Cliffs Notes version of this post: @SocArXiv is a Green Open Access digital repository that is currently being developed for the social sciences. I think this is a good thing. Let’s talk Open Access and publishing at #AAA2016. –R.A.
Back in May, fellow Savage Mind Chris Kelty wrote a post about Elsevier’s purchase of SSRN (aka the Social Science Research Network). The short version of the story is that this purchase is Not Good News, although some folks think it’s Worse News than others. Kelty’s primary argument was that SSRN users needn’t worry so much about their papers, and that DATA was the actual issue. Data, he wrote, is the real reason why Elsevier was attracted to the idea of getting their hands on the SSRN. This data is valuable, Kelty writes, because:
…it is “open access” and because it collects an impressively diverse range of social science in one place, SSRN’s data actually represents the world of social science scholarship reasonably well. There are lots of social scientists who don’t use it—none of my friends in sociology or anthropology do, for instance. Remember though: All models are wrong, but some are useful. SSRN represents better data about the impact of social science research than any single journal, or any publisher’s data (even Elsevier, with its hundreds of social science journals), because it has been built on the good will, apparent neutrality, and level playing field of an open access repository. Until Tuesday May 17, it was not tied to any particular publishing conglomerate or metrics company, and so its data represented social science research with a fidelity to reality that is expensive and hard to otherwise achieve–the result of the hard work of Gregg Gordon, his staff, and advisers to be sure.
Why is this valuable to Elsevier? Because it’s valuable to academics. Like the Impact Factor, which is also owned by a for-profit high-margin company—Thomson Reuters—SSRN is a valuable input in the bureaucracy of academic personnel. Academic administrators long ago gave up evaluating scholars based on quality or innovative research, and turned to evaluating “impact” instead. And impact is a sort of metaphysical quality that is not in the research itself, but in the circulation and reception of research—it can only be captured by metrics, which requires collecting data. The reason is obvious to anyone who works in the university: impact = higher rankings, higher rankings = more and better students, more donors, more reputation for the institution… all of which translates into the ability to hire more high impact researchers. If that kind of data is valuable to academic administrators, Elsevier is right to focus on collecting more if it, monetizing it, and selling it back to Universities. After all, the model of taking all the labor of academics, packaging it up and then selling it back to Universities and academics has worked really really well for them in the past.
I think Kelty is right to point out that the papers in the archive were not the big draw, and that SSRN users didn’t really have much to worry about on that front. As he pointed out, “The papers in SSRN have no economic value,” and “Elsevier can’t really claim ownership over them unless they were subsequently published in an Elsevier journal.”
For me data is part of the problem, indeed. But another part of the problem is that Elsevier was able to purchase SSRN in the first place. What I find most problematic is the idea that users join together to create a shared network and repository…and then lost control of it. This is something, in my opinion, that we have to guard against if we’re going to start building alternative publishing and storage platforms. I see similar problems with users sharing papers (and producing data for potential purchase/harvesting) on sites like Facebook and Academia.edu. We need other alternatives–alternatives that can’t simply be bought out from under us (or, like Academia.edu, increasingly walled off via extra services that require membership “upgrades,” which means paying more and more $$$).
Kelty mentioned one alternative in his post: “Some people are suggesting that it is time for a alternative, such as an ArXiv for social science research. All these things are good food for thought.” I loved the idea, and went on twitter and said so:
— ryan anderson (@anthropologia) May 19, 2016
…which then prompted Matt Thompson to write a post called “What is arXiv and how can we get one,” which I highly recommend, especially if you have no idea about digital repositories, Green Open Access…and what on earth “arXiv” is in the first place. In short:
Like SSRN, arXiv is a digital repository. They are both examples of Green OA — a type of open access where authors deposit versions of their work so that they can be accessed by readers for free. What version of an article makes it into the repository depends on which publisher you’re working with, but almost all of them allow authors to deposit the original submission: no peer review, no mark-up, no type setting. Others are more generous, a few even allow the post-print to be deposited. It just depends, if you want to go Green do some research on your publisher’s homepage or ask a company rep.
Green OA is frequently contrasted with Gold OA, where the author submits to a journal that makes the final product available to readers for free, examples include HAU and Cultural Anthropology. Again, there is great diversity among Gold OA publishers just as there is among Green repositories but we’re not getting into that here.
For those of you who have been waiting, here’s the part where I get to the point. A couple of weeks ago a saw some twitter activity from the recent American Sociological Association meeting. There was something called @SocArXiv making a lot of good noise about publishing and open access. Good noise like this:
— SocArXiv (@socarxiv) August 20, 2016
Elsevier is playing the long game. We need to also, by building alternatives https://t.co/HJn5cEQsxu
— SocArXiv (@socarxiv) September 1, 2016
— SocArXiv (@socarxiv) August 29, 2016
…and my favorite straight-to-the-point-open-access-message of the month:
Many academics agonize about making their work stylistically “accessible”. Just try for literally accessible. https://t.co/V063qG05Zc
— Kieran Healy (@kjhealy) August 19, 2016
Literally accessible! Brilliant! Well, that’s what something like a Green Open Access digital repository can be part of: creating a network of open access scholarship that makes our work available to wider audiences (not just “the public,” but also anyone who happens to find themselves on the outside of academia). SocArXiv is an archive for all of the social scientists, and our sociological cousins are jumping on board. So what it is? It’s an offshoot of the main arXiv idea (ie what Matt wrote about in his post), and currently in development. There’s a temporary version online now, hosted via the Open Science Framework, but the full site should be live by the end of the year.
So what about us anthropologists? I’m hoping we can get in on this too–and #AAA2016 opwould be a good place to start. I got in touch with some of the folks from @SocArXiv and asked them about the possibility of putting something together for the upcoming conference. They’re game. Are we? Are you? I am. It’s time for Open Access to Strike Back in 2016. Let me know what you think in the comments, or via Twitter: @anthropologia