idiomaddict@lemmy.world
on 03 Jul 05:28
nextcollapse
I donât know if itâs just my field or if Iâm searching wrong, but I get almost nothing when I look for papers about German grammar and language instruction. Is this mostly for more mainstream/hard science papers?
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
on 03 Jul 07:57
nextcollapse
Idk if itll help but have you tried annas archive? It mirrors multiple science piracy sites.
Edit:do you mean pedagogical materials or research? Cause I donât think youâll be lucky if itâs the former.
I have tried it, but also not had any luck. I am looking for research, but itâs still a really narrow field, tbh. Even in Germany, I think there are only a handful of DaF/aZ postgrad programs.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
on 03 Jul 20:39
collapse
So yeah itâs probably your field! Sorry about that. Fwiw I donât think the problem is that it isnât âhard scienceâ, I find it easy to find philosophical works (German, English and French language ones). Itâs probably just too niche.
illusionist@lemmy.zip
on 03 Jul 11:41
nextcollapse
I canât speak for your field or language but someone has to upload it. Content in German and about grammar sounds very specific. Maybe thereâs a lack of interest on scihub. Ask around in your circle where they share/get their articles
pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Jul 12:12
nextcollapse
My input: Iâve never searched for papers in Scihub directly. I usually find them off Google scholar or something, and then put the paywalled URL or the DOI (an identifier you can usually find in the paywalled website) in Scihub to go to that paper. I donât think search capabilities are in scihubâs scope.
Iâm not sure you have understood that people donât want to profit from their data, they want to avoid corporations stealing their private texts and pictures to train models theyâll profit from.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 03 Jul 23:50
collapse
Is this some weak attempt at gaslighting? If you want to make a career out of this, you really need to up your game. I mean, can you imagine some think tank going: Landlords donât want to profit from those apartments, they just want to avoid people squatting in them for free.
Your problem is that the landlord analogy just doesnât suit this situation.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 10:43
collapse
Rent seeking is long-established economic jargon. It doesnât necessarily imply a landlord analogy. A landlord may not be extracting an economic rent within that definition.
The point is rent-seeking, not an analogy to landlords.
Precisely, and rent-seeking is whatâs not happening here, as nobody is looking to profit. People are only looking to keep their private information private.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 11:25
collapse
Your gaslighting game is shit. Like Copyright lawsuits arenât half the news being cheered by AI haters. Not a single privacy lawsuit in sight. How stupid do you think people are?
Assuming youâre right, itâs still not rent-seeking. If I believe that AI companies should be made liable for breaking copyright, Iâm not personally receiving any monetary benefit. Whereâs my rent?
Itâs about principle. Itâs unfair that a company can steal data and profit from it. Simple as that.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 12:32
collapse
Yes, Iâm sure very few AI haters will be getting any rent personally. They are supporting rent-seeking by others. Iâm sure many do so out of âprincipleâ, or as it would be more commonly phrased, out of ideological dogmatism. Iâm a left/liberal guy. I want a society that works for everybody.
A society that works for everybody is a fair society. Stealing intellectual property and user confidential data is not fair.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 14:00
collapse
And some people will say that a fair society should give back to the King what those revolutionaries stole by creating republics everywhere. You think of your ideology as the one true definition of fairness, justice, and whatever. Thatâs just ordinary dogmatism.
As far as Iâm concerned, society should be ordered to fulfill everyoneâs material needs; food, shelter, health care, and such things. Otherwise, people should not be interfered with. They should be free to make the best of life. That is simply incompatible with rent-seeking.
Iâm sure youâll be the first one to provide public access to your private photos and texts so everyone can check how to improve their lives with those valuable resources.
Amazing how propaganda by the rich is so successful in making people believe itâs not them who are the parasites.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 15:03
collapse
I draw some quiet satisfaction from feeling that Iâve had a positive influence on the world. I really donât understand why some are so outraged that they may have benefitted some stranger without payment.
Amazing how propaganda by the rich is so successful in making people believe itâs not them who are the parasites.
Look⌠You believe society should pay money to property owners. Who owns most of the property? Rich people. You have your ideology but donât treat me like an idiot.
MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Jul 15:10
nextcollapse
Hi there. Iâm an artist who gives away everything for free because I donât personally think itâs ethical to profit from pure human emotional expression. I also donât think itâs ethical for some faceless corporation to profit from my art. I will ABSOLUTELY fight against my art being used to train AI models, but I have ABSOLUTELY no desire to profit. In fact, I have the opposite desire.
So tell me exactly what is rent-seeking?
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 15:23
collapse
So youâre not seeking rent. Good on ya, because no small artist would be getting any appreciable amount of money. The big bucks go to Disney, Adobe, Getty, and the likes of them.
What am I supposed to do with the information youâre giving me?
I hope you donât believe people who are opposed to AI companies stealing data are also simultaneously rooting for big corporations such as the ones you mentioned. That would be a very misguided idea unfortunately.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 16:22
collapse
Again, donât treat me like an idiot. Lemmy is full of threads where people cheer on big corporations like Disney when they go to court. I get that you only care about your ideology and not whether Disney, Adobe, or any other of them profits. But thatâs how it goes. Either you change your ideology or you accept what kind of world you are fighting for.
Iâm on Lemmy everyday and havenât come across any thread where vast numbers of people are cheering for big companies in any capacity. Of course youâll probably have some who just want to stick it in the arse to AI companies and donât think two steps further, but I donât believe thatâs anywhere close to a significant number of people.
You put those words in my mouth, I never said I believe that. Iâve been saying that each person owns their data and have the right to decide what it can be used for.
Itâs a separate discussion but: that rich people own most of the assets has a lot to do with the fact they steal and use stolen resources to appropriate more resources. Itâs parasitic and needs to stop.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 16:17
collapse
Iâve been saying that each person owns their data and have the right to decide what it can be used for.
Fair enough, but thatâs a really fine point. You can do what you like with your property; use it, make it a gift, destroy it, give it to charity, ⌠But in daily life of most people, property rights are all about money.
Your ideas demand a massive amount of free money for the likes of Disney. On a societal level, thatâs basically it. I feel justified in ignoring a few people who have idiosyncratic plans.
ETA:
Itâs a separate discussion but: that rich people own most of the assets has a lot to do with the fact they steal and use stolen resources to appropriate more resources. Itâs parasitic and needs to stop.
No. Wealth inequality is an unavoidable part of having property. I can find a simulation for you, if you want.
Inequality is fine as long as it isnât extreme. You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules. In my opinion itâs about finding a balance where neither the richest nor the poorest person strays too far from the median, otherwise you start having trouble and move slowly towards an oligarchy thatâll end in violence and suffering eventually.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 16:48
collapse
You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules.
Ok. And how would these rules fare against your convictions on property?
Not sure why you think that but I donât, I have strong feelings on personal privacy.
I believe youâre constantly trying to steer the conversation into âyou and everyone who opposes unethical AI model training only want data owners to get paidâ, but itâs not how it is. I want to prevent AI corporations from stealing. Itâs a big difference.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 18:36
collapse
stealing.
Stealing is something you do with property. Itâs not something you do with privacy.
So what do you mean by âpersonal privacyâ? Most would consider stuff intentionally made public to be explicitly not private. What actually is the problem?
AI companies are training models on photos and texts posted only for your friends to see in their networks, and worse, also on e-mails, personal images people are backing up, etc. Thatâs private information. It shouldnât be used for training models.
With public information that everyone can see itâs from my point of view a gray area. If a magazine takes a public photo and uses it to sell copies, theyâre stealing from the artist. But if they take that same photo and use it to train and sell an AI model, itâs a difficult situation to assess. I think our best approach so far is to respect the authorâs wishes if they explicitly want to opt out. And yes of course I believe in intellectual property and copyright, if that was your question. Theyâre there for a reason, and they not only benefit big corporations but also small and independent artists and content creators.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 19:26
collapse
I companies are training models on photos and texts posted only for your friends
Can you give me an example or two of such a model?
And yes of course I believe in intellectual property and copyright, if that was your question. Theyâre there for a reason,
Thanks for bringing us back there. Thatâs the classical conservative argument. Itâs not wrong.
One thing you said earlier was: You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules.
So, how do such reforms stack up against your conservatism?
Just a recent example. Of course theyâre vague about what âpublicâ means, but if you really believe they arenât using all the photos, youâd be pretty naive in my eyes.
If thatâs what you want to call conservative go ahead, although itâs not what Iâd typically associate with that word. Not sure where you see the problem? What does taxing wealth at increasing rates to decrease inequality have to do with enforcing intellectual property to protect intellectual workers?
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 04 Jul 23:08
collapse
Just a recent example. Of course theyâre vague about what âpublicâ means, but if you really believe they arenât using all the photos, youâd be pretty naive in my eyes.
Ok. You canât give an actual example, so you use emotional blackmail to discourage disagreement. Noted.
If thatâs what you want to call conservative go ahead, although itâs not what Iâd typically associate with that word.
Itâs called Chestertonâs fence.
Not sure where you see the problem?
To cut right to the chase. The problem is your intellectual dishonesty. First, itâs privacy, then itâs intellectual property, then privacy again. You try the spiel about sticking it to the corporations. When that is debunked, inequality is fine. Now itâs about âintellectual workersâ, as if any of the higher-ups would share the loot.
You donât give a fuck about logic or reason. Youâre just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Youâre working through a list of talking points without ever engaging your brain. A third world guy will do that for a dollar an hour.
And donât tell me that youâre doing this for free. Doing free labor for billionaires so that billionaires can get some free money from the rest of us is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Ahh. But I have heard of it.
Did you read the article? Theyâre using your private photos from your camera roll. It is an actual example of what I said. The part I mentioned about public photos was of previously posted photos on Facebook. Please read the article otherwise donât ask for it.
Well, Iâm replying to what youâre asking and arguing about, as you can tell if you reread our thread. I care about both privacy and intellect property. Shouldnât be that hard to grasp. Also, youâve just been asking questions and assuming my point of view without ever stating your own stance. Do you believe itâs fine for AI companies to use your personal data and your intellect property to train models theyâll profit from without your consent?
If you want to resort to ad hominem we can say good day and move on, thatâs not the point of discussing things here. At least not for me. If youâd like to answer my question about what is contradictory about enforcing wealth taxes and protecting IP at the same time, Iâm all ears.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 05 Jul 16:50
collapse
You asserted that models are trained on private data. You were unable to back up the assertion.
I am not interested in psychological or rhetorical tricks. I see no value in it. If youâre willing to have a rational, fact-based discussion, science-style, then I am willing to assume good faith until evidence to the contrary is apparent.
The article explicitly states a model is being trained on private data.
You have avoided answering any of my questions and resorted to basically name calling. In light of it, I also see no longer any value in talking to you. Have a nice day.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 03 Jul 21:15
collapse
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
on 03 Jul 19:47
nextcollapse
Dunno what Sci-Hub is, but most researchers are happy to send you a copy of their paper on request - and this is completely legal. Their email address is usually on the abstract.
I was trying to get more info on a paper I read for a final project in my senior year. Couldnât get anything back. Their PhD thesis was on spotted lanternflies and how temps impact them
I am a scientist and you are right. If I get a message asking for my work, I will send it. It will also make me happy that someone is interested. It happens regularly, usually via researchgate.
modality@lemmy.myserv.one
on 04 Jul 15:46
nextcollapse
Lazily reasoned misanthropic nonsense, if every scientist were of this zero-sum mindset theyâd all have long since transitioned to industry roles in engineering for the higher average pay alone.
Iâm a researcher and i would gladly send anyone a paper who asks, without a reason needed. Although all my papers are open access anyways so shrugs. Btw itâs also not unusual that people may just ask some questions related to ones paper via email and im always happy to answer those. I believe that most researchers are always glad to share their expertise and findings (as long as it isnât a huge effort ofc).
Isnât it odd that researchers who should be pros at caring about and finding the most correct metrics for every topic are obsessed with a proxy for quality that is just about the most disjoint possible? It should be embarrassing.
Unfortunately, itâs commonly not researchers that create academic circles, it is publishers and other entities with vested interest in making us publish more garbage.
threaded - newest
đ´ââ ď¸đ´ââ ď¸đ´ââ ď¸
And my đŚ!
If scientists didnât have to pay obscene prices to view articles, those articles are cited more often. Who would have thought?
I personally like scihub because itâs easier to get papers off of rather than going through my libraryâs portal for a lot of journals.
One of us.
yes
I donât know if itâs just my field or if Iâm searching wrong, but I get almost nothing when I look for papers about German grammar and language instruction. Is this mostly for more mainstream/hard science papers?
Idk if itll help but have you tried annas archive? It mirrors multiple science piracy sites.
Edit:do you mean pedagogical materials or research? Cause I donât think youâll be lucky if itâs the former.
I have tried it, but also not had any luck. I am looking for research, but itâs still a really narrow field, tbh. Even in Germany, I think there are only a handful of DaF/aZ postgrad programs.
So yeah itâs probably your field! Sorry about that. Fwiw I donât think the problem is that it isnât âhard scienceâ, I find it easy to find philosophical works (German, English and French language ones). Itâs probably just too niche.
I canât speak for your field or language but someone has to upload it. Content in German and about grammar sounds very specific. Maybe thereâs a lack of interest on scihub. Ask around in your circle where they share/get their articles
Guess it is time to fill in that niche, đ đ
My input: Iâve never searched for papers in Scihub directly. I usually find them off Google scholar or something, and then put the paywalled URL or the DOI (an identifier you can usually find in the paywalled website) in Scihub to go to that paper. I donât think search capabilities are in scihubâs scope.
I generally use the DOI, but I did not realize that you could just type in a paywalled url. That might explain it, thanks!
So making access to information free is helping scientific progress? Wow, who could have imagined that!
Careful, lest the AI haters hear that.
Free papers = free access to information
LLMs = trash
The AI haters Iâve seen really hate free access to information. Well, thereâs apparently other kinds.
Very misguided.
ikr?
In your eyes, what are these AI haters complaining about?
Seems to be mainly about property owners not getting enough rent.
Iâm not sure you have understood that people donât want to profit from their data, they want to avoid corporations stealing their private texts and pictures to train models theyâll profit from.
Is this some weak attempt at gaslighting? If you want to make a career out of this, you really need to up your game. I mean, can you imagine some think tank going: Landlords donât want to profit from those apartments, they just want to avoid people squatting in them for free.
Your problem is that the landlord analogy just doesnât suit this situation.
Rent seeking is long-established economic jargon. It doesnât necessarily imply a landlord analogy. A landlord may not be extracting an economic rent within that definition.
The point is rent-seeking, not an analogy to landlords.
Precisely, and rent-seeking is whatâs not happening here, as nobody is looking to profit. People are only looking to keep their private information private.
Your gaslighting game is shit. Like Copyright lawsuits arenât half the news being cheered by AI haters. Not a single privacy lawsuit in sight. How stupid do you think people are?
Assuming youâre right, itâs still not rent-seeking. If I believe that AI companies should be made liable for breaking copyright, Iâm not personally receiving any monetary benefit. Whereâs my rent?
Itâs about principle. Itâs unfair that a company can steal data and profit from it. Simple as that.
Yes, Iâm sure very few AI haters will be getting any rent personally. They are supporting rent-seeking by others. Iâm sure many do so out of âprincipleâ, or as it would be more commonly phrased, out of ideological dogmatism. Iâm a left/liberal guy. I want a society that works for everybody.
A society that works for everybody is a fair society. Stealing intellectual property and user confidential data is not fair.
And some people will say that a fair society should give back to the King what those revolutionaries stole by creating republics everywhere. You think of your ideology as the one true definition of fairness, justice, and whatever. Thatâs just ordinary dogmatism.
As far as Iâm concerned, society should be ordered to fulfill everyoneâs material needs; food, shelter, health care, and such things. Otherwise, people should not be interfered with. They should be free to make the best of life. That is simply incompatible with rent-seeking.
Iâm sure youâll be the first one to provide public access to your private photos and texts so everyone can check how to improve their lives with those valuable resources.
Amazing how propaganda by the rich is so successful in making people believe itâs not them who are the parasites.
I draw some quiet satisfaction from feeling that Iâve had a positive influence on the world. I really donât understand why some are so outraged that they may have benefitted some stranger without payment.
Look⌠You believe society should pay money to property owners. Who owns most of the property? Rich people. You have your ideology but donât treat me like an idiot.
Hi there. Iâm an artist who gives away everything for free because I donât personally think itâs ethical to profit from pure human emotional expression. I also donât think itâs ethical for some faceless corporation to profit from my art. I will ABSOLUTELY fight against my art being used to train AI models, but I have ABSOLUTELY no desire to profit. In fact, I have the opposite desire.
So tell me exactly what is rent-seeking?
So youâre not seeking rent. Good on ya, because no small artist would be getting any appreciable amount of money. The big bucks go to Disney, Adobe, Getty, and the likes of them.
What am I supposed to do with the information youâre giving me?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
I hope you donât believe people who are opposed to AI companies stealing data are also simultaneously rooting for big corporations such as the ones you mentioned. That would be a very misguided idea unfortunately.
Again, donât treat me like an idiot. Lemmy is full of threads where people cheer on big corporations like Disney when they go to court. I get that you only care about your ideology and not whether Disney, Adobe, or any other of them profits. But thatâs how it goes. Either you change your ideology or you accept what kind of world you are fighting for.
Iâm on Lemmy everyday and havenât come across any thread where vast numbers of people are cheering for big companies in any capacity. Of course youâll probably have some who just want to stick it in the arse to AI companies and donât think two steps further, but I donât believe thatâs anywhere close to a significant number of people.
You put those words in my mouth, I never said I believe that. Iâve been saying that each person owns their data and have the right to decide what it can be used for.
Itâs a separate discussion but: that rich people own most of the assets has a lot to do with the fact they steal and use stolen resources to appropriate more resources. Itâs parasitic and needs to stop.
Fair enough, but thatâs a really fine point. You can do what you like with your property; use it, make it a gift, destroy it, give it to charity, ⌠But in daily life of most people, property rights are all about money.
Your ideas demand a massive amount of free money for the likes of Disney. On a societal level, thatâs basically it. I feel justified in ignoring a few people who have idiosyncratic plans.
ETA:
No. Wealth inequality is an unavoidable part of having property. I can find a simulation for you, if you want.
Inequality is fine as long as it isnât extreme. You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules. In my opinion itâs about finding a balance where neither the richest nor the poorest person strays too far from the median, otherwise you start having trouble and move slowly towards an oligarchy thatâll end in violence and suffering eventually.
Ok. And how would these rules fare against your convictions on property?
Which convictions on property?
You obviously have strong feelings on intellectual property. What actually are your views on that?
Not sure why you think that but I donât, I have strong feelings on personal privacy.
I believe youâre constantly trying to steer the conversation into âyou and everyone who opposes unethical AI model training only want data owners to get paidâ, but itâs not how it is. I want to prevent AI corporations from stealing. Itâs a big difference.
Stealing is something you do with property. Itâs not something you do with privacy.
So what do you mean by âpersonal privacyâ? Most would consider stuff intentionally made public to be explicitly not private. What actually is the problem?
AI companies are training models on photos and texts posted only for your friends to see in their networks, and worse, also on e-mails, personal images people are backing up, etc. Thatâs private information. It shouldnât be used for training models.
With public information that everyone can see itâs from my point of view a gray area. If a magazine takes a public photo and uses it to sell copies, theyâre stealing from the artist. But if they take that same photo and use it to train and sell an AI model, itâs a difficult situation to assess. I think our best approach so far is to respect the authorâs wishes if they explicitly want to opt out. And yes of course I believe in intellectual property and copyright, if that was your question. Theyâre there for a reason, and they not only benefit big corporations but also small and independent artists and content creators.
Can you give me an example or two of such a model?
Thanks for bringing us back there. Thatâs the classical conservative argument. Itâs not wrong.
One thing you said earlier was: You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules.
So, how do such reforms stack up against your conservatism?
www.theverge.com/meta/694685/meta-ai-camera-roll
Just a recent example. Of course theyâre vague about what âpublicâ means, but if you really believe they arenât using all the photos, youâd be pretty naive in my eyes.
If thatâs what you want to call conservative go ahead, although itâs not what Iâd typically associate with that word. Not sure where you see the problem? What does taxing wealth at increasing rates to decrease inequality have to do with enforcing intellectual property to protect intellectual workers?
Ok. You canât give an actual example, so you use emotional blackmail to discourage disagreement. Noted.
Itâs called Chestertonâs fence.
