I am an undergraduate student who does research with a professor at my University. Recently we submitted a paper (which I am second author of) to a conference, and it was accepted with shepherding.

I'm obviously proud of my work, and would mention it even if there was no formal paper associated with it. But I also think mentioning that I helped write this paper would strengthen my resumé.

How can I responsibly present this on my resume? Can I say the title of the paper? (I feel like that's reasonable) It's submission status? (I feel like this is a no-no) I'm unfamiliar with the academic guidelines here.

Edit: I'm looking for an industry internship, if that's relevant to the question

  • 3
    What sort of thing are you using this CV to apply for (e.g. graduate school, industry job, fellowship), and when? Might change the answer.
    – AJK
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 19:10
  • In general, suspect it's worth mentioning it and its title, definitely worth noting that it's been submitted (since that makes it clear there is a real paper, not one "in preparation" which is very nebulous.) Beyond that not so certain.
    – AJK
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 19:10
  • What is the actual status of the paper? If it's accepted and published, you have the data to put on the CV. If it's formally accepted in the end, but publication is in progress, it's "accepted" or "in press". If it's still in shepherding and there is no formal acceptance, it's still "submitted". If it isn't even submitted, it does not exist. As for me, I do not list submitted papers on my CV. Commented Jan 5, 2018 at 0:17

2 Answers 2


I usually have three categories for papers on my CV:

  1. Peer-reviewed accepted papers (if published they have the bibliographic info, otherwise they just say "Accepted by journal name")
  2. Submitted preprints (with the month and journal of submission and a link to the readable preprint)
  3. In preparation (means there's a file started but not finished)

You shouldn't move things from 2 to 1 until they're really officially accepted though. Be honest and accurate, but list it.

  • 1
    This is reasonable, though I don't usually include "in preparation" unless there's something I'd be comfortable showing to someone who asked about it - i.e. very near submission.
    – AJK
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 20:56
  • Yeah, I’m probably going to stop listing those at all as a get older, but I assume that people know that those don’t really mean much. Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 23:13
  • I'd keep the "in preparation" section only for particular uses, e.g. applying for a position in some field while working on something in that field - this shows you're active and is a great conversation topic for the interview. On the other hand, I'd add an "accepted" category - it's good to let people reading one's CV know that your recent work will be published in the journal XYZ shortly, especially when the preprint is available on e.g. arXiv.
    – user68958
    Commented Jan 31, 2018 at 21:11
  • I list the accepted and accepted/published ones together, since the actual publication doesn't mean anything it's the acceptance that's important. Commented Jan 31, 2018 at 21:44

A paper goes through various stages of review before either being published or rejected. The stages usually have names, but the names vary by journal so using the journal specific names could make your cv inconsistent.

If a paper is in the early stages of review I make an entry like

Author names, Paper name, Journal name, submitted.

If it is in the later stages I exchange 'submitted' for 'to appear'. If it has been published I add the page numbers. The advantage of this is to have a uniform format in your CV. The difference between early and later is a judgement call. Note that anyone with few publications to their name would be doing themselves a disservice by being overly strict about this distinction.

You must log in to answer this question.

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