ArXiv for anthropology: @SocArXiv + #AAA2016 = Open Access Strikes Back

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 We need other alternatives–alternatives that can’t simply be bought out from under us (or, like, 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:

…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:

…and my favorite straight-to-the-point-open-access-message of the month:

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


Ryan Anderson is a cultural and environmental anthropologist. His current research focuses on coastal conservation, sustainability, and development in the Californias. He also writes about politics, economics, and media. You can reach him at ryan AT savageminds dot org or @anthropologia on twitter.

8 thoughts on “ArXiv for anthropology: @SocArXiv + #AAA2016 = Open Access Strikes Back

  1. Hi Savage Minds!

    My name is Dan Hirschman and I’m a sociologist on the Steering Committee for SocArXiv. Please let me know if you have any questions and I’d be happy to answer them (or to pass them on to those who can). And if you’re interested in getting involved, we’re always looking for volunteers. We’d love to have a strong Anthropology presence on SocArXiv, which we see as a space for any social scientist looking for an open access repository for their work in progress and preprints!

  2. Thanks for all of your help Dan! One question from me: How can we make sure that SocArXiv isn’t just bought up by Elsevier (or some other company) the way that SSRN was? What kinds of discussions have you had about these kinds of issues? I know we talked a bit about this in the past, but it would be great if you could share some of your thoughts about this here. Thanks again for dropping by Savage Minds!

  3. Hi Ryan! Thanks for your question. SocArXiv won’t get bought out because we’re not a company and we’re not trying to make money, ever. Right now, we’re a project of the University of Maryland (which means you can already make a tax-deductible charitable contribution to the cause here!). The finer details of our legal structure and internal governance, and the long term plan for our organizational status, are still being worked out by our Governance committee but we are committed to remaining a non-profit organization run by and for academics. If you have thoughts about these issues and would like to get involved, you should contact Elizabeth Popp Berman, the chair of our Governance committee to find out how you can get involved.

  4. Reading this I had a flashback to 2004 when the AAA moved its meeting from San Francisco to Atlanta. One attempt to alleviate some of the resulting disruption of that move was the quick development of a repository, AnthroCommons, for members to share conference papers. The developers, some gracious anthropologists affiliated with UC Berkeley, quickly got it up and running and we all had great hopes for it. Yet, I remember the usage was not as we expected, though I can’t be sure upon trying to check, since I do not have access to the write up:

    As for concerns about ownership and the loss of control to partners offering services, I’d suggest reading a Scholarly Kitchen article sympathetic to Elsevier, which also discusses the pilot study by Elsevier and the University of Florida’s libraries:

    One of the key observationsis academics don’t in fact make participation in repositories a priority until it is an enforced mandate. This is opening up the door for commericial publishers to gain control of university and non-profit repositories by offering services to them. As said in that Scholarly Kitchen article sympathetic to publishers:

    “Essentially, researchers don’t see depositing copies of their journal articles in repositories as a priority, and as we know, researchers won’t do anything they aren’t absolutely required to do. Since most repository policies (in the United States, at least) offer an easy opt-out choice and very few have any sort of monitoring and enforcement schemes in place, the easiest path for a researcher is simply not to bother. ..

    The obvious solution is to take the decision out of the researchers’ hands, and make deposit an automated part of the publication process. …

    There is an obvious service to be offered here that is clearly desirable for institutions and funding agencies — if they want well-populated repositories run on a cost-effective basis, publishers can make that happen.”

  5. Also, remember to post all of your papers in your university’s institutional repository if you have one available. Crawled by Google, your IR will get your work out to readers worldwide. Many universities have open access policies, often put in place by faculty vote. You can put papers in SocArXiv and in your institutional repository too. You will reach different reader populations using more than one strategy. There are some good options out there for “green” OA. All papers should be made available to readers to the extent possible.

  6. Great point Laura! COS is working to have a search engine that can simultaneously search many different repositories, including SocArXiv and others hosted on its system, but also the original arXiv, and Harvard’s institutional repository, among others. These repositories will all be linked through a metadata framework called SHARE.

    As for uptake/usage – 2016 is a somewhat different environment from 2004. FB and Twitter were barely on the scene, and certainly not academically relevant. The need and ability to quickly share working papers has become more compelling to many social scientists, I think. Social science-minded journalists are much more likely to read and write about working papers than they were before, NYTimes Upshot, and 538 were founded. And so on. I think the time is right for a new green OA repository for working papers and preprints, and that’s why I got involved with SocArXiv. So far, despite the alpha nature of the system, we’ve had hundreds of deposits and thousands of downloads. Time will tell if we’re right, and there is truly sustained demand. But for now, what have you got to lose?

  7. @bibliophile: Yes, low participation and usage can definitely be a problem (thanks, btw, for the reminder about the 2004 effort with AnthroCommons). Matt Thompson wrote about this in his post as well when he pointed out that physicists, for example, place high value on Green OA repositories. “My point here,” he wrote, “is that physicists think sharing unreviewed work is a notable accomplishment in a way that anthropologists (currently) do not.”

    I don’t agree with the Scholarly Kitchen article when it argues that the “obvious solution is to take the decision out of the researchers’ hands.” I think, instead, we need to ask why anthropologists don’t value this sort of sharing, what this says about out disciplinary structure/culture as a whole, and what can be done to change that. Much of this gets back to our overwhelming concerns about jobs and tenure and publishing in venues with the proper prestige. I understand this drive, but I also think we need to push back against it and remember (or perhaps re-examine) what publishing is and what, perhaps, it can be.

  8. A couple of quick points:

    First, the AAA partnered with SSRN in 2012 (when it was seen as an unambiguous white-hat repository) to develop the Anthropology & Archaeology Research Network. The partnership is being directed by Louise Lamphere. Before rushing off to the next subject repository, perhaps someone needs to talk with Louise to get a sense of the terms of the association’s partnership with SSRN, the funding involved, and the amount of labor already expended in establishing the AARN. It would also be quite helpful to know something about how many anthropologists have posted pre-prints to SSRN, and to get a sense how much these papers are being accessed by readers. The example of AnthroCommons should warn us that the existence of a repository may be necessary but it is very far from sufficient for the flourishing of a paper-sharing initiative.

    Second, there is a basic problem with the equivalence set up by “physicists have arXiv, biologists have bioRxiv, sociologists have SocArXiv, we need an -arXiv too.” Scholars aren’t an undifferentiated mass: they don’t share (among many other things) the same scholarly communication practices or concerns. As anthropologist, we still like the idea of group-relative difference, don’t we? These differences will have a direct influence on whether, and why, a new paper-sharing initiative in anthropology will work or not. There is already lots of good scholarship inquiring into this: the two articles below (one classic, one recent) are a good place to start if you want to explore this research (as those proposing a new subject repository should, IMHO). And Christine Borgman’s book provides a 30,000 foot overview of field differences and their relation to scholarly communication.

    Rob Kling, and Geoffry McKim. 2000. “Not Just a Matter of Time: Field Differences and the Shaping of Electronic Media in Supporting Scientific Communication.” <a href=";2-T“>;2-T.

    Jenny Frey, Valerie Spezi, Stephen Probets, and Claire Creaser. 2015. “Towards an Understanding of the Relationship between Disciplinary Research Cultures and Open Access Repository Behaviors.”

    Christine Borgman. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Comments are closed.