Citing contemporaneous (interlaced?) preprints
In my area of research distributing preprints of results is very common. Consider the following seqence of events:
- Group A finishes paper P, distributes it as a preprint and submits to a journal
- Group B posts related preprint Q
Group A receives referee reports for paper P. Referee requests discussion/citation of Q.
Group A responds that Q came later and was not used in writing P, therefore no detailed discussion/citation necessary.
Referee insists on discussion of Q in paper P
Who is in the right?
citations peer-review preprint
add a comment |
In my area of research distributing preprints of results is very common. Consider the following seqence of events:
- Group A finishes paper P, distributes it as a preprint and submits to a journal
- Group B posts related preprint Q
Group A receives referee reports for paper P. Referee requests discussion/citation of Q.
Group A responds that Q came later and was not used in writing P, therefore no detailed discussion/citation necessary.
Referee insists on discussion of Q in paper P
Who is in the right?
citations peer-review preprint
Does Q discuss/cite P?
– Bergi
yesterday
@Bergi no, it does not
– MKR
yesterday
add a comment |
In my area of research distributing preprints of results is very common. Consider the following seqence of events:
- Group A finishes paper P, distributes it as a preprint and submits to a journal
- Group B posts related preprint Q
Group A receives referee reports for paper P. Referee requests discussion/citation of Q.
Group A responds that Q came later and was not used in writing P, therefore no detailed discussion/citation necessary.
Referee insists on discussion of Q in paper P
Who is in the right?
citations peer-review preprint
In my area of research distributing preprints of results is very common. Consider the following seqence of events:
- Group A finishes paper P, distributes it as a preprint and submits to a journal
- Group B posts related preprint Q
Group A receives referee reports for paper P. Referee requests discussion/citation of Q.
Group A responds that Q came later and was not used in writing P, therefore no detailed discussion/citation necessary.
Referee insists on discussion of Q in paper P
Who is in the right?
citations peer-review preprint
citations peer-review preprint
asked yesterday
MKRMKR
399210
399210
Does Q discuss/cite P?
– Bergi
yesterday
@Bergi no, it does not
– MKR
yesterday
add a comment |
Does Q discuss/cite P?
– Bergi
yesterday
@Bergi no, it does not
– MKR
yesterday
Does Q discuss/cite P?
– Bergi
yesterday
Does Q discuss/cite P?
– Bergi
yesterday
@Bergi no, it does not
– MKR
yesterday
@Bergi no, it does not
– MKR
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Cite relevant literature
Since you have the option of adding a citation to a relevant source, you should do it. It improves the paper by making it a more useful reference, and comparing and contrasting the results might also be useful.
Priority
If relevant, use a phrase like "A very recent preprint A claims this and that.", or even, if your results are very similar and you really need to emphasize priority, "During peer review of this article a preprint A was published. The preprint...".
add a comment |
Who is in the right matters somewhat less than who is in control. Refusing the request of a referee possibly leads to rejection of the paper.
But you may not need an extended discussion of the other paper, but a notice that it exists and is related in -whatever- way. This is simply a service to readers who find one paper and are interested in the topic generally.
You seem to be insisting on a claim to primacy here, which may not be completely warranted. The work on the two papers, and the key insights, occurred more or less at the same time - independent research. The fact that one hit the streets a bit before the other is less important than that certain problems were solved and some questions have been answered. The earlier date of issue could occur for any number of random reasons. Had it gone the other way, how would you feel?
add a comment |
Citations are not simply for listing the papers you referred to while doing the work. "We didn't use this while writing the paper" is not a reason to not cite relevant material. Besides, you haven't even finished writing the paper – it's still being revised!
Whether or not the new paper requires a detailed discussion depends on its relation to your own. You should discuss it as much as you would if it had been available before you submitted your paper.
1
+1 A paper ideally should reflect the state of the art on the day it is accepted (after which you can only correct typos). Of course you (and the referee) might miss some latest development, or you decide to not take it into account, but that's at the risk of you paper becoming (partially) obsolete within very short time. Your decision, and the referee's and editor's to be OK with that.
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125964%2fciting-contemporaneous-interlaced-preprints%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Cite relevant literature
Since you have the option of adding a citation to a relevant source, you should do it. It improves the paper by making it a more useful reference, and comparing and contrasting the results might also be useful.
Priority
If relevant, use a phrase like "A very recent preprint A claims this and that.", or even, if your results are very similar and you really need to emphasize priority, "During peer review of this article a preprint A was published. The preprint...".
add a comment |
Cite relevant literature
Since you have the option of adding a citation to a relevant source, you should do it. It improves the paper by making it a more useful reference, and comparing and contrasting the results might also be useful.
Priority
If relevant, use a phrase like "A very recent preprint A claims this and that.", or even, if your results are very similar and you really need to emphasize priority, "During peer review of this article a preprint A was published. The preprint...".
add a comment |
Cite relevant literature
Since you have the option of adding a citation to a relevant source, you should do it. It improves the paper by making it a more useful reference, and comparing and contrasting the results might also be useful.
Priority
If relevant, use a phrase like "A very recent preprint A claims this and that.", or even, if your results are very similar and you really need to emphasize priority, "During peer review of this article a preprint A was published. The preprint...".
Cite relevant literature
Since you have the option of adding a citation to a relevant source, you should do it. It improves the paper by making it a more useful reference, and comparing and contrasting the results might also be useful.
Priority
If relevant, use a phrase like "A very recent preprint A claims this and that.", or even, if your results are very similar and you really need to emphasize priority, "During peer review of this article a preprint A was published. The preprint...".
answered yesterday
Tommi BranderTommi Brander
4,71321533
4,71321533
add a comment |
add a comment |
Who is in the right matters somewhat less than who is in control. Refusing the request of a referee possibly leads to rejection of the paper.
But you may not need an extended discussion of the other paper, but a notice that it exists and is related in -whatever- way. This is simply a service to readers who find one paper and are interested in the topic generally.
You seem to be insisting on a claim to primacy here, which may not be completely warranted. The work on the two papers, and the key insights, occurred more or less at the same time - independent research. The fact that one hit the streets a bit before the other is less important than that certain problems were solved and some questions have been answered. The earlier date of issue could occur for any number of random reasons. Had it gone the other way, how would you feel?
add a comment |
Who is in the right matters somewhat less than who is in control. Refusing the request of a referee possibly leads to rejection of the paper.
But you may not need an extended discussion of the other paper, but a notice that it exists and is related in -whatever- way. This is simply a service to readers who find one paper and are interested in the topic generally.
You seem to be insisting on a claim to primacy here, which may not be completely warranted. The work on the two papers, and the key insights, occurred more or less at the same time - independent research. The fact that one hit the streets a bit before the other is less important than that certain problems were solved and some questions have been answered. The earlier date of issue could occur for any number of random reasons. Had it gone the other way, how would you feel?
add a comment |
Who is in the right matters somewhat less than who is in control. Refusing the request of a referee possibly leads to rejection of the paper.
But you may not need an extended discussion of the other paper, but a notice that it exists and is related in -whatever- way. This is simply a service to readers who find one paper and are interested in the topic generally.
You seem to be insisting on a claim to primacy here, which may not be completely warranted. The work on the two papers, and the key insights, occurred more or less at the same time - independent research. The fact that one hit the streets a bit before the other is less important than that certain problems were solved and some questions have been answered. The earlier date of issue could occur for any number of random reasons. Had it gone the other way, how would you feel?
Who is in the right matters somewhat less than who is in control. Refusing the request of a referee possibly leads to rejection of the paper.
But you may not need an extended discussion of the other paper, but a notice that it exists and is related in -whatever- way. This is simply a service to readers who find one paper and are interested in the topic generally.
