing was all online, before arXiv, and before having a "personal website" was a thing. If the publishing agreements back in the day already had a clause allowing the author to privately redistribute their paper, I would assume that if you as the author can get the published PDF anywhere (from a former colleague that still has academic access, directly from the publisher, or potentially even from SciHub), you should be free to then forward it to others or put it on your personal website. IANAL, obviously, so don't quote me on whether it violates copyright to get your own papers off SciHub ;-)
>Authors, publish your papers in your personal webpage. Do not promote paywalls.
This plea to authors to change their behavior ignores why they submit papers to paywall publishers: The prestigious journal's acceptance of their paper helps promote their career.
Academic publishing is not a web host server for pdf files type of problem.
Therefore, suggesting authors to upload their pdf to a public Dropbox url, GoogleDrive, Github repo, or their university faculty homepage doesn't solve the real problem. So even if Scihub had a "direct upload pdf" option, that still doesn't solve the underlying problem for getting their paper recognized for good work which spurs citations.
Scihub is a distribution mechanism for pdfs but not a recognition and impact filter for which papers are _important_. This is why scientists keep doing contradictory behaviors: On the one hand, they praise Scihub because it gives them access to papers -- but on the other hand, they keep submitting to paywalled journals to help their career.
Think of game theory incentives instead of hosting pdf files. Journals have the respected editorial staffs to look at their submitted paper and forward it to other peers for review. OpenAccess is a possible option but most OA journals don't have same prestige as the paywalled journals. That may change but it will take a long time.
I think the parent posted was referring to also uploading a preprint of the paper to your website, in addition to submitting it to a prestigeous journal.
I don't think scihub is the future. OpenAccess is the future. I know that in the UK you basically have to post your accepted papers in publicly accessible repositories if you want your papers to count for the Research Excellent Framework exercise (which basically compares Universities every 5 years). I know many grants now have openaccess requirements. Plus in the field like physics, basically everyone posts the papers to arxiv anyway.
It's not final-final published PDF, because the copy-edited version is owned by the journal, but the accepted versions are available at places like this https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/ (on top of arxiv )
"In the long run, we're all dead" - John Maynard Keynes
You might be right about the far future, but there's still a lot of human flourishing that fails to happen every day until then. Or you could be wrong, and I'd hate to /start/ having this conversation once we realize that.
One problem with open access is that the cost is prohibitively high. It can range from $2500 in decent peer-reviewed journals to $10,000+ in Nature. Recently we decided not to pay for open-access for one of our articles (as we already had the preprint out). One solution could be that the funding agencies take care of the fees.. because I can't see publishers charging less for it.
Yes, it all has to be paid for some how. Proofreading, copyediting, typesetting, handling the logistics of physical printing and distribution, usually an honorarium for the journal editor, and probably other costs... It all takes resources that have to be paid for somehow.
Personally, I think part of the solution would be to have grants that are in some way publicly funded (taxes) to have a portion set aside to pay publishing costs, and require publishing in some way. This would both make open access with well-polished articles more accessible, it would also help solve the issue of negative results rarely being published.
Not perfect, not a.silver bullet, but at least an incremental improvement.
Physical print costs are generally a small part of the costs of the other things I mentioned, although the specifics would probably depend on just how popular the was.
But you are right: it's still a mostly unnecessary cost these days. And regardless if the other costs, $150 to $700 per year for a journal subscription is rarely justified by the publishing costs the turn articles into more polished and high quality pieces.
The financial model for disseminating scientific knowledge is broken, but I did want to acknowledge that there is good and useful work done in-between an author writing up their research and ultimately making it available online.
Counter-Intuitively, the need to go digital was what led to behemoths like Elsevier and the downfall of small publishers. Similar to what happened with newspapers, though for very different reasons & economic dynamics:
In the very early 00's a small publisher might have a few dozen journals and a dozen books a year, and reasonable but not huge profit margins. At the same time a couple of things were happening:
1) Elsevier was already snatching up small publishers and offering their own digital access.
2) For a small publisher going digital was much more difficult. It wasn't in their existing tech skill set and there weren't much in the way of turn-key solutions to fill their specific needs
3) Royalty agreements weren't built for all-access subscriptions. They were based on purchases of a full issue. They couldn't be shoe-horned into all-access subscriptions so the publisher would have to go back and renegotiate contracts for digital distribution in a process that was extremely time consuming... getting agreements for 30 years of your back catalog wasn't easy.
4) For a small publisher, digitizing content was very expensive. A simple destructive scan where the content was unbound and image scanned to a PDF wasn $0.50 to $1 per page, but you need things to be searchable too. OCR wasn't good enough and OCR w/human correction was very expensive. Common practice was to go for the cheaper image-only OCR and tack on ToC, Titles, abstracts and authors as indexed metadata, which also cost more money.
Elsevier was big enough that most of the above were somewhat non-issues for them. They could throw their bulk around and dictate terms on royalties deploying an army of people to work them all out journal by journal. They had plenty of money to build a digital platform and digitize their back catalog year by year at a fairly rapid pace.
Library budgets were being cut back, so it looked like a real nice option to subscribe to Elsevier and get instant access to tons of stuff. It became a lot harder for smaller publishers to get their material into libraries. This created a downward spiral, Elsevier picked off small publishers one by one, making their product even more appealing.
