I had a student write an excellent Master's thesis which is not publishable as novel research but which I think would serve as a great introduction to the topic. Although the student is happy to have it posted to the arXiv, more needs to be done to connect the thesis to the existing literature. The student has graduated and is busy, I'd like to make the necessary adjustments myself, but I don't want to take credit for the bulk of the thesis which is the student's work.

Is it possible to upload an initial version (the original) to the arXiv with just the student's name, followed later by an updated version with me added as 2nd author? Will the arXiv correctly show that the first version was just the work of the student?

Also, are there are ethical issues I should be aware of? Assume that the student has been given the opportunity to make the changes themself, has declined, and endorses the above plan.

1 Answer 1


I have just checked that changing authors when replacing a paper is technically enabled. I am pretty sure I have seen this happen: those with more searching savvy than I will surely turn up with actual examples. And yes, the arxiv maintains all previous postings and their authorship.

I don't see any ethical problems with what you propose. But I'm not sure I understand the message that you're seeking to convey: are you saying that you attach some meaning to an initial posting by your student only followed by a replacement jointly authored with you? To me that does not have a clear meaning (and by the way, some people will look at the first posting and many won't). If anything, that would look to me like you realized that what your student uploaded was not satisfactory, so you stepped in to salvage the situation. If that's not what you're going for, maybe don't do this. Why not just upload a jointly authored posting the first time around?

  • 5
    Here's an example: front.math.ucdavis.edu/0701.5339v1 and front.math.ucdavis.edu/0701.5339v2 Commented Sep 28, 2015 at 19:37
  • Hmm, yea I sorta see what you're saying. Certainly in this case there's nothing wrong with the current version at all for its intended purpose. (It got high marks from the evaluation committee.) But if it is to be useful to researchers, it needs a bit more perspective than a first-year graduate student could reasonably give. Deeper connection with existing results and that sort of thing. Agree that people often don't look at earlier versions, but we could include a comment on the resubmission to this effect. Commented Sep 28, 2015 at 19:39
  • Thanks very much for your insight. If you happen to find an arxiv paper where authors were added, please post a link. Commented Sep 28, 2015 at 19:40
  • 9
    To avoid misunderstandings of the sort that @PeteL.Clark described, you could include a brief explanation of the situation in a comment on the arXiv and in the introductory section of the paper itself. Commented Sep 28, 2015 at 20:44
  • 1
    Yep, that sounds like a good idea Andreas. Commented Sep 28, 2015 at 20:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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