I have two publications submitted but rejected in top conferences. Is it advisable to mention and list them in my CV/resume to show that the work was submitted for publication?
-
Are they really published? Or have they been submitted for publication and rejected, never to have actually been published? If they have been published, then why are the rejections important? Rejections aren't based on an intrinsic lack of value of a manuscript. They are considered within the scope of the publisher's needs at the time they are submitted.– JimCommented Oct 2, 2013 at 18:07
-
If your manuscripts have been peer reviewed and found to contain errors or to be discredited in some way, you probably should not mention them until you have adequately addressed the issues.– JimCommented Oct 2, 2013 at 18:12
-
It would depend on why the work is not suitable for publication, I think. I wouldn't list results that were later found to be incorrect. However, if you were just "turning the handle" on some data and did not produce noteworthy results (but those results could form a subset of a future publication), then by all means it's nothing to be ashamed of.– MoriartyCommented Oct 3, 2013 at 1:27
-
1Perhaps not on your primary CV, but you can have a CV dedicated to rejections: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17873– mankoffCommented Jun 14, 2014 at 17:25
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
You can certainly list them as manuscripts. I'm not sure what you are asking exactly: it would be a poor idea to list them as "Rejected from Prestigious conference A", or even "Submitted to Prestigious conference A" if Prestigious conference A has already made its decisions, and it is clear from the non-appearance of your paper that it was rejected.
-
12I was about to answer exactly that, but now I don't need to! Just list them as “manuscripts”, or “in preparation”, “in writing”, etc.– F'xCommented Oct 2, 2013 at 13:23
You should not say that they have been rejected from Conference X.
The common practice in my field (mathematics) is to post a preprint (on arXiv or your website) at the same time as you submit a paper. In that case, it would be appropriate to list it on your CV as "Preprint" (and include a link). Of course, people may be able to read between the lines and guess that you are trying to get it published, but haven't succeeded yet.
Hopefully you will soon be revising your papers and submitting them somewhere else, at which point you can list them as "Submitted to Conference Y".
answered Oct 2, 2013 at 15:07
Until you have them accepted, you can list them as "Technical Reports" on your C.V. Once they are accepted, you can switch out the reference to the conference or journal where they will be published.
answered Oct 2, 2013 at 13:08
-
8You should only list them as technical reports if they are technical reports! A technical report is not an unpublished manuscript, but a published document. However, you may be able to publish them as technical reports through your institution, and then list them as such.– MaxCommented Oct 2, 2013 at 14:29
-
You cannot call them technical report until you get an ISBN for them with a timestamp, is this correct? How do you make your work into a technical report?– hhhCommented Jan 30, 2015 at 21:56
-
1@hhh: No, that's not correct. You can call them technical reports if they're formally issued as a technical report by some institution (e.g. your university department or company). They don't need an ISBN. You make your work into a technical report by asking your institution to issue your work as one. Commented Sep 6, 2015 at 19:49
-
1@StuartGolodetz This is what I did when I was a graduate student. Our department issued technical report numbers and kept a log of the reports. There wasn't a formal process for reviewing them, but they were official. Commented Sep 7, 2015 at 15:41