Without going into the nuts and bolts of copyrights , it would be useful to state some simple facts. 2/n
The majority of medical professionals (academic or otherwise) who have any interest in evidence based medicine are compelled to use sites like sci-hub because of the pricing structure of current academic publishers. 3/n
The cost per article charge when accessed online defies any logic. It does not cost the publisher more than a few cents to let people access a pdf online. 4/n
They don't pay the author or the reviewers (or often the editors). The profit margin is immense. 5/n
Access to articles via portals like sci-hub levels the playing field and immeasurably improves access in less rich countries, among trainees and in less endowed academic institutes. This helps in patient care. 6/n
None of us would be able to write manuscripts if it weren't for sci-hub. Our research and academic writing would be compromised outside the most select academic institutions heavily funded by taxpayer (your) money. 7/n
Academic publishers have shown little or no interest in flexible payment models based on ability to pay for individual users. Their bottomlines thrive on this inefficiency. 8/n
The open access publishing movement was hijacked first by rogue publishers and then by these same publishing houses that saw a great business opportunity. They spun off new open access journals to increase their revenue. 9/n
I genuinely hope that academics and institutions in India show some spine and stop playing politically correct. The publishing industry does not care about you. It cares about its shareholders. 10/n
If academic publishers want their copyrights preserved, we need to demand a far better pricing model for online access, that individual researchers in low income countries can afford. 11/n