Do you have to cite your own pre-print?

Question

I am writing a paper that is based on previous work I have done that I have published as a pre-print. I am submitting it to a conference. However it is significantly improved and different. The submission process is double-blind do I have to cite the pre-print? The idea and contribution is mostly the same.

I am in Machine Learning / Deep Learning field of research.

Answer 1

Across most of the social sciences, the answer would be: No, the published manuscript should not cite its own pre-print.

The pre-print is rather considered a draft version that happens to have circulated prior to its acceptance at a journal, where it transforms into its final version.

This seems to be grounded in the paradox of the published preprint being regarded as a preliminary, non-refereed and thus fictitiously unpublished paper (e.g., a Google search for "preprints are unpublished" yields enough pages with confusing semantics of that kind).

Answer 2

A few days ago, I asked Springer about whether I need to cite my own paper's preprint, and I was told by an editor:

"Citation of preprint is not mandatory. But it is a good practice to do that. I suggest you to please cite the preprint. It usually helps in cross-linking of the paper".

I needed to figure out how to cite it, and found that when citing your own preprint which is going to be published, it is typically cited using the @unpublished entry if you are using BibTex.
As an example:

@Unpublished{paperUniqueName,
  author    = {AuthorName},
  title     = {The Paper Title},
  note      = {Preprint at \url{https://somerxiv.com/preprint/some/link/}},
  year      = {2023},
  doi       = {the/doi/url/if/available},
  publisher = {Name of the Rxiv},
}

Note the need to use \url so that no errors are thrown.

I cited it in the "Related Work" section of my paper, where I simply mentioned "The preprint of this paper is located at \cite{paperUniqueName}".

The topic of citing preprints in general is under some debate.

Answer 3

Yes, you should always cite your own related work just as you would that of any other person. To fail to do so leaves you open to a charge of self-plagiarism.

Worse, in a double blind review, the reviewers might claim you are plagiarizing if they know of the old work and can't connect it.

But I'm assuming that the new work extends the old and isn't just a submission of what is in the pre-print.

Answer 4

Yes. Otherwise, you could keep writing the same paper over and over again.