Sci-Hub: Is It Evil Personified in Alexandra Elbakyan, a modern Abaddon?
July 1, 2021
If you are not familiar with professional publishing, you may find “Is the Pirate Queen Scientific Publishing in Real Trouble This Time?” particularly fascinating. Founded by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011, Sci-Hub has become the go to source of academic or professional publishing materials. One key point: Unlike commercial services, Sci-Hub is a freebie. In the world of Disney infused copyright ideas, Mickey Mouse and research about children’s heart disease are not available without paying. Parking at DisneyLand is a bargain compared to the fees assessed for a single two-page document. The kid’s life? Not part of the copyright approach to government funded research.
If you have some experience with the business models of the big outfits running peer-reviewed publications, you will get a kick out of passages like this one:
According to the publishers who brought the case in India, quite a bit. Pirate sites like Sci-Hub “threaten the integrity of the scientific record, and the safety of university and personal data,” a joint statement reads. It goes on to say that sites like Sci-Hub “have no incentive to ensure the accuracy of scientific articles, no incentive to ensure published papers meet ethical standards, and no incentive to retract or correct articles if issues arise.”
My hunch is that most people who explain that “I am an online expert” cannot differentiate between a blog post, a paper on ArXiv, an IEEE pdf, and a full text document from Lexis. In my experience, few online wizards can answer these questions:
- Once a research paper is complete, does the author have to pay the publisher of the journal to which the write up is submitted?
- Are the “peer reviewers” paid to do the often very, very difficult work of checking that the information in the document is correct, the statistics accurate as far as the reviewers can determine, and the “value” of the document will result in learning, not in harm?
- Are the companies running professional publishing operations monopolies or oligopolies?
- Are documents in professional publishers’ span of control updated, are errors corrected, are cabals of friendly experts disabused from promoting a graduate student’s, friend’s, or colleague’s write up? Are exchanges of favors among reviewers ignored or denied?
- Are errors in online documents corrected after those original documents are posted online?
- Are online documents known to be fraudulent or containing non reproducible results removed from repositories?
- Are libraries subject to ever increasing fees because those institutions might lose accreditation if research content were not provided to students, researchers, and other staff?
- What is the explicit link between tenure at a university and publishing in journals operated by commercial professional publishing companies? Hint: Sword of Damocles and a horse hair.
Struggling with some of the answers? No surprise. Like the pharmaceutical industry and those engaged in SMS spam services, certain information about business methods are not disclosed. And if revealed, the business processes are denied. If you want example, just watch reruns of the investigations of some of the high profile high technology companies testifying before the US Congress.
This “information wants to be free” baloney is not the way “real” online works. Here’s an example. I was asked to submit a version of my law enforcement centric report about Amazon’s policeware. Some person contacted me via LinkedIn and said a draft was due in December 2019. I said, “My report is not for academics. I don’t care if you publish it, just leave me out of the professional publishing razzle dazzle.” I pointed out that I was not an academic; I was not changing anything in the manuscript; and I was not sure if the information in my report would make any sense whatsoever to the handful of people who might read the collection of essays.
I forget about the write up: I never filled out any online forms; I never sent a bill of $1.00 (because I have a policy of getting paid for some of my research); and I routed email from the person who asked me to submit a chapter and the assorted youthful folks at the European publishing company to the Junk folder on my systems.
And what did I receive a couple of days ago? I got an email addressed to “Dear Professor Arnold.” The email wanted me to promote my chapter and the book. Okay, this blog posts is promoting the chapter. Helpful, right? Some of these outfits cannot differentiate between a PhD program drop out and a real live PhD driving for Uber. Keen powers of discrimination for sure.
Net net: Alexandrea Elbakyan, who is a student in everyone’s favorite country, is the enemy. Courts in several countries have determined that Ms. Elbakyan is a threat to learning, knowledge sharing, and “way” research content is to be made available. Yep, Elsevier is waiting for its $15 million check from Ms. Abaddon. Oh, sorry. I meant Ms. Elbakyan.
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2021
Founders Forum: A Conference Report for Social Climbers, Foodies, and Auto Fans
June 21, 2021
This is a suggestion. Read “Inside the Elite UK Tech Event Attended by the Rich and Famous.” Gushing does not do justice to this news report. Here’s an example of the rock solid info you will ingest:
Branded as “something like the Davos of tech” by The Guardian newspaper, Founders Forum is put on by serial entrepreneur and investor Brent Hoberman. The former Eton and Oxford student, who co-founded Lastminute.com and the recently listed Made.com, is well-known for having one of the most impressive networks in the European tech scene. Many of his friends and investors are invited to Founders Forum each year.
What about a summary or the introductory remarks? Who gave presentations? What did the speakers say? What questions did the presenters dodge?
Zilch info.
I did learn that foods served included lobster and strawberries. Autos visible were Range Rovers (would they start?) and Teslas. Plus there was an error and a correction.
Outstanding, hard hitting, thumbtyper information. Personalities are what makes the world go round it seems. Yep, another Davos without the podcasts.
Stephen E Arnold, June 21, 2021
Financial Outfits As Publishers: News? Objectivity? You Have to Be Kidding
June 21, 2021
I read “Andreessen Horowitz and the Future of Media.” Intriguing. I noted this statement in the write up: (Note that I did not use the word essay, news, report, or analysis.)
First, here’s my view on Future. It’s a bunch of essays. They’re not competing with reporters.
Correct.
I noted this statement too:
I have another concern: non-cooperation makes it harder for the media to get the facts right and to follow the reporting.
I like the phrase “non cooperation.” Certain businesses thrive on non cooperation. There is a caveat; that is, unless one is an insider. Need an example? How about the intelware business? These are firms which you may struggle to figure out exactly what they do and for whom. Let me name one for you. How about Utimaco? I have a list of a number of these outfits. Non cooperation is a business precept.
Here’s the conclusion to the “Future of Media” write up:
While Andreessen’s new publication might have a more optimistic point of view, Future is pumping out a form of content that the internet is already chock-full of these days — takes.
I like the word “take.”
Now here’s what I think is going on:
First, financial outfits have been publishers for many, many years. Check out Investext. The purpose of these documents has been to facilitate churn in order to generate money. Sure, the wolf is wearing an MBA robe, and the truth has never been hidden. People just don’t think about the content pumped out by the money biz. Future is nothing new in my opinion.
Second, content marketing distorts perception. The outputs of financial institutions are designed to shape one’s viewpoint, the “frame” of a topic, product, service, etc. Thus, a financial institution generating content addresses two issues: Control of the message and generation of churn. (Moving money from one place to another with an intermediary or market maker in the middle.)
Third, the excitement a Silicon Valley outfit is generating by packaging its outputs for others than high net worth individuals, institutional investors, and insiders is like Clubhouse. This is a PR, marketing, and attention play.
Madison Avenue meets Silicon Valley in a world of reformation, information, disinformation, and misinformation. I would use the phrase “green journalism” to describe these financial media efforts, but instead of greenbacks, the word evokes wind turbines and solar panels.
I am going to go with content marketing and move on.
Stephen E Arnold, June 21, 2021
ByteDance Versus Begging for Dollars
June 18, 2021
I have noticed more and more “real” news sites begging for dollars. The blandishments come in many forms. Be a patron, subscribe, buy a T shirt, spit out an email so that info can be sold to a broker, and/or pay to get “premium” content. These outfits are in the same pickle barrel that most newspapers and traditional TV stations find themselves: Lots of pickles, rancid environment, and not too many consumers standing on line to get an old fashioned 1850s dwarf cucumber.
How do I know this?
I read “TikTok Owner ByteDance Sees Its Earnings Double in 2020.” Here’s the passage I noted:
An internal memo released to staff showed that the firm’s total revenue jumped by 111% to $34.3bn (£24.7bn) for 2020.
And this:
ByteDance also saw its annual gross profit rise by 93% to to $19bn, while it recorded a net loss of $45bn for the same period. The net loss was attributed to a one-off accounting adjustment and not related to the company’s operations.
And this:
The memo also showed that ByteDance had around 1.9bn monthly active users across all of its platforms as of December last year.
Net net: Good numbers or bad numbers? Begging for dollars? Not yet. There’s data in them thar American eyeballs. And if ByteDance needs cash? Perhaps the Chinese government will provide some assistance. Meanwhile, US content providers have to ask, “Is begging for dollars a viable approach when the percentage of people who will pay is modest.
Stephen E Arnold, June 18, 2021
Professional Publishing and Professional Cheaters
June 4, 2021
“Collusion Rings Threaten the Integrity of Computer Science Research” is an amusing, if not hilarious, write up. The venerable Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery has discovered that there is a “growing problem.” No kidding. I noted this statement:
Collusion rings extend far beyond the field of computer architecture.
