Timeline for Consequences of publishing work using text from millions of Sci-Hub articles
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2023 at 18:50 | comment | added | Therac | This is true. But the "fruit of a poisoned tree" doctrine doesn't necessarily apply here. AI LLM are trained on content not legally available for reproduction, yet courts have ruled that their output is copyright-free, rather than copyright-infringing. If OP's project is similarly transformative, that may apply. | |
| Nov 11, 2023 at 20:27 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | Maybe a better analogy is "entering a museum without paying the ticket, and analyzing the painting techniques on the Picasso in it". | |
| Nov 11, 2023 at 2:41 | comment | added | Wolfgang Bangerth | Folks, all I'm trying to say is that there is an ethical question to answer that is bigger than the question "Am I going to get caught". | |
| Nov 11, 2023 at 1:15 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "But I can think of many research topics where the data was obtained illegally (say, by infecting people with syphilis)" Are you under the impression that actually happened? | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 19:24 | comment | added | Clement Cherlin | In a country with a highly repressive, punitive and undemocratic system of government, basic research into topics considered forbidden may be illegal. That doesn't make conducting and even publishing such research unethical. The copyright laws in the United States are highly repressive, punitive and undemocratic...draw your own conclusions. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 16:27 | comment | added | thosphor | @WolfgangBangerth Of course there are many areas where the law and ethics overlap. But that doesn't mean they are equivalent. There are many areas where they don't overlap. Obviously ethics are up to debate, but I don't think anyone would argue that ethics follow from legality. Your example of national security secrets illustrates my point: whistleblowing laws are necessary to prevent the law being used to suppress ethical behaviour. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 15:21 | comment | added | Greg | @WolfgangBangerth Breaking criminal law may be vigilantism, but breaking civil contract law is not. Also, researchers are enablers and one of the main cause of the deeply flowed publishing system, and it is questionable if following the present practices itself is any more moral behavior. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 15:13 | comment | added | Greg | Just because something is “illegal”, not necessarily “unethical”. OP may break a contract term, but not all contracts are automatically fair or moral. Also, text analysis and scrapping is kind of forbidden even when one is subscribed to a journal, so the publisher is not missing any fees if someone scrapes SciHub version of papers. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 15:12 | comment | added | Wolfgang Bangerth | As for whether the publishing system is unethical or not: I agree with you that it is not. But I do not think that scientists should mete out vigilante justice. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 15:11 | comment | added | Wolfgang Bangerth | @thosphor I would disagree on the overlap. I cannot think of cases where it is illegal to publish something (short of revealing national security secrets). But I can think of many research topics where the data was obtained illegally (say, by infecting people with syphilis) and where publishing the data would be unethical. Today, of course, IRBs would not give you ethical clearance for such experiments, and journals will not publish such papers because publishing without IRB approval is unethical. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 10:57 | comment | added | thosphor | This answer conflates ethical and legal. You separate them at the start and then conclude that because it's illegal it's also unethical. The two often do not overlap. Many would argue that SciHub is the ethical response to an unethical system. Assuming the OP is doing good science, they're even showing how that science wouldn't have been possible within the publishing industry's current boundaries. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 5:46 | history | edited | Wolfgang Bangerth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2023 at 4:01 | comment | added | Wolfgang Bangerth | @CaptainEmacs Fair point. I edited to say that you're publishing on a painting someone else stole. That's still unethical. As for highway robbery: I don't disagree. But that's a separate question. You're not allowed to steal from Elon Musk either, even though he's rich and perhaps unethically so. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 3:59 | history | edited | Wolfgang Bangerth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2023 at 2:45 | comment | added | Captain Emacs | My previous comment notwithstanding, you are of course right that OP should ask the ethical question first and foremost. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 2:44 | comment | added | Captain Emacs | "not ethical" - yes; "no different from stealing" - no; it is different. The word "stealing" does not really suit the situation (I know it is a popular term). The data remain available to other, legally paying users. This type of copyright violation is more like fare evasion. Getting a service without paying for it. The service does not disappear for others, but it gets a tad more expensive. That being said, it is not clear whether the prices charged for many journal articles based on free authorship/editorship/reviews by government-funded scientists should not be called highway robbery. | |
| Nov 10, 2023 at 2:26 | history | answered | Wolfgang Bangerth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |