David Warsh on SSRN
Excerpted from "The Publisher", Nov. 30, 2003, which is available at:
(David Warsh's regular column on economics "EconomicPrincipals.com is a Web-based independent commentary on the production and distribution of economic ideas - an experiment in online economic journalism.")
The technology of publishing moves on, and today the innovators who are pushing out its frontiers are electronic magnates. . . . When an economist finishes a paper - or business school professor, legal scholar, academic accountant or finance economist - he or she sends it off to a scholarly journal and settles down to a long wait. The editors of the journal date-stamp the manuscript when it arrives, read it (in turn with all the other manuscripts that arrived that day), then send it off to a pair of "referees" who have agreed to work for them, usually for free, as expert advisers whose job is to report to the editor on the quality of the submission.
Almost inevitably the referees - who are protected by at least the pretense of anonymity - will require revisions, for good reasons and sometimes bad (has their own work in the field been insufficiently mentioned?). By the time the paper is accepted and finally published, as much as two or three years can pass. This in a highly-competitive business in which being first with a truly good idea can make all the difference in a career. No wonder, then, that various intermediaries came forward with a view to shortening the interval before research could be freely shared among colleagues, in anticipation of an eventual acceptance by a journal. For a time, university departments took responsibility for their own members, issuing "preprints" with a quick-and-dirty certification that the paper would meet the standards of the field.
Then the NBER stepped in, providing "working paper" status for submissions by its own researchers - some 300 of the best and brightest scholars in economics around the world, as hand-picked by the Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology dons who dominate "the Bureau." And for a time in the early 1980s, NBER "yellow-jackets," as the little yellow-clad pamphlets came to be known, were virtually synonymous with macroeconomics' research frontier. Nothing else mattered very much.
Other fields evolved similar mechanisms - small groups of people from the very best institutions, meeting each other in seminars and workshops, organizing conferences to discuss their work. Field after field was thus informally organized as a relatively small Major League and a relatively large Everybody Else - very convenient for journalists, among others.
But that clubbiness was too exclusive - the sensibility too distinctive - to maintain pre-eminence for very long, especially in the digital age. . . . [The founder of the Social Science Research Network, former Harvard Business School Professor Michael] Jensen remembers getting a call in 1992 from then Clemson University finance professor Wayne Marr. The Internet browser had yet to be invented. With a colleague, John Trimble from Washington State University, Marr was putting together a finance discussion group.
Would Jensen lend his name?
Jensen had a history of this sort of thing. . . . In 1974, Jensen had founded, with Eugene Fama and Robert Merton, the Journal of Financial Economics. That widely-read periodical, which burst upon the fast-changing scene at the moment of its flood, was widely seen as having changed economic publishing, with its high submission fees, paid referees, dramatically shorter turn around times and general transparency.
A discussion list? Sure, said Jensen, before leaving on a month-long business trip. By the time he returned, the business had changed. Now Marr wanted to distribute abstracts of completed but not-yet-published new work in finance. And so the Financial Economics Network was born. There were the usual difficulties. Trimble wanted to charge large sums for the service; Marr left eventually to pursue other interests (a similar network devoted to Biblical studies). "I ended up holding the bag for this thing that I never really started, but now I felt responsible for," says Jensen. "I don't like to give up on things. I like them to succeed." . . .
Gradually the Social Science Network Research emerged. The servers were moved from Austin, Texas, to a site near Washington D.C. A chief executive was hired. The National Bureau of Economic Research joined forces in certain key undertakings; its president, Martin Feldstein, agreed to serve as co-director of the Economic Research Network with Jensen. Today, SSRN is built around a collection of eight tightly-moderated research networks, all operating with the openness and organized skepticism of science, and casting the widest possible net among serious researchers - the original Financial Economics group, an Economics network, Accounting, Legal Scholarship, Information Systems, Management, Marketing, and Negotiations.
That means that most of the world that was left out before can now participate fully in the construction of economic understanding - contributing not just abstracts that hint at promising ideas and which contain contact information, but full text documents as well - including the working papers of every major law school in the world. There are some 60,000 papers in the system, some 40,000 of them full-text versions, with downloads running at the rate of 180,000 a month, and abstract views running at around three times that rate. Some 38,000 researchers around the world are involved.
Moreover, the volume of scholarly papers available through SSRN is soaring, though [sometimes] it costs money to read them. "We don't charge for the downloading of papers, except when the owner of the papers charges us," says Jensen. "The NBER charges us, so we charge the users. We distribute the papers of over a hundred journals, online, and most of the publishers want to charge. So we charge. Other than that, we give away the database freely." It's divided now into unpublished "working papers," and an "accepted paper" series, which includes recently published work as well.
And who decides what will be accepted? The answer is, the authors themselves. "We apply no filters other than that the paper should be part of the worldwide scholarly discourse in the area," says Jensen. So once in a while, an editor, or I, or somebody else, will send back a paper as inappropriate. But other than that, we've followed the principle, 'Let a thousand flowers bloom.'" Many of those flowers are doomed to quickly wilt, of course. But the papers that will be deemed great in the future will show up here first too. As the banner says, "Tomorrow's Research Today." You only need to know what you're looking for.
Thus one of the biggest bargains around is the regular email announcement of newly arrived work. For something like $15 a year, you can get an email journal of abstracts that arrives once a week on your desk with all the latest stuff. You can customize it if you like. You don't have to be a professor to know how valuable such a digest of current commentary can be. By now, nearly everybody must subscribe to several services that more or less define the communities of which they consider themselves to be working members. . . .
Once a week or so I get an email list of new NBER working papers. And on those occasions when I take a peek at the SSRN networks, I feel as though I am drinking from a fire hose - it leaves me feeling bloated, soaking wet, but at least potentially fully informed. Today, SSRN is on the verge of becoming a major publishing operation. Discussions are ongoing with a wide array of organizations that may join. There are working papers to be posted, conferences papers to be hosted and archived in the e-library, still more journals to be brought under the roof. "We've put millions of dollars into it," says Jensen, who regularly turns down inquiries from commercial publishers about the possibility of a sale.
"Someday, I hope it will return something like the cost of capital, and pay the interest on its debt. But we have created this thing, and got our colleagues around the world to put their babies up there - because that's what this work is to them, their children - and now we have to worry that it never falls in the hands of somebody who's going to try to capitalize on it in a short-run way." Ahead lie bold experiments in the new technologies known as collaborative filtering. Might it be possible to do away with referees altogether, or at least dramatically reduce their role? Will editors and publishers be next?
Copyright © Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved