This post on Kai von Fintel’s Semantics etc. blog reminds me that there’s a little-publicized archive of UMass linguistics papers, searchable and browsable by subject area. Here’s the phonology area, and here’s the phonetics area; there are quite a few other areas, almost all of them populated by several papers.
Kai’s link to Kratzer & Selkirk on Spellout does not go to this archive, but rather to lingBuzz, which I first mentioned on phonoloblog just over a year ago. This archive is also searchable and browsable by subject area (phonology, syntax, semantics, and distributed morphology), and anyone can post. (Why distributed morphology as opposed to just morphology, you ask? I believe lingBuzz started out as a distributed morphology archive alone, but was expanded to “generative linguistics” at some point. But then why not change the subject label, or at least add one for morphology? I suppose anything other than distributed morphology is not morphology?)
lingBuzz also cross-lists posts from other linguistics archives like ROA and semanticsarchive.net. Caveat browsor, however: note that posts cross-listed from ROA are all categorized as “phonology”, including things like “Optional case marking of the possessor in Korean” (ROA-871) and “Typological Variation in the Ergative Morphology of Indo-Aryan Languages” (ROA-874), to name just two recent posts to ROA that have nothing at all to do with phonology.
Also, there’s a running popularity contest for papers on lingBuzz, which provides sidebar lists of “top (10) recent downloads” and “top (10) downloads ever”. The contents are updated depending on what you’re browsing, so you can compare the popularity of phonology papers as opposed to all papers (for instance). I wonder about the utility of this feature, really. First of all, cross-listed papers from other archives don’t appear to compete (or if they do, they only get tallied if the paper is accessed via the lingBuzz link). Second: do multiple downloads from the same computer count? Apart from the mildly nefarious possibility of people trying to boost a paper’s popularity by downloading it over and over, one can imagine more benign situations where a paper is downloaded multiple times by the same person. Should that count?