Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge

[sdsnl]

http://www.sciencealert.com/this-woman-has-illegally-uploaded-millions-of-journal-articles-in-an-attempt-to-open-up-science

[Fossildude19]

I wouldn't mind paying a few dollars for a paper, but some of the prices for one day access even are prohibitive.

Not saying this is the right way to handle things, but it does bring light to a subject that does have ramifications for all of us.

What does it say about the expense of these papers, when long standing institutions (Harvard, Cornell, etc.) cannot afford to get access to the scientific papers?

Thanks for posting the link.

Regards,

[squali]

Hmm that's a tough one. I know jstor allows individuals free access to 1000's

Of papers on a loan basis. Trying to locate the papers in a single bibliography can be

Very cost prohibitive when companies buy and sell rights to a paper.

I think I believe the dissemination of information is more important

Than protecting a corporations business plan.

Stealing the information doesn't sit well with me though.

why don't the institutions that publish the papers make them available?

I can't see economics as a factor in the digital age.

[sseth]

In my opinion, all of this research should be available to everyone at no cost, especially since much of it is paid for using public funds. Not saying that doing it illegally is correct, just saying that this vast body of knowledge should be made available to everyone, especially if it was funded by public institutions or public money.

[PFOOLEY]

Selfish me thinks this is fantastic. Thank you Alexandra...and thank you sdsnl for posting.

...all of this research should be available to everyone at no cost...

Word.

[Mike Pocock]

Good site to know about, people will always debate the moral standing of releasing such data without the correct permissions, however I tend to think that if public money was used for the research all findings should be in the public domain.

I wonder what embassy will the publisher seek shelter in?

Regards

Mike

[Raggedy Man]

Ha! This has been quite the topic at work and many feel the costs of obtaining these articles is just another step in privatization of science. I myself see this within pharmaceutical companies and advanced disease treatment. They can locate a gene and patent the technique used even though the technique is owned by no one. This is so others cannot develop similar drugs or research using the same method.

What all this comes down to is money money money. What does this say about the society we live in today? Until the acquisition of wealth and materialistic possessions are no longer the driving force behind society, humanity cannot move forward.

Thanks for sharing this!

Best regards,

Paul

Edited February 12, 2016 by Raggedy Man

[Pilobolus]

Another article on the site and the suit...

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science

[Pilobolus]

...and my response to a colleague who sent me the link:

I am seriously considering asking #%$^ to ask Legal about its use. I never have used this resource, and I can almost predict a negative answer from Legal given what I’ve read from this article, but it is more than a little bit annoying that we are forced to rely on the paucity of freely available content from the publishers, or the whims of authors using Researchgate and Academia.edu on-line, or tracking down and emailing the authors (retired, expired, or moved institutions!).

It is also unfortunate that here we are, a state entity, that can’t get the access another state entity’s employees (The University of New Mexico System) take for granted. While they are likely protective because they are paying exorbitant fees for these bundles of publications, their roadmap for getting a non-university employee access is prohibitive. Believe me, I’ve tried it, and while it would really only take me asking a UNM researcher to list me as a Co-investigator on some project, that is currently not a truth claim and I wouldn’t ask someone else to do it. If I did, say, sit on a committee of a graduate student, which almost happened last year, what would be the extent of that access….two years for a Masters program?

Regarding Researchgate et al., I am glad I have it, but I have found that receiving papers I have requested is hit and miss….and this is the best resource I have! Ignoring for the moment the timeliness of the reply, I have received 128 of 198 papers requested for a 65% compliance rate. I don’t have a statistic for this, but the timeliness of the reply hasn’t always been great, which means the utility of received papers is sometimes nil. Like research professors, being able to nimbly and quickly assess the current knowledge on a topic is paramount to doing our jobs well, but unlike research professors, it is not assumed or maybe not even considered that we need this access.

</end rant>

Edited February 12, 2016 by Pilobolus

[Ludwigia]

Being a layman on this subject, what I don't quite understand is why so many of the prices are so prohibitive when the researchers don't even get paid for their work? At least the woman claims that this is the case. Is that true with most research articles?

[sdsnl]

why don't the institutions that publish the papers make them available?

Who owns the copyright, the researchers, their institutions, or the journals? I would assume that the copyright is transferred to the journal once the researchers agree to publish it there, since the journal gets to take commercial gain from it, and they can argue that they did the final editing on it? You don't ever see researchers or universities selling the papers. Wouldn't they want to do it if they were legally allowed to?

[Auspex]

Against the backdrop of The Fossil Forum, where all knowledge is readily (eagerly!) shared, the practice of monetizing 'intellectual property' seems like a crime against science. It is a system that obstructs the spread of ideas. A hoarded thought is of no use.

[JohnJ]

Personally, I strongly support the right of intellectual property in research or science. However, publicly funded research has been 'paid' for and falls into a category that should be available to the public footing the bill.

[Ridgehiker]

Why would any publisher incur tens of thousands in expenses if they do not control the copyright of a journal?

And there is not 'a public' who paid for research. Research is done from multiple sources in multiple jurisdictions. Americans did not pay for research funded by the Alberta Energy Association or Geologic Survey of Canada or the Calgary Zoological Society. Even many universities are private institutions.

Most recognized journals have high standards of what is accepted and the method in which it is published. This includes things we rarely think of such as the quality of paper, catalogue registration, notice distribution, etc.

Any open source material is great but it is the prerogative of the publisher to make it such.

Published research is at the core of science. Academic institutions allocating budgets may cancel subscriptions. This is their choice. They have decided to restrict their own access to some material ...it is not the decision of those who produced the research. If a student has to pay on line for a paper that was a choice of that institution. No one expects lab equipment or desks or buildings or computers to be provided at no cost.

