Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

approximatelycorrect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#21

Post by [deleted] »

petters wrote: post #18
CogitoCogito wrote: post #13

I am astounded that people would question citing an arxiv paper. If you get an idea from somewhere else, you cite it. This doesn't even have to do with the archive. I have on multiple occasions read papers where the author wrote a proof and then cited "private communications" with another mathematician as the source. In a business where ideas are ideas, you should always cite the source. Anything else is extremely di…

Yes. You always cite your source. Period. Sometimes you also cite sources to help the reader. E.g., I have cited Wikipedia articles for basic concepts in peer-reviewed articles.

[deleted]

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#22

Post by teniutza »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #15
CogitoCogito wrote: post #13

I am astounded that people would question citing an arxiv paper. If you get an idea from somewhere else, you cite it. This doesn't even have to do with the archive. I have on multiple occasions read papers where the author wrote a proof and then cited "private communications" with another mathematician as the source. In a business where ideas are ideas, you should always cite the source. Anything else is extremely di…

In the academy it would be legitimate grounds for an academic misconduct case.

When I started my PhD I was even told not to cite book, regardless of their footprint in the field. They are/were regarded as some sort of "common knowledge". Many ideas come from such works, but one cannot cite them and must, instead, cite a previous work (which surely got their (base)ideas from the same books...).

What I'm saying here is that the "academic code of conduct" is a bit outdated.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#23

Post by CogitoCogito »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #13

I am astounded that people would question citing an arxiv paper. If you get an idea from somewhere else, you cite it. This doesn't even have to do with the archive. I have on multiple occasions read papers where the author wrote a proof and then cited "private communications" with another mathematician as the source. In a business where ideas are ideas, you should always cite the source. Anything else is extremely di…

It just occurred to me that by quickly posting early in this thread and then continuing to develop my argument in further edits, I'm essentially guilty of flag-planting. The irony of doing so in this discussion (albeit subconsciously) compels me to point out my own hypocrisy. :)

I guess it's a good reminder that many of these habits aren't purposeful. Though I'd hope that people would stop and think a bit more than I just did before uploading papers to the archive (or publishing elsewhere). But I guess impatience afflicts us all...

(This time not an edit!)

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#24

Post by a_e_k »

I tend to view arXiv as mainly an aggregated repository of documents that would ordinarily be tech reports. It is accepted practice to cite tech reports when the paper author is aware of them and they are relevant. I don't really see how an arXiv paper should be any different.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#25

Post by acd10j »

docdeek wrote: post #11
zackchase wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here: Grisha Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture has never been (by him, to my knowledge) submitted to or published in any journal. He decided, as is his right, that he could not care less about the professional community of publishing mathematicians or their protocols. Does not invalidate his achievement. I should note, since I am not and do not expect to be the level of mathematician that Perelman is…

Thanks - I remember reading about Perelman before but I didn’t realise the proof was unpublished.

I think the logic that his work is unpublished itself is wrong, he published/posted his work for world to see in arXiv , He has very strong opinions about current scientific publishing status quo, hence did not go through usual route of submitting in journal, He did published/posted on arXiv. Who are we to decide that posting your work in Blog post , arXiv etc does not constitute published.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#27

Post by detaro »

anjc wrote: post #20

Confused by this part: > Yes, of course. Any time that our work follows, copies, or borrows ideas from other people, and when we can reasonably be expected to be aware of this, we ought to cite the related work. > We should not have to cite nonsense. Many reviewers are abusing the system and asking for ridiculous comparison to recently-posted preprint papers. Bald-faced flag-planting should not be rewarded. And we sh…

Include the next sentence for the first quote: Yes, of course. Any time that our work follows, copies, or borrows ideas from other people, and when we can reasonably be expected to be aware of this, we ought to cite the related work.

Something being on arXiv or in a blog post or … doesn't excuse not citing it if it influenced your work. It's important to document where your ideas and data come from, both to give credit to the author and to allow others to evaluate what you base your claims on for themselves.

The second quote is about stuff that didn't influence your work. While you are expected to keep up with and document related developments, forcing authors to constantly update references to new, not yet properly evaluated work just because it makes some related claim doesn't make sense.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#28

Post by CogitoCogito »

teniutza wrote: post #22
hyperion2010 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the academy it would be legitimate grounds for an academic misconduct case.

When I started my PhD I was even told not to cite book, regardless of their footprint in the field. They are/were regarded as some sort of "common knowledge". Many ideas come from such works, but one cannot cite them and must, instead, cite a previous work (which surely got their (base)ideas from the same books...). What I'm saying here is that the "academic code of conduct" is a bit outdated.

I think this is alright as well. Many things do become "common knowledge". The book probably didn't come up with the original idea/argument anyway.

Of course tangential to the citing of novel ideas is the citing of material that helps explain your work. I think it's certainly a good idea to cite a source of common knowledge if that source does an especially good job of presenting that knowledge.

As with all things, this is a judgment call. Just try to be honest...

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#29

Post by taneq »

vmarsy wrote: post #17

It's a bit tougher when a paper hasn't been peer reviewed, although not too different from a good paper published in a low quality or unknown conference. I think you should cite any idea you pick from a paper when the said paper has some the following qualities: - novelty - technical correctness - clarity - good experimental evaluation Novelty is the most important: if without the citation your paper looks like the o…

> I think you should cite any idea you pick from a paper when the said paper has some the following qualities: [...]

I think you should cite any idea you pick from a paper, full stop. That's the whole point of citing: To assign credit where credit is due.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#30

Post by teniutza »

petters wrote: post #18
CogitoCogito wrote: post #13

I am astounded that people would question citing an arxiv paper. If you get an idea from somewhere else, you cite it. This doesn't even have to do with the archive. I have on multiple occasions read papers where the author wrote a proof and then cited "private communications" with another mathematician as the source. In a business where ideas are ideas, you should always cite the source. Anything else is extremely di…

Yes. You always cite your source. Period. Sometimes you also cite sources to help the reader. E.g., I have cited Wikipedia articles for basic concepts in peer-reviewed articles.

Five years ago (during my PhD) I would not have been "allowed" to cite a paper which has not been peer-reviewed and published in the proceedings of a recognised conference. Papers on arXiv where specifically black-listed. Mentioning Wikipedia (even off the record, in personal meetings) would have been the start of fast road to the bottom.
Post reply on HN