New Type of Entry: Working Paper
Dear Community,
I have been using Zotero for almost a decade now. What I always missed was the "Working Paper" entry. Currently, you can only enter Conference Paper, but a Working Paper is something different, obviously.
Would that be possible to implement?
Thanks!
I have been using Zotero for almost a decade now. What I always missed was the "Working Paper" entry. Currently, you can only enter Conference Paper, but a Working Paper is something different, obviously.
Would that be possible to implement?
Thanks!
That should comfortably cover working papers as well (which are effectively preprints endorsed or published by a specific organization)
A preprint, on the other hand, seems like a draft, which just happens to be available somewhere officially. I've considered these "manuscripts" in Zotero and that seems to work out fine for formatting. Rather than writing "unpublished manuscript" (or similar), you could write "preprint" there. This does mean that the manuscript type should be allowed identifiers like DOI, but otherwise it seems OK. There is also a distinction between a preprint of a specific journal article (e.g., author's draft on their personal website) versus a more generic preprint (e.g., pre-submission) as described by @bothide but either way, that should either just be cited as the final published article or as a manuscript separate from that.
But are there cases where a "working paper" is different from both? Or where a "preprint" is yet an additional fourth category?
[*One complication would be if the "working paper" isn't associated with any sort of journal at all, or perhaps just a series, but distributed by itself, e.g. decades ago as a "mimeo" copy. In that case I'd just cite it as a manuscript as described above, or perhaps as a very informally published book if it was long and intended as such, especially if it was part of a named series. I've run into a few reports of that type published by a university department, and cited them like books, I think, especially when they're held by at least some libraries.]
Not that I object to having a specific category because it's so common now, but why is paper-in-archive distinct from manuscript? Or is it that some style sheets would treat them differently?
And again I'm genuinely wondering why "manuscript" isn't appropriate for ArXiV (etc.).
(My curiosity upon reading this is the reason for responding, nothing more. I'm not trying to change any outcome.)
Also, why has the ITEM TYPE REPORT no field for DOI, that totally makes no sense to me, I am wondering if you could add that too or are planning too. Thanks!