Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Once a paper of mine has definitively been accepted for publication, I typically list it on my CV and in citations as "forthcoming". Other people seem to use "in press" for the same category, and an author once asked me to change my reference to his paper to use "in press" rather than "forthcoming". Do you feel that there's a literal difference in what's conveyed by these two terms, or some difference of connotation? I suspect it simply has to do with conventions in different disciplines.

(Personally, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with "in press", since it suggests that the publisher is at least close to the process of printing the paper. Apart from the fact that that doesn't make sense for online-only journals, I feel funny referring to a paper that I know will appear in a journal issue dated a year and a half into the future as "in press". Actually being printed is a long way off.)

(On the other hand, I suppose that "forthcoming" might be confusing to someone who doesn't know its standard meaning in academia. In theory, someone might interpret it as implying no more than "This is something that I'm planning to write, when I get around to it, and this is the journal I expect to publish in." Obviously, that's not what most academics take "forthcoming" to mean, but any thoughtful person would understand that "in press" implies that you can count on the paper being published.)

EDIT: Obviously, given some of the answers to my question, the way that I thought that nearly all academics obviously interpret "forthcoming" was not correct (assuming that there's not too much weirdness in the sample I've drawn by asking the question here).

share|improve this question
8  
I use "To appear in [journal]" which I think avoids this ambiguity. – David Z Jul 17 '14 at 16:47
3  
Or "accepted by [journal]". "Submitted" is also useful as it states in a single word that the work has been written up. – Chris H Jul 17 '14 at 18:29
2  
The Establishment sometimes gets a little too caught up in words. You need not worry about such minor possibilities of misinterpretation. Lives are not at stake. – TheDoctor Jul 18 '14 at 15:11
    
@DavidZ, good idea. Given some of the remarks about "forthcoming" here, I would still worry that someone might nevertheless misinterpret "to appear in [journal]". – Mars Jul 19 '14 at 17:45
1  
@Mars well, some people will misinterpret anything ;-) I've also used "Accepted for publication in [journal]" (on a CV, not in a reference list) which you could also consider if you want something more explicit. – David Z Jul 19 '14 at 17:50
up vote 7 down vote accepted

I don't agree with most of the answers so far in one point: The answer depends on your field / area of research, so there is no universal truth about them.

For example in economics I have never seen "in press" and "forthcoming in [journal]" means that it is accepted. If the issue of the journal is already clear some people change it so that it looks like was already published (with a date in the future). (However, most people don't care after that point.)

The only thing where I have seen "in press" is when talking about a book.

So the main point (at least for me) is to clearly state by whom it is "in press" or where it is "forthcoming", as this adds credibility to your claim that it will be published.

However, from your question it is clear that both are common in your area of research and therefore I would just stick with the most commonly used. If you add the journal / conference where it is going to be published it should be clear that it was accepted.

share|improve this answer
    
The variation in other answers, and in my own experience, shows that your opening answer has to be correct. My sense is that "forthcoming" is what's most common in my field, but I now think that "in press" is safer. Some of my research is of interest outside of my field, and everyone's CV is read by someone outside their field some time (e.g. during university promotion processes). Given some of the answers, I would even worry that "forthcoming in [journal]" could be misinterpreted as if consistent with: "This is where I expect it to appear, once I write it." – Mars Jul 19 '14 at 17:32

I think many people would construe "in press" as meaning "has been refereed, accepted, and will definitely appear sometime", while "forthcoming" is often more vague, and may include cases where something has not yet been approved by a referee ... or even submitted... or even written.

share|improve this answer

I use in press for any accepted papers, regardless of the time-to-publication. I don't feel that indicating an article as in press implies that it will be published any time soon.

I specifically do not use forthcoming because it is ambiguous to me. I've seen people use it for everything ranging from accepted papers to future work in a conceptual phase.

share|improve this answer
11  
To me, "forthcoming" usually means "I think I have enough material to write it up, and maybe I've even begun writing." I don't think I've ever used "forthcoming" myself, and I tend to be skeptical about any paper that others list as forthcoming. – Andreas Blass Jul 17 '14 at 16:08

The major separator for manuscripts is whether or not they have been accepted for publication. This means been through peer review and revisions and accepted by the journal editors. Once a manuscript passes this step it can be assigned as in press. Anything before that stage is manuscript in preparation or in prep. for short. In a CV you can of course list manuscripts that have been submitted but not passed acceptance and submitted but this is usually not a formulation accepted as a reference in a journal. In my own CV I list manuscript as either submitted or published (which then includes in press).

share|improve this answer
    
There's a secondary distinction to be made. Being "under review" is very different from being "in preparation". At least in my world saying "in preparation" usually gets someone on the committee to say sarcastically "well we all have lots of things in preparation". Having it submitted is worth calling attention to. – Joel Feb 22 at 3:23

These answers make clear that "forthcoming" can be misinterpreted. So be explicit. Here are things that I think will be clear, and are standard for CV's I've seen:

If it's published: give the publication details

If it's accepted but not published then say: "accepted to [journal]"

If it's submitted then say: "under review" or "submitted" If you want to emphasize the journal, you can say "under review at [journal]", but it's a judgment call whether to do this.

If it's not submitted yet: then say "in preparation" - but at least for me, if you do this you better do more to convince me that it's almost done - link to an article on arxiv, maybe. I'd advise not including these unless you have a good reason (say, it's a grant application and you want to prove you've been working with the other people on the grant --- then include a link to the draft.)

In any of these last three, I could argue that the paper is "forthcoming". So if I'm reading a CV that says "forthcoming", I'll assume that it's forthcoming in much the way some of the papers I've been planning to get around to writing for 5 years are "forthcoming", because if it were accepted or submitted the person would have said so.

share|improve this answer
    
"Submitted" should work just as well as "Under review", shouldn't it? – carnendil Feb 22 at 4:46
    
agreed. Changed. – Joel Feb 22 at 4:52

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.