While writing my thesis, I have encountered the following situation:

My thesis is based on the work of Gourieroux et al. (1993) who, as part of the text, cites another paper, Gourieroux and Monfort (1992). In the references to the 1993 paper this paper is listed as having been published in "CREST-Départment de la Recherche INSEE, DP No. 9214". I also need to cite this paper, but can only find a version which was published in 1995 in the journal "Econometric Theory".

My question is therefore, should I use the original citation from he 1993 paper: Gourieroux and Monfort (1992), or go with Gourieroux and Monfort (1995).

I am inclined to go with the latter, but worried it would be considered strange if I write something like "Gourieroux et al. (1993), using theory developed by Gourieroux and Monfort (1995), show...". Thanks in advance for your help!

  • 1
    The one you actually read.
    – JeffE
    Commented Jul 12, 2016 at 13:52

2 Answers 2


I favor acting in the following way:

  • If you've only read one of the versions, cite that one. God knows what's in the one you haven't read.
  • If you've read both versions:
    • if they are identical relative to the information you need, publication in a journal or proceedings volume takes precedence over (re)publication in a career collection (e.g., "Selected works of Jones"), which takes precedence over arxiv, which takes precedence over non-arxiv manuscripts.
    • if they are not identical relative to the information you need, cite whichever one contains the best version (where best probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis).
  • I've only been able to find the 1995 version online, so I'll go with that! I guessed that's what would be the best thing to do, but I just wasn't sure. Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it!
    – Mark
    Commented Jul 12, 2016 at 13:32

It looks to me like the 1992 paper was initially published internally, as the publisher is the research centre. Then in 1995, it was published properly in Econometric Theory.

But anyway, I don't see any reason why you should cite the 1992 paper, if you haven't read it.

And yes, the dates do look a bit strange, but hey, it is what it is. I've actually seen citations like these in relation to dissertations.

  • Sometimes I cite two versions to give a time line to the reader.
    – user2768
    Commented Jul 12, 2016 at 12:57
  • I agree with 101010111100. It appears that when the 1993 paper was published, the 1992--subsequently 1995--paper hadn't yet been published, so the authors couldn't cite it as such yet. It might be helpful to add a footnote pointing out that the 1993 paper references what appears to be an earlier version of the 1995 version of the paper that you discuss. Koldito is right. You have no idea how the authors might have changed the 1992 paper before it was published. There's a good chance that the 1995 paper avoids problems in the 1992 paper, for example.
    – Mars
    Commented Nov 12, 2016 at 18:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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