GeistHaus
log in · sign up

engineuring

Part of wordpress.com

stories
Access to knowledge is a human right
Sci-HubUncategorized
Access to knowledge is a human right. That was the idea Sci-Hub was fighting since 2011. In 2015, I got … More
Show full content

Access to knowledge is a human right. That was the idea Sci-Hub was fighting since 2011.

In 2015, I got a first lawsuit in the United States. The reason: Sci-Hub provided free access to academic journals, violating the copyright. The court decided that I must shut down Sci-Hub website, and pay 15 million USD to Elsevier, the biggest academic publisher, as penalty. I still did not pay: I never had such a big amount of money.

Regardless of that, Sci-Hub continued to operate, facing lawsuits in other countries and getting blocked in many places: France, Italy, Great Britain and etc. I continued to spread the idea: restricting knowledge behind paywalls is a violation of human rights. In other words, Sci-Hub never was merely a ‘pirate website’ but a website with a political agenda, fighting for a more just society.

In the meantime, websites such as Z-Library never cared about politics. They operated semi-commercially, distributed Sci-Hub’s content but never referenced to Sci-Hub or supported its fight. The content of Sci-Hub was basically always available for copying through its sister project, Library Genesis. So websites such as Z-Library copied books from Library Genesis, and articles from Sci-Hub, and distributed them.

A few months ago, this happened: two of Z-Library founders, Russian citizens were arrested in Argentina by FBI. The access to Z-Library was also blocked in India.

I would say, that is another human rights violation: how can a person be detained, and probably tortured, for … simply sharing books and academic journals with other people? Yes, perhaps they violated copyright and etc. Perhaps government should control that, so authors will get due payment. But punishment should be comparable to crime.

And throwing a person to prison is, in my opinion, is not proportional to … giving people an opportunity to download academic books for free. In 2019, there were news in the media:

A Thief’s Hand Is Amputated In Iran As Islamic Punishment
“The policy of Mazandaran’s Justice Department is severe and indiscriminate punishment for people who disrupt public security and order”, a state-run news agency, Young Journalists Club (YJC) cited the statement as saying.

However, in such cases as penalizing Sci-Hub for 15 million dollars, or detaining Z-Lib people into prison, as a democratic punishment, nobody says: it is a severe and indiscriminate punishment for giving out free, or semi-free access to science books and journals! But it is obviously so.

But returning to Z-Library. Apparently they were never political, and perhaps they were thinking, that they will always avoid the fate of Sci-Hub, because they remained anonymous or whatever. Now, a few months after arrest, they finally changed their minds.

Now they want you to sign the petition to join their fight for free knowledge as a basic human right.
Sometimes, it is taking too long to get the idea. But it is good that it finally happens.

Z-Library petition:

Restoration of access to Z-Library and the cessation of illegal criminal prosecution

About Sci-Hub:

Pirate website offering millions of academic papers for free refuses to close despite lawsuit

Снимок экрана от 2023-08-14 08-34-10
ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=336
Extensions
How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub
InterviewsSci-Hub
A new article was published in The Chronicle about me running Sci-Hub, a project dedicated to providing free access to academic journals all over the world. Their goal is to present Sci-Hub and its author Alexandra Elbakyan as some kind of malign project.
Show full content

Recently a new article was published in The Chronicle about me running Sci-Hub, a project dedicated to providing free access to academic journals all over the world. The website currently has around 500,000 users daily, most of whom are students and researchers.

There is a well-known trouble in modern science concerning access to academic literature. In the recent 40 years, academic publishing became increasingly controlled by a few big corporations, and as a result, access to research publications became extremely expensive: even richest universities in rich countries started to feel the burden. As a reaction, Open Access movement has emerged by early 2000s, supported many top scientists including Nobel prize recipients such as former NIH director Harold Varmus. They argue that all scientific journals should be absolutely free to read! There should be no obstacles to free communication in science.

Despite wide support for Open Access movement among scientists, corporations have kept their strong positions. By 2011 most academic journals remained paywalled and sold for expensive prices. That was the moment when I started Sci-Hub — a website that allows any user to bypass the paywall and read for free almost any research article that was ever published. Unsurprisingly, Sci-Hub got many lawsuits. In 2016 the US Court has prohibited Sci-Hub operation and decided it must pay Elsevier, a largest academic corporation, 15 million dollars!

Of course I never paid them. Sci-Hub is running completely on donations that it receives from users. By 2016, the whole sum Sci-Hub has ever received in donations was, by my estimate, less than 100,000 US dollars. Because I’m not in jurisdiction of the United States, I could simply ignore the lawsuit and Sci-Hub continued to operate as usual, widely supported by ordinary people who do no understand why public-funded science should be a private property of a few large corporations.

They have sued Sci-Hub in many other countries, such as France, United Kingdom, Russia and others, and succeeded in getting access to the website blocked at the ISP level in these countries. But that was not a big victory: government censorship of websites is easily bypassed today. Even further, it became ridiculous in the eyes of people who do not understand why access to science website is being blocked at the government level.

So they started to work on public opinion. Their goal is to present Sci-Hub and its author Alexandra Elbakyan as some kind of malign project. Sci-Hub was presented in media as secret operation of Russian Intelligence services and so on.

The recent article in The Chronicle about me running Sci-Hub is no exception, starting with the photo they have chosen for their article:

Alexander Krassotkin, Wikimedia

The photo is from 2016 and it is simply horrendous: the picture was deliberately photographed this way and uploaded to Wikimedia commons, free for anyone to use. Since that time, it was used in many publications paid by Elsevier to present me as an an ugly and dark person.

They could easily use a better and more recent photo, such as this one that I made while traveling at Sochi in 2021:

Alexandra Elbakyan at Sochi in 2021

But this is too good for the article. If someone sees this photo, they might think that I am bright and sincere person. So they cannot use it. I asked them to change the photo and they did not

The next type of attack is they are desperately trying for years to present Sci-Hub as not my own work. They want to instill the opinion, that I am just some kind of a public face for Sci-Hub, and the real work is being done by somebody else, some real geniuses hidden from the public. Here is how they do it:

She said that while she gets some help, Sci-Hub remains pretty much a one-woman show (it’s “mainly me,” she said)

The Chronicle of Higher Education

So they lie to their readers that Sci-Hub run by a woman is some kind of not a real thing but a ‘show’ , and to support this, they seize upon a word ‘mainly’ that I have used to describe my work, as a proof that I am not doing this myself, but getting helped instead.

Here is the excerpt from the transcript of the interview translation:

T: Is this mostly solo for you? Is there anyone who is helping you on day-to-day basis?

A: Not really, it’s mainly me working on Sci-hub. However, some people send me university library accounts for downloading articles for Sci-hub. They send me their logins and passwords.

excerpt from Elbakyan interview to The Chronicle

So it is clear from the context, that the word ‘mainly’ represents that Sci-Hub is helped by people sending university library accounts to it. Regarding the programming part, I do it 100% myself. Even further, that is not clear if I actually have said ‘mainly’ because my responses were in Russian and translated to English by interpreter. From what I could hear, the translation was imprecise: an interpreter simply used her own words to explain how she understood my answer, it was not a word-by-word translation. But even if I used that word, at least in Russian language mostly is often a parasite word, that does not carry a lot of meaning.

After reading the blog post, somebody can think that these are very tiny things to worry about. The photo is not very bad after all, and who cares if it is only you or somebody else is working on the project? Yes: these are tiny things, but they are important. The photo is bad. And the fact that woman does real work and not a show is important. They cannot attack Sci-Hub directly because it will have the opposite effect. So they have to use tiny things and to instill doubts instead. When not exposed, it works.

alexandra_elbakyan_at_sochi_in_2021_another_photo
ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=579
Extensions
Sci-Hub and Alexandra basic information
Sci-Hub
I decided to make a quick summary of facts about Sci-Hub and myself, because in our times you cannot fully … More
Show full content

I decided to make a quick summary of facts about Sci-Hub and myself, because in our times you cannot fully trust articles published in media, Wikipedia pages. Well, they do present facts about Sci-Hub that are correct in general, but at the same time there are mistakes in minor details. These details however create incorrect impression about the project. So, I want to make a quick look-up page with basic information about Sci-Hub and me that is reliable and first-hand.

I will add more information to this page later

 

Who is Alexandra Elbakyan and how the project started?

I’m a computer programmer behind Sci-Hub. I created the website in September, 2011 in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

In Kazakhstan, my homeland, access to LiveJournal website was blocked by government. LiveJournal is a blog system, where anyone can write their articles. Hence to access LiveJournal, I had to use ‘anonymizer’ websites. You go to such a website, paste a link to any webpage — for example LiveJournal article — and you can open it.

So I got the idea: we need the same for research articles. It took me two or three days to write the code and upload it to free PHP webhosting. And so Sci-Hub got live, and started processing requests from users (it almost immediately became very popular)

Indeed, I had a dream to write software for easy access to research since 2009. I was an undergaduate student in Kazakh National Tech University and got into problems while trying to access research papers needed for my research project. So I thought it would be cool to write some software to automatically download such papers. However in 2009 it was only a blurry non-specific idea.

I learned HTML at age 12 using free tutorial avaiable on the Internet. I started programming in high school and first learned PHP, Delphi and Assembly programming languages on myself, before I got to the university. I was interested in information security and entered Kazakh National Tech University in 2005 to study Information Technologies with a security speicalization. Here I improved programing skills a lot.

After graduation I wanted to continue in science and do research in bioengineering. Apart from computer and information technologies, I was interested in neuroscience, consciousness and artificial intelligence and while studying at university, collected a lot of ebooks on that topic. They were all downloaded from ‘pirate’ websites.

So in 2010 I tried to work in a few neuroscience research labs in Russia, Germany and United States. I read online that you can write to the professor and s/he will accept you to their lab. So I did the same and that’s how I got into laboratories. Here I also did programming, but for bioengineering applications. However I found it boring. I wanted to work on greater things: such as the Global Brain. I even was lucky to give a talk on that topic in H+ transhumanist conference in Harvard.

In 2011 I returned to Kazakhstan and worked for a few months as a freelance web-programmer. I created websites and applications on PHP language. And finally I was able to code Sci-Hub.

Was there any funding for Sci-Hub?

There was no. Sci-Hub started by accident, there was no Big Plan behind it. After a couple of months, users asked to add some option to donate and help the project. Sci-Hub is living on the donations for years. There were some big donations, but there was never any specific funding behind the project.

 

Was any government involved in creating Sci-Hub?

I was interested in politics and always supported communism, but Sci-Hub has always been a personal project. Even if some government helped, for example by sending anonymous donations, it was completely invisible to me. Using the Occam’s razor, no government was involved.

 

Is there any team behind Sci-Hub?

No, and never was. I do all the programming and server configuration myself. I also do all the Twitter posts and communication with users and media. I use Google to search for pictures to use on the website and social networks.

There a people though, who create mirrors of Sci-Hub articles database. I run a few mirrors and other mirrors are run independently, and Sci-Hub also uses accounts to access library resources provided by others.

 

What is the relationship between Sci-Hub and Library Genesis projects?

Sci-Hub started in 2011 as a web application to download research article requested by user, using library accounts. There was no storage for downloaded articles. In 2012 Library Genesis, that collected e-books, wanted to collect research articles too and started saving papers downloaded by Sci-Hub to their database.

