13

Imagine you have a paper that got rejected from a top tier conference. You think it is of high quality.

Do you submit the paper to arXiv, or keep pushing for a conference later on?

Cape Code
  • 27,102
  • 8
  • 98
  • 151
NeoN
  • 947
  • 8
  • 16

1 Answers1

22

Submitting a paper to the arXiv does not preclude publishing it later in a journal or in the proceedings of a conference. In fact, one should not think of a paper which appears on the arXiv as being published. (There's no peer review, for one thing.)

In my community (hep-th, mostly) one always submits to the arXiv first, gathers comments, and only then submits for publication. Of course, other communities might work differently.

In the fields I am familiar with (maths and physics, mostly), I would submit the paper to the arXiv in any case. You can then decide how to actually publish the paper.

José Figueroa-O'Farrill
  • 321
  • 1
  • 5
  • Well I may consider publishing the paper later on, but for now my main reason is to protect the idea/novelty of the work. Is this a good reason for using arXiv ? BTW, I am in CS, theory field. – NeoN Apr 08 '14 at 17:09
  • 5
    I'm not sure what you mean by protecting the idea. Do you mean that you want not to disseminate it? (which seems odd since you are submitting for publication elsewhere) or simply that you want to ensure you are given credit? If the latter, the arXiv has a time stamp. In fact, if your topic is "hot" and the chances of being scooped are high, I'd recommend submitting to arXiv as soon as possible. – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Apr 08 '14 at 17:47
  • 7
    If you're in CS theory, then it's increasingly becoming the practice to post things on the arxiv at submission time. In fact at least one recent venue strongly recommends it. – Suresh Apr 08 '14 at 18:34
  • 2
    @NeoN: In my opinion (too...), posting something to the arxiv is currently the best way to secure the novelty of your work. – Pete L. Clark Apr 09 '14 at 04:24