In the domain of "Computer Science > Programming Languages" American Computer Scientist Carl Hewitt has put up a paper that changes completely from the first revision to the current one:



... which seems to be outside the subject of "Computer Science > Programming Languages".

The entry also goes through several revisions along the way, notably:

I will not discuss the merits of v46, as I am interested in the contents of v1, which is also meant to be found when going through links in other web-based publications discussing Actor approaches to concurrent computing.

But it is confusing and looks irregular. Shouldn't arxIv clean this up?

  • What an absolute mess. So v46 cites (arxiv.org/abs/1008.2748) for which the abstract of v60 (!) seems to have a lot of overlap with v1 of the paper you linked to. Meanwhile v1 of 1008.2748 could well be a different paper.
    – Anyon
    May 24, 2019 at 12:37
  • 1
    Something seems to be missing from the title?
    – user109129
    May 24, 2019 at 13:37
  • @user109129 You are right. Fixed! More coffee is needed. Or maybe less, not sure. May 24, 2019 at 14:31
  • 3
    It would probably be good if they had rejected some of those revisions when they were submitted. But once they're posted, I think "don't touch existing content" is a more important precept for arXiv than "clean up messes". There may be papers out there which cite some or all of those versions. May 24, 2019 at 19:55

1 Answer 1


It does indeed look confusing and irregular. Oh, and it only gets worse once you start looking into how interrelated it is with different versions of some of his other arXiv postings... In an ideal world, perhaps arXiv should clean this up somehow. However, the moderation team is relatively small, works on a voluntary basis, and has to handle a lot of submissions every day. One really can't expect them to sort out messes like this one, nor do I think it'd be good for them to have an extensive editorial function. Assuming the initial submission meets the criteria, the onus is on the author(s) to communicate clearly - not on arXiv.

It's also worth noting that only the first five versions are included in the daily listings, so individual authors making lots of revisions don't necessarily impact the community too much. Given all this, I think it makes sense for arXiv to focus on rapidly processing new submissions instead of worrying about excessive changes to a (presumably) small number of postings.

Finally, I'll note that in cases like this it's a very good thing that arXiv stores all versions. You can cite a specific version and leave it at that.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .