need advice regarding putting unpublished paper on resume!

[yeasir]

Hi,

I am in a dilemma about putting a paper on my CV as I am applying for fall 2014.

I've a paper that got accepted at a journal, They needed around 1000 USD for publication and as such could not publish there  

I've already applied to grad 2 grad schools putting the paper on my resume as "accepted" at the previously mentioned journal.

Now that I want to apply to another schools, should I keep the paper as "accepted" or "work in progress" or "submitted to Journal 'X' ?

Thanks in advance


Regards,
Yeasir

• 
  
   
•  

[Pauli]

You may want to not include this journal publication on your resume. If the review committee checks more closely, they may disregard this publication since it wasn't formally published, or in the worst case, consider it unethical to include it since it isn't officially published or on track to be published.

[fuzzylogician]

If it's been accepted then you can list it as 'accepted for publication." However, in my field at least, publications that require payment from the author are normally scams or low-ranked journals which don't contribute much to anyone's reputation as a successful researcher. I don't know if that is also the case for this paper, but personally I'd be cautious of "publications" that may actually do you more harm than good. 

 

Pauli - I list on my CV both papers that are "to appear" and papers that are under review. It's a way of showing productivity, which in the job application process is very important. As long as you clearly mark each paper's status in the publication process (submitted, revised, accepted, published), I don't see why it should be considered unethical. Generally a published paper is better than accepted, but accepted is pretty much as good as published and on my CV such papers would move above the current manuscripts under review/revision.

[ss5ay]

All journals require payments for accepted papers (for example, PNAS requires $1000 for accepted papers, and something like $1000 extra for open access). 

 

I've never come across a reputable journal where it's free to publish (maybe it's free for low impact journals, free website, etc).

 

I would not include that paper on your resume as a published paper . Employers/application reviewers might think you're fabricating your resume.

 

I think it would be safer to put "submitted to journal x." 

 

Although, if that journal has a really low impact factor (lower than 3-4), I would not even put it on there. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by ss5ay

[PsychGirl1]

All journals require payments for accepted papers (for example, PNAS requires $1000 for accepted papers, and something like $1000 extra for open access). 

 

I've never come across a reputable journal where it's free to publish (maybe it's free for low impact journals, free website, etc).

 

I would not include that paper on your resume as a published paper . Employers/application reviewers might think you're fabricating your resume.

 

I think it would be safer to put "submitted to journal x." 

 

Although, if that journal has a really low impact factor (lower than 3-4), I would not even put it on there. 

 

whattttt. while some may charge, the majority of reputable journals do NOT make you pay for accepted papers, unless you are choosing to publish it open access. sometimes they charge you for optional things like color figures... but that's about it.

Edited December 10, 2013 by PsychGirl1

[Munashi]

whattttt. while some may charge, the majority of reputable journals do NOT make you pay for accepted papers, unless you are choosing to publish it open access. sometimes they charge you for optional things like color figures... but that's about it.

 

This has been my experience.  I suppose it may vary by field, but at least in my area paying to publish is frowned upon (unless, as PsychGirl notes, you are choosing to pay for open access or something extra).

[dr. t]

whattttt. while some may charge, the majority of reputable journals do NOT make you pay for accepted papers, unless you are choosing to publish it open access. sometimes they charge you for optional things like color figures... but that's about it.

 

Typical in the STEM fields, verboten in the humanities, somewhere between in the social sciences.

[fuzzylogician]

Typical in the STEM fields, verboten in the humanities, somewhere between in the social sciences.

...and "coincidentally" correlating with whether a certain field typically has a lot of external grant support that would be able to cover the costs imposed by the journals.

[dr. t]

...and "coincidentally" correlating with whether a certain field typically has a lot of external grant support that would be able to cover the costs imposed by the journals.

 

It's weird how that works, isn't it?

[kaister]

Waaaait Journals CHARGE you to publish?? I mean I've heard of that but those are usually scams or really crappy journals that aren't reputable.  But there are fields in which you have to pay to publish? Legit publishing? Really? I'm really naive to fields outside of my own, so this is fascinating...

[Guest |||]

Waaaait Journals CHARGE you to publish?? I mean I've heard of that but those are usually scams or really crappy journals that aren't reputable.  But there are fields in which you have to pay to publish? Legit publishing? Really? I'm really naive to fields outside of my own, so this is fascinating...

.

Actually its becoming a larger thing in psych, with some of these journals publishing good stuff. 

 

In publishing ultimately someone has to pay for the work to be put out there - Either the journaly or the individuals submitting to the journal, but solid journals exist on both ends.

