I recently submitted a preprint to arXiv, and it has now been "on hold" for 3 weeks. There is nothing obvious wrong or questionable with the paper in my view, and I have around 20 of other arXiv preprints.

I have not experienced any delays like this before (once or twice there has been a delay of 1-2 days). After 10 days, I used the arXiv form to contact the moderators who told me that the moderators have been informed that my submission still needs a decision (and that they can't give me any exact reason for why the paper is on hold), but nothing has happened in the 10 days since.

Are these extreme delays common, and what should I do? Can I just delete the submission and submit it again (the rules on the "on hold" help page only state that one should not submit the same paper again while it is on hold, but don't mention the case of deleting the old submission).

  • 4
    I would guess that deleting the submission then resubmitting it would be the opposite of helpful: it would either look like trying to sneak around moderation, or else you'll get pushed to the back of the moderation queue. Oct 13, 2022 at 10:59
  • I have the same issue now (exactly 3 weeks since submitting). Did you have it published finally? if yes then how much did it take until the moderators finally took a decision?
    – KratosMath
    Apr 3, 2023 at 12:25
  • 1
    @KratosMath yes, it was published after something like 4-5 weeks in the end. The only visible effect was that the main and second category were switched by the admins. Apr 5, 2023 at 13:13
  • ramblingacademic.com/2015/12/17/beware-delays-in-arxiv-posts suggests that categorization errors (in the view of the editors) trigger moderation and can trigger long delays.
    – Dale
    Mar 8 at 23:41

1 Answer 1


Such delays are now common. The reasons were not explained publicly and we can only speculate. Maybe has something to do with people putting preprints on arXiv and then trying to use them to get credibility for their argument in a public debate (e.g. related to epidemics but not limited to this topic).

You should not delete the submission. Just wait patiently and it will eventually be checked by a moderator and then announced and appear online.

  • Thanks, I was just shocked by the 3 weeks which never happened to me before. Oct 13, 2022 at 11:53
  • I disagree with "Just wait patiently." If this is becoming common, the community should push back. If arXiv moderators are overwhelmed, they should put out a call for help. The solution is not a bunch of random delays that can harm people's careers. I am facing my third such delay now in six months after 25+ successful submissions over the past ten years. I'm just about ready to swear off arXiv for good. This situation is untenable. May 25 at 0:23
  • @DavidWhite Considering that neither authors nor readers pay arXiv for their services, I suggest that you re-route your frustration towards for-profit academic publishers, which (1) charge readers and/or authors, (2) rely on unpaid work of reviewers and editors, and (3) routinely fail to ensure timely peer review and publication process. yesterday
  • @DmitrySavostyanov Nor does arXiv pay authors for providing content. When I upload, it's a service to the community, to protect readers from having to pay for my work. The issue is that the unelected arXiv moderators are gumming up the process my putting tons of papers "on hold," a change arXiv users were never asked about. JeffE describes how he became a moderator: academia.stackexchange.com/a/154823/66685. Certainly sounds like an "in crowd." Hence, I expect the slowdown is being felt more by researchers in developing countries and smaller universities. The rich get richer. It's bad. yesterday
  • @DmitrySavostyanov Simple economic principles suggest that when you make it harder to upload papers to arXiv (now needing to go through lengthy appeals processes), more authors will decide it's not worth our time. I can upload papers on my own webpage. So arXiv will only be for folks at R1 universities who don't dare to do research outside the subspecialty in which they became famous. The moderators are de-facto taking away the academic freedom of authors to branch out in new research directions. If they can't handle the volume of submissions, the easy solution is to add more moderators. yesterday

You must log in to answer this question.

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