Where to list a pending publication on CV?

[randomcat]

I have a manuscript that is soon to be submitted to a journal, but I'm not quite sure where to list it on my CV. For now I put it under the "Publications" section as (pending submission). Is this appropriate?

Edited November 28, 2015 by randomcat

[fuzzylogician]

If it's not submitted yet, it's not a pending publication. Don't list it as such, that would not be appropriate. It would need to go through peer review first, and there is no guarantee that it'll be accepted. You can list it on your CV as a manuscript: 

Random, C. 2015. "Basketweaving in underwater environments." Manuscript, Your University. (Use the citation format appropriate for your field!)

I would only do this if it's in very advanced preparation stages or if it's finished. Once it's submitted, you can replace "manuscript" with "submitted" (and in some fields you might also specify the journal, but again keep in mind that until it's accepted it doesn't count for much).

[randomcat]

22 minutes ago, fuzzylogician said:

If it's not submitted yet, it's not a pending publication. Don't list it as such, that would not be appropriate. It would need to go through peer review first, and there is no guarantee that it'll be accepted. You can list it on your CV as a manuscript: 

Random, C. 2015. "Basketweaving in underwater environments." Manuscript, Your University. (Use the citation format appropriate for your field!)

I would only do this if it's in very advanced preparation stages or if it's finished. Once it's submitted, you can replace "manuscript" with "submitted" (and in some fields you might also specify the journal, but again keep in mind that until it's accepted it doesn't count for much).

Thanks for the advice. So which section of my CV should I list it under? Should I make a separate section titled "Manuscripts"?

Edited November 28, 2015 by randomcat

[fuzzylogician]

Assuming that it's the only entry of its kind on your CV, if you have any presentations then I'd have a combined "presentations and publications" heading, otherwise I'd go with either "publications" or "manuscripts," and make sure it's clear that this is not a published paper but a manuscript. Either way, as I said, the value of having this paper on your CV is not great. What is important is if you can discuss it in detail in your SOP and explain how the experience of writing this paper has shaped your interests and research plans, and also (I assume) the fact that at least one professor knows this paper and can write about it in their LOR. 

[rising_star]

I think for an applicant to a PhD program, showing that you understand the basics of publication (so preparing a manuscript, identifying an appropriate journal, getting it submitted, etc.) is a good thing and one that will have some value. In my field, it's common for those up to pre-tenure (so third year review) to list the titles of articles which have been submitted, even if they haven't been accepted yet. Part of the reason for that is to give people a sense of what your most recent research is on, which is important if you're like a lot of people and your research post-PhD diverges from what you did during your dissertation.

[Eigen]

In my field it's common to list such a paper as (In Preparation) along with the rest of your publications. 

If you have the paper to the point that you would show it to others, and are clear about what stage it's in, I think this is perfectly kosher. It also helps put together a trajectory, showing what you've written and where it's published, with the newest (In Preparation) manuscript at the top of the list (reverse chronological order is usual). 

For me, I list manuscripts starting at (In Preparation) which is when I'd feel comfortable sharing the draft if asked. Then it's (Submitted), (Under Review), and either (Accepted) or (Under Revision) followed by (In Press). As soon as it has a DOI prior to appearing in print, I switch to that. 

I'd personally suggest checking the CVs of people in your field, and see what they do- some are stricter about this than others.

[TakeruK]

The norms in my field are similar to Eigen's, where the stages, for a CV, would be:

(in prep.): You have a complete draft that is coherent and actually ready for you to send to someone to read if you wanted them to read it. (i.e. there should be very little things left before submission---maybe just remaking a figure, or rerunning some analyses that will change the numbers in your tables/data but will not change your main conclusion)

(submitted): It's submitted to a journal and you are awaiting the first referee report

(in review): You've received the first referee report and you're deciding on how to respond, or you're waiting for a 2nd or 3rd referee report. For most papers in my field, the turnaround is very short so I don't bother updating my CV unless I know this stage is going to take awhile. It's pretty common for students to receive a referee report, submit a response within 2 weeks and then get the final acceptance a few days later.

(accepted) or (in press): You've gone through all the review stages and now you are approving proofs and waiting for online and in-print publication. Technically, there is a difference between (accepted) and (in press): the former is before the proof stage is done and the latter is after proofs and after the journal informs you which issue the article will appear (but that issue is yet to appear). But my field does not distinguish between these two.

Submitted papers matter, especially for early career scientists, because if it's good science, it will eventually be published somewhere, so you want to demonstrate that. And, as rising_star said, you're still gaining useful experience being a part of this process. 

There is one exception in my field, and that is the use of "in prep" during a presentation at a conference (poster or oral) doesn't mean the same thing as the CV version above---it just means that this result is not yet published. It allows the presenter to indicate who has "control" of the data/result so that the audience knows who to ask further questions if they want to find out some things before they become available.

[Eigen]

Just to add some details to the stages I described, because some are a bit different than TakeruKs:

In Prep: Manuscript is together, you're refining writing, working with co-authors, etc. but would be ready to show any interested party a draft and be OK with them reading it. 

Submitted: It's gone to the journal, but you haven't heard anything from an editor. 

Under Review: I use this stage when it's been sent out for review. In my field, once an editor has accepted it (i.e., the manuscript was not a desk rejection, which happens to a huge portion of submissions in my field), the authors are notified that the journal is interested in it, and has sen it out for peer-review. 

In my field, then, all decisions come from an editor, with reviews attached as justification. So there wouldn't be a way to know how many reviewers we're waiting on, we won't hear anything until they're all in and the Editor has made a decision. 

Under revision: Major/minor revisions, you've been given a deadline to make chances/respond to reviewers, and are working on those. 

Accepted: I use this if the editor has accepted the manuscript. Sometimes it's a conditional acceptance (we accept the manuscript pending these minor chances), sometimes it's outright (rarely). 

In Press: We're going back and forth with the copyeditors on proofs. They always screw up something in our manuscript, so this takes a while. 

That said, most journals in my field publish the draft from the authors as soon as it's accepted on the website with a DOI, so the last one is mostly only used for book chapters or edited collections.