Citing 'provisionally forthcoming' work?

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

I am working on a manuscript (to be submitted for publication eventually) where another author's paper is relevant. However, this latter paper is listed as "provisionally forthcoming" on the author's webpage. Is it okay to discuss and engage with this paper in my manuscript? The pdf that is posted on the authors' webpage doesn't say anything like "please do not cite" or "please cite the published version", it just says that it's provisionally forthcoming.

Hmm...listing something as "provisionally forthcoming" seems weird to me. But if something is available publicly on someone's website and it doesn't say "don't cite", it seems to me to be fair game. How to cite it is another question? If it's not actually forthcoming, then it shouldn't be cited as forthcoming--maybe as "unpublished manuscript." So, maybe it makes sense to check with the author on what it's status actually is?

What do you all think?

Comments

[anon]

The phrase also seems weird to me.

I'd never remembered seeing it, but now that I've googled it I see a few people using it. With a few exceptions the vibe seems (to me) to be: "It's going to be published eventually in a volume/invited issue and maybe it hasn't fully gone through the volume's process, or maybe the volume hasn't fully been approved in some sense, but still, it's going to be published, so let's call it this."

Maybe that's way off though?

I would just email the author and ask them if it's okay to engage and how to cite.

[ask an author]

E-mail the author. The problem with unpublished work - including the provisionally forthcomng - is that it can change before it is accepted for publication and thus published. So you might find yourslef attacking an argument the author will disown (and show no traces in print of ever owning), by the time the paper is in print. So contact the author about what the status of the paper REALLY is.
Further, your opponent might be over-stating the status of the paper. It might just be a draft that they are finished with revising (that may or may not ever see it into print).

[Trevor Hedberg]

"Provisionally forthcoming" is an ambiguous, possibly misleading label. Either the paper is just "forthcoming" (i.e., formally accepted for publication but not yet proofed, copyedited, and published yet) or it is still under review or undergoing revision in some sense. The author should clarify that if they are posting this work publicly. Also, a forthcoming work would have a venue (e.g., journal, edited collection, book publisher) associated with it. Did they list one?

For the OP, I would just cite the work as an unpublished manuscript for now but make a note to revisit the citation before finalizing their draft. By the time the OP is finishing their own paper, it is possible that the work they are engaging will have been published.

[Philosomom]

Yeah, my guess would be like anon's ... the paper was invited for a volume or special issue, the paper has been sent into the editor, and the volume is in progress. Papers can remain in this state for quite a while, especially if the volume as a whole (with fully written papers) undergoes a review process. I often list such papers as 'commissioned for [special issue/vol.]' with a note that the paper has been submitted. But there are lots of strange limbo states for papers, some last several years, so I would just contact the author about how to list it.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

I concur with the suggestion to cite it as "unpublished manuscript" with the URL, and make no reference to the author's hope that the work is provisionally forthcoming (whatever that might mean--maybe an R&R?). If it is publicly available, you don't need to seek the author's permission to cite it this way, but it would be good practice to do so anyway. And as others said, it might be in print by the time your paper is going to press and then you can change the citation.