2

As a student, I make mistakes all the times, and stealing my idea will not face a heavy retaliation. I don't mind if someone come-up with concurrent works, but I do mind if my key idea is leaked. Many graduate students in my field therefore only use pre-print service if their papers are either publicly presented or conditionally accepted.

I am looking for a website that can do most of what Arxiv does, with an additional private option or limited visibility, for example an option to make the paper unindexed with search engines. This way, my paper cannot be seen for at least a few months. By doing so, I can at least claim that I am one of the first few researchers who got the idea right. And most importantly, I can privately correct my mistakes, if any. Publishing mistakes is embarrassing and sometimes harm one's career. Many mistakes will be revealed during the peer-review processes and I have a chance to correct them before publicizing.

Please kindly think twice before giving ethically and "politically correct" comments like no one will scoop me, everyone will cite me, and the scoopers will be punished. At least in my field, scooping and idea-stealing is commonly observable, and big-names doesn't care about publicizing pre-prints because they have resources to punish the scoopers. I do understand that keeping my work private might harm the community as the information becomes less transparent. However, it could be also possible that my un-reviewed flawed works misguide the community, and a paper reviewed will benefit the society more.

I personally wasted six months because of someone else's mistake in a published work.


I heard that, in molecular biology, there is a widely-used service to upload your research data like protein structure and sequencing to get a timestamp. The uploaded materials can be set to be private for a period, and fully disclosed later. A lot of people do use this function. This is not exactly what I am looking for but share some similar ideas.

If I remember correctly, there is an interesting paper studying the scooping patterns with the aide of this database.


Solutions found! Zenodo and some other university-run pre-print service does have an embargo function.

21
  • 27
    Hmmm. Isn't the whole purpose of ArXiv to make the papers public? Errors are a natural consequence of being human, actually. – Buffy Nov 14 '20 at 22:51
  • 20
    Putting things on the internet is a terrible way to keep them private. – Anonymous Physicist Nov 15 '20 at 1:34
  • 16
    If you write your paper and put it in a drawer for thirty years, and somebody else publishes first, they will get the credit, even if you have proof that your paper was in a drawer the whole time. (It will invalidate any patents on the idea that somebody else files, but that probably doesn't help your academic career.) Just get your paper ready and submit it somewhere. – Peter Shor Nov 15 '20 at 2:16
  • 16
    If you know who you want to circulate it to, just email it to them (possibly marked "draft—do not distribute"). If you don't, then I don't see how you expect a website could provide you with this information. – Peter Shor Nov 15 '20 at 4:11
  • 15
    Wait, wait, wait.... You want to claim credit for a result before you are sure whether it's correct?? Sorry, but that's not how this works. – JeffE Nov 15 '20 at 23:57
34

Basically, if I understand you correctly, you want proof of priority without publishing.

Well, this problem is well known from middle-ages and renaissance where people wanted to be able to prove they have the earliest solution without revealing what it is (so that if someone finds it, they can prove they were there first).

They often used anagrams, today you probably would use some private/public key combination for this (I am not a crypto expert, you would have to read up on this).

However, to be honest, this will look weird. The current position in science is: if you have done it, publish it and expose it to criticism, and you may gain priority. If you wish to monetize it, you can create a patent that is public, but protects your rights (in theory), or keep it a trade secret and make money out of it.

As for a website that supports timestamps for unrevealed papers, I am not aware of any, but of course if there were, you need to make sure you trust the maintainers. Furthermore, if you had one and if somebody publishes a completed paper somewhere else before your paper goes live, this will not help you. The fact that you had worked provably, say, for multiple years on the topic will at best prevent plagiarism charges when you end up publishing. But this, if it occurs, could be proven otherwise, e.g. lab diary, emails, etc. It will not make you the "first to publish". Don't forget, there are quite a few cases where people who had publications were superseded by later, but more visible publications. So, even open publications may be vulnerable to "post-scooping".

