Have you ever submitted a research paper to arXiv, only to receive a rejection notice with a vague explanation? You’re not alone. I recently came across a Reddit post from an author who experienced the same frustration.
The author’s paper on LLM-based conversational user simulation was rejected by arXiv, with a generic message stating that the submission would benefit from additional review and revision that is outside of the services they provide. But what does that even mean?
## The Mystery of arXiv Rejections
arXiv is a popular platform for researchers to share their work, but its moderation process can be opaque. When a paper is rejected, the authors are often left wondering what they did wrong. Was it a problem with the content, the formatting, or something else entirely?
## The Importance of Transparency
In this case, the author had already checked for plagiarism using iThenticate, so that wasn’t the issue. And arXiv didn’t provide any specific feedback, apart from the generic message. This lack of transparency can be frustrating for authors who are eager to share their research with the world.
## What Can You Do?
If you’re facing a similar situation, don’t give up. You can try submitting your paper to a conventional journal for peer review, or ask your colleagues for feedback. And if you’re still unsure about what went wrong, you can always appeal to arXiv’s moderators.
## The Bigger Picture
arXiv’s moderation process may not be perfect, but it’s essential to maintaining the quality of research on the platform. By understanding the reasons behind rejections, we can improve the overall quality of research and make it more accessible to everyone.
—
*Further reading: [arXiv Content Moderation](https://info.arxiv.org/help/moderation/index.html)*