3 End note

I submitted a paper to a journal. It was accepted and published.

I had also posted a version of the paper on arXiv. The arXiv version of the paper and the journal's version are not identical, because the journal's version uses their house LaTeX style. However, the two versions are otherwise the same, and share the same theorem numbering.

Then someone pointed out an error in the paper. So I wrote a short correction, and submitted it to the journal. It has been accepted and published as a separate paper.

My question is: what should I do with the arXiv version of the paper? Here are some possibilities.

1. Replace the version on arXiv with a new version, which incorporates the necessary changes into the paper. Doing so would probably change the theorem numbering, so that it does not agree with the original paper.

2. Post the correction to the arXiv as a separate paper, and leave the old arXiv version of the original paper alone (so that it still agrees with the published version).

3. Post the correction to arXiv as a separate paper, and to replace the original paper on arXiv with a new version, which incorporates footnotes pointing out the erroneous statements, and referencing the correction (but otherwise not changing theorem numbering).

The third choice seems like the right one to me. But I'd like to know what the accepted practice is here (if there is one).

Added. Several answers suggest a fourth choice:

4. Replace the original paper on arXiv with a revised version, but make sure the revision does not change theorem numbering, or at least carefully indicate the changes in numbering.

Added. The consensus seems to be for choice 4. This is what I'll do, since it looks like I'll be able to keep the numbering the same.

2 Added 4th choice

I submitted a paper to a journal. It was accepted and published.

I had also posted a version of the paper on arXiv. The arXiv version of the paper and the journal's version are not identical, because the journal's version uses their house LaTeX style. However, the two versions are otherwise the same, and share the same theorem numbering.

Then someone pointed out an error in the paper. So I wrote a short correction, and submitted it to the journal. It has been accepted and published as a separate paper.

My question is: what should I do with the arXiv version of the paper? Here are some possibilities.

1. Replace the version on arXiv with a new version, which incorporates the necessary changes into the paper. Doing so would probably change the theorem numbering, so that it does not agree with the original paper.

2. Post the correction to the arXiv as a separate paper, and leave the old arXiv version of the original paper alone (so that it still agrees with the published version).

3. Post the correction to arXiv as a separate paper, and to replace the original paper on arXiv with a new version, which incorporates footnotes pointing out the erroneous statements, and referencing the correction (but otherwise not changing theorem numbering).

The third choice seems like the right one to me. But I'd like to know what the accepted practice is here (if there is one).

Added. Several answers suggest a fourth choice:

4. Replace the original paper on arXiv with a revised version, but make sure the revision does not change theorem numbering, or at least carefully indicate the changes in numbering.

1

# Should a published paper with a published correction be replaced on arXiv?

I submitted a paper to a journal. It was accepted and published.

I had also posted a version of the paper on arXiv. The arXiv version of the paper and the journal's version are not identical, because the journal's version uses their house LaTeX style. However, the two versions are otherwise the same, and share the same theorem numbering.

Then someone pointed out an error in the paper. So I wrote a short correction, and submitted it to the journal. It has been accepted and published as a separate paper.

My question is: what should I do with the arXiv version of the paper? Here are some possibilities.

1. Replace the version on arXiv with a new version, which incorporates the necessary changes into the paper. Doing so would probably change the theorem numbering, so that it does not agree with the original paper.

2. Post the correction to the arXiv as a separate paper, and leave the old arXiv version of the original paper alone (so that it still agrees with the published version).

3. Post the correction to arXiv as a separate paper, and to replace the original paper on arXiv with a new version, which incorporates footnotes pointing out the erroneous statements, and referencing the correction (but otherwise not changing theorem numbering).

The third choice seems like the right one to me. But I'd like to know what the accepted practice is here (if there is one).