Consider the following scenario:

Assume you try to publish a paper in a journal, but before sending the paper, you place the paper on Arxiv. Then, the journal rejects the paper because of it lacks novelty due to an improper literature survey. Furthermore, Arxiv does not permit permanently deleting papers.

What can you do? Leaving the paper on Arxiv will haunt you for all time.

Should you replace the pdf with a dummy pdf? The previous versions will be intact and the people searching for her papers comes to know all those flaws. Is there any way to remove the paper from Arxiv?

  • Perhaps you could expand it into an expository article about the topic that students and new researchers to the field might find helpful. – Dave L Renfro Oct 26 '18 at 15:28

Adding something like "After submission of the initial version, it has come to our attention that our main result is a rediscovery of a prior result by XXX (citation)." to the comment section of the arXiv metadata and the frontpage of the article itself should be an elegant way to handle this.


If you really think your article now has no value whatsoever, then you can withdraw your arXiv submission, following the instructions on arXiv help: To withdraw an article. The article’s arXiv front page will then be replaced by a withdrawal notice; you can include a comment explaining the reason. (This is basically the official preferred alternative to your “upload a dummy pdf” approach.)

However, it’s very rare that an article is really completely valueless! Chances are it has some differences from the overlapping work, in the approach or the viewpoint or the technical details; if nothing else, it gives an alternative exposition of the material. If on reconsideration you think this is the case, then just upload a revised version, prominently explaining the extent to which it’s a rediscovery of earlier work (definitely in the abstract and/or introduction, perhaps also in the arXiv comments field), and if you feel it’s appropriate, also highlighting what is different or novel in your version.

With both these courses of action, the previously submitted version(s) will still be available if anyone really wants to look at them — that’s essentially unavoidable. But under normal circumstances, it’s extremely unlikely anyone would go looking for them, and even more unlikely that they’d hold it against you.


The paper has value in, the very least, independently corroborating another scholar's work. Depending on your field, this can vary in value. For example, in the social sciences, independent corroboration is a strong indicator that the effect being examined is a real phenomena.

Also, sometimes it is not necessarily the idea, but the process of generating the idea which is important.

I think in today's climate where there is a crisis of reproducible results, I dont think you should feel haunted at all.


As per another answer, it's an option to add "it has come to our attention that our main result is a rediscovery of a prior result." But, that assumes no novelty. Although that's what the OP claims, it is rarely the case that two independent works discover exactly the same result. Hence, you could consider if there is any novelty, distinguish your work on that basis, and publish those results, possibly in collaboration with the authors of the initial discovery.

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.