Edited by tbing at 2023-12-12 16:57
In 1991, the Internet became accessible to the public, promising widespread access to data previously confined to universities and research institutions, thereby democratizing research publication. The advent of digital academic publishing has indeed broadened access to an unparalleled wealth of research information, especially in the Global South.
However, the aspiration for universal access to all research data remains unrealized, reserved for a privileged few. Most well-established journals enforce full or partial paywalls, excluding billions lacking substantial resources or institutional subscriptions. Here, we delve into the contentious tactics employed by Sci-Hub to address this issue.
The Evolution of Sci-Hub
The Open Access (OA) movement draws parallels with the free software movement that originated in the 1980s, championed by Richard Stallman's vision of a free and open-source operating system, the GNU project. Unlike the closed-source and expensive software prevalent until then, the open-source Linux kernel and GNU provided free and capable operating systems. While free software is now omnipresent, academic research faces ongoing challenges. The OA movement, starting as a grassroots effort, has seen substantial growth. However, unlike the free software movement, it grapples with the vast number of papers remaining behind paywalls.
Alexandra Elbakyan's Solution
In 2011, Alexandra Elbakyan, a computer researcher from Kazakhstan, devised a straightforward remedy for paywalls—piracy. She established Sci-Hub, enabling researchers to effortlessly access nearly any paper with a DOI. Through methods like hosting donated PDFs, using institutional proxies, and webscraping with shared credentials, she amassed a repository housing over 88 million freely accessible papers. A 2017 analysis revealed that 85.1% of articles in toll access journals could be found on Sci-Hub. Elbakyan's mission to breach paywalls and facilitate complete OA has earned her the moniker "the Pirate Queen of Scientific Publishing."
Researchers' Perspective vs. Publishers' Opposition
Despite its illegality, researchers actively embrace Sci-Hub, with over 50% acknowledging its use in a 2022 survey. The true figure may be higher. Researchers often view Sci-Hub as a positive force for research. It has gained significant traction in the Global South, particularly in China, a country also emerging as a top contributor to scientific research. Traditional publishers, however, vehemently oppose Sci-Hub for its blatant copyright violations and impact on their profits.
The dichotomy in attitudes between researchers and the publishing industry was evident in a 2019 debate at the Researcher to Reader Conference. Opinions were nearly evenly split as a researcher and a scientific publishing consultant argued for and against Sci-Hub. The significance of Sci-Hub extends beyond academia, garnering attention from diverse audiences such as physicians, teachers, and students.
Challenges for Sci-Hub
In 2015, Sci-Hub faced its first major hurdle in the United States, with Elsevier initiating a copyright infringement lawsuit, resulting in a $15 million judgment and loss of its original domain. Since then, Elsevier has led efforts to ban Sci-Hub, securing default wins in multiple countries.
In 2020, a copyright infringement lawsuit reached the Delhi High Court, and Sci-Hub now defends itself against disruptions and an order to suspend new uploads. The case remains ongoing as of May 2023, with Indian academics supporting Sci-Hub based on fair dealing exceptions in Indian copyright law.
Uncertain Future for Sci-Hub
Despite facing legal challenges and domain changes, Sci-Hub persists, attracting millions of monthly downloads. Its future, however, remains uncertain. As more countries block access and legal battles intensify, the sustained operation of Sci-Hub may become untenable. The ongoing demand for free access to scientific literature, coupled with flaws in traditional publishing models, might lead to increased support for Sci-Hub and alternative initiatives. Researchers' affinity for Sci-Hub suggests that diverse models may emerge to address these needs, challenging both Sci-Hub and traditional publishers to adapt. The outcome of the Delhi High Court ruling is unlikely to mark the end of this protracted conflict.
|
