The web-site is now in readonly mode. Login and registration are disabled. (28 June 2019)

Poster

The following alternative to this embedded content has been provided by the person who put the content on the site for accessibility reasons.

Description of slides

 

Slide 1

 

An image of a skull and crossbones with the text ““Pirate scholarly communication: how are illegal means of sharing academic literature part of open education and how are they innovative?”, David Jenkins, The Open University”

 

Slide 2

 

Contains the text “It investigates 
illegal online services and mechanisms 
for sharing academic literature”

 

Slide 3

 

A screenshot of the pirate website Sci-Hub (http://sci-hub.io/)

 

Slide 4

 

An image of the Twitter logo and the text “#icanhazpdf”

 

Slide 5

 

Contains the text “It addresses these illegal online services and mechanisms in relation to understandings of open education”

 

Slide 6

 

Contains the text:

 

“It answers the following questions:

To what extent can pirate scholarly communication be considered open education?

To what extent can pirate scholarly communication be considered innovative?

To what extent is legality a condition of open education?”

 

Slide 7

 

A photograph of money in the form of coins and notes from various currencies

 

Slide 8

 

An image of two people shaking hands whilst grasping money in a red circle with a red line through it, denoting that the transfer of money should not take place

 

Slide 9

 

An image of the globe, with the countries coloured different shades of blue to represent what score they were given in the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) rankings for 2014

 

Slide 10

 

A photograph of a crowd of people

 

Slide 11

 

A photograph of five small piles of coins, decreasing in size from left to right

 

Slide 12

 

A screenshot of an article entitled ““The Serials Crisis” explained” (http://sites.tufts.edu/scholarlycommunication/open-access/the-serials-crisis-explained/)

 

Slide 13

 

An image of the copyright symbol in a red circle with a red line through it, indicating “no copyright”

 

Slide 14

 

A screenshot of an article entitled “The Female ‘Robin Hood of Science’ Released 50 Million Copyrighted Science Journals Online - For Free” (http://nextshark.com/alexandra-elbakyan-scihub/)

 

Slide 15

 

A screenshot of an article entitled “Sci-Hub’s “Free” Articles are Anything but Free” (http://theinstitute.ieee.org/blogs/blog/scihubs-free-articles-are-anything-but-free)

Slide 16

 

Screenshot of an article entitled “Who’s downloading priate papers? EVERYONE: In rich and poor countries, researchers turn to the Sci-Hub website” (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone)

 

Slide 17

 

Contains the text:

 

“This project will help to:

Better understand the boundaries and definitions of open education

Address what role legality should play in open education

Discuss whether piracy poses a threat to open education”

 

Slide 18

 

Contains the text “This project will be of interest to anyone involved in open education, particularly at the level of higher education, and anyone involved in the scholarly communication process”

 

Slide 19

 

Contains the text “Thank you for your time”

 

Slide 20

 

Contains the text:

 

“@david_r_jenkins

davidrjenkins.wordpress.com

#piratescholcomms”

 

Slide 21

 

Contains the text:

 

“Images:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Edward_England.svg
By WarX, edited by Manuel Strehl (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons

Screenshot of http://sci-hub.io/

https://brand.twitter.com/en.html
Twitter logo white on image, © 2016 Twitter, Inc.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exchange_Money_Conversion_to_Foreign_Currency.jpg
By epSos.de [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_no_money_handshake.svg
By User:Mark Miller, User:Herostratus and User:Masur (This file was derived from  Nodollarhandshake.jpg:) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg
By BlankMap-World6,_compact.svg: Canuckguy et al. derivative work: Tomtom2732 [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons”

Slide 22

 

Contains the text:

 


“Images:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/guiguibu91/2889883615
“Crowd down the street” by Guillaume, CC BY 2.0

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=100732&picture=penny-stack
“Stack of penny isolated on white background”, Charles Rondeau, CC0

Screenshot of http://sites.tufts.edu/scholarlycommunication/open-access/the-serials-crisis-explained/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NoCopyright.png
Foobaz [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Screenshot of http://nextshark.com/alexandra-elbakyan-scihub/

Screenshot of http://theinstitute.ieee.org/blogs/blog/scihubs-free-articles-are-anything-but-free

Screenshot of http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone”

 

Slide 23

 

Contains the text:

 

“Selected bibliography:

Bohannon, J., 2016a. Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone. Science. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone [Accessed November 9, 2016].

Cabanac, G., 2016. Bibliogifts in LibGen? A study of a text-sharing platform driven by biblioleaks and crowdsourcing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), pp.874–884.

DeVoss, D.N. & Porter, J.E., 2006. Why Napster matters to writing: Filesharing as a new ethic of digital delivery. Computers and Composition, 23(2), pp.178–210.

Dunn, A.G., Coiera, E. & Mandl, K.D., 2014. Is biblioleaks inevitable? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(4), pp.1–6.

Gardner, C.C. & Gardner, G.J., 2015. Bypassing Interlibrary Loan Via Twitter : An Exploration of # icanhazpdf Requests. Acrl 2015, 3(3), pp.2014–2015. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/24847.

Hall, G., 2016. Pirate Philosophy: For a Digital Posthumanities, London: MIT Press. Available at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/pirate-philosophy.

Van Hoorebeek, M., 2003. Napster clones turn their attention to academic e-books. New Library World, 104(4/5), pp.142–148. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03074800310475954.

Lewis, D.W., 2016. Will Sci-Hub Kill the Open Access Citation Advantage and (at least for now) Save Toll Access Journals?

McNutt, M., 2016. My love-hate of Sci-Hub. Science, 352(6285), pp.497–497. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aaf9419.

Swab, M. & Romme, K., 2016. Scholarly Sharing via Twitter: #icanhazpdf Requests for Health Sciences Literature. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada, 37(1). Available at: https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/jchla/article/view/26060 [Accessed November 9, 2016].”




Transcript of spoken word:

 

“Hi, I am David Jenkins, based at The Open University and my research project is titled “Pirate scholarly communication: how are illegal means of sharing academic literature part of open education and how are they innovative?”.

 

This project is part of the innovation theme and it takes the form of a paper investigating illegal online services and mechanisms for sharing academic literature, such as journal articles, books, conference proceedings.

 

Examples of pirate services include Sci-Hub, a search engine that allows people free access to a large illegal database of academic literature, and #icanhazpdf, which is a system of requesting and supplying literature illegally via a Twitter hashtag.

 

This project not only describes these services and mechanisms but it explores their relationship with our understandings of open education past and present,

 

In doing so it will answering a number of important  questions:

 

  • To what extent can pirate scholarly communication be considered open education?

  • To what extent can pirate scholarly communication be considered innovative?

  • To what extent is legality a condition of open education?

 

So, to explain why these questions are so important, here’s a bit of basic background for anyone who is not familiar with this area.

 

People have to pay to read most academic literature. It is usually made available by an academic publisher, who charges people to access it. This may sound unproblematic but there are a few issues that make it a unique and complicated scenario:

 

  • Firstly, many people feel that academic literature should be free for everybody to read due to its educational nature and the fact education is seen to be a basic human right. The current situation does not favour those based in developing countries, for example, where it may be much more difficult to afford access to this literature

  • Secondly, a significant amount of academic literature is based on publically-funded research. Some people feel it is unfair that the public pay for the research to be done and then have to pay a private company again in order to read the output of that research

  • Thirdly, academic publishers are often perceived as having minimal costs. They often do not pay the authors of journal articles, one of the main forms of academic literature. Neither do they pay academics to peer-review journal articles. Even when authors are paid for their work, the payment is often not considered to form a major part of their income. What’s more, the advent of online publishing is seen to have reduced publishers’ costs. As a result, some people feel it is unfair of academic publishers to charge so much for access to literature

  • Finally, academic publishers’ prices are seen to be increasing at a rate that cannot be afforded. University libraries, for example, are increasingly unable to afford subscriptions to the material that university staff and students need

 

Pirate scholarly communications, these illegal online means sharing academic literature are a reaction to this situation. They violate the copyright and licensing agreements in order to make educational material openly available for no cost to the reader.

 

Are they legitimate acts of civil disobedience, in keeping with open education’s core aim of democratizing access to education or are they unjustifiable examples of theft that threaten part of the educational infrastructure?

 

Given the increasing popularity and press coverage of services such as Sci-Hub, the field of open education needs this project to be undertaken in order to:

 

  • Better understand the boundaries and definitions of open education

  • Address what role legality should play in democratising access to education

  • Discuss whether piracy poses a threat to open education

 

This may be of interest to anyone involved in open education, particularly at the level of higher education, and anyone involved in the scholarly communication process (e.g. academics, publishers, librarians, learned societies etc.).

 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing your feedback on the project.”