News Peer review

Pirated research papers: Third world access vs copyright

Spread the love
File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

From Nature News:

Operators of Internet repositories that provide illicit free access to millions of research papers seem determined to keep up their services, despite being barred by an injunction.

A New York district court ruled on 28 October that online services such as Sci-Hub and the Library Genesis Project (Libgen) violate US copyright law. The court ruled in favour of academic publisher Elsevier, which in June filed a complaint against the main operators of the sites for unlawfully accessing and distributing its copyrighted papers.

Sci-Hub downloads articles by aping university IP addresses and stores them in a repository that now contains more than 46 million papers. More.

One possible solution would be to make all serious public science research free online.

Proprietary right are fine for Mickey MouseTM, but the current arrangements create a class system that disproportionately benefits colleagues who can access papers free through research libraries — maybe contributing to issues around peer review. Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Pirated research papers: Third world access vs copyright

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    One possible solution would be to make all serious public science research free online.

    I agree, but how would this be paid for? Even after we’ve removed the profits that publishers take, it still takes money to publish so many papers, and that has to be found from somewhere.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Bob O’H at 1: One suspects that most of the research itself in many cases was publicly funded. The internet makes public access practical. More here:

    Venerated medical journal under attack

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....er-attack/

    New England Journal of Medicine accused of thwarting greater openness about research failings

    The question with science publishing is how to subvert clique control without inviting public pressure group control, which would probably be worse for quality.

Leave a Reply