1

I've recently written a paper about my bachelors thesis. This paper was rejected by a journal. It seems to be the usual case that my supervisors are listed as co-authors. I would like to publish it on http://arxiv.org/, but one of my co-authors (who doesn't know arxiv) wants me to publish it at "KIT Scientific Working Papers" (KIT is my university).

When I submit my paper to KIT Scientific Working Papers, it gets licensed with a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 license. It also gets an ISSN.

However, I still think it might be harder to access. Does it make sense to publish it on both, KIT Scientific Working Papers and Arxive? Are there any drawbacks?

Improve this question
6
  • @EnergyNumbers No, I don't want to submit the paper to another journal in the future. "harder to access" might not be formulated the right way. I think if somebody knows the title of my paper / parts of it and googles for it, I am pretty sure it will be ranked higher if it's on arxiv. I also think people might search for the keywords on arxiv (not knowing my paper, but being interested in the topic), whereas nobody searches at the KIT site (I didn't even find a search function).
    – Martin Thoma
    Jun 14, 2015 at 7:43
  • 3
    Posting a paper on the arXiv (or I guess the KIT server) is not considered as a true publication, so your title is misleading. What area is your work in? If it is in an area that regularly uses the arXiv, it make sense to put in there if you want more visibility.
    – Kimball
    Jun 14, 2015 at 8:05
  • It is about recognition of on-line handwritten mathematical symbols. I think that fits into arxiv.org/list/cs.CV/recent --- "Posting a paper on the arXiv (or I guess the KIT server) is not considered as a true publication": How should I call it then?
    – Martin Thoma
    Jun 14, 2015 at 8:10
  • This is one of the many questions where "Why not?" is a full answer. There are no downsides to an arXiv publication at all, whether or not you are going to publish it on the KIT database as well (which I have never heard of, despite living in KA -- that might say something about their visibility; on the other hand, of course, they seem to be a new thing and could easily mature in a few years).
    – darij grinberg
    Jun 14, 2015 at 16:32
  • 1
    @darijgrinberg For the "why not": (1) for people who find both papers it might cost some time to figure out that both papers are the same (2) citation metrics (3) additional work for me
    – Martin Thoma
    Jun 14, 2015 at 18:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

ArXiv and KIT scientific working papers are meant to make scientific research (in selected areas) more accessible. They are not traditional scientific publication venues, but rather a mirror of publications that might be otherwise less accessible (ArXix) or fast outlets for ongoing research (KIT).

It is less common to directly cite ArXiv or KIT working papers, when there are equivalent journal or conference versions of the article, which you might consider when you are deciding how to make your work available to the public.

It is perfectly fine, though, to publish in the traditional journals and conferences, and on ArXiv or KIT, provided that there is no conflict of copyright (typically, there is not when you put an author created preprint version on ArXiv or KIT).

Nonetheless, you should not feel obliged to follow the traditional scientific paths (i.e., publish on ArXiv or KIT only). Just keep in mind that it might impact the citations you get from other researchers.

Improve this answer
5
  • "It is not common to directly cite ArXiv or KIT working papers" - what do you mean by that? Do you mean it is not common to cite stuff on ArXiv or do you mean it is not common to cite working papers?
    – Martin Thoma
    Jun 14, 2015 at 8:58
  • @moose: I meant that articles published in e.g. Journal of Whatever and on ArXiv are mostly cited referring to the journal, not ArXiv. Same for working papers. Anyway, I changed 'not' to 'less', because the statement was maybe a bit too strong.
    – Danny Ruijters
    Jun 14, 2015 at 11:01
  • 5
    "It is less common to directly cite ArXiv or KIT working papers". No it is not. It is very common (since it is the only alternative) if the paper does not exist anywhere else (like on a journal or conference proceedings). Even when you cite a peer-review publication, you can still cite the corresponding arxiv version of this publication if e.g., the arxiv version has more experiments that were omitted from the peer-review version due to space restrictions.
    – Alexandros
    Jun 14, 2015 at 15:05
  • @Alexandros: true
    – Danny Ruijters
    Jun 14, 2015 at 15:15
  • 1
    @Alexandros: I think that’s pretty (sub-)field-dependent. In my own field (pure maths) it’s totally standard to cite arXiv papers and tech reports, either as preprints or as “extended versions”. But friends in experimental sciences have told me were shocked by this — that in their fields, it’s quite unacceptable to cite anything not peer-reviewed.
    – PLL
    Dec 11, 2016 at 13:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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