Curious: what are the best arguments supporting "Sci-Hub is bad; it is extremely important that IEEE, ACM, etc charge for publication access, and open access alternatives aren't suitable replacements"?
Conversation
Replying to
I suppose that some researchers may be proposing papers for funding for the sake of staying alive financially. Paid access to these hubs could incentivize to research less-attractive topics that they couldn’t do normally
1
Counter to that is the journal preference for novelty above rigour (-ve results)
Replying to
This isn't my argument, but it's: "Professional editing and graphics making is extremely valuable for creating impactful papers. This costs money." Note that this is what journals would do in the ideal world, not what they do now.
2
3
This. Editors and artists are incredibly impactful. Large commercial orgs employ them as part of PR/Outreach but not everyone has access to this rare bread. Frankly should open a marketplace for editors and artists.
2
4
Show replies
Replying to
Steelmanning the argument against sci-hub even though not mine.
Its not bad, its the least good but sufficient solution for a problem.
The second someone makes the netflix to scihub's utorrent, this will flip.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
Those are three distinct things that aren't directly related. The case against scihub is that they get, as part of how they get access to the papers, access credentials to the user accounts of thousands of researchers at national labs. The govt supporting them gets them too.
1
3
Show replies
Replying to
Not sure there's a good argument, but the best might have to do with budget: article sales make up about a third of an org's revenue, and these orgs still play an important role in facilitating research.
1
Can you elaborate on what that important role is?
1
Show replies