45

Recently, an article by one of my colleagues had been accepted at an IEEE conference, and about a week ago, he presented it on the main track. He published a preprint of this paper (without final changes) in arXiv with the following copyright note in the PDF footer, which according to IEEE rules and regulations it looks like permitted to have it on arXiv:

Copyright © 20xx IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works by sending a request to [email protected].

Also, according to this answer and also this one, "IEEE policy permits authors to post their articles to the preprint repository arXiv."

Now about an hour ago, he received an email from the conference chair as follows:

IEEE crosscheck shows that the paper has been published at arxiv. This violates IEEE rules. Asked for confirmation within 24 hours to take down the paper from the web. If no confirmation is received, it is considered that the paper will be excluded from publication and submitted to IEEE Xplore

This sounds very strange to me. Did my colleague violate the IEEE rules and regulations in the first place by putting the paper in arXiv? Or did conference chairs perhaps miss the copyright notice (or the fact that the preprint is actually the original version of the paper) in the preprint version?

In your opinion, what would be the correct next move for my colleague in this case?

Update 1: The paper had not been reviewed under a double-blind review procedure.

Update 2: My colleague replied to the general chair with a complete explanation on how publishing a preprint in arXiv (with necessary copyright notes) is absolutely permitted based on IEEE rules and regulations. Unfortuently, the chair still believes it’s against the IEEE rules and regulations. He responded:

Thanks for the clarification. Make sure your paper have withdrawn by arXiv.

Update 3: ArXiv rejected my colleague's request for withdrawing the paper! ArXiv replied:

Please note that having a paper under review or newly published is not a sufficient reason for withdrawal, as previous version(s) will still be available to users.

arXiv is an electronic repository for research papers, and announced papers are meant to be available in perpetuity. The license applied by the submitter to the work cannot be revoked.

As a result, you request has been denied.

My colleague is now waiting for IEEE's response (contacted authors [at] ieee.org) to see what they can do to fix this issue.

Final update and status: My colleague notified IEEE and they directly contacted the conference chair and asked them to publish the article in IEEE Xplore. The conference chair then sent another email to my colleague after this, something like "After receiving further clarification from IEEE, we will submit your paper to IEEE Xplore." In short: all done! Thank you @jakebeal and others for all your updates, concern, and time

Michel Gokan Khan
  • 780
  • 1
  • 6
  • 19
  • 38
    Seems to me like the conference chair is being evil... – Arno Aug 01 '21 at 11:14
  • 6
    Take it up with IEEE. – Buffy Aug 01 '21 at 11:15
  • 1
    @Buffy Thanks, can you please elaborate? Do you mean they are wrong? If so, do you mean to send an email or call IEEE according to this page? https://www.ieee.org/about/ethics/complaint-procedures.html – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 01 '21 at 11:25
  • 20
    Only IEEE can respond to your need. Contact them. There is at least a misunderstanding. – Buffy Aug 01 '21 at 11:31
  • 8
    IEEE crosscheck shows that the paper has been published at arxiv. arXiv isn't really a publication venue, but whatever. The conference chair possibly doesn't know the procedures very well. –  Aug 01 '21 at 13:32
  • @MichelGokanKhan Did you publish the paper on arxiv after it had already been accepted for publication? The purpose of publishing a preprint arxiv is to solicit comments prior to submission. – John_Krampf Aug 01 '21 at 21:50
  • @John_Krampf The version that my colleague published in the arxiv is the original manuscript before applying any comments given by the reviewers. Of course it is not the camera ready version. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 01 '21 at 21:53
  • @MichelGokanKhan It doesn't matter when it was written, it matters when it was put on arxiv. As you've stated, you didn't put the "preprint" on arxiv until after the article had been accepted for publication. – John_Krampf Aug 01 '21 at 22:16
  • 3
    @John_Krampf I might be wrong, but according to IEEE rules and regulation, it DOES matter which version you put on the arXiv, but not when. It is clearly mentioned that "This [preprints in arxiv] does not count as a prior publication. If copyright to the paper was transferred to IEEE through the completion of an IEEE Copyright Form before the preprint is posted, IEEE must be credited as the copyright holder with the following statement [the one mentioned in the question] included on the initial screen displaying IEEE-copyrighted material". What matters is the copyright text, I believe. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 01 '21 at 22:22
  • 4
    @John_Krampf When the article is published on the IEEE Xplore, the posted version on arXiv should be updated with a full citation to the IEEE publication, including DOI. No other changes may be made. I'm pretty sure the general chair never checked for such details and only relied on IEEE CrossCheck results, as others also mentioned. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 01 '21 at 22:29
  • 3
    @John_Krampf As it turns out, arXiv has very specific guidance on versions and how to handle these interactions with IEEE: https://arxiv.org/help/submit_pdf It's beside the point for CrossCheck, though. – jakebeal Aug 01 '21 at 23:16
  • 4
    Are you sure this is a reputable conference? Having an incompetent conference chair and 500(!!!) people claimed to be on the PC seems suspicious to me. – Arno Aug 03 '21 at 11:14
  • @Arno It is for sure an IEEE conference as I can see their previous years' articles in IEEE Xplore. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 03 '21 at 11:46
  • 3
    Being in IEEE doesn't necessarily mean "worth publishing in", it just means "not a scam." A conference may still be atrocious and just not quite bad enough to be kicked to the curb by IEEE. – jakebeal Aug 03 '21 at 14:39
  • 4
    @jakebeal Yes, that's what I meant. Frankly, it's more like a "scum" venue than a "scam" one! – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 03 '21 at 14:41
  • 2
    @Arno IEEE used to be one of the more reputable circles, but I've heard stories they're tarnishing their own reputation lately (say, past decade or so). – Mast Aug 03 '21 at 15:10
  • @Mast Eh, it's just that they're very large and serving a lot of different needs. If they were being stricter gatekeepers, then we would instead be hearing complaints about how IEEE is full of elitist jerks. – jakebeal Aug 03 '21 at 15:43
  • @jakebeal Naturally :-) – Mast Aug 03 '21 at 15:49
  • Are there any news worth reporting? @MichelGokanKhan – Stephan Z. Sep 29 '21 at 09:04
  • @StephanZ. See the comments under jakebeal's answer. – GoodDeeds Sep 29 '21 at 09:07
  • Thanks, @GoodDeeds. An update of the original post would probably be rather useful for further reference. I guess other people will be in a similar situation at some point. – Stephan Z. Sep 30 '21 at 07:26
  • 3
    @StephanZ. Question updated with the final result! – Michel Gokan Khan Sep 30 '21 at 09:34

2 Answers2

72

I think that what you're seeing here is a conference chair who doesn't understand what arXiv is and is blindly applying the self-plagiarism policy.

The IEEE's current official FAQ on author rights has a question dedicated to arXiv that explicitly states that arXiv publication is permitted. Thus, there is no concern on that account.

The IEEE CrossCheck system, however, does not filter arXiv out of its web-crawling. Thus, if you've posted something to arXiv, CrossCheck will dutifully report that it has found a high similarity match to text found on arXiv. And this is where I think that things have gone wrong.

  • What CrossCheck actually does is report materials that should be examined to see whether they are (self-)plagiarism or not.
  • People who use CrossCheck sloppily, however, often don't bother with examining, and just assume that match = plagiarism.

Thus, I think your colleague is dealing with somebody who hasn't bothered to understand what CrossCheck found and is just reaching for a knee-jerk reject. I notice as well that the email you quote doesn't say how, exactly, the rules are being violated.

From this comes my recommendation for how to proceed. I would recommend writing back to the conference chair to ask for clarification, while pointing at the IEEE FAQ, something like:

My apologies, but I am confused. The IEEE author rights FAQ explicitly allows for posting of preprints on arXiv, so I don't think that can be the violation of IEEE rules that you are referring to. I don't think this can be a self-plagiarism issue since arXiv isn't a peer-reviewed publication. Does this conference have a different policy, and if so, can you please point me to which aspect my preprint is violating?

Hopefully, this will either lead the conference chair to understand that they have made a mistake or else point you to the actual issue that they have. If they're a martinet or a fool, however, they may still just demand the thing gets taken down, in which case you can attempt to do the arXiv withdrawal process, making sure to point the blame at the conference in the comments field.

Update based on responses from conference chair and arXiv:

The uninformative and inflexible response from the conference chair does not affect my advice: I believe it simply means you are going down the "martinet or fool" path.

Since arXiv has (appropriately) refused to take the publication down, there is now no path left but confrontation with the program chair. IEEE might be able to help in time, but you're dealing with a large and often slow-moving organization there, so if there isn't a response from IEEE within a day or so, it's going to have to be dealing with the conference instead.

Here, it may be useful to involve other people besides just the program chair. Most well-established conferences have some sort of steering committee or similar that is specifically designed to help ensure consistent behavior despite the year-to-year change in organizers. Writing to them to ask for help with dealing with the failure of the specific chair that your colleague is dealing with may be useful.

