Paper X, on the ArXiv, keeps getting rejected

Paper X, on the ArXiv, keeps getting rejected. Years later, Paper Y comes up and makes progress on X, or does something closely related to X. Y may or may not cite X. Y gets published. Now X cannot get published because the referees do not see what the contribution of X is, given that Y has been published and that in light of Y X is not new.

The solution in my opinion, following a series of earlier posts the last one of which is this, is to move the emphasis away from publication towards ArXiv appearance. Citations should refer to the first available version, often the ArXiv one. Journals/conferences can still exist in this new paradigm: their main important job would be to assign badges to ArXiv papers.

Obviously, this plan does not work for the entities behind current journals/conferences. So they enforce the status quo, and in the most degrading way: by forcing authors to fish out, maintain, and format useless references.

4 thoughts on “Paper X, on the ArXiv, keeps getting rejected

  1. Actually I think that an arxiv paper already does serve as a way to put a time stamp on results. Thus, X should not have a problem to publish his/her paper, and also to demand the author of Y to cite him/her. Do you have an example to the contrary?

    1. Yes in fact I was involved in more than one such incident. Today I got this message from a managing editor:

      “I can empathize with the frustration that arises from having one’s own work slowed down in the review process while a related paper appears. But [our] mission is to disseminate research that contains important new insights. “New” must be benchmarked against what is already published or accepted for publication.”

      1. In this case, I believe it’s simply a mistake of the managing editor! If your paper was the original paper on the subject, appearing prior to Y on ArXiv, then the journal should accept it, even if Y is already published i nsome journal or conference, because you’re the first reference. There are tons of journal papers that appeared *after* the journal publication of papers citing their arxiv, ECCC or conference versions. By the managing editor’s logic no journal version of a conference paper should be published either, since it “New must be benchmarked against what is already published”!

      2. Thanks for your thoughts. I am not sure I would call it a mistake. Especially if Y is accepted at a different venue, and somehow in light of Y X is not so exciting (I am not saying it is my case ;-), it seems hard for a referee to make a case for acceptance of X. Sometimes it does happen, of course. But think yourself at a PC meeting, would it be easy for you to push for X?

        The issue of conference vs. journal that you raise is in my opinion a different one. In CS there is a philosophy of publishing the SAME paper first in a conference and then sometimes in a journal. The issue I am raising applies regardless of whether Y appears in a conference or a journal.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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