On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci‐Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University

  title={On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci‐Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University},
  author={Stewart Manley},
  journal={Learned Publishing},
Key points The 2017 Sci‐Hub judgement has, to date, proven unenforceable, and it appears that enforcing the 2019 OMICS judgement will similarly prove challenging. Business developments and changing expectations over sharing digital content may also undermine the impact of the ongoing cases against ResearchGate and Georgia State University. Stakeholders should consider these limitations when deciding how to resolve scholarly publishing disputes. 

Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness

Retraction notices (RNs) are historical documents and must be as informative as possible to ensure the scholarly record is complete to ensure consistency and completeness.

Is there a need for creators of imaginary authors to face legal consequences?

One objective of fictitious papers is to target “predatory” as well as legitimate journals or publishers, possibly to expose flawed peer review.

Copyright transfer in group-authored scientific publications

Academic publishers have different definitions of multiple authorship and ghost/guest authorship. When a scientific paper is submitted to a journal, the general assumption is that its ethics and

Reasons for citing retracted literature are not straightforward, and solutions are complex.

Surprisingly, Hagberg did not discuss accountability and transparency, although these issues are implicit when he briefly mentioned the issue of responsibility: “a portion of the responsibility for the unaltered postretraction citation rates for these papers is the failure of PubMed, Web of Science, and journal websites.

A dangerous triangularization of conflicting values in academic publishing: ORCID, fake authors, and risks with the lack of criminalization of the creators of fake elements

The mainstream publishing establishment is under attack from multiple known and unknown forces and the integrity of valid scholarly venues is at high risk unless suitable, strict and ethically and legally enforceable preventative measures are implemented.

Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland

Anfang der 2000er Jahre entstanden in Reaktion auf unzureichende Zugangswege zu Fachliteratur und ausgelöst durch steigende Subskriptionsgebühren wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften erste illegale

The Sci-Hub effect on papers' citations

Using data from 12 leading journals in economics, consumer research, neuroscience, and multidisciplinary research, it is found that articles downloaded from Sci-Hub were cited 1.72 times more than papers not downloaded fromsci-Hub and that the number of downloads was a robust predictor of future citations.

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we



Sci‐Hub: The new and ultimate disruptor? View from the front

The Harbinger project was a 3‐year‐long international study of the changing attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs), and it was found that Sci‐Hub use was increasing and that a quarter of the ECRs now use it, with French E CRs being the biggest users.

The Kirtsaeng and SCI-HUB Cases: The Major U.S. Copyright Cases in the Twenty-First Century

There has been a plethora of substantive copyright cases in the history of the United States. Two of the most important cases in the last few years were: the Kirtsaeng case before the Supreme Court

So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change?

Results show that all ECRs have changed in one way or another, and a small minority has changed greatly in both attitude and practice and that collaboration and research impact are the scholarly aspects where most changes have occurred.

The Impact of Disruptive and Sustaining Digital Technologies on Scholarly Journals

Clayton M. Christensen’s The Innovator’s Dilemma is viewed within academic circles as one of the most important management books of the last twenty years. Christensen described the impact that

We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach

Key points Sci‐Hub has made nearly all articles freely available using a black open access model, leaving green and gold models in its dust. Why, after 20 years of effort, have green and gold open

Sci-Hub: What Librarians Should Know and Do about Article Piracy

  • Matthew B Hoy
  • Computer Science
    Medical reference services quarterly
  • 2017
Sci-Hub is a “pirate” article site that offers instant access to more than 58 million journal articles but users attracted by the ease of use and breadth of the collection may not realize that these articles are often obtained using stolen credentials and downloading them may be illegal.

Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?

How Electronic Publishers are Protecting agains Privacy: Doubts about Technical Systems of Protection

The study finds a divergent range of instruments of protection, and technological protection is not a preferred method, and finds that the concern with piracy is of secondary importance when compared to the need to improve the 'time of market' of their products.

Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles

Investigation of ResearchGate members as authors of journal articles found that authors infringe copyright most of the time not because they are not allowed to self-archive, but because they use the wrong version, which might imply their lack of understanding of copyright policies and/or complexity and diversity of policies.

Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

An overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals is provided, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards.