I pose this question because it recently came up for a colleague who got some pushback after citing another colleague as a "personal communication", regarding field observations of a rare species at a particular locality. The researcher who was cited did not seem to have a problem with the information associated with the citation, but insisted that "permission should have been obtained". My impression based on my own experience is that this is an unorthodox criticism, and one that I had not encountered, but maybe I'd missed something that others were aware of in terms of authorship etiquette. Any thoughts?
Well, I think we should always remember that many human beings are odd, quirky, have their own views, and love to have things to whinge on about....
Pre-publication, I once showed a guy my proposed note thanking him for discussions we'd had on the subject. He said it was fine. Post-publication he whinged on and on about faint praise. Having never needed to do such a note before (or since) I'd asked him because I didn't really know what I was doing. I even told him that at the time I asked in the first place! There's a name for such people where I come from, but not now....
So, unless you have an etiquette rule that fits all the quirks, just do your polite best, and let the awkwards stew on!
Christopher NOCK
I think it would be highly inappropriate to cite any personal communication without the source's permission received in advance. A failure to respect this limitation would stifle informal communication between colleagues--I would certainly be reluctant to share my preliminary thoughts on a topic with someone if I thought they would abuse the confidence by putting them into print without my permission. This is one of the reasons scientists and reporters get crosswise with each other--the press assumes everything is "on the record" unless they are explicitly told otherwise, whereas scientists tend to assume the opposite.
Do your guys know each other? If not, you should meet up downtown to chew the fat on the matter! But don't tell anyone else you've done so without the others' permission!
NOCK
It is considered to be a necessary etiquette to get permission from the source person before citing "personal communication" in your paper because unpublished, personal view might change as time goes by.
personal communication references should be avoided or draft of article should be sent to referenced researcher
In my opinion, there are no strict rules or standard for such citations. In fact, it depends on many factors, including personal attitudes and various subtleties in relationships between concrete researchers. I'd recommend to ask your informator, whenever you are going to quote his personal communication. But, again, it is not a strict rule. I know many people who are quite tolerant to citations from their e-mail messages or oral communications without a permission. Personally I belong to this category (though I would be displeased if someone ascribed me a doubtful or incorrect opinion citing is as 'pers. comm.")
Interesting discussion-there's more diversity of opinion than I would have expected. One question, though: what is the advantage of NOT seeking pre-publication permission in order to avoid misunderstandings?
I've usually asked for permission when citing someone in a paper. However, I've also had reviewers ask "Did X verify that identification?" or "Did you ask X about this?" and similar questions which isn't quite the same as personal communication but has the similar issue of asking you to cite or mention X even when they are not an author on the paper. If something turns out to be mis-identified that that should fall on the author not whoever else got asked to look at it. It also for me strengthens the reasoning to put specimens in a museum because identifications can change and mistakes happen and that's ok. :-)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers