39
$\begingroup$

A brief description: I have written a paper which contains a new result which I believe is somewhat important but not vital to the field. It is a generalization of an existing proof to get significant new information, in a framework that did not exist at the time of the original paper (not by me). I do not believe the result can be recovered from the original result, only from the proof, which is lengthy.

The paper as it stands is self-contained but a significant portion is a reproduction of the original paper (recovering additional information from various lemmas). Some lemmas are new but many are old. A copy of it which does not reproduce original work is only about 5 pages long but is very difficult to read.

It is my adviser's opinion (and I agree) that neither form of the paper is suitable for publication, for different reasons. We both believe the result on its own is significant enough, though. So, the question: would posting the long form on the arXiv as is be appropriate?

To head off the obvious question: yes, the author of the original paper is prominently pointed out in the abstract and the introduction, where it is pointed out that we follow the original proof closely in most cases.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
13
  • 40
    $\begingroup$ Seems OK to me to put it on arxiv $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 19:34
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I have seen people put stuff not intended to be published, such as English translations of articles written in another language. $\endgroup$
    – Per Alexandersson
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 19:36
  • 17
    $\begingroup$ Isn't putting a paper on the arXiv a form of publication? $\endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 19:58
  • 20
    $\begingroup$ I've heard you can find the Poincare conjecture proved there. $\endgroup$
    – Christian Remling
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 23:36
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ I think that it is exactly things like this for which arXiv is optimal. I would post it there without a second thought, and be happy. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Moskovich
    Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 9:03

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
37
$\begingroup$

Based on what you say, your paper would be valuable and useful for the mathematical community. So I think you should put it on the arXiv, with the remark in the comment field that the paper is not intended for publication.

Update. I meant "the paper is not intended for publication in a journal". Thanks for the comments and the (unexpectedly) large number of upvotes!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ What is the function of the "not intended for publication" designation in a case like this? Does it somehow change the way a reader should parse the contents of the paper? (I ask out of curiosity, I'm not a mathematician.) $\endgroup$
    – R Hahn
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 22:17
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @RHahn: Without this information, someone trying to cite the paper might assume that the arXiv reference is provisional, and waste time checking whether the paper appeared in a proper journal yet (probably several times, every once in a while). $\endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 22:52
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ But since putting a paper on the arxiv is itself a form of publication, which is widely accessible and can be cited and so on, the qualification "not intended for publication" is a kind of non-sequitur, like starting off your speech by saying, "before I begin speaking, I'd like to say a few words." $\endgroup$
    – Joel David Hamkins
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 22:55
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ The comment should read: not intended for publication elsewhere. $\endgroup$
    – Włodzimierz Holsztyński
    Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 0:44
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I would take that declaration to mean "not intended for publication in a journal". $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 2:16
17
$\begingroup$

The answer to the question "would posting the long form on the arXiv as is be appropriate?" is yes, as others have said. But there are other questions you should ask yourself.

  1. Can you simplify the proof? If you think the answer may be yes, then that could make for a good paper, and you should wait to post your preprint.

  2. Do you want to quote this result in other work you do, or have others quote it? Then, in my opinion, it is better to have it in a peer-reviewed venue.

  3. It sounds like you are a young mathematician, since you mentioned an adviser. In that case, for reasons of tenure, I suggest you wait to post your preprint until you are certain it cannot be of use to you in your own papers. [This advice may not apply to all research areas. Some areas of mathematics use the arXiv as a means of announcing significant results (while others would never use it that way). So use your own discretion here.]

  4. I'm a little surprised that you are of the opinion that both versions of the paper are not suitable for publication. Are you sure you couldn't add/subtract something from one of the versions, which would make it of sufficient interest to others?

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
12
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ Why "wait to post"? No harm is done when you post a longer-than-necessary proof. $\endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 22:17
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @darij: It always surprises me when people are not aware of possible negative consequences to posting to the arXiv. Let me name just two of many. First, a paper on the arXiv is "fair game". Thus, if this paper is the beginnings of the poster's PhD thesis, others may see his initial ideas and "scoop" him on some possible breakthroughs/simplifications. Second, at many institutions, papers on the arXiv count for nothing towards tenure. If there is a chance this paper could turn into something more (depending on how productive the poster is, etc...), he may want to wait. $\endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 2:08
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Unless you have discovered a vein of gold that noone else is aware of, you are as likely to be scooped on work that follows up on your preprint if you post it as you are to be scooped on the content of the preprint itself if you don't. arXiv preprints rarely preclude later publications. $\endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 3:29
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You can always update arXiv preprints- I would disagree with (1). $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Moskovich
    Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 9:05
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @PaceNielsen: the fact that arXiv papers are disregarded for many tenure purposes, job searches, etc, is an excellent argument for journal publication; I do not see how it is an argument against earlier dissemination on the arXiv or elsewhere. $\endgroup$
    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 10:36
5
$\begingroup$

I've seen this proposed model for the future of publication: The mathematician puts up her paper on arXiv (subject perhaps to some minimal anti-spam safeguards) and then "submission" consists of asking a "journal" to referee and endorse the paper. The journal consists of pointers to articles which have been accepted for review and found to meet the standards and conditions of that journal.

But for now, for what it is worth, it seems quite reasonable to me to submit to arXiv, as long as your advisor agrees. Whatever the field, I'm sure you could find some journal which would be happy to print the paper (if valid and well written) along with submitting it to the arXiv. But why do that, I'd think, if it is not going to bring it to the attention of any readers?

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Given that arxiv is a pre-print publication site and many of the hosted papers are not published elsewhere, yes i would say you should post it there.

Note that arxiv (and various similar sites like vixra) is good for other functions as well. For example we know the journals are sometimes heavily refereed and not everything published might be the best (for example if by an otherwise important author) and/or not everything important is published (for example by a relatively unknown author or sth very contrived)

Apart from that, personaly i think that sites like arxiv enable research and technology to go further by allowing partial or otherwise un-published results (see above) be published even in this format

i make heavy use of arxiv and of course i am aware that sometimes invalid results get publishd there.

Furthermore this would give you something like a copyright license (e.g "i published it on arxiv on that date") or to be more precise since i am not fan of copyright. It would give you the chronological advantage if you like

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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