In recent months Sci-Hub has become the center of an academic debate about copyright's mark on science. Despite being sued by one of the largest academic publishers the site continues to operate and is now more popular than ever before, with its users downloading hundreds of thousands of papers per day.

“Information wants to be free” is a commonly used phrase in copyright debates. While it may not apply universally, in the academic world it’s certainly relevant.

Information and knowledge are the cornerstones of science. Yet, a lot of top research is locked up behind expensive paywalls.

As with most digital content, however, there are specialized sites that offer free and unauthorized access. In the academic world Sci-Hub has become an icon for this pirate version of “Open Access.”

Early last year one of the largest academic publishers, Elsevier, filed a complaint at a New York District Court accusing the sites’ operators of systematic copyright infringement.

However, instead of stopping the site the case raised its profile, putting it at the center of a debate about paywalled research. As a classic demonstration of the Streisand effect the site’s userbase grew while many academics publicly showed their support.

According to Sci-Hub’s founder Alexandra Elbakyan tens of thousands of people now use the site to download papers. On an average day last week 69,532 users downloaded 217,276 different papers, all without paying a penny.

India, China, Iran, the United States and Russia are the top download locations according to data shared with TorrentFreak. In most of these countries academics have limited access to research papers due to high costs or other restrictions, with the U.S. being an unusual exception.

Sci-Hub



Perhaps even more important than the massive number of users is the lively debate around Sci-Hub and copyright’s role in academic publishing.

Sci-Hub’s efforts are backed by many prominent scholars, who argue that tax-funded research should be accessible to everyone. Others counter that the site doesn’t necessarily help the Open Access movement forward.

Elbakyan defends her position and believes that what she does is helping millions of less privileged researchers to do their work properly by providing free access to research results.

Meanwhile, with the debate heating up Elsevier may regret having filed their lawsuit in the first place. It’s clear that whatever verdict the U.S. court announces in the future Sci-Hub is not going to shut down anytime soon.

A preliminary injunction already prohibits Elbakyan from operating the site (without any effect), and the site has shown that it can easily switch to new domain names when needed.

And with the mainstream media now showing interest in the case, Sci-Hub is expected to grow its presence during the months to come.