[AdjunctOverload]

1. I would never pay to have my work published in a journal (of any sort).  The most reputable journals will not charge you for publication and will, in fact, give you one or two copies of the issue you're published in as "payment".

 

2. Any research/writing that you have not published you CAN put on your CV/resume; however, you need to indicate that it is not published with phrasing like: 

 

"Research in Progress"

 

"Current Research"

[Guest |||]

1. I would never pay to have my work published in a journal (of any sort).  The most reputable journals will not charge you for publication and will, in fact, give you one or two copies of the issue you're published in as "payment".

 

Thats just not true

 

Here are some journals that are amongst the most highly reputable in their field that use the "author pays" model.  Beside each is an impact factor measure for those interested.

 

PLoS Biology - 12.69

PLoS Medicine - 15.61

Journal of Clinical & Cellular Immunology - 5.66

Living Reviews in Relativity - 12.63

Journal of Vision - 2.80

 

There are excellent journals, bad journals and horrendous journals regardless of which model you decide to publish in, but as the world of publication continues to change it will be increasingly important not to paint with broad brushstrokes "author pays = bad".

 

For those interested, I have linked below two articles, one from science and another from nature (arguably the most reputable journals within the traditional model) that discuss the issue in finer detail.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6110/1018.summary

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6958/full/425554a.html

Edited January 2, 2014 by |||

[Eigen]

While 3 or 4 years ago I would have said if the journal was asking you to pay, you shouldn't publish, I wouldn't say that anymore. 

 

More journals in my field are moving to open access, with the caveat that the author pays publication costs, usually out of grants. NIH and NSF now require you to publish any work supported by their grants as open access, which means you pay the publication costs. 

[AdjunctOverload]

Thats just not true

 

Here are some journals that are amongst the most highly reputable in their field that use the "author pays" model.  Beside each is an impact factor measure for those interested.

 

PLoS Biology - 12.69

PLoS Medicine - 15.61

Journal of Clinical & Cellular Immunology - 5.66

Living Reviews in Relativity - 12.63

Journal of Vision - 2.80

 

There are excellent journals, bad journals and horrendous journals regardless of which model you decide to publish in, but as the world of publication continues to change it will be increasingly important not to paint with broad brushstrokes "author pays = bad".

 

For those interested, I have linked below two articles, one from science and another from nature (arguably the most reputable journals within the traditional model) that discuss the issue in finer detail.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6110/1018.summary

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6958/full/425554a.html

 

While I'm sure there are some reputable journals that do ask you to pay for publication, especially in the applied sciences, the majority don't.  Most of my rhetoric-field friends agree that this makes publication a "pay-for a boost to your reputation" system.  Where's the line between academic publication and self-publishing with articles?

 

Consider this:

 

You are giving away your research and knowledge for FREE to non-paying journals.  Yes, you get a boost via a line on your CV, but otherwise, your hard work and genius becomes their property in the form of first publication rights. 

 

Now you are expected to PAY to give away/distribute your knowledge/research?  In what universe? (Apparently this one, unfortunately).  I'd recommend not buying into this type of system.  Good journals will find ways to be self-sufficient through subscriptions and donations.  Journals should not be money-making ventures.

Edited January 3, 2014 by AdjunctOverload

[Eigen]

Most of the good open access journals you pay the costs, and retain the rights, so not sure where you're argument is coming from. 

 

You don't do research to profit (usually), you do it to get it out there.

[AdjunctOverload]

My argument is that research is valuable -- you should get something for your time and effort.  (And now some journals are requiring raw data and syntax files or transcripts for publication, so they, and their readers, have ALL of your hard work, which they could potentially use).

 

Journals used to pay for publications -- so many cents per word. 

 

Now journals "pay" you with a resume line, a potential boost to your reputation, a couple copies of the issue you're in (maybe), and a relatively easy way to communicate with people in your field (if people have subscriptions).  I don't understand why you should have to spend your time and energy doing the research and writing the article AND THEN have to pay for dispersing the information on top of it.  As a past managing editor of a publication, if the circulation is wide enough (which a good reputation suggests), there is no reason to ask authors to pay for publication.  Between paid subscriptions and academic databases/libraries paying for access, there's no reason for it.

 

If you want to just distribute your research, there are other, cheaper ways--including journals that don't make you pay for publication.

[Eigen]

I do get something out of research. I get paid to do it. 

 

And the people that pay me, are generally taxpayers. And one of the stipulations of that pay, is that the research that comes out of my work be openly available. 

 

To pay for the cost of editors and review, the people who pay me are also willing to pay the journal to publish said work. 

 

You're talking about things very far outside of your discipline, and you don't seem to have a good grasp of how it works. 

[Guest |||]

Most of my rhetoric-field friends agree that this makes publication a "pay-for a boost to your reputation" system. 

