Could a papester button irreversibly break down the research paywall?
A friend just sent me the link to the Aaron Swartz Memorial JSTOR liberator. We started talking about it and it led to a pretty interesting idea.
As soon as I saw this it clicked: we need papester. We need a simple browser plugin that can recognize, download and re-upload any research document automatically (think zotero) to BitTorrent (this was Aaronâ€™s original idea, just crowdsourced). These would then be automatically turned into torrents with an associated magnet link. The plugin would interact with a lightweight torrent client, using a set limit of your bandwidth (say 5%) to constantly seed back any files you have in your (zotero) library folder. Also, it would automatically use part of the bandwidth to seed missing papers (first working through a queue of DOIs of papers that were searched for by others and then just for any missing paper in reverse chronological order), so that over time all papers would be on BitTorrent.Â The links would be archived by google; any search engine could then find them and the plug-in would show the PDF download link.
Once this system is in place, a pirate-bay/reddit mash-up could help sort the magnet links as a meta-data rich papester torrent tracker. Users could posts comments and reviews, which would themselves be subject to karma. Over time a sorting algorithm could give greater weight to reviews from authors who consistently review unretracted papers, creating a kind of front page where â€śhotâ€ť would give you the latest research and â€ślastingâ€ť would give you timeless classics. Separating the sorting mechanism – which can essentially be any tracker – and the rating/meta-data system ensures that neither can be easily brought down. If users wish they could compile independent trackers for particular topics or highly rated papers, form review committees, and request new experiments to address flagged issues in existing articles. In this way we would ensure not only an everlasting and loss-protected research database, but irreversibly push academic publishing into an open-access and democratic review system. Students and people without access to scientific knowledge could easily find forgotten classics and the latest buzz with a simple sort. We need an â€śresearch-redditâ€ť rating layer Â - why not solve Open Access and peer review in one go?
Is this feasible? There are about 50 million papers in existence. If we estimate about 500 kilobytes on average per paper, that’s 25 million MB of data, or Â 25 terabytes. While that may sound like a lot, remember that most torrent trackers already list much more data than this and that available bandwidth increases annually. If we can archive a ROM of every videogame created, why not papers? The entire collection of magnet links could take up as little as 1GB of data, making it easy to periodically back up the archive, ensure the system is resilient to take-downs, and re-seed less known or sought after papers. Just imagine it- all of our knowledge stored safely in an completely open collection, backed by the power of the swarm, organized by reviews, comments, and ratings, accessible to all. It would revolutionize the way we learn and share knowledge.
Of course there would be ruthless resistance to this sort of thing from publishers. It would be important to take steps to protect yourself, perhaps through TOR. The small size of the files would facilitate better encryption. When universities inevitably move to block uploads, tags could be used to later upload acquired files quickly on a public-wifi hotspot. There are other benefits as well- currently there are untold numbers of classic papers available online in reference only. What incentive is there for libraries to continue scanning these? A papester-backed uploader karma system could help bring thousands of these documentsÂ irreversiblyÂ into the fold. Even in the case that publishers found some way to stifle the system, as withÂ NapsterÂ the damage would be done. Just as we were pushedÂ irrevocably towards new forms of music consumption – direct download, streaming, donate-to-listen – big publishers would be forced toward an open access model to recover costs. Finally such a system might move us closer to a self-publishing ARXIV model. In the case that you couldn’t afford open access, you could self-publish your own PDF to the system. User reviews and ratings could serve as a first layer of feedback for you to improve the article. The idea or data – with your name behind it – would be out there fast and free.
Another cool feature would be a DOI search. When a user searches for a paper that isn’t available, papster would automatically add that paper to a requestÂ queue.
This is aÂ thought experiment about an illegal solution and it’s possibleÂ consequences and benefits. Do with it what you will but recognize the gap between the theoretical and the actual!
Arif Jinha (2010). Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence Learned Publishing, 23 (3), 258-263 DOI: 10.1087/20100308 free pre-print available from author here