In 2013 the number of requests to Sci-Hub grew, and I re-programmed Sci-Hub to check if article was already stored in Libgen; if it was, the user was redirected to Libgen database.

In 2014, I copied articles collected by Libgen to create Sci-Hub’s own database. I did not fork Libgen: only the papers PDF files were copied. Then I configured new servers to serve these files to Sci-Hub users.

Today Sci-Hub uses it’s own servers to store research papers. However all new articles downloaded by Sci-Hub are mirrored to Library Genesis databases too. Libgen also publishes torrents to download these papers.

 

 

… and question that is always asked:

How is Sci-Hub different from Aaron Swartz?

How different between each other are PLoS One, arXiv.org and Budapest Open Access Initiative? All these projects work on providing free access to research papers, however it is easy to see: there are very different between each other.

Sci-Hub is a web application that can open research paper requested by user, from database or by downloading it. All downloaded papers are collected in database. The database grew for a few years.

A. Swartz, as far as I know his story, made an attempt to download a few million research papers from JSTOR website in 2010. The download was noticed and he got arrested. Perhaps he wanted to upload all downloaded research articles on torrent. In 2009 I did similar things: I downloaded Nature and Scientific American journal volumes and uploaded them on ‘pirate’ websites where people share e-books, and I also shared there volumes on torrents. A lot of people were doing it then.

In 2004 I even programmed a PHP script that could automatically download paywalled e-books from MIT Cognet website, using a bug. Even though it sounds very similar to Sci-Hub, it is completely different in design and function.

Before Sci-Hub, there were a lot of illegal websites where any person could download e-books for free. Sci-Hub became the first website where you can download articles on a massive scale, not e-books only. Before Sci-Hub there were other websites to get research papers for free but they were also different from Sci-Hub in design.

There are similarities with A. Swartz but to say they are the same is some kind of an illusion that arises from lack of understanding of complexity. The similar illusion is to think that all black people, or all Chinese people are the same, because white person cannot easily recognize their faces.

ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=566
Extensions
Why Sci-Hub is illegal, and what you can do about it
Sci-Hub
Sci-Hub is oftenly presented as an illegal way to get access to paywalled research papers, and hence, in some way … More
Show full content

Sci-Hub is oftenly presented as an illegal way to get access to paywalled research papers, and hence, in some way inferior to the other options, like:

– send an email to the authors of the manuscript and ask them to send you a copy;
– search Google Scholar, perhaps the paper is available somewhere;
etc.

Indeed, Sci-Hub emerged in 2011 to surpass these ‘legal’ methods. Researchers were doing these for years and decades, even before email was invented: asking authors and other researchers to send them a copy of the paper.

-36928352_351126828

But that is very time-consuming and slow method to read research articles. And it does not always work, especially for old papers, when authors can be retired already.

And Google Scholar can search only those papers that are available online, which was, especially in 2011, a very small percentage of the papers published behind paywall.

Sci-Hub emerged as a solution for immediate access to any paper behind paywall and simply because it was better than other methods listed here, it became very popular.

Why Sci-Hub is considered to be illegal?

Providing free access to research papers on websites like Sci-Hub breaks so-called copyright law that was made to taboo free distribution of information on the Internet. That includes music, movies, documentaries, books, and research articles.

Not everyone agrees that copyright law should exist in the first place. Pirate Parties emerged as a response against it:

The first Pirate Party to be established was the Pirate Party of Sweden, whose website was launched on 1 January 2006 by Rick Falkvinge. Falkvinge was inspired to found the party after he found that Swedish politicians were generally unresponsive to Sweden’s debate over changes to copyright law in 2005.

When Sci-Hub became known, I thought that it will provide a good case against copyright law. When the law prevents science to develop, that law must be repealed.

Nothing of that happened. Instead, Sci-Hub was quickly banished as an ‘illegal’ solution and projects like Unpaywall emerged and started promoting themselves as a ‘legal’ alternatives to Sci-Hub.

These projects are not in fact an alternative: Sci-Hub started providing access to paywalled papers that could not be found anywhere on the Internet, because distributing them is illegal, while solutions like Unpaywall provide access to papers that are already available on the Internet, which is a huge difference.

Sci-Hub always intended to be legal, and advocated for the copyright law to be repealed or changed, so that it will not prohibit the development of science.

To help Sci-Hub get legal, you can support these fight, for example by joining the local Pirate Party.

ringo-ring
-36928352_351126828
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=559
Extensions
Corrections to The Verge article about Sci-Hub: part 3
InterviewsSci-Hub
The final set of corrections to The Verge article about Sci-Hub Still, Elbakyan worried about being extradited. “I do know … More
Show full content

The final set of corrections to The Verge article about Sci-Hub

Still, Elbakyan worried about being extradited. “I do know about stories where hackers that left Russia or Ukraine for Europe or the United States were unexpectedly arrested”

Being unexpectedly arrested and being extradited are different things. I worry about the former, not the later. I know that Elsevier filed a civil case, but who knows, what can happen in the case I visit US?

She also made Sci-Hub inaccessible to Americans (except those using VPNs) — in part because of the number of download requests, but also because she wanted to avoid becoming a target for lawsuits.

True, the Sci-Hub was not operating in the US when it just started, a few years ago, to avoid being noticed. The article leaves impression as if it was happening not a few years ago, but recently.

Elbakyan says that she couldn’t pay $15 million even if she wanted, as she is getting “only few thousand a month” in donations.

Not true. I told that 15 million is much higher than all sums Sci-Hub received and spent in the few years of its existence. The expenses of Sci-Hub were few thousands USD per month. I counted expenses, and I never counted the donations received each month.

She may be undercounting. One 2017 PeerJ study estimated that Sci-Hub owned $268,000 in unspent bitcoin as of August 2017

The bitcoin was cheap before, and only recently, starting from 2017, it explosively grew in price. In 2016 one bitcoin costed only 800 USD. Sci-Hub works from 2011, at that time one bitcoin costed only 5 USD.