In the end, we're left with what we have now: A few massive publishers that looked like reasonable options 15 and 20 years ago at those prices, but then the prices rapidly escalated, and after 7 or 10 years of digital subscriptions you almost couldn't go back because you'd have to buy that many years of back catalog.
Uhm, I don't know if you've published a paper since the 90s but none of those are costs that modern journals incur. Or if they do, nobody asked them to.
The main thing journals do is peer review and that is all done for free by other academics. Authors do basically all of the typesetting, and although journals still insist on printing issues there's really no need for them to do so.
The only really important thing that journals do is finding and hassling reviewers.
I don't know precisely what they do--and I almost wish they wouldn't--but many journals still do some kind of layout work and copy-editing to cram it into the journal's house style.
It's often not very good: an overzealous typesetter replaced every single italic p (as in "p < 0.05") with a musical quarter-note. Still, some of that money must be going somewhere.
That said, I would actually love a journal that offered (good) copy/line editing of accepted papers so that the science is presented as clearly as possible. I suspect this would work out well for the authors and the journal. At the margin, easier to read => more cites. However, very few journals compete on "author-friendliness". It's all impact factor this and metrics that.
Here's a paywalled clinical journal article about the hazards of poor typesetting!
A nomogram got futzed around and, well, the ruler-only, no-calculator required, calculations were now wrong.
"A set of trial calculations indicate that the nomogram of Burton et al is accurate, but a realignment of Burton’s nomogram (for greater symmetry?) in the Clinical Nutrition text resulted in a nomogram with considerable inaccuracy."
I am basing my opinions on work at a small/medium publisher that had well know material considered essential in a variety of fields-- they were pretty high quality. This was a while back, though I know people that publish in fairly reputable places.
They did and do this sort of editing, so it may be, sometimes, a matter of journal quality. I don't anything gets into JAMA without that level of editing.
Anyway, that's what my opinions in this thread have been based on, but maybe I'm exhibiting selection bias by having experience primarily with a higher quality publisher.
I would like to think I publish pretty well for my field and access to resources (PNAS, Neuron, etc), but none of those journals have offered anything beyond word-level editing (e.g., change sec to s; replace `subjects` with `participants`) to match the house style.
I certainly didn't get any suggestions aimed at improving the readability of the text; those mostly came from coauthors and colleagues before submission, with a few more things flagged, in passing, by peer reviewers.
That's on the biology side of things. For ML, it's basically "Here's the doc class! Good luck!"
You're right: Journals don't do those things, publishers do. Even PloS, open access & no subscription fees, has nearly 500 employees and an editorial group for each area, which are paid. Search up their salaries, you'll fine them. (They charge about $2000 per submission to the authors. Picking at random, the most recent issue of one of them had 80 articles, or $160,000)
Or look at the editing that Elife professional editors perform in addition to other peer reviewers: detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement." detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement
Maybe poor quality journals don't do this sort of thing, I'm not familiar with them & their economic models.
-Proofreading: you’re expected to do this before you submit, and the reviewers will reject it if it is of poor enough writing quality. They will not, however, edit the paper in any way.
-Copyediting: there shouldn’t be copy editing in research papers, if there is fluff there is wasted real estate
-Typesetting: once again, researchers are expected to submit a paper with the typesetting requirements fulfilled (or in a format which can be automatically adjusted with a template (e.g. LaTeX))
-logistics: not an issue anymore, almost all access is digital and printed by the reader as necessary (if the portal is not DRMd to prevent this)
They do edit the paper. Formatting is expected, final print-ready content is not. I know this from direct experience.
Copy editing is about a lot more than fluff. Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills.
Typesetting is a little more complex than character format, but you're right, especially in these days with better tools, it's not nearly as labor intensive as it used to be, though still absolutely necessary if the journal is physically printed. Much much simpler if it's online only.
Many journals are still printed and archived especially by libraries, so those logistics are still a factor, and there is a fixed amount of labor required if it's 100 copies are 10,000. After the 100, the required work is incremental.
Digital absolutely has logistics involved as well: building and maintaining a platform isn't free, BUT:
I would wholeheartedly agree that the financial models here are broken and outrageous. Even considering the publishing work I mentioned, whether we disagree on the scope or not, better tools have made that work significantly easier. Scalable digital platforms are also much more of a known quantity and cheaper: inexpensive turn key solutions exist that could be scaled with fairly mundane tech skills. In every way I can think of, the costs associated with turning a raw article fresh from the authors into a polished publication should be much much cheaper.
There are ~15-20 articles per Nature issue (not counting all the rest). I would assume that over $150,000, or ~3 full-time postdocs yearly nets should be enough for monthly minor editorial work.
In response, review this area of my comment above:
Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills.
Postdocs are no more likely to have their Venn diagrams overlap significantly.
Postdocs was only there to gauge what kind of peoples one can afford with that kind of money.
But in any case, journals don't do any semantic editing on articles, so the whole point is moot: anyone can be an editor as long as they can typeset and maybe spot typos there and there, and neither communication nor research skill is required for that.
One of my co-worker told me about journals in our field "they will edit it anyway" so I guess it depends on the field and journals. I personally would be against it and I don't understand how it is acceptable that carefully written words by scientists and agreed by co-authors are modified by a random nobody.
Could depend on the publisher as well. When I did tech work for one, changes were proposed to the author. They had to sign off, possibly offer their own modifications, and if they did there would be one more proof sent for approval.
Certain things would get edited automatically without signoff, but only if they were needed to conform to the style guide: some of that was set by the publisher, some by the journal editor.
The people I know that did copy editing reviewed articles for presentation & ordering of material, clarity of expression, and a variety of other factors that make the content more readable.
Take two scientific researcher of the same discipline & scientific skill level, and one of them might be a very poor communicator. Multiple levels of the editorial process addressed those issues, copy editing included.
Changes were not made without the author's approval: They were edited, proofs sent to the author, who signed off, or declined some changes while adding others. It would then be reviewed by the publisher's editors again, and if all went well a final proof was sent out for a final sign off.
I'm not sure why you doubt this sort of thing: I lived in that world, on the tech side of a small/medium scientific publisher, and saw it all happen & built some of the systems that facilitated the process. It wasn't wasted effort: margins weren't very big and where I worked they would have been happy to get rid of a few staffers if the process didn't require them.
If you published an article through a reasonably sized publisher in a somewhat well-known, did you different experience? If so, then either the practices vary greatly among different publishers, or practices have changed a lot since the early 00's (which may very well be the case)
In my experience the edits are super-minor, the kind of stuff anyone can do on the cheap. Whenever there is doubt, the author is called to rewrite. At least in neuroscience, i dont think they make any kind of changes in the text other than typos and minor rephrasing (most major suggestions is done by the reviewers). Proofreading and minor final touches are not expensive.
It also depends on the author guidelines of each journal. Nature group e.g. has requirements about when your subscripts should be in italics. And i think sometimes they prettify images. I don't care about those things, and it doesnt change a thing about the impact of 99% of papers. Most authors submit great quality manuscripts anyway, judging from what i 've reviewed. In fact i m pretty sure i m doing more copyediting and suggestions while reviewing than any of the paid editors.
Another thing is, a ton of effort is wasted in reformatting (and sometimes rewriting) a paper to resubmit to another journal. Publishing is definitely a wasteful process.
There are always publishing costs, but it would be cheaper to set up a public utility for proofreading and uploading papers rather than the current situation
How do elife and PLoS do it? It's not like their papers are riddled with typos and nobody needs glossy paper anyway. The quality of the paper and the reviewing is done for free so it doesnt factor into the equation
Elife & PloS both charge fairly high submission fees. They employ their own teams of editors. PloS for example has close to 500 employees. Fees for most of their research areas are > $2000 per article submission. Their latest addition of Computational Biology has 80 articles, or $160,000 in revenue. I believe PloS offers fee assistance in certain circumstances, so the total amount will probably be a little less. Either way, this is more than enough to cover the sorts of activities I mentioned.
As an example from Elife, in addition to the peer review feedback process, Elife describes their editorial output as providing: "detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement."
detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement"
In terms of the mechanics of publishing, it's all very little different than a traditional publisher, except for the funding model. In terms of public access, it is far superior: Publication costs are covered without exorbitant subscription fees and the public gets the benefits of the research for no cost of their own.
This is why I would like to see a move to grant models where the grant includes the cost of publication, and a requirement for the portion to be used to get knowledge into the public even if the results did not confirm the experimental hypothesis.
> It can range from $2500 in decent peer-reviewed journals to $10,000+ in Nature.
As an n=1, I had a professor run out of money from their grant, so he gave a sob story to the journal and they agreed to make it open-access for free. I guess it depends on the journal.
nono, he was publishing. Maybe it was a requirement of the grant or he didn't want to be behind the paywall-of-shame, but he spent all the grant money on the research. (Bad budgeting? Unexpected bill? dunno).
I guess he would have paid out-of-pocket if the journal didn't accept the sob story.
From what I know, in my country it is not at all uncommon in research grants to have a portion of the funds allocated to publishing the results. It is usually also in the interest of the funding agencies, because it is a form of PR for the agency.
Open access should be the yesterday. I don't mind if they have to charge $2000 for a paper (but not $5000 to open the paper one year later), but publishers should be forced to open up all existing papers to open access as well . But it is not happening largely because academia is stuck in the chicken-and-egg situation where open access cannot become prestigious while people keep publishing in prestigious journals, and academics have not been able to replace journal prestige with something better
Starting in 2013, all US-funded work needs to end up publicly accessible within a year of publication. There are slightly different ways, depending on the funder, but it's the rule.
Canada's Tri-Council Agencies have had a similar policy from 2016 onward, ditto EU....
Older papers are tricky though. I'm not sure the government can compel you to make something available.
This is a "meta-policy" of sorts, in that it directs grant-making agencies to form policies of their own. A lot was written about it at the time, most of which includes its title "Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research."
Depending on your interests, you could then look at individual agencies' policies.
- Here's the NIH policy: https://publicaccess.nih.gov
Search for something in PubMed and there will be a "PMC Free Full Text" icon if it's available from PubMed Central. Some publishers just lower the paywall, in which case it says "free from publisher".
- The DoD hosts its own repository called DTIC. Heres' the policy stuff: https://discover.dtic.mil/policy-memoranda/ Open access is the last section. You can search at the top-right for DoD funded research.
- Not to be outdone on the acronym front, the DOE has a site called PAGES, which ostensibly stands for Public Access Gateway for Energy and Science: https://www.osti.gov/public-access
Similar policy in the EU. Has it changed anything? no, 1 year delay renders the policy useless and it does nothing for old papers. The fees for open access are too high. And the resulting work is not in some kind of creative commons license. We need sci-hub, especially during these times when many of us work at home
For me, the rise of preprints has blunted the impact of that exclusivity period: something approximating the full text is usually available, whether from the publishers, PMC, or bioarxiv. This might depend on a lot of discipline--neuro dove head-first into preprints and I think they're less common in other fields.
It's not obvious to me what the "right" fee is. The NPG fees seem bonkers. The PLoS journals and eLife aren't trying to turn a profit, are a bit lower but still in the few thousand dollar range, so there must be some non-obvious, non-trivial expenses.
I just don't see things changing in bio sciences because the people who benefit from it don't want it to change, and the people who want it to change (labs without a lot of money, grad students, post-docs) have the least power change it.
Scihub is at least levelling the playing field and forcing the conversation to happen.
I'm surprised to hear that, because from my perspective (neuro), things are changing fairly fast.
Bioarxiv is seven years old, and when it started, it was tiny niche service with a few dozen new papers each month. People were skeptical of the contents of preprints and journals were reluctant to accept (or cite) work posted there. Now, it gets thousands of submissions a month and is a de rigueur part of many researchers' (and some journals') workflow.
In parallel, governments and funders have put some weight behind open access. An open version needs to be available within a year for all US-funded work from 2013 onward; Canada's similar tri-council policy took effect in 2016(?). It's true that there aren't draconian penalties, but there are some small nudges towards compliance. The NIH wants a PubMed Central ID for any paper you're claiming credit for on a grant. Google Scholar nags about non open-access papers on your profile. Many journals (even initially-closed ones) even handle the whole open access deposition thing for you now.
As a result, I find I need the library VPN a lot less these days. On the other hand, I agree that supplanting the publishers is tough. A Cell, Science, or Nature paper still carries a ton of cachet and its associated career impact; ELife isn't quite there yet.
The way I see it, publications like Elsevier and similar should change their business models to be "curators" of public papers. All scientific papers should be submitted to arXiv or a similar public facing service, so that they are available for everyone.
Then, Elsevier, Springer, SAGE , et al. should spend their money making ToC / abstract lists of the best of the best papers in the different subjects.
That´s the main value of these editorials, they should super specialize in that and leave the distribution/editing to others (they kind of already do, they just want to have control).
I may not want to pay ANY money once I am looking for a specific article that I know it exists. But I will pay good money for a "push" type of listing/abstract and maybe analysis of the best articles in certain subjects (its kind of what Feedly does but without any analysis/editorial but just dumb grouping).
> I don't think scihub is the future. OpenAccess is the future.
It seems you are claiming that the future isn't making all scientific content available, period - but rather only that content whose copyright holders have decided to make available.
I whole-heartedly disagree. We must not submit to arbitrary restrictions on the copying of information; and we certainly cannot and should not wait for Elsevier, Springer, IEEE et alia to grace us with access to articles.
Also - if "Open Access" means authors have to pay a large wad of money to have their papers published - that's not tolerable either.
OpenAccess is the publishers way of implementing "if you can't beat them, lead them:" it is intentionally designed to be ineffective (thousands dollars to publish a single article).
Sci-hub existence is the proof by itself that you don't need billions to publish millions of articles.
While it keeps access open, it costs ludicrous amounts to submit an article (up to 4k $).
Not to mention the many journals focusing on OA that keep popping up who are purely profit driven, and care little for quality and standards.
With the severe lack of funding in the academic world, OA is not going to be the future, but will potentially skew access and impact towards research with deep pockets (rather than quality).
/side note: my spouse is an active publicising academic.
I hope that Scihub will continue to exist. There are a lot of important papers that have been published in traditional journals. Scientific work is generally based on previous work. Having access to these papers is also important for future work. In many branches of science it is very common to refer to papers that are many decades old.
The sci-hub archive is partly supported by libgen.rs. To ensure that their content remains accessible, they have thousands of very large torrents, many of which are not well seeded. If you have a few TB of disk space and bandwidth to spare, it's a good way to help out.
For all the cryptocurrency, distributed, anti-censorship, anonymous filestorage projects from the past few years, where the hell are they all?
Cryptocoin community: hosting SciHub should be your platform's Litmus Test. If you can't do this one thing, your anonymous, decentralised, anti-censorship platform is a scam, so GTFO.
It exists, it's named torrent. All of sci-hub content is avaliable as a magnet link for you to download and seed. If you want more recent projects, libgen content is on the IPFS
This is the kind of thing where getting a scuzzy blockchain involved would be ludicrous step backwards. Torrent isn't new tech but everyone seems to have forgotten it exists.
Your IP address is revealed when you use a torrent, which opens you up to criminal prosecution. Running Bittorrent over Tor is also slow, and tends to overwhelm the volunteer run network. And someone also has to pay for the bandwidth, hardware, and sysadmin time to scan, upload, host.
