Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

Re:Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper? by SeanMacConMara on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @04:08AM (#14908779)

How is "flag-planting" even relevant to this ? You only cite what you use and you should not be using vapid hollow flag-planting sources from _anywhere_. Someone needs a fresher course on academia 101. Is it the reviewers ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper? by mattkrause on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @11:28AM (#14911296)

The issue is that some people (appear to be) submitting very preliminary, and arguably low quality work to arXiv to stake a claim to some area. Once that work is "out there", people who were making a more serious effort to do things more carefully are obligated to cite the original work, presumably as part of the related work/background/etc.

I can see how this would be maddening, particularly if you started before the flag-planting paper was even written.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper? by zackchase on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @04:29AM (#14908871)

Flag-planting is relevant because the practice of flag-planting (and other abuses of the pre-print) is what has prompted some of this over-reaction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper? by qznc on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @05:34AM (#14909178)

There is a lot to be fixed about reviewers, but I have no clue how to do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]