Though Elbakyan has publicly disagreed with that estimate, she hasn’t said how much she owns in bitcoin

That is misunderstanding: I disagreed with donations in general, not with the Bictcoin estimate.

ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=544
Extensions
Corrections to The Verge article about Sci-Hub: second part, the Dynasty foundation
InterviewsSci-Hub
That is a second part of corrections to The Verge article on Sci-Hub, that will be devoted to the conflict … More
Show full content

That is a second part of corrections to The Verge article on Sci-Hub, that will be devoted to the conflict with the Dynasty foundation.

In May 2015, as part of a sweeping effort to insulate Russia from foreign influence, the Kremlin labeled Russia’s only private funder and popularizer of scientific research, the Dynasty Foundation, a “foreign agent.” Unlike much of the scientific community, Elbakyan was happy about change.

That is not very important, but I would question how it was measured that much of the Russian scientific community was disturbed by this change? Simply the fact that someone said that cannot be considered to be statistically significant result. From what I can say, many researchers never heard about the Dynasty foundation. Even with Sci-Hub, some users only learnt about the website in 2017.

It was effectively a think tank that assisted education initiatives that taught modern political science from a liberal perspective in Russian schools — including Elbakyan’s. This is ostensibly what qualified as “political activity.”

I attended the lectures, and from my point of view, they were political propaganda, not academic lectures. On the very first lecture, the professor said: those who support Putin has lower IQ than those who oppose him. I got very interested, and with honest curiosity asked after the lecture where I can lookup the statistics. The professor replied: I just made it up! Happened this today, I wouldn’t be surprised, but in 2012 I was very disturbed by such answer. The professor left to Washington to watch elections after reading a few lectures.

What I especially found nasty about Dynasty and its followers is the fact that they were trying to misrepresent political activity as pure academic research.

Many scientists protested, but Elbakyan didn’t understand the outrage. As far as she was concerned, Dynasty — particularly through its funding of the LMF — had spread “propaganda against Putin and the Russian authorities.”

That quote is obviously taken from my short article about Dynasty in Sci-Hub social network group. Here is that article, in full, translated to English:

That note is about inclusion of Zimin’s foundation «Dynasty» to the list of foreign agents. On the Internet many politically biased information appeared on this topic. And what actually happened?
In Russia starting from 2012 there is an amendment to the law about NGO’s, according to which organizations that:
(a) involved in political activity
(b) receive funding from abroad – have to register as «foreign agents»
The law does not require stopping the activity. There is a special notice that scientific activity does not count as political.
Such law is not a purely Russian invention. The similar laws about organizations – foreign agents are working in the USA.
After examination of the foundation the Ministry of Justice stated that «Dynasty» conforms to the criteria listed and it is a foreign agent.
For example, the Dynasty foundation is one of the main sponsors of the foundation «Liberal mission». That foundation supports, developes an promotes the «liberal» ideas. In the Russian realities, that means supporting Euromaidan, protests and propaganda against Putin and russian authorities. In one if his interviews, Zimin openly says:
– Of course, I have been to Bolotnaya and to Manezhnaya [where protests took place] Right after interview I will drive to the «Rain» TV channel [the political opposition outlet]
Zimin’s son through his foundation «Sreda» sponsored oppositional media, such as the «Rain»
What do we have? In the case Zimin’s foundation only sponsored science, and only science – nobody would recognize it as a «foreign agent»
By the way, last year the foundation spent on science about 172 million rubles. Compare this to the government expenses to science: «for basic research in the following year is planned to give about 130 billion rubles, for citizen applied research – two times more»

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Иностранный_агент
ruposters.ru/news/26-05-2015/zimin_dinastiya_po_kom
trv-science.ru/2014/10/07/byudzhet-na-nauku-2015

That’s it. I did not even attach an image to illustrate the article, as I do with most other posts. I wrote this very short and concise piece to state Sci-Hub position, and to show that Dynasty was actually involved in politics, and as a result eventually got restricted. Because in other sources, the events were mis-represented. Everyone was writing about how innocent, purely scientific initiative got restricted because of government stupidity. However, the Dynasty foundation was never pure science – and I found myself obliged to disclose this fact. I told the Verge about this.

The result of this short and not very harsh criticism was an outrage. The Verge writes that many scientists protested. However, protested many people who were not scientists, but politicians who supported Dynasty activities. Even people from Ukraine posted many comments. I deleted all comments that I found offensive, and removed such people from the Sci-Hub social network group.

She describes Zimin’s work through Dynasty, and the organization itself, as “anti-communist,” though she’s vague about how. Elbakyan says the foundation and Sci-Hub are “ideologically opposed”

That’s true: I view Sci-Hub as a communistic initiative. Sci-Hub opposes intellectual property on research articles that publishers hold. Research papers are common and not the property of some publisher. Even further, Sci-Hub opposes exploitation of researcher’s labor and restriction of masses from knowledge, that communist revolution opposed. Zimin, as I could understand from his interview, hated USSR. And Zimin was publishing Richard Dawkins books and was supported by some fanatic atheists. I’m not atheist.

Taking all that, I had no reason to love Zimin and be his ardent supporter – and many others in Russia too. However, my criticism was not based on these ideological differences: I simply noted the fact that true, Dynasty was involved in political activity. What’s wrong in disclosing that?

So, she began writing posts presenting instances of Dynasty supporting liberal-leaning groups. She asserts that she didn’t want to “[argue] any kind of side.” But the posts read with surprising acrimony for someone ostensibly attempting to be objective. She dubbed Dynasty’s supporters “the Brigades of the ‘Dynasty.’” She also re-shared negative articles about Dynasty that were written by state-controlled media outlets, and even shared Photoshopped pictures doctored to cast Zimin in a blatantly suspicious light.

