论文标题
跳过付费墙：学术盗版和其他替代方案的策略和动机
Jumping over the paywall: Strategies and motivations for scholarly piracy and other alternatives
论文作者
论文摘要
尽管有开放访问（OA）运动的进步，但大多数学术生产只能通过付费墙访问。我们对研究人员（n = 3,304）进行了一项国际调查，以衡量使用（或不使用）学术盗版网站的意愿和动机，以及其他替代方案，以克服付费墙，例如用自己的钱，机构贷款付款，只需阅读摘要，阅读摘要，询问对应的作者，要求同事提供文件，要求该文件进行文件，以获取oa版本或oa oa oa oa oa oa版本。我们还探讨了年龄，专业职位，国家收入水平，纪律和对OA的承诺方面的差异。结果表明，研究人员最常寻找文档的OA版本。但是，超过50％的参与者至少使用了一次学术盗版地点。这在高收入国家以及较老，建立的学者中不太常见。关于学科，此类服务在生活与健康科学和社会科学中的使用较少。那些从未使用海盗图书馆的人强调了道德和法律反对意见，或者指出他们不知道这种图书馆的存在。
Despite the advance of the Open Access (OA) movement, most scholarly production can only be accessed through a paywall. We conduct an international survey among researchers (N=3,304) to measure the willingness and motivations to use (or not use) scholarly piracy sites, and other alternatives to overcome a paywall such as paying with their own money, institutional loans, just reading the abstract, asking the corresponding author for a copy of the document, asking a colleague to get the document for them, or searching for an OA version of the paper. We also explore differences in terms of age, professional position, country income level, discipline, and commitment to OA. The results show that researchers most frequently look for OA versions of the documents. However, more than 50% of the participants have used a scholarly piracy site at least once. This is less common in high-income countries, and among older and better-established scholars. Regarding disciplines, such services were less used in Life & Health Sciences and Social Sciences. Those who have never used a pirate library highlighted ethical and legal objections or pointed out that they were not aware of the existence of such libraries.
