1

Some conferences select articles for publication in a journal. In my CV, I have a section "Peer-reviewed journal" and another section "Conference". Where should I put such articles?

  • Only in "Peer-reviewed journal": why not, but then the conference contribution will be missing
  • In both sections: it is factually true, but in way, artificially, increases the list.

A similar question has been asked [1] but I understand there is a difference here: only the best conference submissions are selected for publication in a journal. It is not an automatic.

[1] Should a conference paper in a journal be considered a journal article?

Edit Requested clarifications:

  • Field is mechanical engineering, where journals are more important than conference (generally).
  • The conferences have their own proceedings, plus a few papers are selected for an independent publication in a journal (that has somehow partnered with the conference).
  • What is the field? How important are conferences in your field. For example, in CS they are very important. – Buffy Feb 11 at 15:26
  • 1
    Can you clarify if the conference also has a proceedings volume in which all accepted submissions are published, or if the journal is the sole publication venue for the conference? – lighthouse keeper Feb 11 at 16:04
  • @Buffy See edit – anderstood Feb 11 at 20:16
  • @lighthousekeeper See edit – anderstood Feb 11 at 20:16
  • It depends on the field, but I don't see the point in having separate journal publication and conference publication lists. I prefer to have one chronological list. That avoids this issue. Have you considered that. – Thomas Feb 11 at 20:24
3

Tl;dr: Put (published) conferences papers that are subsequently published as journal articles in both sections of your CV.

A journal article is a publication, as is a conference paper, regardless of whether the article was derived from the paper. Each publication is a contribution to science, so list both on your CV, they're both accomplishments. You can sort manuscripts by prestige of publication type, e.g., book, book chapter, journal article, conference paper, unpublished peer-reviewed manuscript, other works, work in progress, etc., optionally omitting some categories and providing incomplete listings for others (e.g., you might want to list only key works in progress). You can also cross-reference to avoid artificially inflating your accomplishments. For instance,

Journal articles

[1] anderstood (2020) A, Journal, 1(2), pp1-10.

[2] anderstood (2019) B with C, Journal, 5(7), pp59-76. Preliminary results appeared in [3].

Conference papers

[3] anderstood (2018) B, Conference, Published, pp20-27.

Note: I presume that journal articles derived from conference papers must add new material. This mightn't be the case for unpublished conference papers. In such cases, you could list both manuscripts and cross-reference, but it depends whether the unpublished work carries prestige, i.e., whether it is considered a (sufficiently large) accomplishment, which is field dependent.

|improve this answer|||||
1

Depending on the field, and the importance of conferences there, you could list them in one place (the more important one), and note the other.

For example, under conferences: "Bitcoin Hopping", Third Witty Conference, 2018. Published separately in Witty Journal, 2019.

But if journals are more important in the field, then in the journals section: "Bitcoin Hopping", Witty Journal, 2019. Also presented at Third Witty Conference, 2018.

Alternatively list them both separately in their own section but cross reference them: You then have two lines, but it is clear that it is one paper.

|improve this answer|||||

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.