I work in engineering and I was warned by a colleague years ago that I should not cite materials on arXiv because they are not peer reviewed. Although it was never clear to me what peer reviewed meant because the papers on there seemed to be well maintained and the ones I have came across has been theoretically sound. Academia stackexchange certainly didn't help in relieving some of those anxieties with people asking if they are "ruined" for posting on arXiv.

One can understand my point of view better by considering that in engineering there are well established conferences and list of papers published through those conferences (although not all high quality). Browsing through a list of citations published by engineers, there is a definitive lack of "arXiv" related papers. This is exacerbated by the fact that arXiv papers seem to be less applied and more theoretical, "mathy", so they are largely hidden from view for the typical engineer.

But from my recent experiences, it seems that a few fairly notable researchers in my field have extensive track record of publishing materials on arXiv. People such as Steven Strogatz who works in nonlinear dynamical systems and John Baez. I have hypothesized in the past that very well established researchers are submitting papers on arXiv instead of science journals because they would like a wider audience, and undergraduate researchers are submitting on arXiv because there is no other venue for them. But of course I am not sure if that is indeed the case.

Now I am currently reading some material published on arXiv by someone who I am not very familiar with. I am still not 100% confident on the "quality" of the paper i.e. scientific accuracy of theoretical and experimental results. But I believe that I would be more open to using materials on arXiv in the future if I can understand the motivation behind submitting to arXiv i.e. whether if they are just low quality papers without any other place that accepts them.

Can someone please offer a break down of some the reasons why one would publish to arXiv?

  • Another aspect considered is that science is going into open-access, and arxiv encourages open acces movement in science.
    – Nikey Mike
    Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 10:40
  • 5
    Your colleague is wrong about not citing papers posted to the arxiv because they are not peer reviewed. You should cite whatever you use and trust, whether it has been peer reviewed or not. If you can't judge for yourself whether a source is reliable, then probably you shouldn't be publishing.
    – Dan Fox
    Commented Oct 20, 2016 at 7:21
  • @DanFox doesn't what you said apply to Wikipedia as well?
    – Ooker
    Commented Mar 13, 2018 at 6:43
  • @Ooker Sorry I'm a little late on this. But Wikipedia is to a research paper is what a textbook is to an experimental journal. One could say Wikipedia articles are a compilation of scientific knowledge. Now were they come from, research, is documented in a paper. So citing a paper (peer-reviewed or otherwise) isn't exactly the same as citing Wikipedia articles.
    – user142461
    Commented Jul 17, 2021 at 19:21
  • That said however, there is a difference between citing arXiv papers vs peer-reviewed ones. @DanFox , remember, researchers get it wrong too. They only publish THEIR thoughts, theories and findings on things. So the more you have people criticizing a paper, the more likely you are to find fallacies, paradoxes and such (essentially the idea behind peer-reviewing). While citing arXiv papers is nothing to be discouraged (as long as you trust the information on the paper), you are definitely more likely to have cited "bad" (for a lack of better term) papers.
    – user142461
    Commented Jul 17, 2021 at 19:30

3 Answers 3


The major use case of arXiv is for disseminating manuscripts that you also publish in a journal or conference. By posting a preprint on arXiv, people can find your research, build on it, cite it, and give you feedback on it immediately, while at the same time the same work goes through the (sometimes slow) peer review process. Some of these papers will fall out of the peer review pipeline at some point, and only appear on arXiv, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are less useful, important, or sound.

To give a specific example, in the last year or so I have been working in an area so new that most of the relevant research is still only available on arXiv. I expect these papers will eventually appear in journals too, but the slow peer review process means that the latest journal issues do not represent the state of the art for this particular topic. Conferences have a quicker peer review cycle and are more current, but most only publish relatively short papers.

arXiv is also useful for work that is in a format not suited for a conference or journal (e.g. a thesis), or for extended versions of papers that are published somewhere else.

I would caution against rules like "I should not cite materials on arXiv because they are not peer reviewed." Peer review does not guarantee sound, high quality research, nor is the inverse true. You should critically evaluate each paper, peer reviewed or not, on its individual merits. (Also see this related question on Math Overflow.)

  • 2
    @ÉbeIsaac As far as I know, Scopus does not count citations to the Arxiv version of a paper. Which is one reason to cite the published version (if it exists) rather than the Arxiv one. Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 9:42
  • 1
    "You should critically evaluate each paper, peer reviewed or not, on its individual merits." If don't use peer review as a guideline on what's worth your critical evaluation, you basically deny the sense of peer reviews. Also, your life would end before you'd manage to find anything useful.
    – BartoszKP
    Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 9:51
  • 2
    @BartoszKP: I disagree. Peer reviews are useful, but not mandatory. Many peer-reviewed publications have serious flaws slip through them, even in reputable journals. At cases, even a gist/idea can help look at a problem at a new angle to solve it, it does not necessarily require a slow peer reviewer to valuate that. Sometimes (actually a lot of times), the process can even take up to 4-6 years. In such cases many methods tend to get outdated even before they are published.
    – Ébe Isaac
    Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 10:07
  • 1
    @ÉbeIsaac I didn't say they are mandatory - I meant they are useful, because I understood the part I quoted as a suggestion that they are not useful at all. Of course it may be beneficial to browse&skim through non-reviewed papers, but definitely not "critically evaluate" all of them (well, depending on your field of course and the number of papers available).
    – BartoszKP
    Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 10:17
  • 2
    I would upvote this question so many times, if I could, even only for the "Peer review does not guarantee sound, high quality research, nor is the inverse true.". Finally someone who understands that peer review is not the truth come down to Earth.
    – gented
    Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 13:39

Part of your question seems to be "Why do some researchers submit to arXiv while others don't"?

A point not yet mentioned: arXiv only covers a few specific subject areas. It's the very first line on the home page:

Open access to 1,175,314 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics

Since engineering isn't on that list, that would be an excellent reason for most engineering researchers not to post their work to arXiv.

The "notable researchers in your field" who you mention as being prolific arXiv posters are, in some sense, not really in your field. Strogatz is a mathematician and Baez is a mathematical physicist. Both those fields are covered by arXiv, so it makes sense that they would use it.

Now it's entirely possible that although you think of your field as engineering, some of your papers might contain "enough" physics or mathematics to be on-topic for the corresponding sections of arXiv. But you might have to think about it first.

It should also be strongly emphasized that these people are not submitting to arXiv instead of peer-reviewed journals, but in addition to. This is perfectly acceptable by the standards of most journals in mathematics and physics. There are plenty of peer-reviewed outlets for their work and they're using them. Just look at their CVs.

  • 4
    Now it's entirely possible that although you think of your field as engineering, some of your papers might contain "enough" physics or mathematics to be on-topic ... — In case folks are wondering, in electrical engineering, for example, researchers working in information theory, machine / statistical learning, control, and on various optimization problems post quite a bit on arXiv.
    – Mad Jack
    Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 15:16

The most important thing is to know if peer-reviewed journals in your field will accept to publish your article if it has previously been published on arXiv.

In my field, chemistry, the answer is no, so publishing on arXiv has never been an option. Note though that some publishers allow an accepted paper to be published on arXiv, but that is after it has been accepted.

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