Stack Exchange Network
Stack Exchange network consists of 181 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Q&A for work
Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.
How to cite a work in a manuscript that is under review? [duplicate]
I have two manuscripts that I am ready to submit in two different journals.
In the first manuscript, I have developed two models to be used for my research. Both of them are new and are an upgrade to the currently used models.
In the second manuscript, I have used one of the models developed in the first manuscript and have carried out an elaborate study. However, I am unsure on how to cite the first manuscript in the second.
Can I cite a submitted manuscript as "under review" in another manuscript? What's the correct procedure for citing under review works?
2 Answers 2
Yes. Under review or "in review" are normal and I have used them myself when publishing several papers near simultaneously. (They were separate enough, different chemistries, that I thought made sense to cut into separate articles. But, for someone interested in the general area, they likely would want the citation.) It is to be understood that "under review" does not mean it will EVER get published (but likely will). You are doing the best you can, at the time. If the paper never makes it out or shifts to another journal, so be it.
You may also see citations that say "in press" (meaning accepted, but you are lacking the issue and page numbers). I have even used "in preparation for" and listed the journal I planned to, and did submit to. And I've even used "unpublished" for work that never saw the light of day (e.g. another worker's parallel chemistry study that was pretty finished, yet shelved as uninteresting...but was relevant to a chemistry to chemistry discussion.)*
The key thing is that you are not trying to get away with anything nefarious. You are simply doing your best to give citations to other work. And that will include some not-yet archived research. You just do the best you can, at the time you submit.
[Obviously if you are claiming some super insight and your current paper is fundamentally dependent on the other work, the editor/reviewer may cavitate and reject. But if you are just doing good stuff and other work is comparative, not dependent, people will appreciate the citation, not resent it.]
*Even this still has a use. For one, a simple (non-controversial) insight may be shared, that is scientifically relevant. In addition, if anyone ever really cares, they might still track down the author. I. R. Lazyguy; structure of unimportant chemical; 1989; Random Federal Agency; unpublished.
I would use a preprint server, such as arXiv and bioRxiv , and then cite the preprint version of the paper. In my opinion, there is no purpose in citing a paper that is not available anywhere.
You cannot be sure in which journal your article will be published nor if after revision it will remain with the same title you referenced. Furthermore, after the paper is published, journals do not accept editions to correct references.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged publications citations paper-submission cross-referencing .
- Featured on Meta
- We've added a "Necessary cookies only" option to the cookie consent popup
- The Stack Exchange reputation system: What's working? What's not?
Hot Network Questions
- Are we estimating the Bernoulli parameter in Logistic Regression?
- A metric characterization of the real line
- How to model an isolated molecule with Quantum ESPRESSO?
- Could a Dragon use an unconscious PC as a thrown weapon?
- Where is the extra hour? Eurostar London to Paris is 2hr 30m but departure is 3hrs 30m before arrival
- Why are most US news programs silent about Iran-Saudi deal announced at Beijing on March 10th?
- An "incomplete" tiling?
- Is it legal for a company to require you to delete your account to unsubscribe from marketing emails?
- Ratatouille: did linguine have a legally legitimate reason to fire skinner?
- Why are sulfites often ignored in soil studies?
- What if you could shut off the pull of gravity on your body?
- Strictness in both arguments but not in each individually
- Colin Farrell Got The Last Laugh On “Saturday Night Live” By Shading Their “Offensive” Sketch About Irish People At The Oscars
- Asking a shiala not looking for a psak
- split/reference big file by offset reference
- Can a whisper protect a crewmate from the supernatural terror consequence of a compelled spirit?
- Does it make sense from a pro-Ukrainian perspective to sabotage Nord Stream?
- Training for driving on the left in the UK
- Why are Deligne-type exponential sum estimates so hard to use?
- When is it worth taking out a loan for something I could pay in cash?
- How to place 2 equations in one line but each is numbered separately?
- Why does Mathematica take so long to produce this sound?
- Is it OK practice to start a car while it's on jackstands?
- What is the roadmap to self-taught probability and statistics for artificial intelligence?
Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.
What is the Difference between In Review and Under Review?
- By DiscoverPhDs
- October 6, 2020
When you submit a research manuscript for peer review , the journal may report the status of the review as “in review” or “under review”.
From a purely grammatical perspective there’s not much difference between the two terms. It may be that one journal uses the term “in review” and another the term “under review”, both to signify the same thing: that your academic paper is now being reviewed by experts in your field.
Some journals may however use both terms to represent different stages of the review process. In this case you’ll see the status of your submitted paper change from “in review” to “under review”:
This means that you have successfully submitted your manuscript to the journal and your submitted documents are now being verified. This part of the submission process will include ensuring that you have uploaded all necessary documents and that the content of your manuscript is suitable for the theme of the journal. This initial review process is typically performed by one of the editorial staff at the journal.
When the status of your manuscript changes to under review, this means that it has passed the initial editorial checks. The journal has confirmed that you’ve uploaded and submitted the correct documents and that the content of your paper is relevant to your journal. The status of under review means that the paper has been sent to external expert reviewers and your paper is now being assessed by them.
Note however that some journals may use the reverse of the above if making a distinction between the two terms. That is to say that some journals may have the status of the submitted paper as under review whilst they assess its suitability for review and the status in review when it’s actually being assessed by reviewers.
You may also notice that the date associated with the status of under review changes even though the actual status does not. In these cases, it’s likely an update from the journal to indicate that the associate editor has sent the manuscript to a new peer reviewer for assessment.
This sometimes happens during the peer review process where the journal editor may send out the submitted manuscript to several potential reviewers who don’t respond with a decision or recommendation; to progress the review process, the editor then sends the manuscript to different reviewers. This is one of the reasons why the peer review timeline can sometimes be so variable.
It’s becoming more common for journals or the corresponding author to make a preprint version of your journal submission available to read. After you receive reviewer comments and have submitted a revised manuscript, then this revision may then also be made available in an early sharing format. Following the final decision, the accepted manuscrip t should be the publication version that replaces the previous versions of the submission that were made available as preprints.
You should have the option to not make your project work publicly available under it’s been peer reviewed; in some cases this may be a requirement placed on you by your funders.
This post gives you the best questions to ask at a PhD interview, to help you work out if your potential supervisor and lab is a good fit for you.
The unit of analysis refers to the main parameter that you’re investigating in your research project or study.
An In Press article is a paper that has been accepted for publication and is being prepared for print.
Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.
Browse PhDs Now
The term rationale of research means the reason for performing the research study in question.
In Finland, all new PhD holders are given a traditional Doctoral Hat and Doctoral Sword during a Conferment Ceremony, symbolising the freedom of research.
Kyle’s in the first year of his PhD at the University of Texas in Austin. His research interests are in the development of algorithms for advanced mobility for legged robotics and computer vision for exploration of extreme environments.
Ryan is in the final write up stages of his PhD at the University of Southampton. His research is on understanding narrative structure, media specificity and genre in transmedia storytelling.
Join Thousands of Students
How do I include a publication under review in my CV for masters applications?
I've submitted a paper to a well renowned conference in my field, and I'm applying to masters programs right now as well. The decision of the acceptance of the paper will only be out after the early acceptance deadlines of a few places I'm applying to (if it clears phase 1 oof).
Plus I've heard from some people that chances are better the earlier I apply?
How do I mention that it's under review? And how do I ensure the reviewing doesn't get compromised because it's supposed to be double blind.
The general rule of thumb is that you don't put manuscripts (submitted but not accepted articles) on your CV. You can however list the time you worked on the project as research experience if you worked with a professor.
I see. Thank you!
You dont put it under your resume. Just tell if you want that you have a research experience that's it
Lol It's the opposite actually I'm very doubtful of it getting in. But yes like a lot of folks suggested I'll mention it as a project instead
If it's in pre-print, or for example in bioarchive then you can mention it with the URL. I'm doing the same.
You can put them as:
Algorithmic Analysis of Naruto's Jutsus,
Under the guidance of Dr Johny Sins
At least thats how mine is put.
You can put it but clearly mention "under review". However paper publication results are declared soon so better to wait and then apply.
Is the impact of Conference papers the same as Journal papers for MS?
I know it's unrelated but still would love to know!
Depends on the field. Conference papers, especially in the top conferences, are huge in CS and especially in fast-evolving fields like AI, whereas they are unheard of in, for example, cellular biology (you just submit abstracts and presentations at those conferences, all papers go to journals). Most fields are in between.
For MS, some paper at a decent venue is better than no paper, whether conference or journal.
I'm going to disagree with the majority of opinions mentioned here - and for reference, I have a PhD in STEM and work at a university.
Putting submitted articles that are under review is routine. It is understood that the review process can be drawn out, especially for journals but even at competitive conferences, but that does not mean you don't get credit for the work when you need it (e.g., when applying for admissions). Of course, if say you have 1 published paper and 15 papers "under review" then it becomes suspicious - unless you submitted all 15 at one go (which itself is suspicious), it does not take that long.
In your case, being an undergraduate, it is OK to show one paper under review. That by itself is more than what is expected at UG level, and seems completely reasonable in your application. I would in fact encourage you to do that - it shows that your research participation has some tangible output. Doing research, and describing it, is good, but outputs are what people ultimately want.
Put it in your resume as follows:
Author, First, Author, Second, and Author, Third. Title of manuscript . International conference on big topic, 20xx. Under review.
And how do I ensure the reviewing doesn't get compromised because it's supposed to be double blind.
Unfortunately, this is impossible to guarantee, even if you don't put it in your resume. Depending on which professor you worked with, people can guess where the paper came from if they care so much about it. I wouldn't worry so much about it - even under the low-probability event that the person you are applying to is a reviewer, it won't make any difference, unless the manuscript was poor (in which case, why do you want to talk about it?) or the professor has some particular bias against one of the authors, in which they aren't going to accept you or your paper anyway.
Thanks a lot! I'll go with this approach and make it clear that it's under review.
Additionally 2 of my LoR writers are the profs whom I worked with for this paper, so if there was some kind of bias it would show up there anyway!
Trying to help you
Development. [...] work in the year under review conc entrated. [...] on the one hand on longer-term projects for potential volume-production. [...] applications in the aviation and automotive industries, and on the other hand on elaborating applications in the leisure, sport and security sectors. centrotec.de.
It is to be understood that "under review" does not mean it will EVER get published (but likely will). You are doing the best you can, at the time. If the paper never makes it out or shifts to another journal, so be it. You may also see citations that say "in press" (meaning accepted, but you are lacking the issue and page numbers).
Answer: For most journals, the status "under review" is used to indicate that the paper has cleared the editorial check and has been sent for external review.
Answer: Status descriptions vary across journals. The submission systems of some journals use the status "under review" even when the manuscript is under the initial editorial assessment. Since the status of your paper changed to "under review" half a day after being "with editor," I'm inclined to think that "under review" in this case refers ...
I have a couple papers under my belt with another big journal (for the field anyway) that has a higher circulation and better brand recognition, but this relatively new one already has a higher impact factor and is kind of the cool kid's journal with people I know at the minute.
it is possible that the two reviewers gave conflicting judgements on your manuscript. The editor had to send it to an additional reviewers to make a more informed decision. It means due to some ...
Under Review When the status of your manuscript changes to under review, this means that it has passed the initial editorial checks. The journal has confirmed that you've uploaded and submitted the correct documents and that the content of your paper is relevant to your journal.
You can put it but clearly mention "under review". However paper publication results are declared soon so better to wait and then apply. AmbedkarUntouched • 2 yr. ago. You can put them as: Algorithmic Analysis of Naruto's Jutsus, Under the guidance of Dr Johny Sins. 2018-In Progress. At least thats how mine is put.
Yea, it means your paper is being considered by the editor to determine whether it is suitable for the journal in terms of quality and scope. After this process the paper will be assigned for...