Question: Should we post on arXiv only papers in publishable shape (or very close)?

This question should be distinguished from the following:
Should one post a paper on the arXiv if it is not intended to be published?
in the sense that a paper which has not a publishable "contents" can have a publishable "shape".
Moreover, a paper which is intended to be published can be not yet in a publishable shape.

Sometimes it happens that we start to write a paper, we develop some interesting new ideas, but then we do not continue the paper for several possible reasons:

  • change of the research subject
  • loss of motivation for this problem
  • too difficult
  • $\dots$

Sometimes also we just want to share the current state of our work through a draft, even if all the proofs are not yet complete.

Whatever the reasons, the ideas contained in such drafts can be interesting and useful for the community, regardless of the state of advancement of the paper. So after this explanation:
Should we definitely not post such a paper on arXiv, even if its state is clearly specified at the beginning?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Prince would probably say yes (to your title question). I wouldn't really care what you do, but if your intent is to "share the current state of our work" you probably should have a write-up that is "readable". In practical terms I don't see that as being much different from "publishable" (this is, perhaps, more a commentary on how I wish some authors spend more time polishing their papers before actually publishing them, than anything else.) $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '15 at 13:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On the other hand, now that there is a precedent of publishing the incomplete scribblings of mathematicians, maybe posting very rough drafts on arXiv is just accelerating the inevitable. (If it is not clear, both comments of mine are written with my tongue firmly in my cheek.) $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '15 at 13:21
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If you are a youngish person, you should never post papers to the arXiv that are not in publishable shape. People will judge you very negatively. Sometimes senior people whose reputations are secure do this for various reasons, but you don't want a poorly written/incomplete paper to form one of the earliest impressions of you that the community makes. $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '15 at 18:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AndyPutman: Too late..., I've put three "first drafts" on arXiv in 2010-2011, and I've recently learned that I had a bad reputation because of that (that's why I've posted this question yesterday). Can I wash my reputation, or will I be a scum of the mathematical community all my life? $\endgroup$ Jun 10 '15 at 4:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The only way to repair your reputation is by doing good research. A few strong papers would certainly make quite a bit of difference. You should also talk to your mentors about this. They can give you advice that is far more tailored to your situation than that coming from some strangers on the internet. $\endgroup$ Jun 10 '15 at 16:32

The documentation of arXiv has this to say (my emphasis):

Inappropriate format. arXiv accepts only submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue. This excludes abstract-only submissions, submissions without references, book announcements or reviews, reports that do not contain original or substantive research, papers that contain inflammatory or fictitious content, papers that use highly dramatic and mis-representative titles/abstracts/introductions, or papers in need of significant review and revision.

Source: http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

  • $\begingroup$ The arXiv was made for researcher, and not researcher for the arXiv :) Regardless to the documentation, I don't understand the problem, as long as the state of the paper is clearly specified at the beginning and in comment. Then, poeple who don't want to read a draft are warned directly and can just go their way. It is not necessary to judge negatively the author or put him in the scum. What's your view and your advice? $\endgroup$ Jun 10 '15 at 5:13
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The arXiv was also made by researchers. While I think it is a quite bad idea to judge negatively a (young) researcher by some early preprint, I still have a strong preference for the arXiv being mainly devoted to research-paper-like documents, and in any case to documents that are in some sense completed works (even if possibly not in final form). Every business-day I browse an email with new submissions; I am not keen on this getting bloated by piecemeal submissions and plenty revisions. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Jun 10 '15 at 12:47

There could very occasionally be a case for making available plausible seeming methods for attempting to prove interesting results, which turn out not to work.

I was involved in one such situtation in which at least three different people, spent a long time trying in vain to do essentially the same thing, and they would all have preferred to have been told early on that their efforts were almost certainly doomed to failure. All of them were subsequently thought that the result in question was probably false.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Regarding this, I would say that the presentation should be of publishable quality, even if the importance of the result doesn't seem publishable. $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '15 at 20:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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