Science Paper Piracy Site Sci-Hub Shares Lots of Retracted Papers (arstechnica.com)
(Tuesday January 07, 2025 @10:30PM (BeauHD)
from the staying-up-to-date dept.)
- Reference: 0175848333
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/01/07/238232/science-paper-piracy-site-sci-hub-shares-lots-of-retracted-papers
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/01/science-paper-piracy-site-sci-hub-shares-lots-of-retracted-papers/
The shift from paywalled to [1]open-access scientific publishing is progressing, driven in part by platforms like Sci-Hub -- a website that allows users to upload PDFs of published papers and share them with anyone. While the shadow library website has faced ongoing [2]attempts by publishers to block access, it has another problem: the platform [3]features many outdated or retracted papers that could spread misinformation or flawed findings. Ars Technica reports:
> Sci-Hub works a bit like a combination of cache and aggregator for published materials. Whenever it gets a request for a paper that's not already in its database, it uses leaked login credentials to go to the website of whatever journal published the paper and obtain a copy. If it already has a copy, however, it will simply serve that up instead. This leaves open the possibility that it will have obtained a copy of a paper prior to its retraction and continue to distribute that copy after the paper has been retracted.
>
> To check this, the researchers [4]obtained a list of nearly 17,000 retracted papers and searched for them on Sci-Hub. They then visually examined the documents that were returned. They found that 85 percent of them contained no indication that the paper had been retracted. "The availability of [unlabeled retracted articles] in the field of health sciences is particularly high," they note, "which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research."
>
> While corrections are less severe than retractions, they're likely to suffer a similar problem. And corrections will often involve the technical details of a paper -- the experimental approaches or raw data that will be critical for anyone wanting to replicate or extend previously published results. So, if anything, their impact will be more significant.
Ars notes that a [5]system called Crossmark is available to help find the most up-to-date version of a paper, including any corrections or retraction notices.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/
[2] https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/05/05/1613206/sci-hub-faces-millions-of-dollars-in-damages-elsevier-complaint-shuts-down-domain
[3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/01/science-paper-piracy-site-sci-hub-shares-lots-of-retracted-papers/
[4] http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558
[5] https://www.crossref.org/services/crossmark/
> Sci-Hub works a bit like a combination of cache and aggregator for published materials. Whenever it gets a request for a paper that's not already in its database, it uses leaked login credentials to go to the website of whatever journal published the paper and obtain a copy. If it already has a copy, however, it will simply serve that up instead. This leaves open the possibility that it will have obtained a copy of a paper prior to its retraction and continue to distribute that copy after the paper has been retracted.
>
> To check this, the researchers [4]obtained a list of nearly 17,000 retracted papers and searched for them on Sci-Hub. They then visually examined the documents that were returned. They found that 85 percent of them contained no indication that the paper had been retracted. "The availability of [unlabeled retracted articles] in the field of health sciences is particularly high," they note, "which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research."
>
> While corrections are less severe than retractions, they're likely to suffer a similar problem. And corrections will often involve the technical details of a paper -- the experimental approaches or raw data that will be critical for anyone wanting to replicate or extend previously published results. So, if anything, their impact will be more significant.
Ars notes that a [5]system called Crossmark is available to help find the most up-to-date version of a paper, including any corrections or retraction notices.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/
[2] https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/05/05/1613206/sci-hub-faces-millions-of-dollars-in-damages-elsevier-complaint-shuts-down-domain
[3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/01/science-paper-piracy-site-sci-hub-shares-lots-of-retracted-papers/
[4] http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558
[5] https://www.crossref.org/services/crossmark/
So what? (Score:3)
by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 )
Also, Sci-Hub isn't a "piracy site", it is an enabler of science. There are times when I want to take a glance at an article my university isn't subscribed for, for example to fact-check whatever bullshit "science journalism" has produced on the topic, I should what, shell 50 euros every time?
GTFO.
biology is not bigotry (Score:1)
the notion of a gendered soul being born into the wrong body is inherently incompatible with atheism.
i thought we just didn't entertain any sort of nonsense but i guess its all clown world these days.
good thing piracy is an impartial historian.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take strawmen, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make strawmen taste like, which is why strawman arguments taste like everything.
Re: (Score:1)
strawmen dream of electric farmers