How should I self-cite a probable book chapter?

[monterio]

Hello all,

I'm revising an accepted article manuscript for a journal, and I'm putting self-citations back into the main text. One essay of mine that I cite in the article is supposed to be included in an edited book, but the entire book hasn't been finally submitted for review with the publisher (due to a delay with one of the contributors).

I think it is very likely that my chapter will be included in the final version of the book, but until I receive a contract from the publisher, I don't feel comfortable including the book information in the References section of my new article. I notice that some other contributors to the book list this it under their publications, so could it be that I'm being overly careful? Most of the book chapters developed from conference presentations.

So...what's the best way to proceed?

[mamselle]

First, you say you're "putting self-citations back into the text."

Is that because you omitted them to start with, or because you included a bunch, and their editor took them out? 

And, if the latter, have you cleared overall use and format for those with the editor, and/or checked the style sheet? You don't just re-insert something the editor has taken out without a conversation...but you don't mention having had one.

So, just a heads-up on that. Too many self-citations may look like you're tooting your own horn too much, so they may have been omitted for that (or some other) reason.

For the other question, I've done academic editing, and I can describe what I've seen in certain areas of the humanities, but you also don't say what field you're in, and since editorial protocols have become very tribal (for good, evolutionary reasons in some cases, less clear in others), this is just one possibility. (Depending on your field, it might not be the right thing at all, which is why you need to clarify that.)

For the work-in-progress: a)in the notes, describe it as "in press," if it's been accepted, signed off on, and just awaits printing, or "submitted/under consideration," if it's in a more nebulous state.

For the bib., b), make it a separate section in the bib., if you get a separate bib. for your contribution alone, and if that confirms to their style sheet, again.

If the whole book is compiling its contributor's separate bibliographies, then, again, you need to find out--look at their online style sheet, a field-specific manual (APA, MLA, Chicago, whatever), or get direct editorial input.

M.

[monterio]

Thanks, Mamselle.

I'm in a humanities field. These were my sources that I anonymized in the submitted MS (Author 2015, for example). It seems rather common in my field to include relevant self-references, building on related arguments.

I had hoped that the probable book chapter matter would be settled by now (I had originally submitted the article MS in late 2021), but now I'm guessing the decision from the book publisher on the volume won't be made until mid-2023.

Anyway, I'm leaning toward just removing the reference, since it's not so crucial to the overall argument of this article.

[mamselle]

If it's only one, that's less of a deal, but I'd still check their guidelines, or just put it back in with a note to the editor in the comments, to say you've looked and there's no clear guidance--just say that.

Was there a note when the ref. was removed, or any comment to give a sense of why?

If it's actual data that supports your statement, I'd mention that as well, but be very off-hand and factual about it, not detailed--editors get busy and need issues to be simply and quickly resolved.

Maybe also look at some parallel articles in the same publication under that editor, and see how they were handled, first.

M.

[Kron3007]

It is not published until it is published.  I dont see how you can cite something that is not published.

[Hegemony]

I just say, "For more on [topic X], see H. Egemony, 'All of My Great Thoughts About X,' in Many Academics Think About X, ed. Jane Smith and Bill Jones (forthcoming)."

[Kron3007]

I just say, "For more on [topic X], see H. Egemony, 'All of My Great Thoughts About X,' in Many Academics Think About X, ed. Jane Smith and Bill Jones (forthcoming)."

That's great, unless something happens and the chapter/book falls through...

In the sciences, you could post it on bioarchives and cite that instead.  Once it is actually published, it would then link to the real paper.  I don't know if that is a thing in your world though.

[jerseyjay]

What is the point of including the citation?

If the chapter in question has data or other information that you use in the current article and your source for this data is the (unpublished) chapter, you should cite it so your readers know where you got your information. Alternatively, you can just rework the current article to cite your original sources if doing so is not too cumbersome or wouldn't render the (unpublished) chapter obsolete before it is published.

I guess how you would cite this depends on your field. I have seen references to unpublished m.s. in bibliographies before. If you are using author-date, you can cite it as (Smith, Forthcoming)

If the point of citing the (unpublished) chapter is to provide your readers' with a place to find additional information (as in: For more information on Shakespeare's early life, see....) then I would drop it because it is not all that helpful to direct readers to a non-existent (as of yet) article.

[Kron3007]

What is the point of including the citation?

If the chapter in question has data or other information that you use in the current article and your source for this data is the (unpublished) chapter, you should cite it so your readers know where you got your information. Alternatively, you can just rework the current article to cite your original sources if doing so is not too cumbersome or wouldn't render the (unpublished) chapter obsolete before it is published.

I guess how you would cite this depends on your field. I have seen references to unpublished m.s. in bibliographies before. If you are using author-date, you can cite it as (Smith, Forthcoming)

If the point of citing the (unpublished) chapter is to provide your readers' with a place to find additional information (as in: For more information on Shakespeare's early life, see....) then I would drop it because it is not all that helpful to direct readers to a non-existent (as of yet) article.

In my field, it really needs to be formally accepted to list it as "forthcoming"  or "in press".   

To me, citing something that "may" be published soon is like listing submitted articles as publications on your CV.     

[monterio]

Thanks, everyone. I appreciate the feedback. I chose to remove the reference to the possible/probable book chapter.

I wrote the book chapter manuscript (based off a conference paper) a few years ago while I wrote the newly accepted article much more recently. The article MS originally referred to the argument developed in the book chapter MS because the two papers are conceptually linked, and I figured that surely the book would be out by now or officially forthcoming. Since I can't say that my chapter MS will definitely be in the book, I could only refer to it as an unpublished paper. Ultimately, I figured (in line with Kron3307 and jerseyjay) that a reference like that wouldn't strengthen the argument of the new article, so I removed the reference. Maybe if the chapter and article make their way into a possible future book of mine one day, I can make the argumentative links explicit.

Anyhow, I'm thankful for the fora and your responses. Anonymous/pseudonymous feedback to random academic work-related questions is really valuable.