Appreciating that what even counts as an invited talk in the first place for CV purposes will vary by field (links to related questions: Do presentations given during interviews count as invited talks?; Should I list talks I invited myself to give on my CV?), I wonder whether talks presented remotely via video-conferencing carry less weight on a CV than a presentation in person being physically present at the hosting institution or venue.

A rule of thumb I have learned in my field is that financial reimbursement from the host is a strong indication that the talk counts as invited (this means job talks and presentations given as a proxy for the supervisor are considered invited). With current travel restrictions (2020) and the likelihood that video-conferencing for virtual conferences and interviews will continue to grow in importance, the measure of reimbursement as an indicator of the importance of the talk cannot be applied, as no travel is required.

If I included e.g. video faculty interview talks as invited talks on my CV, I would feel that the place of the talk should indicate video-conferencing: "Host institution (virtual)". Would this limit the value of such a talk on a CV?


2 Answers 2


Why would you want to try to express it yourself as a "lesser" contribution? You give much of the same value, especially if there is some facility for interaction with "attendees".

One of the reasons for "paying" for talks is that the speaker may need to travel and deal (time and effort) with accommodation - the hassle factor. It also means time away from their normal work. The money given to speakers isn't considered "pay" for expertise in the normal sense and is often called an honorarium.

But the effort required to prepare and actually deliver the talk is just the same as if travel were required in addition.

And, given the current state of things, there are few other options than virtual talks. That doesn't lessen their value. It is just what we need to do now. Just as travel was once required for such talks prior to the internet.

If you mark them at all, I suggest that you do so in a very minimal manner and certainly not separate them out from talks given in person.

  • Even though reimbursement isn't a form of "pay", it does signal a commitment from the host (for long-distance air travel a quite significant one). Virtual conferences will lower barriers to invite speakers (generally a good thing, but at the seminar level, it might limit the impression if virtual meetings are starting to become the rule now). I second there is no need to label talks as "virtual" in the C.V. - there is indeed no reason for selling short in it as long all is true.
    – Pete
    Commented Jun 9, 2020 at 22:14
  • @Pete, it also gives the speaker an opportunity to expand their circle of contacts and maybe collaborators. In itself that has value. A lot of the "cost" of air travel, I suspect, is passed on to funding agencies. And a thousand dollars or so in travel money for a talk isn't that different from what a senior faculty member earns for a lecture. It might even be a bargain.
    – Buffy
    Commented Jun 9, 2020 at 22:21
  • This answer is missing the word 'yes' in response to the title question. Commented Jun 10, 2020 at 2:11

Do invited talks given via video-conferencing have the same weight on a CV as talks given in person?

Yes. If you were invited to give a talk and you gave the talk, it is an invited talk. The medium of talk is not relevant.

Similarly, if you published a paper in a print journal and published a paper in an online journal, both papers were published.

I would feel that the place of the talk should indicate video-conferencing: "Host institution (virtual)"

There is no reason to indicate the location of the talk. What is important is the host institution/conference.

You must log in to answer this question.

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