Where Can the Crow Make Friends? Sci‐Hub's Activities in the Library of Development Studies and its Implications for the Field

Abstract

This study examines data on the worldwide use of the shadow library website Sci-Hub. It focuses particularly on the discipline of development studies, taking a critical look at current practices in scientific publishing and their implications for scientific conduct in this field. In the context of discussions about open science, the data demonstrate that Sci-Hub represents an existing network of open access literature. The study first describes the extent and geographic distribution of download requests from Sci-Hub and then identifies the underlying socio-economic drivers (i.e. GDP and population). The authors find that Sci-Hub is used the most by researchers from the global South, primarily from middle-income countries, whereas researchers from the poorest countries in the data set use Sci-Hub the least. This approach allows some conclusions to be drawn about factors that have an effect on a functioning open access network.1. This is a reference to Sci-Hub, which uses as its logo a picture of a crow holding a key. For a copy of the image, see: www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/08/letterpublishers-group-adds-debate-over-sci-hub-and-librarians-who-study-it (accessed 18 December 2020).

Jumping over the paywall: Strategies and motivations for scholarly piracy and other alternatives

“…Our data also showed that academics from low-income countries employ scholarly piracy services more frequently. This finding allows us to generalize this trend, which has already been analyzed in some disciplines (Sagemüller et al, 2021). We understand that academics from universities and institutions with lower economic resources are keener to solve the lack of funding and gaps in their libraries by turning to Sci-Hub and other Black OA alternatives.…”

Illegal access to scholarly information: considerations regarding the use of sci-hub and its constraints to academic libraries

“…It's still not known how sci-hub gets credentials, although there is a lot of speculation, whether it is from donations or cyberattacks (Himmelstein et al, 2018;Sagemüller et al, 2021), it already gathers a large collection of paywalled scholarly research (Björk, 2017;Greshake, 2017). In the literature, this type of access, provided by the shadow libraries, is often referred to as «black open access» or «guerrilla open access» (Björk, 2017).…”

“…Therefore, besides not guaranteeing that the contents that are being accessed are the true sources, since it isn't authoritative, it doesn't warrant the quality and long-term preservation, besides not talking of compatibility with standards and interoperability with other structures of scholarly communication, something of which a proper infrastructure should assure. So, sci-hub isn't committed to opening up research, since it fails to address key attributes of open science (Sagemüller et al, 2021).…”

“…When it comes to comparing the preferences between the use of sci-hub and the use of library services, there is a tendency to choose sci-hub because of its convenience, ease of use, and faster method, but also because of acceptance and popularity among the academic community (Björk, 2017;González-Solar and Fernández-Marcial, 2019;Lawson, 2017;Sagemüller et al, 2021). Difficulty in accessing content influences users to search for it elsewhere, and libraries, or even the publisher's systems are not the most friendly (Mellins-Cohen, 2017).…”

Free access to scientific literature and its influence on the publishing activity in developing countries: The effect ofSci‐Hubin the field of mathematics

“…The most prominent example is Sci‐Hub, which provides free access to publications behind paywalls through the fraudulent use of existing licensee accounts. The use of Sci‐Hub within the academic community (Bohannon, 2016; Greshake, 2016), the finding that two‐thirds of downloads in the field of medical research stem from low‐and lower‐middle‐income countries (Sagemüller et al, 2021; Till et al, 2019), and its widespread use and global availability allow tentative answers to what‐if questions relating to the free‐of‐charge provision of academic knowledge as a public good: To what extent can free access alone contribute toward a leveling of the playing field? Does an increase in access allow more or other scientists, or even institutions, to participate in cutting‐edge discussions?…”