0

For a CV/ grad school application, is there any benefit to noting that after a paper my group submitted to a peer-reviewed journal it was returned with comments from reviewers and we addressed them and resubmitted?

For example,

[1] A. Author et al., Brilliant Title That Draws Attention, Submitted to J. Phys. B, [arXiv:1908.12345].

versus

[1] A. Author et al., Brilliant Title That Draws Attention, Re-submitted after peer-review to J. Phys. B, [arXiv:1908.12345].

Or something like that?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    I don't see any benefit. Seems inconsequential.
    – Buffy
    Nov 28, 2019 at 12:43
  • Thank you! I figured, but wanted to hear what the common practice was! Cheers
    – Lopey Tall
    Nov 28, 2019 at 12:50
  • 1
    I'd write "under review at journal X".
    – user2705196
    Nov 28, 2019 at 12:54
  • Also a nice option! :)
    – Lopey Tall
    Nov 28, 2019 at 13:15

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

I think the few different statuses you would typically indicate are:

  1. Submitted: after submission but before you’ve received any indication that it’s being reviewed
  2. Under review: during the entire back and forth of reviews, revisions, rebuttals, etc.
  3. Forthcoming (also called “In press”): once it’s been accepted but hasn’t yet been published.

As for formatting, it probably doesn't matter much as long as all the relevant info is there, but a few options to consider are:

[1] A. Author et al., Brilliant Title That Draws Attention, J. Phys. B, submitted August, 2019. Under review. [arXiv:1908.12345]

or

[1] A. Author et al., Brilliant Title That Draws Attention, under review at J. Phys. B, submitted August, 2019. [arXiv:1908.12345]

I'm sure you can find other examples elsewhere (such as this post).

Improve this answer
4
  • Under review in journal name?
    – Lopey Tall
    Nov 29, 2019 at 19:55
  • I've updated the answer to include a few formatting options. Personally I might go with "Under review with the Journal of Applied Such and Such", but the particular conjunction ("in", "at", "with") probably doesn't matter much
    – J. Tylka
    Nov 29, 2019 at 22:12
  • Hmmm I think I refer, [1] A. Author et al., Brilliant Title That Draws Attention, Under review in J. Phys. B, [arXiv:1908.12345]. since the submitted date is confusing, as the article was submitted in august, reviewers got back around october and we resubmitted around november.. Moreover, how you list it (submitted) makes it seem the citation should go under your category #1 (Submitted), i.e. there hasn't been any concrete evidence of peer-review as there is in my case
    – Lopey Tall
    Nov 30, 2019 at 17:07
  • 1
    the "submitted November, 2019" was just an example - typically I think you would list the date of the original submission, and besides that will indicate how long the review process has been underway. again, these are just suggestions of possible formatting options. Definitely you should indicate somewhere that the paper is "under review" and not just "submitted", but having a date is usually good practice too
    – J. Tylka
    Nov 30, 2019 at 17:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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