Incentivized onion routing networks like the Oxen network or Nym offer the potential for fast, anonymous filesharing, while decentralized storage networks like Sia or Filecoin could act as censorship resistant repositories.
Haven't the movie studios seeded their own torrents and then taken the people on the other end of the connection to court? I'm sure a lot of the DMCA letters etc directed at ISPs were specifically for torrent users.
The problem with torrents is that they are clumsy, particularly for small files like PDFs. EMule had a better overall User Experience with the Kademilla network than Bittorrent. We need a new generation of P2P applications and protocols that a) Are easy to use for the purpose of searching for single files with specific metadata (author name, keywords, text/abstract content,e tc). and b) There is an "incentive" to share content in addition to pure altruism. As with Bittorrent, Kademilla or other P2P we have seen that content availability decays.
that would be cool, the only problem is size of data, about half a petabyte of pdfs uncompressed (77TB compressed). OCR and indexing at this scale would be pretty costly.
Also papers do not follow any formatting standard, as a human that does not bother us too much, but OCR will have a hard time making sense of multiple columns with random text above and below, figure captions that are separated by the main text with only a little bit of vertical space, etc...
There are some projects that try to automate that, but so far all I have used needed some manual intervention.
How about building anonymous cheap low power low key esp32 paper downloaders a la aaron schwartz. How about starting pirate clubs in universities all over the world.
We need a Firefox/Chrome extension that prominently points you to the arXiv PDF of an article when you visit a publication page with a research paywall, and upload it if it hasn't been uploaded . There's already a place to and process to legally upload papers(as preprints in Arxiv) it is just a matter for making it heavily public and accessible.
One thing that I would like to see is a clone of SciHub that allowed new submissions. SciHub is not accepting submissions because the founder is waiting for the results of a process in India. This could take many years.
Of course, the persons who make a clone will have to be brave, because they will face the same problems that Alexandra Elbakyan has faced.
123 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 206 ms ] threadAn interesting question I think, is what value add does Sci-Hub provide, because obviously it wasn’t happening before Alexandra made it happen, does it outgrow her or is she holding it together?
Probably better to create a system that includes a reputation currency, since you can't 'spend' your reputation: https://medium.com/metacurrency-project/reputation-is-orthog...
That there are gigantic torrents available is almost useless. A popcorn time type of GUI client is needed that allows search, can dl the right chunks reasonably fast, seeds the rare chunks, has tit for tad implemented for a group of torrents. Could even do full text search by downloading all possible candidates after applying some bloomfilter.
I’m just in a “be careful what you wish for” state of mind, if there was no one in charge of sci-hub, the publishers could go on attack and fill the database with noise, copies of papers with numbers and methods altered.
Keybase makes it fairly easy, but people still have to learn what it means and why it’s trustworthy - my bet is things don’t change, there is a small percentage of people who understand how to verify the source, and the general population who either believes anything or nothing.
In the context of scientists and professionals tho maybe it is achievable to do some outreach and get people on eg keybase, something user friendly
I found it well explained etc, but it's hard to reach everybody.
That sounds what's needed, an extension of your IRL identity with top notch tooling to manage signatures (what PGP/GPG should've been) instead of docusign and similar that are charging an arm and a leg to "sign" PDFs with generated initials and signatures. We could go further; the signature is human readable in the rendered PDF (or whatever), and the Internet Archive takes a snapshot as an oracle notary when published, similar to Certificate Transparency for certs, but for all sorts of digital artifacts (the Internet Archive's snapshots have been used by a court of law for evidence authentication, so it's a trusted system [1]).
It ain't hard, it's just work.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/04/wayback_machine_legit...
Digital signatures are actually overkill. The same infrastructure one uses to discover the authorship of a paper can distribute file hashes without any loss of autentiction, and I don't think anybody needs the non-refutation feature they bring. Maybe there is a nice use case for a paper authorship database with a PKI, but to my view the idea goes against an open scientific community that I think is much more valuable. (But again, maybe there is a way to have both.)
These are not basic problems. We're talking about scientific papers, not deeds to a piece of land or something.
> how do I know the pdf I’m downloading is what was published?
How do you know the paper photo-copy you have of an article is what was published? You don't 100% know, you make a reasonable assumption.
The exceptional case of needing integrity verification can have a niche solution.
Q: How open is the DOI system itself?
Long as the seeders stick around, this is decentralized, simple, and very hard to block.
Pretty sure this already exists, too, though it's extremely unpolished.
Q: Do authors actually _have_ the right to republish the final published version from the journal they submitted their work to?
Q: Where is an author supposed to _obtain_ the final, "official" journal-approved PDFs in order to republish them?
Unless I head for sci-hub, I don't have any of mine :(
The big publishers have worked very hard to step this being straightforward :(
> You really don’t have PDFs of your own papers?
Absolutely not. Where would I have _legally_ have got them from? (This was 25 years ago) For my first paper, I have a copy of the paper journal for that month, kept as a souvenir.
> Did you leave academia
Yes
> and delete your data?
No!
