论开放获取的文化：Sci-hub 悖论
On the culture of open access: the Sci-hub paradox
AI总结：
本文基于大型随机样本研究影子图书馆 Sci-hub 对开放获取引用优势的影响，发现其普及抵消了 OA 出版的积极效应，形成阻碍开放获取发展的悖论。
摘要：
影子图书馆，又称“盗版图书馆”，是指在未经版权持有人许可的情况下免费提供受版权保护出版物的在线集合。尽管它们在世界上大多数国家属于非法，但已逐渐成为科学知识传播的关键参与者。许多出版商和科学家编辑谴责此类图书馆侵犯版权并导致出版物使用信息的流失，而一些学者和机构则支持它们，有时以迂回的方式，因为它们在减少知识获取不平等方面的作用，尤其是在低收入国家。尽管关于影子图书馆的文献很多，但尚无研究关注其通过开放获取运动在知识传播中的潜在作用。本文分析了影子图书馆如何影响研究人员的引用实践，并强调了它们对开放获取引用优势（OACA）影响的一些反直觉发现。基于一个大型随机样本，本研究首先表明，OA 出版物，包括完全 OA 期刊中的出版物，比基于订阅的同类出版物获得更多引用。然而，OACA 在过去七年中略有下降。在基于订阅的出版物中引入是否可通过 Scihub 平台获取的区分后表明，Sci-hub 使用的普及抵消了 OA 出版的积极效应。结果表明，完全 OA 期刊中的出版物是 Sci-hub 成功的受害者。因此，矛盾的是，尽管 Sci-hub 似乎促进了科学知识的获取，但它通过降低 OA 出版物在研究人员的可见性方面的比较优势，对整个 OA 运动产生了负面影响。因此，Sci-hub 使用的民主化可能导致恶性循环，阻碍制定完全 OA 战略的努力，同时未能为科学知识传播提出一个可信且可持续的替代模式。
英文摘要：
Shadow libraries, also known as ''pirate libraries'', are online collections of copyrighted publications that have been made available for free without the permission of the copyright holders. They have gradually become key players of scientific knowledge dissemination, despite their illegality in most countries of the world. Many publishers and scientist-editors decry such libraries for their copyright infringement and loss of publication usage information, while some scholars and institutions support them, sometimes in a roundabout way, for their role in reducing inequalities of access to knowledge, particularly in low-income countries. Although there is a wealth of literature on shadow libraries, none of this have focused on its potential role in knowledge dissemination, through the open access movement. Here we analyze how shadow libraries can affect researchers' citation practices, highlighting some counter-intuitive findings about their impact on the Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA). Based on a large randomized sample, this study first shows that OA publications, including those in fully OA journals, receive more citations than their subscription-based counterparts do. However, the OACA has slightly decreased over the seven last years. The introduction of a distinction between those accessible or not via the Scihub platform among subscription-based suggest that the generalization of its use cancels the positive effect of OA publishing. The results show that publications in fully OA journals are victims of the success of Sci-hub. Thus, paradoxically, although Sci-hub may seem to facilitate access to scientific knowledge, it negatively affects the OA movement as a whole, by reducing the comparative advantage of OA publications in terms of visibility for researchers. The democratization of the use of Sci-hub may therefore lead to a vicious cycle, hindering efforts to develop full OA strategies without proposing a credible and sustainable alternative model for the dissemination of scientific knowledge.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
