How to decline kindly

Saying no is part of being a responsible endorserEndorserAn 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.. arXiv's endorsementEndorsementA statement, made on arXiv's own form by an established arXiv author, that you are someone who can reasonably contribute to a subject area. It is not peer review and doesn't guarantee acceptance. system only works if endorsers apply its criteria honestly, and that sometimes means declining. The goal is to decline in a way that's clear, honest and kind, so the author knows what to do next.

ResearchGuild is independent and not affiliated with arXiv. Endorsement decisions are made on arXiv's own form, and the arXiv endorsement page is authoritative.

First: are you declining the paper, or stepping back?

There are two quite different situations.

"This isn't appropriate to endorse"

You've looked at the paper and concluded it doesn't meet arXiv's bar for endorsement. arXiv says you should not endorse if:

• the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field; or
• the work is entirely disconnected from current work in the area.

This is a real decision not to endorse.

"I'm not the right person"

The paper is outside your expertise, you have a conflict of interest, or you don't have time. That's not a judgement about the author. In this case it's usually kinder to step back and tell the author, rather than recording a negative vote. arXiv's form is for telling arXiv whether you do or do not wish to endorse the person; if you haven't formed a view, you don't need to vote.

Recording "do not endorse" on arXiv

arXiv's endorsement page says that after you enter the author's endorsement codeEndorsement codeA short code arXiv gives you when it asks for an endorsement. An endorser enters it on arXiv's form to endorse you. Here it stays hidden until a reviewer has opened your full paper. on its form, you can tell arXiv whether you do or do not wish to endorse the person. It also says that if you choose not to endorse, you should use the endorsement form to explicitly tell arXiv, and that this is recorded as a negative endorsement“Do not endorse”The option on arXiv's endorsement form for an endorser who decides not to vouch for someone. It counts as a real vote, so declines here should also be recorded there..

On ResearchGuild, declining an endorsement means recording "do not endorse" on arXiv's endorsement form, as arXiv asks, not simply ignoring the request. This keeps the process honest and consistent with arXiv's guidance.

A few things to know, from arXiv's page:

• It's private. Whether you endorsed or not is between you and arXiv's administrators, and isn't shared with the author or other users, although an author might sometimes be able to infer it.
• It counts. arXiv says positive endorsements must outnumber negative ones for an author to be endorsed in a domain.

Because a negative vote has real weight, only record one after you've looked at the paper and genuinely concluded it doesn't meet arXiv's criteria.

Writing a kind note to the author

Your vote on arXiv is private, but on ResearchGuild you can still help the author understand what to improve. A good decline note:

• thanks them for sharing their work;
• says clearly that you won't be endorsing it at this stage;
• gives one to three concrete reasons, tied to arXiv's criteria or to fit (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., content type, engagement with current work);
• suggests a next step, such as revising, choosing a different category, or submitting a survey to a peer-reviewedPeer 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. venue first;
• avoids comments about the author personally, their institution or their language.

An example

Thank you for sharing your paper. I've decided not to endorse it at this stage. The main issue is that the related-work section doesn't cover recent work in cs.CL on this problem, so it's hard to see how the contribution relates to the current literature. Engaging with papers like [example] and stating clearly what's new compared to them would make a big difference. I hope this is helpful, and I wish you the best with the work.

If you're stepping back instead

Thank you for sharing your paper. It's outside the area I know well enough to judge, so I don't think I'm the right person to consider endorsing it. I'd suggest asking someone who works on [topic].

Things to avoid

• Silence without a decision. If you've reviewed the paper and decided not to endorse, tell arXiv on its form and give the author a short note.
• Being vague. "Not ready" without a reason leaves the author stuck.
• Harshness. Many authors are students or first-time researchers. Direct and kind aren't opposites.
• Discussing the paper with others. Declining doesn't end your confidentiality obligations. See Manuscript confidentiality for reviewers.

Why this matters

Since January 2026, per arXiv, most new authors need personal endorsement from an established author. Clear, fair decisions, including clear, fair declines, help keep that system trustworthy for everyone. For more on what you're responsible for, see What an endorser is (and isn't) responsible for.