This is a nice academic way of saying that technical papers which are peer reviewed are subject to search engine optimization tricks, cheating, and you-scratch-my-back, I-will-scratch-yours behavior. This is a surprise?
The article explains how a collusion ring works. Among its characteristics are hiding agreements to praise certain papers and threaten individuals who don’t go the monkey thing. Monkeys can be quite violent. Check out chimpanzee wars here.
I think ethical behavior in business is a much discussed topic in some circles. I think those desperate for tenure evidence the type of behavior visible in other “professions”; for example, politicians and experts in medieval literature.
The article includes this statement:
The cheaters run the risk of destroying the very system they depend on for their professional success. It is time to take a close look at the peer-review process and to align the incentives so everyone is working toward sharing the best research work possible.
My hunch is that those engaged in self-promotion are likely to say, “Hey, not my problem.”
I think this is the defining viewpoint of the Age of Thumbtypers. It would be interesting to get Timnit Gebru’s take on collusion rings in the workplace.
Stephen E Arnold, May 31, 2021
Misunderstanding Censorship: It Is Not Just Words
June 3, 2021
Popular words now are take down (killing servers), block (filter users or items on a stop list), cancel (ignoring a person or terminating an API call), and a pride of synonyms like terminate with extreme prejudice. The idea is that censorship is go to method to cultivate a more pleasing digital garden. But who owns the garden? The answer is that “ownership” depends on one’s point of view. Big tech has one role to play. Those contributing content in different media have another. The person who reads, listens, or watches “information” gets in the act as well.
The popular words reflect an interesting development. Those “in charge” want to preserve their kingpin role. Those who have an audience want to remain popular and get even more popular if possible. Those users want to consume what they want and will use available tools to satisfy their wants and needs.
In short, censorship seems to be a way for someone in a position to be a gatekeeper to impose a particular view upon information, how something “works” in the datasphere, or what “content” can flow into, through, and out of a 2021 system.
The first example of this imposition of a view point is articulated in “PayPal Shuts Down Long-Time Tor Supporter with No Recourse.” The main point is that an individual who contributed to the Tor project has been “booted” or “terminated with extreme prejudice” from the quasi-bank financial services operation PayPal. The article asserts:
For years, EFF has been documenting instances of financial censorship, in which payment intermediaries and financial institutions shutter accounts and refuse to process payments for people and organizations that haven’t been charged with any crime. Brandt shared months of PayPal transactions with the EFF legal team, and we reviewed his transactions in depth. We found no evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant shutting down his account, and we communicated our concerns to PayPal. Given that the overwhelming majority of transactions on Brandt’s account were payments for servers running Tor nodes, EFF is deeply concerned that Brandt’s account was targeted for shut down specifically as a result of his activities supporting Tor.
Does PayPal the company have strong feelings about software which obfuscates certain online activities? Tor emerged years ago from a government commercial research project. Now it is one of the vehicles allowing some users to engage in cyber crime-like activities. The write up does not dig too deeply into the who, what, when, why, how, and circumstances of “financial persecution.” That’s not surprising because PayPal is a commercial enterprise and can mostly do what it wants. The main point for me is that this type of blocking action has nothing to do with words.
I also want to mention that Amazon Twitch has been wrestling with take downs too. A popular “content creator” named Amouranth was blocked. Also, a 21st century talk show host known as BadBunny was banned. Amouranth’s Twitch stream featured a kiddie pool, an interesting fashion statement in the form of a bathing suit, and lots of eye shadow. BadBunny’s “issue” was related to words. I am not sure what BadBunny is talking about, but apparently the Twitch “proctors” do. So she had to occupy herself with other content creation for two weeks until she was reinstated. At the same time, a content creator named ibabyrainbow (whom I featured in my April National Cyber Crime Conference talk) provides links to Twitch followers who want more intriguing videos of ibabyrainbow’s antics. Thus, far ibabyrainbow has not run afoul of Amazon’s “curators” but Amazon may not know that ibabyrainbow provides other content on different services under the name of babyrainbow. Some of this content could be considered improper in certain countries.
Then I want to reference a remarkable essay about censorship called “How Censorship Became the New Crisis for Social Networks.” This write up states:
There are two strains of outrage related to censorship currently coursing through the platforms. The first are concerns related to governments enacting increasingly draconian measures to prevent their citizens from expressing dissent…. The second and perhaps more novel strain of outrage over censorship relates not to governments but to platforms themselves.
