Author: Bai Ding, geek web3

Recently, due to Vitalik and CZ With the nomination of DeSci, the concept became a hot word and sparked widespread discussion. From the literal meaning, DeSci mainly refers to "decentralized science". In response to the centralization problems inherent in the traditional academic research process, DeSci attempts to change the publishing and dissemination model of academic activities in a decentralized manner, making the scientific research field more Be open and fair.

There are deep-rooted structural problems in the traditional academic research and communication system. A few publications Businesses such as Elsevier and Springer have basically monopolized the dissemination channels of high-quality papers by controlling top journals, which has produced serious negative effects. In addition, due to various reasons such as the shortcomings of the traditional academic evaluation system, many scientific research work in recent years has become "carving on paper, thesis first", squeezing the innovation and practicality of scientific research; on the other hand, resource allocation is insufficient. Equality has exacerbated the academic "marginalization" of developers, leading to a systemic imbalance in global scientific research.

In this context, we urgently need to rethink: Should academic papers really be paid to read? What is the key to the problem in academia? Combined with the hot words for public goods such as Sci-Hub, which have been hotly discussed recently, we might as well conduct a preliminary discussion on DeSci and look forward to the opening and progress possibilities that the combination of Web3 and scientific research fields will bring to the academic community.

Publishers’ monopoly on academic journals

Journals are important carriers of academic research results , is also a medium that promotes scientific progress. However, the biggest problem in today's traditional academic circles is precisely related to journals. From "Nature", "The Lancet" to "Cell", the influence of top journals goes far beyond publication and dissemination, and has also become the core of the scientific research evaluation system. How many results have been published in journals of what level is an important credential for scientific researchers in the allocation of academic voice. This makes the operation model of academic journals inevitably mixed with fame and fortune, and has the characteristics of commercialization. This is The nature of the current traditional academic system.

From submission to publication, the paper has to go through a complicated process of editing, peer review, and final publication. There are many things that can be done. For example, the paper The review is mainly conducted by experts in the field to evaluate submitted papers, and relatively authoritative scholars in the field will be invited to participate. However, these experts are often unable toReceive financial compensation for reviewing manuscripts. As a result, this "free" step has become one of the gimmicks for publishers to increase pricing, using the authority of reviewers as a selling point, and in turn charging high subscription fees to people who read the journal.

People are not ignorant of this operating model, but due to the high degree of monopoly of academic publishers on the market, they have to accept the reality. A few publishing giants, such as Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley, control almost 70% of the world's scientific journals. This monopoly position gives publishers strong bargaining power, and they regard academic journals as high-end commodities. , pricing is based on high impact factors and prestige effects, rather than actual operating costs.

Institutions and individuals have to pay high fees when subscribing to journals. In order to obtain the resources of a specific journal, they are even forced to purchase hundreds of journals in a package. This is This unscrupulous bundling sales model is called the "BigDeal". Elsevier's parent company, RELX Group, has profit margins in the technology field of as high as 30%-40% in 2022, surpassing technology giants such as Apple and Google.< /p>

These strange phenomena all point to one problem: academia is currently highly marketized, and it is a monopolistic marketization. Monopoly will bring about negative externalities, and the monopoly benefits will be reaped by a few groups. The ultimate beneficiary of the academic market is undoubtedly the capital represented by the publishers, while the negative externalities are borne by academic researchers and readers.

Influence factors and price elasticity of demand

In traditional academia, the impact factor plays a decisive role, and the impact factor of a journal is one of the important indicators used to measure the influence of the journal. Its calculation method is as follows:< /p>

For example, the impact factor of a journal in 2024 is 5.0, which means that each article published by the journal in 2022 and 2023 will be cited an average of 5 times in 2024. This is a relatively objective level. Impact Journals with high factors have great fame and fortune for authors who publish papers, and have high academic influence, and are generally called "top journals"

Publishing giants often incorporate top journals into their own publishing networks through mergers and acquisitions. For example, Elsevier owns The Lancet, "Cell", etc.; Springer has "Nature" and its sub-journals. Next, these publishers use the resources they have to gain monopoly profits in various ways. In addition to subscription fees, publishers also charge submission fees from people who publish papers. This dual charging model forms a highly profitable business model.

It is precisely because of "the goods in hand" that publishers can earn monopoly profits. Taking Elsevier as an example, its parent company RELX Group's revenue in 2022 will exceed US$8 billion, of which STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publishing business accounts for the largest proportion, with profit margins as high as 30%-40%. In comparison, the profit margins of global technology giants such as Apple and Google are only about 20%-25%, which shows that the profit margins of academic publishing are huge. In contrast, the cost of journal subscriptions in universities increases at a rate of 5%-7% every year, which is even much higher than the currency inflation rate.

From RELX Group’s 2022 financial report

Such a huge profit margin makes publishers unwilling to give up this piece of "academic cake". In addition, academic circles have rigid demand for journals with high impact factors. Publishers use their monopoly position to maintain high price strategies and at the same time pass copyright agreements. Convert researchers’ intellectual property rights into their own commercial assets. Such a business model transforms academic journals from a bridge of knowledge dissemination into a tool of capital, hindering the openness and fairness of scientific research.

In 2019, the University of California system suspended its subscription service for two years because it could not afford Elsevier's high costs. Even in the world's leading universities, this phenomenon of "scientific researchers cannot afford to read papers" occurs, not to mention the scientific research difficulties faced by small and medium-sized institutions.

CNKI also has similar problems. In 2016, the library of Wuhan University of Technology issued an announcement that from 2010 to 2016, CNKI quotations increased by 132.86%. The school believed that the price increase was too large and unbearable, and decided to suspend the use of CNKI database services. In 2021, Nanjing University announced that it would suspend the use of CNKI on the grounds that CNKI subscription fees continue to rise, which has brought huge financial pressure to the school. In April 2022, the Documentation and Information Center of the Academy of Sciences issued a notice that because the CNKI renewal fee has reached tens of millions, it decided to suspend the use of the CNKI database.

Up to now, CNKI has been fined multiple times for monopoly and illegal activities, totaling more than 130 million yuan. This can also be roughly estimated from the side that it relies on academic resources.Obtain huge profits.

From "Luzhong Morning News"

In the final analysis, the fundamental reason for the monopoly of academic resources is that scientific researchers’ demand for technical resources is too rigid. The sensitivity of market demand to price changes is called "price elasticity of demand" in economics. The more necessities, the lower the elasticity, such as food, medicine, utility bills, etc.; conversely, the more non-necessities, the higher the elasticity, such as luxury goods, fast-moving consumer goods, etc. A comparison of the two demand curves is shown in the figure below.

Compared with the general e-book market, the academic publishing market is small but highly sticky characteristics, so the price elasticity of demand is extremely low. Because scientific research institutions and scholars are highly dependent on specific journals, publishers are hardly constrained by market competition in pricing. Once the supplier obtains a monopoly in this "rigid demand market", since there are almost no substitutes, the monopoly price can be raised as high as possible, and subscription fees and contribution fees will always be high.

Such an academic publishing system has also invisibly exacerbated the inequality in the distribution of global academic resources. Developing countries and small and medium-sized institutions are faced with high journal subscription fees and are often unable to afford them, which restricts their academic development. Even small and medium-sized institutions in developed countries face the same problem. Well-known universities and top institutions can usually sign "Big Deal" agreements to obtain comprehensive academic resources, while small and medium-sized institutions can often only purchase a small number of journals, or even rely entirely on public resources. And the more this happens, the less able small countries and institutions will be to attract more talents and funds, falling into a vicious cycle.

