Is is acceptable to refer to own publication?

Usually, answers are based on own knowledge, that is very often documented in own publication.

I personally like to present what I know, but not quote myself.

  • $\begingroup$ Stack Exchange policy is that if you are linking, referencing, etc. something with which you are affiliated, including that you are the author of the paper/book, then you must disclose that affiliation in the post where you put the link and/or reference. If you don't disclose your affiliation, then it is spam, by definition, as used on SE, which is even stated and linked in the flag dialog. That doesn't mean that situations shouldn't be handled with more nuance than red-flag nuking good content, but it does mean there must be disclosure (which can just be "my"). $\endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Aug 8 at 22:54

2 Answers 2


Yes, absolutely acceptable IMO, and pointing to the publications (peer-reviewed articles or books) is highly encouraged across all Stack Exchange sites. That way, folks can go get more info if needed.

  • $\begingroup$ Second the acceptability. I'd even add preprints, posters and online talks into the list of acceptable references. Irrespective of whether the reference is peer-reviewed or not (we know how variable the quality can be!), ultimately it is upto the person who raised the question to go into the relevance, suitability and correctness of each answer and reference for their particular situation. $\endgroup$
    – Thejasvi
    Jun 28 at 6:35

It is 100% ok to refer to publicions that are not you own as long as you add context behind the link.

For sites that are your own and/or you get something back its a fine line between spam and it being ok.

  • Don't talk about your product / website / book / job too much. Folks will read your answers for their ability to solve a specific problem; if you're good at doing that, then they'll find themselves more interested in who you are and what you're working on. If you respond only to questions where the answer can be something you're selling, they'll assume you're just here to sell.
  • Don't tell – show! The best way to avoid being seen as a snake-oil salesman is to demonstrate a solution, rather than simply asserting that the problem can be solved.
  • Don't include links except to support what you've written. Links are not a substitute for including information in your answer itself, and the links you include should always be directly relevant to a part of your answer. See also this FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange: Your answer is in another castle: when is an answer not an answer?

From: https://bioacoustics.stackexchange.com/help/promotion

  • $\begingroup$ A lot of the quoted text is for StackOverflow. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 at 3:11
  • $\begingroup$ @NikeDattani I do not see how it is since it doesn’t mention programming or anything related $\endgroup$
    – Ethan
    Jun 28 at 3:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Even if it is for SO, there are strong parallels for us as biacousticians to get inspiration from. For the basic scientists among us, replace 'book' for 'poster/preprint/paper' and voila. For those from/with companies/NGOs the terms are much more directly connected. $\endgroup$
    – Thejasvi
    Jun 28 at 5:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .