1

I'm citing a study that brings context to my work and some of its methodology is questionable so I am highlighting this aspect. This study was published twice in slightly different forms, once in a lower scale journal with the PhD student as the sole author, and once in a more known journal with both the PhD student and their professor as second author.

This question partly addresses my problem. At first glance, I would cite the most recent, most prestigious piece. It's shorter but sums the bulk of what I need. However it does not address etiquette. If I cite the study by both authors, the professor's name is joined to the student's questionable methods (IMO).

Would it be preferable to stick to the work authored by the student only in this case?

curious
  • 1,020
  • 1
  • 12
  • 18
  • 4
    Why not cite both and explain the differences? – Christian Jul 11 '17 at 14:07
  • 9
    In any case, it is not your job to protect an advisor from being linked to a paper he chose to sign. Think rather about your reader when making your choice. – Benoît Kloeckner Jul 11 '17 at 14:12
  • @BenoîtKloeckner Thought as much, I'll go for the more prestigious/recent one. – curious Jul 11 '17 at 14:59
  • @Christian I don't see glaring differences in the work. I think it was a case of going up the ladder in terms of publication prestige. – curious Jul 11 '17 at 14:59
  • How is it possible to publish the same work twice? –  Jul 11 '17 at 17:02
  • @DSVA https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5808/publishing-similar-same-paper-twice-regarding-economics-letters-journal – curious Jul 11 '17 at 17:14
  • @DSVA And to add a nuance, one paper is the typical journal article format, the other is shortened and made to look more digestible. However, both use the same research topic, data, and methodology. Just the authors change (i.e. the student added his prof as a 2nd author) – curious Jul 11 '17 at 17:16
  • @Emilie yes, that's a common thing to publish a communication and then follow up with a full paper. But that's different from publishing the same results twice. While the follow up paper can include the results from the first one (very uncommon in chemistry for example, you just take that as a starting point) it definitely has to have new findings. –  Jul 11 '17 at 17:17
  • @BenoîtKloeckner If you would like to write a formal answer, I would mark it as accepted. – curious Jul 11 '17 at 17:18
  • @DSVA The longer paper has other content built around it (e.g. case study A+B+C), including a summary of the results published in the shorter paper (e.g. case study B in long form). But this is the only part relevant to me, hence why I'm debating which to cite. – curious Jul 11 '17 at 17:27

1 Answers1

2

It is not your job to protect an advisor from being linked to a paper he chose to sign. Think rather about your reader when making your choice.

Benoît Kloeckner
  • 14,620
  • 39
  • 77