Academic papers are public goods

From an economic perspective, knowledge itself is a right and wrong Exclusive and non-competitive, they are naturally public goods. Most scientific research relies on public funding, especially basic science research, which is usually funded by grants or support from public welfare organizations. This means that the production process of scientific knowledge itself is an undertaking jointly funded by the whole society, so the research results should be used as a public resource to be shared by all mankind, rather than being exploited by a few publishers through various channels. monopoly.

Publishers commercialize scientific results by not only setting high barriers to access, but also restricting authors' free sharing in other settings through copyright agreements. This closed model obviously violates public goodsThe idea is, furthermore, contrary to the spirit of modern scientific research collaboration.

Free access to academic papers is of greater significance in narrowing the resource gap between scientific research entities with different economic strengths. Currently, many universities and scientific research institutions in developing countries are unable to subscribe to expensive academic journals due to budget constraints, making it difficult for researchers to follow up on international cutting-edge research, and scientific research capabilities are further marginalized. If academic papers can be made freely open to the public, it will greatly improve these scientific research conditions and allow more researchers to equally participate in global scientific exchanges.

More importantly, the papers will be available to more researchers, educators and the public in a timely and free manner, which will greatly accelerate the dissemination and innovation of knowledge, which is important for It is of great significance for society to avoid direct major losses. For example, after the raging of Hurricane Katrina, timely updated meteorological research results significantly reduced casualties in subsequent hurricanes; the flood control design concept adopted by the "Delta Project" in southwest the Netherlands was derived from academic research and avoided similar problems. The disaster of the 1953 flood happened again; and timely updates of scientific research results in the medical field can save countless lives.

Sci-Hub: An attempt to break through publishing barriers

In the face of high academic journal subscription fees Against the background of huge knowledge barriers in traditional industries, the emergence of Sci-Hub in 2011 can be said to be a revolution. As the world's largest "shadow library", Sci-Hub not only challenges the monopoly of publishing giants, but also redefines the way knowledge is disseminated. Some even say that the significance of Sci-Hub is comparable to Prometheus stealing fire to bring light to mankind, or the Renaissance liberating knowledge from the monopoly of the church. Since its establishment, Sci-Hub has become more and more famous, and in 2018 it became well-known across the entire network.

The data comparison in the above figure shows that people do not seem to use the Sci-hub metaphor. Not too much, even non-professional scientific researchers, I believe everyone with a master's degree or above can feel the inestimable value of a free thesis knowledge base. What's more, Sci-Hub does not belong to China, does not belong to China, has no funding or subsidies, and is only created and operated by private individuals, which is undoubtedly even more valuable.

Sci-Hub is a native of Kazakhstan (the former Soviet Union when he was born) Alexandra ElbaA free academic paper acquisition platform founded by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011. Elbakyan's original intention was to break the monopoly of academic publishers on the dissemination of knowledge and provide equal access to academic resources for all. She once said: "Scientific knowledge should be the common wealth of all mankind, rather than a private resource seized by a few people." Up to now, Sci-Hub has included nearly 90 million academic papers, covering most of the world's mainstream journals. content.

As a free platform, Sci-Hub mainly obtains paper resources in the following ways: Type:

The first is to use academic resources subscribed by universities and scientific research institutions to obtain papers with the help of authorized access. Universities and scientific research institutions usually subscribe to the databases of large publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, etc. Sci-Hub uses the accounts provided by academic users to access these resources, and then uses scripts to automatically download papers in batches within the scope of authorization and save them to its own on the server.

This approach of snatching the cheese from mainstream publishers is of course unacceptable to the latter. In 2016, a legal document from the U.S. Court of the Southern District of New York showed that Sci-Hub used legitimate accounts of some academic institutions to download Elsevier's papers in batches without authorization, which directly led to Elsevier filing a copyright lawsuit.

The second is that after Sci-Hub gained a certain popularity, it attracted many fans from academic users and received spontaneous support from these people. They may be scholars, students, or staff of research institutions, and will actively provide access to Sci-Hub or directly upload academic resources. This behavior allowed Sci-Hub to include a large number of paper texts in a short period of time. Alexandra Elbakin (the founder of Sci-Hub) once mentioned in an interview that many academic users proactively contacted Sci-Hub and expressed their willingness to contribute accounts or downloaded documents to support knowledge sharing.

The third type is more special. Sci-Hub may use some means to exploit or cause the leakage of account information of some universities or institutions to gain access to subscription resources.

Reports indicate that some account leaks may come from phishing emails targeting users of university libraries or publisher databases. Sci-Hub uses these leaked accounts in batches Download papers; some university or institution users use simplifiedSingle or repeated passwords (such as "123456" or account names) make the account easy to crack. Sci-Hub or its supporters conduct password testing attacks through automated scripts, find accounts with weak passwords, and then log in in batches. In addition, operations such as not changing the password in time, leaving the company without logging out, etc. will give Sci-Hub an "opportunity".

Of course we can see at this point that Sci-Hub's known ways of obtaining academic resources are actually very controversial, but they can still be discussed. within the range. We are more concerned about a question: Has Sci-Hub used drastic illegal behavior to obtain papers?

Although Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakin has repeatedly denied using hacking methods to directly attack the publisher's database, she emphasized that Sci-Hub Hub mainly relies on voluntary sharing of accounts and technical exploits to obtain resources. However, according to reports from some publishers and security experts, some account leaks may indeed involve technical hacking methods, such as using automated tools to crack weak passwords, or attacking The internal network of universities or scientific research institutions steals user login information.

Although Sci-Hub's acquisition methods are controversial and even considered infringing and illegal by publishers, in the eyes of many scholars and supporters, this behavior On the contrary, it is the most powerful evidence that Sci-Hub fights against traditional academic monopoly, is an "inevitable revolution" in knowledge sharing, and is a necessary counterattack against the monopoly and high pricing model of the existing publishing system.

At this point we can see that the attitude of ordinary scientific researchers towards Sci-Hub can be said It’s the complete opposite of being a publisher, why? Sci-Hub, as a non-profit platform, opens access to academic knowledge for hundreds of millions of researchers, students and the general public around the world. In many developing countries, Sci-Hub is even the only choice for scientific researchers to obtain the latest research results. According to statistics, Sci-Hub has been downloaded more than 650 million times, a considerable part of which comes from developers. For example, in 2017 alone, Iran and India contributed 25 million and 15 million downloads respectively.

Under the shadow of knowledge monopoly, the emergence of Sci-Hub has benefited almost all scientific researchers, especially allowing scientific knowledge to reach those who are limited by economic, geographical and other reasons. Excluded groups breathe new life into the equitable spread of knowledge. However, although Sci-Hub is of great significance in breaking down knowledge barriers, after all, it touches the interests of others, and its destinyThe battalion faces challenges in different aspects.

The first is compliance. Sci-Hub's existence poses a direct threat to the publishing giant's business model, and it faces continued litigation and blockade by the latter. Publishers such as Elsevier and Springer have repeatedly filed lawsuits against Sci-Hub, accusing it of copyright infringement. Court decisions often require Sci-Hub to cease operations, and domain names have been blocked many times.

For example, in 2017, the US court ruled in favor of Elsevier, and many of Sci-Hub's domain names were forced to close. Sci-Hub has been blocked more than 10 times since its inception. In India, Russia, etc., publishers try to block access to Sci-Hub through legal means, but users can often continue to use it through VPNs and mirror sites.

Secondly, there is a common problem with public goods - the source of funds. Sci-Hub's operation relies entirely on user donations and support from university accounts. It has no stable source of revenue, which makes the sustainability of the platform very challenging. A report in 2020 showed that Sci-Hub’s main source of revenue is Bitcoin donations, with the annual donation amount being approximately US$120,000, but this is far from enough to cover the platform’s server and operating costs.

In 2024, some netizens spontaneously promoted memecoin with the same name as Sci-Hub, and after memecoin became popular, they donated the total number of tokens to Sci-Hub. 20%, which is about US$5 million based on the current market value, which largely solves Sci-Hub’s dilemma.

In summary, although Sci-Hub has made great achievements in knowledge sharing , but its model is not without limitations. First, Sci-Hub’s legal status is unstable and the long-term survival of the platform is seriously threatened. Secondly, Sci-Hub solves the problem of knowledge acquisition, but it does not fundamentally change the business model or power structure of academic publishing.

Perhaps, blockchain technology can provide a better solution for breaking academic monopoly. The concept of decentralized science (DeSci) can use blockchain to achieve transparent sharing of academic papers, decentralized management of intellectual property and fair distribution of funds. Compared with Sci-Hub's passive acquisition model, DeSci provides a more legalized and systematic way to share knowledge.

DeSci: The future path to solving academic monopoly

As the monopoly and high costs of the traditional academic publishing model become increasingly prominent, decentralized science (DeSci) is providing new hope for solving these challenges. DeSci's core vision is to leverage blockchain technology and decentralization The idea is to create a new scientific research ecosystem that is not dependent on a few publishers and funding agencies. In this ecosystem, researchers can receive funding directly, results can be publicly accessed, and intellectual property rights can be transparently managed to ensure fairness for all contributors. Distribution of proceeds

Blockchain has underlying logical advantages in solving money-related problems. DeSci can publish papers, The citation and review process is recorded on the chain, ensuring transparency and credibility, and using technologies such as smart contracts to significantly reduce costs or increase scholars' income, helping them overcome economic difficulties.

Token, as the core product of the blockchain, can help scientific researchers obtain more diversified economic sources. In the vision of the DeSci platform, papers can be published for free, and can provide scientific researchers with data based on data such as reading and citations. Directly provide token rewards. Regarding this, Arweave has tried to combine open access with the blockchain to ensure permanent preservation and fair access to documents. In this way, DeSci not only reduces costs but also increases benefits, which can be described as " Increase revenue and reduce expenditure.

In addition, new organizational relationships like DAO can bring more transparency to the DeSci scientific research system. In DeSci, research funding can flow directly to specific scientific research projects as much as possible. Disintermediation. Through the DAO's decision-making mechanism based on community voting, funders can choose to support projects of interest while monitoring the use of funds in real time.

In addition, for intellectual items such as papers and research data, the clarification of property rights is a core issue that is difficult to avoid. In the traditional academic publishing model, the ownership and income distribution of intellectual property rights are often full of controversy. For example, most Academic journals require researchers to transfer the copyright of their papers to publishers, making it difficult for researchers themselves to benefit from the subsequent dissemination of academic results. In the open access (OA) model mentioned above, although papers can be made public for free, it is expensive. Article processing fees still shift the financial burden to researchers.

And NFT is naturally suitable for solving similar copyright issues/The issue of clarifying property rights. DeSci uses IP-NFT (Intellectual Property Non-Fungible Token) technology to digitize the property rights of scientific research results and record them on the blockchain, making the ownership of property rights transparent and non-tamperable, thereby completing patenting. Researchers can own and control intellectual property directly without transferring copyright to a publisher. In addition, revenue distribution is also automatically executed by smart contracts. Every time a paper is cited or scientific research data is used, revenue will be distributed to relevant contributors in real time.

This model not only solves the problems of copyright transfer and unfair income in the traditional publishing system, but also encourages the sharing and cooperation of scientific research data. There are currently projects making attempts in this direction. For example, on the decentralized biomedical research platform Molecule, research teams can convert new drug patents into IP-NFT, benefiting funders and team members through a transparent distribution mechanism. This mechanism brings new fairness and efficiency to intellectual property management, and is a key link in DeSci's promotion of scientific openness and sharing.

In general, compared to Sci-Hub, under the logic of the traditional Internet , using some non-mainstream methods to open up a precarious academic oasis, DeSci is more like trying to innovate or even "revolution" from the underlying logic, providing a completely new system and platform for academic resources.