Citing paywalled articles accessed via illegal web sharing












21















There are a few site which offer paid articles for free. It’s something unethical, especially for those who upload to that site, but for me, it’s good for expanding knowledge.



As a readers, can we cite those documents, and can the editorial board know that I’m using those articles?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 3





    This is a great question. It seems that you are not asking about the ethics of downloading articles from questionable sites, but only the ethics afterwards - when the downloading is already a fait accompli, and the real question is whether citing said document counts as an additional unethical act above and beyond what you did when you downloaded it (e.g. "citing a document obtained through an unauthorized route"). Does this sound right?

    – Robert Columbia
    9 hours ago








  • 3





    That the provenance of a source actually used be questionable in no way makes it anything other than completely unethical to fail to cite the source that has been used. This seems entirely obvious.

    – Dan Fox
    6 hours ago






  • 3





    Note that illegal and unethical are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, many academics (also on this site) do not consider illegal access to articles behind paywall to be at all unethical.

    – tomasz
    4 hours ago
















21















There are a few site which offer paid articles for free. It’s something unethical, especially for those who upload to that site, but for me, it’s good for expanding knowledge.



As a readers, can we cite those documents, and can the editorial board know that I’m using those articles?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 3





    This is a great question. It seems that you are not asking about the ethics of downloading articles from questionable sites, but only the ethics afterwards - when the downloading is already a fait accompli, and the real question is whether citing said document counts as an additional unethical act above and beyond what you did when you downloaded it (e.g. "citing a document obtained through an unauthorized route"). Does this sound right?

    – Robert Columbia
    9 hours ago








  • 3





    That the provenance of a source actually used be questionable in no way makes it anything other than completely unethical to fail to cite the source that has been used. This seems entirely obvious.

    – Dan Fox
    6 hours ago






  • 3





    Note that illegal and unethical are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, many academics (also on this site) do not consider illegal access to articles behind paywall to be at all unethical.

    – tomasz
    4 hours ago














21












21








21


3






There are a few site which offer paid articles for free. It’s something unethical, especially for those who upload to that site, but for me, it’s good for expanding knowledge.



As a readers, can we cite those documents, and can the editorial board know that I’m using those articles?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












There are a few site which offer paid articles for free. It’s something unethical, especially for those who upload to that site, but for me, it’s good for expanding knowledge.



As a readers, can we cite those documents, and can the editorial board know that I’m using those articles?







publications citations ethics






share|improve this question









New contributor




Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 15 mins ago









Allure

31.4k1997147




31.4k1997147






New contributor




Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 17 hours ago









Syafiq ZaidiSyafiq Zaidi

11615




11615




New contributor




Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 3





    This is a great question. It seems that you are not asking about the ethics of downloading articles from questionable sites, but only the ethics afterwards - when the downloading is already a fait accompli, and the real question is whether citing said document counts as an additional unethical act above and beyond what you did when you downloaded it (e.g. "citing a document obtained through an unauthorized route"). Does this sound right?

    – Robert Columbia
    9 hours ago








  • 3





    That the provenance of a source actually used be questionable in no way makes it anything other than completely unethical to fail to cite the source that has been used. This seems entirely obvious.

    – Dan Fox
    6 hours ago






  • 3





    Note that illegal and unethical are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, many academics (also on this site) do not consider illegal access to articles behind paywall to be at all unethical.

    – tomasz
    4 hours ago














  • 3





    This is a great question. It seems that you are not asking about the ethics of downloading articles from questionable sites, but only the ethics afterwards - when the downloading is already a fait accompli, and the real question is whether citing said document counts as an additional unethical act above and beyond what you did when you downloaded it (e.g. "citing a document obtained through an unauthorized route"). Does this sound right?

    – Robert Columbia
    9 hours ago








  • 3





    That the provenance of a source actually used be questionable in no way makes it anything other than completely unethical to fail to cite the source that has been used. This seems entirely obvious.

    – Dan Fox
    6 hours ago






  • 3





    Note that illegal and unethical are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, many academics (also on this site) do not consider illegal access to articles behind paywall to be at all unethical.

    – tomasz
    4 hours ago








3




3





This is a great question. It seems that you are not asking about the ethics of downloading articles from questionable sites, but only the ethics afterwards - when the downloading is already a fait accompli, and the real question is whether citing said document counts as an additional unethical act above and beyond what you did when you downloaded it (e.g. "citing a document obtained through an unauthorized route"). Does this sound right?

– Robert Columbia
9 hours ago







This is a great question. It seems that you are not asking about the ethics of downloading articles from questionable sites, but only the ethics afterwards - when the downloading is already a fait accompli, and the real question is whether citing said document counts as an additional unethical act above and beyond what you did when you downloaded it (e.g. "citing a document obtained through an unauthorized route"). Does this sound right?

– Robert Columbia
9 hours ago






3




3





That the provenance of a source actually used be questionable in no way makes it anything other than completely unethical to fail to cite the source that has been used. This seems entirely obvious.

– Dan Fox
6 hours ago





That the provenance of a source actually used be questionable in no way makes it anything other than completely unethical to fail to cite the source that has been used. This seems entirely obvious.

– Dan Fox
6 hours ago




3




3





Note that illegal and unethical are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, many academics (also on this site) do not consider illegal access to articles behind paywall to be at all unethical.

– tomasz
4 hours ago





Note that illegal and unethical are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, many academics (also on this site) do not consider illegal access to articles behind paywall to be at all unethical.

– tomasz
4 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















48















  1. Nobody will know how you have gained access to the article. Hence, feel free to cite articles found via illegal sources.


  2. It might not even be illegal to download content from the website; check your local laws and Berne convention (if your country is signed up) to be sure. In any case, this is unlikely to affect your reputation in any way.


  3. Remember to cite the source appropriately; a journal or a book, not a pirate website. The pirate website is usually not the publisher.


  4. You might not want to be vocal about using such a website. Some people still see it as ethically questionable. That said, using various pirate websites is increasingly common, and the status of many academic publishers among academians seems to have taken some hits, so many researchers will not care about how you get your articles.


  5. You also have the ethics tag on the question. The ethics of pirating digital material are a polarized subject. You might want to do your own research here, or ask a new question for what the main arguments for both sides are, if it has not been asked already. Some people say that pirating material is analogous to physical theft, while others say that intellectual monopoly laws are bad and breaking them creates more good than ill. (I happen to think the laws are far too strong and harm humanity, and should be weakened substantially or entirely removed.) I strongly suggest reading on the matter until you have found strong statements of both points of view to come to an informed decision.







share|improve this answer



















  • 12





    Another point is that some journals allow authors to self-archive and embargo periods are variable, so depending on the age of the article and the author, the pirate site might just be hosting a copy that is available elsewhere.

    – anonymous
    10 hours ago






  • 1





    @anonymous: Even in this case, you should still check the published paper -- pirated or not -- to make sure that you are citing correctly. For example, it is possible to have the numbering of theorems slightly changed in the published version of a math paper. Also sometimes authors might make some changes in the review which they do not bother to (or are not allowed to) propagate to preprint servers.

    – tomasz
    4 hours ago













  • @tomasz Obviously, the point was about the ethics though...

    – anonymous
    3 hours ago



















8














If you are at a reputable university you can probably get legal access to nearly everything you need for research just by visiting your university's library and asking for a copy of the article. This is nearly always available to you. If you are grant funded, then grant funds can probably be used to obtain the necessary papers if the university cannot get them. In the US, even my town library has been able to get me access to things just by asking and because they have developed relationships with other (university) libraries. Small universities can have formal relationships with large research universities to "borrow" books and articles.



Likewise, borrowing the resources of colleagues is permitted. If s/he has a legal copy s/he can print it. The printed copy can be loaned to you. There are no issues with this at all.



So, the situation you describe should be rare if you do a bit of legwork.



But if you cite something, cite a legal repository, not a website known to pirate academic work. You don't need to actually own a copy of a paper to cite it, but it is probably a mistake (for your reputation) to flaunt illegal or unethical access.



It probably isn't as difficult or as costly as you imagine to do the right thing.






share|improve this answer



















  • 4





    Or just don't cite the repository at all. I mean, if I have a paper copy.of the journal vs a scanned copy I get from another library vs a publisher-provided PDF and all are identical, the repository shouldn't matter and many (most?) style manuals don't require you to cite the exact location you obtained the copy except for rare one-of-a-kind works like medieval manuscripts, etc. (Although MLA started so in protest I've decided my next paper I'm going to cite every library involved in an ILL transaction to show how stupid it is)

    – guifa
    13 hours ago











  • @guifa Could you expand on the MLA part, maybe with a link? It sounds wholly impractical.

    – Anyon
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    @Anyon MLA8 wants us to specify the "container" so if we got an article from JSTOR we're supposed to cite JSTOR along with the article. It's the same article regardless, and most people just happily pretend they got it on paper to avoid doing it :-) I'm jus planning on taking it to the other extreme because to me a library is no different than JSTOR

    – guifa
    12 hours ago











  • @guifa I see, thanks.

    – Anyon
    11 hours ago











  • If you have legal access through your university, "pirating" it certainly isn't unethical.

    – Solomonoff's Secret
    5 hours ago



















3














Would you incriminate yourself?



For some articles, the abstract is so clear and concise that it effectively says everything you need to know in order to cite it. I've previously been advised when writing abstracts for articles in paywall journals to make sure someone could cite the article without actually having it. Obviously, it's not an ideal situation, but it is very much possible to cite an article purely based on the abstract, which you would have access to without acquiring the article anyway.



In short, if I see someone cite an article and I somehow know that they have not paid for access to it, I'd assume they've cited it based on the abstract.






share|improve this answer



















  • 9





    I would consider citing based only an abstract to be extremely bad practice; bordering on a mild form of academic malpractice. Yes, I know it happens, but that does not mean we should so casually accept it.

    – Jack Aidley
    12 hours ago



















0














Isn't this the same thing as breaking into a house and stealing everything, then asking if it's ethical to watch Netflix using the victim's account?



You are asking the wrong question.



The unethicalness occurred long before the question of attribution arose. The publishers of the papers placed a value on them.. and you, for whatever reason, chose to obtain the document from a thief rather than the publisher. Just because "everyone else" is doing it and it's "wink wink" accepted practice in no way makes the act of theft ethical. Everything that follows from that act is then tainted by the original act of thievery.



So to recap...




  • Pirate steals from publisher.

  • You obtain copy of document from pirate, making you at best an accomplice and at worst a thief yourself.

  • Question of ethics regarding attribution of stolen documents in your own paper is really not a valid question at this point.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




























    -5















    can we cite [(possibly) illegally obtained] documents[?]




    Yes, but you might be incriminating yourself, if you cannot demonstrate legal access.




    can editorial board know...if I'm using those articles?




    No. At least, not without collaboration.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 10





      You don't have to demonstrate legal access, in general. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems.

      – Federico Poloni
      16 hours ago






    • 6





      And as anyone that's ever marked undergraduate coursework will tell you, referencing an article is absolutely not proof that you've read it :)

      – E. Rei
      16 hours ago











    • @FedericoPoloni Rephrasing as if you could not have legally accessed would perhaps be better, which the publisher might conceivably be able to do, e.g., with an argument such as: we accused has not paid for access, nor have their co-authors, nor have any of their institutions. Defending against such an argument could be problematic. (Not a lawyer.) Although, following from E.Rei, I suppose acknowledging academic misconduct works... Albeit, that requires lying if document were obtained illegally.

      – user2768
      16 hours ago








    • 7





      @user2768 The point is that you can't reasonably tell who has legal access to a published paper. Even if somebody is at a university that doesn't have a subscription to that journal, there are so many other legitimate ways that the person could get access to the article without leaving any kind of paper trail, that nobody is ever going to conclude "You must have accessed that illegally."

      – David Richerby
      11 hours ago






    • 4





      @FedericoPoloni "The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems." This is true. Unfortunately, copyright enforcement goes well outside the bounds of sanity pretty much everywhere. If the requirement of the burden of proof being on the accuser were applied consistently, copyright-enforcement things such as DRM and the DMCA takedown system simply could not exist. But unfortunately, they do.

      – Mason Wheeler
      7 hours ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "415"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125570%2fciting-paywalled-articles-accessed-via-illegal-web-sharing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    48















    1. Nobody will know how you have gained access to the article. Hence, feel free to cite articles found via illegal sources.


    2. It might not even be illegal to download content from the website; check your local laws and Berne convention (if your country is signed up) to be sure. In any case, this is unlikely to affect your reputation in any way.


    3. Remember to cite the source appropriately; a journal or a book, not a pirate website. The pirate website is usually not the publisher.


    4. You might not want to be vocal about using such a website. Some people still see it as ethically questionable. That said, using various pirate websites is increasingly common, and the status of many academic publishers among academians seems to have taken some hits, so many researchers will not care about how you get your articles.


    5. You also have the ethics tag on the question. The ethics of pirating digital material are a polarized subject. You might want to do your own research here, or ask a new question for what the main arguments for both sides are, if it has not been asked already. Some people say that pirating material is analogous to physical theft, while others say that intellectual monopoly laws are bad and breaking them creates more good than ill. (I happen to think the laws are far too strong and harm humanity, and should be weakened substantially or entirely removed.) I strongly suggest reading on the matter until you have found strong statements of both points of view to come to an informed decision.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 12





      Another point is that some journals allow authors to self-archive and embargo periods are variable, so depending on the age of the article and the author, the pirate site might just be hosting a copy that is available elsewhere.

      – anonymous
      10 hours ago






    • 1





      @anonymous: Even in this case, you should still check the published paper -- pirated or not -- to make sure that you are citing correctly. For example, it is possible to have the numbering of theorems slightly changed in the published version of a math paper. Also sometimes authors might make some changes in the review which they do not bother to (or are not allowed to) propagate to preprint servers.

      – tomasz
      4 hours ago













    • @tomasz Obviously, the point was about the ethics though...

      – anonymous
      3 hours ago
















    48















    1. Nobody will know how you have gained access to the article. Hence, feel free to cite articles found via illegal sources.


    2. It might not even be illegal to download content from the website; check your local laws and Berne convention (if your country is signed up) to be sure. In any case, this is unlikely to affect your reputation in any way.


    3. Remember to cite the source appropriately; a journal or a book, not a pirate website. The pirate website is usually not the publisher.


    4. You might not want to be vocal about using such a website. Some people still see it as ethically questionable. That said, using various pirate websites is increasingly common, and the status of many academic publishers among academians seems to have taken some hits, so many researchers will not care about how you get your articles.


    5. You also have the ethics tag on the question. The ethics of pirating digital material are a polarized subject. You might want to do your own research here, or ask a new question for what the main arguments for both sides are, if it has not been asked already. Some people say that pirating material is analogous to physical theft, while others say that intellectual monopoly laws are bad and breaking them creates more good than ill. (I happen to think the laws are far too strong and harm humanity, and should be weakened substantially or entirely removed.) I strongly suggest reading on the matter until you have found strong statements of both points of view to come to an informed decision.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 12





      Another point is that some journals allow authors to self-archive and embargo periods are variable, so depending on the age of the article and the author, the pirate site might just be hosting a copy that is available elsewhere.

      – anonymous
      10 hours ago






    • 1





      @anonymous: Even in this case, you should still check the published paper -- pirated or not -- to make sure that you are citing correctly. For example, it is possible to have the numbering of theorems slightly changed in the published version of a math paper. Also sometimes authors might make some changes in the review which they do not bother to (or are not allowed to) propagate to preprint servers.

      – tomasz
      4 hours ago













    • @tomasz Obviously, the point was about the ethics though...

      – anonymous
      3 hours ago














    48












    48








    48








    1. Nobody will know how you have gained access to the article. Hence, feel free to cite articles found via illegal sources.


    2. It might not even be illegal to download content from the website; check your local laws and Berne convention (if your country is signed up) to be sure. In any case, this is unlikely to affect your reputation in any way.


    3. Remember to cite the source appropriately; a journal or a book, not a pirate website. The pirate website is usually not the publisher.


    4. You might not want to be vocal about using such a website. Some people still see it as ethically questionable. That said, using various pirate websites is increasingly common, and the status of many academic publishers among academians seems to have taken some hits, so many researchers will not care about how you get your articles.


    5. You also have the ethics tag on the question. The ethics of pirating digital material are a polarized subject. You might want to do your own research here, or ask a new question for what the main arguments for both sides are, if it has not been asked already. Some people say that pirating material is analogous to physical theft, while others say that intellectual monopoly laws are bad and breaking them creates more good than ill. (I happen to think the laws are far too strong and harm humanity, and should be weakened substantially or entirely removed.) I strongly suggest reading on the matter until you have found strong statements of both points of view to come to an informed decision.







    share|improve this answer














    1. Nobody will know how you have gained access to the article. Hence, feel free to cite articles found via illegal sources.


    2. It might not even be illegal to download content from the website; check your local laws and Berne convention (if your country is signed up) to be sure. In any case, this is unlikely to affect your reputation in any way.


    3. Remember to cite the source appropriately; a journal or a book, not a pirate website. The pirate website is usually not the publisher.


    4. You might not want to be vocal about using such a website. Some people still see it as ethically questionable. That said, using various pirate websites is increasingly common, and the status of many academic publishers among academians seems to have taken some hits, so many researchers will not care about how you get your articles.


    5. You also have the ethics tag on the question. The ethics of pirating digital material are a polarized subject. You might want to do your own research here, or ask a new question for what the main arguments for both sides are, if it has not been asked already. Some people say that pirating material is analogous to physical theft, while others say that intellectual monopoly laws are bad and breaking them creates more good than ill. (I happen to think the laws are far too strong and harm humanity, and should be weakened substantially or entirely removed.) I strongly suggest reading on the matter until you have found strong statements of both points of view to come to an informed decision.








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 13 hours ago









    Tommi BranderTommi Brander

    3,81511332




    3,81511332








    • 12





      Another point is that some journals allow authors to self-archive and embargo periods are variable, so depending on the age of the article and the author, the pirate site might just be hosting a copy that is available elsewhere.

      – anonymous
      10 hours ago






    • 1





      @anonymous: Even in this case, you should still check the published paper -- pirated or not -- to make sure that you are citing correctly. For example, it is possible to have the numbering of theorems slightly changed in the published version of a math paper. Also sometimes authors might make some changes in the review which they do not bother to (or are not allowed to) propagate to preprint servers.

      – tomasz
      4 hours ago













    • @tomasz Obviously, the point was about the ethics though...

      – anonymous
      3 hours ago














    • 12





      Another point is that some journals allow authors to self-archive and embargo periods are variable, so depending on the age of the article and the author, the pirate site might just be hosting a copy that is available elsewhere.

      – anonymous
      10 hours ago






    • 1





      @anonymous: Even in this case, you should still check the published paper -- pirated or not -- to make sure that you are citing correctly. For example, it is possible to have the numbering of theorems slightly changed in the published version of a math paper. Also sometimes authors might make some changes in the review which they do not bother to (or are not allowed to) propagate to preprint servers.

      – tomasz
      4 hours ago













    • @tomasz Obviously, the point was about the ethics though...

      – anonymous
      3 hours ago








    12




    12





    Another point is that some journals allow authors to self-archive and embargo periods are variable, so depending on the age of the article and the author, the pirate site might just be hosting a copy that is available elsewhere.

    – anonymous
    10 hours ago





    Another point is that some journals allow authors to self-archive and embargo periods are variable, so depending on the age of the article and the author, the pirate site might just be hosting a copy that is available elsewhere.

    – anonymous
    10 hours ago




    1




    1





    @anonymous: Even in this case, you should still check the published paper -- pirated or not -- to make sure that you are citing correctly. For example, it is possible to have the numbering of theorems slightly changed in the published version of a math paper. Also sometimes authors might make some changes in the review which they do not bother to (or are not allowed to) propagate to preprint servers.

    – tomasz
    4 hours ago







    @anonymous: Even in this case, you should still check the published paper -- pirated or not -- to make sure that you are citing correctly. For example, it is possible to have the numbering of theorems slightly changed in the published version of a math paper. Also sometimes authors might make some changes in the review which they do not bother to (or are not allowed to) propagate to preprint servers.

    – tomasz
    4 hours ago















    @tomasz Obviously, the point was about the ethics though...

    – anonymous
    3 hours ago





    @tomasz Obviously, the point was about the ethics though...

    – anonymous
    3 hours ago











    8














    If you are at a reputable university you can probably get legal access to nearly everything you need for research just by visiting your university's library and asking for a copy of the article. This is nearly always available to you. If you are grant funded, then grant funds can probably be used to obtain the necessary papers if the university cannot get them. In the US, even my town library has been able to get me access to things just by asking and because they have developed relationships with other (university) libraries. Small universities can have formal relationships with large research universities to "borrow" books and articles.



    Likewise, borrowing the resources of colleagues is permitted. If s/he has a legal copy s/he can print it. The printed copy can be loaned to you. There are no issues with this at all.



    So, the situation you describe should be rare if you do a bit of legwork.



    But if you cite something, cite a legal repository, not a website known to pirate academic work. You don't need to actually own a copy of a paper to cite it, but it is probably a mistake (for your reputation) to flaunt illegal or unethical access.



    It probably isn't as difficult or as costly as you imagine to do the right thing.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4





      Or just don't cite the repository at all. I mean, if I have a paper copy.of the journal vs a scanned copy I get from another library vs a publisher-provided PDF and all are identical, the repository shouldn't matter and many (most?) style manuals don't require you to cite the exact location you obtained the copy except for rare one-of-a-kind works like medieval manuscripts, etc. (Although MLA started so in protest I've decided my next paper I'm going to cite every library involved in an ILL transaction to show how stupid it is)

      – guifa
      13 hours ago











    • @guifa Could you expand on the MLA part, maybe with a link? It sounds wholly impractical.

      – Anyon
      13 hours ago






    • 2





      @Anyon MLA8 wants us to specify the "container" so if we got an article from JSTOR we're supposed to cite JSTOR along with the article. It's the same article regardless, and most people just happily pretend they got it on paper to avoid doing it :-) I'm jus planning on taking it to the other extreme because to me a library is no different than JSTOR

      – guifa
      12 hours ago











    • @guifa I see, thanks.

      – Anyon
      11 hours ago











    • If you have legal access through your university, "pirating" it certainly isn't unethical.

      – Solomonoff's Secret
      5 hours ago
















    8














    If you are at a reputable university you can probably get legal access to nearly everything you need for research just by visiting your university's library and asking for a copy of the article. This is nearly always available to you. If you are grant funded, then grant funds can probably be used to obtain the necessary papers if the university cannot get them. In the US, even my town library has been able to get me access to things just by asking and because they have developed relationships with other (university) libraries. Small universities can have formal relationships with large research universities to "borrow" books and articles.



    Likewise, borrowing the resources of colleagues is permitted. If s/he has a legal copy s/he can print it. The printed copy can be loaned to you. There are no issues with this at all.



    So, the situation you describe should be rare if you do a bit of legwork.



    But if you cite something, cite a legal repository, not a website known to pirate academic work. You don't need to actually own a copy of a paper to cite it, but it is probably a mistake (for your reputation) to flaunt illegal or unethical access.



    It probably isn't as difficult or as costly as you imagine to do the right thing.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4





      Or just don't cite the repository at all. I mean, if I have a paper copy.of the journal vs a scanned copy I get from another library vs a publisher-provided PDF and all are identical, the repository shouldn't matter and many (most?) style manuals don't require you to cite the exact location you obtained the copy except for rare one-of-a-kind works like medieval manuscripts, etc. (Although MLA started so in protest I've decided my next paper I'm going to cite every library involved in an ILL transaction to show how stupid it is)

      – guifa
      13 hours ago











    • @guifa Could you expand on the MLA part, maybe with a link? It sounds wholly impractical.

      – Anyon
      13 hours ago






    • 2





      @Anyon MLA8 wants us to specify the "container" so if we got an article from JSTOR we're supposed to cite JSTOR along with the article. It's the same article regardless, and most people just happily pretend they got it on paper to avoid doing it :-) I'm jus planning on taking it to the other extreme because to me a library is no different than JSTOR

      – guifa
      12 hours ago











    • @guifa I see, thanks.

      – Anyon
      11 hours ago











    • If you have legal access through your university, "pirating" it certainly isn't unethical.

      – Solomonoff's Secret
      5 hours ago














    8












    8








    8







    If you are at a reputable university you can probably get legal access to nearly everything you need for research just by visiting your university's library and asking for a copy of the article. This is nearly always available to you. If you are grant funded, then grant funds can probably be used to obtain the necessary papers if the university cannot get them. In the US, even my town library has been able to get me access to things just by asking and because they have developed relationships with other (university) libraries. Small universities can have formal relationships with large research universities to "borrow" books and articles.



    Likewise, borrowing the resources of colleagues is permitted. If s/he has a legal copy s/he can print it. The printed copy can be loaned to you. There are no issues with this at all.



    So, the situation you describe should be rare if you do a bit of legwork.



    But if you cite something, cite a legal repository, not a website known to pirate academic work. You don't need to actually own a copy of a paper to cite it, but it is probably a mistake (for your reputation) to flaunt illegal or unethical access.



    It probably isn't as difficult or as costly as you imagine to do the right thing.






    share|improve this answer













    If you are at a reputable university you can probably get legal access to nearly everything you need for research just by visiting your university's library and asking for a copy of the article. This is nearly always available to you. If you are grant funded, then grant funds can probably be used to obtain the necessary papers if the university cannot get them. In the US, even my town library has been able to get me access to things just by asking and because they have developed relationships with other (university) libraries. Small universities can have formal relationships with large research universities to "borrow" books and articles.



    Likewise, borrowing the resources of colleagues is permitted. If s/he has a legal copy s/he can print it. The printed copy can be loaned to you. There are no issues with this at all.



    So, the situation you describe should be rare if you do a bit of legwork.



    But if you cite something, cite a legal repository, not a website known to pirate academic work. You don't need to actually own a copy of a paper to cite it, but it is probably a mistake (for your reputation) to flaunt illegal or unethical access.



    It probably isn't as difficult or as costly as you imagine to do the right thing.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 13 hours ago









    BuffyBuffy

    48.9k13159243




    48.9k13159243








    • 4





      Or just don't cite the repository at all. I mean, if I have a paper copy.of the journal vs a scanned copy I get from another library vs a publisher-provided PDF and all are identical, the repository shouldn't matter and many (most?) style manuals don't require you to cite the exact location you obtained the copy except for rare one-of-a-kind works like medieval manuscripts, etc. (Although MLA started so in protest I've decided my next paper I'm going to cite every library involved in an ILL transaction to show how stupid it is)

      – guifa
      13 hours ago











    • @guifa Could you expand on the MLA part, maybe with a link? It sounds wholly impractical.

      – Anyon
      13 hours ago






    • 2





      @Anyon MLA8 wants us to specify the "container" so if we got an article from JSTOR we're supposed to cite JSTOR along with the article. It's the same article regardless, and most people just happily pretend they got it on paper to avoid doing it :-) I'm jus planning on taking it to the other extreme because to me a library is no different than JSTOR

      – guifa
      12 hours ago











    • @guifa I see, thanks.

      – Anyon
      11 hours ago











    • If you have legal access through your university, "pirating" it certainly isn't unethical.

      – Solomonoff's Secret
      5 hours ago














    • 4





      Or just don't cite the repository at all. I mean, if I have a paper copy.of the journal vs a scanned copy I get from another library vs a publisher-provided PDF and all are identical, the repository shouldn't matter and many (most?) style manuals don't require you to cite the exact location you obtained the copy except for rare one-of-a-kind works like medieval manuscripts, etc. (Although MLA started so in protest I've decided my next paper I'm going to cite every library involved in an ILL transaction to show how stupid it is)

      – guifa
      13 hours ago











    • @guifa Could you expand on the MLA part, maybe with a link? It sounds wholly impractical.

      – Anyon
      13 hours ago






    • 2





      @Anyon MLA8 wants us to specify the "container" so if we got an article from JSTOR we're supposed to cite JSTOR along with the article. It's the same article regardless, and most people just happily pretend they got it on paper to avoid doing it :-) I'm jus planning on taking it to the other extreme because to me a library is no different than JSTOR

      – guifa
      12 hours ago











    • @guifa I see, thanks.

      – Anyon
      11 hours ago











    • If you have legal access through your university, "pirating" it certainly isn't unethical.

      – Solomonoff's Secret
      5 hours ago








    4




    4





    Or just don't cite the repository at all. I mean, if I have a paper copy.of the journal vs a scanned copy I get from another library vs a publisher-provided PDF and all are identical, the repository shouldn't matter and many (most?) style manuals don't require you to cite the exact location you obtained the copy except for rare one-of-a-kind works like medieval manuscripts, etc. (Although MLA started so in protest I've decided my next paper I'm going to cite every library involved in an ILL transaction to show how stupid it is)

    – guifa
    13 hours ago





    Or just don't cite the repository at all. I mean, if I have a paper copy.of the journal vs a scanned copy I get from another library vs a publisher-provided PDF and all are identical, the repository shouldn't matter and many (most?) style manuals don't require you to cite the exact location you obtained the copy except for rare one-of-a-kind works like medieval manuscripts, etc. (Although MLA started so in protest I've decided my next paper I'm going to cite every library involved in an ILL transaction to show how stupid it is)

    – guifa
    13 hours ago













    @guifa Could you expand on the MLA part, maybe with a link? It sounds wholly impractical.

    – Anyon
    13 hours ago





    @guifa Could you expand on the MLA part, maybe with a link? It sounds wholly impractical.

    – Anyon
    13 hours ago




    2




    2





    @Anyon MLA8 wants us to specify the "container" so if we got an article from JSTOR we're supposed to cite JSTOR along with the article. It's the same article regardless, and most people just happily pretend they got it on paper to avoid doing it :-) I'm jus planning on taking it to the other extreme because to me a library is no different than JSTOR

    – guifa
    12 hours ago





    @Anyon MLA8 wants us to specify the "container" so if we got an article from JSTOR we're supposed to cite JSTOR along with the article. It's the same article regardless, and most people just happily pretend they got it on paper to avoid doing it :-) I'm jus planning on taking it to the other extreme because to me a library is no different than JSTOR

    – guifa
    12 hours ago













    @guifa I see, thanks.

    – Anyon
    11 hours ago





    @guifa I see, thanks.

    – Anyon
    11 hours ago













    If you have legal access through your university, "pirating" it certainly isn't unethical.

    – Solomonoff's Secret
    5 hours ago





    If you have legal access through your university, "pirating" it certainly isn't unethical.

    – Solomonoff's Secret
    5 hours ago











    3














    Would you incriminate yourself?



    For some articles, the abstract is so clear and concise that it effectively says everything you need to know in order to cite it. I've previously been advised when writing abstracts for articles in paywall journals to make sure someone could cite the article without actually having it. Obviously, it's not an ideal situation, but it is very much possible to cite an article purely based on the abstract, which you would have access to without acquiring the article anyway.



    In short, if I see someone cite an article and I somehow know that they have not paid for access to it, I'd assume they've cited it based on the abstract.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 9





      I would consider citing based only an abstract to be extremely bad practice; bordering on a mild form of academic malpractice. Yes, I know it happens, but that does not mean we should so casually accept it.

      – Jack Aidley
      12 hours ago
















    3














    Would you incriminate yourself?



    For some articles, the abstract is so clear and concise that it effectively says everything you need to know in order to cite it. I've previously been advised when writing abstracts for articles in paywall journals to make sure someone could cite the article without actually having it. Obviously, it's not an ideal situation, but it is very much possible to cite an article purely based on the abstract, which you would have access to without acquiring the article anyway.



    In short, if I see someone cite an article and I somehow know that they have not paid for access to it, I'd assume they've cited it based on the abstract.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 9





      I would consider citing based only an abstract to be extremely bad practice; bordering on a mild form of academic malpractice. Yes, I know it happens, but that does not mean we should so casually accept it.

      – Jack Aidley
      12 hours ago














    3












    3








    3







    Would you incriminate yourself?



    For some articles, the abstract is so clear and concise that it effectively says everything you need to know in order to cite it. I've previously been advised when writing abstracts for articles in paywall journals to make sure someone could cite the article without actually having it. Obviously, it's not an ideal situation, but it is very much possible to cite an article purely based on the abstract, which you would have access to without acquiring the article anyway.



    In short, if I see someone cite an article and I somehow know that they have not paid for access to it, I'd assume they've cited it based on the abstract.






    share|improve this answer













    Would you incriminate yourself?



    For some articles, the abstract is so clear and concise that it effectively says everything you need to know in order to cite it. I've previously been advised when writing abstracts for articles in paywall journals to make sure someone could cite the article without actually having it. Obviously, it's not an ideal situation, but it is very much possible to cite an article purely based on the abstract, which you would have access to without acquiring the article anyway.



    In short, if I see someone cite an article and I somehow know that they have not paid for access to it, I'd assume they've cited it based on the abstract.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 17 hours ago









    E. ReiE. Rei

    852213




    852213








    • 9





      I would consider citing based only an abstract to be extremely bad practice; bordering on a mild form of academic malpractice. Yes, I know it happens, but that does not mean we should so casually accept it.

      – Jack Aidley
      12 hours ago














    • 9





      I would consider citing based only an abstract to be extremely bad practice; bordering on a mild form of academic malpractice. Yes, I know it happens, but that does not mean we should so casually accept it.

      – Jack Aidley
      12 hours ago








    9




    9





    I would consider citing based only an abstract to be extremely bad practice; bordering on a mild form of academic malpractice. Yes, I know it happens, but that does not mean we should so casually accept it.

    – Jack Aidley
    12 hours ago





    I would consider citing based only an abstract to be extremely bad practice; bordering on a mild form of academic malpractice. Yes, I know it happens, but that does not mean we should so casually accept it.

    – Jack Aidley
    12 hours ago











    0














    Isn't this the same thing as breaking into a house and stealing everything, then asking if it's ethical to watch Netflix using the victim's account?



    You are asking the wrong question.



    The unethicalness occurred long before the question of attribution arose. The publishers of the papers placed a value on them.. and you, for whatever reason, chose to obtain the document from a thief rather than the publisher. Just because "everyone else" is doing it and it's "wink wink" accepted practice in no way makes the act of theft ethical. Everything that follows from that act is then tainted by the original act of thievery.



    So to recap...




    • Pirate steals from publisher.

    • You obtain copy of document from pirate, making you at best an accomplice and at worst a thief yourself.

    • Question of ethics regarding attribution of stolen documents in your own paper is really not a valid question at this point.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      0














      Isn't this the same thing as breaking into a house and stealing everything, then asking if it's ethical to watch Netflix using the victim's account?



      You are asking the wrong question.



      The unethicalness occurred long before the question of attribution arose. The publishers of the papers placed a value on them.. and you, for whatever reason, chose to obtain the document from a thief rather than the publisher. Just because "everyone else" is doing it and it's "wink wink" accepted practice in no way makes the act of theft ethical. Everything that follows from that act is then tainted by the original act of thievery.



      So to recap...




      • Pirate steals from publisher.

      • You obtain copy of document from pirate, making you at best an accomplice and at worst a thief yourself.

      • Question of ethics regarding attribution of stolen documents in your own paper is really not a valid question at this point.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.























        0












        0








        0







        Isn't this the same thing as breaking into a house and stealing everything, then asking if it's ethical to watch Netflix using the victim's account?



        You are asking the wrong question.



        The unethicalness occurred long before the question of attribution arose. The publishers of the papers placed a value on them.. and you, for whatever reason, chose to obtain the document from a thief rather than the publisher. Just because "everyone else" is doing it and it's "wink wink" accepted practice in no way makes the act of theft ethical. Everything that follows from that act is then tainted by the original act of thievery.



        So to recap...




        • Pirate steals from publisher.

        • You obtain copy of document from pirate, making you at best an accomplice and at worst a thief yourself.

        • Question of ethics regarding attribution of stolen documents in your own paper is really not a valid question at this point.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.










        Isn't this the same thing as breaking into a house and stealing everything, then asking if it's ethical to watch Netflix using the victim's account?



        You are asking the wrong question.



        The unethicalness occurred long before the question of attribution arose. The publishers of the papers placed a value on them.. and you, for whatever reason, chose to obtain the document from a thief rather than the publisher. Just because "everyone else" is doing it and it's "wink wink" accepted practice in no way makes the act of theft ethical. Everything that follows from that act is then tainted by the original act of thievery.



        So to recap...




        • Pirate steals from publisher.

        • You obtain copy of document from pirate, making you at best an accomplice and at worst a thief yourself.

        • Question of ethics regarding attribution of stolen documents in your own paper is really not a valid question at this point.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 42 mins ago









        Sam AxeSam Axe

        1011




        1011




        New contributor




        Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Sam Axe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.























            -5















            can we cite [(possibly) illegally obtained] documents[?]




            Yes, but you might be incriminating yourself, if you cannot demonstrate legal access.




            can editorial board know...if I'm using those articles?




            No. At least, not without collaboration.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 10





              You don't have to demonstrate legal access, in general. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems.

              – Federico Poloni
              16 hours ago






            • 6





              And as anyone that's ever marked undergraduate coursework will tell you, referencing an article is absolutely not proof that you've read it :)

              – E. Rei
              16 hours ago











            • @FedericoPoloni Rephrasing as if you could not have legally accessed would perhaps be better, which the publisher might conceivably be able to do, e.g., with an argument such as: we accused has not paid for access, nor have their co-authors, nor have any of their institutions. Defending against such an argument could be problematic. (Not a lawyer.) Although, following from E.Rei, I suppose acknowledging academic misconduct works... Albeit, that requires lying if document were obtained illegally.

              – user2768
              16 hours ago








            • 7





              @user2768 The point is that you can't reasonably tell who has legal access to a published paper. Even if somebody is at a university that doesn't have a subscription to that journal, there are so many other legitimate ways that the person could get access to the article without leaving any kind of paper trail, that nobody is ever going to conclude "You must have accessed that illegally."

              – David Richerby
              11 hours ago






            • 4





              @FedericoPoloni "The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems." This is true. Unfortunately, copyright enforcement goes well outside the bounds of sanity pretty much everywhere. If the requirement of the burden of proof being on the accuser were applied consistently, copyright-enforcement things such as DRM and the DMCA takedown system simply could not exist. But unfortunately, they do.

              – Mason Wheeler
              7 hours ago
















            -5















            can we cite [(possibly) illegally obtained] documents[?]




            Yes, but you might be incriminating yourself, if you cannot demonstrate legal access.




            can editorial board know...if I'm using those articles?




            No. At least, not without collaboration.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 10





              You don't have to demonstrate legal access, in general. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems.

              – Federico Poloni
              16 hours ago






            • 6





              And as anyone that's ever marked undergraduate coursework will tell you, referencing an article is absolutely not proof that you've read it :)

              – E. Rei
              16 hours ago











            • @FedericoPoloni Rephrasing as if you could not have legally accessed would perhaps be better, which the publisher might conceivably be able to do, e.g., with an argument such as: we accused has not paid for access, nor have their co-authors, nor have any of their institutions. Defending against such an argument could be problematic. (Not a lawyer.) Although, following from E.Rei, I suppose acknowledging academic misconduct works... Albeit, that requires lying if document were obtained illegally.

              – user2768
              16 hours ago








            • 7





              @user2768 The point is that you can't reasonably tell who has legal access to a published paper. Even if somebody is at a university that doesn't have a subscription to that journal, there are so many other legitimate ways that the person could get access to the article without leaving any kind of paper trail, that nobody is ever going to conclude "You must have accessed that illegally."

              – David Richerby
              11 hours ago






            • 4





              @FedericoPoloni "The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems." This is true. Unfortunately, copyright enforcement goes well outside the bounds of sanity pretty much everywhere. If the requirement of the burden of proof being on the accuser were applied consistently, copyright-enforcement things such as DRM and the DMCA takedown system simply could not exist. But unfortunately, they do.

              – Mason Wheeler
              7 hours ago














            -5












            -5








            -5








            can we cite [(possibly) illegally obtained] documents[?]




            Yes, but you might be incriminating yourself, if you cannot demonstrate legal access.




            can editorial board know...if I'm using those articles?




            No. At least, not without collaboration.






            share|improve this answer














            can we cite [(possibly) illegally obtained] documents[?]




            Yes, but you might be incriminating yourself, if you cannot demonstrate legal access.




            can editorial board know...if I'm using those articles?




