Would This Count as Padding the CV?

[11Q13]

I currently have a paper under review at JECS. It passed the first round and I'm resubmitting the edited version. Trouble is, of course, that I won't know if it's been accepted or not until after the application deadlines.

 

Would it be a bad idea to list the name of the title of the article in my CV under "publications" while making it explicit somehow that it is under review? Should I for example, just put "(under review)" before the title? after the title? Should I include or exclude the name of the journal? 

 

I've published 4 dictionary articles and given a couple papers previously so this wouldn't stand awkwardly alone under a publications and presentations heading, but it might still stand awkwardly alone given that I've not published in peer-reviewed journals before.

 

Thoughts?

[AbrasaxEos]

I think that is fine, as long as you make it clear that it is under review (most people just put it in square brackets after the article).  I've seen established scholars with this on their CV.  If it has made it past the 1st round of review, there is likely a fairly high chance of it being published, so it can't hurt.  Adcoms know what this means, and I don't think they would consider it padding, as long as you didn't have like ten articles marked as such - then it might seem as though you just fired out a bunch of crappy papers with little hope of their actually being published so that you could include them on your CV.  The only thing to watch for is if any of the people you are applying to work with are reviewers for JECS. From my own editing experience, when a "blind" reviewer becomes aware of who the author of an article is, the process for rectifying this can be quite complicated. 

[sogdia]

I agree: go ahead and include it with (under review) following the entry. However, if you're notified of acceptance, make sure you send a revised CV or notification of your great news to your potential advisor/Adcom. Good luck!

[MsBOOM]

Well, looks like everyone has beat me to the response I was going to give you! Do it!

[11Q13]

thanks for the feedback guys, but if I could nitpick? Should I put  [under review by JECS] (Journal of Early Christian Studies)? Normally, yeah, under review is good enough, but this is the premier journal...

[Body Politics]

I say do it, man.

[rising_star]

You should always list the journal where it's under review. In my field, what you've done would be considered a R&R (revise and resubmit), which would be listed in this case rather than "under review". Also, in my field, it's formatted in the standard citation style and you just add the review stage at the end.

[diazalon]

Looks like you have lots of opinions already, but I will give you what a member of Yale's adcom told me concerning the same question, just a few weeks ago: "Under review doesn't mean anything - leave it out until you know."

 

Thats the advice I was given (and took), do with it what you like. 

Edited October 23, 2013 by diazalon

[RedDoor]

Along this line, I was recently approved to write a book review for a journal, but the review will not be published (or reviewed) until after I apply to my PhD program. What terminology should I use on my application to reflect this?