<p>Usually I just cite the journal version. But (if the history is important) I would add a note to the same citation about earlier conferences or preprints.</p>

<p>I think this style is preferable to making one paper look like two citations, except possibly in cases where the conference and journal papers have other significant differences than completeness (such as changes to the author list or claimed results). It is also unrelated to whether the citation is to my own paper or someone else's.</p>

<p>For harvard-style Name (year) citations, it might also make sense to mention the earlier version in-text as Name (year, announced earlier-year), as well as putting the information in the actual reference.</p>

<p>[Converted from a comment to an answer at the suggestion of Kaveh]</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-22T13:44:02.393Z
Could you maybe explain why you prefer not citing the earlier paper and adding a note about it instead?
usul
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-22T23:40:12.103Z
Because I don't want to clog up the references with duplicate citations. And in the case of my own papers, because I don't want to be packing in an excessive number of self-citations.
David Eppstein
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-20T00:57:11.947Z
2016-05-20T00:57:11.947Z
David Eppstein
<p>This is particularly pertinent to the CS culture, where competitive conferences are often the main publication unit, which are then (sometimes) followed by journal versions.</p>

<p>Suppose that a paper was published at a conference as version A, and say, 5 years later, in a journal as version B (with the same title and authors). Assume also that during those 5 years, additional relevant papers on the topic were published.</p>

<p>When doing literature review in the introduction of future papers, the author of A and B is faced with a dilemma. To accurately reflect the historical development, he wants to cite version A and then the papers that followed it. However, the paper he actually wants people to read and cite is version B -- since it's cleaner, expanded, improved, etc. He can cite both versions, but then it looks like he's trying to rack up citations.</p>

<p>Does the CS community have a set etiquette for dealing with this situation? Is there perhaps a bibtex format where a single bib-entry covers both versions? Something that conveys the point "published first in year Y at venue V [so precedence is established] and then expanded version appeared in year Y' at venue V' [so just go read that one]"?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-14T22:11:22.963Z
One option could be to cite the improved version and add a note in the bibtex file: note = "supersedes STOC1834" (or whatever conference published version A).
Radu GRIGore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-14T22:17:19.107Z
But that would mean that the date associated with the bibitem is the *later* one (i.e., of version B), which breaks the historical flow in the main text.
Aryeh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-14T23:04:32.843Z
If I was citing someone else's paper in this scenario, it sounds like I would cite both versions in order to be clear. So maybe there is some etiquette I'm missing, but I don't see a problem with citing both versions if it's your own paper.
usul
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-14T23:10:26.840Z
Thank you for confirming my current practice. It does look a bit strange to have two nearly identical entries in the references section, which occasionally catches the referees' attention. Sometimes they think it's there by mistake, and my concern is that it might "look bad" (as in, artificially inflating one's citation count).
Aryeh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-15T01:03:22.170Z
I would do what Radu says and cite the journal version, but (if the timing is important) add a note to the same citation about earlier conferences or preprints, regardless of whether it is my own paper or someone else's, unless the conference and journal papers have other significant differences than completeness (such as changes to the author list or claimed results).
David Eppstein
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-15T07:12:13.650Z
Thanks, @DavidEppstein. This would work fine for numerical citations, but what about the (Name, Year) kind? Then the later journal publication looks out of place in a sequential historical exposition.
Aryeh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-15T07:17:46.890Z
You could always use Name (Year, announced EarlierYear).
David Eppstein
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-15T07:52:17.537Z
Huh, interesting! What's the bibtex code for that?
Aryeh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-15T08:56:46.330Z
You can say \cite[announced EarlierYear]{BibentryKey}.
Radu GRIGore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-19T22:27:21.037Z
@David, maybe post your suggestion as an answer so this question becomes answered (and the bot does not bump it in future).
Kaveh
<soft-question><paper-review>
(Self-)citation etiquette
Aryeh
# (Self-)citation etiquette

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-14)

This is particularly pertinent to the CS culture, where competitive conferences are often the main publication unit, which are then (sometimes) followed by journal versions.

Suppose that a paper was published at a conference as version A, and say, 5 years later, in a journal as version B (with the same title and authors). Assume also that during those 5 years, additional relevant papers on the topic were published.

When doing literature review in the introduction of future papers, the author of A and B is faced with a dilemma. To accurately reflect the historical development, he wants to cite version A and then the papers that followed it. However, the paper he actually wants people to read and cite is version B -- since it's cleaner, expanded, improved, etc. He can cite both versions, but then it looks like he's trying to rack up citations.

Does the CS community have a set etiquette for dealing with this situation? Is there perhaps a bibtex format where a single bib-entry covers both versions? Something that conveys the point "published first in year Y at venue V [so precedence is established] and then expanded version appeared in year Y' at venue V' [so just go read that one]"?

**Tags:** soft-question, paper-review
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: One option could be to cite the improved version and add a note in the bibtex file: note = "supersedes STOC1834" (or whatever conference published version A).  
> **username_0**: But that would mean that the date associated with the bibitem is the *later* one (i.e., of version B), which breaks the historical flow in the main text.  
> **username_2**: If I was citing someone else's paper in this scenario, it sounds like I would cite both versions in order to be clear. So maybe there is some etiquette I'm missing, but I don't see a problem with citing both versions if it's your own paper.  
> **username_0**: Thank you for confirming my current practice. It does look a bit strange to have two nearly identical entries in the references section, which occasionally catches the referees' attention. Sometimes they think it's there by mistake, and my concern is that it might "look bad" (as in, artificially inflating one's citation count).  
> **username_3**: I would do what Radu says and cite the journal version, but (if the timing is important) add a note to the same citation about earlier conferences or preprints, regardless of whether it is my own paper or someone else's, unless the conference and journal papers have other significant differences than completeness (such as changes to the author list or claimed results).  
> **username_0**: Thanks, @DavidEppstein. This would work fine for numerical citations, but what about the (Name, Year) kind? Then the later journal publication looks out of place in a sequential historical exposition.  
> **username_3**: You could always use Name (Year, announced EarlierYear).  
> **username_0**: Huh, interesting! What's the bibtex code for that?  
> **username_1**: You can say \cite[announced EarlierYear]{BibentryKey}.  
> **username_4**: @David, maybe post your suggestion as an answer so this question becomes answered (and the bot does not bump it in future).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-05-20. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

Usually I just cite the journal version. But (if the history is important) I would add a note to the same citation about earlier conferences or preprints.

I think this style is preferable to making one paper look like two citations, except possibly in cases where the conference and journal papers have other significant differences than completeness (such as changes to the author list or claimed results). It is also unrelated to whether the citation is to my own paper or someone else's.

For harvard-style Name (year) citations, it might also make sense to mention the earlier version in-text as Name (year, announced earlier-year), as well as putting the information in the actual reference.

[Converted from a comment to an answer at the suggestion of Kaveh]

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Could you maybe explain why you prefer not citing the earlier paper and adding a note about it instead?  
> **username_3**: Because I don't want to clog up the references with duplicate citations. And in the case of my own papers, because I don't want to be packing in an excessive number of self-citations.  

---

