Publication in progress on a CV?

[Cass]

I'm working on a CV for a fellowship application and I was told to include the paper I'm currently working on. The problem is that I have no idea how to include a paper that's only in the early stages of being written. I'm not even sure if the title we have now is the one we're going to end up using. How should I include this? 

Also, should I include papers where I've been acknowledged but I'm not an author? 

Thanks.

[ginagirl]

I personally included papers I was acknowledged on, under a section titled "Contributions & Acknowledgements". I think as long as you aren't deceitful about your level of involvement, there is no harm in including them. I did a great amount of data collection and analysis for those publications, and although I wasn't an author I felt that is spoke to the caliber of work I was involved in. I think it is up to you whether or not you want to include it. I think also as most of us are early in our careers, it's not unlikely we haven't co-authored many (or any) papers. The more positive information you can provide, the better.

[TakeruK]

Normally, I would say not to include manuscripts in prep. in a CV because "in preparation" can mean anything from "working on the data to write up the paper" to "just about ready to submit to the journal" and there's no real way to demonstrate your status.

 

Instead, what I usually do in this case (and in cases where I am acknowledged in a paper but didn't make it on the author list), would be to describe my involvement with these research projects in a "Research Experience" section of the CV instead. 

[hikaru1221]

Instead, what I usually do in this case (and in cases where I am acknowledged in a paper but didn't make it on the author list), would be to describe my involvement with these research projects in a "Research Experience" section of the CV instead. 

 

I doubt if they would read application folders that carefully. Just my subjective conclusion from various interviews though.

 

How about "To be submitted to conference X / journal Y"?

[Cass]

Thanks, everyone! 

So, I have to include the paper in prep because my PI told me to and, well, she's the boss. I have the papers I was acknowledged in under an "acknowledgements" heading. I wouldn't be deceptive about it, I just wanted to know if it would be helpful or harmful. 

Anyway, this has been a very helpful thread

[CulturalAnth]

I have a section called "Research Projects" that includes a broad description of my research. I would put it there. 

[fuzzylogician]

Normally, I would say not to include manuscripts in prep. in a CV because "in preparation" can mean anything from "working on the data to write up the paper" to "just about ready to submit to the journal" and there's no real way to demonstrate your status.

 

Instead, what I usually do in this case (and in cases where I am acknowledged in a paper but didn't make it on the author list), would be to describe my involvement with these research projects in a "Research Experience" section of the CV instead. 

 

I think it's fine to have a "manuscripts" section of the CV. Everyone knows exactly what it mean - namely, you have some data that you hope to turn into a journal paper, but the paper isn't (fully) worked out yet. Readers will therefore proceed with caution. I'd only put things under a "manuscripts" heading if there is a draft of the paper, and not otherwise. I think it's wrong when people put a paper under "manuscripts" when in fact they have a plan to write something up but nothing has actually been written--that's not a manuscript! If it's on your CV as a paper, you should be prepared to let people read it if they request; if you are not ready to do so, the paper is not ready to appear on your CV. I would not write "to be submitted to Journal X / conference Y," it means nothing. Anyone can say they'll submit something to some journal.

 

I would say that having a manuscript is a different accomplishment from participating in a project, and both deserve their own attention in the CV. I would list the project under "research experience," and briefly describe your part in the project, responsibilities, skills, etc. 

 

As for listing papers you've been acknowledged in, I have never seen anyone do such a thing and I would find quite strange if I were reading such a CV. If your contribution to a project is what led to the acknowledgement, that project should be listed under "research experience." People are acknowledged in papers for all kinds of things, and just that fact alone is meaningless to the CV reader. 

[jmu]

I agree entirely with fuzzylogician. I just (today) added a paper in preparation to my CV that has been written since November. I didn't think it was ready to read if someone requested it so I didn't put it. I did put the journal it's in preparation for because I think that gives a bit of an idea of what the paper is about and that it's far enough along for me to understand where it fits. (I think finding a good journal to submit to is an art, more so since I've begun reviewing articles.)

 

I agree about acknowledgements. I wouldn't put it but if you played a part on the project that should be there somewhere anyway. Mention the title of the paper there or something. It's more important that you were a part of the project.

