Difference between revisions of "Till et al. (2019)"
(Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=Till et al. (2019) |Author=Till, B.M.; Rudolfson, N.; Saluja, S.; Gnanaraj, J.; Samad, L.; Ljungman, D.; |Title=Who is pirating me...") |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 20:12, 28 November 2019
Contents
Source Details
Till et al. (2019) | |
Title: | Who is pirating medical literature? A bibliometric review of 28 million Sci-Hub downloads |
Author(s): | Till, B.M., Rudolfson, N., Saluja, S., Gnanaraj, J., Samad, L., Ljungman, D. |
Year: | 2019 |
Citation: | Till, B.M., Rudolfson, N., Saluja, S., Gnanaraj, J., Samad, L., and Ljungman, D. (2019) Who is pirating medical literature? A bibliometric review of 28 million Sci-Hub downloads. Global Health Correspondence, 7(1) |
Link(s): | Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | Data were obtained from a bibliometric review of 27.8 million Sci-Hub download requests for medical journals obtained between September 2016 - February 2016. Data points included date, time, country of request and DOI. |
Data Type: | Primary and Secondary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | Yes |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
Abstract
“We aimed to define the proportion of downloads on Sci-Hub that are medical in nature and to consider these data at the national level, evaluating the relation between density of medical literature downloads and scientific output, national income classifications, and indicators of internet penetrance. We did a bibliometric review of previously compiled Sci-Hub download requests logged between September, 2015, and February, 2016. Data points included date, time, country of request, and digital object identifier (DOI). For each DOI, we obtained associated metadata using the CrossRef application programming interface. We obtained statistics on per-country scientific publications from Scimago, and relied on World Bank Development Indicators for income classifications and internet penetrance.”
Main Results of the Study
Most queries for medical literature originate from middle income countries (incl. India, China, the USA, Brazil and Iran). The prevalence of downloads from these countries is attributed to a “trough” in access to medical literature; increasing educational attainment and rapidly growing medical industries leads to increased demand, whilst legal access to medical literature remains limited.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study concludes that “continued inequity in legal access to the medical literature demands the attention of both the publishing industry and policymakers”, though offers no specific policy suggestions.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 27.8 million"million" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 27.8. |
Level of aggregation: | Downloads |
Period of material under study: | September 2016 - February 2016 |