If you have a very old paper pre-print, tech report or thesis lying around (one that you own the copyright to), and it hasn't been uploaded to arXiv, can you do it?
Or would this be seen as inappropriate?
-
19Yes, you can definitely upload it. It's not just for new stuff.– It'sMeCommented Jun 29 at 22:29
-
11To reinforce the point of @It'sMe : I know some people who posted older papers/work that is hard to access because of where it was published, v.g. defunct journal.– ZeroTheHeroCommented Jun 30 at 1:16
-
2once I saw a translation of a paper written by Leonard Euler on ArXiv– MefiticoCommented Jul 2 at 14:03
-
1Here's a very recent example, uploaded a couple weeks ago with the comment "23 pages. This paper has been published in 2004 but was never posted on the arXiv"– Alessandro CodenottiCommented Jul 2 at 17:48
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
Assuming the content type and contents are appropriate, submissions that are of scholarly interest are welcomed even if old. Here's an example of a never-published preprint from 1981, that was only put on arXiv in 2016: 1612.00076. However, I can also imagine some old documents no longer meeting the bar of scholarly interest, so do take that into consideration.
-
1"lacks originality" from the Scholarly interest part -- Originality at the time it was originally written, or at the time it's uploaded? What if it's a preprint for an old, published but pay-walled paper?– MWBCommented Jun 30 at 0:34
-
1@MWB Not sure precisely what policies the arXiv moderators follow, but I've seen enough preprints for old, published papers to think that is generally fine. Some might be available online under a paywall, some might only be published in print. In those cases, it is clear that the result is original to the author.– AnyonCommented Jun 30 at 14:40
-
1@MWB On the other hand, suppose you prepared a draft of an article 20 years ago, never circulated it, and never got it published. Then, ten years later someone else published analogous results. Can you then post a preprint now arguing that you had the results first? I'm not convinced that would be accepted even though the draft had original results at the time it was written.– AnyonCommented Jun 30 at 14:46
-
A pity that the arXiv main page for a document doesn't have a date field for when the document (or submitter) claims it was authored. Commented Jun 30 at 20:35
-
1@MWB If it's a published, pay-walled paper, there are likely to be copyright issues. (Some publishers will care more than others)– KimballCommented Jul 1 at 7:22
It is OK to upload it, but in the Comments section you should say when it was written.
I've seen this a number of times, and it's perfectly fine most of the time. The exception would be if the result has already appeared in other people's work and you are claiming to have come up with it beforehand. Even if this is the true situation, I would recommend not putting it on the arxiv because of priority issues.
In the other extreme, I think people would greatly appreciate work done but never published back when a field was "hot". In my own experience there are a few things like that I would very much like to see, since I am always a little hesitant to use folklore results that I can't really verify myself.
-
Could you elaborate on what "because of priority issues" means exactly? Thanks!– uhohCommented Jun 30 at 23:28
-
5If the result has already appeared somewhere else, there's no strong need to post it on the arxiv. Furthermore there's no way to prove you really came up with the result first, which can cause friction from others who might feel they are being cheated. So in this situation it might be best to not put the paper on the arxiv.– ZarraxCommented Jul 1 at 0:31
There are many older published papers that are hard to find, either because the relevant journals have become defunct or have no online facilities. It is therefor highly useful to post old papers to arXiv if they meet the requirements of the platform (and subject to any relevant copyright restrictions).
