cv questions

[moving on]

Okay, so.... I know that many people say that including the names of the journals at which you have papers under review is tacky. However, the only publication I have is at a "no name" journal. Because I don't want it to appear that I plan to aim that low all the time, I am considering including the names of the journals at which I have a few papers under review. For example, I would write something like:

Manuscripts Under Review

Last Name, First Name. "Title of Paper One." Under review at Name of Decent Journal One.

Last Name, First Name. "Title of Paper Two." Under review at Name of Decent Journal Two.

Thoughts?

[guesto]

thoughts? you're an idiot

[anner]

I was in the same position last year and did the same thing you are planning to do. It must not have been that bad an idea, because I did get interviews at top 50 places. Be aware though that you are running the risk of those papers getting rejected. So if you make a long list and they ask if there are any "updates" to your file, you will have put yourself in a very stupid position.

[another thing]

Also, if you are planning to do this you better make damn sure that your advisers are going to talk about those articles in their letters and vouch for the likelihood of their publication. Also, if your advisers do this they better be the kind of people that other people take seriously...

[moving on]

guesto, thanks for pointing that out. I'll be sure to add that to my CV.

anner, thanks for the feedback.

Anyone else have advice?

[thoughts]

It seems to me that listing this sort of information is a common thing to do on CVs nowadays. I think it will be a nice signal to potential employers about your ambitions if they are otherwise interested and I doubt it will hurt you.

(Consider two otherwise-identical CVs, one of which lists information like you've suggested and one doesn't... which one would you want to hire)? (and this really is what it will boil down to - if your application packet is in a stack with 10 others, you don't want someone to be able to say, "well, this person hasn't published anywhere good and doesn't seem to have any plans to...")

A lot of this kind of stuff is tie-breaking, but it's difficult to imagine it would hurt you, and it may help, so I say do it.

[hopeful]

It seems like potential employers would want to know what you have in the pipeline---most people on the market for their first position seem to have a section of papers under review. However, most people don't seem to say where unless the paper is under R&R or conditional acceptance. I agree with anner--I have a paper that I'm sure will ultimately be published, but it has now been rejected twice. I'm glad I didn't advertise the fact. Someone interested in you can always ask where the article is under review, and if the article is accepted, you can send updates to places where you are under consideration. It's great that you already have a publication, even if it's not in a top journal.

[anonprof]

You should never put the name of the journal if it is only under review. Ever. Anybody can submit an article to ASR or AJS. That said, I don't think we have ever eliminated a candidate outright for doing that, but it definitely raises questions as to their professionalization, which is not something you want when we are looking for reasons to put you in the 'no' pile.

If you are keen that they know that you are ambitious, ask your advisors to say in their letters where it is under review.

The only publications that should be listed with journal names are R&Rs and of course anything forthcoming. And definitely list those R&Rs -- we factor those in when cutting down to a short list.

[gugol]

The likelihood of listing under review pieces hurting you is greater than helping you, but in the end it almost surely doesn't matter.

In fact, I know someone who has submitted complete pieces of crap to top journals and then listed them as under review at these places, and this person has a job.

I reviewed the same piece twice, once for a top 3 publication and then for a top speciality publication. While fact checking a few historical claims the firs time around I actually came across this person's CV where they listed the paper under review at the publication I was reviewing it for (so there is also that part of ruining anonymous reviewing). The paper was complete rubbish. We are talking about stuff as simple as getting the language of the nation where the qualitative stuff was done wrong. It was worse than undergrad papers. And then after rejecting it, I was asked to review the exact same thing 6 months later at the specialty publication. Given that no changes were made, it was obvious this person was doing this just to pretend to have stuff in the pipeline.

And at the end of the day, that must have worked, as this person got a really nice job.

[i love this board]

"A job talk isn't research activity and it's in bad faith to put it on a cv."


1. I 100% agree. Apart from being in bad faith, I think it's tacky.


2. Is the above quote a Sartre reference? If it is, then whoever you are, I think you are awesome.

[yoyo]

Ok, to summarize, so we can get past this issue:

Saying "under review at ASR" is probably a) tacky, b) risks endangering anonymous review (but let's be honest, google scholar did away with that long ago); and c) has a very slight chance of convincing someone that YOU think it has a shot there.

For those people who have NOTHING going for them in terms of publications, my sense is that saying "under review" is kind of a hail mary pass that may be perceived as desparate, but it may also BARELY help increase the visibility of the file, particularly where people can't be sure that a) their advisors will mention where the ms is under review; or b) people are worried committees will pick up the file and not even look at the letters after they see a very weak c.v.

Translation: only do this if you are desparate. If you can, let your other accomplishments convince committees to read letters, there, I would say it's ok to writers talk up the potential of the paper. If you already have some things going for you, I would not list papers as "under-review" UNLESS they are R&R or conditionally accepted.

Seriously though, the time spent contemplating this issue would be MUCH better spent polishing your cover letter or research statement, AND/OR getting another ms out the door... don't you think?

[disagree]

Jul 21, 2010 10:12:19 GMT -5 @yoyo said:

Translation: only do this if you are desparate. If you can, let your other accomplishments convince committees to read letters, there, I would say it's ok to writers talk up the potential of the paper. If you already have some things going for you, I would not list papers as "under-review" UNLESS they are R&R or conditionally accepted.

I agree with everything you wrote, except for one thing. I think it is acceptable and a good idea to indicate when an article is under review on your CV - just don't indicate where. If you have a number of papers in progress it may look like you can't finish projects - but perhaps a couple of them are under review, that's different.

Once a paper has an R&R or a conditional accept, then you indicate location.

[Dr Tacky]

As a complete aside, does anyone else grate at seeing people talk about what is and is not "tacky" or the things that make them wonder about the degree to which a candidate is sufficiently "professionalized"? I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but these kinds of claims come across as though the poster thinks that there is one standard way to be a sociologist, which everyone in the discipline agrees upon.

Every time I read that "the search committee was given pause when" or "we would not even consider a person if", I just think to myself "these people must not have much faith in their own ability to adjudicate between good and bad work" and "I hope I never end up working there". I mean, do proofread your cover letter for clarity and grammatical errors. Don't over-think this other crap.

[professionality]

"does anyone else grate at seeing people talk about what is and is not "tacky" or the things that make them wonder about the degree to which a candidate is sufficiently "professionalized"?"

Totally agree. Then again, have seen these judgments rule the day - very often.

[tack2]

I definitely agree. Unfortunately I don't think obsessing with details is specific to sociology, though. Look at the poli sci rumor blog for a few minutes to see people obsessing over even more ridiculous stuff.

As a few people have already said, I think this is just a very understandable way people cope with uncertainty. Even though I can see how ridiculous things like letterhead are in this process, I keep reading... I think it's just important to remind yourself every once in a while that some of this procrastination is a useful coping mechanism, and some of it actually increases anxiety. I think another factor for many of us is that we are so isolated off in the forest of our dissertations, that it's just nice to have some (virtual) friends who can commiserate.