10

I wrote a paper with a new approach and I implemented this approach in both R and SAS. I want to put the software online on Github and ideally on CRAN too. The paper has been reviewed by my collaborators, but I was told that the structure is atypical as this is my first paper and I used a structure more typical of a thesis. The paper will need to go trough major changes and it will have the reorganized differently. Still the modelling approach itself is good and well detailed in the paper.

I’d like to release the software on Github and include the current draft of the paper with it but I’m wondering if I should also sent it to ArXiv at the same time even though it’s not publication-ready. Is putting my paper on Github (and maybe Researchgate?) enough to prevent someone from legally stealing my work? Can I and should I send it to a place like ArXiv? Should I put a license on the online draft?

Improve this question
1

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
9

If you only want people who use your code to read the paper in its present form, then post it on Github with the code. If you want a broader audience of researchers to read it in its present form, post it on arXiv.

Updating it with substantial changes later is not a problem. Contrary to what one of the other posted answers says, the update feature on arXiv is most commonly used to post the author's final version after peer review, which frequently contains major revisions.

I wouldn't post things to ResearchGate; to many (myself included) it is viewed mainly as a source of spam.

Improve this answer
8

ArXiv is a pre-print server. A pre-prints is the version of an article before it is submitted to a scientific journal and will be peer-reviewed. Sometimes it's also called First-Draft or Submission Version. If peer-review ends with major revisions, the pre-print is still the pre-print.

Publishing the post-print, which is the version of the article accepted for publication, is something different than publishing the pre-print. It includes all modifications and revisions of the peer-review process but is not in the journal layout. Sometimes it's also called Final-Draft-Post-Referee(ing) or Authors Fulltext.

Before uploading your pre-print to arXiv you should check whether the journal you chose allows pre-prints on arXiv. If so, go ahead and upload your pre-print.

Before uploading the post-print, e.g. on your personal website or your institutional repository, you should also check the journal guidelines.

In principle, a pre-print can be modified on arXiv: "To replace an article". There is a versioning of the articles but this feature is mainly used for minor corrections as typos.

Edit: Someone mentioned that it is common to upload the post-print as new version to arXiv. I couldn't find a direct statement on arXiv about this but there is a study comparing arXiv articles with their final published versions. The authors found that 35% of all arXiv articles have more than one version and their comparison implies that the latest versions are more close to the final published versions, i.e. there are post-prints on arXiv or the review processes don't modify papers that much. Here is another source confirming post-prints on arXiv to be common. I just couldn't verify the mentioned encouragement to do so.

Improve this answer
4
  • It's not ready for submission though since the structure will have to be radically changed so i guess I don't have a pre-print. I will send it to an APA journal and they say that they allow pre-prints. I just want the code for the statistical model to be out there and the draft would make a fantastic documentation but I don't want my paper to be stolen.
    – Alexia
    Commented Jan 29, 2017 at 16:24
  • 1
    I see. So you are talking about a working paper. I'm not sure about arXiv's guidelines regarding working papers. Maybe you should contact arXiv and ask for information. I'm interested in their answer, too.
    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Commented Jan 29, 2017 at 16:41
  • 3
    Actually, it's quite normal for papers on arxiv to be update with major revisions, and for authors to upload the postprint. In fact, in my view it's irresponsible NOT to upload the postprint (assuming your publishing agreement doesn't prohibit that), since researchers without subscription access (and even some researchers with access) to the journal may well read the arxiv version even after the paper is published.
    – David Ketcheson
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 6:38
  • @DavidKetcheson In my community the post-print is not uploaded to arXiv but to the institutional repository. This upload is often mandatory and if the journal agreement allows the post-print to be open access, it will be available open access in the institutional repository. Typically the post-print is linked to the pre-print in arXiv, if there is a pre-print. Are there any numbers about post-print version in arXiv? This would be very interesting.
    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 7:54
5

If you know your paper will be seriously reorganized, it is probably wiser to wait before sending to arXiv. Although it is possible to update papers on arXiv, the site also numbers the versions and also indicates the date of each version.

It is not always advantageous for the reputation of a submission to have several updates or a long delay between submission to arXiv and actual publication in an actual journal (of course details of what is a lengthy delay will depend on the disciplines and subdisciplines.)

There are exceptions, for instance in hot areas where you may need to establish priority. This should be balanced with the possible negative perceptions stated above.

Improve this answer
4
  • 3
    In my experience, the reputation of a preprint depends on its contents and not on the number of updates or delay between them.
    – David Ketcheson
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 6:53
  • 1
    preprintV4 just looks bad... at least in my field.
    – user67075
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 6:57
  • That's surprising to me. If you look at top mathematicians' articles, you'll very often see 3 versions. And plenty of them have more; e.g. here's one by T. Tao with 5: arxiv.org/abs/1310.6482. I'd almost suspect that # of versions is positively correlated with author reputation.
    – David Ketcheson
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 7:06
  • 1
    ah! but you mathematicians are always different... ;) . In physics the arxiv version is usually the one "just about to be submitted"; it is often updated once the paper is accepted and the comments of the referees have been included. Additional updates can be done following comments from the initial arxiv version but there is a definite aversion to very many multiple versions as this usually follows from reformatting due to rejection.
    – user67075
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 7:12
3

To answer just one part of your question, yes, putting the code (and the paper--which would be unusual, I think, but, hey, it could be considered "documentation", right?) on GitHub should be sufficient for you to prove that you came up with the idea first should someone try to steal it.

Improve this answer
2

You can use a blockchain based proof-of-existence such as https://proofofexistence.com/

You do not upload the document, instead you generate a cryptographic hash of that document and attach it to a bitcoin transaction which will stay in the blockchain forever. I am surprised that this method is not mentioned by others.

If any problem arise (eg. someone steals your work after) you will be the only one having the document in the same state used when you created the cryptographic hash, thus you are able to prove mathematically that you are the legitimate and original owner.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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