ed. note: this post is by Jeff Phillips. For another recent post on arxiv publishing issues, see Hal Daume on the arxiv, NLP and ML. It seems that over the last few months, the number of papers posted to the arXiv has been noticeably increasing, especially in the categories of
Computational Geometry and
Data Structures and Algorithms.
I have posted several (but not all) of my papers on the arXiv. I still do not have a consistent set of rule under which I post the papers. Here are a couple circumstances under which I have posted paper to the arXiv.
A: Along with Proceedings Version:When conference version does not have space for full proofs, so in conjunction with proceedings version, post full version to arXiv. This is a placeholder for the full version until the journal version appears. Additionally, the arXiv paper can be updated when the final journal version appears if it has changed.
Sometimes, I link to the arXiv version in the proceedings version. This makes it easy for a reader of the proceedings to find the full proofs.
If more conferences move to the SODA model where proceedings versions can be much longer (~20 pages), then this situation may not often be necessary.
B: Along with Submitted Version:When you want to advertise a piece of work, but it has only been submitted, post a version to arXiv. This is useful if you are giving talks on the work, and want a documented time stamp so you can't get scooped, or say, you are applying for jobs and want to make your work very available and public.
This is closer to the math philosophy where many (most?) people submit a version of a paper to arXiv as soon as they submit it to a journal. I think it would be great if CS adapted this policy, as it would be a lot easier to track results. I have a friend who as a math graduate student would start every day by perusing the dozen or so new arXiv post in his area and choosing one paper to read. He told me that almost every paper he read as a grad student was on the arXiv. Wouldn't a world like that be extremely convenient?
However, I have had an issue following this rule. Last year I submitted a paper to a conference and concurrently, submitted a
longer version to the arXiv. The paper was unfortunately, not accepted to the conference. My coauthor and I extended the results to the point where it made sense to split the paper. Half was then submitted and accepted to another conference, and full proofs were made available through a
tech report at my coauthor's institution, as he was required to do. The second half which has also been extended is now under submission.
I might like to post the (full) second half to the arXiv, but do not want to double the part from the previous post. I am not sure if it make sense to merge the papers at this point either. And I would also like to note on the arXiv page that that version has been extended and part appears as a tech report.
What is the proper arXiv etiquette for this situation?