Where did the journalist take this information from? There were only three posts published about Dynasty foundation in Sci-Hub group. The first post was that short and concise note saying that Dynasty was actually very political organization. The other post was a quote from Vera Mysina, a russian researcher who supported Dynasty to be considered a foreign agent.

«I think we did everything right. Because the activity of the foundation was ambiguous… our science and young researchers will not lose anything without the foundation» she said.

The quote was followed by a poll: should science be international, or not, because governments are competing with each other? Most users voted for the first option.

I never asserted that I’m trying to be objective. However, I do not find anything especially bitter or acrimonious in these posts. What was acrimonious is the reaction, for example, someone characterized Vera Mysina as «bitch and whore». Sci-Hub, on the contrary, did not use such kind of criticism against opponents, nor was calling them having low IQs, mad and retarded.

The cyberbullying started even before the first post about Dynasty in Sci-Hub group was published. I shared my opinion in other group that promoted Richard Dawkins and skepticism. I was told in obscene words, that Dynasty is much better than Sci-Hub. After post in Sci-Hub the insults increased, so I created a poll. I wrote about being bullied and asked users to vote: what will be more damaging for Russian science to lose: Sci-Hub or Dynasty? Sci-Hub won 80:20, after that Dynasty supporters started flowing into the group and the final result became 70:30. I removed the poll from the group afterwards, but you still can find it on individual users pages to check.

She dubbed Dynasty’s supporters “the Brigades of the ‘Dynasty.’”

Where did I say this? Perhaps in some private chat.

She also re-shared negative articles about Dynasty that were written by state-controlled media outlets

I do not remember sharing articles, however the first post about Dynasty cited one source about Dynasty, that talked about the political activity of the foundation.

…and even shared Photoshopped pictures doctored to cast Zimin in a blatantly suspicious light.

I do not remember myself sharing any such pictures.

In other words, there was no comprehensive attack on Dynasty from Sci-Hub as this article is trying to represent. I only shared the fact about Dynasty involvement in political activity. And even that was very short and concise.

Shortly afterward, something strange happened. Many of the former members of Sci-Hub’s vKontakte group say that they simply got booted for supporting Dynasty.

That is a blatant lie. There were people who simply said that Dynasty was a good foundation, helped Russian science and etc. and such opinions were never deleted and were never the reason to ban user. I said this before in Sci-Hub group, but my voice was never heard.

One scientist, Dmitry Perekalin of Nesmeyanov Institute, said that Elbakyan asked her group to vote on which was better for Russian science, Sci-Hub or Dynasty. “I wrote that it was a false dilemma and was immediately banned”

Because there was no dilemma. The poll was simply asking users to estimate, on their opinion, what could damage the Russian science more, the shut down of Sci-Hub or Dynasty. Where is the dilemma? Even further, this person is a liar: there is a big difference between asking «what is better» and «what would be more damaging to shut down»

I could comment much more on the completely unethical behavior of the Dynasty supporters in this conflict and afterwards, but enough. I sometimes think that perhaps, these people were not the true supporters of Dynasty: the simply used the foundation as an exuse to attack Sci-Hub. The never tried answering the criticism of Dynasty foundation with arguments, only with insults.

Ultimately, Elbakyan shut down Sci-Hub in Russia for several days

That did not happen immediately. The Dynasty «supporters» attacked me for two years after this conflict happened. Even though the government was behind the closing of Dynasty, they never tried to stop the war. Those people who ardently supported Dynasty still work in government-funded institutions, have good salaries and receive prizes from Russian government. On the other side, Sci-Hub was never receiving any support from government, even though it was, by the opinions of many researchers, very important project to help develop science.

That, and other reasons, such as new laws restricting freedom of information on the Internet, led me to shut down Sci-Hub in Russia as a sign of protest against all that is happening. That is somewhat similar to Wikipedia shutting down the website when they protested against SOPA and PIPA.

ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=542
Extensions
Corrections to The Verge article about Sci-Hub: part 1
InterviewsSci-Hub
It took quite a time to proof-read that very long The Verge article about Sci-Hub, Open Access and about me … More
Show full content

It took quite a time to proof-read that very long The Verge article about Sci-Hub, Open Access and about me as a Sci-Hub founder. Contrary to some opinions, the piece is not at all comprehensive and is omitting many important Sci-Hub ideas. The article is a result of a long Skype interview in Russian language back in December 2017. There are quite a bunch of mistakes and misrepresentations that I feel neccessary to adress. Since the article is long, I will split the corrections in three parts.

In cramped quarters at Russia’s Higher School of Economics, shared by four students and a cat, sat a server with 13 hard drives.

I was a master student in HSE in 2012-2014 and was living in a 2-bed room with a single roommate, and without a cat. I got cat later in 2014 when I moved out from HSE.

But even after receiving the “YOU HAVE BEEN SUED” email, Elbakyan was surprisingly relaxed. She went back to work. She was in Kazakhstan. The lawsuit was in America

It was in 2015 when I received this and I was in Russia.

The first time I encountered the distribution of scientific articles and sharing, it was in 2009, Elbakyan says. As a student doing research at the Russian Academy of Sciences, she ran across an obstacle encountered by students the world over: paywalls.

Not true: I ran on paywalls while working on my research project in Spring 2009 in Kazakhstan, and learnt how to get around paywalls then. In Summer 2009, I graduated from the university, and in Fall 2009, I moved to Russia and got some kind of a job in Russian Academy of Sciences. That was first time when I visited Russia.

So when Elbakyan found herself facing paywall after paywall, she began to wonder why she shouldn’t just jump them.

Not very accurate. I was accustomed to downloading everything in the Internet for free. So when I first encountered paywalls, I immediately started googling where these papers can be downloaded for free. I was extremely surprised and a even shocked there was no website, no torrent with these articles.

Elbakyan had been following the Open Access movement and was an ardent fan of MIT’s OpenCourseWare — an initiative through which the university makes virtually all of its coursework available — since 2008.

I do not remember I was following Open Access movement in 2009, but I knew about the Open Science idea according to my e-mails already in 2008. However, I do not remember where exactly I learnt about it. I was subscribed to many science blogs in Google Reader though.

In 2011, she attempted to create a Russian-language PLOS-style Open Access journal… Later that year, Elbakyan even applied to the Skolkovo Innovation Center, Russia’s self-styled answer to Silicon Valley.

I attempted starting the journal in Fall 2010, and filed application to Skolkovo in Spring 2011.

To Elbakyan, science thrives only when scientists shout their discoveries to everyone.

I did not remember where I exactly said this. However, I agree that science should be widely spread.

It’s a concept she came to borrow from the 20th century American sociologist Robert Merton, who founded the sociology of science, a study of science as a social practice.

I did not borrow this from Robert Merton. That is a very well-known concept in former USSR countries. See this poster from USSR which says «Science and Communism are inseparable»

ucnUP-SGLm0

Going further:

Most influential to Elbakyan were Merton’s “norms”

I got to know about Robert Merton much later in 2016, and was very inspired and surprised by the fact how these ideas do resonate with Sci-Hub ideas.

Elbakyan’s scientific communism mirrors the Western association between democracy and information openness

I remember I was very fond about the idea of democracy as a kind of collective problem-solving in 2011, however later the word democracy was discredited and got bad meaning: as a kind of a political doctrine used by Western countries as an excuse to attack and destroy other countries.

Elbakyan, on the other hand, wants Open Access fees covered up front in research grants.

I was saying that research grants is one of many possible options to compensate for editor’s works.

But the 25 percent of users from wealthy countries suggests Sci-Hub is a tool of convenience, says James Milne

How does it follow? Even in so-called wealthy countries, only elite universities have full access to science. Sci-Hub can be used by many other people who are not member of the elites as a neccessary mean to access papers, not as a tool of convenience.

Before Elbakyan was a pirate, she was an aspiring scientist with a knack for philosophizing and computer programming.

I have always been a pirate!

She often shared these books with other users on a Russian biology forum she frequented, molbiol.ru, which would prove to lay the groundwork for Sci-Hub’s debut.

I frequented this forum, and it was essential for Sci-Hub to start up, however, I never shared any ebooks there.

That worked well until the domain LibGen.org, went down, deleting 40,000 papers Elbakyan had collected, probably because one of its administrators died of cancer.

That is wrong. The LibGen.org domain was operating, it will only die in 2016 after Elsevier lawsuit. What happened is one of the hard drives used by LibGen died, perhaps because of overheating, and 40,000 papers were lost.

“One of my friends suggested to start actively collecting donations on Sci-Hub,” she says

Yes, but that was a year before the trouble happened with LibGen, in 2012.

Elbakyan vociferously denies this and has previously said that many academics have even offered their login information

What I always said is that I cannot disclose the source of the library accounts used to download papers, and I agreed that some accounts could come from various sources, including illicit ones. That is, and nothing else I said on this matter.

Elsevier was aware that Sci-Hub had paid some students for access to their university credentials. And several PayPal payments had been sent to Elbakyan for buying a proxy server

Elsevier became aware about this from Sci-Hub website. Sci-Hub had a donation section, where all donations and expenses were listed. I did this because I wanted Sci-Hub operation to be open and transparent to users.

With PayPal now closed to her, she simply turned to bitcoin donations to keep feeding Sci-Hub’s growth.

It has to be mentioned that Bitcoin was one of the ways to collect donations, but it never been an alternative to PayPal, which is the easiest and most convenient way. People donate to PayPal 10 times more frequently, if not more.

ringo-ring
ucnUP-SGLm0
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=537
Extensions
Some facts on Sci-Hub that Wikipedia gets wrong
Sci-Hub
(and some history of Sci-Hub too) Like most people, I routinely use Wikipedia to lookup information. Sometimes however, the information … More
Show full content

(and some history of Sci-Hub too)

Like most people, I routinely use Wikipedia to lookup information. Sometimes however, the information in Wikipedia does not represent the true facts about reality. That happened to Sci-Hub wikipedia article, too.

Starting from the first paragraph, it says:

Sci-Hub is an online search engine with over 62,000,000 academic papers and articles available for direct download, bypassing publisher paywalls. New papers are uploaded daily when accessed through educational institution proxies, and papers that have been accessed through Sci-Hub are stored in the LibGen repository.

What inaccuracies are present in this paragraph?

First of all and important, Sci-Hub is not a search engine.

A search engine is a program that takes some keywords from user, and provides the user with documents most relevant to these keywords.

Does Sci-Hub have keywords search? No. The user needs to provide Sci-Hub with an exact reference to the paywalled paper. The reference can be an URL, or a DOI, or title of the paper, or a scientific reference.

Even if Sci-Hub had keywords search, and I want to add it in future, it would still be incorrect to call it a search engine. Because in search engine the possibility to lookup relevant documents by keywords is primary and most important function. But Sci-Hub function is very different.

The core of Sci-Hub is a script that downloads HTML and PDF pages from the Web. In that sense, Sci-Hub is technically more similar to a web scraper.

Web scraping is data scraping used for extracting data from websites. Web scraping software may access the World Wide Web directly using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, or through a web browser. While web scraping can be done manually by a software user, the term typically refers to automated processes implemented using a bot or web crawler. It is a form of copying, in which specific data is gathered and copied from the web, typically into a central local database or spreadsheet, for later retrieval or analysis [from Wikipedia]

What is specific about Sci-Hub is that it can copy data hidden behind paywalls, and provide it to the user. Sci-Hub can do this either on itself or by user request.

