Wonderful thread at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19114786
Starting with “All this is an excellent ad for sci-hub, which avoids most of the serious drawbacks of publishers like Elsevier. It was interesting how that was relegated to a veiled comment at the end, “or finding access in other channels”. But basically if the mainstream publishers can’t meet the need, we do need other channels, and right now sci-hub is the only one that actually works at scale.”
Then the discussion goes to “Blame the academic administrators who demand publications in top tier journals – the same ones who charge a ton for access.”
Or “ in market terms the clients (researchers) manifest a strong preference for other products than those offered by the publishers. Why do they still exist? Does not make any sense, except if we recognize also that the market is perturbed ”
Enjoy the thread! It shows that people think better than, you choose: pirates who fight only for the media corporation rights, gold OA diggers who ask for more money than legacy publishers, etc…
UPDATE: for those who don’t know me, I’m for OA and Open Science. I do what I support. I am not for legacy publishers. I don’t believe in the artificial distinction between green OA, which is said to be for archiving, and gold OA which is said to be for publishing. I’m for arXiv and other really needed services for research communication.