My library didn't have subscription to a journal, and the one-off fee to buy the article was too much for me. So I contacted the author and he sent me the paper; but the unedited version. He says the published version received minor revisions and he lost the electronic copy of this version. How should I cite this paper; can I still reference it to the journal article?

I had a similar problem during my Masters. I was sent a copy of an article with no references (issue number/year, etc.), which meant it was useless! I looked everywhere for details and eventually I found out that my copy was only the transcript of a speech. The only thing that I could do was to include it in the bibliography as such, but I didn't cite it in the main text. I didn't think it was appropriate without the publication details. Is there any other way you can access the published version? (e.g. Interlibrary loans?)Are you sure that there isn't an electronic version available on-line?

"personal communication"?

or "personal communication, published as "?

Thank you for the replies. Yes, I am sure there isn't an electronic version available to me, unless I purchase the article. My library won't be able to help me on this one (I didn't understand their reasons), and the author won't be able to get the electronic copy of final version until September which is too late for me. The version he sent me has the references. So I have a feeling that I should be able to reference it to the journal article as long as I don't use direct quotes.

aliby, "personal communication, published as" seems like a good idea. I've never seen that used before though. I wonder if I should ask this question to the author.

Yeah, I havent actually seen that, it just seemed like a way round things.

TBH, if it was me I'd be pragmatic, and just reference the published paper. Unless it is something absolutely central and you think your examiners might check. Are you quoting from or just citing? I'd be more careful if quoting, but as a citation the gist is going to be the same.

I had a look at my notes, etc. The only thing that I found published and can be applicable to your case is:
1) In the footnote explain what you are citing/quoting, something like: 'I would like to thank Dr. Xyz for allowing me to read his copy of paper/article 'Zzzz', published in Yzx, etc.
2) In the bibliography you can just use the published details.
This is what you usually do when the author let you read his article before publication.
Hope it makes sense!

Thank you aliby for the suggestions, and thank you Corinne. That also sounds like the solution. I won't quote direclty anyway, and I'll add a footnote.

Hi 404,

yet I understand that it has been published (that was how you were aware of the paper in the first place) and there were only minor corrections. So the reference can be related to the offical publication (unless obviously you would be referring to the minor corrections)Or is this me being dull?

I think so rick. Because I haven't seen the published version I won't know what those minor changes are. But I don't see any harm in referencing the journal article just like you pointed out that I've become aware of the paper through the publication.

I wanted to see what everyone else would do in this type of situations.

Have you tried asking friends at other universities? For some time I was a member of two unis and quite often if I couldn't get something from one library I had access through the other. I was quite a favourite in the lab because everybody wanted me to check if I had access to whatever obscure article they were looking for.
If you name the journal I wouldn't mind checking for you now. You never know...

Use the official journal reference - I think this is fine. If you want to refer explicitly to ideas or quotes from the text, check with the author that they remained in the final version - he should remember. I presume the general thrust of what he's said remained the same. I really don't think it's problematic. It's not personal communication because that's e-mails and conversations. The footnote that Corinne suggests as an acknowledgement is a good idea.

Corinne - you can also reference speeches - I do this quite a bit from conferences. As long as in the reference you distinguish it as a speech rather than as a 'published' work, that's fine. You can reference pretty much anything these days. It' just up to you to determine the validity of the source and to reference it properly.

Hi Krashty. Thanks for your advice, which is very welcome. You don't find this things in books or websites.

Thanks 404!

your remark made me smile. Yet obviousy you are right