That’s tidy: A dichotomy, an either or, good evil, savage and civilized. Not exactly. I think the reality is messy and generating new complexities as each mouse click or finger swipe occurs.
People generally dislike change. If change is inevitable, some people prefer to experience the change at their own pace. Today the ease with which a threshold can be changed in an algorithm is disconcerting. What happened to my Google photos? Or Why can’t I access my iTunes account? are part of everyday life. Where’s BadBunny, Mr. Twitch?
My view is that censorship and its synonyms to polish up these actions designed to control information has been a standard operating procedure for many, many years. Book burning, anyone? The motivation is to ensure that power is retained, money flows, and particular views are promulgated.
The datasphere is magnifying the ease, effectiveness, and intention of managing words, images, and actions. I prefer to think of censorship as “proaction”; that is, taking the necessary steps to allow those with their hands on the knobs and wheels to further their own ends.
Instead of “terminated with extreme prejudice” implore “proactive measures.” Who is doing it? Maybe China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and a number of other nation states? What commercial enterprises are practicing proaction? Maybe the FAANGs, the Bezos property Washington Post, the hip digital thing known as the New York Times, and anyone who can direct digital streams to benefit themselves.
Censorship — what I call proaction — is the new normal.
Adapt and avoid dichotomies. That type of thinking is for third graders.
Stephen E Arnold, June 3, 2021
Amazon: Better Web Tech for Al Qabas Than for the Wapo?
May 19, 2021
I know the Washington Post (hereinafter “Wapo”) is into technology. However, at first glance, it seems that AWS savvy Eurisko Mobility has glued together some of the AWS services to craft a next-generation “newspaper.” “Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas partners with Eurisko Mobility to release innovative, AI-powered digital platform” reports:
This digital platform, designed and developed by Eurisko Mobility, will give readers on-the-go access to Al-Qabas TV, Al-Qabas audio books and their very own “My Page” section, a personalized news page tailored to each reader’s preferences.
The write up points out:
The AI-powered search and recommendation engine brings together the latest in high-end technologies, intelligent algorithms, optimization techniques and industry best practices to bring startlingly accurate and personalized results in a matter of milliseconds…
Will the Wapo emulate Al-Qabas?
Stephen E Arnold, May 19, 2021
Clarivate Buys ProQuest
May 18, 2021
I don’t want to go into the history of commercial database producers. (Those readings about Oliver Cromwell in my British history class were orders of magnitude more exciting.)
“ProQuest Bought by Clarivate in $5.3bn Deal” reports:
London-based Clarivate said the acquisition would establish it as “a premier provider of end-to-end research intelligence solutions” and significantly expand its content and data offerings.
Clarivate describes itself this way:
Together, we can create a better tomorrow.
The firm uses these phrases to communicate its business:
Every drop of potential needs to be squeezed from your IP
Make critical decisions with speed and certainty
Innovation in focus
Human ingenuity can change the world and improve our future
Accelerating innovation with actionable information and insights
If you are still unsure what the firm does, you will need to check the About page on the company’s Web site. Oh, sorry. There is no “About” page for Clarivate. A profile of the firm, which is assumed to be a household work, is available at this link.
ProQuest warrants its own Wikipedia entry which explains that
ProQuest LLC is an Ann Arbor, Michigan-based global information-content and technology company, founded in 1938 as University Microfilms by Eugene B. Power. ProQuest provides applications and products for libraries. ProQuest started as a producer of microfilm products, then became an electronic publisher, and later grew through acquisitions. Today, the company provides tools for discovery and citation management,[example needed] and platforms that allow library users to search, manage, use, and share research.
Net net: For fee online information access appears to mesh with the increased interest in subscription services. Challenges exist; for example, individuals like Sci Hub’s founder Alexandra Elbakyan and university professionals who can go off the reservation and present content outside of the peer reviewed journals, Dark Web archives, and customers mindful of the cost associated with an online for fee search may look for relevant information on Medium or Substack type services. My view is that this is a sale by ProQuest’s owner Cambridge Scientific Abstract comparable to Bill Ziff’s legendary deals.
Stephen E Arnold, May 18, 2021
Daily Mail, Google, Class, Power, and Incentives
April 20, 2021
The estimable Daily Mail is a newspaper. The owner of the Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and General Trust plc. The big dog at the outfit is The Fourth Viscount Rothermere. Titles are important in England. Crickets the game. “Plumby tones” was crafted to describe the accents some Americans long to have. Dim lights, dark rooms, and hushed tones are also important.
Now the Viscount’s minions are demonstrating that none of their scion are likely to be tagged “googley.” According to the equally estimable Wall Street Journal, the “Daily Mail Owner Files Antitrust Suit Against Google, Citing Royals Coverage.” Gentle reader, you will have to pay Mr. Murdoch to read this interesting story which is completely unbiased and presents the idea that the Google is abusing the Viscount’s ad sales unit.
The core of the story is that Google suppresses Daily Mail content because the Daily Mail is not selling enough Google ads. More popups are needed! The reason is not that those stories are not Savile Row grade stories. The cause of this discrimination of the caste-centric Google and the caste-centric Viscount is quotas.
From my vantage point in Harrod’s Creek, the antics of two outfits, obsessed with power and getting their way, are jousting over advertising consumed by those not in the rosy glow of the upper crusts.
The irony of the Google caste system (represented by Pichai Sundararajan) and the Fourth Viscount Rothermere is delicious. Didn’t India once view Britain as a glowing source of guidance?
I have no doubt that this dust up is about money, but it is also about power. Google has power right now. The Viscount remembers the power it once had. America! The colonies.
How will this unfold? No chirping merry in this dispute.
Stephen E Arnold, April 20, 2021
Thomson Reuters: A Phase Change to Monitor
April 16, 2021
You may not be familiar with a beaver sejant erect proper blowing upon a hunting horn in silver with a big deer in the mix. You may not recall the origins of Thomson Reuters (TR) as a seller of radios in Ontario, Canada. You may not remember the shift from newspapers to professional publishing. That’s not a surprise. Most people do not know the names of the hundreds of specialty titles generated by the “slicing and dicing” of Thomson Reuters’ professional content. Some may be aware that Thomson Reuters is undergoing another transformation or a return to its roots.
“Reuters Website Goes Behind Paywall in New Strategy” reports a shift this way:
The newly revamped Reuters.com is hoping to attract professional audiences prepared to pay $34.99 per month for a deeper level of coverage and data on industry verticals that include legal, sustainable business, healthcare and autos.
In the online business, there are numerous ways to generate money. TikTok videos does not seem to be a good fit for a professional publisher at least yet. TR has a “must have” history; that is, the company produces information that professionals have to buy to remain in business or obtain the data needed to stay in business. Examples include legal information and dozens of other electronic properties. You can get a reasonable list at this location. There are about 1,500 products.
Selling to law firms and accounting firms has become tricky. There are lots of lawyers and accountants, but there are not too many who can afford the “must have” online products and services. Selling to libraries has also become difficult. There are low ball vendors who offer good enough content, but the big challenge is thumbtypers. These rascals perceive the Google as the universal library, and it appears to be free to use. Pesky government agencies make some content available which erodes the lawyers’ and accountants’ appetite for spending money for online, loose-leaf services, and books. A lawyer or accountant can use a stock shot of bookcases and convey to a client a deep library of knowledge whilst working from a space in the kitchen.
Newspapers don’t work, and TR is unlikely to give Substack a whirl. TR may acquire Substack, but that’s a different approach. YouTube could be a source of revenue, but certain information like explanations of indifference curves almost demand a traditional classroom and old fashioned study groups in student unions or coffee shops.
The wizards with spreadsheet fever assume that a “professional” business person will have to subscribe to the TR product, the socially sensitive New York Times, the estimable Murdoched Wall Street Journal, the magazine called a newspaper with the fetching title “Economist,” and the orange Financial Times. Toss in the HBR and maybe a specialized service providing milspecs, and the money will just roll in. What if it doesn’t? Hey, change the assumptions. “Exercise” the model. Works like a champ.
How many business professionals will pay for these digital subscriptions? How many will sign up for the TR online service? How much will the “professional” business person pay each month to stay informed?
I don’t have a crystal ball, but the financial reports of TR and its fellow travelers will be fascinating to review. If university MBA programs survive, perhaps there will be a case study of the consequences of the digital revolution upon the great pivoters. The proof is in the revenue assuming the executives’ incentive plans are well crafted.
TR’s competitors are probably going to do some stag hunting in order to survive. They too have to make a buck.
Stephen E Arnold, April 16, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
