39

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.

Richard Rast
  • 1,969
  • 40
    Seems OK to me to put it on arxiv – Benjamin Steinberg Apr 01 '15 at 19:34
  • 4
    I have placed there things I don't intend to publish – Benjamin Steinberg Apr 01 '15 at 19:35
  • 6
    I have seen people put stuff not intended to be published, such as English translations of articles written in another language. – Per Alexandersson Apr 01 '15 at 19:36
  • 2
    Sure; e.g. I've put my PhD thesis on arxiv. – Dima Pasechnik Apr 01 '15 at 19:37
  • 17
    Isn't putting a paper on the arXiv a form of publication? – Pace Nielsen Apr 01 '15 at 19:58
  • 20
    I've heard you can find the Poincare conjecture proved there. – Christian Remling Apr 01 '15 at 23:36
  • 5
    Why do you want to make it known? So that you can use it? So that others can use it? Even if it is not for journal publication, is it something you want to have people citing with your name, perhaps in a negative context? The answer to the title question is yes, but there may be career implications and others for which you want answers. – The Masked Avenger Apr 02 '15 at 00:22
  • 3
    @ChristianRemling -- indeed, I thought about answering with: ask Perelman. – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Apr 02 '15 at 00:47
  • 4
    You should ask your advisor and do what (s)he says. It is impossible to give advice about this without seeing the paper (and MO is not an appropriate place to ask for evaluations of a paper). – Andy Putman Apr 02 '15 at 05:18
  • 5
    The novelty threshold for putting something on the arXiv is lower than for a typical journal article. For instance, I would not be surprised to see notes from a postgrad-level study group up there, if the topic was something that has not yet been standardised into textbook form. If it's something that could be useful to research-level mathematicians, then go ahead. – Colin Reid Apr 02 '15 at 06:22
  • 9
    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. – Daniel Moskovich Apr 02 '15 at 09:03
  • I agree with Daniel - strongly! – Jim Stasheff Apr 08 '15 at 14:49
  • I think another good way is to establish a personal homepage and then put it up there as a small notes indicating what it is about. At least, many well-known experts in my field did it in this way. – Changyu Guo Apr 08 '15 at 19:32

4 Answers4

37

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!

GH from MO
  • 98,751
  • 4
    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.) – R Hahn Apr 01 '15 at 22:17
  • 8
    @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). – Emil Jeřábek Apr 01 '15 at 22:52
  • 13
    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." – Joel David Hamkins Apr 01 '15 at 22:55
  • 8
    The comment should read: not intended for publication elsewhere**. – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Apr 02 '15 at 00:44
  • 7
    I would take that declaration to mean "not intended for publication in a journal". – Todd Trimble Apr 02 '15 at 02:16
  • 1
    I have accepted this answer since it is what I have decided to do, which may or may not correspond to the intended nature of the "accept" button – Richard Rast Apr 07 '15 at 01:09
18

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?

Pace Nielsen
  • 18,047
  • 4
  • 72
  • 133
  • 12
    Why "wait to post"? No harm is done when you post a longer-than-necessary proof. – darij grinberg Apr 01 '15 at 22:17
  • 6
    @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. – Pace Nielsen Apr 02 '15 at 02:08
  • 13
    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. – darij grinberg Apr 02 '15 at 03:29
  • 7
    You can always update arXiv preprints- I would disagree with (1). – Daniel Moskovich Apr 02 '15 at 09:05
  • 11
    @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. – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Apr 02 '15 at 10:36
  • 1
    @Peter: It isn't an argument against earlier dissemination, per se. Rather, about under-prepared papers on the arXiv. The poster has claimed that the preprint is unsuitable for publication. The arXiv is a form of publication. He may want to wait to turn it into more, especially if he also needs to publish in a journal. [Again, this depends on which field he works in, how others view papers on the arXiv, and a host of other issues. This is not a hard and fast rule. Everyone has their own rule for when they feel comfortable putting a preprint up for public inspection.] – Pace Nielsen Apr 02 '15 at 15:17
  • 3
    @darij: I agree with you. The trouble is that young mathematicians are not always the best judges of whether or not they have found a "vein of gold", due to inexperience, and thus my suggestion to wait a bit and consider this issue. (They can also get discouraged when someone discovers a result which they could have used in their thesis. Don't discount the psychological factor.) – Pace Nielsen Apr 02 '15 at 15:25
  • 1
    The arxiv is an indexed repository with a very small amount of quality control, not a journal. Placing something in arxiv makes it more accessible than putting it on some other website because many look to arxiv to see what it has. However, it is a place to expose ones flaws as well as ones strengths. I think the real question is not whether to place it, but what are the downsides to making something available that is not journal quality. In sharing information, should the phrase "journal quality" even matter? Or the phrase "public perception"? Or even "personal/career reputation"? – The Masked Avenger Apr 02 '15 at 16:42
  • 2
    The arXiv also gives publicity which should not be underestimated, especially for junior mathematicians! – GH from MO Apr 02 '15 at 20:24
  • 3
    @TheMaskedAvenger: There are many possible reasons for a paper not to be of “journal quality”, and only some of them amount to exposing flaws. Putting a sloppily written or mathematically incorrect paper on arXiv sounds like a bad idea, but I see nothing wrong with posting a well written preprint that is merely insufficiently original for a journal publication. – Emil Jeřábek Apr 02 '15 at 20:38
  • 1
    @Emil, I don't see anything wrong either, and I suspect things will turn out OK for the OP. But then, I am not in academia, and have little or no clue what the ramifications are to someone who may be looking for a postdoc or other academic position. Ideally, there should be no ramifications, but I sense that Pace is touching upon such in his answer. – The Masked Avenger Apr 02 '15 at 22:27
  • 1
    Given the reality of survival in our profession, I suggest the best person to say whether a paper is suitable for publication is the editor of the journal where it is submitted. A young person is advised to submit every piece of work to a journal and find out what that judgment is. Many of us here have likely witheld our results for various reasons, only to see them appear in print later from other authors. Then our universities want to know why our bibliographies are so brief. Some people famously behave quite differently, but I suspect we imitate them at our own risk. – roy smith Jan 05 '18 at 00:08
5

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?

Aaron Meyerowitz
  • 30,015
1

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

Nikos M.
  • 149