Hacker News Reader

Comment by PenguinCoder | Hacker News Reader

This is the key takeaway from the article. As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work; I also believe gate-keeping academic knowledge is also wrong. It's not surprising that the US legal system found against Sci-hub. Issuing the legally binding statement, that blocking a site by ISP and search engine level, is the real problem. It sets a very tenuous precedent.

View on HN

> As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work

Researchers don't get paid by journals for their submissions. In fact, it's usually exactly the opposite: most of the big ones have submission fees.

This is why I don't really have any sympathy for the publishers affected by Sci-Hub, when at the same I strenuously oppose software/game piracy. I just don't see what service they provide: they don't pay the researchers, they don't pay the peer reviewers, and they don't validate the papers beyond basic copy-editing and typesetting. They're just useless middlemen who provide no utility. I'll be spitting on their grave when we finally get rid of them.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with what you're saying; paywalls need to go away especially for valuable scientific research/findings.

Why they don't start publishing in Sci-Hub directly instead?

Right now the main barrier is the prestige that comes with some of the bigger journals, but that's a shallow moat. Honestly, it could happen soon. There have been stories recently about people presenting at scientific conferences, asking the room "raise your hand if you think Sci-Hub is doing something wrong", and getting no response. Everyone knows that the current model is indefensible.

How do researchers get paid under the current system? My understanding is that the journals do not pay the scientists that produce the articles. Am I mistaken in this?

You're not mistaken - journals don't pay researchers or reviewers. If they did, I'd be significantly less upset by their practices. As is, they get their product (papers) and their skilled labor (reviews) for free.

Elsevier had a 36% profit margin last year, which is a pretty clear signal that they don't face sincere costs or competition.

They are paid ether by their respective universities/institutions/companies and/or they pay themselves from the grant money they were awarded for a specific project.

But the key point is that they're not paid by the publisher for the publication, they're paid to produce the publication by others. The publisher is just gets it for (basically) free and then profits off the fees.

In fact, you may very well also be paying to get your research published. They get you coming and going.

Are we counting only monetary payments? I'm assuming there is some benefit that is given to the scientist for publishing, especially in cases where the scientist pay to publish. It isn't likely at all a simple relationship between two parties, but I doubt that the scientists are being irrational by using a publisher.

Sure, but how does paying the publisher enter into this? The scientist may well be happy to have their paper shared freely after publication, since they receive no reward from the publisher. Scientists are only being irrational if they have choice in the matter. If they are forced to publish by the community / university, they may well resent being forced to use such publishers.

Researchers don't receive a cut of the journal access fees. They generally have to pay thousands of dollars to publish in a journal in the first place.

Their library also has to pay thousands to subscribe to this journal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com