[HN Gopher] Sci-Hub: Elsevier and Springer Nature Obtain UK ISP ...
___________________________________________________________________
Sci-Hub: Elsevier and Springer Nature Obtain UK ISP Blocking Order
Author : parsecs
Score : 169 points
Date : 2021-02-18 16:24 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| Frost1x wrote:
| I'd love to see a pre-print database shared between all the major
| federal funding agencies which required any publications that go
| behind pay walls to share a corresponding pre-print that's
| publicly accessible for any paywalled publications. Let state and
| other private entities opt into joining the share repository.
|
| I get it. Editing and reviewing costs money for journals. That's
| fine, let them monetize their improved versions but let the tax
| payers decide if they care to pay for those services or not as
| opposed to digging around for a researchers public preprint if
| they maintain one or being forced to dig through Sci-Hub and the
| like.
|
| arXiv sort of fills this role and is growing in popularity but
| it's not mandated, centralized for all domains,, or promoted by
| the federal government which would push such an effort to the
| critical mass needed for larger adoption.
| Someone wrote:
| I don't think legislation is needed for that. Many publishers
| already allow you to publish your pre-print. Examples (leaving
| out some restrictions, but I think these are the gist of the
| policies)
|
| https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing#preprint:
|
| _"Preprint
|
| Authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time.
|
| If accepted for publication, we encourage authors to link from
| the preprint to their formal publication via its Digital Object
| Identifier (DOI). Millions of researchers have access to the
| formal publications on ScienceDirect, and so links will help
| your users to find, access, cite, and use the best available
| version.
|
| Authors can update their preprints on arXiv or RePEc with their
| accepted manuscript."_
|
| https://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/preprint-sharing/167...
|
| _"Springer journals encourage posting of preprints of primary
| research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors' or
| institutional websites, and open communications between
| researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint
| commenting platforms.
|
| [...]
|
| Authors may choose any license of their choice for the preprint
| including Creative Commons licenses."_
|
| So, if you know the title of a paper, you often can find a
| preprint, if the authors are willing to make the effort to put
| them on a site.
| wooger wrote:
| > I get it. Editing and reviewing costs money for journals.
|
| Are you sure? I'm sure previous posts on here made it very
| clear that they're peer reviewed for free.
| TheGallopedHigh wrote:
| Peer-review is free. Editing and Lay-out etc is done with the
| journal (not much though as they supply latex templates for
| your work). So there is some cost associated with this.
| prepend wrote:
| I actually prefer the layout on arxiv over actual journals
| and recently was kind of surprised how the manuscript
| management system changed my layout more than just my
| preprint pdf.
|
| I think the layout costs could be reduced to near zero (ie,
| enough to be paid through the charity that funds preprint)
| with no negative impact.
|
| Editing is useful, I think. Although I don't anything about
| the current costs or necessary costs.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Elsevier's ScienceDirect platform publishes over 500,000
| articles a year, across 4,300 journals, providing over 18
| million documents and 42,000 e-books, and serving over 18
| million unique monthly page views
| (https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-
| Group/documents/re...). Everything published goes through a
| process of peer review, editing, layout, final review, etc,
| and then access to the publication is maintained in
| perpetuity for thousands of institutions around in about a
| hundred countries.
|
| Here are their pricing policies:
| https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing and their
| other policies, which gives you an idea what else is involved
| with managing journals:
| https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies
|
| So, yeah, journals do have costs. I am not defending those
| costs. But it is worth pointing out that there's more to
| publishing than a free peer review and uploading it to
| GitHub.
| nafizh wrote:
| Reviewing doesn't cost money for journals. Scientists do it for
| free. As for editing, don't know how much papers improve by
| that beyond a very few select journals.
| breck wrote:
| Anyone who was waiting for the revolution, now is the time.
|
| No more bullsh*t. No more compromise. The sun does not revolve
| around the earth, and the overwhelming evidence shows the ideal
| duration for patents and copyright is zero.
|
| #EndImaginaryProperty #LiberateIdeas #AbolishCopyrights
| #AbolishPatents #BringBackNapster
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| GPL license doesn't function without copyright law. Do you want
| to throw that out too?
