The title basically says it all. At which point in the refereeing process does it become acceptable to mention on my list of publications (e.g. the one on my website) that a paper has been accepted for publication at Journal X? Specifically:

  • is it OK when I receive word from the editor that the journal is "ready to publish my paper after a revision"?
  • is it OK when I confirm the final version of paper?
  • ... or must I wait until the paper is actually published?
  • I don't quite see the point in this question. If a paper comes back with "minor revisions", you would instantly do those and subsequently get the final acceptance within a few weeks. Why bother updating your publication list for that? If there are more than "minor" revisions necessary, I wouldn't boast about it either.
    – Karl
    Dec 20, 2015 at 14:07
  • @Karl The point is that I will want to update my publication list at some point, and I'm just curious at which point (in the admittedly short period of a few weeks or so) this is appropriate. It's not that I want to boast as soon as possible, it's just my lack of experience in how things are done :) Dec 24, 2015 at 10:38

2 Answers 2


I'd do it when getting the final acceptance letter. Before that, you can say "submitted" or "under revision".


If you have to make revisions still, you should list it as Revise and Resubmit at X. That's quite stronger a signal than Under Review at X: anyone can submit a paper to any journal, but an R&R implies that it's quite likely to be published there. Once you get the official acceptance letter, you can list it as Accepted at X or Forthcoming in X.

  • 3
    I prefer "under revision", as resubmit has the connotation of starting the review process again, with different reviewers. It's a step back from the "normal" process. Dec 20, 2015 at 16:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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