This is what a group of hackers thinks, Coronavirus research should be freely available to the public, and it is willing to break the law if it can save lives, she claimed.
In the global health crisis that is shaping the future of the next generation, the fact that not everyone has access to coronavirus (covid19) research articles has become a concern, especially for medical and scientific circles in the developing world.
People suffer from a lack of management, a lack of supplies, the impact of the Coronavirus on their medical sector, and a lack of resources to understand it, causing many to question why research is likely to save millions of lives.
Paid Corona Pest Research programs
In the academic community, there are payment-for-subscription programs, which are a way for publishers to pay for marketing, coordinating, and distributing scientific articles.
Publishing companies have concerns that without pay-for-research programs, there will be an increased potential for corruption and exploitation. Where researchers can be forced to subjects and outcomes that demonstrate political or social tendencies and thus eliminate academic integrity.
These publishers claim that the paid subscription system aims to protect the sanctity of academic research. However, others wonder if this is their primary motivation, and also if it should be.
Laws prevent access to scientific research without subscribing, and sponsors make a large sum of money to do so. The publishing paid for these articles is a multi-billion dollar industry with leading publishers who pride themselves on a 35-40% profit margin.
The risks of this system have become increasingly evident in recent weeks due to the rapid spread of the coronavirus, and the urgent need to access all research on available Coronaviruses.
Are pirates Robin Hood Science?
A social networking site “Reddit” named “Shrine” found it ridiculous that thousands of studies on the Coronavirus were hidden behind the paid subscription system, and could only be accessed for those who could afford them.
“I realized that people are dying and that the death rate may be higher as a result of the lack of access to articles,” explains Sherine, who did not give his real name.
“Any small piece of information we can gather from previous scientific research on epidemics, viruses, or vaccines has suddenly become relevant, and agencies all over the world need access to all of these articles,” Shrine said.
Sheren found more than 5,000 research papers on coronaviruses prepared from 1968 to 2020 and published them illegally using a website called Sci-Hub. Then it was posted on Reddit, and within hours, thousands of these documents had been accessed.
In an attempt to legalize the publishing process, Shrine appealed to the publishing companies themselves directly by creating a petition on “Change.org” asking them to remove the paid subscription-ban system to help individuals and organizations search for a vaccine for the Coronavirus.
The petition received hundreds of signatures within a few days, and it succeeded in increasing the amount of virus-related research papers online from a few thousand to more than 32,000 research papers.
Shrine’s efforts continued to petition the International Standards Organization, which released free paid subscription information to help engineers build ventilators, starting April 9.
While it was clear that making an artery is illegal, he believed that hiding valuable information with an expensive paid subscription system was unethical. Modern history also indicates the danger of these systems in times of crisis.
This is not the first time that an unpaid subscription-ban system has been questioned during the epidemic. The valuable research that could have hindered the Ebola outbreak in Liberia because of these paid contributions was inaccessible, so it is understood that Shereen would regard his work as a “necessary evil”.
After the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, researchers found articles already warning of an Ebola outbreak in Liberia, and advised on how to stop its transmission.
“I realized that people are dying and that the death rate may be higher as a result of the lack of access to scientific articles,” Shrine said.
Sherine believes that there should be no hindrance to information that could help those on the front lines of the epidemic.
The question then remains: Are the benefits of an unpaid subscription ban system outweighing the potential benefits of increasing access to research during critical times?