PLOS and SSRN: Two Approaches to Revamping Scholarly Publishing

Both the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) described in David Warsh's article and the Public Library of Science (PLOS) have the goal of making scientific research more widely available, but their solutions are very different. PLOS chose to become a publisher, using the same peer-review model as existing scientific journals. PLOS has a radical pricing tactic (free for users, $1,500 for submissions), but the costs of publishing their journals are not significantly different from those of traditional publishers. SSRN chose to become a network that enables access to research papers published in other venues in their early stages before they are officially published�working papers�as the NBER has referred to them for decades, as well as officially published papers. (Note, currently, SSRN hosts all abstracts and full-text papers on its site, which may not be necessary in the future.) SSRN has a range of monetization opportunities�advertising on its site, commissions on subscription sales (users can subscribe to for-fee journals via the site), potential conference sales, and more. Plus, they can offer added value to users and contributors by providing contextual links between related content within the network as described in my recent research paper.

Both organizations have laudable goals, but if the goal is truly to encourage collaboration between and among the various global scientific communities and to reduce the time by which research is publicly available, the SSRN approach wins top prize easily. By bringing in advertising revenues (that could be shared with publishers) and positioning free and for-fee articles head-to-head in their listings, the SSRN could also put competitive pressure on commercial journals to reduce the cost of individual journal articles, and ultimately to reduce journal subscription prices.