Wikipedia states that 'Although the arXiv is not peer reviewed, a collection of moderators for each area review the submissions.'

If a paper is not published in any other publication, does it means that it will not contribute to your C.V. when you are applying for an MS or PhD program? Because on arXiv it is not reviewed specifically implies that it does not have the same weight as compared to other publication.

  • Hi, and welcome to Academia.SE! I've edited your title and tried to clean up your question a bit; please feel free to revert any changes that you find incorrect.
    – jakebeal
    Dec 5, 2015 at 17:31
  • What do you mean "contribute to your CV"? You are the author of your CV; you get to decide whether to include arXiv preprints or not.
    – JeffE
    Dec 6, 2015 at 2:50
  • 2
    Will one or more of your letter writers discuss your paper (and in favorable terms)? I strongly suspect that that, in combination with your paper being publicly available, will make a positive impression.
    – Anonymous
    Dec 6, 2015 at 3:44

4 Answers 4


Having a paper that was not peer reviewed but is available from arXiv will help you just as much, and in exactly the same way, as having a paper that was not peer reviewed and is available from any other easily accessed online source. The main things that are important are that:

  1. You have written a paper (according to some definition of "paper").

  2. The paper can easily be accessed and looked at by anyone wishing to evaluate your strength as a grad school applicant.

Note that the value of such a paper to your admission prospects can actually be negative if it is clearly of very poor quality, shows delusional tendencies (e.g., a paper with the title "A simple proof of the Riemann Hypothesis"), or comes across as a dishonest attempt to create a false impression that you have done something important when clearly you haven't. Setting aside such obvious exceptions, an arXiv paper will probably have a positive, but in most cases not very large, value for your applications.

  • 1
    I would add a caveat that in some peculiar fields (computer science for example) publishing a paper on a concrete, useful, subject in a publicly available place can be very useful, not just in your career but to field. When the material is internally consistent, readers can verify themselves by implementing some aspect of the content of the paper, and the subject is something important to current research or practice it doesn't matter who reviewed what or the prestige of a journal. Journals are actually bad in this case as they hide useful work. This is the exception, not the rule.
    – zxq9
    Dec 6, 2015 at 5:23

You are correct that, since arXiv is not peer-reviewed, a paper in arXiv generally counts less than a paper in a peer-reviewed publication.

That does not, however, mean that it does not count. This is particularly true when it comes to graduate admissions, where few students have any publications at all. An admissions committee that is considering whether you have potential to do well in their program may find a strong manuscript in arXiv to be a very good sign. Note, however, that the degree to which this is true will be strongly field-dependent: in a field that makes heavy use of arXiv, such as physics and mathematics, faculty may be quite accustomed to arXiv and understand how to judge such manuscripts; in a field that does not, such as many biomedical fields, faculty may ignore it completely.

  • 3
    The mere fact that the paper is on the arXiv will count for a little, but not so much by itself; the real value is that faculty can then read the paper for themselves.
    – Tom Church
    Dec 5, 2015 at 23:10

In my field, you often see the CVs of post doc applicants listing preprints, but usually such a paper has been submitted to a journal for review, i.e. you will read

J. Doe, "On the existence of sentences with eight words", preprint (2015). arXiv:1215.12345. Submitted to Famous Journal.

People who have a sizeable number of publications usually stop adding preprints, but that's just an observation, not a rule.

Edit: I should have mentioned how much these publications count. I would say that depends on the individual case: these entries are looked at on the arXiv and their merit is judged individually. (There should just be one or to "submitted" publications, or things look fishy.)

On the other hand, I would say that an arXiv-only publication that is not marked as submitted, either in the CV or on the arXiv, does not count very much, as it looks like the author does not value the paper high enough to try to get it through peer review.

  • 1
    Can you please expand a bit in order to more clearly answer the question, regarding how much these publications matter?
    – jakebeal
    Dec 6, 2015 at 11:33
  • 3
    I view it as a bit silly to indicate which journal it has been submitted to. But indicating that it has been submitted shows that the authors consider it ready for publication. Dec 6, 2015 at 11:58
  • @David I don't know if it's silly, but that is how it's done in astronomy and astrophysics. Maybe because different journals are perceived as more or less "traditional" or "prestigious", whether this is true or not.
    – user42177
    Dec 6, 2015 at 15:48
  • 1
    @DavidKetcheson related question: academia.stackexchange.com/q/57839/40589
    – Dan Romik
    Dec 7, 2015 at 2:25

The arxiv preprints are eligible for CV inclusion. It is better when you have both traditional journal publications and preprints.

You must log in to answer this question.

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