Submitted a paper for an ASA section award? Submit it to SocArXiv and be eligible for a SOAR award too

If you’ve submitted a paper to be considered for an American Sociological Association section award – including a graduate student award – consider submitting it to SocArXiv as well. Any paper that is uploaded to SocArXiv by April 30 and wins a 2018 ASA section award will, upon letting us know, receive a supplementary SOAR (Sociology Open Access Recognition) award of $250 in recognition of your achievement. Support open access, gain recognition, and win money all at the same time!

Here’s how it works: You upload your paper to SocArXiv by April 30. If it’s a published paper, check your author agreement or the Sherpa/ROMEO database to see what version, if any, you’re allowed to share. Once you find out you’ve won a section award, email socarxiv@gmail.com to notify us. We’ll send you a check for $250, as well as publicizing your paper and officially conferring a SOAR award. That’s the whole deal.

Sharing your paper through SocArXiv is a win-win. It’s good for you, because you get the word out about your research. It’s good for social science, because more people have access to ungated information. And now, with SOAR prizes for award-winning papers, it can be good for your wallet, too.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What happens if I submitted a paper, but don’t notify SocArXiv it’s won a section award?

You will only receive a SOAR award if you let SocArXiv know at socarxiv@gmail.com by August 31, 2018 that your paper has won an ASA section award.

  1. What if I upload my paper after I win the section award?

Any papers uploaded by April 30, 2018 are eligible. We welcome later sharing of papers, but they will not be eligible for SOAR awards.

  1. Does the version submitted to SocArXiv have to be identical with the version submitted to the ASA section?

The versions must be reasonably similar but do not need to be identical. For example, if you upload to SocArXiv a pre-copyediting version of your published paper that you have permission to share, but send the award committee the published version, you are still eligible for the award.

  1. I’d love to upload my paper, but my copyright agreement doesn’t allow me to. What do I do?

First, you may still have the right to upload some version of the paper, even if it is not the final published version. Check the Sherpa/ROMEO database for the preprint policies of many academic journals. If you really can’t share any version, you are unfortunately not eligible for a SOAR award. But keep in mind for next time that copyright agreements can often be edited or amended. You don’t have to give away your rights to your work.

  1. I am a graduate student submitting a paper for a graduate student section award. Am I still eligible?

Yes, absolutely. ASA section awards for graduate student papers are also eligible for SOAR.

  1. I am submitting my paper for an award in another disciplinary association. Am I eligible for SOAR?

At present SOAR awards are limited to papers recognized by ASA sections. However, we are always interested in building partnerships with other organizations and disciplines. Please reach out to us at socarxiv@gmail.com if you are interested in developing a similar program for your organization.

 

SocArXiv highlights for March

SocArXiv has been up and running for a year and a half now, and has accepted well over 2000 papers to date. Although you can follow the SocArXiv bot on Twitter to see what’s coming down the transom, and this page provides a running feed of the latest papers and abstracts, it’s a lot to follow – last month more than 200 papers were uploaded.

Toward the end of making this firehose of research a bit more manageable, I (Beth Popp Berman, member of the SocArXiv steering committee) thought I’d start to do a little curating. The intent at this point is to do this once a month, though clearly it could be a weekly feature.

Highlighted below are a handful of intriguing papers posted to SocArXiv recently. Selection criteria are totally idiosyncratic – sociology-centric and based on what looks intriguing to me, with some eye toward broader appeal. If you’re interested in helping to curate on a monthly basis, perhaps with a focus on a particular subfield, email me at epberman@albany.edu.

Disclaimer: I make no claim to peer review here or even to close reading of the papers to evaluate quality; some have been published and gone through peer review while others are working papers.

So, with no further ado:

The Emotional Labor of Surveillance: Evidence from the Fast Fashion Retail Industry

Madison Van Oort

This ethnography- and interview-based paper looks at just-in-time scheduling, biometric scanners, and point-of-sale metrics as forms of worker surveillance at two major “fast fashion” retailers. It details the ways these technologies shape work practices and require new kinds of emotional labor—the “emotional labor of surveillance.” I saw Van Oort present research from this project at ASA last year and it was fascinating – there is lots of room to understand how new technology is yet again restructuring the workplace through new forms of discipline than in turn produce their own resistance.

Exposure to Opposing Views can Increase Political Polarization: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment on Social Media

Christopher Bail, Lisa Argyle, Taylor Brown, John Bumpus, Haohan Chen, M.B. Fallin Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, Alexander Volfovsky

This large-scale experiment got a lot of attention on (surprise) social media when it was posted a couple of weeks ago. Following a survey, authors randomly assigned Democratic and Republican Twitter users to follow a bot that would periodically tweet messages from the “other side”. After a month, they surveyed respondents again, finding that Republicans became substantially more conservative after following a liberal Twitter bot, and Democrats became slightly (but insignificantly) more liberal. Make of that what you will, but it’s interesting experimental evidence.

The Rise of the Randomistas: On the Experimental Turn in International Aid

Kevin Donovan

Speaking of experiments, this paper recently published online-first in Economy and Society looks at how randomized controlled trials became a newly dominant form of knowledge in international development. Promoted as a means of securing epistemic certainty, RCTs have reconfigured both development economics and international aid itself, yet still fail to achieve the closure hoped for by their proponents. This intriguing paper, part of a not-yet-published issue on evidence-based policy, builds on the work of scholars like Monika Krause and Gil Eyal to understand how networks of expertise are produced and maintained.

Leaving the Financial Nest: Connecting Young Adults’ Financial Independence to Financial Security

Megan Doherty Bea and Youngmin Yi

As someone with an interest in student loans and their effects, I found this paper on young adults and their reliance on family support intriguing. Clearly the ability of parents to continue to assist young adults is a difficult-to-measure but important mechanism for the reproduction of inequality. Using PSID data, this paper uses group-based trajectory analysis to identify four latent classes of young adults: consistently independent, quickly independent, gradually independent, and consistently supported. The consistently independent group, with lower average socioeconomic status, reports more financial worry and has a greater chance of being in poverty. This approach seems very promising for better understanding the mechanisms through which intergenerational advantage is transmitted and reproduced.

Too Many Papers? Slowed Canonical Progress in Large Fields of Science

Johan S. G. Chu and James Evans

Finally, and appropriate to the project of sorting through lots of papers, this short working paper uses a very large dataset (57 million papers and a billion citations) to look at how scientific fields develop as the number of papers in them grows large. Increasing size leads to “ossification” of the literature rather than increased citation of new papers, suggesting that new ideas may have trouble gaining hold as readers, overwhelmed by the literature, focus on canonical texts. This intriguing evidence could be interpreted in a number of different ways, and will doubtless generate debate over which story best fits the empirical citation patterns.

There’s lots of good stuff out there – I easily could have highlighted several times this number of papers! Again, if you’re interested in helping curate interesting work on SocArXiv, please let me know – with more people, and different tastes, we could conceivably do something a little more systematic here.

New site up: Here are our most downloaded papers

running

Thanks to the heroic efforts of our partners at the Center for Open Science, we’re delighted that the beta version of SocArXiv is up, running, and ready to use. Over the last four months, more than 600 papers were deposited, mostly through our temporary drop service, and downloaded over 10,000 times.

Now SocArXiv is directly integrated into the Open Science Framework Preprints service, along with other new open access depositories, like bioRxiv, engrXiv, and PsyArXiv. Visit the site SocArXiv.org, where you can search, browse, and upload your own papers.

In the weeks and months to come, we’ll be expanding our scope and debuting new features. But to give you a taste of what we’ve got and what’s to come, we’re highlighting some selected research, starting with the five most downloaded papers.

  1. Gender Mistakes and Inequality, by Chris Bourg. This sociology dissertation uses an experimental design to show how people who misidentify the gender of another person, then after interacting, realize their mistake, are subsequently less likely to use sex as a basis for interaction.
  2. Law’s Public/Private Structure, by Christian Turner. This preprint (subsequently published in the Florida State University Law Review) creates a taxonomy of the legal distinction between public and private entities based on which type control 1) the creation and definition of law, and 2) prosecution.
  3. Medical Decision Making for Youth in Foster Care, by Zach Straussberger. Forthcoming in the John Marshall Law Review, this paper reports survey and interview results on the gap between who is legally allowed to made decisions on behalf of youth in foster care, and who is typically doing so.
  4. Two Years after Alice vs. CLS Bank, by Jasper L. Tran. Recently published in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, the paper shows that subsequent to the Alice decision, which raised the patentability standard for computer-implemented inventions, substantial majorities of challenged patents have been invalidated by the courts.
  5. Happy to Help? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Performing Acts of Kindness on the Well-Being of the Actor, by Oliver Scott Curry et al. This meta-analysis of research on whether performing acts of kindness result in a sense of well-being finds a small-to-medium positive effect across some 21 studies.

These top five papers reflect the early adoption of the site by some legal scholars. We accept papers from all social sciences as well as law. And the site allows faceted browsing and searching by subject area as well as keywords.

You can always see what’s new on the site by visiting the search page and selecting Sort by: Upload date. We’re working on new features, such as sorting by popularity. In the meantime, we’ll be highlighting more research from SocArXiv on the blog. Check it out, and add your own!

Why you should post your papers to SocArXiv

 

why-socarxiv

By Elizabeth Popp Berman

Academia.edu. ResearchGate. Your personal website. You have lots of options for posting your preprints online. Why should you upload them to SocArXiv?

Because you want them to reach people, and because you believe in open access to social science.

You know that posting your work online can extend its audience—to academic peers, journalists, and the wider public—by getting it out from behind journal paywalls. But papers at a personal website aren’t always picked up by academic search engines, and they lack the metadata to maximize your visibility.

And new corporate intermediaries are trying to insert themselves between your research and others’ ability to read it. Uploading to sites like Academia and ResearchGate will reach some of your colleagues. But not every researcher has (or wants) an account, and they’re not designed to provide access to the broader public.

More importantly, while they provide a free service now, these are for-profit enterprises that have to find a way to monetize the content you provide—your research. Academia, for example, recently floated the idea of asking users to pay “a small fee” for papers to be “considered” for recommendation by peers. Expanding access to knowledge is not these companies’ primary mission.

The last couple of years have seen smaller endeavors—first Mendeley, and now the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)—swallowed up by Elsevier, the 800-pound gorilla of for-profit academic publishing. With a trend toward consolidation and a drive to make money, these sites do not have the best interest of social science in mind.

SocArXiv: the open-source alternative

SocArXiv is the noncommercial, open-source alternative to this enclosure of the commons. Uploading your papers to SocArXiv provides a fast, simple way to make your work available and discoverable to the widest possible audience—while also linking you to an emerging community of social scientists and a rapidly developing set of research tools.

We won’t spam everyone (or anyone) you’ve ever met with requests to sign up. And through our link with the Open Science Framework, you’ll also be able to upload data, code, documentation, presentations, and any other files related to your research, and have the option of inviting comments and discussion of your work.

Using SocArXiv is good for you. But it’s also good for social science. Developed in collaboration with the Center for Open Science (COS), SocArXiv’s sole mission is to maximize access to social science and improve its quality. And because we’re noncommercial, we can keep service to social science at the heart of our mission.

In addition, the partnership between SocArXiv and COS means that archiving preprints is just the beginning. COS, home of the Reproducibility Project in psychology, provides free, open-access tools to support data sharing, project collaboration, and pre-registration of studies. As it grows, SocArXiv also plans to develop peer review options, support research communities, and public open-access electronic journals. Like COS, we want individual incentives for researchers to align better with good scientific practices.

How do I start?

Getting started is quick and easy. As we roll out, we have implemented a temporary process for collecting papers. Take five minutes to follow these three easy steps and help us reach a critical mass:

  1. Email socarxiv-Preprint@osf.io from your primary email address.
  2. The subject of the email should be your paper title. The body of the email should be your abstract. Attach the paper as a pdf, Word document, or other file.
  3. Hit send.

That’s it. An Open Science Framework account will be created for you, and your paper will show up here at the temporary site. If you want, you can add tags to make it easier to find. When the full site rolls out, your paper will automatically be included.

You can upload any documents or files you have not specifically signed away rights to share. This includes conference papers, working papers, datasets and code. For most journals, you have the right to post a preprint—and sometimes the published version—of a publication. SocArXiv will track multiple versions of papers, so readers see the most up-to-date while a historical record is retained.

Concerned about journal restrictions? RoMEO maintains an extensive list of journal copyright policies that will reassure you. In sociology, for example:

  • The American Journal of Sociology allows archiving of both preprints and final published versions, as do open-access journals like Sociological Science and Socius.
  • Other ASA journals, including the American Sociological Review, the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Social Psychology Quarterly, Sociological Methodology, Sociological Theory, Sociology of Education, allow preprint posting with a link to the published version.
  • A wide range of journals in which sociologists publish, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Criminology, Demography, Gender and Society, Journal of Marriage and Family, Politics and Society, Social Forces, Social Problems, Socio-Economic Review, Sociological Forum, Theory and Society, and many others, have similar policies.

Imagine if anyone, inside or outside academia, had access to all your research, and could reach it through a simple open web search. Social science doesn’t have to be walled off. Help us make open access a reality. Add your research to SocArXiv.


Visit SocArXiv.org for more information or to sign up for updates. Follow us on Twitter or Facebook. To make a tax-deductible contribution to SocArXiv through the University of Maryland, visit:http://go.umd.edu/SocArXiv.