From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:32:32 +0000 It could also that those 31% of articles have bad metadata, odd titles which don't trigger the intended audience, are in languages most people don't know how to read, etc. Don't get me wrong, they very well could be superfluous in the grand academia scheme - but there could easily be other reasons why those articles haven't found their readers. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Eric Elmore | Electronic Resources Coordinator | The University of Texas at San Antonio | One UTSA Circle | San Antonio, TX. 78249-0671 | (O)210-458-4916/(F)210-458-4577 | [log in to unmask] | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:22:18 -0700 The article provides important data. The major finding is how many scientific articles exist at the moment - 80 million. The second finding is that 31% of all articles are vain - no one is interested in them. I also reserve a question. The author claims that if the Sci-Hub server is discovered, the problem is resolved. Is it that difficult to discover it? Ari Belenkiy Vancouver BC Canada On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:42 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:53:28 -0700 > > An article in Science (appearing there makes it important) makes a striking prognosis about the future of journal publication. No comment! > > http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers- > so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst > > Jim O'Donnell > ASU