I would like to cite one of my own unpublished work (under review). Is it okay to cite as following?

In text
According to author et al. (year of submission).................
In reference
authors list, year of submission, title, name of the Journal (status)

How about the results?

How will the reviewer access those results cited here?

Is it okay to provide them as supplements?

If I provide couple of figures as supplements, whether it will violate the copyright of the under reviewed paper?

  • You can also put the paper on arxiv and cite it.
    – Nikey Mike
    Sep 11, 2016 at 8:27
  • I remember the quote "an idea is worth nothing unless published" Sep 11, 2016 at 16:32

1 Answer 1


When citing unpublished work that is still under review, it's best to leave out the potential publication venue, saying only:

Authors, "Title," under review.

(or the appropriate equivalent in the citation style that you are using. The reason for this is that venue doesn't matter until they decide to accept your paper: you can get your most terrible work rejected from as fancy a journal as you like.

When possible, it is indeed appropriate and useful to provide the unpublished material as supplementary material for the reviewers. You need not worry about copyright for this, however: there is a distinction between "supplementary to be published paper" and "supplementary material for review only," and you just need to make sure that the under-review material is labelled as being for purposes of review only.

You must log in to answer this question.

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