I am submitting my accepted manuscript to arXiv. To me, the whole process is confusing. You can create a dirty PDF in Windows and they accept it, but when your manuscript is created with LaTeX, you should provide the source code with a not-so-obvious format and settings.

I am submitting the source anyway, but as it is a Springer style manuscript, the draft version of svjour3 class (\documentclass[smallextended]{svjour3}) includes some undesired text about journal information, etc. So, what should I do? Submit in article class, or submit the draft version of journal paper as it is generated by svjour3 class?

This is what I get:

Undesired header

This is a smaple published paper (from svjour manual):

Right header

I think it would be ok if I could just remove the header.

This is a minimal working example, please help me remove the header:


\date{Published 2016}

\title{Sample of the standard layout for journal articles}

\author{First Author \and Second Author \and Third Author}


\abstract{Abstract An abstract is required for regular articles.}

\keywords{Keywords First keyword, Second keyword, More}

It is common to name the first section of an article Introduction.

  • 1
    In the paper 1404.2797 we also used an elsevier style with a partially filled header. No problem for arXiv. Of course you could adapt your code to article, or revtex, or whatever: it's your time ;-) – campa Apr 11 '16 at 10:17
  • @campa Thanks for the suggestion. I checked svjour3.cls and it seems that the header is hardcoded in what is provided to us in TeX distributions. – Ho1 Apr 11 '16 at 10:22
  • May you give me latex o overleaf template? I want to write an article like this. – Md. Rezwanul Haque Sep 22 '18 at 14:08

While I think there is no problem in publishing the paper on the arXiv with the box (I've done it and I've seen it a lot of times), the simplest way would be to redefine


in the preamble. This eliminates the box but leaves the thick horizontal line below it. If you want to eliminate that too, then you must redefine \@maketitle (lines 546-629 in svjour3.cls). To be completely honest I don't think it's worth the time. You could of course adapt your code to article or revtex, but depending on how the paper is written this can become time consuming.


I think it is better not to remove the contents of \makeheadbox.

According to Springer's self-archiving policy you need to acknowledge the publisher before uploading your manuscript somewhere (personal website or arXiv). They treat pre-prints and author's accepted manuscripts (AAMs) differently. If it is AAM, in addition to the acknowledgement, there is also an Embargo Period (currently 12 months) - which means, you can put the accepted version on arXive only after 12 months, but this does not apply to your own self-maintained website. (Read the policy, it is short and clear in contrast to IEEE policy). The acknowledgement they require for AAMs goes like this:

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in [insert journal title]. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI]

Therefore I put this acknowledgement in the aforementioned \makeheadbox. Unfortunately, this thing usually does not fit into the header of their svjour3.cls template, so I slightly changed the wording. You can use the following code based on campa's great answer and svjour3.cls definition of the \makeheadbox:

\hbox to0pt{\vbox{\baselineskip=10dd\hrule\hbox
\hbox{\bfseries [Insert journal name here]}
\hbox{This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of this article.}
\hbox{The final authenticated version is available online at: \href{[Insert doi here]}{[Insert doi here]}.}

The result looks like this: Acknowledgement to Springer in \makeheadbox

Good thing about this method is that you use it in your .tex file (e.g. just above the \begin{document}) and do not need alter the class files, which is strongly discouraged.

  • I think this should be the correct answer. Springer allows immediate publication of pre-review pre-prints but embargoes post-review copies. I'd change the wording from This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of this article. to This is a pre-peer review, pre-print version of this article. to make this clear and not get into copyright beef with Springer. – Florian Golemo Mar 23 '20 at 2:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.