Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to cite a paper which is on arxiv.org but is not published or reviewed anywhere, and no publication or review seems to be in the pipeline. Would citing this arxiv.org paper be bad? Should I wait for a paper to be peer reviewed before I cite it?

Added: I don't actually know whether a 'real' publication is in the pipeline. The alternative to citing the paper would probably be to ignore it; I have a way to extend the results in the paper if the paper's results are true, but I don't have the skill or time to verify that the arxiv.org paper is correct.

share|improve this question
24  
Whether you should or not, it's a fact that many mathematicians do cite arxiv papers. –  Robin Chapman Oct 5 '10 at 13:05
16  
What would the alternative to citing it be? –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Oct 5 '10 at 13:06
31  
I want to cite a theorem in my paper, but it's not in the Party Programs of the CPSU, and no approval or review by the Party seems to be in the pipeline. Would citing this potentially contra-revolutionary theorem be bad? Should I wait for a theorem to officially be labelled progressive before I cite it? –  darij grinberg Oct 5 '10 at 13:12
12  
Since research moves at a much faster pace than the turnover of papers in prestigious journals, particularly in fashionable areas, it is not uncommon for a paper to have two or three generations of references (i.e. A references B, which references the paper in question) before it appears in print. You should of course be completely convinced that the result you are citing is true, if you don't want your paper to break down, should the reference turn out to be wrong. –  Alex B. Oct 5 '10 at 13:12
11  
Can you change the title to match the question in the body? Currently, a 'no' answer to the body question means 'yes' to the title question. –  Joel David Hamkins Oct 5 '10 at 14:36

8 Answers 8

up vote 31 down vote accepted

[It is] Not really [bad to cite an arXiv paper]*. If ths paper on arXiv provides the result you want, you are free to cite it. Before the arXiv, citing "private communication" or "pre-print" is not unheard of. On the other hand, since it hasn't been peer reviewed, you probably should double check and make sure you understand and believe the paper before you cite it (if you use one of its results crucially) (not that you shouldn't do the same for peer-reviewed papers, just that one may want to be extra careful with referring to pre-prints).

Note that there are two reasons for citations. The first is to give credit where credit is due: you do not want to look like you are appropriating someone else's result (or in some cases, inadvertantly slighting somebody by sin of omission). The second is to provide references for assertions made without proof in your paper. Obviously if you are citing for the former reason, a paper is arXiv is really no different from a paper in a published journal. If the author's right, you covered your bases. If he was wrong, then better for you, perhaps. It is with the latter case you need to be more careful. If the paper has been on arXiv for a long time and not appeared in any journals (definition of "long time" of course vary from field to field), you may want to be a bit cautious in deciding whether the foundation to your house is sound.

Also, how do you know "no publication or review seems to be in the pipeline"? I know several people (myself included) who would only include the journal ref on arXiv after it has been accepted for publication. Perhaps you should double check with the original author whether it has been submitted, and if not, why not?

* As Joel pointed out in his comments to the original question, and Emerton in his comments to this answer, there is some ambiguity as to which question I was answering.

share|improve this answer
24  
Absolutely. Some of the most important math papers exist only in the arXiv, for instance Perelman's papers. –  Greg Kuperberg Oct 5 '10 at 13:48
5  
Does "Not really" mean "Not really, you shouldn't cite a paper on the Arxiv" or "It's not really bad to cite an Arxiv paper"? –  Emerton Oct 5 '10 at 16:04
2  
Krampusz- You could indicate in the comments where you submitted the paper. I think this would be regarded as rather pompous, but not unreasonable. –  Ben Webster Oct 5 '10 at 17:20
1  
@Emerton: I meant "not really" to the two questions in the first paragraph of the text, as in "It is not really a bad thing to cite arXiv paper" and "You don't really have to wait before it is published." @Krampusz: Ben Webster's correct. For Analysis and PDEs, sometimes papers get rather long (50+ pages is average, and 100+ or broken into several instalments quite common) and as a consequence takes a long time to go through review. I sometimes see, in arXiv's comment field, the text "submitted to blah". My point, in my post, however is that that is the only way I can see of finding out... –  Willie Wong Oct 5 '10 at 19:35
1  
...a paper is "in the pipeline" before it actually is accepted. I actually don't know whether it is common practice to announce submissions as such, but since it is done, I just want to make clear that at least among the people I know, it is not common place. –  Willie Wong Oct 5 '10 at 19:37

I think you should always cite a paper on the arXiv, if it would be appropriate to cite the paper at all.

