this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
997 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

10950 readers
2097 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 266 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Yea, academics need to just shut the publication system down. The more they keep pandering to it the more they look like fools.

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 146 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

It’s chicken/egg or “you first” problem.

You spend years on your work. You probably have loans. Your income is pitiful. And this is the structural thing that gets your name out. Now someone says “hey take a risk, don’t do it and break the system.”

Well…you first 🤷‍♂️ they publish on this garbage because it’s the only way to move up, and these garbage systems continue on because everyone has to participate. Hate the game. Don’t blame those who are by and large forced to participate.

It would require lot of effort from people with clout. It’s a big fight to pick. I am very much in favor of picking that fight, but we need to be a little sympathetic to what that entails.

[–] Rolando@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There are a couple things we can do:

  • decline to review for the big journals. why give them free labor? Do academic service in other ways.
  • if you're organizing a workshop or conference, put the papers online for free. If you're just participating and not organizing, then suggest they put the papers online for free. Here's an example: https://aclanthology.org/ If that's too time-consuming, use: https://arxiv.org/
[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Fully agree but I can tell you about point 1 that there enough gullible scientists in the world that see nothing wrong with the current system.

They will gadly pick up free review when Nature comes knocking, since its "such an honour" for such a reputable paper.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

Such a reputable paper that's no doubt accepted dozens of ChatGPT papers by now. Wow, how prestigious!

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Something else we can do: regulate. Like every other corrupt industry in the history of the world, we need the force of law to fix it--and for pretty much all the same reasons. People worked at Triangle Shirtwaist because they had to, not because they thought it was a great place to work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] angrymouse@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

100% ppl need stop thinking big changes can be made "by individuals", this kind of stuff needs regulation and state alternatives made by popular pressure or is impossible to break as an average worker dealing with in the private sector.

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Exactly. Asking some grad student to take on these ancient, corrupt publishing systems at the expense of their career and livelihood is ridiculous

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Funding agencies have huge power here; demanding that research be published in OA journals is perhaps a good start (with limits on $ spent publishing, perhaps).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 40 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I feel like most of the academia in the research side would be happy to see it collapse, but the current system is too deeply tied in the money for any quick change

I worked in academia for almost a decade and never met a researcher who wouldn't openly support sci-hub (well, some warned their students that it was illegal to type these spesific search terms and click on the wrong link downloading the pdf for free)

[–] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

One lecturer actually had notes on their slides for the differences between the latest version of the course book and the one before it, since the latest one wasn't available for free anywhere but they wanted to use couple chapters from the new book (they scanned and distributed the relevant parts themself)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Rayspekt@lemmy.world 103 points 4 months ago (9 children)

When will scientists just self-publish? I mean seriously, nowadays there is nothing between a researcher and publishing their stuff on the web. Only thing would be peer-reviewing, if you want that, but then just organize it without Elsevier. Reviewers get paid jack shit so you can just do a peer-reviewing fediverse instance where only the mods know the people so it's still double-blind.

This system is just to dangle carrots in front of young researchers chasing their PhD

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 111 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Because of "impact score" the journal your work gets placed in has a huge impact on future funding. Its a very frustrating process and trying to go around it is like suicide for your lab so it has to be more of a top-down fix because the bottom up is never going to happen.

Thats why everyone uses sci hub. These publishers are terrible companies up there with EA in unpopularity.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (5 children)

It sounds like all it would take to destroy the predatory for-profit publication oligarchs is a majority of the top few hundred scientists, across major disciplines, rejecting it and switching to a completely decentralized peer-2-peer open-source system in protest... The publication companies seem to gate keep, and provide no value. It's like Reddit. The site's essentially worthless. All of the value is generated by the content creators.

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Succesfully iniating this from the fediverse would be such a massive boost in public visibility and discoursive strength of the project of collectivization of information infrastructure (like lemmy).

Imagine we fluffin freed science from capital and basically all the scientists openly stated how useful this was

[–] Rayspekt@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I can only get so erect, please stop.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] macarthur_park@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When will scientists just self-publish?

It’s commonplace in my field (nuclear physics) to share the preprint version of your article, typically on arxiv.org. You can update the article as you respond to peer reviewers too. The only difference between this and the paywalls publisher version is that version will have additional formatting edits by the journal.

If you search for articles on google scholar, it groups the preprint and published versions together so it’s easy to find the non-paywalled copy. The standard journals I publish in even sort of encourage this; you can submit the latex documents and figures by just putting the url to an arxiv manuscript.

The US Department of Energy now requires any research they fund be made publicly available. So any article I publish is also automatically posted to osti.gov 1 year after its initial publication. This version is also grouped into the google scholar search results.

It’s an imperfect system, but it’s getting much better than it was even just a decade ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] half@lemy.lol 12 points 4 months ago

We (I'm a CS researcher) already kind of do, I upload almost everything to arxiv.org and researchgate. Some fields support this more than others, though.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 80 points 4 months ago (4 children)

That's where you print the downloaded PDF to a new PDF. New hash and same content, good luck tracing it back to me fucko.

[–] Syn_Attck@lemmy.today 65 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (11 children)

Unfortunately that wouldn't work as this is information inside the PDF itself so it has nothing to do with the file hash (although that is one way to track.)

Now that this is known, It's not enough to remove metadata from the PDF itself. Each image inside a PDF, for example, can contain metadata. I say this because they're apparently starting a game of whack-a-mole because this won't stop here.

There are multiple ways of removing ALL metadata from a PDF, here are most of them.

It will be slow-ish and probably make the file larger, but if you're sharing a PDF that only you are supposed to have access to, it's worth it. MAT or exiftool should work.

Edit: as spoken about in another comment thread here, there is also pdf/image steganography as a technique they can use.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 66 points 4 months ago (1 children)

i think this is less of a meme, and more of a scientifically dystopian fun fact, but sure.

[–] tuna@discuss.tchncs.de 56 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Imagine they have an internal tool to check if the hash exists in their database, something like

"SELECT user FROM downloads WHERE hash = '" + hash + "';"

You set the pdf hash to be 1'; DROP TABLE books;-- they scan it, and it effectively deletes their entire business lmfaoo.

Another idea might be to duplicate the PDF many times and insert bogus metadata for each. Then submit requests saying that you found an illegal distribution of the PDF. If their process isn't automated it would waste a lot of time on their part to find the culprit Lol

I think it's more interesting to think of how to weaponize their own hash rather than deleting it

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

That's using your ass. This is an active threat to society and it demands active countermeasures.

I'd bet they have a SaaS 'partner' who trawls SciHub and other similar sites. I'll try to remember to see if there is any hint of how this is being accomplished over the next few days.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Just print it to a PDF printer.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 45 points 4 months ago

This feels like it should be a browser plugin that automatically anonymizes anything you download.

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (19 children)

I feel like this will cause quality degradation, like repeatedly re-compressing a jpeg. Relevant xkcd

Edit: though obviously for most use cases it shouldn't matter

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 4 months ago

I feel like it would be negligible degradation for this purpose. Still might not anonymize whomever shares it though, could be watermarked with the same Metadata (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code) without being noticeable to the naked eye

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 51 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The famously uneditable PDF format.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 18 points 4 months ago

In metadata, no less.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 51 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Purge metadata, convert PDF to rendered graphics (including bitmaps), add OCR layer.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There are tools for this already.. but it sure would be nice to have a Firefox plugin that scrubs all metadata on downloads by default.

(Note I'm hoping this exists and someone will Um, Actually me)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 48 points 4 months ago

Elsevier is the reason I donate to Sci-Hub.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 44 points 4 months ago (14 children)

If the paper is worth it and does have an original not OCR-ed text layer, it'd better be exported as any other format. We don't call good things a PDF file, lol. It's clumsy, heavy, have unadjustable font size and useless empty borders, includes various limits and takes on DRM, and it's editing is usually done via paid software. This format shall die off.

The only reason academia needs that is strict references to exact page but it's not that hard to emulate. Upsides to that are overwhelming.

I had my couple of times properly digitalizing PDFs into e-books and text-processing formats, and it's a pain in the ass, but if I know it'd be read by someone but me, I'm okay with putting a bit more effort into it.

[–] petersr@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

Well, I guess PDF has one thing going for it (which might not be relevant for scientific papers): The same file will render the same on any platform (assuming the reader implements all the PDF spec to the tee).

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Dark_Dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Can't we all researcher who is technically good at web servers start a opensource alternative to these paid services. I get that we need to publish to a renowned publisher, but we also decide together to publish to an alternative opensource option. This way the alternate opensource option also grows.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sal@mander.xyz 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Some time last year I learned of an example of such a project (peerreview on GitHub):

The goal of this project was to create an open access "Peer Review" platform:


Peer Review is an open access, reputation based scientific publishing system that has the potential to replace the journal system with a single, community run website. It is free to publish, free to access, and the plan is to support it with donations and (eventually, hopefully) institutional support.

It allows academic authors to submit a draft of a paper for review by peers in their field, and then to publish it for public consumption once they are ready. It allows their peers to exercise post-publish quality control of papers by voting them up or down and posting public responses.


I just looked it up now to see how it is going... And I am a bit saddened to find out that the developer decided to stop. The author has a blog in which he wrote about the project and about why he is not so optimistic about the prospects of crowd sourced peer review anymore: https://www.theroadgoeson.com/crowdsourcing-peer-review-probably-wont-work , and related posts referenced therein.

It is only one opinion, but at least it is the opinion of someone who has thought about this some time and made a real effort towards the goal, so maybe you find some value from his perspective.

Personally, I am still optimistic about this being possible. But that's easy for me to say as I have not invested the effort!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›