5

I have recently submitted a paper to a journal, with the format required by the journal itself.

Now I am submitting on Arxiv a version of the paper with the same content but a different formatting (not the journal format, just a generic one).

I am wondering: should I keep the acknowledgments in this Arxiv preprint?

7
  • 4
    Do you have any reason in mind why you would not keep it?
    – Wrzlprmft
    Dec 11, 2016 at 12:50
  • No, it is just my first upload and I don't know the common practice. Dec 11, 2016 at 12:53
  • 1
    Probably you've already thought of this, but just to be sure - you've checked the journal is happy with you uploading this to arXiv? (It probably is in CS, but best to be safe..) Dec 11, 2016 at 13:00
  • 4
    Incidentally, in my field at least (mathematics), although journals often request that submissions be formatted in a certain way, it is pretty universal to not bother until/unless the submission is accepted. You might ask someone in your department if they think it's reasonable for you to skip this step.
    – Anonymous
    Dec 11, 2016 at 14:10
  • 1
    I think it should be a 100% match between the version of the paper submitted(or published) and the arxiv version, so that other scientists can easily read the paper on arxiv without an institutional access or login to publisher's website.
    – Nikey Mike
    Dec 11, 2016 at 19:02

1 Answer 1

12

Yes, you should keep the acknowledgments. Whatever the acknowledged did to contribute to your paper is independent from the mode of dissemination – except when it clearly isn’t, e.g., when you acknowledge a reviewer whose suggestions improved the journal paper but could not be included in the Arxiv paper due to journal policies.

If an acknowledgment is required by somebody (e.g., by whoever funded your research), this requirement may also apply to publishing a preprint, i.e., you may even be forced to do this.

As for common practice, I have seen many Arxiv papers with acknowledgments and never noticed an acknowledgment being only present in the journal version (but then I never payed attention to this). I never removed acknowledgments for an Arxiv publication.

6
  • 3
    Why do you spell it "Arχiv", if I may ask? Arxiv itself uses the latin letter X everywhere on its website, and using a different spelling makes it more difficult to retrieve your posts in an automated search. Dec 11, 2016 at 13:14
  • @FedericoPoloni: The X in arXiv at least originated from a stylised chi (χ, the Greek letter that is traditionally transcribed as ch). It’s the same thing as TeX. Using a χ instead of an X avoids the irritation and silliness of a capital letter where you do not expect one.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Dec 11, 2016 at 13:21
  • I solve that problem by spelling it "Arxiv". It doesn't harm web searches, since they are usually case-insensitive, and it is consistent with the good old rules of capitalization in English. For other arguments in this direction, please see theslot.com/webnames.html, which I find very convincing. That page convinced me to stop writing MATLAB. Dec 11, 2016 at 13:30
  • @FedericoPoloni: I know that article (and given that I like to link it on such occasions, it’s quite possible that you know it through me). The χ is a lowercase letter after all. At the end of the day it boils down to staying true to the original and web search and the later is already served by tags and askers not using that spelling. Anyway, I do not have a strong opinion on Arχiv vs. Arxiv.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Dec 11, 2016 at 13:36
  • 1
    A greek letter appearing out of thin air irritates me much more than a capital letter in the middle of a word. Especially in this case, since it differs from the (to me, well known) writing on the website itself. I would even say, that a greek letter in the middle of latin letters, is, think of it, kind of silly.
    – Dirk
    Dec 12, 2016 at 0:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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