Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature
https://peerj.com/preprints/3100/

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
https://greenelab.github.io/scihub/#/journals


Scihub Publisher Coverage Table
https://greenelab.github.io/scihub/#/publishers


Does Sci-Hub phish for credentials?
https://svpow.com/2016/02/25/does-sci-hub-phish-for-credentials/


Sci-Hub Has Papers. Are You Keeping Your Users?
https://redlink.com/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
https://naked-science.ru/article/interview/aleksandra-elbakyan-o-liberalah
https://translate.google.com/...cle%2Finterview%2Faleksandra-elbakyan-o-liberalah&edit-text=&act=url

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
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/13774
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
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1116/full



Sci-Hub and LibGen: what if… why not?
http://library.ifla.org/1892

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.

Tady je pokračování. Z pohledu člověka, který v Číně žije a snaží se o vědeckou práci, to byla katastrofa i do nedávna, bez zásahu CUP, ale do budoucna je to jen další argument pro open science.
Scholars: Refuse to bow down to China censorship pressure - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...ressure/2017/08/21/62d15c2a-862b-11e7-96a7-d178cf3524eb_story.html

Podvolení: Cambridge University Press stáhlo na nátlak Pekingu stovky vědeckých článků o Číně
http://echo24.cz/...mbridge-university-press-stahlo-na-natlak-pekingu-stovky-vedeckych-clanku-o-cine

libgen nově tady, ale asi už víte: http://libgen.io/

PALO_FABUS: "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. ... Sci-Hub is a goal, changing the system is one of the methods to achieve it." ...

:)

skvelej hack proste. kazdopadne jedeme dal a uvidime.

Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests | Science | AAAS
http://www.sciencemag.org/...che-pirated-papers-so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst

Interview with Alexandra Elbakyan: Sci-Hub and the Importance of Open Scientific Knowledge | LEAF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz1Uj20tZvs


Alexandra Elbakyan – Science Should be Open to all Not Behind Paywalls | | LEAF
http://www.leafscience.org/alexandra-elbakyan/

Some facts on Sci-Hub that Wikipedia gets wrong | engineuring
https://engineuring.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/some-facts-on-sci-hub-that-wikipedia-gets-wrong/

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.

Elsevier Wants $15 Million Piracy Damages From Sci-Hub and Libgen - TorrentFreak
https://torrentfreak.com/elsevier-wants-15-million-piracy-damages-from-sci-hub-and-libgen-170518/

Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage - F1000Research
https://f1000research.com/articles/6-541/v1

The comparative analysis shows that both the usage and complete corpus is largely made up of recently published articles, with users disproportionately favoring newer articles and 35% of downloaded articles being published after 2013. These results hint that embargo periods before publications become Open Access are frequently circumnavigated using Guerilla Open Access approaches like Sci-Hub. On a journal level, the downloads show a bias towards some scholarly disciplines, especially Chemistry, suggesting increased barriers to access for these. Comparing the use and corpus on a publisher level, it becomes clear that only 11% of publishers are highly requested in comparison to the baseline frequency, while 45% of all publishers are significantly less accessed than expected. Despite this, the oligopoly of publishers is even more remarkable on the level of content consumption, with 80% of all downloads being published through only 9 publishers. All of this suggests that Sci-Hub is used by different populations and for a number of different reasons, and that there is still a lack of access to the published scientific record.