[JohnJ]

....

Research is done from multiple sources in multiple jurisdictions. Americans did not pay for research funded by the Alberta Energy Association or Geologic Survey of Canada or the Calgary Zoological Society.

....

I'm not suggesting such. Private institutions have every right to offer their property for a price.

[Raptor Lover]

Against the backdrop of The Fossil Forum, where all knowledge is readily (eagerly!) shared, the practice of monetizing 'intellectual property' seems like a crime against science. It is a system that obstructs the spread of ideas. A hoarded thought is of no use.

Amen to that!

[Ridgehiker]

I wouldn't mind paying a few dollars for a paper, but some of the prices for one day access even are prohibitive.

Not saying this is the right way to handle things, but it does bring light to a subject that does have ramifications for all of us.

What does it say about the expense of these papers, when long standing institutions (Harvard, Cornell, etc.) cannot afford to get access to the scientific papers?

Thanks for posting the link.

Regards,

Harvard can afford it. They have an annual surplus and about 1.5 billion in assets. They choose not to. It spends more on landscape care and cosmetic prettying up of buildings than it does on journals. I'd guess there are colleges in the USA that spend more on a new football stadium than the library does on publications.

Universities used to be about learning and research. Not football, festivals and pruned trees.

Journals are expensive. Very expensive to produce per unit and very expensive to buy. However, in the scheme of what it costs to run a university like Harvard they are almost insignificant.

[jpc]

Very interesting. I was just looking up a bunch of Green River fish pub's yesterday and ran into the paywall many times. I ordered a few through ILL, which I can do as a college employee, and I can probably get them all that way. BUT this is a game changer in my book. Not everyone has access to Inter Library Loans. And I get mighty upset when I see that I can buy a paper from such and such academic press for a mere 134.00 dollars (no exaggeration). So, yes, I will be using this resource. The academic publishers have their audience by the &*%$&^#&(* as far as I am concerned. And it is true that the authors of the papers get nothing in return, and usually have to pay to get published. I am no accountant, but i would love to see Elsevier's bookkeeping records. And nowadays, there is huge room for savings by using printing on demand, and plain ole simple electronic printing.

Oh, I just printed up a paper from this Russian site.... : )

[Ludwigia]

And it is true that the authors of the papers get nothing in return, and usually have to pay to get published.

Maybe I'm too naive, but I find that's a pretty wierd system. Who dictates this? Without the researchers work, there would be no papers, so where do they find the reward for their efforts? A guy like Carlton Brett pumps out dozens of works a year.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Ludwigia

[Ridgehiker]

Maybe I'm too naive, but I find that's a pretty wierd system. Who dictates this? Without the researchers work, there would be no papers, so where do they find the reward for their efforts? A guy like Carlton Brett pumps out dozens of works a year.

A cost for publishing depends on the journal. This cost is in the grant proposal for most research projects.

The reward? A professor isn't paid 150 thousand a year, benefits, sabbaticals etc to teach 5 hours of classroom time and two hours of open office. He is expected to produce original material on behalf of the institution. He also is invited to conferences, receives honorariums, etc. This is largely based on his reputation ( through publication). As for assistant profs, those without tenure, etc. They 'want' to be published. It isn't a chore but a key to career opportunities.

Non academia such as paleontologists at the Geological Survey of Canada, USGS, some museums are also hired to do original research. They do not publish 'in addition' to other work. Research is their purpose. They either have their own in house publication or publish in outside sources such as the GSA or JVP.

[Boesse]

This is a fascinating subject. Most researchers, especially young ones in paleontology such as myself - are dirt poor, and most abide by the philosophy that we do not owe anyone a nickel for journal access. Academics get around paywalls and we're just as frustrated.

Open access is great, but paid open access has an additional problem: only well-funded researchers can afford open access charges. The journal PLOS One, where I have been published twice, charges 1300$ to the authors to publish; both times I was a poor grad student who could barely keep paying rent, so I got a fee waiver. Most researchers can't afford these charges, so we submit our papers to for-profit journals, who charge at the other end. I had an awful time with my last submission to PLOS and I do not plan on returning any time soon.

I've not met a single academic who cares whether or not somebody paid the publisher to read their work, and most will send their papers to whoever requests to read them. Sometimes we forget, sometimes we're busy, traveling, or sick.

I personally haven't used SciHub yet but I'm looking forward to trying to find some obscure papers from the AAPG bulletin soon!

[Welsh Wizard]

I agree that all academic information that's been ultimately funded by the "taxpayer" should be free for all to access.

It was one of the reasons I insisted that our dinosaur paper was published in PLOS and not in a pay to view journal.

Another thing that I think is good by publishing in open access is that it allows on-line commentators and bloggers to do a secondary peer review of the paper, which in turn may get the authors or other scientists thinking along different lines. The more opinions and theories the better. That to me is how science gets pushed forward.

Nick

Edited February 13, 2016 by Welsh Wizard

[Ludwigia]

A cost for publishing depends on the journal. This cost is in the grant proposal for most research projects.

The reward? A professor isn't paid 150 thousand a year, benefits, sabbaticals etc to teach 5 hours of classroom time and two hours of open office. He is expected to produce original material on behalf of the institution. He also is invited to conferences, receives honorariums, etc. This is largely based on his reputation ( through publication). As for assistant profs, those without tenure, etc. They 'want' to be published. It isn't a chore but a key to career opportunities.

Non academia such as paleontologists at the Geological Survey of Canada, USGS, some museums are also hired to do original research. They do not publish 'in addition' to other work. Research is their purpose. They either have their own in house publication or publish in outside sources such as the GSA or JVP.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was thinking along the lines that you describe, but didn't really know for sure.