zlacker

[return to "A World Without Sci-Hub"]
◧
1. dr_dsh+Qn[view] [source] 2021-09-29 07:34:50
>>sixtyf+(OP)
> it seems clear that in the absence of the academic publishing industry, scholarship would be more widely available, not less

I am thinking of the newspaper industry. Their paywalls didn't work (most of them). Now, there is a lot more news of worse quality. It gives me pause.

It almost seems like a near perfect state — a world where Sci-Hub exists and the academic publishing industry. It's like having a thriving recording industry and Napster.

◧◩
2. mdp202+qu[view] [source] 2021-09-29 08:51:16
>>dr_dsh+Qn
The declining quality of journalism comes from cultural tolerance of bad quality - otherwise, they could just have remained unpublished. In some Countries, newspapers receive public funding yet may not reach thresholds of quality for public use (in many top industrialized countries the press has disappointing international official raking).

Similarly, the interest towards openly accessible research results is public.

◧◩◪
3. squigg+bz[view] [source] 2021-09-29 09:57:11
>>mdp202+qu
> In some Countries, newspapers receive public funding yet may not reach thresholds of quality for public use (in many top industrialized countries the press has disappointing international official raking).

I assume "raking" is a typo for "ranking", but I'm still not sure I understand your point.

The only official rankings for newspapers I'm aware of is circulation. Are you saying that a newspaper from say Ireland or Lithuania is of does not reach thresholds of quality for public use because they have a smaller target market than Fox News or Bild? (I doubt that's what you mean, but I can't identify an alternative meaning.)

What actually is a threshold of quality for public use?

[go to top]