My question is simple:

Should I publish a paper on arxiv if the result is almost trivial or just an analysis of the known results with a new question in mind? Other than the main question I am answering (which could lead to some extensions) there does not seem to be an interesting idea.

  • 2
    If "there does not seem to be an interesting idea," then you probably shouldn't publish. But, you probably know that, perhaps there's something more. What value does the paper add? – user2768 Sep 24 '18 at 9:46
  • 2
    In normal cases, authors publish the best of what they can reach, and they believe it is valuable. Afterwards, reviewers find whether it is trivial or not. If you find that the paper is trivial, why do you want to publish it in arxiv? A good strategy in arxiv or anywhere (e.g. your web page) else is publishing only what you believe it will be acceptable by peer-reviewers in other journals/conferences. You can ask your colleagues to review it or contact anyone you think he is an expert in the domain. Just be the editor of your own work – Younes Sep 24 '18 at 10:07
  • @Younes who said anything about reviewers? – Cape Code Sep 24 '18 at 19:18
  • @CapeCode No one. – Younes Sep 24 '18 at 20:11

Since you think of the work as trivial there is only one reason I can think of for publishing it. If, for some reason you need to make a reference to the material it contains, then it might be useful to have it in a public repository. Of course, you could, in most cases, make reference to the source material instead, or simply incorporate the work into something more significant. But if, for example, you want to void the problem of cross referencing between other papers this might be a good idea.

Otherwise, it might be better to sit on the result until you have something of substance.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.