I see a lot of opinions advising to wait for publication!

My friends, aren't you living on this planet?

The average publication time is around 12-18 months!

Many of us work on extensions, particularly those who are very specialist in a specific narrow domain, each time they enhance solutions and provide new ones for almost the same problem/domain.

Currently, I have 6 related papers, with about 12 different methodologies to tackle the same problem, , if I wrote all in one, my paper will be more than 100 pages, that why I split the work to be published in 6 papers, the first is submitted, if I take your advise I will be waiting for at least 6 years to get the job done!

The whole publishing industry is nasty and backward, the same process for more than 100 years, everything has changed except this industry, the problem is in the mentality of those publishers- most of them, who thinks that delaying the publication is good for the reputation of their journal!

Moreover, some publishers are having ready-to-publish papers, but they cannot publish, they are scared of this GD impact factor.

A hundred years ago, using the good-old-days mail, the paper was not taking more than 4 to 6 months, however, with the advance of today's technology, and the plenty number of reviewers who are just a moues-click away from any journal, we are going back!

Hi Sayed

It might vary depending on the field you are in.

In social science and education, you can state its current status in the Reference List. For example, a sample solution to your question 1 and 2 would be:

Ziegler, A. (In press). Gifted education from a systemic perspective: The importance of educational capital and learning capital. In S.N. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness. London: Routledge.

In this case, readers (and your current editor) need to trust the author. The book is obviously due to hit shelves soon.

The working paper does not need to be 'uploaded' somewhere publicly visible. IN the above-case it is not.

If you feel the need to proof yourself, then consider uploading it to AcademiaEdu or here ResearhGate, then cite the link with something like "Unpublished Work" (this is an option in Endnote reference software).

I never do this though because once you upload it to a public domain it becomes harder to state (or explain yourself) to a Journal editor that the article never has been in the public domain.

Yes, you can cite your own work which is yet to be published but it is under review. As you mention that it is an extended work, then submit the paper to the same Journal with a suitable covering letter addressed to the Editor. The Editor may refer this paper too to the same reviewers. 

Hi. I'd , too, advise to wait until it is published. However, you can submit it if your editor agrees to that. Mind the fact that while posting it, difficulties occur when considering its status when including it in a resume, for instance.

Dear Syed Asif Raza,

Papers under review cannot be cited into your submitted manuscript because you are not sure that your paper will be accepted for publication. On the other hand, in case that your paper is accepted for publication you can cite it as a reference. In the latter situation you can write the Journal name in which your article is accepted, and write (in press) instead of year, Volume, Number, and pages. 

Hi Syed,

I think you could cite your own work (depending on your discipline), as long as you acknowledge it in your reference list as a working paper/under review for publication?

I was going to reply, but the APA style manual says it better.

Previously, I've used some slightly different terms, but with the same effect.

Manuscript in Preparation

I've used Unpublished manuscript in cases where I knew it would never be published. Usually I've said Preprint. In cases where I've just needed one little result out of a couple of dozen, I've said Personal communication.

In all these cases, I'd gotten the author's permission to cite the work, and had seen the mathematical proofs (usually with permission to pass these on to the reviewers if needed).

Manuscript Submitted for Publication

Here I've said Submitted (with no journal named). After acceptance, I've said Journal Name, to appear.

Both of the above might need updating as my paper wends its way thru the mill.

Advance Online Publication

I've not come across this exact situation.

I wouldn't bother about publishing the first manuscript.

If any reader of your second paper needs a copy of the first, they'll contact you for it.

One problem with citing one's own paper that is still in review is that this may be perceived as compromising the double-blind peer review process. Some journals are very particular about that. But also there are journals that state they don't mind the paper be published in any pubic domain while in review. So please consult the journal's policy about this. 

As to the question where to post your working paper, ResearchGate is a good option because you can remove the article when you wish to do so (unlike in repositories). Also,  the journal PeerJ offers an opportunity to publish online papers that are still in review. But PeerJ is more into medicine/biology disciplines. 

Good luck!

Dear: Dr. Asif Raza

In my opinion, preferable waiting until the paper is published,

also, to avoid the double-blind peer review process.

best regards

I see a lot of opinions advising to wait for publication!

