I have developed a method to process images I use for my research. It's nothing revolutionary but I think it might be useful to others than me, and why not, be worthy of being published somewhere (at least for me to cite when I use it).

As it is outside my primary field of research, nobody in my direct lab vicinity can help evaluating its scientific value or novelty (I did a bit of literature research and didn't find any obvious precedent). Normally I would just put it as an appendix in the first article where I use it, but this one is quite long to describe and completely out of my field. It would thus be off-topic in the journals in which I usually publish.

I though of seeking collaboration from someone in my university who works in signal/image processing, I don't know anyone personally and I foresee possible political issues, authorship quarrels, etc. I would nonetheless like to get some sort of evaluation before submitting to a journal. As an outsider, I wouldn't like to waste an editor's time and make a fool of myself.

I have zero experience submitting to the arXiv, by looking at the website it's not clear how/if there is an active system of feedback, even informal.

Is it advisable to submit my methods paper there and expect a feedback?

  • 10
    I have seen a few papers on the arXiv that explicitly stated "Comments are welcome" or the like in the "Comments" section, but I have no idea whether this actually attracts feedback from people you don't usually work with; I would be very interested to know.
    – Ri49
    May 20, 2014 at 16:39
  • I've no idea and I'm very interested as well in the answers, solutions and outcomes. I'd personally put the paper on arxiv and ask for feedback in stackexchange. Maybe here: dsp.stackexchange.com
    – Trylks
    May 20, 2014 at 16:47
  • 1
    @Trylks my experience with the dsp site is that it does not yet have a particularly active users community, and a post do discuss a paper isn't the appropriate format. I could ask specific questions though.
    – Cape Code
    May 20, 2014 at 17:36
  • I, for one, have given people unsolicited feedback on their arXiv articles. Apr 16, 2017 at 20:48

5 Answers 5


There is not much of a "formal feedback" system associated with the arxiv. I say "not much" instead of "none" because the arxiv apparently does do some degree of automatic tracking of citations to its papers. For instance this arxiv submission contains a link to a MO post in which my paper is (briefly) mentioned. I had not seen that post before, so that was somewhat interesting. However, I don't know how this system works and it seems to be much less systematic than, say, what google scholar does. In particular, I have 25 arxiv preprints and the arxiv itself lists this kind of citation for very few of them, whereas google scholar lists much more.

In terms of an informal feedback system: yes, the arxiv works very well for that, in the following organic way: for many academic fields and subfields it is by far the one place to put your preprint in order to get the most (and the most interested) people to read it. This includes publication in most journals and the implications this has had on some academic fields are immense. E.g. I hear that in theoretical physics -- a fast-moving field in which it is apparently rare to look up a paper written much more than ten years ago -- pretty much everyone who is anyone uploads their preprints to the arxiv, and as a result theoretical physicists almost never go to the library anymore or look through actual journal papers: they don't need to. My field -- mathematics -- seems to be converging to this kind of phenomenon rather more slowly.

On the other hand, to expect feedback may be putting it a bit strongly. The volume of papers uploaded to the arxiv is fast and rapidly increasing. I just looked at the math.NT arxiv submissions, and last night 15 papers were uploaded. I am a number theorist with broad interests, and if these papers came at a rate of one a day or less, I would probably peruse about half of them. But the current volume forces me to be much more selective. The arxiv is great advertising, but all the advertising in the world doesn't guarantee that people will engage with your product rather than the sea of competing products (competing for their attention, anyway; they need not be competing with you in the academic sense).

In my experience, I most definitely get enough feedback from my arxiv submissions in order to justify uploading them (although there are arguments to be made for doing so even if you never hear directly from anyone about them). It happens that in the last three weeks or so I have uploaded four arxiv submissions. (Since I have 25 altogether, this is obviously a spike in the upload rate. Some other people do this too. Now that I think about it, from an advertising perspective it would probably be better not to do this.) Since then I have received comments on two of the four papers. The two papers that I haven't heard from yet are I think perfectly solid and interesting -- in fact, one of the two concerns the Combinatorial Nullstellensatz so probably has broader appeal than most papers I have written, and the other is a really substantial project that I did jointly with my PhD student -- so the fact that I've gotten no feedback about them seems to be mostly random.

In summary: yes, posting your papers on the arxiv is a great way to get feedback. Will it guarantee feedback? No, guaranteed feedback is exactly what you're buying (so to speak) when you submit to a journal. Other than that it seems impossible to guarantee. I would definitely submit to the arxiv and see what happens. If you hear nothing, then you might try sending a few emails to suspected experts which just point to your arxiv preprint. Having an arxiv preprint versus just enclosing a file adds a certain veneer of legitimacy.

  • When you did get feedback on your articles, was it from people you had already had contact with? Do you think someone who still has to make a name in the field (this seems to be the OP's case) will get as much attention?
    – Ri49
    May 20, 2014 at 17:40
  • @Ri49: Both of the emails I received recently about my arxiv preprints were "first contacts". In one case, I was somewhat familiar with the person who contacted me. In the other, I had not heard of him before. Both people were, I believe, unfamiliar with me and my work until they saw these arxiv preprints. (Just because you've "made a name in the field" doesn't mean that everyone in the field will know that name: the world is a big place.) May 21, 2014 at 2:11
  • I would guess that truly famous people (say Terry Tao) get more feedback on their arxiv preprints. On the other hand, the arxiv preprints of Terry Tao are more worthy of feedback than average. At the other extreme, when I see a work that makes me think that someone is just getting started -- e.g., it is rough around the edges or has some other inessential flaws -- I am often more inspired to drop them a line, because I think they could benefit from some pointers. Some random veteran researcher does not want or need my help so probably gets less feedback. May 21, 2014 at 2:14
  • Part of whether to "expect" feedback depends on the field. Long papers in pure mathematics: sometimes even if you send copies to people personally by e-mail they don't give you feedback. Short papers in high energy physics: boy oh boy can you expect feedback. May 23, 2014 at 8:59
  • FYI (hopefully it can interest you or future readers) arXiv implements the trackback system. Basically blogs, Q&A sites (such as MO)... have to explicitly tell arXiv they linked the preprint; there's no automated search done by arXiv to find links.
    – user9646
    Dec 25, 2014 at 18:03

The arXiv is a tool for establishing a presence, but it does not market or disseminate your results. It merely places them in a certain category and presents title, author, and sometimes abstract in a summary fashion, depending on how one uses it. Some researchers get RSS and email updates in their favorite areas about new arXiv submissions, but that should be considered small in number, and not likely to generate interest in your paper.

If you want feedback, you need to advertise your own work, on your webpage, at conferences, at society meetings, and other appropriate venues. You can prepare a short version (abstract or highlight only) and include the URL of the arXiv abstract. Use of arXiv does not indicate peer review, but as there is some endorsement system involved in arXiv submissions, there is also some cachet associated with having the URL.

When you have gotten some people interested in your work, they too can refer to the URL, and this can lead to more publicizing and hopefully direct feedback on your work. It can also lead to others posting their opinions on their blogs or elsewhere, which can be harder to track.


You need to find a way to advertise your work so that people find it on arXiv, use it, then eventually cite it and criticize it.

The main advantages of arXiv are:

  • the publication timing. When you submit to some closed review journal or conference, you are months before an official decision. During this time (that can get long), you need a way to disclose properly your work;
  • getting a larger audience. Everybody is not on her university's network, or some universities won't have access to all the journals. If your work is on the editor's site only, then more people than you might think will be blocked by the paywall. Furthermore, some people (I know some in Image Processing) will make monthly explorations of arXiv and publish some reading lists on-line, tghus giving you a larger audience.

There are some more direct ways that are more effective than waiting for a passenger feedback and they help you gain more confidence in general in the outside field.

  1. find the journals in the field of this paper, contact one of their editors in chief with the same question and disclaimer you have here to seek their opinion about submitting or otherwise. You get the best feedback from the journal reviewers. They know most people, they are quick in reading and they love reviewing a wide range of work rather than a single topic. generally more open-minded than an average researcher.
  2. Look at review board members of those journals who are in your university and contact them, you can pick up the phone and ask them for this quick favor to direct you to the right direction(area of literature) to look for precedence of the work. Talking over the phone brings them less liability and they can be more frank, open and less political about the work. It also takes less time than drafting a careful email to a stranger.
  3. Look up the name of professors who teach this topic in your school or any school nearby and send them the paper for opinion, you can even use their office hours to sit and discuss the relevancy of this "outside" work. Office hours are boring and wasted anyway, it will be a refreshing task if it is not close to exam time(busy time).
  4. You can also ask it as a favor (or even paid consulting) from a PhD students of these journal editors/reviewers. PhD students in their later years can be of huge help as they know a lot and they are less committed to non-scientific duties than their professors.

Other questions are more on topic, but let me add that social media and open access, used wisely, are good tools for increase your audience and get more downloads, and (hopefully) more feedback. Think about:

  • creating a blog, maybe dedicated to your research
  • upload your papers in arxiv: this will give us a timestamp, a permalink, and will preserve your paper digitally
  • use social media to spread the links
  • Use the blog (or the arXiv itself) as a place to discuss your research (maybe, in more laymen terms), receive comments and discuss with interested people.

Social media (used wisely) do have an impact, and also Altmetrics are developing. Also, please read this question and related answers.

You must log in to answer this question.

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