2

I am wondering how I can cite a preprint (likewise a working paper, or a manuscript) which I am not supposed to officially archive because of a longer double-blind review process with an anonymized version of that preprint?

Hence, this preprint is not yet assigned a DOI (like it would have been with biorXiv, arXiv, OSF, some institutional repos, etc.). However, I'd like to share it among colleagues (though, a small circle) who might want to cite it. So, I'd really like to provide them a suggestion how to cite the working paper for the time being until I can put it on arXiv (independent of whether it gets accepted or rejected in the current process).

I found this, suggesting me to do that:

Doe, J., & Smith, A. (2012). A study on the difficulty of getting manuscripts published. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, The Top University, New York.

where manuscript can be substituted by something like working paper or preprint. Likewise, it is explained in that SE comment. However, I am not sure whether this is the standard (the best) way to do it. Has anybody a better suggestion?

Thank you.

0

Check the style guide that you are writing against, these often have guidelines on how to cite unpublished works. For example, the CA Style Guide (from Chicago Manual of Style) states:

Unpublished Work

  • Forthcoming works (works that have been accepted for publication and are in the publication process) are listed in the References Cited and are cited as references, with "forthcoming."
  • Manuscripts that are not in the formal publication process (e.g., that have been submitted but not yet accepted for publication) and other unpublished work are cited parenthetically in the text or explained in a footnote.
  • Unpublished work should be identified as a manuscript, a letter, an e-mail, a personal conversation, or "unpublished data." The citation must include the full name of the person and a date or a year, if possible, as well as the brief description.

    (George Hamilton, personal conversation, May 2009)
    (William Lewis, Donald Steadman, and Peter Larsen, unpublished data)
    (Mary Pat Stearns, unpublished manuscript, 2008)
    (Dan Peterson, e-mail, January 13, 2008)

  • Thank you, @Mike. This answer includes the other one and represents a nice summary. – Mario Aug 29 '18 at 16:07
0

I'm not sure this is a better solution, but you can be cited by name (and possibly place), with the paper described as "private communication.". Include a date (29 Aug. 2018) but not the name of the manuscript.

Doe, J., & Smith, A.. Private communication, (29 Aug. 2018). Department of Sociology, The Top University, New York.

Once the publication becomes official contact your circle with the information and an updated reference. They may be able to update their own work in some cases, depending on timing, etc.

I'll note that it isn't impossible that the title of your work will change after review, making a more specific title obsolete.

  • Thanks @Buffy. I think that pretty much addresses my problem, sounds like a good way to go. – Mario Aug 29 '18 at 11:29
  • It is reasonably common, actually, @Mario. Now we have to argue about which university is "top" in NY. ;-) – Buffy Aug 29 '18 at 11:31

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.