Citing a rejected paper in related work
A paper was uploaded to Arxiv that is very similar to my research. I cited it in the related work section of the paper I am currently working on. I was planning on noting the shortcomings of this Arxiv paper when a few days later I found that it was rejected from the conference via openreview. My questions are:
- Should I leave this citation in?
- Should I say that it has been rejected?
- Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
This is the first time something like this has happened to me, so not sure how I should approach this.
citations arxiv rejection
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
add a comment |
A paper was uploaded to Arxiv that is very similar to my research. I cited it in the related work section of the paper I am currently working on. I was planning on noting the shortcomings of this Arxiv paper when a few days later I found that it was rejected from the conference via openreview. My questions are:
- Should I leave this citation in?
- Should I say that it has been rejected?
- Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
This is the first time something like this has happened to me, so not sure how I should approach this.
citations arxiv rejection
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
1
Interesting. Before a rejected paper wasn't a paper. It is hard to say in general. I think it depends on why you would cite it.
– Alchimista
Jan 22 at 10:43
I agree with the answers below. However I think you may want to read that rejected paper again to make sure it doesn't have any serious mistakes that lead to it's rejection but may also lead to your paper's rejection.
– Yanko
Jan 22 at 14:10
add a comment |
A paper was uploaded to Arxiv that is very similar to my research. I cited it in the related work section of the paper I am currently working on. I was planning on noting the shortcomings of this Arxiv paper when a few days later I found that it was rejected from the conference via openreview. My questions are:
- Should I leave this citation in?
- Should I say that it has been rejected?
- Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
This is the first time something like this has happened to me, so not sure how I should approach this.
citations arxiv rejection
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
A paper was uploaded to Arxiv that is very similar to my research. I cited it in the related work section of the paper I am currently working on. I was planning on noting the shortcomings of this Arxiv paper when a few days later I found that it was rejected from the conference via openreview. My questions are:
- Should I leave this citation in?
- Should I say that it has been rejected?
- Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
This is the first time something like this has happened to me, so not sure how I should approach this.
citations arxiv rejection
citations arxiv rejection
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
edited Jan 21 at 21:58
McAngus
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
asked Jan 21 at 21:53
McAngusMcAngus
20217
20217
1
Interesting. Before a rejected paper wasn't a paper. It is hard to say in general. I think it depends on why you would cite it.
– Alchimista
Jan 22 at 10:43
I agree with the answers below. However I think you may want to read that rejected paper again to make sure it doesn't have any serious mistakes that lead to it's rejection but may also lead to your paper's rejection.
– Yanko
Jan 22 at 14:10
add a comment |
1
Interesting. Before a rejected paper wasn't a paper. It is hard to say in general. I think it depends on why you would cite it.
– Alchimista
Jan 22 at 10:43
I agree with the answers below. However I think you may want to read that rejected paper again to make sure it doesn't have any serious mistakes that lead to it's rejection but may also lead to your paper's rejection.
– Yanko
Jan 22 at 14:10
1
1
Interesting. Before a rejected paper wasn't a paper. It is hard to say in general. I think it depends on why you would cite it.
– Alchimista
Jan 22 at 10:43
Interesting. Before a rejected paper wasn't a paper. It is hard to say in general. I think it depends on why you would cite it.
– Alchimista
Jan 22 at 10:43
I agree with the answers below. However I think you may want to read that rejected paper again to make sure it doesn't have any serious mistakes that lead to it's rejection but may also lead to your paper's rejection.
– Yanko
Jan 22 at 14:10
I agree with the answers below. However I think you may want to read that rejected paper again to make sure it doesn't have any serious mistakes that lead to it's rejection but may also lead to your paper's rejection.
– Yanko
Jan 22 at 14:10
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Should I leave this citation in?
Definitely. A paper on arxiv is still related work regardless of its submission/acceptance status.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. That seems inappropriate. The paper may soon be accepted elsewhere in which case your comment about rejection will be outdated.
Just cite it like you would any other paper. If you want, your bibliography could link to the openreview page where people could see the reviews and decision.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
Not really. Perhaps the reviews include some useful information. Otherwise treat it like any other paper.
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
add a comment |
Should I leave this citation in?
Yes. If the work is related to yours and may be relevant to those reading your paper, you should cite it.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. The rejection is only a transitory part in the paper's life cycle. If you cite it as an arXiv paper, that in and of itself already communicates the paper has not yet been accepted anywhere.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
No, probably not. The rejection doesn't necessarily mean the paper is bad, it just means the conference had no room to accept it. It could still be a very good paper, it just didn't make the cut at the conference. If you know it was rejected for a very serious reason, then that might be relevant (for instance if the reviewing process found a crucial flaw in the paper).
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123522%2fciting-a-rejected-paper-in-related-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Should I leave this citation in?
Definitely. A paper on arxiv is still related work regardless of its submission/acceptance status.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. That seems inappropriate. The paper may soon be accepted elsewhere in which case your comment about rejection will be outdated.
Just cite it like you would any other paper. If you want, your bibliography could link to the openreview page where people could see the reviews and decision.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
Not really. Perhaps the reviews include some useful information. Otherwise treat it like any other paper.
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
add a comment |
Should I leave this citation in?
Definitely. A paper on arxiv is still related work regardless of its submission/acceptance status.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. That seems inappropriate. The paper may soon be accepted elsewhere in which case your comment about rejection will be outdated.
Just cite it like you would any other paper. If you want, your bibliography could link to the openreview page where people could see the reviews and decision.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
Not really. Perhaps the reviews include some useful information. Otherwise treat it like any other paper.
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
add a comment |
Should I leave this citation in?
Definitely. A paper on arxiv is still related work regardless of its submission/acceptance status.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. That seems inappropriate. The paper may soon be accepted elsewhere in which case your comment about rejection will be outdated.
Just cite it like you would any other paper. If you want, your bibliography could link to the openreview page where people could see the reviews and decision.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
Not really. Perhaps the reviews include some useful information. Otherwise treat it like any other paper.
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
Should I leave this citation in?
Definitely. A paper on arxiv is still related work regardless of its submission/acceptance status.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. That seems inappropriate. The paper may soon be accepted elsewhere in which case your comment about rejection will be outdated.
Just cite it like you would any other paper. If you want, your bibliography could link to the openreview page where people could see the reviews and decision.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
Not really. Perhaps the reviews include some useful information. Otherwise treat it like any other paper.
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
answered Jan 21 at 22:16
ThomasThomas
12.2k52945
12.2k52945
add a comment |
add a comment |
Should I leave this citation in?
Yes. If the work is related to yours and may be relevant to those reading your paper, you should cite it.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. The rejection is only a transitory part in the paper's life cycle. If you cite it as an arXiv paper, that in and of itself already communicates the paper has not yet been accepted anywhere.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
No, probably not. The rejection doesn't necessarily mean the paper is bad, it just means the conference had no room to accept it. It could still be a very good paper, it just didn't make the cut at the conference. If you know it was rejected for a very serious reason, then that might be relevant (for instance if the reviewing process found a crucial flaw in the paper).
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
add a comment |
Should I leave this citation in?
Yes. If the work is related to yours and may be relevant to those reading your paper, you should cite it.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. The rejection is only a transitory part in the paper's life cycle. If you cite it as an arXiv paper, that in and of itself already communicates the paper has not yet been accepted anywhere.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
No, probably not. The rejection doesn't necessarily mean the paper is bad, it just means the conference had no room to accept it. It could still be a very good paper, it just didn't make the cut at the conference. If you know it was rejected for a very serious reason, then that might be relevant (for instance if the reviewing process found a crucial flaw in the paper).
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
add a comment |
Should I leave this citation in?
Yes. If the work is related to yours and may be relevant to those reading your paper, you should cite it.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. The rejection is only a transitory part in the paper's life cycle. If you cite it as an arXiv paper, that in and of itself already communicates the paper has not yet been accepted anywhere.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
No, probably not. The rejection doesn't necessarily mean the paper is bad, it just means the conference had no room to accept it. It could still be a very good paper, it just didn't make the cut at the conference. If you know it was rejected for a very serious reason, then that might be relevant (for instance if the reviewing process found a crucial flaw in the paper).
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
Should I leave this citation in?
Yes. If the work is related to yours and may be relevant to those reading your paper, you should cite it.
Should I say that it has been rejected?
No. The rejection is only a transitory part in the paper's life cycle. If you cite it as an arXiv paper, that in and of itself already communicates the paper has not yet been accepted anywhere.
Should the knowledge of the rejection change the way I talk about the paper?
No, probably not. The rejection doesn't necessarily mean the paper is bad, it just means the conference had no room to accept it. It could still be a very good paper, it just didn't make the cut at the conference. If you know it was rejected for a very serious reason, then that might be relevant (for instance if the reviewing process found a crucial flaw in the paper).
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
answered Jan 21 at 22:17
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,393513
1,393513
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123522%2fciting-a-rejected-paper-in-related-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Interesting. Before a rejected paper wasn't a paper. It is hard to say in general. I think it depends on why you would cite it.
– Alchimista
Jan 22 at 10:43
I agree with the answers below. However I think you may want to read that rejected paper again to make sure it doesn't have any serious mistakes that lead to it's rejection but may also lead to your paper's rejection.
– Yanko
Jan 22 at 14:10