| kuroguro wrote:
| WTFPL is the only license we need! :)
| breck wrote:
| Yup. Licenses are for losers.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Stallman himself has repeatedly said he only devised the GPL
| because it's the best option in a world where copyright
| exists.
| mepian wrote:
| HN doesn't implement hashtags.
| breck wrote:
| Well then I guess people should post these hashtags to other
| places.
| xibalba wrote:
| So should you be able to take a free copy of a movie that
| people spent years and millions of dollars making?
|
| I think a little more nuance is warranted here.
| breck wrote:
| Well I see you've thought deeply about this.
|
| https://giphy.com/gifs/tipsyelves-math-26gR0YFZxWbnUPtMA
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yes!! Artificial monopolies make no sense in the 21st century.
| Data is infinite and the only way to lock it down is to prevent
| computers from copying it. That will necessarily destroy free
| computing as we know it.
|
| We must let go of these archaic ideas in order to safeguard the
| future of computing.
| varshithr wrote:
| So VPN?
| dbetteridge wrote:
| I think just changing your DNS resolver to google/cloudflare
| still works?
| feu wrote:
| It doesn't currently work when accessing The Pirate Bay (at
| least using Virgin Media). I have my DNS resolver set to
| Cloudflare and I get sent to
| https://assets.virginmedia.com/site-blocked.html. Manually
| setting the records in my home DNS server does not work
| either.
| dastx wrote:
| Double check that your DNS settings is correct. I'm on BT
| and it's working fine for me. I've previously used it on VM
| fine too.
| dbetteridge wrote:
| Ah, talktalk may just be being lazy (or the sci-hub change
| hasn't hit me yet)
| akadruid1 wrote:
| I found that Vodafone broadband was intercepting my DNS
| requests to Cloudflare. Using cloudflared[0] to enable DoH
| on my pi-hole resolved this.
|
| [0] https://docs.pi-hole.net/guides/dns/cloudflared/
| mhh__ wrote:
| Even more insidious sometimes is that Virgin Media seem to
| silently block some VPN websites.
|
| They may have given up by now but think of those children
| they saved!
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| Actually that Virgin is keeping on with this unethical
| practices. There are posts popping up almost weekly in
| various VPNs' forum and it always about their speed are
| so low (dial up/DSL speed) or they reached the timeout.
| And Virgin don't support IPv6 (it look like they are
| starting to support IPv6 but they plan to impose 20Mbps
| cap on IPv6 connection) and IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel will 99%
| to fail to connect or stuck in the loop until timeout.
| otsukare wrote:
| DNS-over-HTTPS generally works
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Also, tor does a good job too.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| To avoid congestion on the Tor network, you'd likely want to
| use Tor for the DNS resolution, but fallback to IPFS and
| HTTPS directly to IP addresses when fetching the content.
| generationP wrote:
| Is sci-hub actually on IPFS now or is it still an idea
| floating in some heads?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Sci-hub is not yet on IPFS, libgen content already is.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Delivery_to_users
| zaik wrote:
| Btw if you want to help mirror some of libgen's files
| here is how you can do it: https://freeread.org/ipfs/
| the8472 wrote:
| Are they only blocking it at the DNS level? If so running
| your own resolver should do the job too.
| teekert wrote:
| Yeah, just tap "DNS over HTTPS" Firefox and watch the
| world open up.
| worldofmatthew wrote:
| There is no congestion on the Tor network, Capacity is 2x
| demand.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| or dnscrypt-proxy https://github.com/DNSCrypt/dnscrypt-
| proxy
| giomasce wrote:
| To me the best access way is the Telegram bot. Fast, keeps your
| files easily accessible and is shared with other devices.
| [deleted]
| uncledave wrote:
| Zen and AA have no blocking in place for any sites.
|
| Don't go with major ISPs in the UK. They are a shit show.
| benlumen wrote:
| Shhh.
| burundi_coffee wrote:
| In TalkTalk the domain of the website is explicitly stated. Would
| it be enough to change the domain name to get around this?
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I have great access through my university library system.
|
| But Sci-Hub and LibGen have radically accelerated my ability to
| do research.
|
| It can be infuriating when I can't find a book or article that I
| need. But 9/10 that happens within the digital library system not
| scihub/LibGen.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > At the time of writing, TalkTalk's rival ISPs including Virgin
| Media, BT, Sky, EE and O2 are not reporting the existence of a
| blocking order but it seems extremely unlikely that they won't be
| required to act against Sci-Hub under the same order.
|
| sci-hub.se is still accessible to me on EE and Virgin Media.
|
| Edit: s/scihub/sci-hub/
| dash2 wrote:
| Actually it's sci-hub.se.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| Thanks. sci-hub.se was the domain that I tried.
| calvano915 wrote:
| Zlibrary is a mirror and they have a Tor address
| amelius wrote:
| Experience taught me you can always find a good link in the
| right side-box at:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
| m-p-3 wrote:
| Looks like it would benefit them from having a .onion
| domain as well.
| riedel wrote:
| https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/ exists for some while now
| but it times out for me
| LockAndLol wrote:
| And .i2p domain too.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Or a handshake domain :(
| Terretta wrote:
| _# Sci-Hub Leaves Handshake Blockchain After 2 Days,
| Citing Centralization Concerns_
|
| _Sci-Hub, a pirate library of academic papers censored
| by Twitter, PayPal and domain systems, left the
| distributed domain platform Handshake after two days,
| unsatisfied by the level of decentralization. ..._
|
| _"I first just thought that another domain for Sci-Hub
| won't hurt. But later I realized it's them who really
| controls the domain, not me," Elbakyan told CoinDesk via
| Telegram._
|
| _The Namebase team reached out to Elbakyan after Sci-Hub
| was banned by Twitter, reportedly due to a new copyright
| infringement case in India, she said._
|
| _"They wrote to me when I was having that stressful
| situation with Twitter," Elbakyan said. "I just gave them
| an IP address and they connected it to the domain. That's
| all I did. Now, where is the decentralization?" ..._
|
| _"In fact, I'm not in control and they can throw me out
| at any moment, just like Twitter did. And yes, all domain
| services are like that, including .se and .do, but they
| aren't promoting themselves as decentralized. Plus, those
| are reputable ones, and this is God knows who. They are
| just using Sci-Hub to promote this weird project,"
| Elbakyan said. ..._
|
| https://www.coindesk.com/sci-hub-leaves-handshake-
| blockchain
| StavrosK wrote:
| I know, but this sounds like a misunderstanding. The
| Handshake equivalent of domains in the traditional DNS is
| TLDs, and that's what you can own and control (for
| example, I have several TLDs like .stavros). I own the
| keys for those and they're in my own wallet, and Elbakyan
| can own them too.
|
| She thought that having her own TLD was a hassle, so they
| gave her a second-level domain the TLD of which they
| managed themselves, but she didn't like that because they
| managed it.
|
| This could have been very easily solved if she was fine
| with them giving her www.sci-hub, but it sounds like she
| thought that owning a TLD would somehow be more hassle
| than owning a second-level domain. It doesn't sound very
| reasonable to me, sounds like a misunderstanding.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Somebody created dns-over-wikipeda for this:
|
| https://github.com/aaronjanse/dns-over-wikipedia
| HotHotLava wrote:
| I wish scientists would start growing a spine and _stop citing_
| Elsevier journals. That 's the only thing that will break the
| vicious cycle of everybody publishing there because it gets a lot
| of citations, despite nobody actually _reading_ in the journal.
| Put up a link to the pdf on the authors home page as reference,
| if it is essential to the paper, or leave it out completely if it
| isn 't.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The only thing these journals are good for is peer review. It
| seems reviewers don't even get paid for that valuable work.
| They should just start reviewing independently of the journal.
| gautamdivgi wrote:
| I don't agree with what Elsevier and Springer are doing but
| asking scientists to rectify the problem is the wrong thing.
| The decision needs to be legislated. No scientist or grad
| student is going to put their careers or PhD at risk for this.
| I wouldn't. fwiw - when I was a grad student I had access to
| these journals through my university library.
| breck wrote:
| > No scientist or grad student is going to put their careers
| or PhD at risk for this.
|
| I would and I urge everyone to do so too.
|
| History will look back on this period and see which side of
| the line people stood on.
|
| #LiberateIdeas
| nullspace wrote:
| > I would
|
| From your comment, it looks like you have zero skin in the
| game here. Given that your comment is unproductive.
| breck wrote:
| https://giphy.com/gifs/itt-13f5iwTRuiEjjW
| Someone wrote:
| Things are changing (slowly). See
| https://www.coalition-s.org/. That has decent support from
| Europe, but not from the large US funders
| (https://www.coalition-s.org/organisations/)
| breck wrote:
| Agreed. First time I published a paper as first author my first
| reference I put the SciHub url and got flak for that.
|
| My only regret is going soft after that. I should have made
| 100% of my citations include the SciHub url.
| bocklund wrote:
| Think of it from the scientist's perspective. You can't ignore
| the work in journals who have business models and policies you
| do not agree with.
|
| Pretending research doesn't exist slows progress and it is
| anti-science to put your head in the sand because you don't
| agree with the location that knowledge was published in.
|
| If you did read the papers in journals you don't agree with,
| built on their ideas and didn't cite them, then you just
| committed plagiarism and obscured the scientific record.
|
| The "link to the PDF of the author's homepage" trick doesn't
| work because eventually that page will go away, as we have seen
| over and over in the age of the web. Part of the value journals
| add is promising to archive the work _forever_. They don't
| promise it will be free forever (or at all) - which is what
| needs to change.
|
| The answer isn't to "not cite", but to not publish there in the
| first place. That takes systemic change. Change of both the
| incentives: "how do I get promomoted?" or, fundamentally: "how
| do I make an impact and measure it?". Citations are the de
| facto standard right now. It will change when we can measure
| impact (and get more promotions, grants, etc.) in a way that
| doesn't favor the richest journals getting richer.
| jsilence wrote:
| Fortunately a lot of EU funded research projects require that
| any paper stemming from a project has to be published under
| Open Access.
| gautamdivgi wrote:
| Yes, but Elsevier and Springer open access publishing is
| prohibitively expensive. That's what needs to change via
| legislation.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > Yes, but Elsevier and Springer open access publishing is
| prohibitively expensive.
|
| Pretty much everything is prohibitively expensive when it
| comes to Elzevier and Springer, or so it seems. But that's
| enough reason to avoid them altogether as publishers, open
| access or not.
| gautamdivgi wrote:
| That's the point, you cannot. Most high impact journals
| are with Elsevier or Springer. As a researcher you need
| papers in high impact factor journals. As a researcher
| you also don't want to spend precious grant money on open
| access. As a researcher you also want to be on review
| committee of said journals because it enhances your
| resume. What a lot of folks saying let's not use these
| journals don't understand is its not easy to get away
| from them. There's too much invested in a feedback loop
| that you will have very limited success with just
| individual researchers. You need to advocate for
| legislation.
|
| fwiw - I'm also not sure why IEEE and ACM get a free pass
| either.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I don't know why people are so surprised that scientific
| publishing costs money -- good journals and conferences
| are more than a webpage to post content.
| dartharva wrote:
| When will they ever learn? Forcing ISPs to block websites will
| only antagonize the scholars more, who can anyway access the
| website with or without a ban. They'll do nothing to harm Sci-
| hub, in fact it'll make it even more popular.
|
| Elsevier also did this in India - it pissed me off so much I
| shifted towards downloading papers from Sci-Hub even when I have
| a university subscription.
| cybert00th wrote:
| It's whack-a-mole time again children!
|
| Lots of money and time spent on what will, in the end, amount to
| a whole lot of nothing as, those who REALLY do want to access
| Sci-hub, will find a way round this.
| vixen99 wrote:
| And isolated people without university connections who can't
| find a way will just have to abandon trying to access research
| papers relevant to their work unless able to shell out tens of
| Euros/dollars for one-off viewing. This is not an argument for
| or against, merely a statement of how things are for some. I
| wonder how many fall into this category.
| toxik wrote:
| Even people with access use scihub. It's just easier than
| whatever institutional login crap they throw at you.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Yup. We used to have to use some kind of obnoxious VPN to
| get access; Sci-Hub is just easier. My University's library
| has gradually been making this easier -- I suspect
| partially due to COVID and partially due to the fact that
| people weren't using it as much because Sci-Hub is actually
| user-friendly.
| KingFelix wrote:
| Very true
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-18 23:01 UTC)