So, your question needs to be what one would need such a service for? I therefore doubt that people would set up such a system with obviously limited utility. Of course, this is not a statement that there isn't.

I understand that this does not precisely answer your question, but I hope I was able to put things in context and why your question may not have a satisfactory answer.

18
  • 13
    @HighGPA Yes, in reputable journals, submission record is a very important timestamp. So, if your journal is 2 years in review (say), then you have two timestamps, one is submission, one is publication. Submission shows that you had the idea, and, in fact, the review process should help you iron out any defects. – Captain Emacs Nov 14 '20 at 23:29
  • 2
    I am not sure if this info is helpful: at least in molecular biology or biochem, there is a widely-used service to upload your research data like protein structure and sequencing to get a timestamp. The uploaded materials can be set to be private for a period, and fully disclosed later. A lot of people do use this function. – High GPA Nov 14 '20 at 23:34
  • 9
    From the technical angle, you could use a cryptographic one-way hash function such as SHA1. Copy your text into a site like this one: hash.online-convert.com/sha1-generator It will pop out a string which looks like "70b557f903e46b1434dd23143f0f3e21e1c42238", which you could then make pubilc. Later, make public the text of your paper, and the hash is proof that you had it earlier. But I agree with @CaptainEmacs's advice that, at least in my field, this would look strange. – academic Nov 14 '20 at 23:42
  • 7
    @academic imho you should write your solution as an answer. I think it's a decent solution to OP's problem: yes it's weird and slightly paranoid, but if everything goes well it's never going to be used so nobody cares. If it turns out that OP actually needs to prove the timestamp on their work, it will be incredibly useful and therefore the method will be justified a posteriori. – Erwan Nov 15 '20 at 0:29
  • 6
    If you do go down the hashing route, you must be absolutely certain that the file you are preserving does not change in the intermediate period. The whole point of a hashing algorithm is that it is sensitive to small changes. So if you add some whitespace somewhere, the hash will be completely different, and you'll lose your proof. – preferred_anon Nov 15 '20 at 10:27
11

Focusing just on the mistakes angle. Don't worry about having mistakes in arxiv papers, its a preprint service for a reason people know they are not full reviewed papers so my contain mistakes (not that fully reviewed papers don't also contain mistakes).

You can always update the version in the arxiv when you realize a mistake. I usually update my papers after peer review which fixes issues picked up by the referee, but I have also updated papers on arxiv before peer review finished because I made some basic mistakes that made me look bad. But you know what I'm still in academia and i doubt anyone even remembers or has the time to go look at what changed between arxiv versions.

14
  • 26
    So? you'll be lucky if a search committee reads the published version of your papers let alone goes back and reads each and every version you have on arxiv. – Rob Nov 15 '20 at 9:45
  • 3
    This post should be downvoted because it does not answer the question. Still, I agree with it: the whole point of arXiv, as I understand it, is to distribute new research quickly, with everyone understanding that it is more likely to contain mistakes. – Brian Drake Nov 15 '20 at 13:22
  • 3
    I haven't downvoted, but if you publish on arXiv, you should be reasonably sure that your paper does not contain glaring mistakes. It might be suboptimally presented and may contain minor glitches, but it is for everybody to see and is effectively public. OP is right to not want a paper in an immature state to be on arXiv. I would say, arXiv is for papers of which at least the authors believe to be essentially ready. – Captain Emacs Nov 15 '20 at 18:01
  • 6
    @BrianDrake Precisely. The point is to distribute new research quickly in a citable manner, which is exactly the reason why it is impossible to unpublish things on arxiv. I'd think thrice about better alternatives before citing a source that could suddenly vanish without any notice. – mlk Nov 15 '20 at 18:12
  • 5
    If an academic committee hires somebody based on a mass email "exposing" another candidate's mistake, I'd considered that a bullet dodged. I don't think any school "prestige" can offset a work environment where you have to snitch on your peers as if this is 1984. – juod Nov 16 '20 at 1:22
6

The website you are looking for probably doesn't exist and if it does it's moot because no one will check it. Then if another paper comes along with the same ideas, people will read that paper, not yours. Moreover, even if you have proof, i bet few people will actually care that you came first. (And, pardon my harshness, deservedly so, because you purposedly decided not to share your work with the community.)

The best way to avoid having mistakes on the Arxiv is:

  1. Send the draft to some expert in the field that you trust asking them for an opinion. If they agree, they will certainly spot the most embarassing mistakes. If they decline, they will likely do so in a polite way and they will be happy that you chose to contact them since that means that you value their opinion. As a bonus, they could also serve as an unbiased witness to the fact that you had the idea independently, in case you get scooped at the last minute.

  2. Use the "replacement" feature on Arxiv. You can always correct mistakes on your preprints. Sure, the older versions are still visible, but Arxiv by default shows the latest one and who is going to check an older version on purpose?

Also, the premise of your question seems a bit off to me: you would like to keep a result unpublished because you don't know that it's correct, but you'd still like to retain priority rights if someone publishes before you. But if you don't know that your ideas are correct, it seems to me that you have no results to claim priority for.

If you are worried that point 1. will actually increase your chances to get scooped, well, that's true. But academia thrives on the fact that ideas can be freely exchanged among scholars. The risk of being scooped is a price that I happily pay for a more open community. I have to re-apologize for my harshness, but if you disagree with this mindset, you should reconsider working in academia. (So I hope you agree.)

3
  • 2
    I haven't downvoted, but Point 1 is questionable. People have enough to do with regular reviews. Unless it is someone OP has a very good relationship with, it is unlikely to find a proper external reviewer outside of a formal publication. They can as well submit to a journal. As for your last paragraph putting OP in their place, it is really uncalled for. I happen to have the luck to work in a friendly community, the OP may have not. Even so, I sometimes did encounter some really nasty apples. If OP is in a unpleasant community (they exist, read academia.SE), their likelihood is much higher. – Captain Emacs Nov 16 '20 at 13:10
  • 2
    The best way to avoid mistakes is to have good coauthors! – Noah Snyder Nov 17 '20 at 16:42
  • Truly appreciate your words! I highly value your opinion. I do love to learn more. I agree that ideas should be shared openly, in a condition that the results are correct. I raised the original question because I frequently observe people rush to publish immature preprints to claim priority; sometimes, the claims in their abstract is correct, but the proofs or the experiments are mistaken. So if I don't rush to put a timestamp on my work, then someone else might publish something on preprint before me and later accuse me for plagiarism, even if their analysis is immature or incomplete. – High GPA Nov 18 '20 at 4:36
5

Figshare, for one, has the facility to apply an embargo to an item such that the material (e.g. an attached PDF) itself is not visible to the public, though the content description is. The timestamp is in the History section near the bottom of the item page. It looks like it even allows generating a private link for reviewers to access the material, but I've not tested this with an embargo active.

I'm not sure what you gain over saving it locally though - your selected reviewers can steal your ideas whether you send it by private mail or via some pre-print site, and you'll only find out when they publish and thus win the race.

Edit: I've reflected on this overnight, and my second paragraph above is a bit too pessimistic: I still don't think this route will help you seek redress after the fact (save for literal plagiarism - wholesale lifting of content) but I can see that having a third party recording timestamps would have a deterrent effect against people stealing the ideas. It also provides them with a specific date when the embargo will end and they can use the ideas legitimately. (Doesn't affect those having the same idea independently, obviously.)

Bear in mind though that applying an embargo commits you to publishing that preprint, so if the underlying concepts are totally flawed you will still have to write a modified version admitting so and publish that version.

3

You can have this functionality without even trusting the hypothetical public server with any of your data treasure. Free public timestamp authorities (which follow RFC 3161) allow you to timestamp your article so that it is cryptographically provable that the article existed before a certain date (when you requested a timestamp from that particular public timestamp server). The technique is normally used for purposes of proving that certain data is genuine, i.e., coming from a particular originator. First the data is signed by that originator's private key (in the originator's environment), then a hash is computed and the public timestamp server is asked to "counter-sign" the data (or rather, just the hash plus that server's timestamp). This second signing of a very short byte stream happens using the public timestamp server's key in that server's environment.

Software vendors use this technique not primarily for protection of priority or of their intellectual property, but rather in order to provide a permanent cryptographical proof that their private signing act happened before the vendor's own certificate (private key) expired or was revoked, one of which is bound to eventually occur. Note that the public timestamp server does NOT have to store any record of whatever it ever countersigned, and its cooperation is NOT necessary for subsequent verification of authenticity of the data. (I have simplified how this works. There are additional transparency measures that prevent that timestamp server to maliciously backdate anything it wants to backdate. The service is not stateless.)

So, you could even build the website you want to use yourself, at your home, with the main external component being the public timestamp server.

If you ever get into a serious priority dispute, you will be able to prove your case at a pretty high standard, unless they suspect you of outright hacking of data from a "real" originator.

There is however a big hole there. You won't be able to present the corrected version of your article backdated. You will only be able to prove what the article looked like at a certain point in time. A combination of a "flawed priority article" and a "corrected subsequent article" is more likely to be taken as a proof that your "earlier" work was flawed and therefore unfinished (not yet in existence), so in the opposite sense to what you might want to attach to it.

Therefore you are better off to follow the normal practice and learn to publish pre-prints whenever you run out of the obvious ideas why your work might be flawed. Initially, your teachers will help you spot such obvious weak points and address them while you don't have a publishable article.

2

arXiv will keep every version on the website, so people can always go back and see what version 1 or version 2 looked like, even when the paper is on it's 5th version (for example).

These are some places where you can put your pre-prints, and then replace them without a version history being visible to any outsider:

  • Academia.edu
  • ResearchGate
  • Mendeley
  • FigShare
  • Zenodo
  • GitHub (if you delete your version history every time you post a new version)

Also a PDF on your own website can often be picked up by Google Scholar: I've seen this happen to my own papers automatically even when I didn't want it to happen.

4
  • Can you make your Academia.edu or ResearchGate papers not indexed by google scholar? – High GPA Nov 17 '20 at 0:38
  • @HighGPA Yes! First of all Google Scholar is not great at picking up Academia.edu papers, compared to picking up arXiv papers or journal articles, then you can also manually un-index papers in Google Scholar if they do pick up a paper that you don't want indexed. – user1271772 Nov 17 '20 at 0:55
  • I am sorry but how do I un-index a paper on google scholar search engine or the main google search engine? Do you mean that I can remove that article from my personal google scholar page? – High GPA Nov 17 '20 at 0:58
  • 1
    @HighGPA I've seen articles removed from Google Scholar, but I would have to look up how to do it because I never did that myself. Removing them from a personal page is even easier. GitHub is not indexed by Google Scholar by default: many times I wished it was! Because I post papers on GitHub well before posting them on arXiv, but GitHub is only indexed by Google Scholar unless someone explicitly cites the GitHub repository (which is hard to do!). If you want to guarantee that it doesn't show up on Google Scholar, GitHub might be a better option. There's also FigShare and Zenodo. – user1271772 Nov 17 '20 at 1:13
1

If your goal is simply to timestamp the content, then you can create a hash and make that public. That is, you compute a MD5 or SHA hash of your pdf and tweet that, put it on your wikipedia page, or attach it to another arxiv submission. This provides proof that your document existed at that time, without revealing the contents of that document. At a later time you can reveal the document and others can check that the hash matches.

If your goal is to make the document "public" without it being indexed or earlier versions being available, then you can put it on a personal website and use robots.txt to tell web crawlers not to index it. That doesn't guarantee it won't be indexed, but it will stop most things.

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.