[CulturalAnth]

I had no idea about acknolwdgements. One of my profs always puts my name in his acknowledgments (well, at least for the last 3 years since he's known me and I was his research assistant). I didn't know I could cite that on my CV. 

[TakeruK]

I'd only put things under a "manuscripts" heading if there is a draft of the paper, and not otherwise. I think it's wrong when people put a paper under "manuscripts" when in fact they have a plan to write something up but nothing has actually been written--that's not a manuscript! If it's on your CV as a paper, you should be prepared to let people read it if they request; if you are not ready to do so, the paper is not ready to appear on your CV. I would not write "to be submitted to Journal X / conference Y," it means nothing. Anyone can say they'll submit something to some journal.

 

I like this (emphasis added) as a rule of thumb!

[hikaru1221]

I think it's fine to have a "manuscripts" section of the CV. Everyone knows exactly what it mean - namely, you have some data that you hope to turn into a journal paper, but the paper isn't (fully) worked out yet. Readers will therefore proceed with caution. I'd only put things under a "manuscripts" heading if there is a draft of the paper, and not otherwise. I think it's wrong when people put a paper under "manuscripts" when in fact they have a plan to write something up but nothing has actually been written--that's not a manuscript! If it's on your CV as a paper, you should be prepared to let people read it if they request; if you are not ready to do so, the paper is not ready to appear on your CV. I would not write "to be submitted to Journal X / conference Y," it means nothing. Anyone can say they'll submit something to some journal.

 

I partially agree on this.

 

First, let me point out that at least in my field, the terms "In preparation", "Submitted to", "To be submitted to", etc are acceptable. People generally concur that the manuscript should be listed in one of those ways only if it's ready, or the results are sufficient for a paper, and that it's listed with one's honor.

 

One thing that I have to warn others is, while some professors do spend time reading your paper, some don't and only glance through the most informative details like whether it is published, the journal / conference, the date of publication. This was true, I can tell, from my experience with Stanford and Berkeley, and that's not because they are lazy, but I think because it's hard to tell the quality of a paper, let alone a manuscript, without working on that specific problem (yes, the problem itself, not the field!). Then how can a manuscript that is yet published be of any significance in this case? I think it's when the journal/ conference it is to be submitted to matters. It shows your own (and your professor's) evaluation of the quality of the manuscript. And the terms "In preparation", "Submitted to", "To be submitted to" legitimate the journal/ conference to be noted down.

 

I'm not saying these are the only ways to highlight the journal/conference though. Possibly TakeruK's and fuzzylogician's ways can as well. All I'm trying to say is, it's never wrong to get the motivation right, howsoever the manuscript is listed. As far as this thread concerns, you would want the manuscript to add more weight to your application. The manuscript is not just a paper-to-be; it's the work that you would want people to pay attention to.

 

Let me cite a piece of advice from this link http://graddecision.org/Application_RP.html

 

 

Because of pressure to show publications, some students in the past have tried to submit a lot of papers for publication right before the application deadline, so that they can list lots of papers as “submitted for publication” on their resume, to make it look like they have written a lot of papers.  Admissions committees have caught on to this trick, and don’t particularly appreciate students submitting a lot of weak papers just for this purpose. 

Of course, if you have one or two strong, bone fide papers--ones  that you think have a decent chance of being accepted--by all means submit them for publication, and list them as “under review” on your resume.  In this case, hopefully your letter writers will report in the LORs on the strength of these papers (thus reassuring the committee that they were not submitted just for the purpose of listing in your resume).  If you don’t have any accepted publications yet, but have only 1-2 papers under review, you might also consider enclosing this paper together with your graduate school application (or providing a url in your application), so that the admissions committee can look at the paper and judge for themselves the merits of your work.

If you have a paper accepted a few weeks after the PhD application deadline, it’s worth contacting the admissions office to let them know.  Sometimes they’ll be willing to update your application to reflect this paper acceptance, thus strengthening your application.

 

 

Anyway reading the posts in this topic, I believe the matter is very much field-dependent. So it's best to consult people working in your field (as what the OP seemed to have done!).