            No. At least, not without collaboration.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 17 hours ago









            user2768user2768

            13.8k23657




            13.8k23657








            • 10





              You don't have to demonstrate legal access, in general. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems.

              – Federico Poloni
              16 hours ago






            • 6





              And as anyone that's ever marked undergraduate coursework will tell you, referencing an article is absolutely not proof that you've read it :)

              – E. Rei
              16 hours ago











            • @FedericoPoloni Rephrasing as if you could not have legally accessed would perhaps be better, which the publisher might conceivably be able to do, e.g., with an argument such as: we accused has not paid for access, nor have their co-authors, nor have any of their institutions. Defending against such an argument could be problematic. (Not a lawyer.) Although, following from E.Rei, I suppose acknowledging academic misconduct works... Albeit, that requires lying if document were obtained illegally.

              – user2768
              16 hours ago








            • 7





              @user2768 The point is that you can't reasonably tell who has legal access to a published paper. Even if somebody is at a university that doesn't have a subscription to that journal, there are so many other legitimate ways that the person could get access to the article without leaving any kind of paper trail, that nobody is ever going to conclude "You must have accessed that illegally."

              – David Richerby
              11 hours ago






            • 4





              @FedericoPoloni "The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems." This is true. Unfortunately, copyright enforcement goes well outside the bounds of sanity pretty much everywhere. If the requirement of the burden of proof being on the accuser were applied consistently, copyright-enforcement things such as DRM and the DMCA takedown system simply could not exist. But unfortunately, they do.

              – Mason Wheeler
              7 hours ago














            • 10





              You don't have to demonstrate legal access, in general. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems.

              – Federico Poloni
              16 hours ago






            • 6





              And as anyone that's ever marked undergraduate coursework will tell you, referencing an article is absolutely not proof that you've read it :)

              – E. Rei
              16 hours ago











            • @FedericoPoloni Rephrasing as if you could not have legally accessed would perhaps be better, which the publisher might conceivably be able to do, e.g., with an argument such as: we accused has not paid for access, nor have their co-authors, nor have any of their institutions. Defending against such an argument could be problematic. (Not a lawyer.) Although, following from E.Rei, I suppose acknowledging academic misconduct works... Albeit, that requires lying if document were obtained illegally.

              – user2768
              16 hours ago








            • 7





              @user2768 The point is that you can't reasonably tell who has legal access to a published paper. Even if somebody is at a university that doesn't have a subscription to that journal, there are so many other legitimate ways that the person could get access to the article without leaving any kind of paper trail, that nobody is ever going to conclude "You must have accessed that illegally."

              – David Richerby
              11 hours ago






            • 4





              @FedericoPoloni "The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems." This is true. Unfortunately, copyright enforcement goes well outside the bounds of sanity pretty much everywhere. If the requirement of the burden of proof being on the accuser were applied consistently, copyright-enforcement things such as DRM and the DMCA takedown system simply could not exist. But unfortunately, they do.

              – Mason Wheeler
              7 hours ago








            10




            10





            You don't have to demonstrate legal access, in general. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems.

            – Federico Poloni
            16 hours ago





            You don't have to demonstrate legal access, in general. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems.

            – Federico Poloni
            16 hours ago




            6




            6





            And as anyone that's ever marked undergraduate coursework will tell you, referencing an article is absolutely not proof that you've read it :)

            – E. Rei
            16 hours ago





            And as anyone that's ever marked undergraduate coursework will tell you, referencing an article is absolutely not proof that you've read it :)

            – E. Rei
            16 hours ago













            @FedericoPoloni Rephrasing as if you could not have legally accessed would perhaps be better, which the publisher might conceivably be able to do, e.g., with an argument such as: we accused has not paid for access, nor have their co-authors, nor have any of their institutions. Defending against such an argument could be problematic. (Not a lawyer.) Although, following from E.Rei, I suppose acknowledging academic misconduct works... Albeit, that requires lying if document were obtained illegally.

            – user2768
            16 hours ago







            @FedericoPoloni Rephrasing as if you could not have legally accessed would perhaps be better, which the publisher might conceivably be able to do, e.g., with an argument such as: we accused has not paid for access, nor have their co-authors, nor have any of their institutions. Defending against such an argument could be problematic. (Not a lawyer.) Although, following from E.Rei, I suppose acknowledging academic misconduct works... Albeit, that requires lying if document were obtained illegally.

            – user2768
            16 hours ago






            7




            7





            @user2768 The point is that you can't reasonably tell who has legal access to a published paper. Even if somebody is at a university that doesn't have a subscription to that journal, there are so many other legitimate ways that the person could get access to the article without leaving any kind of paper trail, that nobody is ever going to conclude "You must have accessed that illegally."

            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago





            @user2768 The point is that you can't reasonably tell who has legal access to a published paper. Even if somebody is at a university that doesn't have a subscription to that journal, there are so many other legitimate ways that the person could get access to the article without leaving any kind of paper trail, that nobody is ever going to conclude "You must have accessed that illegally."

            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago




            4




            4





            @FedericoPoloni "The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems." This is true. Unfortunately, copyright enforcement goes well outside the bounds of sanity pretty much everywhere. If the requirement of the burden of proof being on the accuser were applied consistently, copyright-enforcement things such as DRM and the DMCA takedown system simply could not exist. But unfortunately, they do.

            – Mason Wheeler
            7 hours ago





            @FedericoPoloni "The burden of proof lies on the accuser, in most sane legal systems." This is true. Unfortunately, copyright enforcement goes well outside the bounds of sanity pretty much everywhere. If the requirement of the burden of proof being on the accuser were applied consistently, copyright-enforcement things such as DRM and the DMCA takedown system simply could not exist. But unfortunately, they do.

            – Mason Wheeler
            7 hours ago










            Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Syafiq Zaidi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125570%2fciting-paywalled-articles-accessed-via-illegal-web-sharing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

            Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

            Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints