Tento web používá soubory cookie. Dalším používáním webu s tímto souhlasíte.
zaregistrujte se
zapomněli jste heslo?
Sdílení elektronických akademických zdrojů na téma informační technologie a sociální/humanitní vědy

diskuse zaměřena na sdílení a shromážďování elektronických zdrojů: časopisy, mailing listy, newslettery, journal alerts, institucionální weby, databáze, nebo přímo studie, články, eseje, pokud je považujete za hodné pozornosti... vítané jsou taky archivační, citační či kolaborativní nástroje, které se osvědčily či se nabízejí k otestování
Máte k tomu co říct? Vložte se do diskuze.
PALO_FABUS --- 16:53:02 6.12.2017

sice přesahuje tematický okruh tohoto klubu, ale jako nástroj by se mohlo hodit... tedy pokud jste doposud používali www.jib.cz... vypadá to líp a i funkcionalita je slibována lepší... pastuju z mailu dobrovolného propagátora

Portál je určený široké veřejnosti, placený z veřejného rozpočtu přes Min. kultury.

Několik hlavních důvodů, proč je portál super (ale omrkněte si to sami):

- uživatelsky příjemné prostředí
- vyhledávání ve 13 milionech národních a ve 340 milionech zahraničních zdrojů - to jinde v ČR není možné
- dostupnost velkého množství online dokumentů - např. cca 110 000 knih
- dostupnost plných zdrojů zahraničních článků pro ty, kteří nemají jinak do drahých databází přístup (např. od září EBSCO Discovery Service, ale nikdo to pořádně nevyužívá = nehledá)
- dostupnost plných textů všech zákonů, patentů, užitných vzorů
- možnost propojení a správa účtu z více knihoven (těch co jsou zapojené)

- v roce 2018 by mělo dojít i na to, že si budete moci přes portál objednat knížku třeba z knihovny v jiném městě (zatím nejde, ale pracuje se na tom)

Doufám, že vám to zajímavé připadat bude a spolu s týmem za projektem děkujeme za sdílení.
Ještě FB stránka projektu: https://www.facebook.com/Knihovny.cz/
TADEAS --- 12:16:47 9.11.2017
Signal, Not Solution: Notes on Why Sci-Hub Is Not Opening Access
Comics Grid Blog

I don’t think Elbakyan’s strategy is heroic, and I don’t think Sci-Hub is villainous either. I think Sci-Hub is not what Open Access is about. The ‘anyone-can-access-any-paper system we’ve all been dreaming about for years’, for me, is not merely a technological solution. It is mostly a change of paradigm: said ‘system’ would be the whole scholarly apparatus, its human resources and material infrastructure, organised around the principle of sustainable availability and permission to reuse, to read and use as human beings (with our eyes, our ears, our minds) and with the machines that help us do our work.

Open Access is not about breaking copyright law, no matter how frustrating, how idiotic its implementation might be. Open Access, to me, seeks to rebalance the academic ‘enterprise’ towards enabling access to information at creation stage, at licensing stage, at publishing stage, after publication stage. It implies publishing and licensing for opening access, not to close it. I don’t think this sounds any more idealistic than invoking access to information as a human right.

Sci-Hub does not open research, because most of that research, even if made available ‘for free’, is full of restrictions. Most of that research was published to be restricted. These restrictions are technical, moral, social and legal. Real openness needs to be sustainable, and for it to be sustainable it needs to be operative as much as possible within existing conditions. One of these conditions is the fact that publishers need money (albeit not as much as they say they do), and another of these conditions is the fact that academics keep publishing with the same publishers and under the same restrictive conditions.

By signing these legal agreements authors often lose ownership (rights!) of their own work and agree to restrictive publication and distribution methods. Openness cannot be attained at reception point only. The whole process, the whole scholarly communications project, needs to start, at the beginning, with academic authors.

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 might be, however, sending a strong signal, again, of a problem that has been there for a while, clearly visible to everyone who really wants to see.
TADEAS --- 14:44:21 26.9.2017
Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature

Sci-Hub's database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in closed access journals. Furthermore, Sci-Hub contains 77.0% of the 5.2 million articles published by inactive journals. Coverage varies by discipline, with 92.8% coverage of articles in chemistry journals compared to 76.3% for computer science. Coverage also varies by publisher, with the coverage of the largest publisher, Elsevier, at 97.3%. Our interactive browser at https://greenelab.github.io/scihub allows users to explore these findings in more detail. Finally, we estimate that over a six-month period in 2015–2016, Sci-Hub provided access for 99.3% of valid incoming requests.

Scihub Journal Coverage Table

Scihub Publisher Coverage Table

Does Sci-Hub phish for credentials?

Sci-Hub Has Papers. Are You Keeping Your Users?

Sci-Hub is generating revenue via donations (estimated at $63,000-$175,000 via Bitcoin)
(ale neuvadi zadnej zdroj k tomuto)

Alexandra Elbakyan: about liberals, trolling and blocking of Sci-Hub in Russia

What about the future of Sci-Hub? How do you see it? Are there any new projects in development?

- I must say that the main function Sci-Hub has already performed - most articles are downloaded from private access, the problem of access to scientific literature has fallen into the public consciousness. Of course, I would like to collect in principle all the scientific works ever published, including medieval manuscripts, for example. And add artificial intelligence to such a base. But this is another conversation.

Thinking Differently About the Money: A First Step Toward the Open Scholarly Commons
This article argues the academic libraries need to move towards creating, with other organizations involved in scholarship and cultural heritage, an open scholarly commons. At the present time, academic library’s ability to do so is hampered by their standard approach to budgeting, particularly the way collection budgets are presented. A strategy for moving towards an open scholarly commons is presented and a way of structuring the collections portion of the library’s budget to make progress toward this goal visible is suggested.

We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach

Sci-Hub and LibGen: what if… why not?

Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2017 – Wrocław, Poland – Libraries. Solidarity. Society. in Session S12 - Satellite Meeting: Serials and Other Continuing Resources Section and Acquisition and Collection Development.

… In this era of severe budget constraints and economic recessions that libraries are facing, can we imagine of substituting some or most of our journal collection funds with the “open and free access” that Sci-Hub and LibGen is giving us? How much overlap between our collections and what is available through Sci-Hub and LibGen? This article reports on preliminary results1 of a one year study with Sci-Hub, LibGen and of Google Scholar (GS) where 2,750 random samples (peer reviewed journal articles) coming from fifty-five different databases covering all disciplines (Arts & Humanities, Law, Music, Social Sciences and STM) were tested against those platforms. The samples have been searched on all three platforms at four different intervals during the year in order to evaluate the stability of content. Different data such as publication year, publishers, language of articles and OA are being looked at to see if content is affected by either or all of these parameters. To verify the currency of information in Sci-Hub, LibGen and Google Scholar, research articles from both Nature and Science (from current issues, Nature Advance Online Publication and First Release from Science) were queried on a daily basis. Results are showing overall retrieval rates of 70% in Sci-Hub and 69% in LibGen across all disciplines. Most of Nature and Science new research articles were found within the same day or 24 hours from their first release on their respective web sites. This is also true within Google but strangely enough, a delay of between 4-5 days is seen in Google Scholar.
TADEAS --- 21:17:07 20.9.2017
Index of /Elsevier_v_Sci-Hub

vtipny, v jednom dokumentu si ctu "Defendants Alexandra Elbakyan, Sci-Hub, The Library Genesis Project, and Bookfi.org" ... (etc) ... a vybavuje se mi tenhle track (od 0:28:)

Mylo - Destroy Rock n Roll

KOCOURMIKES --- 21:49:24 6.9.2017
bylo uz?

The scientific community is fighting back against crazy paywalls, with a new study showing that more than a quarter of all scientific papers are now available free online thanks to the Unpaywall app.

This New Browser Plug-in Lets You Access Millions of Scientific Papers For Free
100% legal.

TADEAS --- 13:23:29 5.9.2017
Alexandra Elbakyan, La Kazakhe Pirate D’articles Scientifiqu - Pastebin.com
TADEAS --- 13:21:31 5.9.2017
scihub v rusku konci


Dear users!

From today, the Sci-Hub service ceases to operate on the territory of the Russian Federation. The reasons for this were extremely inadequate, offensive behavior of Russian scientists towards the creator of the service.

For example, for already two years, Alexandra's harassment in the Russian-language Internet continues on the part of people who are referred to the so-called Russian "liberal opposition." For example, they are informed that Alexandra is insane and her personality is denigrated in every way. Unlike the creator of the Sci-Hub service, these people enjoy universal support, some even hold high posts in the Russian Academy of Sciences and receive not only prestigious scientific prizes such as "for fidelity to science" and "Enlightener", but also affirmative pats on the shoulder for insults to Alexandra. Already creates the impression that this is some kind of heroism (soon the Order of the Hero of Russia they apparently give to start for it)

Recently, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences decided to name a parasitic insect in honor of Alexandra. What I consider to be extreme injustice: if you analyze the situation with scientific publications, the real parasites are scientific publishers, and Sci-Hub, on the contrary, fights for equal access to scientific information and makes a useful case.

In connection with such popular love, work in the territory of a given country will be reasonably terminated. However, Russian scientists who love Sci-Hub will still be able to access the site from another country using VPN services or a proxy, or a TOR browser. True, these opportunities in Russia are also being made illegal. In this case, scientists can use, for example, Liebgen, who keeps an archive of articles downloaded over several years through Sci-Hub, and his mirrors.

I can also recommend the site Kiberleninka, which in April this year received a prestigious award from the Government of the Russian Federation as the best solution for access to scientific information. The diploma was handed to the portal by the minister personally.

Another solution is the Russian State Library, which received an annual "Free Knowledge" award from Wikipedia last year, winning from Sci-Hub, which was also nominated

Brew in your shit yourself, but I'm sick of it too, Russian science with a cart-mare is easier. I will direct the released resources to my research.
As it is customary to say in Russia: all you good, good mood, health and the main Orthodoxy is more.
The project is likely to continue working somehow, but without you.

Yours faithfully,
creator of the Sci-Hub service

Library Genesis: Miner's Hut / Барак старателей • Login
??? --- 8:01:20 22.8.2017
Zatím aktuální výsledek: “intends to repost immediately the articles removed from its website in China” a "would also make the reposted papers available free of charge"
After Criticism, Publisher Reverses Decision to Bow to China’s Censors - The New York Times
Cambridge University Press backs down over China censorship | Education | The Guardian
KOCOURMIKES --- 14:53:49 21.8.2017
TADEAS: jenom v Cine. Scihub jim jeste nezablokovali ne?
??? --- 13:28:29 21.8.2017
A zde otevřený dopis CUP od James A. Millwarda

"Just say “no” to China’s self-defeating censorship demands, CUP, and I’ll happily continue to review books and manuscripts for you, essentially for free, as I do now.", "We are not in this business for the money. If you, an established, world-renowned educational institution sacrifice your academic integrity on venal or faux-pragmatic grounds, you cannot rely on our continued respect and cooperation."