Timeline for What should one do before submitting a paper?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 29, 2023 at 21:31 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Dec 29, 2022 at 22:54 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @Z.M Your guess about judging was unnecessary and incorrect. Moving on, I don't think it would do any good for a new PhD student in the situation I raised to assert priority. However, it would be a good idea for the student to explain to the senior mathematician the situation (including a need for publications to get a job), and ask to join forces. Moreover, with good advising, it needn't be disastrous for new PhDs to learn how to deal with such situations. (When I was writing my own thesis, a paper was published on the same topic, claiming to have solved the problem I was working on.) | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 22:09 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @AlexandreEremenko If you are arguing that one paper has more value than another, based merely on the fact that one was submitted to the arXiv a few seconds before the other, then I strongly disagree. If you are arguing that this establishes priority, I also strongly disagree. (Given how long it takes to write a paper, it is obvious that these results are independent of one another.) Moreover, I'd argue that not only in math, but in all science, we should work to get away from such posturing. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 18:04 | comment | added | Z. M | @PaceNielsen It would depend on more factors. For example, suppose that you are a PhD student in this situation, you are going to find postdoc positions soon, and this is the only paper that you have produced so far (this happens to some PhD students — maybe you judge them being "too incompetent"), then the failure of not being published is fatal in the sense that you probably have to leave academia. Note also that, since another (presumably senior) mathematician did not submit to arXiv, you unconsciously worked out something "in vain", which seems disastrous for PhD students. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 17:38 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Pace Nielsen: yes. When the first photographs from the James Webb telescope arrived, there was a competition to publish them, and the first arxiv publication was ahead of the second one from a competing group by several seconds:-) | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 16:21 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @Z.M BTW. suppose that you have posted a preprint to the arXiv, and the next day another mathematician sends you a copy of their preprint, which covers much of the same material. You're told that their paper has been under review for a year, and they expect a report soon. Would you insist on having priority because you made your work publicly available first? | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 16:07 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @Z.M If you are working on a problem that has been in the literature for a decade or more, such a scenario is less likely. But depending on the types of problems you work on, and the kind of progress being made in your area, it might be the right thing to post to the arXiv (once you have done proofreading, gotten some preliminary feedback, etc...) before submitting to a journal. My point has always been that the first step is to follow Carlo Beenaker's counsel, as well as Christopher Drupieski's counsel. After that, worry about arXiv vs. journal. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 14:12 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2022 at 13:27 | comment | added | Z. M | @PaceNielsen In my field, what I heard is almost always first submitting to arXiv. I wonder in your case what happens if one submits the paper A to a journal without first submitting to arXiv, and another comes up with similar results and ideas in the same time, finishing the paper B, and submitting it to arXiv, and then the paper A gets rejected? It seems that the paper A cannot be published anymore since the paper B already appeared on arXiv and taking credits? | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 2:57 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | do appear are absolute junk. The number of papers published in reputable journal far outstrips the number that appear on the arXiv, by orders of magnitude. (Although, the truly groundbreaking papers may show up on arXiv.) Papers in my area don't usually take multiple years to be refereed (only about 3-6 months, perhaps 1 year in extreme cases). But most importantly, I wasn't saying one should ignore the arXiv. Just that it is one of many tools, and that it should be approached with extra caution by a first-time publisher. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 2:48 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @TimothyChow First, I'm glad we agree that releasing a half-baked paper is a bad idea. For a first-time publisher, like the person who asked the question, this issue should be raised before blindly telling them to post to the arXiv. Second, I explicity mentioned that one could also publish to the arXiv at the appropriate time. There is no dichotomy. For a first-time publisher such timing is difficult to determine without feedback from trusted sources. Finally, my experience (in my field) is opposite yours. Papers in my area rarely appear on the arXiv, many of the ones that... | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 2:36 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @PaceNielsen Well, I agree that releasing a paper when it's half-baked is a bad idea, but that's true of publishing as well, not just the arXiv. And sure, you're more likely to get attention by getting it in a good journal and contacting people directly, but that's again a false dichotomy. But what I most disagree with is your last sentence. If I were to rely on journals rather than the arXiv, I'd be two or three years behind the times. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 2:24 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @TimothyChow My point about trustworthyness is that the arXiv just isn't a place to attract the dedicated attention of experts, except in extraordinary cases. You are more likely to attract attention to your work by getting it in a good journal, and emailing it to trusted friends and experts who are interested in similar problems. (And from the other direction, if someone were to ask whether it is better to check the arXiv every day, or to subscribe to emails from the top journals of your field to see what's being published, I'd suggest the latter.) | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 1:52 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | effects from people writing on your material can still happen. Regarding paranoia, I've found it is usually the people who are not willing to trust the refereeing system, and need to establish "priority", who suffer from that. (And, subsequently, are actually more likely to be scooped.) | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 1:49 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @TimothyChow Some of these issues can also depend on the field you work in. In my field, if two people come up with similar results, usually they combine forces rather than worry about priority. My point about "scooping" is that some people post to the arXiv without having given themselves enough time to consider extensions, corollaries, etc..., or to get basic feedback. Usually these people are early in their careers, and so such scooping can be much more damaging to them. Moreover, you can always post to the arXiv after the paper is accepted, and so the good... | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 1:28 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | As for arXiv articles not being trustworthy, that seems to be an entirely orthogonal question that you're addressing. Putting a paper on the arXiv does not preclude you from publishing in a journal. Surely that goes without saying? Unless you're saying that if you're "scooped" in the way that you say then people won't give you credit? I personally find such an attitude overly paranoid and I don't recommend living life that way. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 1:26 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @AlexandreEremenko My experience with double blind refereeing is similar to yours, but in the last year or two, I've twice been asked to referee a paper with the names of the author(s) stripped. It seems to be on the rise. Regarding Pace Nielsen's comments, yes, sometimes that kind of "scooping" happens, but I've also been in a situation where if my coauthor and I had waited a month, we would not have been the first past the post. I think that for most people it's better to post to the arXiv sooner rather than later. If someone quickly builds on my work, I consider that a good thing. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 1:20 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | the papers on the arXiv are not always trustworthy, not having gone through any refereeing. Many mathematicians do not trust papers on the arXiv to the same level as papers in good (reputable) journals. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 1:18 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | In my experience, posting on the arXiv gives you very little feedback. You are much more likely to get helpful feedback by emailing a draft to a few friends and experts in the field. On many occassions, I've also gotten helpful feedback from referee reports, in some cases saving me from embarrassing (fixable) mistakes; posting on the arXiv cannot be undone. Further, contrary to the idea that it establishes priority, I've actually seen a few results "scooped", because they were available on the arXiv and someone found stronger results and published those extensions quickly. Also... | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 0:22 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Tomothy Chow: according to my experience as an author and as a referee, double blind refereeing is an extremely rare practice. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 0:19 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 346 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2022 at 0:13 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | (continued) There is just one possible downside I am aware of, which is that you effectively forgo the possibility of double-blind refereeing if you upload to the arXiv. For most people, though, the advantages of posting to the arXiv outweigh this disadvantage. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 0:10 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Just to elaborate a bit on the first point: Uploading to the arXiv does a few things. It establishes priority, in case someone else comes up with the same ideas almost simultaneously. If you give a talk, anyone who is interested in your work will want to see your paper, and it is convenient if the paper is already on the arXiv. Lots of people watch the arXiv, so you may get some very quick feedback from people who you might not have expected to have any interest in your paper; this is almost always a good thing. | |
| Dec 28, 2022 at 14:31 | history | answered | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |