Hi all, I posted the following question about personal communication vs. unpublished data citations. Below I've pasted a summary of the responses I received. In general, the consensus was that if it was data belonging to one of the authors, it should be cited as "unpublished data," whereas if it was information obtained from someone else it should be a "personal communication." Note, however, that there were a few divergent views. Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions.
Robert _________________________________________________________ Robert Long, Ph.D. Research Ecologist Starksboro, VT 05487 (802)434-2766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________ Dear list, I have a seemingly basic question to which I have been unable to find a satisfactory answer. I'm trying to find a clear defining attribute of a "personal communication" that differentiates it from an "unpublished data" citation in a publication. I can certainly think of instances where the choice is obvious. However, there seem to be a number of examples that could logically be cited as either personal communication or unpublished data. For instance, if someone mentions to me via a phone call or e-mail that during the course of their research they observed an animal exhibiting a particular behavior, it seems that it would typically be cited as a personal communication. However, if this behavior is recorded, it becomes data, and if it is unpublished...well, you get the point. So, are there any good definitions for these phrases that will help make such decisions more clearcut? Robert ----- I have run into this problem as an editor. I use the recommendation of the CSE Style Manual. They give examples of several types of unpublished material: "papers and posters presented at meetings, manuscripts, and personal communication." They make a distinction between "unpublished" and "personal communication." Examples of personal communication are letters and conversations. Documents available in some type of archive should be considered unpublished material and sufficient information should be given on availability of this material. The editors also note that many publishers do not permit unpublished material in the end references. ----- One rule of thumb I have used is whenever I am talking to an individual it's a personal communication. I use unpublished data when it's my own data that is not published, but I know the results of it and am not reporting it (i.e., it's ancillary). ----- It seems to me that if it is your own data, you can cite it as unpublished data. If you are taking someone else's word for it, it is personal communication. ---- My experience with this recently is that it depends on the journal's standards/criteria for these terms. I needed to re-classify occurrences of "pers. comm." and "unpub. data" after I submitted a manuscript to a journal, after that same manuscript was formatted for (and rejected from) another journal. Some journals frown on such references altogether. If you already know where you plan to submit the work, I would check with that particular journal's citation requirements. I don't think there is a right/wrong answer to this, it just varies among publications. ----- Robert- according to the Journal of Experimental Biology- manuscript preparation guidelines, "Personal communication" is simply citing someone's else "unpublished data". "unpublished data" is your own data (or data from other author). ----- My experience has been that there isn't a clear cut definition, and in fact some journals have different definitions. For instance, one journal in my field requires you use the term personal communication for any non-published source (along with name and address of communicant), even if it's referring specifically to unpublished data. I guess the most important thing is including complete contact info, in case a reader wants to corroborate the unpublished results. ------