My friends, aren't you living on this planet?

The average publication time is around 12-18 months!

Many of us work on extensions, particularly those who are very specialist in a specific narrow domain, each time they enhance solutions and provide new ones for almost the same problem/domain.

Currently, I have 6 related papers, with about 12 different methodologies to tackle the same problem, , if I wrote all in one, my paper will be more than 100 pages, that why I split the work to be published in 6 papers, the first is submitted, if I take your advise I will be waiting for at least 6 years to get the job done!

The whole publishing industry is nasty and backward, the same process for more than 100 years, everything has changed except this industry, the problem is in the mentality of those publishers- most of them, who thinks that delaying the publication is good for the reputation of their journal!

Moreover, some publishers are having ready-to-publish papers, but they cannot publish, they are scared of this GD impact factor.

A hundred years ago, using the good-old-days mail, the paper was not taking more than 4 to 6 months, however, with the advance of today's technology, and the plenty number of reviewers who are just a moues-click away from any journal, we are going back!

I would also prefer to wait till the first one is published

Major changes may be made during the review process and these changes may comprise the subject want to cite, so I agree with my colleagues, it is preferred to wait until publishing.

Regards

Yes, the waiting period to see your paper published has increased. It is about 12 to 18 months from the date of submission of a paper to a reputed peer reviewed journal. This is assuming that the paper has been accepted without major revision. The number of researchers have increased exponentially, the pressure to publish is immense, the authors are not willing to devote enough time to prepare the manuscript, too much depending on Computer, no time to verify experimental procedure / data, etc. At the end of the day, it is number of publications which matters. Every one is in hurry. Quality has taken a back seat.

Absolutely, you can

I would not suggest to cite your unpublished paper.Why?

First of all, scientific progress is gradually increased by assuming the previous works are correct. Reviewing processes exist because the need of being ensured about the correctness of your study. Being under review is a hard to wait process, I know your feelings. However, if you cite your paper without the proof of your concept, this means that others will be able to cite also. Then, this situation can take us to step on uncorrected studies that have the potential of hurting scientific progess. Even more, this leads to fake concepts. If we open the doors for this situation, how can we be sure about the proposals that were not verified yet. Therefore, I highly reccomend you to wait until the review process is done. Step by step growing is safer and better than one shot growing.

You can publish it on the Rg and gain DOI. After that you can cite it and take the RG DOI as a reference in the reference list.

Hello S. A. Raza,

Yes, I also cite my own works as Dr. A. H. Fathy's answer.

Regarding my work, it is the continuous study and so, I need to cite the previous findings from the published articles and proceedings.

Best reagrds

To cite an unpublished paper is not a good practice. In my opinion you can't cite unpublished work in any paper. All good and reputed journal will never accept such citations.

An unpublished (under review) paper should never be cited in any paper. No good Journal will accept it.

Dear Syed,

You are free to cite your own work in your extension paper but the work which has to be cited should either be published or accepted for publication. Because It is not possible to include a unpublished work in reference section of the paper.

Good luck!

Good discussion. I think that the paper under review cann't be cited; of course the accepted paper (not yet published) can be cited in own work. The unpublished work (as Dr. Abdallah mentioned) can be uploaded on RG to get doi and this can be referred. Regards

Dear Dr. Syed Asif Raza , interesting issue.

Yes it is possible to cite your own work. But, it is very important and must to indicate that it is unpublished or under review.

Yes you can cite your own work but wait until it has been published or at least accepted for publications because a lot might change depending on the editorial process

Yes you can. I have seen most of the papers unpublished/under review mentioned as a reference in research studies.

If ur previous paper has been cited then only you can cite your own paper

We see in some research papers , ' to appear in ...' . But this should be done if the research is acceptable for publication in the journal

Best wait till the paper is accepted. If the paper is accepted, you can cite it before publication.

Yes, you can Syed.

Here is the format for unpublished and informally published works:

Author, A. A. (Year). Title of manuscript. Unpublished manuscript [or "Manuscript submitted for publication," or "Manuscript in preparation"].

Here is the link for the source: https://guides.skylinecollege.edu/c.php?g=279131&p=2859193

Good Luck