 

Glad to hear it, but its really irrelevant whether or not your friends agree.  What matters is the defense of the statement.

 

 

Where's the line between academic publication and self-publishing with articles?

 

At best this is irrelevant, at worst its a vast oversimplification.

 

The problem of academic publicaiton and self-publishing exists regardless of whether or not we consider journals that are "author-pays".  We are all aware there exist journals that are more or less dumping grounds for papers that were rejected from everywhere else.  These journals exist in the traditional model, and exist in the "author-pays" model.  This problem exists far deeper than simply saying let us ignore "author-pays" journals. 

 

Consider this:

 

You are giving away your research and knowledge for FREE to non-paying journals.  Yes, you get a boost via a line on your CV, but otherwise, your hard work and genius becomes their property in the form of first publication rights. 

 

Now you are expected to PAY to give away/distribute your knowledge/research?  In what universe? (Apparently this one, unfortunately).

 

I don't think you entirely understand how publication works, as in neither model, not the traditional or the "author-pays", is research and knowledge "FREE" as you put it. 

 

While there might not be a cost to submit your research in the traditional model, that knowledge is not then disperesed freely.  When you access an article through your university, someone has paid for you to have that knowledge, and herein lies one heart of the debate. 

 

We as scientists are funded, and typically that funding comes from taxpayers.  To then turn around and charge for what we have been paid to do leaves only a select few who can afford our end product.  The average cost for most single articles runs around 30~ dollars, meaning that typically only research companies and universities can afford a subscription of multiple articles (let alone multiple subscriptions), and thus the very people who make our job possible are excluded from ever reasonably accessing what we produce.

 

Good journals will find ways to be self-sufficient through subscriptions and donations.  Journals should not be money-making ventures.

 

So journals should find ways of making money, without actually being concerned about making money?  I'm not sure if you missed the contradiction or incoherence of your two sentences.

 

But even more importantly, again, publishing isn't this simple - ultimately someone has to pay, either the publisher or the author, and regardless of who pays, does not determine the quality of the journal or whether it is "good" or "bad".

 

 

My argument is that research is valuable -- you should get something for your time and effort.

 

When that monthly pay-cheque comes in the mail, what did you think it was for?

 

Journals used to pay for publications -- so many cents per word. 

 

I'm sorry but didn't you just say we should be weary of the reasons why scientists publish at all? 

 

"Where's the line between academic publication and self-publishing with articles?"

 

I don't understand why you should have to spend your time and energy doing the research and writing the article AND THEN have to pay for dispersing the information on top of it.

 

Though I have tried to address one of the core concerns, given that you self-admittedly do not understand "author-pays" journals, you should read the articles I linked to in my first post.

[AdjunctOverload]

 

You're talking about things very far outside of your discipline, and you don't seem to have a good grasp of how it works. 

 

You're right.  Having worked as an editor for a couple academic journals (and a couple mainstream/news publications), as an academic librarian (responsible for assisting in the access of information and information systems), and as a peer reviewer for a few journals (for free), I have no concept of how this works and why a pay-for publication system is inherently bad for academia.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I will not support such a system by buying into it.  But I will no longer continue to try to persuade authors not to spend their hard-won income and grant money on pay-for academic publications.

[Guest |||]

But I will no longer continue to try to persuade authors not to spend their hard-won income and grant money on pay-for academic publications.

 

In order to continue to persuade, you would have to begin.

[Eigen]

You're right.  Having worked as an editor for a couple academic journals (and a couple mainstream/news publications), as an academic librarian (responsible for assisting in the access of information and information systems), and as a peer reviewer for a few journals (for free), I have no concept of how this works and why a pay-for publication system is inherently bad for academia.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I will not support such a system by buying into it.  But I will no longer continue to try to persuade authors not to spend their hard-won income and grant money on pay-for academic publications.

 

Just because you have done these things in your (non-STEM) discipline does not mean that it's the same around. 

 

As we've continually mentioned, our pay and funding is contingent on us placing our work in open access journals. We are not doing work out of our own funding, we are doing research funded by the public that should be available to the public. 

 

You mention support by subscription, but the move in STEM is to get away from subscription based journals entirely, with the burden of cost placed on the authors (and grant funding) such that the research done is available to anyone. 

 

So yes, you are far outside of your discipline when some of the top authors and names in scientific publishing are at odds with what you are saying. 

[SarahReed]

You may want to not include this journal publication on your resume. If the review committee checks more closely, they may disregard this publication since it wasn't formally published, or in the worst case, consider it unethical to include it since it isn't officially published or on track to be published.

 

You are absolutely right about this. I'd suggest him the same.