> I struggle to see how our behavior changes about which papers we're citing with or without scihub.
Under what conditions do you see that changing? You yourself say how useful it is, but discount the effect it has on the citation graph. Could we say the samething about arxiv?
This is exactly why research needs to be open and freely available. The esoteric, rarely cited papers are locked behind paywalls and away from search engines. And in doing so, their impact fades over time as the flock centers around a single vein of focus. The future should look like a net not a river.
I am not an academic and I read papers for their metalessons in areas that interest me. But without Sci-Hub, lots of research would not be accessible outside of its niche, esp if it was unlucky enough to not be in the right journal at the right time.
On hilarious pattern I see, is when a bigshot in a field publishes a new paper, there is a race to cite it by some nobody. Basically the academic publishing version of "first post".
Under what conditions do you see that changing? You yourself say how useful it is, but discount the effect it has on the citation graph. Could we say the samething about arxiv?
This is exactly why research needs to be open and freely available. The esoteric, rarely cited papers are locked behind paywalls and away from search engines. And in doing so, their impact fades over time as the flock centers around a single vein of focus. The future should look like a net not a river.
I am not an academic and I read papers for their metalessons in areas that interest me. But without Sci-Hub, lots of research would not be accessible outside of its niche, esp if it was unlucky enough to not be in the right journal at the right time.
On hilarious pattern I see, is when a bigshot in a field publishes a new paper, there is a race to cite it by some nobody. Basically the academic publishing version of "first post".