[willgax]

An individual scientist/researcher (most of them) is in pursuit of truth. Nothing matters, and nothing should matter other than that. For future discoveries, we should make knowledge as accessible as possible. But when an organization forms, it competes for power and superiority. This results in discriminatory actions that cause the overall regression of collective innovation. It is sad to see this happen.

[diggan]

> An individual scientist/researcher (most of them) is in pursuit of truth.

Maybe I'm in a certain type of bubble, but I kind of feel like that's a secondary goal (for many of them), while the first is finding and keeping a position that lets them earn enough money to survive. Some of them are lucky to be able to do both, but quite a lot of them are sacrificing the "pursuit of truth" because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves by working as a researcher.

[willgax]

i am not talking about people who just do job to survive there comes a point where you achieve all your needs you need something intangible like pursuit of truth/power/authority to validate your existence. I could blame the people in the institutions, but they were once a student who wanted nothing but to achieve great things, world-changing research. But along the way they tasted power and authority. Science has inherent quality of giving power and control, realizing that every action has consequence, and in this godless world only actions you take matter. If anyone who has experienced the authority knows that it is addictive and it is hard to let go. If anyone (young budding scientists) can challenge that authority you would go to any lengths to prevent that i think this is what is happening here.

[melagonster]

Yes, but giving people a dream is a good way to let them look for low salary jobs.

[eesmith]

No, no, no, no, no!

There's a long list of researchers who have done horrible things in pursuit of truth. Research ethics exist to remind us that, yes, other things matter.

[oneshtein]

Scientists can reproduce the findings and publish their own paper, instead of pirating someone else work.

[dns_snek]

> pirating someone else work.

Are you aware that you're not paying the authors, but paying the journal, who usually don't pay the authors anything and even demand payment FROM the author to publish their article in the first place? This is not like buying a book, journals are leeches with morally indefensible business models.

[oneshtein]

Authors decided to pay to these journals and play by their rules in return for something, that have value for them. I respect their choice. However, I also want to have better science with free access. I can reproduce few papers, and publish my work for free, if someone will peer review them for free.

[dns_snek]

> Authors decided to pay to these journals and play by their rules in return for something, that have value for them. I respect their choice.

Have you ever spoken to anyone who works in academia? Because almost everyone will tell you that they couldn't care less if people get their articles from SciHub. Academia is much uglier than you're romanticizing it to be.

[oneshtein]

Yep, I spoke. Yeo, they don't care, or have no clue. Nope, I respect their choice. IMHO, SciHub should be opt-in instead of opt-out to be legal.

[FabHK]

How do you reproduce a paper without having read it?

[oneshtein]

Obviously, someone must buy the paper, reproduce it, compare with original work, and then publish result for free. Same thing as for free software: someone must by a computer, write a software, then publish it on github.

[ardfard]

Publishing it on GitHub is optional; you can publish it anywhere accessible. And unlike these journals, it doesn't cost you anything to access free software. In fact, paywalling it makes it unfree.

[EbNar]

I think you don't know what you're talking about.