Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Alice on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Rachel Karash on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • MBL on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • MBL on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • feathered_head on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Concernicus on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Ian on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Peterk on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Robert on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Three Oranges on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Paul Robichaux on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • JR on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Jan on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Mark on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

To upload or not to upload, that is the question…

posted by Nate Oman

ssrn.jpgAfter a couple of months as a law professor, I now have a few manuscripts for articles that I am working on. One of my manuscripts is more or less “finished.” There are few footnotes that say things like “cite to UCC incorporation literature” but you can read the piece from beginning to end. It has a complete argument. So now I am in the circulating phase, finding people who can give me criticisms and suggestions for revision going forward. Which leads to my question: Should I fill in the gaps in the footnotes and post this piece to SSRN? There are advantages and disadvantages.

On the positive side of the ledger, posting now will make it easier to distribute the manuscript among various commenters as I can send them to an SSRN page rather than clogging their in boxes with an attachment. Furthermore, to the extent that posting it on SSRN makes the work generally visible, it might attract the attention of someone that I don’t know but who is interested in the field and might give me useful feedback. Finally, from a purely cynical point of view, early posting allows me to boost my download numbers by having reviewers of my early draft access the paper via SSRN.

Then there are the negative sides of the ledger. As it now stands, my manuscript is hardly an embarrassment (I think that I make some good points), but I fully expect to revise it before submitting it to publication. I’ve no doubt that there are problems that I have not seen, and regardless I ought to be able to tighten up and deepen the argument in the face of criticisms offered on the early draft. In other words, should I post an early version of a manuscript that I hope will be improved in later drafts. SSRN is not the same thing as publication, but a paper on SSRN nevertheless becomes part of your public oeuvre. Do you want an early draft to be part of that? Then there is the issue of law review placement. Should one ever post on SSRN prior to submitting to law reviews? Will pre-publication downloads of an early draft impress future articles committees (“Hmm. There seems to be interest in this piece…”) or turn them off (“Hmm. It’s already up on SSRN; nothing new here…”)?

Any thoughts or suggestions?


 September 15, 2006 at 10:45 am   Posted in: Law School (Scholarship)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (6)

  1. Orin Kerr - September 15, 2006 at 11:09 am

    I would probably wait until your article is further along. My sense is that readers expect that a piece posted to SSRN is basically done; the author may tweak the details, but for the most part it’s all there, the footnotes are complete, and the like. As a result, most people who read the draft on SSRN won’t re-read the piece when it is published; they’ll figure they read it already.

    Finally, my sense is that it is considered better etiquette to send someone a draft than a link when asking for comments. If you just send the link, some might think that you’re more interested in boosting your download numbers than actually receiving comments. Better not to run that risk, I think.

  2. Frank - September 15, 2006 at 11:45 am

    As a matter of professional advice, Orin is on the mark….it probably ought to be as polished as possible. On the other hand, if what’s in SSRN is basically the same as what’s in a law journal, what’s the point? Simply to increase accessibility?

    I have put up a few things that are unfinished, and getting edited and revised as we speak. I think what I’ll do, when a final version is done, is to highlight somewhere in the abstract page the main revisions, so readers who’ve already read the first draft know where to look for new things. I just think that in fast-moving fields, it’s important to get ideas out there and “into the mix,” even if the pieces that contain them fail to maximize one’s reputation for polish, meticulousness, and detail.

  3. Ben Barros - September 15, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Based on advice I’ve received from many sources, it is important for junior faculty to be sure that anything they post (or just circulate to a senior faculty member) is in a relatively polished state. Of course, once it’s polished, the comments won’t be as useful, but first impressions matter a lot. And posting a polished draft still gets your ideas out into the mix a year or so before they come out in print.

  4. joe - September 15, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Amusing that law professors are concerned about “downloads”. I guess it’s better than worrying about billable hours.

  5. Miriam Cherry - September 16, 2006 at 12:58 am

    Downloads don’t really count for anything (at least not yet) so in my mind not worth the downside…

  6. Jeremy A. Blumenthal - September 17, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    This seems to seal any sense that SSRN was a “working paper” venue. I’m trying to think of a witty phrase analogizing to “video killed the radio star,” but it’s not happening.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress