Manuscripts under prep

[healthypsych]

Hi

Out of curiosity, does anyone else put down manuscripts that are under preparation in their CVs? I have a few that are being prepped right now before we submit it for publication and I am not sure if it is a normal thing to put them down when they are under preparation. Thoughts?

[Jay's Brain]

Why not? For those of us in our beginning stages of creating our CVs, I think it's worthwhile to indicate what work and research we're working on. Saying your roles and experiences may not be enough to show that it extends to work that will eventually be up for publishing. If you have enough information (working title, description, and authorship list, etc), then include it. As you gain more experiences, you can replace them with actual published work.

Congrats on your success

[fuzzylogician]

Not in psychology, but it depends what the purpose would be. I don't have manuscript in preparation on the CV that's on my website, but I am likely to include them for a grant application if the paper topic is relevant to the grant, and I talk about them in job applications mostly to demonstrate what I've been doing recently. Similarly for grad school applications, having a paper in preparation is a good indication of productivity and follow-through on projects at that stage of your career. It would be helpful if a LOR writer also described this project, and you can expect to be asked about it in interviews or visits (as you can expect questions about anything else in your application). The only thing I would stress here is to be sure that the CV makes it clear that this is a paper in preparation, not a submitted or published paper. You don't want confusion about the status of the work, because that would seem like padding or misrepresentation, which really doesn't go over well with anyone. 

[gellert]

I do, but I keep it in a separate section.

Headings under Journal Articles on my CV:

Papers

In Press

Under Review

In Preparation

nb: in that order, too.

Edited August 29, 2015 by gellert
added nb

[EdNeuroGrl]

Yes this is super common, even for full professors. Usually they either in with other pubs with In Press (i.e. accepted by a publisher, but not published yet) or Under Review or Submitted for Publication or In Manuscript Preparation. This is far more common for new profs and graduate students as they do not have a fully-fledged publication base but they still want to show their work towards pubs. I see this all the time. Pull some CV's from profs you like and I'll bet you will see this in one of two of them.

[juilletmercredi]

Yes, it's very common to put manuscripts in preparation on your CV.

However, I have heard it recommended that you don't put a manuscript in prep on your CV unless you have a draft in some form that you can send to someone who requests it, or at least talk intelligently about it. In other words, you wouldn't have a manuscript listed as "in prep" if you've only started thinking about the paper.

[TakeruK]

Yes, it's very common to put manuscripts in preparation on your CV.

However, I have heard it recommended that you don't put a manuscript in prep on your CV unless you have a draft in some form that you can send to someone who requests it, or at least talk intelligently about it. In other words, you wouldn't have a manuscript listed as "in prep" if you've only started thinking about the paper.

Just wanted to second this. It's the difference between legitimately letting people know what's coming out soon vs. "CV padding". I would not list papers as "in prep" if I am not the first author though. And it's a little strange if you have a large number of "in prep" papers listed!

[healthypsych]

Thanks for all of the replies! 

Yeah all the ones I want to list for "Manuscripts in Preparation" are papers that are drafted already and need a bit of tweaking before I send it out for publication. Two are first author (my Master's dissertation which we are shortening to be a published paper and a systematic review) and one of them I believe I may be second or third author (another systematic review). I am hoping this will help as I apply for PhD programs!

[fuzzylogician]

In that case, I think you should definitely add these manuscripts to your CV. Since they in final stages of preparation, you should be able to describe the content and have some timeline for when they will be submitted. These are things you should discuss in your SOP, and I'm sure your recommenders will do the same. 

Not only having these, but also being able to talk about them in a way that makes clear that you understand the scope of the work and its contribution, will be very helpful for your applications.

[PoliticalOrder]

If you actually have papers published, then yes you can have a section like this.

If you have nothing published then no one really cares 'what you are working on' with regards to looking at your CV. In fact, it just looks like you are trying to pad your CV and make it seem better than it actually is. 

[healthypsych]

I already have a manuscript published and a white paper published. The white paper is published for a pharmaceutical company however so I don't really count it as a published paper, although it is relevant to the area i want to go into (health psychology). I just want PhD programs to see the work that I have come up with from completing my Master's and there are drafts that I can give them so it's not like I am making things up. 

[fuzzylogician]

If you actually have papers published, then yes you can have a section like this.

If you have nothing published then no one really cares 'what you are working on' with regards to looking at your CV. In fact, it just looks like you are trying to pad your CV and make it seem better than it actually is. 

^ Absolutely not, as several posters in this thread have explained.

Yes, there are ways to do this that look like padding, and that too has been discussed. However, if the manuscripts are clearly under a "manuscripts in preparation" section and are at an advanced preparation stage, I think it's fine to put them on the CV. Like juilletmercredi, I've been given the advice to only have manuscripts on there that I'm ready to share with someone, if asked, or at least be able to talk about in detail. For someone applying to PhD programs, having three manuscripts in preparation that you can discuss in detail is very good, and people will care about it.

[PoliticalOrder]

That doesn't make sense. If you have "three manuscripts in the advanced stage" then why are you not submitting any of them? 

It's ridiculous to expect people to care about papers that you have developed, but either aren't submitting or are working on other manuscripts and not submitting other ones. 

This is different than actually submitting papers and listing them as "under review." 

If you are working on manuscripts that you have promise for them, put them in your SOP, but don't list a bunch of papers that are in preparation like it counts for something; that's just tacky. 

Lots of people/applicants/students have "manuscripts in preparation" and at the end of the day they don't mean squat. 

 

[PoliticalOrder]

But like I said before, for example, if you had something like this:

Published papers:

X and Y

Working Papers:

Z

Then that it fine, whatever. But that's a far cry from listing three 'working papers' without anything actually published or even in the process of review. 

[fuzzylogician]

That doesn't make sense. If you have "three manuscripts in the advanced stage" then why are you not submitting any of them? 

It's ridiculous to expect people to care about papers that you have developed, but either aren't submitting or are working on other manuscripts and not submitting other ones. 

Well, right now I have one paper that's basically ready to go that is waiting because there are a few crucial data points that I want to double-check before I send the paper off and I can't do that before the middle of next week because I won't have access to the relevant resources before then. I have one paper that's been sitting on a co-author's desk for several weeks that as far as I am concerned is good to go, but the co-author just started a new job so they won't have to time read the paper through for probably another few weeks. And I have a third paper with a co-author that we both decided needs to have an additional new section discussing some potential issue. It will probably end up being 2 pages out of a 40-page paper, and we've agreed on what will be in there, but it's a relatively low priority for both of us and therefore will probably take another couple of weeks to finalize and for both of us to proofread. 

I have worked on these three papers. They will all be out in the next 3-4 weeks. If I had to submit a job application now, they would all be on my CV and described in my research statement, because it makes the different between "I had a very productive summer that ended with three different manuscripts" and "I appear not to have done anything this year." People know exactly what it means to have manuscripts in preparation. Also what it means to have them under review but not accepted, for that matter. My co-authors are pretty good about pushing papers out before my application deadlines, but sometimes you get delayed for reasons you can't control. That doesn't mean it doesn't still count for something. The point is to show productivity and working towards publishable results, which is the holy grail in academia. Even if you're not there yet, you want to show that you're working toward it, and it absolutely does make a difference. You can't begin to imagine how many people, for reasons that completely elude me, don't write their work up and pursue publication. Having three different such results from a Masters program shows that this candidate is very much on the right track, and as far as I am concerned, someone to take very seriously. 

 

This is different than actually submitting papers and listing them as "under review." 

If you are working on manuscripts that you have promise for them, put them in your SOP, but don't list a bunch of papers that are in preparation like it counts for something; that's just tacky. 

Lots of people/applicants/students have "manuscripts in preparation" and at the end of the day they don't mean squat. 

You know, it's funny, it's not hard to find people who will use the exact same arguments you're giving here for why no one cares about things you've submitted and are under review, but haven't been published. Since you've apparently convinced yourself that papers count once they've been submitted, you might want to imagine how those same arguments could be made for why manuscripts in preparation should also not be completely ignored.* 

 

* You say "don't mean squat." Such manuscripts won't count for tenure purposes, but ones under review won't, either. It might help to remember that this is someone with an MA applying for a PhD program. The expectations are different. I probably said this twice already in this thread but let me say it again: people will not be confused about what it means to have a ms. in prep or a ms. under review, but that doesn't mean it carries no value whatsoever. 

[healthypsych]

Yeah I think there may have been some confusion. I am not asking for people who are in grad school looking for jobs. I have my MSc in Health Psych and I want to pursue a PhD in the same field. I already have one manuscript published and an insight report for a pharmaceutical/ health psych company is published for the company as well. I have been involved in three research projects since starting my MSc and I want to show grad schools that there is something coming out of my time spent on those projects. We put off publishing for two weeks b/c they wanted me to focus on completing the dissertation first. Now that is done I can focus on polishing the other papers to submit them within the next few weeks. In case they are not at that stage by the time I apply, I want to make sure it is highlighted in my CV/ SOP. Just wanted to check if this was a normal convention, which it appears to be. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by healthypsych

[Guest joshw4288]

Yes, it's very common to put manuscripts in preparation on your CV.

However, I have heard it recommended that you don't put a manuscript in prep on your CV unless you have a draft in some form that you can send to someone who requests it, or at least talk intelligently about it. In other words, you wouldn't have a manuscript listed as "in prep" if you've only started thinking about the paper.

I will second this as well. In preparation means you have a full draft and are editing before submission. It does not mean you are beginning the writing. You should have a full draft available to send to interested parties. 

It is someone problematic. The truth is that some of these will never actually be published. I suggest being realistic. Do not put "In preparation" manuscripts unless you believe it to have a high chance of being published and you are very close (maybe within a month) to submitting for publication. 

 

[Guest joshw4288]

You know, it's funny, it's not hard to find people who will use the exact same arguments you're giving here for why no one cares about things you've submitted and are under review, but haven't been published. Since you've apparently convinced yourself that papers count once they've been submitted, you might want to imagine how those same arguments could be made for why manuscripts in preparation should also not be completely ignored.* 

 

* You say "don't mean squat." Such manuscripts won't count for tenure purposes, but ones under review won't, either. It might help to remember that this is someone with an MA applying for a PhD program. The expectations are different. I probably said this twice already in this thread but let me say it again: people will not be confused about what it means to have a ms. in prep or a ms. under review, but that doesn't mean it carries no value whatsoever. 

Many "submitted manuscripts" will never be published. I can't count the number of times I have seen a submitted manuscript cited in an article and then been unable to find the published version of said article--probably because it was rejected and the author chose to not resubmit. I don't know anyone who takes a submitted article to be of any more value than a manuscript in preparation. For the purposes of applying to grants and graduate school, they both demonstrate your current research area and to some extent, demonstrate that you are progressing as a researcher. They are also useful for other purposes. I have sent email inquiries to other researchers about papers they have in preparation and submitted. It lets me know about advances in my area before the material gets in print. 

[TakeruK]

I will second this as well. In preparation means you have a full draft and are editing before submission. It does not mean you are beginning the writing. You should have a full draft available to send to interested parties. 

Seems like a difference of fields (I realise this is in the Psychology forum though but the question is general) because in mine, "in prep" is a common way to say "I am working on it". It does not necessarily mean, to me, that the draft is already written. It just means that enough results have been found that I know I will be writing a paper soon.

Usually, I would only use this term when giving an oral presentation and if I am presenting work/results that have not yet been submitted or published, I'll say it's my work in prep. Similarly, I would do the same if I am presenting a colleague's work that is not yet submitted. 

Many "submitted manuscripts" will never be published. I can't count the number of times I have seen a submitted manuscript cited in an article and then been unable to find the published version of said article--probably because it was rejected and the author chose to not resubmit. I don't know anyone who takes a submitted article to be of any more value than a manuscript in preparation. 

However, I would never cite a paper "in prep" when preparing a manuscript of my own. In fact, most journals in my field will strongly discourage and maybe even not allow authors to cite anything that is not already published for exactly the reason you state here. There is an exception though. In my field, there is a pre-print server where people can upload any document they want and it's common for people to upload draft or submitted articles here while they await the peer review process. There is even a standard citation format for these articles in our journals. Since any reader can access the PDF for the article from the preprint server, it's okay for papers to cite this work (however, the reader should be careful to note the differences between papers on the preprint server that has already gone through peer review vs. ones that have not yet done so). Usually, by the time the paper's own peer review process is finished, the cited preprint papers will have also gone through peer review so the final published version of the paper will have a citation to the actual publication, not the preprint server link.

Finally, I think there could be difference in value between "submitted" and "in preparation". In many journals in my field, the acceptance rate is very high (i.e. the journal will accept all valid science, not just results deemed interesting enough/worthy of that journal's publication). Also, the field is small so there is a high cost to your own reputation if you just submit crap (as the referee will know who you are and know that you are submitting crap). So, there is a big difference, in my opinion, if your CV says you are submitting to a journal like Nature or Science (5% of submitted articles are published) vs. The Astrophysical Journal or The Astronomical Journal (both 85% to 90% acceptance). However, the standard procedure in my field is that if you think you have a great result, you always try Nature or Science first, and then if rejected, you resubmit to one of the other journals. And because preparing an article for the strict format guidelines of Science or Nature is a lot of work and means you must have thought about your result a lot, I think having a submitted article on your CV does signal some achievement beyond an "in preparation" line. (And also usually the amount of work that went into a Science or Nature submission means that the quality of work is high enough that it will pass through one of the other journals process fairly quickly!)