[The APA] however suggest the ever elegant "Manuscript submitted for publication" or "Manuscript in preparation" in later individual examples. (p. 211)
... "in press" is obviously a valid status that is distinct from "forthcoming." Parenthetically: I do not think "in press" is misused any more than "forthcoming" is.
Write in press in parentheses for articles that have been accepted for publication but that have not yet been published.(p. 185)
As far as APA is concerned in press is the only thing (other than n.d) that should be substituted in the date spot.
To follow on from Bruce, perhaps this could this be handled by a single boolean toggle in the input, and an assortment of terms.
If an item has 1) a date of publication in the future 2) the word forthcoming or 3) the words in press; in the date field...
Edit: now that I look more closely at AdamSmith's comment above, I realize I've directly contradicted his sense of open-ness / closed-ness of "in press" versus "forthcoming." Hmm.. Well, perhaps there are disciplinary norms at work, or perhaps this is all highly personal and informal, taking place on the edges of journals' styles?
So can I suggest we keep this simple and start with "forthcoming" value only?
That said, with regard to keeping this simple and accommodating the most common uses, I don't think its a huge thing for biologists--the main places these things are used is CVs and the like, and for authors citing a forthcoming paper of their own in a current one. For these few uses it seems not unreasonable for folks to manually edit citations.
If we go with the single "forthcoming" example, I would at least also suggest that "in press" be allowed as well as, unlike the strange situations where one would cite something in preparation or submitted, in press citations happen all the time. This is especially true now that in many fields the next year and a half of publications are available in some form of "online first" format.
Those are unpublished manuscripts - you can already put this information into the type field of the manuscript item and it will show up in APA.
I think the most relevant items here would be the ones that potentially substitute the date. And I think forthcoming might be the only one that does that.
I disagree. Why should the resource type for 1-3 be "manuscript" & change to "journal article" (or whatever) for 4 and 5 and the actual, printed article?
Also, 'type' is mapped to CSL's genre. This is not the proper place for publication status to be kept.
Publication status is neither the genre nor the date. In citations, it will not necessarily substitute for either of those (again: in my field, it is common for it to substitute for the volume/issue/page information).
I should change because a journal article is defines as having a container. I don't think something can be considered a journal article before it is at least submitted to a specific journal (who knows, maybe it ends up as a working paper or a chapter in an edited volume).
So if you want "submitted" and "forthcoming" as status I think that's reasonable. The others I don't see at all.
I don't think you can draw the line so solidly. If you've been invited to submit a paper somewhere, surely that somewhere is a container & it is worth keeping track of (despite you not actually submitting it yet)?
I'm not sure what "others" you refer to. If the APA manual has examples of "in preparation," I don't know why you would consider it an unreasonable variable for status.
Similarly, "in press" is obviously a valid status that is distinct from "forthcoming." Parenthetically: I do not think "in press" is misused any more than "forthcoming" is. The only question is whether we want to be granular enough to denote that something isn't merely "forthcoming," but is also "in press." APA & Chicago don't seem to think so (despite common use to the contrary), but perhaps other style manuals disagree...
"In press" means different things to different entites. It usually does not have the literal meaning of being printed at that very moment.
According to Chicago (and the CSE), "in press" means that the article has "been typeset and paginated." This is narrower than the APA's use of the term (which seems to be synonomous with "forthcoming"), but is also slightly different from bdarcus's definition. It might be sitting with the editor & not the printer, but only because the editor is waiting for final pagination of other papers in the same publication. Or it might be at the printers.
APA and Chicago/CSE don't seem to care about the difference between "forthcoming" and "in press." Yet the difference described by Chicago/CSE can be valuable. As a reader, I have a reasonable expectation that I can obtain a copy of an "in press" article and that it will be the same as the paper in the final, printed journal. If an article is merely "forthcoming," I might not be able to obtain a copy (as the authour and publisher may only want to send the final version along). If I do obtain a copy, the contents will probably be changed before it "goes to press."
For some publications, the status is also easily known. Some publishers will send final (unammendable) page proofs to the author, these may be assigned a DOI, and the article may appear online. Elsevier, calls these "articles in press" on their website.
APA says an article should be described as "in press."
Chicago says the same article should be called "forthcoming."
Doesn't that suggest one concept not only suffices, but is necessary?
Or are you suggesting that a user should be required to change the value in their data depending on the style they use?
I'm just looking for the easiest solution that will work: both in the data layer, and in the output styling.
I guess to get to noksagt's last point, the key question (beyond mine above) is whether we require that a bibliography be able to include both?
To walk through what this would look like from adding an item to Zotero through to being styled by a CSL. If an item has 1) a date of publication in the future 2) the word forthcoming or 3) the words in press; in the date field we would us that to trigger the style specific date entry for "This is vetted and will be published" term in whatever individual style the user is writing with.
Note: in BIBO, there's just a status property, and we have some predefined URIs for a number of options.
Besides that problem with granularity, many journals have stated dates of publication that are askew from the actual date on which the published copy becomes available.
Also agree with Bruce about placing this particular value in a separate field. Parsing in the date field is already under strain, and having the value in a separate field would allow users to select and sort on it, which would be useful.
From the discussion so far, it sounds as though an "in-press" tick-box, with a default value of "false" (unticked) would cover the bases --- styles could then decided which terms to apply by inspecting the other data available in the item. That would be the simplest solution for users. Would it be sufficient?
In both of these latter cases, the author will not know the year of publication. So there needs to be a date value to indicate this uncertainty. I think that "n.d." will probably work in the greatest majority of cases for this. This is different from a style-related "(in press)" or "(forthcoming)" added to the end of the bibliography. Without a placeholder like "n.d.", the in-text citation of (Smith, n.d.), becomes simply (Smith) and the bibliography style is likewise borked up.
So my question is: can we get by with "n.d." in the date field of all of these kinds of publications in the future, with a specifier like "in press" at the end (as indicated in a number of posts above), or do people think that it is necessary to have "in press" and the like show up in place of the date in the citation an bibliography?
but no, I don't think it's going to be enough.
There are definitely cases that have "forthcoming" or "in press" in lieu of a date.
Sorry, I don't have any time to track them down right now.
## Date field empty, status has value "in-press" ...
Doe, My Book (n.d.) (forthcoming).
Doe, My Book (forthcoming)
## Date field has value, status has value "in-press" ...
Doe, My Book (2000) (forthcoming).
Doe, My Book (forthcoming in 2000).
## Date field empty, status field empty ...
Doe, My Book (n.d.)
Doe, My Book
(Edit: see adamsmith's comment below, and my note on CSL 1.0 below that.)
First question: why are you not putting the date in the date field?