I recently got one paper accepted. Then I added one paragraph given the reviewers' comments and run more experiments for this section. The problem is that I don't have much time to run the experiments so I did not fully understand the phenomenon behind the experiments. And I used a set of parameters that makes the baselines perform fairly low. After submission, I realized one baseline could perform much better if I use another set of parameters. I re-run the experiments and found that my concern is true.

Now I plan to release the code. I believe that someone would find out this problem if they take some time to run the experiments and tune the parameters. The deadline for camera-ready has passed already. What could I do to fix this? I don't want to be criticized that I intentionally make the baseline perform low by selecting hyperparameters. Could I correct this through arxiv? For example, I upload an updated version of this work on arxiv? This section even has nothing to do with the paper's acceptance because it is added after the paper got accepted. I just want to make the paper more solid while making new mistakes. Really appreciate the opinions.

  • How about this? I keep the original result and add one more experiment result and paragraph to explain this, but on arxiv of course. I think why the previous parameters are not useful can also validate some properties of that baseline. If someone asks me on conference and GitHub, I will explain the reason to them.
    – hidemyname
    Commented Sep 14, 2021 at 2:04
  • m.youtube.com/watch?v=oR2kpF4wLpQ Commented Sep 15, 2021 at 19:45

2 Answers 2


Contact the publisher immediately. Your odds of making changes to an accepted paper decrease drastically once the publisher starts typesetting it. Unless you are a famous author which the publisher is especially incentivized to please, it is extremely unlikely you'll be able to make changes on the scale you describe after you receive the first proofs.

Beyond that, you'll just have to work with the publisher over what to do next. You could for example ask them to send it back to the editor if you're concerned about the changes you made - but no matter what happens, the first step (contact the publisher) is time sensitive, and you must do it anyway.

  • thank you I already sent out the email. hope this can work
    – hidemyname
    Commented Sep 14, 2021 at 3:54
  • 1
    I think the most likely outcome is that the paper is pulled from production delaying its appearance. The editor will decide how to move forward with it.
    – Buffy
    Commented Sep 14, 2021 at 10:41
  • emmm, there is not even a response from the chair. I think I will take the second option, correcting the error on the arxiv...
    – hidemyname
    Commented Sep 14, 2021 at 12:52
  • "once the publisher starts typesetting it" Lower tier journals seem to be increasingly skipping this step. For instance, when I submit to MDPI journals, the final published product is typeset exactly like the Latex that I submit. Commented Sep 14, 2021 at 13:28
  • 4
    thanks, guys. the chair helps me update the work!
    – hidemyname
    Commented Sep 15, 2021 at 0:09

First, you should take this as a lesson not to hastily add things to papers.

Second, as Allure says, you can contact the editor, and see if it is still possible to fix a mistake. It might or might not be. If it is, you're in luck. If not, here are a few other options:

  • If you think the mistake's important enough to fix, publish an corrigendum later.

  • You can always post a corrected version/corrigendum on the arXiv or your website, assuming you are in a field covered by the arXiv. Depending on the culture in your field, the arXiv version may or may not be more commonly viewed than the published version, so this may or may not be effective.

  • When you give talks or have discussions about the relevant work, you can point out the error.

You must log in to answer this question.

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