Submitted 1 day ago by Maroon@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/34f949a8-d8ea-4d28-9f24-6845bc80d920.jpeg
The fact that public funds go to research only for everything that those funds becoming privatized is a fucking crime.
No grant should be given to any research if the results aren’t published on an open journal.
No grant should be given if any marketable discovery becomes privatized
I am still fucking pissed that most countries used public funds to develop a covid vaccine then gifted them to private for profit corporation. Same for basically every medical development.
Many countries’ funding agencies require open access publications for work based on their funding. However, open access fees are insanely high in some journals (e.g. around $12k for the higher impact factor Nature journals)…
that’s also bullshit, I reviewed papers for publication. it’s free labour, hosting a pdf is nearly free.
there’s no justification.
We need national journals that are free for all people to read and mandate publication through them.
I avoided commenting on this because this makes me very angry. What they did to that boy was fucking disgusting.
Urgh…. My fucking god, that made me so angry.
I still can’t read it without tearing up
I see capitalism is going as well for the scientific community as it is for the rest of us.
I’ve heard of a lot of scientists using the dark web just to access research articles “illegally” lol
If you mean Sci-hub, then yeah that’s completely normal. I’ve used Sci-hub to access my own article once when I had lost access to the published version.
I’d rather use sci-hub than institutional access when the article is available. Fuck publishers.
Really hope someone comes up, recognizes how much public research money is wasted on this bullshit and sets up a public publisher directly funded by research funds which allows people to publish and read freely.
“the dark web” is police fascist fearmongering for tech that lets people access the internet from censored countries
Counterpoint: it sounds super cool
The dark web is a specific section of the *deep web that can be accessed only using specific software configurations or authorizations
The name make sense because it’s in fact hidden, dark and makes quite a bit of sense, the problem is that dark things do make people quite a bit scared and that was then weaponized
And i say that because i don’t want to go against whatever you said but to expand on the (in my opinion, too) simplistic view you shared
*the deep web is that huge chunk of the internet that is not indexed by any search engine
I mean, it is definitely not just that
Then upload paper to SciHub and the Internet Archive
This is why i always place all important info in Supplementary Information which is almost always free of charge. except on sciencedirect. fuck them
Science not so direct
Directly into their vault
Fuck elsevier.
Founded by Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, yes, that Ghislaine Maxwell.
Do your part and publish only on journals listed on doaj
Going open access is great, and that’s what I do, but it has to be said a lot of grants do NOT pay for open access publications, and diamond open access (free for authors and readers) is quite rare and you can wait eternity to get published.
So, it has to be paid straight out of personal finances.
There are many journals without any cost for publication. Doaj lists them as diamond-tier open access
I know people who get 12,000€ for a year long research project which includes employing other part time people. I doubt they can pay for open access.
However, the submitted version is yours to do whatever you want; please host it on your website or wherever it may be simple for you.
There are many journals without any cost for publication. Doaj lists them as diamond-tier open access
Bro but a lot of the big name guys made up a little citation here and a little citation there. Just publish on the lancet or nature. They won’t know any better for decades. Maybe by the time people find out you’ve already pined for the fjords.
Best case scenario, in 1.5 billion years it won’t matter anyway. Use AI and clone some images, bro. It’s all just vibes.
ublock origin dropper click anything that bothers you
That doesn’t just give you access to stuff
Use reader mode if your browser or app has that. It works in Voyager on iOS.
Reader mode strips JavaScript out so it works for most articles.
This is talking about scientific papers. Stripping JavaScript does not work, you need authenticated and paid access to read those.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted but I left it up in case it helped someone read other paywalls articles.
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 1 day ago
My mate Anna has a great archive of papers. Look her up some time!
morto@piefed.social 23 hours ago
are the papers from annas archive redundant with scihub, or are they from a different source?
pmk@piefed.ca 21 hours ago
Scihub is one of Annas sources iirc.
ranzispa@mander.xyz 16 hours ago
Papers in Anna’s archive are mostly from sci-hub. There’s something not available on sci-hub, but not much.
Real problem is that sci-hub was the organization doing the archival on large scale and it is now dead.
BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca 1 day ago
I’m no scientist but I imagine if you want to cite someone, you need to access their research legally
Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I’m so glad we have the ability to hold back science through bureaucracy.
morto@piefed.social 23 hours ago
No one checks for that, and if they did, they’re the ones with the burden of proof
Zorcron@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I’m not sure how anyone would ever know
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Ooh, this is actually a more controversial take among academics than you can imagine!
Around week 3 of my course I ask the question “what percentage cut do academics get for published articles”. They are always appalled to learn it is 0% (we get nothing, we are literally paid in exposure).
Below are some other issues with the journal industry as a whole:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serials_crisis?wprov=sfla1
en.wikipedia.org/…/Academic_journal_publishing_re…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_cont…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge?wprov…
testaccount372920@piefed.zip 19 hours ago
Not really, you need to know (enough of) the content of what you’re citing to make sure that the citation makes sense. The actual info you need to write down for the citation is easily available. How you accessed it is irrelevant.
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
> says something really dumb and bad
> angry edit that people call out their smelly mouth filled with corn
It’s everyone’s fault but your own.
fatcat@discuss.tchncs.de 8 hours ago
Have another one! Knowledge (and doing research) should be free and not only for people who can pay for it. Look up how ridiculously expensive and complicated it is to access those publications.
Rugnjr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 hours ago
For those who aren’t scientists, no. You don’t need legal access. You don’t necessarily need access at all (though imo it’s negligent to cite without having read the paper)
ranzispa@mander.xyz 16 hours ago
Happens often to me. I know nobody in research who would care about it. Most people will likely congratulate you for not paying for access. Nobody likes the way journals do business.
Fuck you Elsevier.
taiyang@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
I’ve cited enough off just expanded abstracts to say, how would they even know? It’s probably better than what I did, lol.
MrShankles@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
I read the source of my citations, but nowhere am I required to cite the citations of my source. If you don’t wanna “try” to access my resources… well, that sounds like a “you thing”. Good luck, cause my paper remains
nlghtcrawIer@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
You clearly are not :)
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 day ago
well fuck. there go those whitepapers i wrote about, i really don’t remember, and cited articles i’d copied off the whatsit database years before before i’d lost access through the university