2. You submit novel research to the best journal you think will publish it.
3. The editor (the only person involved actually paid by the journal) invites other researchers to volunteer their time to peer review your research.
4. Assuming your research bears up under scrutiny and the peer reviewers are not actually competitors who decide to filibuster (this happens), your paper passes peer review.
5. Congratulations! The journal agrees to publish your novel research. For this, you must pay the journal. They do not pay you. You pay them. Color figures in the paper version nobody reads cost thousands extra.
6. Having been paid by you to publish your work, the journal sells your paper at exorbitant prices to university libraries (unless you paid them lots extra to just make it available for free).
Taxes pay researchers to pay journals and taxes pay for university libraries to pay journals. Why on Earth do intelligent researchers (or taxpayers) put up with this crap? Being published in a good journal bumps up your impact factor and helps you win more grant money. If high impact factor journals go out of business because of piracy, others will just take their place.
In short, pirates screwing over journals doesn't hurt researchers in the least. Shaking up the parasitic journal biz is actually long overdue. Journals put in only a tiny percentage of the labor involved in putting a paper through peer-review, but they soak everyone involved for massive amounts of time and money. It's time they died.
Not all fields suffer from this to the same degree. For example, I am a fledgling computing scientist. I mostly publish in ACM-related conferences and workshops, where ACM is an organisation run by and for academics and professionals in the computing field, not a for-profit publisher. My submission experience is:
1. You produce novel research.
2. You submit novel research to the best conference or workshop you think will publish it.
3. The editor (a volunteer) invites other researchers to volunteer their time to peer review your research.
4. Assuming your research bears up under scrutiny and the peer reviewers are not actually competitors who decide to reject (this supposedly happens, but is rare), your paper passes peer review.
5. Congratulations! The conference or workshop agrees to publish your novel research. For this, you generally must show up to the conference or workshop to present your work in person. This costs money (conference registration), and also travel cost and such. However, if you were going to the conference anyway, there is no added expenditure.
6. Having been paid by you to publish your work, ACM sells your paper at somewhat exorbitant prices to university libraries (unless you paid them lots extra to just make it available for free). However, at no cost to you, you are also explicitly allowed to post a "pre-print", identical to the published paper, on your personal/university website, where it will be promptly found by Google. However, the hosting is your own concern. (You can also upload the preprint to arXiv.)
It's a decent procedure. ACM also publishes journals, which do not require you to present anything in person. I do not know whether any author-borne costs are involved if you go that route.
To be clear to everyone else, the parent and the grandparent have just described respectively conference papers and journal papers. Journal papers are usually a bit longer and represent more work, conference papers are usually shorter and take a bit less time. This of course is a generalization.
For example, a PhD thesis might be the full written-up version of 3-4 conference papers you'd have published in the course of your PhD, and then you might condense the important part of your thesis into a single journal paper afterwards, but this is only a vague example and there are many ways of skinning this cat. There are many examples of extremely short conference papers that have had a major impact in their field, and there are _millions_ of completely forgettable journal papers.
The above broadly holds for any of the scientific research disciplines with which I'm familiar.
Yes! As an author of many CS conference papers, a few CS journal papers, and a few papers in other related fields, piracy affects me. It has been entirely beneficial, and I completely support sci-hub.
Collaborators, other authors, and other researchers have been able to read and find my work more cheaply and easily than they otherwise would have. Some would not have paid to buy my papers sight unseen. Some can't afford to buy them. A larger audience is always good for me.
I have also never directly earned even a single cent from any published work of mine. No royalties, no copyright payments, no publisher payments, etc. And I've paid thousands to publishers over the years to publish my own work.
I'm in a very similar position as the OP (Computer Science PhD student). Piracy doesn't affect me at all. I'm very happy if someone wants to read my papers, however, you don't have to use sci-hub etc to access them - I've published preprints of all of them on arxiv.org. Usually I do this right after I submit to a conference and update it later to reflect any changes made before publication.
This also allows me to timestamp my results - say my paper gets rejected because the reviewers think it's a bad fit for the conference, or they didn't understand my point because my writing was bad, etc. Now I have to improve it and submit it to another conference. If someone else publishes similar results in the meantime, then I can always point to the preprint and say that I did it first ;)
As a scientist, I am unambiguously in favor of Sci-Hub and similar sites.
We want and need to disseminate our results as much as possible and the paywalls are getting more and more in our way. You won't find many scientists who are against Sci-Hub - maybe a few at some unusually rich universities of some very rich countries that pay $500 for a color graphics and the $2500-$3000 fee per article for them that makes the publication "open access".
Poorer countries cannot afford the journal subscriptions either, because these can be exorbitantly high - so high, that even top universities have to limit access. I stumble almost daily over a journal to which my institute doesn't have access. Before the advent of Sci-Hub, we often had to ask colleagues abroad on mailing lists for (technically illegal!) copies of articles to be able to conduct our research.
I might add the actual legal way at our university in case anyone wonders. The official way to get paywalled papers we do not have bulk-orders for is this:
1. Go to the university library in person.
2. Submit a order-and-copy request for that paper.
3. Return 2 days later unless there is a weekend in-between.
4. Print a non-searchable, non-zoomable (extremely annoying in CG where I work) copy because getting the PDF is forbidden due to legal issues.
Now combine this with the usual way to do related work research for your own paper:
1. Search relevant papers for your topic.
2. Check who else cited these paper and read those papers.
3. Complete this breadth-first-search until time runs out or the papers become too off-topic.
This (in my field) yields a stack of around 120 papers I would have to order that 2-day-print-copy for of which in turn 100 are most probably irrelevant and hence will not be part of my papers related work section. Note also that I would have to order each "layer" of the breadth-first search separately - each time taking 2 days. Compare that to a day of related work research with sci-hub.
Quite obviously I have never met a researcher who took the legal/official road ;)
AAA (American Anthropological Association) sent out a reminder to its members recently. When someone publishes their own paper on ResearchGate or academia.edu, they are in violation of copyright (which they've signed over to the lovely scientific publisher). It's a mess.
You are incorrect, at least for my branch (biology), and the traditional publishers like Elsevier, and well-known journals like Science, Nature, or PNAS:
Publishing in such a journal does not cost money. It also doesn't pay the authors.
Only the readers pay for the journal subscription.
Then about 15 years ago, a movement started to invert this process. This is called Open Access. Under this model, the author pays to have their paper reviewed, and it is published with a copyleft license, free to access by the public.
In the last years, traditional journals have started similar offerings, sometimes graduated (i. e. you pay only a little, and the article is embargoed for a year).
Sci-Hub is attacking this problem with technology. That is the second-best solution only. It would be much better if the scientific community could throw their weight behind legal Open Access publishing.
That's because there simply are costs involved in the review process, even if the reviewers as well as the authors are not paid. Copyediting, infrastructure, coordination, public relations, data retention, and other work that goes into publishing is done by full-time employees. As one point of reference: PLOS One, the largest Open Access publisher, charges around $600 for a publishing a manuscript. That's a non-profit, and it represents the best current effort to manage this process.
> Under this model, the author pays to have their paper reviewed
Note: it's not necessarily the case that the author pays. For example, the Open Library of Humanities [1] is funded by contributions my academic libraries, and is thus both free to read and to publish in. Something that's also referred to as Open Access (the "green" variant - I wrote about the different flavours at [2]) is when authors post a version of their article elsewhere, e.g. at their institution or on ArXiV.
The confusion is common though: there are lot of terms, and publishers have been exacerbating it by co-opting the terms (which I wrote about at [3]).
Thanks, that makes it clearer for me (non-academic) to understand. It does astound me how much control the 'journals' have over the academic research world!
They basically work as a "neutral" refree and communication medium between competing groups and meta groups (universitys) and create a neutral evaluation of the goods these rivaling organisations produce.
The reason they are not replaced is for the same reason, stocktrading places can not simply be "replaced"- aka you cant open up a competing wall-street.
>The reason they are not replaced is for the same reason, stocktrading places can not simply be "replaced"- aka you cant open up a competing wall-street.
> create a neutral evaluation of the goods these rivaling organisations produce
Well... They mostly facilitate the evaluation of the goods. The evaluation itself is still done by scientists and scholars that are not employed by the publishers.
If those would routinely abuse the power bestowed upon them, they would threaten the magazines. Its in there own best interest to not abuse there review-powers, or there reputation could be ruined by the very same marketplace.
You cant just open another marketplace at the same location, because that has you at a automatic disadvantage. You could however ruin the marketplaces reputation, trying to shift customers to yours. You can also, wrap the market-place as in- provide a vital layer they need to function, and thus turn them into a organella of a bigger market-place.
If academics cannot get together to fix a model so absurdly broken their problem solving capabilities come into question.
They had access to the Internet before the general public, they would have realized the ridiculousness of the journal model decades ago. You can't always be a victim.
Even though I'm not a researcher (yet; still doing my undergrad), this infuriates me to no end. I'd be glad to help any movement that attempts to break this by volunteering code and time.
2. You submit novel research to the best journal you think will publish it.
3. The editor (the only person involved actually paid by the journal) invites other researchers to volunteer their time to peer review your research.
4. Assuming your research bears up under scrutiny and the peer reviewers are not actually competitors who decide to filibuster (this happens), your paper passes peer review.
5. Congratulations! The journal agrees to publish your novel research. For this, you must pay the journal. They do not pay you. You pay them. Color figures in the paper version nobody reads cost thousands extra.
6. Having been paid by you to publish your work, the journal sells your paper at exorbitant prices to university libraries (unless you paid them lots extra to just make it available for free).
Taxes pay researchers to pay journals and taxes pay for university libraries to pay journals. Why on Earth do intelligent researchers (or taxpayers) put up with this crap? Being published in a good journal bumps up your impact factor and helps you win more grant money. If high impact factor journals go out of business because of piracy, others will just take their place.
In short, pirates screwing over journals doesn't hurt researchers in the least. Shaking up the parasitic journal biz is actually long overdue. Journals put in only a tiny percentage of the labor involved in putting a paper through peer-review, but they soak everyone involved for massive amounts of time and money. It's time they died.