Do people prefer to put all publications (i.e. journal articles, book chapters, book reviews, conference proceedings, etc) in one bigger list, with peer-reviewed stuff somehow highlighted? Or is it better to have lots of separate lists - and, if so, how many?and for JS, he
find[s] it rather unclear what categories for publications are worth including. I currently divide them into books, journal articles, and book chapters. But, journal articles can be divided in various ways and I'm not quite clear how to understand the typical suggestion that you distinguished between peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed.I'm not sure there's a standard answer here and those of us without such problems probably shouldn't weigh in about the separation of publication*s* issue (though it certainly seems like a nice problem to have), but those of you who have opinions should weigh in.
In any case, that's just one facet of the issue at hand. There's also the question of how to divide up talks (does it just fall into: 'Peer-reviewed Conferences' and 'Other Talks'?) and which ones not to include (graduate conferences? probably not; [good/prestigious] summer school presentations? maybe), whether or not to include a 2-4 sentence dissertation blurb on the first page (I say that it works well for, and probably only for, the newly minted Ph.D), and what should appear first after Education, AOS, AOC (probably publications if you have them, but teaching experience before talks? that doesn't seem right to me).
Additionally, for those of us just going on the market, we should remember to not use the CV's of the well-established as the end-all, be-all templates. They may be worth looking at, but they ain't trying to get jobs.
That said, have at it.
-- Jaded Dissertator