3

As part of a research project, I use results from this paper. It seems to have been published at least 3 times:

Google also found a version hosted on PSU's website, which I guess is a copy of one of the published versions.

For each of these versions, there is a different .bib file containing the "right" way to cite the paper. I don't know which one I should use. Since I don't have either of the Springer books, I work with the arXiv version, but it seems weird to me to cite the arXiv preprint (I assume it's a preprint) if there are versions already published elsewhere.

I am relatively new to research (not a PhD student) and have encountered this situation several times. I usually don't have access to the peer-reviewed version, and work on preprints published by the authors.

How do I choose which version to cite? Should I always cite the exact one I have been reading, even if it is not the final peer-reviewed publication?

  • 2
    The 2012 Springer "book" is a conference proceedings. The 2014 Springer "book" is a journal issue. – JeffE Nov 10 at 23:09
  • Also, the most recent arXiv version is actually dated October 2013, after the conference proceedings version was published. (The first arXiv version was submitted in January 2012, but that's not the one you should cite.) – JeffE Nov 10 at 23:13
7

If at all possible you should cite the most recent official (published, peer reviewed) version.

You could consider contacting the author to ask if the arXiv version differs in any way that might matter in your context. A librarian might be able to help with that too.

You can note in your bibliography that a version of article is also available on arXiv.

  • Assuming that I can't verify that the two versions are similar, should I still cite the most recently published version, taking the risk of referring to a slightly different one in my article? I ask in general, in this case it probably won't be a problem. – Hey Nov 9 at 13:23
  • 1
    I agree that in this case the difference is likely not to matter. In general, cite both and note the one you are relying on or quoting directly. The guiding principle is to use and credit the source accurately and make life easiest for the reader. – Ethan Bolker Nov 9 at 13:32
  • 1
    Isn't citing a version you have never seen slightly dishonest? – user115896 Nov 10 at 11:34
  • @Heutl I'd call it suboptimal, not dishonest. It's a judgment call - be upfront about what you are doing. In this case I wouldn't require the OP to buy a Springer book. – Ethan Bolker Nov 10 at 11:38
  • Wouldn't citing the arxiv version and mentioing that there is also a book version be more upfront? – user115896 Nov 10 at 11:53
2

In fields where arxiv usage is standard (e.g. high energy physics or astronomy), standard practice is to cite the arxiv identifier of the article along with any journal reference. (Journals tend to remove them upon publication, but that is very much their problem.) Some of the most commonly used abstract indexing services in those fields (e.g. inSPIRE or NASA ADS) in fact automatically merge the records of the arxiv and the journal version. Consequently, if you use the bibtex entries exported from those services, you will typically get bibliography entries that refer to both the journal version and the Bibtex version.

This, of course, only applies if you are reasonably sure the article on arxiv and in the journal are actually the same article (same title and authors may not always be enough to guarantee this). In many cases this is easy to tell because the arxiv entry will have a link to the published version (Many publishers in fact require this link as a condition for authors being allowed to also post the pre/post-print to arxiv.) The presence of a link to the journal version does not guarantee that the arxiv version is identical (contentwise) to the published version (although an increasing number of funding agencies now require this in order to satisfy their open access requirements).

In the specific case presented by the OP there is no link to the journal version in the arxiv version. Hence we cannot be exactly sure they are the same article (although identical abstracts and similar length make this extremely likely). Moreover, the arxiv version was updated after the journal version was published online, making it highly likely that it was updated to match the journal version.

  • I'm familiar with this particular paper. The October 2013 arXiv revision does match the journal version, at least up to copy-editing. – JeffE Nov 10 at 23:16
1

This is a known tricky situation, which I've often seen addressed incorrectly (people citing the published version, but actually meaning the arXiv version).

My personal way of solving this is: I cite the published version in the bibliography, but when I actually reference it, I add a footnote saying that I'm referring to the arXiv version. This is honest and helps the reader (who likely has the same troubles finding the published version as you do). Some editors might not like such citations, but keep in mind that, just as you do, the readers of your paper will probably be reading its arXiv version, so whatever mess the editors make of your references will have a limited effect (and won't be your fault anyway).

Of course, you should handle arXiv preprints with the usual care: if at all possible, check their work and point out any errors that may significantly impede their use. Also, as @EthanBolker pointed out, it's a good idea to contact the author asking for the precise relation between the arXiv version and the published one (and subtly hinting to update the former).

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.