For papers, these questions advise to cite the original peer-reviewed version instead of a revised edition.

Now, does this mean that one should

  1. read the revised edition, and then, if one wants to cite
  2. also read/skim the original paper in order to cite correctly?

Is this the consensus on the correct approach, or did I misunderstand something?

(It seems like an ineffective use of time, thus the question)

1 Answer 1


I believe that you are somewhat misinterpreting the advice given in the questions that you link: the general consensus seems to be to cite the most recent version (as being the most current state of knowledge), unless you have specific reason to cite an older version.

As such, I do not believe that you generally need to read or cite prior versions.

  • 1
    I am not so sure about this. If a conference paper is published in 2007 and the extended journal version is published on 2010, you should definitely cite the 2007 paper that introduced the method, algorithm etc. I would also cite the journal version as well, but you cannot just ignore the original paper.
    – Alexandros
    Commented Feb 15, 2016 at 12:21
  • 4
    @Alexandros Personally, I generally consider the extended version to have superseded the original version. If the exact chronology is important for some reason, then by all means discuss the original version and its timing (that would count as "specific reason to cite an older version", per my answer). Rarely, however, is exact chronology actually important to a citation.
    – jakebeal
    Commented Feb 15, 2016 at 12:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .