12

In economics, we often need to cite working paper not published yet.

I am just wondering if we should use @unpublishedor @report?

This is example I am writing in my bib file. Is it OK?

@unpublished{ChernozhukovFernandez-ValKowalski2014,
    author  = "Victor Chernozhukov and Iv{\'a}n Fern{\'a}ndez-Val and Amanda Kowalski",
    title   = "QUANTILE REGRESSION WITH CENSORING AND ENDOGENEITY",
    year    = "2014",
    note    = "Working paper",
}
Mico
  • 506,678
Jie Wei
  • 889

1 Answers1

14

First off, since @report is not a recognized entry type in most bibliography styles, I wouldn't use it. Use @techreport instead.

The answer to your question depends crucially on how the paper is being circulated. If it's part of a working paper series or discussion paper series, it probably has some kind of information on the title page that identifies it as, say, a "National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper" along with a number. If so, you should enter its information using the @techreport entry type. If it does not, you're better off using the @unpublished entry type.

For the paper you mention, Amanda Kowalski's website notes that it was circulated in 2011 (not 2014) both as an NBER working paper and as a Cowles Foundation discussion paper. To reference the 2011 working paper version, I'd therefore use the @techreport entry type. Incidentally, the paper is also listed as "forthcoming" in the Journal of Econometrics; you might therefore choose the @article type and list its year as "forthcoming".

Mico
  • 506,678