11

I was thinking about submitting one of my papers in arXiv or www.optimization-online.org and hence I was just wondering if mentioning the same in my CV would be appropriate. Is it done usually? If yes, how should I actually mention something like this in my CV? Kindly guide me (I have no previous experience in publishing papers and I'm an undergraduate student).

  • 3
    Regarding the subtext: So your first publishing attempt was rejected from a "top" journal, and that leads you to believe the paper is unpublishable? "Top" journals are hard to publish in by definition. There are other pieces of advice on this site relevant to that as well. If those links don't suffice, perhaps you could start a separate post on "Should I still try to publish this paper I wrote?" (Here I mean "publish" to include peer-review.) – user4512 Jul 17 '13 at 21:33
  • I list my current submissions in my CV (under "Current Submissions"), whether they're on the ArXiv or not. – JeffE Jul 18 '13 at 3:17
  • @ChrisWhite Thank you for those links. Nevertheless I have put up a question giving the complete description of my current position here -> academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11213/…. Would be nice if you can give it a look. – anon. computer scientist Jul 18 '13 at 9:19
11

Putting non-peer reviewed publications on your CV is perfectly fine, but you should be aware that for research-oriented jobs and admission to academic programs you will be primarily judged by your peer reviewed publications. I have seen CVs that separately list peer-reviewed works and non-peer reviewed works, and sometimes the non-peer reviewed works are simply listed as "technical reports."

If you believe that the papers you write are worthy of being mentioned on your CV, then list them. But don't think that by putting a bunch of low-quality non-peer reviewed works will do you any favors when looking for work or when applying for academic positions (whether graduate school or employment). Obviously, you should avoid putting them on your CV if you are doing so simply to demonstrate that you can write a paper.

  • 1
    Thank you for the response. I would admit that the paper isn't something completely novel or path breaking. The essence is that I have tried working on the Traveling Tournament Problem and with the help of existing algorithms and techniques I have applied it on a very popular sports league and got significant results (such as reduction in the total travel by around 25%) and I am quite sure no one has actually worked on THAT league before. But my problem is that I tried submitting it to a top springer journal but it got rejected saying there wasn't any new ....(contd in next comment) [1/2] – anon. computer scientist Jul 17 '13 at 18:50
  • 1
    ........ technique that I was employing. And post that I have been in a complete dilemma on whether it really is worth publishing. Would be really nice to hear your view on this. I mean do people accept such papers? [2/2] – anon. computer scientist Jul 17 '13 at 18:51
  • 2
    When you say "you should be aware that for research-oriented jobs and admission to academic programs you will be primarily judged by your peer reviewed publications," I think it's field-dependent. In high-energy physics we all check the arxiv for new papers and publishing is an afterthought. It's relevant when being judged by people outside the field (e.g. promotion and tenure reviews), but not really inside the field. – Matt Reece Jul 17 '13 at 19:29
  • @MattReece I get that, but is your CV filled with arXiv-only papers? How do you judge mediocre arXiv papers from high quality ones if you see them on a CV? (not that you can necessarily tell high quality peer reviewed publications, but you can judge quality conferences and journals, and have a modicum of confidence that a peer reviewed publication has been vetted more than on arXiv). – Chris Gregg Jul 17 '13 at 20:05
  • 4
    No, it's not filled with arxiv-only papers, although my CV usually has a few papers that are on arxiv and haven't been published yet. But in my experience when looking to hire a postdoc, who may be at an early stage of their career, I don't mind seeing a lot of arXiv-only material on their CV. It's difficult due to limited time but I would hope people always try to judge quality based on content (or indirectly via who is citing it, what recommendation letters say, etc) more than publication venue. – Matt Reece Jul 17 '13 at 20:10
6

This only pertains to mathematics since that's the only field I can speak for, but there it's normal for people to list preprints on the arXiv in their publication list or CV making it clear that it is listed as a preprint. I think people understand perfectly well that there are long lead times one getting things published.

That said, I would say that you should think carefully and get advice from more experienced people in your field before submitting to a preprint archive. At least in the case of the arXiv, once something is posted, it can never be taken down.

  • Thank you for your response. But again, I'm a little worried on how publishing these preprints actually work. I mean, the thing is as you've said it takes so much time to actually get a response from a journal regarding their decision. So in the mean time can I just put the same paper without any modification in a preprint archive or should I be asking some kind of a permission from the journal (to whom I have submitted/will be submitting) before doing so? – anon. computer scientist Jul 17 '13 at 19:12
  • At least in math and CS, yes, you can just post your paper to the arxiv. In fact, many journal allow you to submit manuscripts by just sending them an ArXiv ID. – JeffE Jul 18 '13 at 3:04
  • @JeffE I am always curious about a minor issue, never bother to ask. I noticed that you use ArXiv instead of arXiv very often. Which one is their official name? I ask you because I know you're one of the moderators there. Please let me know if the answer is long. I'll post a question if necessary(or should I ask them?) Thanks. – scaaahu Jul 19 '13 at 2:28
  • I think "arXiv" is official—in particular, like Dead Kennedys and Talking Heads, it's just "arXiv", not "the arXiv"—but I can't get past the initial lower-case letter for a proper name. – JeffE Jul 19 '13 at 14:29
5

Depends on your field. If in it arXiv is not popular, make a separate list named "Preprints".

If it is popular (i.e. people are expected to post on arXiv along with sending to the journal), then it is common to have a single list (where, naturally, papers from last months or a year are only on arXiv, other - both have the journal reference and arXiv ID). If older papers are peer-reviewed then it is somehow implied that the new ones are likely to get into journals/conferences as well.

However, if you have only arXiv preprints (e.g. as you are only starting your career) it is not implied that they will get accepted. Anyway, listing them is way better than listing nothing - just make a list of "Preprints".

In any case putting preprints may give you an edge - especially if your preprints are related to research they are interested in (for me, quite a few times, they were a starting point of a specialistic discussion).

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.