Scientific articles that get downloaded from the scholarly piracy website Sci-Hub tend to receive more citations, according to a new study published in ...
“While some scholars think that this business model may become unsustainable in the future, we think that Sci-Hub, paradoxically, may help preserve the current publishing system.”
One should ponder if the current publishing system is worth preserving though or if the time has come to tear down those paywalls
As a researcher, I think it’s tough to overstate how much the current publishing system hinders scientific progress.
Not only does it make published results less accessible to other researchers, while siphoning tons of money away from research, it also financially incentivizes a quantity-over-quality approach to publication.
Sci-hub is the best thing that has happened to science in ages, imo.
“While some scholars think that this business model may become unsustainable in the future, we think that Sci-Hub, paradoxically, may help preserve the current publishing system.”
One should ponder if the current publishing system is worth preserving though or if the time has come to tear down those paywalls
Couldn’t agree more!
As a researcher, I think it’s tough to overstate how much the current publishing system hinders scientific progress.
Not only does it make published results less accessible to other researchers, while siphoning tons of money away from research, it also financially incentivizes a quantity-over-quality approach to publication.
Sci-hub is the best thing that has happened to science in ages, imo.