7

I'm searching for postdoc positions in CS and sending my CV to here and there trying for different opportunities. However, I do not know how to present my under-review works. For instance, should I add them in my CV as under-review papers and mention the conferences to which I submitted? Then, should I also include the pre-prints in my postdoc applications?

Also, these conferences have double-blind review processes. Hence, I'm not sure whether to include these works in my home-page or not. I like to add them to my CV and profile as they are extracted from the last part of my Ph.D.

Besides, would they (postdoc employers) take these works seriously knowing that they have not been published yet?

Improve this question

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
11

As somebody who hires post-docs regularly, the common thing to do is indicate them on your CV as submitted. Giving a current title is good. Where is not as important.

For your on-line profile, I don't look at those - that is what the CV you submitted is for.

Look, I've been there as a graduating PhD with fewer publications than I would like. I will ask you about how your to-be-published stuff is coming, particularly since the interview isn't going to be the moment you submit your application. I will also ask your advisor how things are wrapping up, including the submitted articles. Further, I realize that not all articles end up in the place they were first submitted.

Don't lie about what is actually submitted. Be prepared to discuss how things are going on the articles. Be prepared to talk about them. Realize there are probably a few more coming in the future (field dependent, I know).

Improve this answer
2
  • Good advice. In fact, I want to include them also to have the opportunity to talk about them in case they are interested in the topic of the article and if they like to know about the work I did. That is why I said should I also add it to my university web-page to provide more info. regarding the work.
    – Bob
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 9:49
  • I know a submitted manuscript is nowehere close to a published work. But i want the people to know that i took my work seriously by submitting it to a good conference, and this is the honest part. For instance, i did several other small side-projects but didn't try to publish them as i didn't see them as self-contained publications for good venues.
    – Bob
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 9:53
4

The other answers address the "should you include" issue. The "how should I present" part is also important. The main thing is that you should never list works which are not accepted by a conference/journal under the heading of "Publications." Even if they are labeled "Submitted" this creates an impression of dishonesty or exaggeration. List your submitted and preprint works under a separate heading in your CV.

Improve this answer
1

The same way you would deal with it in citations: "in preparation for J. Op. Man.", "submitted to...", "in review at..."* "in press at..."

*For this one, I would probably just say submitted to, for a citation--no need to get into the minutia of if review process started or not. But for your CV worth taking credit for being a little bit down the path.

Improve this answer
2
  • 4
    As per citations: I'd be careful with "submitted to..." – the paper might end up being published in a different journal than initially indicated, what might lead to confusion. As the status of such paper is unsure, I'd write simply "in preparation". And about the "in press" – that's for papers formally accepted that are to appear shortly. In many guides for authors it's explicitly stated how to refer to different types of works (books, articles, conference proceedings, preprints, technical reports etc.).
    – user68958
    Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 22:45
  • All of these things can happen. The paper can be abandoned. Can change. Authors change. Etc. It is UNDERSTOOD that you are not final yet. You are doing the best you can, at the time.
    – guest
    Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 22:51
0

Although generally I would recommend against including anything not fully accepted to a CV, I would say it mostly depends on what stage of peer review they are. When evaluating candidates I personally tend to ignore anything that is not with a final decision.

  • If you have submitted an article to a journal and has been through one round of reviews and you are relatively confident that it will get through you may want to include it, marked as "under revision" or something similar.

  • If you just submitted an article to a conference or journal and you have not heard anything back, I would suggest against including it at all. Anyone can have a couple of articles submitted to a journal by tomorrow afternoon - they might have no chance of getting accepted but they are still submitted, so I see no value in including them in an application

Improve this answer
4
  • More than on review stage it should depend on career stage. A young researcher might profit to list submitted papers and even papers in preparation, though I would mention the latter in a resume rather than in a list.
    – Alchimista
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 9:19
  • 1
    I understand that they do not have any publication value before receiving any clear decision on them, but do people simply disregard any work the candidate has done in his thesis but not yet published in a venue?
    – Bob
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 10:22
  • It might sound a bit cynical, but I do. There is no way to verify any sort of quality or contribution - unless you are already familiar with the work of the author / co-authors.
    – o4tlulz
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 22:14
  • 2
    @Babak of course the work done it is taken into account. If I have to hire a post doc, I am interested to know of possible results yet to be publish. True is that I would relies on interview and knowledge rather than a list in a CV.
    – Alchimista
    Commented Feb 9, 2019 at 8:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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