ArXiv for the Social Sciences?

In a comment thread on Scatterplot, Neal Caren pines “I wish there was an for the social sciences.” I wish this as well! I am still shocked that economics is light years ahead of sociology on circulating working papers (e.g. NBER, IZA discussion papers, people just posting nice LaTeX’d versions on their personal academic sites, etc.). Kevin Bryan of A Fine Theorem links to an ungated version of every Econ paper he reviews – and notes wistfully the lack of such papers when he touches on Sociology.

So, my question is, what would it take to make a social science arXiv happen? What if instead of founding the next journal, a group of editors/scholars got together – perhaps with the backing of a scholarly publishing office of a University amenable to such things?* – and put something like this together. Perhaps relatedly, why is SSRN not like arXiv for the social sciences? What is it missing – is it just a lack of norms of posting working papers there, or some key features around commenting, etc.?

* is hosted by Cornell, for example.



  1. krippendorf

     /  May 1, 2013

    Sociologists can’t agree on what makes a high quality paper, so they place greater weight on the status of the publication as a signal of quality. In this context, it’s extremely costly for authors to publish in non peer-reviewed outlets. Much more costly than in economics or physics, where there is greater agreement about the criteria that differentiate good papers from bad ones, and good papers can have an impact even if they aren’t published in a flagship journal. Then again, the Reinhart & Rogoff paper shows that the NBER + AER proceedings (not peer reviewed) aren’t perfect, either.

  2. I’m in. I don’t think we need much institutional support to get a hosting site up and running. We could get something like this ( set up fairly easily.

    Getting a critical mass of submissions is probably the tricky part. My sense is that focusing on a couple of section/areas first and then expanding is probably the best route for getting some sort of legitimacy.

    I would note that folks are trying other models of ungating research and speeding things up, like this: I hope that both models succeed in sociology.

    • I know some folks in the Culture Section were talking about starting up a working paper series. I wonder if this might be a suitable alternative, if it could be rolled into a bigger project?

      • I think that would be a swell place to start. I think a section could get 90% of the way there with something as simple and elegant as the solution used by the Political Methodology folks (* With a name and a URL that is flexible enough, expanding to other areas would be just a matter of selling it.

        * I asked Andrew Martin and he said they wrote their own custom software. It isn’t a WP plugin like I hoped it was.

        • If the goal is to build a bigger system – more like arXiv – the trick would be to get maybe 2-3 big sections to go in together at once. Otherwise, it risks becoming just a site for one kind of work (which would be an improvement, but would decrease the odds of it taking off and really transforming the culture of publication). If we could get, say, Culture, Economic Sociology, and another big one (Sex and Gender? Theory? etc.), we’d have a better chance of reaching a critical mass.

          • There is also the problem that section endorsement does not mean people submitting work. ASA Trails, for example, kickstarted their database of teaching materials by harvesting all the old teaching guides.

            What sections are doing mini-conferences? That could be some seed papers, although my sense is that folks are not often ready to release their papers into the wild at that point.

          • Interesting idea! Junior Theorists meets every year, and already routinely releases the conference drafts to all participants and attendees.

  3. There is something like this at most Pop Centers and several have recently banded together to submit to a single site through UCLA’s Pop Center (including Princeton, Penn State, Maryland, Duke, CUNY, and Bowling Green). Others, like Michigan, still maintain their own. There is also the Kentucky Center for Poverty Research site for affiliates and researchers funded through their grants.

    I think that Neal is right that finding submissions is the hardest part. All of those curate papers from their own faculty. That said, I don’t think that it would take much to look through recent conference proceedings and lectures and ask people to submit their work to the series. I find it easy to have presubmission versions available to send to colleagues and others.

    Another idea would be to start a new research network at SSRN. I’m not sure what that would take, the process seems very opaque to me.

    • Thanks! The UCLA system could be a good model, though I think I prefer each paper having its own page with abstract and then a download link (rather than the funky pop-ups).

      • For sure. I was going more for concept than execution — the interface could definitely use some work.

        Maybe attempt to population it using ASA presentations from this summer and focus on a couple of sections?

        • Fun fact: Many ASA papers are already available, but they are hidden deep on the ASA website searchable only through the clunky conference interface. I’ve though about liberating them and then putting them a place a Google Scholar could find. Because they probably cite a total of 400,000 works collectively, this might double the cite count for the average sociologist.

          • Would it possible to automate some process where we email each author for permission to re-post the ASA papers in a new repository if they click a link or something? Would that violate the permissions on the ASA database?

%d bloggers like this: