To steal is to steal

>>8418660
Scientific journals should have been demonopolized long ago via the internet. Steal from those fuckers indiscriminately as much as you can!

It's lining some middleman's pockets for sure. Same problem as academia.

You forget that people need houses and cars and lattes and caribbean vacations. That def costs 25 per article.

>>8418665

>You forget that people need houses and cars and lattes and caribbean vacations. That def costs 25 per article.

>People that are not the scientist!

It will be amazing to see if Witten get's 10% from each of those 25. He might be rich without us knowing it!

>>8418672
He gets nothing. The money only goes to publishers, who might give a small part to referees, but most of it goes to advertising, printing, editing, etc.

Do you care about a large mutlicorporation with insane margins losing 30 dollars?

the money for the paper the $30 you paid does not go to a "multi-corporation" it goes directly to the author of the paper you stupid fuck

you are depriving PROFESSORS and VOLUNTEER RESEARCHERS that only write for the good of science and to stay alive, of $30 that might go to their food or housing, its not at all like taking from a corporation...

>>8418665
Very little of that money goes to any actual scientists, though. Science journals have effectively become parasites at this point. They only get away with charging so much because universities pay for them with the extortionate fees they can afford to charge students, due to everyone having access to government-backed loans.
Meanwhile, adjunct professors get paid peanuts for doing the actual work universities are meant to be based around.

>>8418806
>it goes directly to the author of the paper
Oh, sweet summer child. How naive you are.

>>8418806
>directly to the author
It clearly doesn't. Weak bait

>>8418806
> it goes directly to the author of the paper

I have never been paid

File: 1476054146044.gif (120KB, 600x487px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 600x487px

>>8418806
Is there bait on /sci too? This really infuriates me

I never understood why the publishers won't give the relevant academics a small cut of the profit, then they could at least get the academic community to stay on board with their dying distribution model.

>>8418677
>small part to referees
Referees are usually not paid.
>advertising
Advertising scientific journals??
>editing
Most scientists edit their own manuscript using Latex, the editing of the rest is also usually done by unpaid volunteers.
>printing
This one is a real cost. According to the arxiv it costs them something like 1.3 cents per download to archive the preprint

>>8418660
thank you for this so much.

i dont know if i feel bad or not.

but im a student and before this though i get papers through my uni there were so many papers i didnt have access to especially old ones, and this is literally like finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

I'm trying to use Sci Hub for the first time and it's not working, I don't know if I'm messing it up or if it is not available
I need some chapters of this book
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/books/tocs/agronomymonogra/alfalfaandalfal
when I enter the DOI, Sci hub conects with the page but not directly with the pdf, as I have seen in some tutorials

wat do /sci/?

>>8421630
>Advertising scientific journals??
you seriously not seen this before?

File: ss+(2016-10-19+at+08.59.18).png (150KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1366x768px

>>8422790
I clicked "Full text (PDF)" link and it opened this

should it be only 24 pages long though?

File: copyright-is-for-losers-2.jpg (518KB, 949x475px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 949x475px

>>8418660

They are very rich. They don't care about you.

No Border for Science.

>>8423162
For books, use LibGen.
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/

>>8423146
I haven't. Advertising is usually by word of mouth from your professors.

>>8423162 cont'd
for some reason it can't open the rest, asks for a login
>>8423179
nuh-nuh, there's no such book at libgen
>>8422790
looks like you either have to pay or off yourself, anon

File: fuck the world.gif (4MB, 320x258px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x258px

>>8418660
>be scientist
>have to beg for grant money
>do science
>write results
>have to pay to have your paper published
>people have to pay to read your paper
>don't get any money at all from people "buying" your paper
>live on crumbs, get paid some money for a lecture, try to get another grant

File: heil.jpg (118KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 480x640px

>>8423207
is it really hard being a scientist? is it worth it?

>>8423260
You need to get a job working for a company to be properly employed as a scientist and make money to live on comfortably. Living off grants and lectures is the worst way to go unless you are in the inner circles of grant chasers who have secured long term, never ending grant money (CERN). University teaching is also shit tier.

>>8423268
damn, maybe ill go NEET instead.

>>8423260
>is it really hard being a scientist?
I doubt it's harder than any other creative job, where you have to turn ideas into a product.

>is it worth it?
To me, so far, yes. I worked in the corporate world before, so I do know what it's like on the other side, and I hate that shit. Not saying there isn't any bullshit in science, but it's significantly less. I get to travel lots, colleagues are, on average, much friendlier people and easy to get on with.

Ask me again when I'm 48, made redundant because of institute budget cuts or loss of grant money and suddenly have no way to get a proper job in either academic or private science.