Giving useful pre-submission feedback

For a first-time author, a few thoughtful comments from an experienced researcher can be the difference between a confusing rejection and a smooth submission. This article suggests how to make your feedback on ResearchGuild as useful as possible, without turning it into a full journal review.

ResearchGuild is independent and not affiliated with arXiv. The arXiv checks mentioned below are summarised from arXiv's public pages.

Remember what you're helping with

Pre-submission feedback on ResearchGuild has two goals:

1. Help the author get through arXiv's process smoothly: right categoryCategory (subject class)arXiv's topic label for a paper, such as cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence) or cs.CL (Computation and Language). Moderators and readers use it to route and find papers., right content type, files and language in order.
2. Help the author communicate their work clearly to researchers in the area.

It isn't a verdict on whether the work would be accepted at a top venue. arXiv's moderationModerationarXiv's check of every submission for fit and basic quality before it is announced. It is separate from endorsement and from peer review. checks that submissions are topical and refereeable scholarly contributions; that's a useful bar to keep in mind.

A practical checklist

1. Fit and content type

• Is this a research paper, a survey, or a position paperPosition paperA paper that argues for a viewpoint or direction for a field rather than reporting new results. Like surveys, arXiv's CS section only accepts these after peer review elsewhere.? In CS, as of October 2025, per arXiv, reviews and position papers need documentation of successful peer reviewPeer reviewFormal evaluation of a paper by independent experts, usually organised by a journal or conference, before it is accepted for publication. arXiv moderation and endorsement are not peer review., or they're likely to be rejected. If the paper reads like a survey, tell the author early. See Research paper vs survey vs position paper.
• Does the paper engage with current work in the area? arXiv tells endorsersEndorserAn arXiv author who is eligible to endorse in a subject area, which depends on their own recent papers there. On ResearchGuild, endorsers are volunteers who opt in to read abstracts. not to endorse work that's entirely disconnected from current work.

2. Category

• Does the chosen primary categoryPrimary categoryThe single category that best fits a paper's main contribution. It decides which endorsement you need and where the paper is announced. match the likely readership?
• Are cross-listsCross-listingAlso listing a paper in secondary categories so readers in related fields can find it. Use it only when the paper is genuinely relevant there. sensible? arXiv says it is rarely appropriate to add more than one or two.

3. Title and abstract

• Could a busy moderator tell what the paper contributes from these alone?
• Are claims specific and supported, rather than broad and promotional?

4. Structure and substance

• Is the main contribution clearly stated?
• Are methods described well enough that an expert could follow them?
• Are limitations acknowledged?
• Are references relevant and reasonably up to date?

You don't need to verify every result. If something looks clearly wrong or missing, though, it's kind to say so.

5. Language and format

• Is there a full English version, placed first if there's also another language? arXiv requires this as of February 2026.
• Do figures, tables and references render correctly?
• If significant generative AI use seems likely, is it disclosed? arXiv's policy asks authors to report significant use of such tools and holds them responsible for all content.

How to write feedback that helps

Lead with the most important point

If the category is wrong or the paper is really a survey, say that first. Minor typos can wait.

Be specific

Instead of "the related work is weak", try "Section 2 doesn't mention recent work on X, such as [paper]; readers in cs.CL will expect a comparison."

Separate "must fix" from "nice to have"

A short structure works well:

• Before submitting to arXiv: issues likely to affect moderation.
• To strengthen the paper: improvements that matter for readers or later peer review.
• Small things: typos, formatting.

Explain the why

First-time authors learn most when they understand the reason: "Moderators may reclassify this to cs.LG because your contribution is a training method, not a language task."

Be kind and direct

Assume good faith. Many authors are students, working in a second language, or without an advisor. Direct feedback delivered kindly is a gift.

What to avoid

• Rewriting the paper for them.
• Asking for major new experiments unless the paper can't stand without them.
• Comments on the author's background, institution or English beyond what affects clarity.
• Sharing, quoting or reusing the manuscript. arXiv asks endorsers to treat papers as confidential, and so do we. See Manuscript confidentiality.

After feedback: endorse, or not

Once you've given feedback, you may decide whether to endorse. That decision follows arXiv's criteria (see What an endorser is (and isn't) responsible for) and is recorded on arXiv's form. If you decide not to, read How to decline kindly.