I'm a PhD student in physics, working on some projects with my advisors, which are hopefully going to be published soon. I have a profile on ResearchGate, on which I posted my theses, a poster, and a short piece of writing I did for an exam. I posted the latter because it was fun to write and I enjoyed the subject a lot (and also got a good grade on the exam!). Some of my collaborators read it (and more than 100 other people on ResearchGate too), and they told me to send it to the arXiv.

I'm reluctant for a couple of reasons: first, I don't think it's super well-written (but this could be solvable by rewriting it a bit); second, I don't think there is anything "original" in it, as I just tried to give a contour of a well-known physics concept from a different perspective. It can be a pleasant read for a physicist who wants to have a more philosophical look at this subject, but I don't think anyone would cite it (because, as I said, there's nothing properly original about it).
With these premises, would it still be a good idea to send it to arXiv? Why or why not?

  • 1
    A couple of answers in the comments have been moved to chat. Please avoid answering in comments. Comments below this one that do not request clarification or suggest improvements may be removed.
    – cag51
    Nov 27 at 22:01

2 Answers 2


Submitting to arXiv does not mean you will get in. There is some review, particularly if you've never submitted before. So therefore, I would be inclined to trust your collaborators and the arXiv process about whether your paper belongs there.

The main reasons to put something in arXiv are 1) to share it somewhere it can be discovered, and possibly cited; 2) to establish precedent in case someone later plagiarises you. If you are circulating it, 2) might possibly matter too.

I get worrying about a reputation cost, but basically it's not that likely someone will see your paper there that doesn't already know you. When you have better work, that better work will be more discoverable – search engines will put it higher, etc. I think everyone understands that drafts are drafty. If you do see the paper getting a lot of attention, you could always put some more time into making a better draft.


Since you are a PhD student, I recommend talking to your advisor to solicit advice on how you could develop this idea/paper further and whether it could lead to something of sufficient value for scholarly publication. There are a few things from your post that stand out as issues you should consider with your supervisor:

  • You say that your paper does nothing original, but you also say that it provides a "different perspective" on a well-known physics problem. A different perspective is something original (or to take the contrapositive, if it's not original then it evidently is not a different perspective). If this new perspective is helpful to understand this physics problem better then it could —in principle— constitute an original contribution that could warrant scholarly publication.

  • If you were to write a paper developing an original perspective on a well-known problem, it would be important to connect that perspective to broader philosophical perspectives and explain how your different perspective on the problem helps to understand some aspect of it better. It would need to be developed far more than what would be possible to write in the limited time of an exam. In particular, you would need to do a literature review and connect your perspective to relevant literature.

  • In the course of developing your paper further, and reviewing the relevant literature, you might find out that your idea is not original and not publishable. This can happen because you rediscover something that is already known in the literature, or because you learn more information that shows a flaw in your original idea. This happens sometimes and it is a bit frustrating, but it is also a good learning experience. It is a perfectly appropriate use of time for a PhD student.

  • Sometimes a paper has a good kernel of an idea but it is not ready for publication yet. Perhaps it provides some insight into a problem but the level of insight is not yet enough to justify publication. This is a reasonably common thing even for experienced researchers, and in such cases we usually shelve these papers but come back and look at them periodically to see if we have any new ideas or leads that would help us develop the paper further. In some cases a paper might sit in your files for several years and then you have some further insight that lets you add to it and now it looks ready for publication. It is actually a good idea to build up a cache of half-written papers of this kind and keep mulling over them from time-to-time. There are cases where a paper might remain half-finished for years and then you learn some new thing or have some new insight that adds value to it and renders it ready for publication.

You must log in to answer this question.

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