Timeline for Made an arXiv submission too early; How to minimize the damage?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2013 at 4:32 | vote | accept | pnp | ||
| Oct 25, 2013 at 11:50 | comment | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | @WillieWong You're right. I'm sorry if I came out sounding like correcting someone else's belief or calling a different culture wrong. I just meant that the claim "it would be weird to publish in a journal a paper that you had put on arXiv three years ago" is not correct as general advice. There are many cases where it takes three or more years for a paper to appear in a journal after uploading on arXiv, and the word "weird" sounded too strong to me... | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 11:33 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @YuichiroFujiwara: a big difference is also with the fields. Mathematics and Physics journals have almost always been very accommodating toward arXiv postings. Whereas historically journals in Medicine and Chemistry have some of the strictest rules about "prior publication" that are known to man. As with many "cultural" things, it is often not worthwhile to dig too deeply into whether it is "just". You are not going to bring about a change in culture by convincing people what they have been doing for the past 20 years is "wrong". | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 11:30 | comment | added | F'x | let us continue this discussion in chat | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 10:38 | comment | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | And when to submit is all up to the author. If a journal has a policy about "freshness" of some sort which is different from originality, then you should respect that. But if there were a universal time limit of some kind, for example, then, if the asker of this question (academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13590/…) had followed the norm in his field and put his preprint on arXiv, he wouldn't be able to publish it anywhere after rejection that came after 26 months. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 10:21 | comment | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | Of course that's because the purpose of quick publication with no review is quite different than that of slow, peer reviewed publication. In many cases (at least in mathematics), it requires a serious commitment to read and fully understand a paper, especially when it contains a deep result. Just because you claim that you proved something and put a proof online doesn't mean everyone including non-experts will spend months or years on your paper. If you're an already established researcher, the arXiv-only policy may work. But not everyone enjoys such a privilege. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 10:05 | comment | added | F'x | @YuichiroFujiwara yes, but why publish it a first time, then wait some years to say “I really should get more people to read that paper”? | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 9:32 | comment | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | @F'x >what's the point of re-publishing something that was already published years ago? | Isn't it the same as any other submission? 1. To have your paper reviewed by anonymous peers to get honest feedback and get a quality stamp. 2. To give your paper more visibility. 3. To make bean counters happier. I may have missed some, but I think it's exactly the same as in any other submission... | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 9:22 | comment | added | F'x | @YuichiroFujiwara well, if the editor's happy with it, it would not influence my opinion of the manuscript. But I can understand that many journals would rather publish new ideas, results and opinions. Seeing it the other way around: what's the point of re-publishing something that was already published years ago? (apart for its historical significance, with an added note and possibly comments on its impact in the field and following work) | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 9:17 | comment | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | @F'x What's wrong with publishing a paper you put on arXiv three years ago? This may just be me or just my field, but I referee such papers once in a while and have never let such a thing affect my opinion about the results presented in the manuscripts. Neither have editors or other referees, it seems. One paper I recommended for publication had been on arXiv for seven years when the editor asked me to referee. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 8:57 | comment | added | F'x | @pnp well, it is true, the content will not be “original material” when it appears in the journal. The paper you submit to the journal has been published (as in “made available to the public”) just as if you had posted it on your website or had published it in another printed journal. Of course, considering the nature of arXiv, not all journals take such a strong stance, and many allow submission of manuscripts that are published on arXiv (some of them require that both are submitted at the same time… it would be weird to publish in a journal a paper that you had put on arXiv three years ago) | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 8:53 | comment | added | pnp | I added some details from the Journal's website. Your answer throws in quite a different perspective. Just because the work is arXived implies that it is not original material sounds a bit strange to me... | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 8:47 | history | answered | F'x | CC BY-SA 3.0 |