I must admit that whenever I see these types of reference it does wind me up a bit. Clearly it's great to give attribution but I kind of think that references should pass some practical means of verifiability. - Dan Hagon

I'm with Dan, pers. comms should not be listed as references. Instead of "blah blah blah (ref. 12)", just use "blah blah blah (Steve Koch, pers. comm.)" in the text. If you wanna get fancy, make the name a mailto: link with subject: about that pers comm in [citation]. - Bill Hooker

Interesting. Sorry, Andy! Gonna have to change that reference to blah blah blah (Steve koch pers. comm) style - Steve Koch

Wait... how about a compromise? We could keep the numbered reference and link to the handle of our poster on Nature Precedings? In the updated version of the poster, we describe the advice from Erik Schaffer at the conference. http://precedings.nature.com/documen... - Steve Koch

The issue with numbering it is that makes the assertion look like a peer-reviewed statement. It also screws up citation graph analysis, but I don't expect you to care about that. - Mr. Gunn

Hmmm. That's sort of out the window, because we are already linking to open notebook science notebook pages, and other html links that are not peer-reviewed. I guess in my experience (or field), I've never assumed that numbered references meant the assertion was backed up by peer review or even a publication.. For example, numbered references often link to footnote explanations, as I think is common in Science, Nature, Physical Review Letters, etc. So if the reader doesn't look at the endnote, it shouldn't be assumed to be a link to peer-reviewed citation. As for citation graph analysis, I don't know much about it, but I guess this situation needs to be dealt with no matter what we choose. :) - Steve Koch

Curious to hear what you and the others above think about the idea of linking to our poster on Nature Precedings. It's from the conference where the suggestion was made to us, and I note this on the poster PDF. In my opinion now, without hearing from the others above, that's a superior method of attribution, versus just "blah blah (steve koch, pers. comm.)" - Steve Koch

I said that wrong. Numbering implies that it's not a personal communication. Of course links to wikis and such are entirely fine. - Mr. Gunn

I agree with Dan and Bill too. I want to expand the reasons a little bit. The criterion for me is not just whether it's peer reviewed or not, but its uniqueness. Let's say you have the following: We argue the earth is not the center of the universe (Steve Koch, personal communication) ..then later in the text... these results agree with data about the use of FriendFeed in science (Steve Koch, personal communication). ---->1/2 - Ramy Karam Aziz

2/2 --> If you use (24) for both it's assumed that these are the same "personal communication" which is not the case. If you use (24) for the first then (55) for the second, then you have two different numbers referring to the same thing. If you start saying personal communication 1 and personal communication 2 then it's total nonsense. Another reason is that nobody can access these personal communications in the same way the authors accessed them. - Ramy Karam Aziz

Will be even funnier if Steve Koch is also the author. You can certain reference your past paper as (Koch et al.); but can you reference your self-communication? - Ramy Karam Aziz

A reference should be something tangible and revisit-able -- a blog entry, a wiki page, a peer-reviewed paper. Pers comms are ephemeral; they shouldn't be used to support anything significant or crucial to the paper and I think it's rather a pointless workaround to cite the last time a particular pers comm was used. Think of the reader: all you want them to know is that the idea came from Erik; why should they go read the poster to find that out? - Bill Hooker

@Bill, the same reason the reader looks at any reference? To get further information or double check. Considering how most peer reviewed publications are closed access and have permanent errors, I can see much utility to citing NP poster, including: (1) it's "permanent" I.e. a handle instead of just URL. (2) it allows for versioning so I can correct things. (3) it allows for commenting. Honestly, I think you all are misunderstanding my intentions, and your arguments haven't convinced me at all. I suspect the discussion is tainted by our bad experiences in the past with annoying "personal communication" with no backup at all. I value the opinions, but I think I'm going to cite the poster and see how out plays out. If nothing else, it's at least possible that the old way can bee improved upon. - Steve Koch

That's my point though -- what further information is there in the poster, that's not in the paper? What is there to double check about "we got this idea from Erik, so we're giving him props"? (Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that you are giving him props, that's not the issue here.) I feel like I must be missing something. (1) doesn't matter unless there's more in the poster than in the paper; (2) has its drawbacks, I don't want people fucking about with the things they cite as references: I want refs to be permanent, and if they are versionable I want authors to cite a specific version; and (3) the PLoS ONE paper allows comments directly. - Bill Hooker

The more I think about it, the more it seems like what you want here is a sentence in the acknowledgements section, not a pers comm in the paper itself. Again -- I feel I'm missing something. - Bill Hooker

This is a very interesting conversation particularly since I teach my students that "personal communication" is an entirely valid form of reference. I've had many students pass data by experts in an email or F2F conversation -- as a result, the student gains the opinion of someone way more deeply experienced. But I read this in papers frequently, too -- researchers get results, and particularly when they are unexpected, call or email a friend/expert for additional insight. The particular person involved is usually not listed until the reference section. - Mickey Schafer

@Bill, I think the idea that a reference MUST be something revisitable is too constricting. It negates the value and contribution that informal communication makes to research. There's also a terrific history of such "informal" conversations being prime motivators in getting new science done and current work improved. Have a reference that refers to a publication doesn't guarantee the author's interpretation of the publication is sound anymore than interpretation following a conversation. I do agree that it is difficult for the reader, but most of the personal comm references I've seen refer to very specific points and not large-scale change makers. The large scale stuff is usually taken care of in acknowledgments b/c the scope of the help exceeds what can be usefully referenced. - Mickey Schafer