5

I have several projects that will be published soon. I am the 1st author in two of them and co-author in 3 of them. How to present this in my CV?

4

You may also want to ask the question of whether you should list them at all on your CV.

Some key distinctions about the papers: Have you got a complete draft? Have you submitted the paper to a journal? If so, what stage is it in the review process? Is it accepted?

In general, keep any listing of accepted or published papers separate from papers in preparation or under review. If you have very few or no publications, then a section on your CV for under preparation or under review papers may be useful. If you have many publications, most people drop the under preparation section from their CV.

If the paper is under review, it is a matter of judgement as to whether it is advisable to list the actual journal that it is under review at. Some people consider it poor form to list the submitted journal, given that anyone can submit a manuscript to any journal. Thus, it can be better to just list the authors and title. Equally, if the review has progressed, then that may be more relevant to demonstrating your future publication output, and you can indicate things like "received revise and resubmit", etc.

If the paper is accepted, then you can just put it on your CV as you would any other reference, albeit presumably you do not yet have page or issue numbers. If the journal has advanced online access, you may get a doi that you can include as well.

17

It should be immediately obvious to the reader of a CV which papers have been published, which ones are accepted, and which ones are under review.

  • For published papers, use the default citation style in your field (if there is such a thing).
  • For papers under review, I used "Submitted to Journal" when I was a more junior scientist. I have enough of a citation record that this is no longer very helpful.
  • For papers that have been accepted but are not yet published, I use "In press" to indicate its status. I have also seen "To appear" and "To be published" used for this purpose.
  • 2
    Don't add the "Submitted..." articles. There's no guarantee that they'll be accepted to that journal, and you could just say "Submitted to Nature/Science/other top journal" even if there's no chance of it making it in. – awjlogan Mar 6 '18 at 9:59
  • 3
    @awjlogan: If you’re a grad student or postdoc, you may not have much of a publication record. Under those circumstances, it’s important to list what’s in the pipeline. – aeismail Mar 6 '18 at 10:26
  • 2
    In that case it should be just "Submitted for publication", rather than adding a journal. Say you claim to be submitting to Nature, get offered a job based on it, but it turns out it only made it into a toilet paper journal, your new supervisor isn't likely to be impressed... – awjlogan Mar 6 '18 at 10:33
  • 2
    @awjlogan The supervisor should be angry with themselves for hiring someone based on where they submitted a paper. I mean, I could submit my birthday cards to Nature if I thought it would help my CV! The editors can reject them all they want, I've still submitted them there. – user9646 Mar 6 '18 at 11:57
  • 1
    Anyway, I disagree with mentioning where you submitted your paper. What if someone sees it, then a year later sees that the paper was published elsewhere? It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. Besides, it provides no info to the reader other than what you think of your own paper. – user9646 Mar 6 '18 at 11:59
11

Simply have a section titled "publications". In order to aid readability and emphasize your contribution, I have seen the following used (which I like)

Dukhiatma, J. Smith, D. Jones. "This is a paper", venue, year.

Dukhiatma, J. Smith, D. Jones. "This is another paper", venue, year.

K. Watson, Dukhiatma, J. Smith. "Yet another paper", venue, year.

  • 8
    If the paper has not been published, but has been accepted, it’s better to use an expression like “In press” or “To appear” instead of the year. – aeismail Mar 6 '18 at 0:52
  • 4
    @aeismail I think that's an answer sufficiently distinct from this one, since it suggests a different way of handling what appears to be the most important aspect of this question. – jpmc26 Mar 6 '18 at 0:59
  • 2
    @jpmc26: My answer is now posted. – aeismail Mar 6 '18 at 1:22
0

It depends on the nature of "Soon to be published".

For journals that have been accepted, or have been sent back for revisions, you can consider something like

Smith, J. My Amazing Science: A Bayesian Approach. Journal of Everything. In press/in revision.

For something where you have only just submitted it, you can use the notion of "In submission":

Shuri, P. Applications of Vibranium to Battlefield Injuries. In submission.

There are some people who believe that you should put the journal you have submitted the paper to in that line. In my mind, you shouldn't - a large percentage of people, myself included, essentially ignore that, and if you pick invariably high tiered journals, it can give off a feeling of a best being naive, and at worst trying to "juice" your CV. "In submission to Nature" doesn't mean anything.

Finally, there is the question of the notion of "In Preparation" papers - those that have not yet been submitted at all. For a junior scientist, I think it's understandable to have a limited set of these papers in your CV, essentially because the end of your training is moving these papers along, and this is essentially an indicator of "These things are highly in flux, and may be finished by the time you read this". I would only include one or two of these, and they need to be projects that are genuinely quite close to being done - you should expect to, and be comfortable with, answering questions about them.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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