4

I initially wrote a short manuscript (4 pages) intended for physics journal A and posted this short manuscript on arXiv. After referee feedback from journal A, I am now seeking to instead submit this manuscript to physics journal B but in a longer format (15 pages) with more comprehensive details and additional information/examples included. Given this significant update to the contents of the manuscript, is it all right to simply replace the original short manuscript on arXiv with the new longer manuscript? Or should I create a new entry on arXiv despite the central theme of the two manuscripts being similar?

On this point, if I submit the new longer manuscript to physics journal B, is it unethical if I don't update the original arXiv submission at all? (Namely, the short manuscript on arXiv and long manuscript published in physics journal B will have the same titles but contain differing contents.)

2
  • I cannot think of any situation where it would be ethically obligatory to add new information (not an error correction) to ArXiv in particular. Jan 4 at 3:44
  • I don't know your specific situation (e.g. the original title might be nearly perfect for either paper), but I would probably try to find some way to reword the title, even if just slightly. For example, instead of "Lebesgue density and exceptional points" (a real paper, for realism), use something like "On exceptional points for Lebesgue density", or maybe even "An analysis of exceptional points in the Lebesgue density theorem" to help emphasize the more thorough analysis in the longer paper. And perhaps google any possible title to make sure it's not already used elsewhere. Jan 4 at 15:21
12

If the new manuscript version supersedes the old one, and includes all of its content, I would suggest replacing it. After all, if, say, PRL would have asked for Supplemental Material which would have added up to another 10 pages, you would also have updated the arxiv version.

An added advantage is that people don't get confused by the fact that there are two different versions of the same result on the arxiv, and they don't know which one to cite. (You would also loose citations this way, except on google scholar, where you might gain some; this could of course be resolved by adding the Journal-Ref field for both of them.)

Finally, if you decide to post two different versions, it would be a good idea to add a corresponding comment field to both publications, informing the reader about their relation.

4
  • Correct, the new manuscript supersedes the old version. Just on the final point, is it unethical to not update the arXiv submission at all?
    – Mathews24
    Jan 3 at 20:40
  • 2
    @Mathews24 It is certainly recommendable to keep arxive papers up to date. In fact, papers where the arxiv and the published version differ significantly can be quite annoying. (For instance, if you want to cite a result only contained in one version, you have to be careful what to cite.) Of course, if you choose to not link the journal paper with the arxiv paper in any way, this would be less of an issue. Either way, it is certainly not unethical, but it can cause trouble to others (and you, like wrong citations), and I don't see the benefits.
    – user151413
    Jan 3 at 20:52
  • There is not just ethics, there is also copyright. Be careful what you are and what you are not allowed to upload there. Most often you can upload the corrected author manuscript, but some journals may have different requirements. Alas, some do not even allow arxiv at all and consider it to be prior publication.
    – Vladimir F
    Jan 4 at 9:04
  • 5
    @VladimirF Don't submit to such journals!
    – user151413
    Jan 4 at 13:29
2

Yes, update the arxiv preprint with a new version and do not create an entirely new preprint. I don't see how this would be a problem. The previous version remains available. And it would be confusing to have the same material appear as two different preprints.

Arxiv's policy states:

We encourage authors to update and to make corrections to their articles. DO NOT make a new submission for a corrected article or for an erratum. Instead, replace the original submission.

5
  • 4
    ... just that it's not a corrected article or an erratum.
    – user151413
    Jan 3 at 20:15
  • Why the downvotes?
    – Thomas
    Jan 4 at 21:54
  • Maybe because the quote you give as an argument is not related to the question?
    – user151413
    Jan 4 at 21:56
  • @user151413 But it is related... Sure, it's not a specific answer to this precise question, but what do you expect? Is there a better thing to point to?
    – Thomas
    Jan 4 at 22:02
  • That's just a guess; I didn't downvote. I believe some people also just don't appreciate short answers.
    – user151413
    Jan 4 at 22:23

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.