You seem to be insisting on a claim to primacy here, which may not be completely warranted. The work on the two papers, and the key insights, occurred more or less at the same time - independent research. The fact that one hit the streets a bit before the other is less important than that certain problems were solved and some questions have been answered. The earlier date of issue could occur for any number of random reasons. Had it gone the other way, how would you feel?
answered yesterday
BuffyBuffy
50.6k14164250
50.6k14164250
add a comment |
add a comment |
Citations are not simply for listing the papers you referred to while doing the work. "We didn't use this while writing the paper" is not a reason to not cite relevant material. Besides, you haven't even finished writing the paper – it's still being revised!
Whether or not the new paper requires a detailed discussion depends on its relation to your own. You should discuss it as much as you would if it had been available before you submitted your paper.
1
+1 A paper ideally should reflect the state of the art on the day it is accepted (after which you can only correct typos). Of course you (and the referee) might miss some latest development, or you decide to not take it into account, but that's at the risk of you paper becoming (partially) obsolete within very short time. Your decision, and the referee's and editor's to be OK with that.
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
Citations are not simply for listing the papers you referred to while doing the work. "We didn't use this while writing the paper" is not a reason to not cite relevant material. Besides, you haven't even finished writing the paper – it's still being revised!
Whether or not the new paper requires a detailed discussion depends on its relation to your own. You should discuss it as much as you would if it had been available before you submitted your paper.
1
+1 A paper ideally should reflect the state of the art on the day it is accepted (after which you can only correct typos). Of course you (and the referee) might miss some latest development, or you decide to not take it into account, but that's at the risk of you paper becoming (partially) obsolete within very short time. Your decision, and the referee's and editor's to be OK with that.
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
Citations are not simply for listing the papers you referred to while doing the work. "We didn't use this while writing the paper" is not a reason to not cite relevant material. Besides, you haven't even finished writing the paper – it's still being revised!
Whether or not the new paper requires a detailed discussion depends on its relation to your own. You should discuss it as much as you would if it had been available before you submitted your paper.
Citations are not simply for listing the papers you referred to while doing the work. "We didn't use this while writing the paper" is not a reason to not cite relevant material. Besides, you haven't even finished writing the paper – it's still being revised!
Whether or not the new paper requires a detailed discussion depends on its relation to your own. You should discuss it as much as you would if it had been available before you submitted your paper.
answered yesterday
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
29.6k661125
29.6k661125
1
+1 A paper ideally should reflect the state of the art on the day it is accepted (after which you can only correct typos). Of course you (and the referee) might miss some latest development, or you decide to not take it into account, but that's at the risk of you paper becoming (partially) obsolete within very short time. Your decision, and the referee's and editor's to be OK with that.
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
1
+1 A paper ideally should reflect the state of the art on the day it is accepted (after which you can only correct typos). Of course you (and the referee) might miss some latest development, or you decide to not take it into account, but that's at the risk of you paper becoming (partially) obsolete within very short time. Your decision, and the referee's and editor's to be OK with that.
– Karl
yesterday
1
1
+1 A paper ideally should reflect the state of the art on the day it is accepted (after which you can only correct typos). Of course you (and the referee) might miss some latest development, or you decide to not take it into account, but that's at the risk of you paper becoming (partially) obsolete within very short time. Your decision, and the referee's and editor's to be OK with that.
– Karl
yesterday
+1 A paper ideally should reflect the state of the art on the day it is accepted (after which you can only correct typos). Of course you (and the referee) might miss some latest development, or you decide to not take it into account, but that's at the risk of you paper becoming (partially) obsolete within very short time. Your decision, and the referee's and editor's to be OK with that.
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125964%2fciting-contemporaneous-interlaced-preprints%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Does Q discuss/cite P?
– Bergi
yesterday
@Bergi no, it does not
– MKR
yesterday