JSTOR
Shares rank 5 of 6 academic paper archives by recommenders
People recommend JSTOR as a non-profit archive of old journal articles that are hard to reach elsewhere; critics say much research stays behind paywalls.
People recommend JSTOR as a non-profit archive of old journal articles that are hard to reach elsewhere; critics say much research stays behind paywalls.
11 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 7
- criticize it
- 4
- approval share
- 64%
Recommended in 4 of 13 months
- November 2025: not recommended
- December 2025: not recommended
- January 2026: not recommended
- February 2026: not recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: not recommended
- May 2026: recommended
- June 2026: recommended
- July 2026: not recommended
- August 2026: recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 7 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, not met.
- 1.7 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 4 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Does real work digitizing journal articles
“It's a non-profit that scans old journal articles that would otherwise be a huge pain to access.”
Comment from 21 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence” “did the actual work necessary to make many of those PDFs exist in the first place”
Comment from 21 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence” “JSTOR does actual legit work to make scientific articles easier to access”
Comment from 21 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence” Easy access without a physical library
“That's useful to anyone who wants to read an old journal article without going to a physical library.”
Comment from 21 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence” “It's a non-profit that scans old journal articles that would otherwise be a huge pain to access.”
Comment from 21 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Research kept behind paywalls
“it could have been paid for by the government directly without then having the material behind a paywall”
Comment from 21 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence” “still hold those papers behind paywalls instead of releasing them into the public domain”
Comment from 20 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence” “deeply hilaritragic that his paper is paywalled by JSTOR”
Comment from 23 Oct 2026 in “The alien space of science: Coherent but cognitively unavailable directions” Accused of profiting from paywalls
“Aaron Schwartz was executed by proxy by JSTOR and the feds”
Comment from 24 Aug 2026 in “Anna's Archive Owes $340 Million, Lost Several Domains, but It's Still Online” “JSTOR's bullshit paper-hosting cash cow”
Comment from 21 Aug 2026 in “Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence”
Other academic paper archives people recommend
The four most recommended other academic paper archives, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Criticize | Approval | Months | Owned | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv | 83 | 38 | 69% | 11 | — | Approved |
| Sci-Hub | 17 | 3 | 85% | 9 | — | Approved |
| Zenodo | 9 | 2 | 82% | 5 | — | — |
| ACM Digital Library | 9 | 17 | 35% | 4 | — | — |
| JSTORThis page | 7 | 4 | 64% | 4 | — | — |
What people said
13 of the 14 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“deeply hilaritragic that his paper is paywalled by JSTOR”
“If you want to pay: JSTOR and Google Scholar, for example”
“Aaron Schwartz was executed by proxy by JSTOR and the feds”
“drier but more earnest -- world of nonfiction to be found in places like JSTOR”
“it could have been paid for by the government directly without then having the material behind a paywall”
“did the actual work necessary to make many of those PDFs exist in the first place”
“That's useful to anyone who wants to read an old journal article without going to a physical library.”
“JSTOR does actual legit work to make scientific articles easier to access”
“It's a non-profit that scans old journal articles that would otherwise be a huge pain to access.”
“JSTOR's bullshit paper-hosting cash cow”
“JSTOR didn't own the copyright to any of the material, so could only serve it under the license agreements it had.”
“still hold those papers behind paywalls instead of releasing them into the public domain”
“You may be able to access many older articles, from Foreign Affairs and others, through a free JSTOR account.”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.