
SSRN sold to Elsevier - kristianc
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2016/05/ssrn-sold-to-elsevier-from-open-access-to-the-worst-legacy-publisher.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+professorbainbridge%2FsheN+%28ProfessorBainbridge.com+%C2%AE%29
======
dredmorbius
Why is this not subject to anti-trust review?

Oh, interesting. Among the trustees is Hal Varian, professor emeritus of
economics, UC Berkeley. And currently Google's Chief Economist:

[http://info.berkeley.edu/~hal/](http://info.berkeley.edu/~hal/)

[http://www.ssrn.com/en/](http://www.ssrn.com/en/)

Brian Leiter's take:
[http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/05/elsevier-a...](http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/05/elsevier-
acquires-ssrn.html)

He points to Matt Bodie who has this comment:

"In 2006, I asked Gregg Gordon if SSRN would ever sell itself to a larger
corporation. His answer:

"'As for a future sale, other than myself, the shareholders are academics.
They have invested their own money and time into SSRN with the goal of
changing how research is distributed, value their reputations and
relationships within the scholarly community, and would not risk them by
selling in a manner that would jeopardize our central goal. Our intention is
to never sell, but it is hard to guarantee that.'"

[http://www.theconglomerate.org/2016/05/ssrn-acquired-by-
else...](http://www.theconglomerate.org/2016/05/ssrn-acquired-by-
elsevier.html)

Paul Gowder, professor of law & political science, why you should be
concerned:

[https://medium.com/@PaulGowder/ssrn-has-been-captured-by-
the...](https://medium.com/@PaulGowder/ssrn-has-been-captured-by-the-enemy-of-
open-knowledge-b3e5bca6751d#.3kwndo5zf)

~~~
zer00eyz
>with the goal of changing how research is distributed

Services like Arxiv, and now scihub have changed things up more than a bit. I
have to wonder if they saw the writing on the wall and cashed out while they
could (and I would not fault them if they said they did)

~~~
Bartweiss
This seems quite plausible. SSRN has been a good thing, but over many years it
hasn't managed anywhere near the change and furor produced by Scihub. If open
access brands are going to be devalued by universal access, then it's a great
time to sell.

~~~
dredmorbius
SSRN has worked within the system.

Sci-Hub (and Aaron) said "fuck the system".

------
PaulHoule
Ain't no power like the power of money because the power of money don't stop.

It is really the fault of you, the reader, because somehow your library finds
$2M a year to pay to Elsevier and can't find a dime to pay for open access.

It is a little known story, but in the mid 0's, arXiv came within a hair of
being sold to IoP by the Cornell University Library.

~~~
jessriedel
> It is a little known story, but in the mid 0's, arXiv came within a hair of
> being sold to IoP by the Cornell University Library. ¶ Source?

~~~
PaulHoule
Me. I stopped it from happening and got fired.

~~~
nileshtrivedi
This deserves a blog post.

~~~
PaulHoule
Maybe.

Everybody involved got fired, all the way to the then head of the CUL.

I haven't talked about it much because whistleblowers just get nailed to the
wall. The only kind of settlement that is worth it is enough money you never
have to work again and can live high on the hog.

------
Aelinsaar
Truly, the only solution to these pricks will be a LOT more people like
Alexandra Elbakyan.

~~~
Old_Thrashbarg
Yes a lot more heroes like Alexandra Elbakyan, but also people willing to send
a bit of monetary support.

I'll be sending $200 worth of bitcoin as a donation. Please consider donating
$10 or $20 to Scihub to help them expand.

[http://sci-hub.cc/](http://sci-hub.cc/)

~~~
padraic7a
I think sci-hub is wonderful. However even widespread adoption by students and
academics won't necessarily cut into publishers profits.

"Gold Open Access" and so-called hybrid journals will still make money off
academics who have to publish in them for status / tenure / just to get a job.

Elsevier etc could transition to make all their money off author / grant
agency / institution pays type charges.

The solution[s] to this are things like Green OA journals, library led
publishing projects like 'Open Library of Humanities' [1] and piracy /
liberation at the point of consumption.

[https://www.openlibhums.org/](https://www.openlibhums.org/)

~~~
mst
If Elsevier can find a way to provide open access and still make money, more
power to them.

I think, basically, "free the science from the publishers" and "free the
scientists from the publishers" are two different goals and it's totally fine
if sci-hub only fixes the first one.

------
dandandan
Why was the title of this changed? It may have been editorialized but it
wasn't misleading or clickbait by any means.

~~~
cortesoft
'worst legacy publisher' is not exactly a neutral fact.

~~~
mindcrime
But the HN guidelines say "No editorializing". We aren't allowed to "fix"
blatantly bad headlines, so it's pretty hypocritical of the powers that be to
"sanitize" this one (if that's what happened).

~~~
Cogito
I think the sanitisation of the headline is in keeping with the spirit of the
following guidelines:

 _If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective,
we 'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How
To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is
meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait._

Furthermore, the full title as displayed on the article _" SSRN sold to
Elsevier: From open access to the worst legacy publisher"_ is actually a main
title and subtitle, as noted by the colon separating them.

It's quite common on HN for the subtitle to not be included in the
submission's title, or for it to be used instead of the main title.

~~~
mindcrime
_I think the sanitisation of the headline is in keeping with the spirit of the
following guidelines:_

Yep, it's just not consistent with the actual observed practices here. In
reality, if a submitter "fixes" a bad headline, it almost always gets reverted
to the exact title of the original post, no more, no less. But on this
occasion, somebody submitted the exact original headline, and it got
"sanitized" for no apparent reason.

The frustrating part isn't the guideline, it's the inconsistent application of
the guideline.

~~~
Cogito
I should have changed my post to reflect that I think my second argument is
the stronger.

The subtitle was removed, and I have seen this as common practice (choosing
either main or subtitle) in the past - though typically by the submitter.

My first point is more that this does not fly in the face of the guidelines,
_even if_ it is not common practice.

------
mtrn
Funny, people seemed to have used the site _because_ it was owned by
academics, e.g.
[http://kennethcwilbur.com/whyssrn.html](http://kennethcwilbur.com/whyssrn.html)

> Since SSRN is owned by academics, I expect it will continue offering similar
> services for the foreseeable future.

BTW: Did SSRN had a official method of downloading their metadata?

------
jshaqaw
I have images of those tales told about how GM purchased the LA streetcars
only to destroy them running through my head. What terrible news.

------
MaysonL
Title on the site: _" SSRN sold to Elsevier: From open access to the worst
legacy publisher"_

------
1hackaday
This would be the right time for arXiv to start accepting quantitative social
science papers. Most papers at SSRN fall under that label. My guess is that
most authors would happily move their papers from SSRN to arXiv in the blink
of an eye.

~~~
marketforlemmas
Does SSRN come with any guarantee of peer review or minimum quality threshold?
The only downside with arXiv is that anything can be posted. It works fine as
a paper-hosting service but is terrible as a "social proof that my paper is
OK". If SSRN comes along with such a reputation, then it might be a hard
transition.

However if SSRN is just a paper-hosting service, then everyone should move to
the arXiv immediately.

~~~
1hackaday
SSRN posts anything (no peer review). It has the same function as arXiv.

The only issue I see with moving to arXiv right now is that currently arXiv
only accepts papers on topics such as physics, math, and CS. For arXiv to be
helpful to the SSRN crowd, it would need to have a few new categories (e.g.,
"quantitative social science", which could be split into subtopics mirroring
the main topics in economics and management science journals).

------
genop
Do authors assign copyright to SSRN? (If SSRN is not trying to turn a profit
why would they need an assignment?)

Will Elsevier require copyright assignment?

------
apricot
$$RN.

