Proceedings: list on CV?

[comp12]

I've recently had a paper submitted for a conference. This conferences archives and publishes all of the papers that are presented (not just the abstract). Each year's conference is compiled into one book, which is indeed circulated / sold. The question is: should I / can I list this paper as a publication on my CV in addition to a presentation? 

[fuzzylogician]

Yes, of course you can list it - under publications. Congrats!

[Zeugma]

Congratulations on your publication!    Though a word of caution: Many conferences do publish their panel papers; nevertheless, the publisher's reputation is crucial here. I have seen a growing trend in which conference papers have been published by Peter Lang, Cambridge Scholars Press, and the like. The fact that the conference you mention publishes all papers (both bad or good ones) is a red flag to me -- this assumes that there is no rigorous peer-review monitoring. These kinds of publications do not usually count toward tenure considerations. Of course, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have it listed on your CV. Remember, nailing a publication in a rigorous, peer-reviewed book or journal is the ideal!

Good luck and all best,
Z 

[Vader Was Framed]

Follow up question here...

 

When you give a talk at a conference AND have a paper appear in the proceedings (same topic as the talk) of said conference, would it be best to list both the paper on your CV under publications and the talk under presentations? Seems a bit redundant.. but maybe I'm missing the point.

 

Similar situation -- I'm a co-author on the conference paper but did not give the actual talk. In that case, I probably would only list the paper in pubs and not list anything even though my co-author gave a talk of our work.

 

Thanks!

[uromastyx]

Congratulations on your publication!    Though a word of caution: Many conferences do publish their panel papers; nevertheless, the publisher's reputation is crucial here. I have seen a growing trend in which conference papers have been published by Peter Lang, Cambridge Scholars Press, and the like. The fact that the conference you mention publishes all papers (both bad or good ones) is a red flag to me -- this assumes that there is no rigorous peer-review monitoring. These kinds of publications do not usually count toward tenure considerations. Of course, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have it listed on your CV. Remember, nailing a publication in a rigorous, peer-reviewed book or journal is the ideal!

YES

[fuzzylogician]

The fact that the conference you mention publishes all papers (both bad or good ones) is a red flag to me -- this assumes that there is no rigorous peer-review monitoring. These kinds of publications do not usually count toward tenure considerations. Of course, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have it listed on your CV. Remember, nailing a publication in a rigorous, peer-reviewed book or journal is the ideal!

Indeed, a peer-reviewed publication in a respected journal is normally the holy grail (not counting fields like Computer Science, where the most prestigious publications are conference proceedings and fields like history where it's books). On the other hand, it's not necessarily the case that you have to be concerned about a conference that publishes all of the papers that were presented in it. That's the standard in linguistics, and the proceedings of the two large national conferences and most prestigious subfield ones are definitely highly regarded and well-cited, even though the papers are not peer-reviewed (only the abstracts are). So a journal publication of the same material is desired, but having a paper in these proceedings is absolutely nothing to be worried about. Bottom line: find out about the status of the conference/proceedings you are talking about, don't take the very general advice you get here. Publications are one area where different fields (and even subfields) can have widely different conventions.

[TakeruK]

When you give a talk at a conference AND have a paper appear in the proceedings (same topic as the talk) of said conference, would it be best to list both the paper on your CV under publications and the talk under presentations? Seems a bit redundant.. but maybe I'm missing the point.

 

Similar situation -- I'm a co-author on the conference paper but did not give the actual talk. In that case, I probably would only list the paper in pubs and not list anything even though my co-author gave a talk of our work.

 

Thanks!

 

In this situation, personally, I would only list the proceedings and NOT the talk. Similarly, if you gave the same talk at multiple conferences, I would only list the most prestigious conference (or maybe the top 2 if they are both really good to have). Some applications explicitly told us not to list the same work more than once (i.e. replace the conference entry with a peer-reviewed article if that's more prestigious).

 

One exception would be that if for some reason, you are NOT the first author of the proceedings but you actually gave the presentation yourself. Then it would be a good idea to list both the proceedings and the presentation (to show that you were the presenter), or to put a star (or other marking) next to your name in the Proceedings entry and label it as "presenting author" or something. Otherwise, it's safe for a reader to assume the first author of any proceedings is the presenter.

 

I'd say that you should avoid redundancy because if you have a lot of presentations/proceedings already, then it's not necessary to list every work multiple times (as presentation(s) and proceedings) -- you will have other stuff to fill the space. On the other hand, if you have only one project that you presented at 3 conferences (perhaps a local/school one, then a regional one, then a national one) and have 1 proceedings, then it looks like really obvious CV padding to just repeat the same work 4 times. 

 

The way I see it, in my field, where it's Presentation < Proceedings < Peer Reviewed Articles, the idea of the Presentations/Proceedings sections is to show work that you still have "in progress" and have not yet made it to "peer reviewed article" stage. So there's no need to repeat entries. But, the "presentations" section is also useful to show that you have experience presenting your work in various formats, so it might be useful to repeat a few things here to reflect this experience, if necessary.