Monday, September 21, 2009

One of these days i'm going to get organezized

You know we're getting EVEN MORE anxious about the job market what with all the talk as of late about CV organization (see Ben's comment here which directs us to his site, here, and which references the ever lovely Spiros, here, and was promoted by fellow Smoker, JS, via e-mail). In particular, Ben wonders,
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


Anonymous said...

No answers, just more questions:

For conferences do you think it is better to list presentations chronologically or to group them together by paper? Going the latter route would seem to promote a more inclusive attitude about "lesser" presentations, assuming there was a progression from "lesser" to "greater" for a given paper.

Anonymous said...

One issue is what to do with book reviews. There are two kinds. The first is short reviews, which summarize the book and make a couple of quick critical points. The second is a substantive piece assessing the book. The latter is normally called "review essay" or "review article," and it involves much more original work than the short (normally just called) "book review..." How do you signal this difference? They are clearly different kinds of work...

Anonymous said...

I suggest dividing into separate sections: articles, book reviews, and oral presentations. For each, mark (and note that you're marking) with an asterisk those that were blind-reviewed.

Anonymous said...

10:53 -

The latter type of "book review" isn't a book review. It can be labeled a 'critical discussion' piece.

Anonymous said...

List revise and resubmits w/journal name under a section distinct from pubs?

Anonymous said...

I second what Anonymous 11:30 suggested. Using the asterisk to designate refereed papers and conference talks is fairly standard.

Separate out published from submitted articles. If a submitted one has a revise-and-resubmit, put that statement after its title.

Conference talks are not that significant to search committees. It's good to have done some, yes, but they don't carry much weight unless it's a pretty significant national conference and is refereed. I would list them chronologically but frankly, I doubt it matters much.

The main thing is not to appear to be padding your CV with lots of material.

Department Chair

Dr. Killjoy said...

Here is the thing. Feel free to have a section of completed/under review papers. Also feel free to point out that one or more of the submitted papers is a revise and resubmit; that's cool. However, DO NOT list the journal. Ever. Until that shit is accepted, the paper is still under review, and only dumb fucks trying unsuccessfully to spin straw into gold list the journal name where their papers are under review. Trust me, it fools no one, is a pure newb move, and quite likely will just piss off people on the hiring committee. Putting "The Virtues of Infanticide" (under review at Mind) on your CV is a like bragging that you have a big package--it likely means that you're sportin' a tootsie roll. Similarly putting "Obligations of Idiocy" (revise and resubmit at PPR) is like backing up your package bragging with a carefully rendered pencil sketch. Yeah, I guess it is more impressive than just talking about it, but god damn it all, I'm a size queen, so unless you show me, I'm going to assume that you are full of shit and wasting my time.

Congrats on the R&R by the way.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Killjoy,

I'll take your advice under consideration and try to rid myself of the images of my hairy, naked friends who had advised otherwise.

I can see not listing the journals that you've submitted to, certainly. No point. The journals where you've received R&R's seems a little less desperate. It also seems to give some useful information about the candidate. Learning that some journal has allowed someone to revise for resubmission is a kind of information that might be useful (e.g., you might put the odds of some paper listed as submitted at about 5-10% of getting accepted in the near future but an R&R goes to about 50% so someone with, say, two good R&Rs might be competitive when put alongside someone with, say, one okayish to mediocre pub). I guess I think that if you're providing someone with information that might actually be useful, it's not as obviously desperate. Also, listing something as being an R&R at a certain journal tells committees why it might be that we don't have high numbers (some journals will sit on your work for years).

It's useful to know that your reaction is strongly negative to this sort of thing, but I'm wondering what the conventions are and what the reactions of others are.

You could say that sending out applications with names of journals that you've revised for resubmission might compromise blind review, but since I know that my refs have already done that (sneaky but not too terribly sneaky bastards) I guess that's not much of a concern.

Ben said...

I'd like to second puzzlement at Dr Killjoy's comment.

I have generally listed where work is under review. I know that having a paper under review at J.Phil (or wherever) doesn't mean that I have a hope of publishing there. Nonetheless, I think this does give search committees useful info about the kind of stuff I'm writing and my ambitions for placing it.

While I accept that opinions will differ there, I'm at a loss to understand the point of listing R&R unless you also list the journal. Surely the information is useless if it could be either Mind or the U of outer Mongolia online post-graduate journal of philosophy...

Dr. Killjoy said...

One worry is that R&Rs come in all sorts of flavors. For example, an R&R may be nothing more than an invitation to quite literally resubmit the thing (new batch o' refs too). So while surely better than a kick in the pants, they more often than not get shitcanned (especially if you immediately resubmit it). Other times (even at the same journal) an R&R can be for all intents and purposes a conditional acceptance.

I'm all for putting down that you have an R&R; that shows mainly that you're on your way to getting the hang of this crazy world we call academic publishing. But in the end a rejection from Mind, PPR, Outer-Mongolia Quarterly, is only that, a rejection.

Think of it this way: if you find yourself mid-marathon setting a winning pace, pat yourself on the back; well done, my friend, keep it up! What you shouldn't do is phone up Nike for sponsorships thinking that your position at any point in the race besides the finish means anything at all (especially should you end up dead last with bloody nips).

Most folks only care about the finish and may well think you have a skewed sense of what matters in the profession if you think that declaring journal location for a paper with the status of anything other than an acceptance says something substantial about you as a philosopher.

Seriously, I'm not alone in thinking it poor form, and Ben notwithstanding, most CVs that do just that are CVs with sweet fuck all in the publication section. If you want to rock the desperate angle and draw attention to the fact that your greatest achievement to date is an R&R, by all means, disclose away, but unless that R&R turns into acceptance gold before Dec., no one will care.

Seriously, though, congrats on the R&R. I wish you nothing but non-retarded referees, amiable editors, and timely decisions. Now go put some fucking tape on your nips, it's disgusting.

Anonymous said...


One thing that we're learning here is how some people respond to an R&R on a CV and that's important because when you apply for a job you don't get to argue with those on the hiring committee about their responses.

That being said, I think we can all agree that R&R's come in all sorts of flavors but that's precisely why you represent the R&R as just that and let the committee do with it what they will. You don't put it down as an acceptance. Obviously.

If I had to bet whether some paper under submission that hasn't received any sort of verdict from a paper will be accepted and a paper that has been given an R&R will be accepted, I'd bet on the paper that received the R&R if that's all the information I'm given. I think that is supposed to say something about my confidence. Since people often do list the work that they have under review, if my hiring behavior is supposed to be something like betting behavior, I'd want the information. And, if that information is the kind of information that could rationalize betting behavior and rationalize hiring behavior and this is something that is known to applicants and those who evaluate them, I wouldn't be a dick to those who used this common knowledge and put down all the information they had (including a list of R&R's and the journals that invited them).