8

I don't really like other people seeing my source file. Are there good reasons to upload the source file (.tex) on arXiv over uploading just the PDF?

Improve this question
13
  • 4
    If your PDF was generated from Latex, arXiv will not allow you to upload the PDF by itself, and will require the source. They give some explanation of why they do it (saving space, etc.)
    – Ran G.
    Nov 19, 2015 at 3:45
  • 12
    May I know why are you sceptical about submitting your LaTeX source? It would be easier to answer based on your opinion.
    – Ébe Isaac
    Nov 19, 2015 at 4:21
  • 10
    arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex
    – Noah Snyder
    Nov 19, 2015 at 13:35
  • 5
    Sometimes you see a paper and it has some styling/notation that you don't know how you would implement. I would have no problem if people picked up tricks from my LaTeX source code, as often it takes a while to initially figure it out. At the same time, I happily grab snippets of useful formatting code for later use (leaving a LaTeX comment with where I found it originally for the benefit of anyone reading the source). This form of sharing is beneficial to the community as a whole - otherwise everyone would have to spend hours trawling through forums to find how to work around some bugs.
    – Jake
    Nov 19, 2015 at 17:43
  • 5
    Without the .tex sources we wouldn't have Overhead on AstroPh
    – Davidmh
    Nov 25, 2015 at 20:48

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
8

Arxiv mandates uploading the source of any PDF file generated from Latex code. You will not be able to upload only the PDF version in this case (unless you succeed to game the system).

Why do the require the source? This saves quite a lot of space (50k-100k source vs. 500-900k PDF) and there are some additional reasons. As the other comments mention - the full explanations are in http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex

Improve this answer
-6

At the start, I'd like to direct attention to @Noah Snyder's comment on the OP: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex

If for no other reason, I'd be happy to see ArXiV and others steer away from the ubiquitous PDF format because it's proprietary (see various places in the Wikipedia article).

One GPL alternative I've had experience with is the ultra-lightweight DjVu format.

Improve this answer
5
  • 9
    Is this answer box the proper place to publish your thoughts on PDF vs DjVu? Not to mention that it's not up to arXiv, since there aren't any LaTeX compiler that produce DjVu files (yet?).
    – user9646
    Nov 25, 2015 at 19:01
  • @NajibIdrissi I thank you for your comment. I think this is an excellent place for a discussion for and against the use of PDF as the standard in Academia. Especially from arXiv, I'd expect to rule out any proprietary tools, right off the bat.Replacing the PDF format may alleviate some of the reasons which make the OP feel (half-heartedly) that he needs to upload the TeX source.
    – Inon
    Nov 25, 2015 at 19:06
  • I agree with Najib that the last two paragraphs are not an answer to the question.
    – GEdgar
    Nov 25, 2015 at 19:20
  • 4
    DjVu is made for scanned, raster format documents. It's wholly unsuitable as an alternative to PDF for scientific papers.
    – Moriarty
    Nov 25, 2015 at 20:27
  • 9
    I think this is an excellent place for a discussion — Nope. StackExchange is not an excellent place for a discussion. This is a question and answer site, not a discussion forum.
    – JeffE
    Nov 25, 2015 at 22:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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