That makes sense. Sorry if I was a bit incredulous ;-) I've been publishing for about 10 years, so I'm only talking about the current situation. Things might have been quite different before academic publishing was all online, before arXiv, and before having a "personal website" was a thing. If the publishing agreements back in the day already had a clause allowing the author to privately redistribute their paper, I would assume that if you as the author can get the published PDF anywhere (from a former colleague that still has academic access, directly from the publisher, or potentially even from SciHub), you should be free to then forward it to others or put it on your personal website. IANAL, obviously, so don't quote me on whether it violates copyright to get your own papers off SciHub ;-)
https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/119002/7319
This plea to authors to change their behavior ignores why they submit papers to paywall publishers: The prestigious journal's acceptance of their paper helps promote their career.
Academic publishing is not a web host server for pdf files type of problem. Therefore, suggesting authors to upload their pdf to a public Dropbox url, GoogleDrive, Github repo, or their university faculty homepage doesn't solve the real problem. So even if Scihub had a "direct upload pdf" option, that still doesn't solve the underlying problem for getting their paper recognized for good work which spurs citations.
Scihub is a distribution mechanism for pdfs but not a recognition and impact filter for which papers are _important_. This is why scientists keep doing contradictory behaviors: On the one hand, they praise Scihub because it gives them access to papers -- but on the other hand, they keep submitting to paywalled journals to help their career.
Think of game theory incentives instead of hosting pdf files. Journals have the respected editorial staffs to look at their submitted paper and forward it to other peers for review. OpenAccess is a possible option but most OA journals don't have same prestige as the paywalled journals. That may change but it will take a long time.
How does that _actually_ work, though? Can anyone download the final, published PDF from "publicly accessible repositories"?
(Full disclosure: ex scientist with published papers, still no idea how I can legally share _my_ work with anyone who might be interested...)
http://lesscrime.info/post/how-to-stop-hiding-your-research/
You might be right about the far future, but there's still a lot of human flourishing that fails to happen every day until then. Or you could be wrong, and I'd hate to /start/ having this conversation once we realize that.
Yes, but the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
Personally, I think part of the solution would be to have grants that are in some way publicly funded (taxes) to have a portion set aside to pay publishing costs, and require publishing in some way. This would both make open access with well-polished articles more accessible, it would also help solve the issue of negative results rarely being published.
Not perfect, not a.silver bullet, but at least an incremental improvement.
Claiming $10k for a bunch of unnecessary work is outrageous.
The cost of prestigious journals are the curation and high standard of peer review. Except they don't actually pay their staff for those things...
But you are right: it's still a mostly unnecessary cost these days. And regardless if the other costs, $150 to $700 per year for a journal subscription is rarely justified by the publishing costs the turn articles into more polished and high quality pieces.
The financial model for disseminating scientific knowledge is broken, but I did want to acknowledge that there is good and useful work done in-between an author writing up their research and ultimately making it available online.
I'm assuming journals were happy to switch subscriber to digital-only subscriptions. All the revenue without the circulation headaches.
In the very early 00's a small publisher might have a few dozen journals and a dozen books a year, and reasonable but not huge profit margins. At the same time a couple of things were happening:
1) Elsevier was already snatching up small publishers and offering their own digital access.
2) For a small publisher going digital was much more difficult. It wasn't in their existing tech skill set and there weren't much in the way of turn-key solutions to fill their specific needs
3) Royalty agreements weren't built for all-access subscriptions. They were based on purchases of a full issue. They couldn't be shoe-horned into all-access subscriptions so the publisher would have to go back and renegotiate contracts for digital distribution in a process that was extremely time consuming... getting agreements for 30 years of your back catalog wasn't easy.
4) For a small publisher, digitizing content was very expensive. A simple destructive scan where the content was unbound and image scanned to a PDF wasn $0.50 to $1 per page, but you need things to be searchable too. OCR wasn't good enough and OCR w/human correction was very expensive. Common practice was to go for the cheaper image-only OCR and tack on ToC, Titles, abstracts and authors as indexed metadata, which also cost more money.
Elsevier was big enough that most of the above were somewhat non-issues for them. They could throw their bulk around and dictate terms on royalties deploying an army of people to work them all out journal by journal. They had plenty of money to build a digital platform and digitize their back catalog year by year at a fairly rapid pace.
Library budgets were being cut back, so it looked like a real nice option to subscribe to Elsevier and get instant access to tons of stuff. It became a lot harder for smaller publishers to get their material into libraries. This created a downward spiral, Elsevier picked off small publishers one by one, making their product even more appealing.
In the end, we're left with what we have now: A few massive publishers that looked like reasonable options 15 and 20 years ago at those prices, but then the prices rapidly escalated, and after 7 or 10 years of digital subscriptions you almost couldn't go back because you'd have to buy that many years of back catalog.
Uhm, I don't know if you've published a paper since the 90s but none of those are costs that modern journals incur. Or if they do, nobody asked them to.
The main thing journals do is peer review and that is all done for free by other academics. Authors do basically all of the typesetting, and although journals still insist on printing issues there's really no need for them to do so.
The only really important thing that journals do is finding and hassling reviewers.
It's often not very good: an overzealous typesetter replaced every single italic p (as in "p < 0.05") with a musical quarter-note. Still, some of that money must be going somewhere.
That said, I would actually love a journal that offered (good) copy/line editing of accepted papers so that the science is presented as clearly as possible. I suspect this would work out well for the authors and the journal. At the margin, easier to read => more cites. However, very few journals compete on "author-friendliness". It's all impact factor this and metrics that.
A nomogram got futzed around and, well, the ruler-only, no-calculator required, calculations were now wrong.
"A set of trial calculations indicate that the nomogram of Burton et al is accurate, but a realignment of Burton’s nomogram (for greater symmetry?) in the Clinical Nutrition text resulted in a nomogram with considerable inaccuracy."
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/54.3.435
They did and do this sort of editing, so it may be, sometimes, a matter of journal quality. I don't anything gets into JAMA without that level of editing.
Anyway, that's what my opinions in this thread have been based on, but maybe I'm exhibiting selection bias by having experience primarily with a higher quality publisher.
I certainly didn't get any suggestions aimed at improving the readability of the text; those mostly came from coauthors and colleagues before submission, with a few more things flagged, in passing, by peer reviewers.
That's on the biology side of things. For ML, it's basically "Here's the doc class! Good luck!"
Or look at the editing that Elife professional editors perform in addition to other peer reviewers: detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement." detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement
Maybe poor quality journals don't do this sort of thing, I'm not familiar with them & their economic models.
They (the journal owners) don’t do these anymore:
-Proofreading: you’re expected to do this before you submit, and the reviewers will reject it if it is of poor enough writing quality. They will not, however, edit the paper in any way.
-Copyediting: there shouldn’t be copy editing in research papers, if there is fluff there is wasted real estate
-Typesetting: once again, researchers are expected to submit a paper with the typesetting requirements fulfilled (or in a format which can be automatically adjusted with a template (e.g. LaTeX))
-logistics: not an issue anymore, almost all access is digital and printed by the reader as necessary (if the portal is not DRMd to prevent this)
Copy editing is about a lot more than fluff. Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills.
Typesetting is a little more complex than character format, but you're right, especially in these days with better tools, it's not nearly as labor intensive as it used to be, though still absolutely necessary if the journal is physically printed. Much much simpler if it's online only.
Many journals are still printed and archived especially by libraries, so those logistics are still a factor, and there is a fixed amount of labor required if it's 100 copies are 10,000. After the 100, the required work is incremental.
Digital absolutely has logistics involved as well: building and maintaining a platform isn't free, BUT:
I would wholeheartedly agree that the financial models here are broken and outrageous. Even considering the publishing work I mentioned, whether we disagree on the scope or not, better tools have made that work significantly easier. Scalable digital platforms are also much more of a known quantity and cheaper: inexpensive turn key solutions exist that could be scaled with fairly mundane tech skills. In every way I can think of, the costs associated with turning a raw article fresh from the authors into a polished publication should be much much cheaper.
Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills.
Postdocs are no more likely to have their Venn diagrams overlap significantly.
But in any case, journals don't do any semantic editing on articles, so the whole point is moot: anyone can be an editor as long as they can typeset and maybe spot typos there and there, and neither communication nor research skill is required for that.
a journal will never edit the text beyond typos. their editorials are written from other peers for free. What copy editing?
Certain things would get edited automatically without signoff, but only if they were needed to conform to the style guide: some of that was set by the publisher, some by the journal editor.
Take two scientific researcher of the same discipline & scientific skill level, and one of them might be a very poor communicator. Multiple levels of the editorial process addressed those issues, copy editing included.
Changes were not made without the author's approval: They were edited, proofs sent to the author, who signed off, or declined some changes while adding others. It would then be reviewed by the publisher's editors again, and if all went well a final proof was sent out for a final sign off.
I'm not sure why you doubt this sort of thing: I lived in that world, on the tech side of a small/medium scientific publisher, and saw it all happen & built some of the systems that facilitated the process. It wasn't wasted effort: margins weren't very big and where I worked they would have been happy to get rid of a few staffers if the process didn't require them.
If you published an article through a reasonably sized publisher in a somewhat well-known, did you different experience? If so, then either the practices vary greatly among different publishers, or practices have changed a lot since the early 00's (which may very well be the case)
It also depends on the author guidelines of each journal. Nature group e.g. has requirements about when your subscripts should be in italics. And i think sometimes they prettify images. I don't care about those things, and it doesnt change a thing about the impact of 99% of papers. Most authors submit great quality manuscripts anyway, judging from what i 've reviewed. In fact i m pretty sure i m doing more copyediting and suggestions while reviewing than any of the paid editors.
Another thing is, a ton of effort is wasted in reformatting (and sometimes rewriting) a paper to resubmit to another journal. Publishing is definitely a wasteful process.
There are always publishing costs, but it would be cheaper to set up a public utility for proofreading and uploading papers rather than the current situation
As an example from Elife, in addition to the peer review feedback process, Elife describes their editorial output as providing: "detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement." detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement"
In terms of the mechanics of publishing, it's all very little different than a traditional publisher, except for the funding model. In terms of public access, it is far superior: Publication costs are covered without exorbitant subscription fees and the public gets the benefits of the research for no cost of their own.
This is why I would like to see a move to grant models where the grant includes the cost of publication, and a requirement for the portion to be used to get knowledge into the public even if the results did not confirm the experimental hypothesis.
As an n=1, I had a professor run out of money from their grant, so he gave a sob story to the journal and they agreed to make it open-access for free. I guess it depends on the journal.
I guess he would have paid out-of-pocket if the journal didn't accept the sob story.
