Norms for citing unpublished work of oneself and others?

In our March "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

When submitting papers for publication, is it bad to cite papers that are in R&R as (forthcoming)? Or is that not appropriate? What is the norm for citing papers that friends or advisors have shared that may not be published yet, but you want to give them credit for the idea?

Good questions. Citing an R&R as forthcoming is definitely inappropriate, as nothing is forthcoming unless and until it is formally accepted. When it comes to citing papers that friends or advisors have shared, I think the best practice here is not only to ask them whether you can cite their unpublished work, but whether you can even use an idea they've shared privately with you. More generally, with matters like these I think the best general policy is to err on the side of caution. If the unpublished work is publicly available online (e.g., on PhilPapers/PhilArchive), then citing it is fair game. But you don't want to upset someone by using an unpublished idea that they may have thought they were sharing with you privately/confidentially. Just ask, and if they say they'd prefer you not to use their ideas, then don't use them.

Or so it seems to me. What do you all think?

Comments

[Circe]

I agree with everything Marcus says. Sweet summer child... one reason not to call something under R+R 'forthcoming' is that R+Rs still get rejected. It will happen even to you one day! I speak from experience. The pie was indeed humble.

[What's an R&R]

Yea, it's not just bad form or inappropriate, it's out and out lying to claim an R&R as forthcoming.

I've reviewed three papers in the past six months that were given R&R and subsequently rejected by the journals after revisions were made.

[citer]

to repeat, an R&R is not forthcoming. Forthcoming is a paper that has been formally accepted for publication and is not yet in print. And, like the others said, get permission before you cite someone's unpublished manuscript.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

To answer the second part of the OP's question, after you get permission to cite unpublished work, the bibliographic entry says "Unpublished manuscript" where the journal title would normally go. Add the URL if there is one. Check house style at the journal you are submitting to for details.

Or, if the author doesn't want you to cite their unpublished work, you could still give them some credit by citing "personal correspondence." (That's a lot less commonly done than it was in the past, I think. I guess you could replace that with something in the Acknowledgements to the effect, "I'm grateful to P for the argument that appears in section N.")

[Evan]

I agree with Marcus and Circe. You can cite your own work as 'unpublished', though.