Timeline for Double Referencing in arXiv
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2011 at 3:05 | vote | accept | Ivan | ||
| Oct 16, 2011 at 12:14 | comment | added | Spiro Karigiannis | I guess my papers don't have enough fancy TeX in them to cause such problems. I've had some figures, though. All seemed to work fine for me. But I'll definitely check it carefully next time I submit. | |
| Oct 16, 2011 at 7:04 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | I believe that the figure appending issue occurs when you are using regular LaTeX (not pdflatex) and you have figures which you uploaded to the arXiv but don't use in the paper. To get an extra copy of all of the figures, I think the most likely cause is having two copies of all of the figures in separate directories. | |
| Oct 16, 2011 at 5:04 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | There are a couple of ways the arXiv PDF can differ from what you expect. One is that some LaTeX packages exist in several different versions; usually, they don't differ in the output except for extending the functionality or fixing bugs, but occasionally they produce visible changes. (This happened with the AMS document classes, which was a real hassle for the arXiv.) The other issue is that some packages, such as microtype, produce different output under pdflatex. By default the arXiv goes from dvi to ps to pdf, so if you need pdflatex you have to set the \pdfoutput flag in the TeX file. | |
| Oct 15, 2011 at 22:56 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | @Spiro, yes, definitely. In particular, I remember an instance when helping someone submit their paper, that somehow all the figures got appended at the end of the paper on separate pages, as well as where they were meant to be. I forget the mechanism (it was somehow our fault, rearranging some directory structure), but we barely noticed it. I think I also recall some problem with included postscript, with line sizes being mysteriously changed. I've also made mistakes in preparing the "plain text" abstract for the metadata from the LaTeX sources, which coauthors have caught in time. | |
| Oct 15, 2011 at 18:24 | comment | added | Spiro Karigiannis | Presumably, your coauthors have checked the final product before you submit to the arXiv. Does it ever happen that the arXiv's compiling into PDF differs in any serious way from what you see when you compile the paper yourself before submission? This would be news to me. | |
| Oct 15, 2011 at 18:18 | history | answered | Kim Morrison | CC BY-SA 3.0 |