The download script of Sci-Hub is complicated and that is the part where most developer efforts were invested. Not on search.

The next small inaccuracy is:

New papers are uploaded daily when accessed through educational institution proxies

That is true, but some papers are downloaded directly from publishers, too. And Sci-Hub also downloads papers by itself. So the paper can be uploaded not only when requested by user, but in advance.

Perhaps the most widely distributed inaccuracy about Sci-Hub is the last sentence of the paragraph:

papers that have been accessed through Sci-Hub are stored in the LibGen repository

Sci-Hub stores papers in its own repository, and additionaly the papers downloaded by Sci-Hub are also stored in LibGen.

In the next section, the Wikipedia article expands:

If a requested paper is available through that database [LibGen], it will be deployed to the user without needing to utilize any credentials

The article will be deployed from one of the Sci-Hub repositories, not LibGen.

The Wikipedia article is unclear here now, however previously, and on many other websites, not Wikipedia only, Sci-Hub operation was described as:

  • first, check if the copy is available in LibGen, and if yes, serve paper from LibGen repository
  • if not, download the paper

In fact, Sci-Hub operated in that way from spring of 2013 to the end of 2014.

Sci-Hub was created in September, 2011 and to the spring of 2013 operated without any repository. Research articles would be downloaded by users, and deleted 6 hours later. The user had to provide an URL of the paywalled page on the Internet, and Sci-Hub would open it through random university proxy. If the paper was still not available, user could manually switch to another university by pressing a green button. Even with that simple mode of operation, Sci-Hub gained huge popularity in a local research community, downloading a few research articles every minute.

The Library Genesis project originally was dedicated to books only. In 2012, they started collecting research articles, too and indexed them by DOI. They wanted to include papers downloaded by Sci-Hub to their database.

In the spring of 2013, Sci-Hub gained popularity in China. The number of requests exploded. It became not possible anymore to download each paper requested, so I started extracting DOI from pages and redirecting users to LibGen if paper was already available there. Thankfully to this, Sci-Hub survived.

Later in 2013 LibGen experienced problems with its hard drives, around 40,000 collected papers were completely lost. There was only one copy! I started a crowdfunding campaign on Sci-Hub to buy additional drives, and soon had my own copy of the database collected by LibGen, around 21 million papers. Around one million of these papers was uploaded from Sci-Hub, the other, as I was told, came from databases that were downloaded on the Internet/Darknet.

Since I had my own copy now, I wanted to expand it. In 2014, I analyzed what publishers are most requested by Sci-Hub users, and created a list of papers that were not yet available in database. The code of Sci-Hub was rewritten from the beginning, and the ability to download papers automatically was introduced. Now Sci-Hub started to collect papers on itself. And users could enjoy much-awaited function: just point Sci-Hub to the article, and it will check all proxies and download the paper by itself. Before, users had to manually browse the publishers website through Sci-Hub.

In the end of 2014, few additional copies of the database was created. They became a mirrors from which Sci-Hub is serving content now. Those are Sci-Hub only repositories, separate from LibGen.

Efforts were invested to establish these mirrors so that papers could be served to Sci-Hub users quickly and without interruptions. Even further, people behind LibGen had a strong position not to contact journalists and work semi-underground. My view is different: to spread the idea that science has to be freely accessible by everyone. If Sci-Hub wasn’t autonomous from LibGen, and relied on LibGen infrastructure, perhaps I wouldn’t be able to spread the message.

In that sense, Sci-Hub technically is by itself a repository, or a library if you like, and not a search engine for some other repository. But of course, the most important part in Sci-Hub is not a repository, but the script that can download papers closed behind paywalls.

Currently, the Sci-Hub does not store books, for books users are redirected to LibGen, but not for research papers. In future, I also want to expand the Sci-Hub repository and add books too.

The next inaccuracy in Wikipedia article is:

in April 2016, Elbakyan told Science that many anonymous academics from around the world donate their credentials voluntarily, while publishers have claimed that Sci-Hub relies on credentials obtained by phishing

I did not tell Science how credentials were donated: either voluntarily or not. I only told that I cannot disclose the source of the credentials. I assume that some credentials coming to Sci-Hub could have been obtained by phishing. Anyway, Sci-Hub is not doing any phishing by itself. The credentials are used only to download papers.

By Wikipedia rules, I cannot edit article about Sci-Hub myself

 

 

 

ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=393
Extensions
Sci-Hub is a goal, changing the system is a method
Sci-Hub
Last weeks, I read many varying opinions on my website. What was especially surpising for me is that there are … More
Show full content

Last weeks, I read many varying opinions on my website.

What was especially surpising for me is that there are many people who view Sci-Hub as some kind of a tool to change the system. Like changing the system was a goal, and Sci-Hub was a tool to achieve it.

My view is completely different. For me, Sci-Hub has a value by itself, as a website where users can access knowledge. There are many websites where you can see pictures, share tweets, download music, read ebooks. And Sci-Hub is a website where you can read research articles.

On the Internet, we obviously need websites like Sci-Hub where people can access and read research literature. The problem is, such websites oftenly cannot operate without interruptions, because current system does not allow it.

The system has to be changed so that websites like Sci-Hub can work without running into problems. Sci-Hub is a goal, changing the system is one of the methods to achieve it.

Of course Sci-Hub is not going to die when research articles will be free. Why? For example, anecdotes and horoscopes are legal to distribute. However, the websites with horoscopes are not going to die just because horoscopes are free.

In the same way, websites where you can access research literature are not going to die when it becomes free and legal. The opposite is true: there will be even more websites like these.

ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=358
Extensions
Why Sci-Hub is the true solution for Open Access: reply to criticism
Sci-Hub
This article is to reply to some points made by publishers as well as some librarians who don’t like what … More
Show full content

This article is to reply to some points made by publishers as well as some librarians who don’t like what Sci-Hub is doing to their job now.

I will start with an article published last wekk by Ernesto Priego Signal, Not Solution: Notes on Why Sci-Hub Is Not Opening Access

The title is misleading by itself, if not funny. Sci-Hub is not a signal: for many researchers out there in the world, Sci-Hub is the only solution available to access articles. I can support my words by providing letters I received as well as some statistics, but I will do this in future posts. The problem are paywalls, and Sci-Hub is a tool that solves this problem. A signal is when someone talks about the problem of paywalls, like many OA advocates do. What differentiates Sci-Hub from this talk, is that Sci-Hub not talking, but actually solving this problem, providing access to those researchers who need it, including myself.

Sci-Hub is not a signal nor a symptom — it a tool that is actually and actively used by many students and researchers accross the world. Why don’t you say then Google is a symptom of a problem that we cannot easily lookup information on the Web, and hence Google was developed to signal us about this problem! Just funny.

About the second part of the title: if Sci-Hub is not Opening Access, then author has to open sci-hub.io website and check himself: just input URL of any paywalled article into the box, and you get the access! If that is not opening access, then what else it is?

The title looks as a good attempt to disregard what Sci-Hub is actually doing. The real problem is that such kind of rhetoric can be used by publishers and autorities as an argument to shut down Sci-Hub. Because if that is not the solution, but mere a signal, hence what’s the problem shutting it down? Instead of suporting Sci-Hub in the fight against publishing system, the author helps publishers fighting Sci-Hub!

After the title, he says: I see it as an example of a collective failure to communicate successfully the principles of openness to the mainstream

Well, at least you have not failed to communicate your ideas to me! I was inspired by Open Access movement, and a year before I made Sci-Hub, I was trying to open my own open access journal. This did not work, however in the process I became involved in the life of online communties for researchers, started sharing research papers and eventually this lead to development of Sci-Hub. Even more, if not argumentation developed by Open Access, then it would be much harder for me to defend what Sci-Hub doing is right thing to do.

About Aaron Swartz, of course that is a tragedy what happened to this guy. But it also needs to be made clear that our methods are very different. This guy was clearly not trying to do the same thing as Sci-Hub. Our ideas to make science open are similar, but these ideas are shared by many people. The case of Sci-Hub cannot be easily compared to the case of Aaron.

Sci-Hub is a short-cut, a workaround, that distributes scholarly content in a form not intended by its authors, let alone its original publishers

Here I need to ask: was it intended by authors that their work will be hidden behind paywalls forever? For example:

Elsevier s a short-cut, a workaround, that distributes scholarly content in a form not intended by its authors

And yet, what is the problem with shortcuts or workarounds if they do the job of making science open?

Sci-Hub itself does not concern itself with ‘access’, at least not with a capital A

That is simply not true. Sci-Hub supports Open Access.

The publishers remain the same. The journal brands remain the same. Their H-Indexing and Impact Factor continues strong. Scholarly Publishing remains the same. There is no real cultural change

Sorry but this is a complete bullshit. Of course the things do not remain the same. Before Sci-Hub, all research on a massive scale was closed behind paywalls, and now anyone can access it! It will be impossible to shut down the website completely, so that change is forever. And what about publishers? I do not see the problem with publishers, if all articles they publish can be easily fetched from websites like Sci-Hub, then what’s the problem? But the effect of long-term operation of Sci-Hub will be that publishers change their publishing models to support Open Access, because closed access will make no sense anymore.

The more researchers pirate paywalled content, the more the paywalled system of scholarly publishing is canonised.

Again, what is the point in paywalls if research can be easily pirated? Who needs paywalls if any article can be fetched from Sci-Hub? The more researchers pirate the paywalled content, the less sense paywall system is making. I thought that are obvious points; turned out they are not.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Sci-Hub breaks the law

In modern society, the law is not given from God but is written by people and for people. Like any other system — like publishing system, for example — the law system can be fixed, and Sci-Hub is the clear case when the law has to be fixed, allowing the websites like Sci-Hub to operate without problems.

immediate goal that however distracts us from important sustainable solutions

I wonder what else is distracting the author from developing “important solutions” that he is working on? TV shows?

The rest of the article is simply reciting the above arguments:

but as it stands now, by itself, it does not offer the solution

Sci-Hub clearly offers the solution to the most important problem: access to research results. And what is enough for the problem to be solved completely, is for Sci-Hub to continue its operation. That will be enough.

Sci-Hub gives us, for the time being, a free ride

Our expenditures counted for several thousands USD each month, that we collected from donations. How free is this ride? And do you understand creating a website like Sci-Hub is a hard work too?

The author has a good point that, for example, some additional changes should be made, like abolishing the copyright for Sci-Hub to operate legally. However, the article seems to be, in general, very unsupportive of Sci-Hub, trying to dismiss the important work the project is doing. That is the problem. Instead of fighting the system, you start fighting Sci-Hub — that is the result of media attention, yes? Publishers may be happy that Sci-Hub is the point of attention now, not them.

We can steal from the rich ‘to give to the poor’, but we still need to see evidence that such strategy has ever worked to erradicate poverty

It is working already. Check yourself at sci-hub.io !

 

Another article, the link to which I lost, was by a small publisher arguing that Sci-Hub will do harm not to big publishers like Elsevier, but to scholarly societies or non-profits that depend on subscription income. I wonder: what kind of non-profit is that that depends on commercial subscription sales? Sci-Hub is a non-profit, we operate by donations. That’s how non-profits work. For small scholarly societies, membership fee can be an option.

 

 

 

ringo-ring
http://engineuring.wordpress.com/?p=351
Extensions