I am a PhD student from computer science and try to submit a paper to IEEE transactions. In addition, I also submitted it to arXiv under the CC0 license (Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication), where it was already published. This might be unacceptable for IEEE.

My question is: Can I just withdraw the current version, and resubmit it to arXiv under non-exclusive license? It seems like that there will be a record in arXiv. Will it affect my IEEE publication?

  • 6
    Can I just withdraw the current version [...] ? No. As far as I know, it is impossible to withdraw a paper from the arXiv. You can replace it with an empty version, but the earlier version is still accessible. See To withdraw an article in the arXiv FAQ.
    – Mangara
    Commented Oct 28, 2015 at 19:14
  • Could you solve your problem? I have faced the same problem.
    – user137927
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 21:41
  • Hi, I cannot withdraw the old version. I just submitted a new version with the correct license. It seems like that it does not affect the paper publication.
    – wsspzwps
    Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 22:07

2 Answers 2


There are precedents that suggest this may be unacceptable to the IEEE, although the only way to know for sure is to ask. They may be more sympathetic if they see it as an unfortunate mistake, rather than an attempt to undermine their copyright policies. On the other hand, they may still wish to avoid any precedents that could be used to undermine those policies, regardless of whether that was your intent.

Can I just withdraw the current version, and resubmit it to arXiv under non-exclusive license?

If you try to do that, the arXiv's plagiarism/duplicate detection will alert them and they will be upset. You are definitely not allowed to withdraw and then resubmit independently.

Instead, you should write to them to ask what, if anything, you can do to fix this.

One option is to update the current paper. I think you are allowed to choose a new license for the update, but I assume it does not change the license for the previous version (which will still be available). If that's the case, then this will not solve your problem.

Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, so there is nothing you can do to prevent the article from being distributed under the CC0 license if someone has a CC0-licensed copy and wishes to do that (see this FAQ). However, the arXiv might be willing to change the license they distribute the article under in the future, especially if your paper was just posted recently and you explain that the license choice was a mistake. I don't know what the chances are that they would agree, but it can't hurt to ask.

This would not completely solve the problem (anyone who downloaded the paper already under the CC0 license could still do whatever they wanted with it and redistribute it further), but it would mitigate it. I do not know how the IEEE would react.

Ultimately, there's no perfect solution, since nothing you can do will ever eliminate the possibility of CC0-licensed copies somewhere on the internet. All you can do is address the issue as best you can and then explain it to the IEEE and hope they feel you have done enough.

  • Hi, thank you very much for your reply :) Big help!
    – wsspzwps
    Commented Oct 28, 2015 at 14:00
  • 2
    A licence may be irrevocable, but the question is, if the licence was actually granted. Assume OP would have chosen CC0 without having the necessary rights. Then the licence was never granted, even when he selected CC0. In a similar fashion you can argument that a genuine mistake does not grant a licence. When a webshop had a wrong price (USD price entered as cents) and people bought items, the shop was not obliged to deliver the goods as it was an obvious mistake and the people knew it. So when you instantly notify arxiv, it is clear that you did not grant a licence, but clicked wrong.
    – allo
    Commented Nov 29, 2018 at 15:26

Passively play along like a boss.

@AnonymousMathematician's practical suggestion for undoing things on ArXiv may work, but let's suppose it doesn't. What do you do now?

Well, just do exactly what other academics usually do: Sign that IEEE paper!

(Note: This is a variation on the standard trick for circumventing publisher attempts to restrict publication.)

First, regardless of what it says - you have plausible deniability even if it contradicts your having dedicated the paper to the public domain: "Gee, I just signed the form like everybody else, I didn't really read it through. I don't really understand what it says, either. I'm an absent-minded [insert discipline here], not an IP lawyer!"

Even that will likely work just fine.

But, let's look at the actual document:

The undersigned hereby assigns to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (the “IEEE”) all rights under copyright that may exist in and to the above Work, and any revised or expanded derivative works submitted to the IEEE by the undersigned based on the Work.

Check. You assign all rights that may exist. It just so happens that these are no relevant rights to assign.

The undersigned hereby warrants that the Work is original and that he/she is the author of the Work; to the extent the Work incorporates text passages, figures, data or other material from the works of others, the undersigned has obtained any necessary permissions.

Sure, that's not effected by the work being in the public domain.

Authors must ensure that their Work meets the requirements of IEEE Policy 6.4, including provisions covering originality, authorship, author responsibilities and author misconduct.

It's original, you're the author, you're a responsible person and you're a really nice guy who does no mischief. "Policy 6.4"? What's that?

  • The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment.

I'm not mentally feeble, so sure. This doesn't say the author is the current sole holder of any specific rights.

  • The undersigned agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the IEEE from any damage or expense that may arise in the event of a breach of any of the
    warranties set forth above.

Actually, indemnification clauses are absolutely horrible regardless of anything else. In many countries these are simply considered null and void, at least on standard-form contracts.

  • In the event the above work is not accepted and published by the IEEE or is withdrawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the IEEE, the foregoing copyright transfer shall become null and void and all materials embodying the Work submitted to the IEEE will be destroyed.


  • For jointly authored Works, all joint authors should sign, or one of the authors should sign as authorized agent for the others.

Sure. (This is another loophole by the way, but never mind.)


This only detracts from what you've "given" them in the above.


No problem, just information.

... and this concludes the form. There might be other versions of it, but that's the basic idea. No apparent contradiction with the paper being in the public domain. Now, could a lawyer argue that a contradiction does exist? I think not, but even if they could: 1. They won't. 2. You could claim signing based on a good faith reading of the text, which is even stronger than the "Whoops" argument above.

  • 3
    Note that whether this argument is legally solid or not, the publisher would still be entirely free to reject or retract your paper, or ban you from further publication, if they simply don't like what you did. And that could be an even greater practical risk than losing in court. Commented Sep 7, 2020 at 0:59
  • @NateEldredge: No, the publisher will not be free to do that. I mean, they might do that anyway, but they're not allowed to, or not clearly allowed to. It is actually extremely unlikely that they will - in my opinion.
    – einpoklum
    Commented Sep 7, 2020 at 6:57
  • 1
    "It just so happens that these are no relevant rights to assign." I am not a lawyer, but I think this is false. CC0 clearly states the rights are relinquished by the affirmer. That means they still exist and cannot be assigned by the affirmer. Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 9:52
  • @AnonymousPhysicist: You are incorrect. In any copyrighted works, there are some rights which third-parties have, such as fair-use. Clearly, the author cannot assign these rights to the publisher (regardless of whether the work has been placed on ArXiv or not). So, the natural and obvious interpretation is that the rights assigned are those rights which the author holds, and are transferrable/assignable.
    – einpoklum
    Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 10:24
  • 1
    "In any copyrighted works, there are some rights which third-parties have, such as fair-use. Clearly, the author cannot assign these rights to the publisher" If the license assigns "all rights under copyright" as you claim, then fair use rights would not be included since that is not a copyright. The natural and obvious interpretation is that the rights assigned are those that were originally held by the author under copyright. Commented Mar 28, 2021 at 0:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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