It is well known that anyone can download the LaTeX source code of the papers on arXiv. My question is regarding the use of that source code.

Say you are working on a paper that is a follow-up to an existing one. You like the format of that paper (both structurally and graphically), and you want to keep the notation used.

Would it be reasonable/legitimate to download the source of the original paper, keep the preamble (i. e., everything before \begin{document}), and then write your own paper? Or is it downright unethical, and akin to plagiarism? Could this be softened by giving credit to the authors of the original paper in the source code (assuming that the new paper is also to be submitted to arXiv)? I am assuming that all of the content of the new paper is original. It is just part of the (not rendered) LaTeX source that is reused with minimal (or no) editing.

  • Wow that is possible??
    – Jens
    Jul 9, 2020 at 21:47
  • 4
    Use an official journal template like everyone else. Jul 10, 2020 at 0:05
  • 4
    "Use an official journal template" is missing the point of the question entirely. The questioner wants to use the collection of macros in a paper. This is independent of whether a journal template is used. Jul 10, 2020 at 14:55
  • 1
    @AnonymousPhysicist I’m sure I’m not alone in not using a journal template - without repercussions. Jul 10, 2020 at 20:21
  • 1
    I would suggest to ask the authors if you have doubt. There is a good chance that they license the preamble as public domain to you (by saying "Just use it").
    – allo
    Jul 13, 2020 at 11:59

1 Answer 1


In my opinion (as a senior academic, frequent poster on arXiv, and non-lawyer), it is reasonable and legitimate to make use of the source code in the way that you describe except that "giving credit to the authors of the original paper in the source code" is not enough. You must give credit in the body of the paper itself. If you do this, I believe that you would be satisfying any of the Creative Commons licenses used by arXiv. (In the case of one of the enhanced license choices of ShareAlike or Noncommercial-ShareAlike, you should adhere to the additional conditions.)

If you give credit only in the source code, putting legality aside, you would be trying to avoid publicly acknowledging the way in which you have used the work of the original authors. That is unethical, in my opinion. (I expect you would agree that well under 0.001% of arXiv downloads are of source files. Please do not look for the least possible defensible acknowledgment of the original authors.)

If I were in your field and your action led to increased notational and typographic consistency, I would be happy about that. It would make papers easier to understand.

[Addition to respond to Nate Eldredge: You make an interesting point that we do not acknowledge Knuth or Lamport or the authors of various standard LaTeX packages. It does soften my view. However, I maintain that there is a difference between the `obviously intended use' when someone publishes a LaTeX package and the rather surprising use of someone accessing source code to use macros. I still recommend that the original questioner acknowledge the use of source code in a way that is visible in the compiled version of the document.]

  • 10
    On the other hand, one normally doesn't acknowledge the authors of LaTeX itself, nor of the many packages that a typical paper may use. In some sense maybe we should, but it's not the practice. Do you think there is a distinction between that and this? Jul 10, 2020 at 0:23
  • OP doesn't actually mention anything about macros, so it's possible they just want to find out which packages are used to achieve some notation. The appropriateness of an acknowledgement probably depends on how non-trivial the copied lines are.
    – Anyon
    Jul 10, 2020 at 18:39
  • @Anyon when I referred to "notation" I had custom macros in mind also. Apologies for the ambiguity. In some cases, these custom notation macros can be very non-trivial. I think this constitutes an interesting particular case. Do you think, even if other scientists from the same field are able to recognize where those symbols came from, that their origin should be acknowledged? Jul 11, 2020 at 8:32
  • 1
    @user1790813 No worries, I just considered it a possibility worth pointing out. Especially since I'd be quite bemused if I found myself acknowledged for having written e.g. "\usepackage{simpler-wick}" - if anyone should be acknowledged there it's the package creator. I agree it makes sense to acknowledge authors of non-trivial custom macros. But one-liner "\newcommand" ones that are used as short-hand to avoid typing out straight-forward but tedious math syntax? Probably not. As I said previously, I think it depends on the degree of non-triviality.
    – Anyon
    Jul 11, 2020 at 15:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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