Cargando…

Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage

Despite the growth of Open Access, potentially illegally circumventing paywalls to access scholarly publications is becoming a more mainstream phenomenon. The web service Sci-Hub is amongst the biggest facilitators of this, offering free access to around 62 million publications. So far it is not wel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Greshake, Bastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000Research 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5428489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28529712
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11366.1
_version_ 1783235832226775040
author Greshake, Bastian
author_facet Greshake, Bastian
author_sort Greshake, Bastian
collection PubMed
description Despite the growth of Open Access, potentially illegally circumventing paywalls to access scholarly publications is becoming a more mainstream phenomenon. The web service Sci-Hub is amongst the biggest facilitators of this, offering free access to around 62 million publications. So far it is not well studied how and why its users are accessing publications through Sci-Hub. By utilizing the recently released corpus of Sci-Hub and comparing it to the data of  ~28 million downloads done through the service, this study tries to address some of these questions. 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. A further analysis of these openly available data resources will undoubtedly be valuable for the investigation of academic publishing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5428489
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher F1000Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54284892017-05-18 Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage Greshake, Bastian F1000Res Research Article Despite the growth of Open Access, potentially illegally circumventing paywalls to access scholarly publications is becoming a more mainstream phenomenon. The web service Sci-Hub is amongst the biggest facilitators of this, offering free access to around 62 million publications. So far it is not well studied how and why its users are accessing publications through Sci-Hub. By utilizing the recently released corpus of Sci-Hub and comparing it to the data of  ~28 million downloads done through the service, this study tries to address some of these questions. 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. A further analysis of these openly available data resources will undoubtedly be valuable for the investigation of academic publishing. F1000Research 2017-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5428489/ /pubmed/28529712 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11366.1 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Greshake B http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Greshake, Bastian
Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage
title Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage
title_full Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage
title_fullStr Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage
title_full_unstemmed Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage
title_short Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage
title_sort looking into pandora's box: the content of sci-hub and its usage
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5428489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28529712
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11366.1
work_keys_str_mv AT greshakebastian lookingintopandorasboxthecontentofscihubanditsusage