Only papers on the arXiv can be submitted for publication

Applying the title would increase the quality of submissions and the speed of progress, in my opinion. But there is also a less obvious reason why I think it would be good. The current system reinforces the partition of research into (sub)areas, making it hard for an outsider to leave their own. Of course, it is good to have a domain of expertise and produce deep results in it. Still, I think it would be better if it was a little easier to work in different areas.

To illustrate the difficulty, suppose you want to start working in new, hot area X. To learn the background, typically you have to read papers. However, for every paper that you read, it is not uncommon that there is another one which is or was under submission. Indeed, the community is producing great results the majority of which is rejected due to capacity constraints. So unless these works are on electronic archives such as the arXiv, you don’t have access to them.

Who does? The experts of area X, to whom these papers are sent so that they can be properly evaluated. But it may be hard for reviewers to ignore submissions until publication. Suppose for example you have been working on problem Y for months and now you are asked to review a paper that solves Y. Are you going to ignore this information and keep working on Y despite knowing that you will be beaten? Also, when the paper does come out you’ve had a long time to internalize its implications.

The edge currently given to an insider over an outsider is months if the paper is accepted right away; it may be years otherwise.

Implementation details:

If the title is too radical to appear in the calls for papers, here’s another mechanism to escape the existing equilibrium: commit to observe the title from the moment when > 2/3 of the authors of the last 4 STOC/FOCS have also committed. I commit, and you can use the comments to this post to do the same.

4 thoughts on “Only papers on the arXiv can be submitted for publication

  1. I see your point, but I don’t think the current system is unfair, since we are all in the same boat. We are all the first to see the papers in our own areas of expertise, and we are all delayed in seeing papers in other areas (where potentially we may want to branch out). So productivity-wise, it balances out. (A student, who is not an expert of anything yet, has their adviser to help them out.)

    1. Thank you for raising this point and sorry for the delay in my reply — I was out for a few days.

      My answer is that authors have the option to post anonymous versions of their papers before submission. The bottom line is that whatever information is given to the referees should be given to everybody.

      Incidentally, I also believe that posting anonymous versions may be overkill. For example, the CRYPTO conference insists on double-blind refereeing, but the authorship of a large fraction (maybe half) of the submissions is readily available online. As mentioned in the call for papers, referees are supposed to ignore the extra information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s