A confession first: This was our first attempt at a journal paper.

The story so far:
We had submitted our work for possible publication with a reputed journal in our area. Some time later, while the review was still on, I checked out whether this journal allowed self-archiving of author's version of the paper. Feeling glad that it did (and being quite confident that our paper will get accepted), we decided to upload our pre-print on arXiv.

And now...
The decision arrived from the journal. It was a reject. Amongst the other things written by the reviewers, one of the points happens to be:

...I am a bit concerned with what appears to be the same paper published and made available from: arxiv.org/xxx/yyy. I would recommend that the authors clarify this potential duplication.

I do not think that this was the only reason for rejection, but might have contributed to it.

My questions:
I know I did a mistake due my lack of awareness of the proper rules. How to rectify my mistake?
Should I consider that this work of mine cannot be published to any conference/journal since its pre-print happens to arXived already?
As far as I understand, arXiv does not allow us to remove papers. I can request a withdrawal, but even then the previous version(s) will remain available online (for any future reviewers to bug us).

What is the best course of action for me?

update based on answer by @F'x:
Adding this from the Journal's website, Guide for authors page:

Copyright is retained by the Publisher. Submission of an article implies that the paper has not been published previously; that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out; and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher.

  • 5
    where does the journal allow self-archiving? Journals often differentiate between self-archiving "on author's personal website", "on an institutional archive / funding institution", and on "any no-profit preprint server" (or similar words). Only the latter clarifies that uploading to arXiv is fine. Not that I like this distinction. Authors should be free to do whatever they want with a preprint.
    – user7112
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 8:05
  • 5
    If the journal allows it, it shouldn't make a difference. If you're worried, you can just write in the cover letter when submitting to the next journal that you uploaded the preprint on arXiv. Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 8:23
  • 14
    If the preprint was the real reason for rejection, the editor would have most likely told you off.
    – StrongBad
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 10:20
  • 19
    For what it’s worth, I find the referee’s comment very surprising! I’m in mathematics (specifically, logic/category theory), and most articles I’ve either submitted or refereed are already available beforehand as preprints, either on the arXiV or on individual homepages. I would have understood “published previously” in the journal’s policies to refer just to actual journal publication, not to dissemination as a preprint.
    – PLL
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 15:27
  • 12
    "I am a bit concerned with what appears to be the same paper published and made available from: arxiv.org/xxx/yyy. I would recommend that the authors clarify this potential duplication." To me it looks like a post-hoc rationalization of an already decided but difficult-to-justify rejection. I definitely do not see any mistake done by the OP and it looks like the damage has a different origin. (There is a famous folktale of an editor cut-and-pasting the negative parts of three positive referee reports in order to justify his rejection of a paper.) Commented Oct 26, 2013 at 3:23

4 Answers 4


The answer to your question depends on the exact details of the journal's policy (and it would be good for you to quote them exactly, or give us a link). More precisely, it depends not only on the journal's policy regarding self-archiving, but more importantly on the journal's policy on prior publication.

I know that might sound weird, but these are actually two separate questions. Self-archiving is a question of copyright, a legal issue: it's a question of what rights you retain (and what rights you transfer) according to the agreement you have with the journal's publisher. This copyright agreement is not something that influences the peer review process, it only governs what you agree with the publisher should they actually accept to publish your paper. (The agreement is void if the paper will not be published, obviously.)

Now, the journal's policy on prior publication is not a legal issue, it is a question of scientific (or editorial) policy. It is decided by the journal's editorial board, and should be explicitly spelt out in its guidelines for authors, journal policies or another similarly titled document. Some journals, like those of the American Chemical Society, have a very strict policy on prior publication:

The Journal of the American Chemical Society considers for publication only original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. When submitting a manuscript, an author should inform the editor of any prior dissemination of the content in print or electronic format. This includes electronic posting of conference presentations, posters, and preprints on institutional repositories and any other Web sites. Any content that has been made publicly available, either in print or electronic format, and that contains a significant amount of new information, if made part of a submitted manuscript, may jeopardize the originality of the submission and may preclude consideration for publication.

Thus, this journal would reject any manuscript that was posted on arXiv (or anywhere else), because it is not considered original material.

Now, what about you? Well, you have to find out what your journal's policy is, and act accordingly. If the journal policy forbids prior publication, then accept that you made a mistake, find a journal that doesn't have such requirements (it depends on fields, but it should not be too difficult), and submit it there.

On the other hand, if the journal policy does not forbid such prior publication, then you only made a smaller mistake: not informing the editor. Thus, if you want to appeal the rejection, you may want to write an apologetic letter to the editor with that information (along with answering the other comments of the reviewers). As you say that this was not the main reason for the rejection, I wouldn't advise appealing though (chances of success are very slim).

  • 9
    @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. Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 9:17
  • 7
    @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... Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 9:32
  • 5
    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. Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 10:21
  • 11
    @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". Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 11:33
  • 9
    @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... Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 11:50

While you may not have done anything wrong, violating a journal's preprint publication policy is a big deal. In fact it is such a big deal that if you did something wrong and this was the reason for rejecting the paper, the editor would have told you off in no uncertain terms. More likely the editor got a recommendation of "reject" from one or more reviewers, quickly looked at the reviews and decided that the decision was warranted and forwarded on the decision. The editor's review of the reviews may have been so cursory that he/she didn't even notice the comment about the arXiv preprint.

  • I suspect that your guess is perfectly right. The decision of reject was coming anyways. Thanks..
    – pnp
    Commented Oct 26, 2013 at 5:06

Update: I clarified the answer, as F'x correctly pointed out that the last part was not related. Sorry, I wrote the answer before having my morning coffee.

Given that the journal allows self-archiving of the preprint on arXiv (as you reported), I don't think this was a reason for rejection. Reviewers may not know all the journal's rules (not professional behavior, but it happens). The editor, on the other hand, is supposed to know the policies. You can still clarify this with that journal's editor.

Now, your "issue" is that you have your article on arXiv and this preprint cannot disappear. There is nothing wrong in having your manuscript there, as posting a preprint on arXiv has the benefit to make your work more visible. You are supposed to gather feedback on your study by posting your preprint there.

Now, there are two cases, according to how your article was published in arXiv.

If you decided to employ arXiv non-exclusive license to distribute, you are in the best position to submit your article to any another journal. If the journal wants "original articles", it does not necessarily mean that it does not welcome a preprint on arXiv. Journals usually make a distinction on this, if any. In any case, you could mention the preprint existence in the cover letter. It is an act of transparency in any case.

If you chose a CC license, be very sure to make a pre-inquiry with the journal editor in chief. As much as I love CC licenses, non Open Access journals may not like that people will be allowed to create derivate works out of your preprint (i.e., much of your article).

If your target journal has a clear policy against arXiv and other non-institutional preprint servers, most likely you have to switch journal for this paper.

  • Thanks for the rchive.it link. The interface is very user-friendly.
    – pnp
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 8:47
  • 1
    @dgraziotin in this case, the summary rchive.it provides is inaccurate: the conditions given are not correct (compare to SHERPA's version), and it is missing the most important of them (“Must obtain written permission from Editor”)
    – F'x
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 8:51
  • 1
    I think this answer is wrong, or at least misses half of the point: copyright policies are an entirely different matter from editorial policies, and the issue here is actually not a copyright issue
    – F'x
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 8:54
  • @F'x thanks for pointing this out. Actually, I am gathering the data from SHERPA/RoMEO. But I see how rchive.it UI can miss how certain information are displayed in SHERPA/RoMEO. I will work on better displaying those restrictions. On the other hand, my answer may be more or less accurate (or clear) but it is on journal policies, not on copyright issues. For example, choosing a CC license might interfere with certain journal/publisher policies. arXiv non-exclusive license is often the best one, if submission to a non OA journal is desirable
    – user7112
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 11:19
  • @F'x wait, now I got it. I will update the anwer. The last half of it completely misses the point, as it is written.
    – user7112
    Commented Oct 25, 2013 at 11:30

Maybe too late to answer. You can check the archiving policy of journal here http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php

  • why voted down?
    – Mohaqiq
    Commented Feb 22, 2017 at 9:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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