Some preprints on arXiv have 1.5- or double-spaced lines, making it less pleasant to read and more wasteful to print.

Is there a reason for it, except for the laziness/sloppiness? (If drafts were >1-spaced, one need to change only one option.)

  • 7
    As far as I know, arXiv does not impose any style, so I guess it's only the responsibility of the authors. Maybe it's just a way to say "look, that's an obvious pre-print, we're not breaking the copyright rule".
    – user102
    May 7, 2012 at 17:36
  • 6
    for most papers on arXiv, the latex source is accessible (via "other formats" button). You can recompile it as you wish..
    – Ran G.
    May 8, 2012 at 1:41

2 Answers 2


I think the real underlying cause is just what Anonymous Mathematician said, that having a double-spaced version of a paper is more convenient for going through and making notes on a printed copy. But it's not just a phenomenon of the dark ages; many people still do this today during the revision process when a paper is being prepared for submission.

In fact, at least in physics (my field), the tradition of double-spacing is perpetuated by the fact that at least one of the major journal publishers' LaTeX class defaults to a preprint mode which sets the line spacing to double. It is possible to change this to single line spacing by passing a class option for the appropriate journal (pra, prb, prl, etc.), but many authors forget to do this - and somewhat understandably, I think, because their job is to do research, not to be proficient with LaTeX. I would imagine that a similar situation might arise with LaTeX classes used by other publishers and in other fields.

It's worth noting that arXiv recommends not submitting in double-spaced mode. But probably very few submitters have the patience to read through the instructions in their entirety.

  • I'd wondered why this seemed to be more common in physics, but I assumed it was just cultural, and I didn't know about the revtex preprint mode. May 8, 2012 at 16:40
  • There's also the fact that normal revtex (say, PRA or PRL) prints in tiny script and packs a lot of information into the page, which is hard enough to read without having to make notes on a printed copy when refereeing.
    – E.P.
    May 9, 2012 at 18:47

I don't like it either. My understanding is that it's for historical reasons: in the dark ages, publishers asked for double-spaced manuscripts (produced on typewriters) because it would leave space for the typesetters to mark up the manuscript. Some authors got used to doing this and have continued the tradition to this day, despite the fact that publishers no longer care, and a few younger authors even imitate it. I think a lot of people find it a little annoying, but they typically don't care enough to complain to the authors, so it will take a while for this practice to die out.

P.S. It's not just the arXiv, but also journal submissions.

  • 3
    If the line spacing bothers you enough, you can often download the TeX source, modify the line spacing, then recompile. To do this, when you're viewing the page for the article, on the top left click on "Download: Other formats"
    – Dan C
    Sep 1, 2012 at 15:18
  • Those are not even such dark ages: 20 years ago, Physical Review would still make the correction to manuscripts in a double-spaced version and send you a scan of those corrections together with the page proofs (today, they send difflatex output).
    – user151413
    Sep 11, 2020 at 9:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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