I just got an announcement from SSRN that it is now selling bound copies of eligible articles. For more information, see Purchase Bound Hard Copy. Authors may opt out.
I have two questions. First, will law reviews start rejecting papers posted to SSRN, or require the author to opt out? Second, with the abstract-publishing "journals," and hard copies available, is a paper on SSRN now "published scholarship?" Clearly, Deans will want articles in top-tier law reviews.
Well, three questions: will they print front-and-back?
I think we need the scholarly equivalent of a local food movement. Why, exactly, should I pay SSRN $10 PLUS SHIPPING for something I can do on my printer at home? Or if I want bound, I can do it at the office. Greener and cheaper. And if they want $10/each for the privilege of printing out and shipping my papers, how much of that do I get?
Posted by: Mary Dudziak | July 27, 2011 at 04:12 PM
At South Texas, we have a group subscription to SSRN, which gets us the abstracting journals, plus free downloads of the pdf files. I think the purchase hard copy option is aimed at non-subscribers.
As for authors getting a share, we don't get paid when the law reviews, or Hein, sell reprints. Nor do we get a share of the money Lexis and West pay the law reviews based on downloads.
You can always that your cue from Nancy Reagan, and "just say 'no.'"
Posted by: Gary | July 27, 2011 at 04:33 PM
Isn't SSRN offering bound volumes rather like your cellphone company offering you morse code services?
Posted by: Eric Muller | July 27, 2011 at 11:09 PM
LOL. Bad as my former cell carrier's service was, often I could only identify the presence or absence of a signal. CW (Morse code over radio) would have allowed communication when text--much less voice--would not! That, I think, is the point. Some people don't have a download option, or would rather read paper. Bound paper is easier to read, especially if printed front & back. Takes all kinds to fill a freeway; some older members of my extended family have "boat-anchor" cell phones that they turn on only when **they** have emergencies!
Posted by: Gary Rosin | July 28, 2011 at 12:14 AM
The SSRN terms of use may conflict with the author agreements used by some law reviews. I did a problem with my IP class in the fall when SSRN announced that this program was coming. I gave them the SSRN terms of use and an actual law review agreement, and asked them to determine where things stood. We concluded that if the law review agreement was executed first, SSRN might be liable for copyright infringement, and that the author, in turn, could be required to indemnify SSRN.
Not that this is likely to happen, but still, it was eye-opening.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann | July 28, 2011 at 08:02 PM
Thanks. How about if one or more verions of the paper was/were posted to SSRN before it submitted to a law review?
Posted by: Gary Rosin | July 28, 2011 at 10:05 PM
If the paper is posted to SSRN first and the author then executes a copyright assignment to a law review, the author might be in breach of the representations in the assignment, but SSRN isn't likely to able sue the law review for infringement, since it has only a nonexclusive license.
Things are different if the law review takes only a nonexclusive license; things are also possibly different if the article is revised substantially between the initial posting and the final posted version.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann | July 29, 2011 at 03:29 AM