←back to thread

Sci-Hub has been blocked in India

(sci-hub.se)
259 points the-mitr | 6 comments | 28 Aug 25 04:47 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
megaloblasto ◴[28 Aug 25 12:10 UTC] No.45051186[source]▶
I have to read a lot of papers for work. Sometimes 2 or 3 a day. Often when I find one I'm interested in, they want $60 to read the one paper. If I have to read one paper a day, that's about $20,000 a year just to stay up to date with the science.

That's ridiculous. Thankfully someone is breaking down these barriers to science.

replies(6): >>45051247 #>>45051473 #>>45051583 #>>45052008 #>>45053224 #>>45053294 #
kleiba ◴[28 Aug 25 12:53 UTC] No.45051583[source]▶
Replace "paper" with anything else you consume in your everyday life. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but to me, if there's something offered to you for a certain price, and you're not ready to pay that price, the alternative should be to either get something comparable that's cheaper (hardly possible with scientific papers) or, unfortunately, abstain from getting that thing at all.

I don't see how "what they're charging is ridiculous, and the money isn't even going to the authors, so it's okay for me to get the papers through sci-hub" is morally justified.

Independent of the above: if it's for work, your employer should pay for the paper access (unless you're self-employed, of course).

replies(7): >>45051702 #>>45051710 #>>45051736 #>>45051786 #>>45052011 #>>45052524 #>>45052996 #
1. megaloblasto ◴[28 Aug 25 13:16 UTC] No.45051786[source]▶
That's what I tell diabetic patients struggling to afford insulin. "Hey that's the price, that's just how it is, if you don't like it, don't buy it"
replies(1): >>45053281 #
2. kleiba ◴[28 Aug 25 15:17 UTC] No.45053281[source]▶
Please, let's stay real. How is comparing a vital drug even remotely comparable to scientific papers?
replies(3): >>45053337 #>>45053603 #>>45053729 #
3. megaloblasto ◴[28 Aug 25 15:21 UTC] No.45053337[source]▶
$20,000 annually to keep up on the latest science makes it prohibitively expensive for most of the world to do meaningful science. If only the rich can do science then we miss out on crucial scientific advancements. Less scientific advancements means less people get life saving medicines, less environmental disasters are uncovered and dealt with.

Plus, I was just using your own logic of replacing "paper" with anything else that I might consume in my everyday life.

replies(1): >>45053499 #
4. kleiba ◴[28 Aug 25 15:33 UTC] No.45053499{3}[source]▶
I worked in research for decades - no idea where you get that $20,000 number from. Also, I cannot follow this argument of "only the rich can do science", this seems to bear any relation to reality.
replies(1): >>45054210 #
5. mistercheph ◴[28 Aug 25 15:52 UTC] No.45053729[source]▶
You’re right, information is completely worthless, let’s turn off the state-backed monopoly on it!
6. megaloblasto ◴[28 Aug 25 16:37 UTC] No.45054210{4}[source]▶
The math for the $20,000 is in my first post. $60 a paper times 365 days a year is $21,900 and I rounded down.

I don't have an example of a $60 paper (I don't keep a list) but below is a $42 paper and a $35 paper that I came across very recently.

https://library.seg.org/doi/epub/10.1190/geo2023-0525.1

https://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/52034eb04b657aea,442...

This is prohibitively expensive for the majority of the world.

Remember that the global average annual salary is around $18,000 (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040).

These people cannot access science that is behind a paywall. The fact that they cannot is a failure. Whether its a moral failure, or an economic or a societal one, I'm not sure, but I do believe that providing free access to scientific advancements it the right thing to do.