jakebeal
  • 187,714
  • 41
  • 655
  • 920
  • 5
    Thanks, @jakebeak for your thoughtful answer. I entirely agree with you. My colleague did exactly the same and we are waiting for an answer. I will update this question with their response as soon as he gets one. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 01 '21 at 17:55
  • 2
    @MichelGokanKhan Eh I think the question is kind of "complete" as it is. The additional information of how the chair responded to you is not going to help clarify what you're asking. With that in mind, if it were me, I would not update the question with that info. It might be useful to leave in a comment here on the answer, though; depending on the nature of the response, I could imagine that jakebeal may want to update the answer with additional detail. – David Z Aug 01 '21 at 23:11
  • @DavidZ You are right. Sure, I’ll add their response in the comments sections. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 01 '21 at 23:13
  • 7
    @DavidZ: But comments are disposable and can get deleted at any time. I think it's actually much better to put post-updates in the question itself. (That's a standard on other SE sites that I visit.) – Daniel R. Collins Aug 02 '21 at 03:30
  • @DanielR.Collins Well yes, that's kind of the point. I was implying (and am now explicitly stating) that the post-update probably doesn't need to be part of this Q&A thread at all. The question being asked does not change depending on what response Michel's colleague gets. The answer probably wouldn't change either, but I see how it could, e.g. if the response points out that there is in fact an IEEE rule against this stuff. Also, I'm not sure what other SE sites you're talking about where adding post-updates into the question is supposedly a standard, but ultimately it doesn't matter. – David Z Aug 02 '21 at 04:52
  • Okay, so far, even though my colleague withdraws the arXiv version, it looks like they decided not to reply. So we don't know whether it'll be indexed or not. I suggested to my colleague wait one more day and then contact IEEE by EOD, as @MassimoOrtolano pointed out in his answer. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 02 '21 at 07:19
  • 14
    @DavidZ Strongly disagree that it doesn't matter — updating with the outcome provides a different kind of validation to the answer that votes and accepts do not. Answers to such questions are typically advice based on the answerers' past experiences, but who often haven't personally faced a closely similar situation before. In that case updates help record what actually worked in the specific case, even if anecdotal. (continued) – GoodDeeds Aug 02 '21 at 10:03
  • 6
    @DavidZ (continued) There are often "answers" in the low quality post queue where new users ask what the outcome of a situation was, which (rightfully) get deleted, but ultimately do not help those visitors (who can't even comment) in any way. And in some cases, an update provides information useful for others in a stressful situation or is just nice to read. – GoodDeeds Aug 02 '21 at 10:07
  • @GoodDeeds I guess I can only strongly disagree with your disagreement. I don't dispute that updating with the outcome can help validate an answer, I'm just arguing that the question is not the place for that update. I think it makes sense for the update to heavily influence the decision of which answer to accept. – David Z Aug 02 '21 at 19:34
  • 1
    @jakebeal Thanks for the updated answer. ArXiv rejected my colleague's request for withdrawing the paper! They replied "Please note that having a paper under review or newly published is not a sufficient reason for withdrawal, as previous version(s) will still be available to users. arXiv is an electronic repository for research papers, and announced papers are meant to be available in perpetuity. The license applied by the submitter to the work cannot be revoked. As a result, you request has been denied". My colleague is now waiting for IEEE response to see what they can do to fix this issue. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 03 '21 at 09:22
  • 1
    @MichelGokanKhan Updated again; there may be other options than just IEEE, since IEEE may be slow. – jakebeal Aug 03 '21 at 09:45
  • @jakebeal Thanks. I think that's actually a good suggestion, thanks for that. I'll share it with my colleague to see what can be done. I will keep this question updated. – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 03 '21 at 09:47
  • @jakebeal Looks like there is no steering committee in this particular conference! They enlisted a [superisingly large] TPC list though (~500 members!) ... not sure they can be of any help! – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 03 '21 at 10:03
  • 2
    @MichelGokanKhan The TPC is definitely not helpful: they are just there to review. But there should be more than just the one program chair, there should be more people involved in the organizing. Frankly, this conference itself is starting to sound a bit dubious, though if it's IEEE it's at least not a scam... – jakebeal Aug 03 '21 at 10:33
  • 10
    My colleague notified IEEE and they directly contacted the conference chair and asked them to publish the article in IEEE Xplore. The conference chair then sent another email to my colleague after this, something like "After receiving further clarification from IEEE, we will submit your paper to IEEE Xplore." In short: all done! Thank you @jakebeal for all your updates, concern, and time! – Michel Gokan Khan Aug 04 '21 at 10:15
  • 3
    Glad that it worked out! – jakebeal Aug 04 '21 at 10:27
  • "martinet or fool"? – Luke Sawczak Sep 30 '21 at 10:54
  • @LukeSawczak Indeed. Did you have a question about that statement? – jakebeal Sep 30 '21 at 11:30
  • 1
    @jakebeal I have no idea what it means, didn't turn up anything on Google, so I'm curious to learn – Luke Sawczak Sep 30 '21 at 12:55
  • 2
    @LukeSawczak Well, a martinet is a person who is excessively strict in their interpretation of rules and their demands that others follow those rules. Thus, one likely reason for the issue might be that the conference chair was acting like a martinet. The other might be that they are being incompetent, i.e., acting like a fool. There's no colloquial phrase, just two (slightly unusual) descriptors. – jakebeal Sep 30 '21 at 15:20
  • 1
    @jakebeal Thanks -- didn't even occur to me to decompose the expression into its parts! – Luke Sawczak Sep 30 '21 at 18:45
12

That specific conference might have a stricter policy than that of IEEE (I don't know to what extent IEEE sponsorship implies adherence to certain policies). I'd thus do the following, in order:

  1. Check what the specific conference website has to say about this, and if this contrast with the general IEEE policy.
  2. Take down the arXiv submission, as requested, so that the article can be reviewed or accepted by the conference without further ado (this avoids damaging the submission while possibly fighting policies). Soon afterward, contact the conference chair communicating the action and asking for an explanation in view of the IEEE policies (without being confrontational, though).
  3. If the conference chair's explanation does not arrive or is not satisfactory, contact IEEE to see if there is anything irregular according to their policies and agreements with the conference organizers.
Massimo Ortolano
  • 55,428
  • 19
  • 166
  • 207