To cut right to the chase. The problem is your intellectual dishonesty. First, itâs privacy, then itâs intellectual property, then privacy again. You try the spiel about sticking it to the corporations. When that is debunked, inequality is fine. Now itâs about âintellectual workersâ, as if any of the higher-ups would share the loot.
You donât give a fuck about logic or reason. Youâre just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Youâre working through a list of talking points without ever engaging your brain. A third world guy will do that for a dollar an hour.
And donât tell me that youâre doing this for free. Doing free labor for billionaires so that billionaires can get some free money from the rest of us is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Ahh. But I have heard of it.
Did you read the article? Theyâre using your private photos from your camera roll. It is an actual example of what I said. The part I mentioned about public photos was of previously posted photos on Facebook. Please read the article otherwise donât ask for it.
Well, Iâm replying to what youâre asking and arguing about, as you can tell if you reread our thread. I care about both privacy and intellect property. Shouldnât be that hard to grasp. Also, youâve just been asking questions and assuming my point of view without ever stating your own stance. Do you believe itâs fine for AI companies to use your personal data and your intellect property to train models theyâll profit from without your consent?
If you want to resort to ad hominem we can say good day and move on, thatâs not the point of discussing things here. At least not for me. If youâd like to answer my question about what is contradictory about enforcing wealth taxes and protecting IP at the same time, Iâm all ears.
You asserted that models are trained on private data. You were unable to back up the assertion.
I am not interested in psychological or rhetorical tricks. I see no value in it. If youâre willing to have a rational, fact-based discussion, science-style, then I am willing to assume good faith until evidence to the contrary is apparent.
The article explicitly states a model is being trained on private data.
You have avoided answering any of my questions and resorted to basically name calling. In light of it, I also see no longer any value in talking to you. Have a nice day.
To be clear, here is what I mean by rent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
.
no no no you see, putting papers behind paywalls actually incentivizes innovation because⌠wait what?
Woohoo! Play the song!
Noted. Will upload my future papers on SciHub myself. /j. Or am I? Vsauce music plays Did you know vegetables are a social construct?
Thanks Dropout!
A sandwich is also a social construct. But not every social construct is also a sandwich.
This is why you put the preprint on arxiv
Explain more
Dunno what Sci-Hub is, but most researchers are happy to send you a copy of their paper on request - and this is completely legal. Their email address is usually on the abstract.
Adding up to days in the best scenarios to any research study when scihub or arxiv cuts it down to seconds. Because no one cares about time.
I have never ever gotten a response from a researcher :(
Thatâs too bad - Iâve seen posts from scientists, or people who claim to be, saying what I said.
Probably depends on if theyre still at the institution the research was done.
As the first author of a fair few papers during grad school, I donât have that email address anymore. ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ Also not in academia.
I was trying to get more info on a paper I read for a final project in my senior year. Couldnât get anything back. Their PhD thesis was on spotted lanternflies and how temps impact them
I am a scientist and you are right. If I get a message asking for my work, I will send it. It will also make me happy that someone is interested. It happens regularly, usually via researchgate.
Yo can I get a copy of your work?
Sure, what is your email address?
Plesse send me a copy too
If you send me your emailadress I will send you some papers
PMd you my mail
.
I think this is a limited viewpoint, its more grey than you are making it out to be.
Lazily reasoned misanthropic nonsense, if every scientist were of this zero-sum mindset theyâd all have long since transitioned to industry roles in engineering for the higher average pay alone.
Iâm a researcher and i would gladly send anyone a paper who asks, without a reason needed. Although all my papers are open access anyways so shrugs. Btw itâs also not unusual that people may just ask some questions related to ones paper via email and im always happy to answer those. I believe that most researchers are always glad to share their expertise and findings (as long as it isnât a huge effort ofc).
Why wouldnât they be? Itâs not like theyâre getting royalties from these journalsâŚ
Not owning it can get them in trouble for sharing
It depends on the publishing agreement
Isnât it odd that researchers who should be pros at caring about and finding the most correct metrics for every topic are obsessed with a proxy for quality that is just about the most disjoint possible? It should be embarrassing.
Unfortunately, itâs commonly not researchers that create academic circles, it is publishers and other entities with vested interest in making us publish more garbage.
Scientific world is corrupt as hell.
She knows not to travel. The organizer.
But tbh - even zlibrary creators got away from Argentina, they should make a movie about it one day.