I have recently been doing a revision in my CV. I organized my publications into "Peer-reviewed journal articles", "Peer-reviewed conference papers", "Other published papers" ...

My dilema is which section to choose for conference papers published in a journal (either regular or special issue). Which of these two criteria should be used for classification of publications: the paper origin or the publication type?

Assumed, I have chosen journal article section for some of my conference papers. Could omitting conference details be treated as misleading?

  • 1
    Is the journal publication in addition to the conference proceedings, possibly for selected papers only? Or are the full conference proceedings published as a special issue of a journal? I would personally list the first as journal papers and the second as conference papers.
    – Mangara
    Aug 4, 2015 at 18:06

2 Answers 2


To the best of my understanding, the key reason why some conferences publish their proceedings as journal special issues is precisely to enable the papers to be listed as journal papers rather than conference papers. This is essentially a kludge to get around bureaucrats and people from fields with an "only journals count" prejudice.

As such, I think that it's entirely reasonable to list such papers in either the conference section or the journal section. The "technically-a-journal" form, however, typically has different citation information than the conference publication, so if you choose to list them in the journal section, be certain to list them with this alternate citation information, as reported by the journal archive site.


I would not consider a conference paper as a journal article. Of course conference paper published in a journal should be noted but separately from journal articles.

Usually the selection process of conference abstracts is different to peer-review process in a journal. Selection process for conference is more straight forward and I think personal views have a huge impact which gets to a conference. Same usually applies to those papers which are published in the journal.

Peer-reviewed paper in a journal goes through more scrutinized review than conference papers. Moreover you get the responses from reviewers which usually have on influence to the final form of your a journal article which is eventually published.

  • What field are you in?
    – jakebeal
    Aug 4, 2015 at 17:37
  • @jakebeal My field is medicine.
    – arkiaamu
    Aug 4, 2015 at 17:45
  • 3
    In many parts of the biomedical community, conferences tend to be nothing but abstracts without meaningful peer review, and thus (rightly) disdained. That is not the case for fields like computer science, where conference publications are typically full papers with a full peer review process. However, biomedical researchers (and others from similar communities) are typically unaware of this distinction, and this is why the "republish the conference as a special issue" workaround exists, in order to keep high-quality peer-reviewed papers from being automatically disregarded.
    – jakebeal
    Aug 4, 2015 at 18:09
  • 1
    You disdain conference abstracts in the biomedical community. I respect your standpoint. I am glad to hear how things works in your field since I have not history in CS conferences.
    – arkiaamu
    Aug 4, 2015 at 18:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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