Starting in 2013, all US-funded work needs to end up publicly accessible within a year of publication. There are slightly different ways, depending on the funder, but it's the rule.
Canada's Tri-Council Agencies have had a similar policy from 2016 onward, ditto EU....
Older papers are tricky though. I'm not sure the government can compel you to make something available.
I hadn’t heard about this, is there a keyword I can use to learn more?
This is a "meta-policy" of sorts, in that it directs grant-making agencies to form policies of their own. A lot was written about it at the time, most of which includes its title "Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research."
It came up again in 2020 when OSTP considered revising the rules (e.g., https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/will-trump-white-hou...)
Depending on your interests, you could then look at individual agencies' policies.
- Here's the NIH policy: https://publicaccess.nih.gov Search for something in PubMed and there will be a "PMC Free Full Text" icon if it's available from PubMed Central. Some publishers just lower the paywall, in which case it says "free from publisher".
- An FAQ for the NSF: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18041/nsf18041.jsp
- The DoD hosts its own repository called DTIC. Heres' the policy stuff: https://discover.dtic.mil/policy-memoranda/ Open access is the last section. You can search at the top-right for DoD funded research.
- Not to be outdone on the acronym front, the DOE has a site called PAGES, which ostensibly stands for Public Access Gateway for Energy and Science: https://www.osti.gov/public-access
- Those are the biggies, but there are a ton of federal agencies covered by the policy. Here's the USDA's plan: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USDA-Publ...
For me, the rise of preprints has blunted the impact of that exclusivity period: something approximating the full text is usually available, whether from the publishers, PMC, or bioarxiv. This might depend on a lot of discipline--neuro dove head-first into preprints and I think they're less common in other fields.
It's not obvious to me what the "right" fee is. The NPG fees seem bonkers. The PLoS journals and eLife aren't trying to turn a profit, are a bit lower but still in the few thousand dollar range, so there must be some non-obvious, non-trivial expenses.
Scihub is at least levelling the playing field and forcing the conversation to happen.
Bioarxiv is seven years old, and when it started, it was tiny niche service with a few dozen new papers each month. People were skeptical of the contents of preprints and journals were reluctant to accept (or cite) work posted there. Now, it gets thousands of submissions a month and is a de rigueur part of many researchers' (and some journals') workflow.
In parallel, governments and funders have put some weight behind open access. An open version needs to be available within a year for all US-funded work from 2013 onward; Canada's similar tri-council policy took effect in 2016(?). It's true that there aren't draconian penalties, but there are some small nudges towards compliance. The NIH wants a PubMed Central ID for any paper you're claiming credit for on a grant. Google Scholar nags about non open-access papers on your profile. Many journals (even initially-closed ones) even handle the whole open access deposition thing for you now.
As a result, I find I need the library VPN a lot less these days. On the other hand, I agree that supplanting the publishers is tough. A Cell, Science, or Nature paper still carries a ton of cachet and its associated career impact; ELife isn't quite there yet.
Then, Elsevier, Springer, SAGE , et al. should spend their money making ToC / abstract lists of the best of the best papers in the different subjects.
That´s the main value of these editorials, they should super specialize in that and leave the distribution/editing to others (they kind of already do, they just want to have control).
I may not want to pay ANY money once I am looking for a specific article that I know it exists. But I will pay good money for a "push" type of listing/abstract and maybe analysis of the best articles in certain subjects (its kind of what Feedly does but without any analysis/editorial but just dumb grouping).
It seems you are claiming that the future isn't making all scientific content available, period - but rather only that content whose copyright holders have decided to make available.
I whole-heartedly disagree. We must not submit to arbitrary restrictions on the copying of information; and we certainly cannot and should not wait for Elsevier, Springer, IEEE et alia to grace us with access to articles.
Also - if "Open Access" means authors have to pay a large wad of money to have their papers published - that's not tolerable either.
Sci-hub existence is the proof by itself that you don't need billions to publish millions of articles.
While it keeps access open, it costs ludicrous amounts to submit an article (up to 4k $).
Not to mention the many journals focusing on OA that keep popping up who are purely profit driven, and care little for quality and standards.
With the severe lack of funding in the academic world, OA is not going to be the future, but will potentially skew access and impact towards research with deep pockets (rather than quality).
/side note: my spouse is an active publicising academic.
https://github.com/subdavis/libgen-seedtools
The sci-hub archive is partly supported by libgen.rs. To ensure that their content remains accessible, they have thousands of very large torrents, many of which are not well seeded. If you have a few TB of disk space and bandwidth to spare, it's a good way to help out.
Cryptocoin community: hosting SciHub should be your platform's Litmus Test. If you can't do this one thing, your anonymous, decentralised, anti-censorship platform is a scam, so GTFO.
This is the kind of thing where getting a scuzzy blockchain involved would be ludicrous step backwards. Torrent isn't new tech but everyone seems to have forgotten it exists.
Incentivized onion routing networks like the Oxen network or Nym offer the potential for fast, anonymous filesharing, while decentralized storage networks like Sia or Filecoin could act as censorship resistant repositories.
There are some projects that try to automate that, but so far all I have used needed some manual intervention.
Of course, the persons who make a clone will have to be brave, because they will face the same problems that Alexandra Elbakyan has faced.