I want to strongly encourage people to put preprints of the arXiv. It makes mathematics more open. It's incredibly useful for following what's going on in fields not quite your own, or if you are not in personal contact with everyone in your field. However, I know mathematicians who do not put preprints on the arxiv (or only do so just before publication) because they are worried about "losing citations". Sadly it seems that many funding agencies and universities are starting to use citation data; so it will become more important for citations not to be "lost".

Thus, it would seem that a culture of not citing arXiv papers (just because they are on the arXiv) is going to encourage people not to use the arXiv, which I think is a bad thing.

Of course, as Willie says, you should be very careful about proofs. But, as other questions on MathOverflow have suggested, just because a paper is formally published doesn't ensure that it's correct, and not all referees carefully read proofs. So, you should always be careful. Also, it takes so long for the refereeing and printing process to happen that quite often, what starts out as a reference to the arXiv will become a reference to a published paper, by the time your paper makes it to galley stage.

I would agree, though, that if a paper has been on the arxiv for a long time, but seemingly hasn't appeared in print, then you might want to be extra careful (and under such circumstances, I think actually writing something to warn the reader would be okay).

share|improve this answer
22  
It is a sad practice of some journals to remove the arXiv IDs from references! –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Oct 5 '10 at 13:55
10  
Nowdays the refereeing process is so hasty, erratic and nobody has time for it, that the acceptance is more and more often based on the general impression of the results (combined with the authority expectations) rather than on strict checking of proofs. This is unfortunate and makes arxiv very little different from "published" journals. A colleague of mine said "Why would some referee tell me which paper to read ? I look at a paper on arXiv myself and decide myself if I find it worthy to read." –  Zoran Skoda Oct 5 '10 at 20:08
1  
@Zoran: That seems overly pessimistic to me. But it might well be true! What doesn't seem to be true is that publishing a paper is quick: I often wait 6 months to a year for a report, and then longer for galley prints to appear etc. Which makes the arXiv all the more important, because it gets results out in the public domain quickly. –  Matthew Daws Oct 6 '10 at 8:38
    
Here, here! I recently met a mathematician working in Africa who didn't post on the arXiv, and explained her reticence as a fear of being stolen from, insisting that it's different for those in the 3rd world. I can't imagine that that is actually the case. I wonder why, really, people don't use the arXiv. –  Kevin O'Bryant Oct 7 '10 at 23:41
8  
If anything, I would think posting on arXiv would be a solid deterrent to having your work ripped off. –  Andrew D. King Oct 10 '10 at 23:16

As has already been noted: there are two reasons to cite a paper, an email, a letter, or anything else:

(1) To give credit.

(2) To refer to a result you need.

If a citation is for reason (1), you should cite anything and everything that is appropriate. If someone explained a result to you in an email, cite them, or at least acknowledge them in the paper. If you rely on the results of a preprint, or a preprint proves important results germaine to your own work, you should cite it (whether it appeared on the arxiv or not!).

As for reason (2), it is up to you. In general, you shouldn't be relying on results unless you are confident that they are true. Typically, it is up to you to determine your own threshhold of confidence, and if publication in a peer-reviewed journal increases your confidence, you can take that into account. But in this context you must still take into account criterion (1): i.e. even if you avoid relying on an unpublished result out of a sense of caution, but that unpublished result is closely related to what you are doing, you should still mention it. (A typical situation might be that you need a special case of an unpublished result that it is easy for you to prove directly, and you prefer to do so rather than rely on the unpublished result; then you can certainly do so, but you should point out that what you have proved is a special case of the more general result, and cite that more general result.)

One thing to note is that some journals may not accept your paper if it relies crucially on unpublished results (including unpublished results of yours!). Thus, if you rely on such results, you may want to include a sketch of the proof, so as to make your presentation somewhat self-contained. In this case, if you giving a sketch of the proof of someone elses result, be sure to include appropriate citations from category (1) above!

share|improve this answer
8  
Unfortunately, 1) and 2) are not the only reasons people cite in practice. Referees and editors often press authors to cite papers THEY like (often their own), even if the authors did not use them and did not find them useful for their research (hence why would readers care for them). On the other hand, I know of even worse but routine practices of some people to cite papers from famous people, just to make impression that their work of little relevance is substantially related to the papers of the famous people, hence relevant. This sad practice is more used in other sciences than in math. –  Zoran Skoda Oct 5 '10 at 20:14

People have been including cites of the form 'preprint Year X' for decades. Simply citing 'preprint Year X, arXiv:0000.0000' is not a huge leap away from this traditional and well-established behaviour. Indeed it is clearly better than it.

share|improve this answer

I agree that citations to arXiv are useful because this is an open and accessible online resource unlike most journals or conference proceedings. But papers should be identified as preprints if no refereed version is known to exist. (Indeed, there is a long tradition of citing preprints or even personal communications.) An important caveat is that many arXiv posts are later published in improved versions, using feedback from referees or others; but the last version you see on arXiv is not necessarily the final one. Sometimes significant errors are corrected or important citations added only in the published format.

share|improve this answer
10  
Every time one notices the arXiv version is not the best one, one should write to the authors gently suggesting they update it! When citing arXiv items, on the other hand, I think it is good to cite specific revisions (arXiv makes it quite clear when you are looking at a version that has been replaced that there are newer ones) –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Oct 5 '10 at 14:29

Why not? I saw citations that looked like: "[42] J.Smith. Private discussions."

These are definitely not peer-reviewed...

share|improve this answer
6  
Well, I do find those a bit annoying. There is a difference between an arXiv item and a private discussion with J. Smith: I can get a copy of the first one to see the details it provides... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Oct 5 '10 at 14:31
7  
True, but they're important for giving credit to other people. I now have a paper with the first published proof (I think) of someone elses theorem; what can I cite other than personal communication? –  Ben Webster Oct 5 '10 at 15:02
36  
My favorite citation like this is "W. Thurston, personal communication", which appears in W. Thurston's PhD thesis... –  Andy Putman Oct 5 '10 at 16:46
18  
I think "personal communications" have no place in the references. One should only refer to publically available written documents. If I use somebody's unpublished argument, I reproduce it, give credit to the person in the body of the paper, and state that all possible mistakes are solely my own. –  Igor Belegradek Oct 5 '10 at 17:16
10  
I agree with Igor Belegradek's comment. I get annoyed when a paper states a result with a pointer to the bibliography and then, after I've gone to the bibliography, all I find is "personal communication," which does me no good. The author could, as Igor recommends, tell me in the body of the text that this was a personal communication and thereby save me a useless visit to the bibliography page. –  Andreas Blass Oct 5 '10 at 19:48

I would definitely cite the arXiv paper, though taking care of the particular version of the paper from arXiv that I am citing, because several authors do update their arXiv submissions occasionally. As also pointed in responses above, how would you still use the result (or build on it), if you do not cite the arXiv paper?

I guess your worry might originate from the fact that some reviewers of your paper might not duly appreciate your theorems, their value, or their correctness, unless you build upon peer-reviewed material. But for want of a better alternative, it is still better to err on the side of "correctness", and cite the most original source that you can track down.

PS: On a related note, I would even cite MO if I had to use a result that someone showed originally showed here (several such examples exist I guess).

share|improve this answer
    
See tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/64/… for "success stories". –  Willie Wong Oct 5 '10 at 19:41

My advisor and I have referenced discussions here on MO in our latest paper, so why not arxiv?

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.