Listing R&Rs on your CV?

In our December “how can we help you?” thread, a reader writes:

I am wondering whether and how to include a Major Revisions decision in my application materials. Should I put it on my CV? In my cover letter? Should I "frontload" it in the way I have tried to do my other publications or will that give an amatuerish impression, perhaps as though I am proud of what is really a modest achievement. 

(Hopefully others could benefit from generic advice on this but I imagine it depends on the (perceived) caliber of the journal in question, as well as on my other publications. For my case, I have two other publications. Both are in good but not tip-top journals. My impression is that the journal for which I have this Major Revisions decision is received as either the same or a bit higher caliber than either of those.)

Another reader then submitted the following reply:

No one is going to give you a job because you have a paper invited for major revisions. If you have other publications already, which you do, that is what will count. If you don't, then those reading your application will think you are deluded about what you have - there is no presumption of acceptance with major revisions, as there is with minor revisions. Just do not list it at all. Each year when the market begins, you should accept that you have what you have ... and nothing more.

I disagree. Of course, no one is literally going to give you a job because you have an R&R listed on your CV. But still, an R&R at a good journal looks good, especially if you only have a couple of publications (or none at all). Listing it on your CV signals a couple of things: (1) that you have additional non published work that has impressed at least one (and perhaps multiple) referee(s) at a good journal, and (2) that there a non-negligible probability that you will eventually publish that piece (either after revising or at some other good journal).

Of course, I think hiring committees will take R&Rs with a serious grain of salt, as major revisions can end up being rejected up to 50% of the time (or so I’ve heard). But still, it seems to me that an R&R at a good journal only signals good things—so if it were me, I’d totally list it. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[anonymous]

If you do this, please don't list the paper under "Publications". It's better to include a "Works in Progress" section after "Publications". For example:

"[insert title 1]" (Major revisions at [journal])
"[insert title 2]" (under review)
"[insert title 3]" (in preparation for submission)

FWIW, I would not name the journal, and I would not include papers that are not yet under review. However, a lot of people I respect do both of these things.

Again though, do NOT list such things under "Publications".

[grad]

It's curious that some referees dish out R & R's with the stipulation being the paper needs major revisions. How is that not a rejection? On the flipside, I recently received a plain rejection for a paper that was said by the referees to be "well-researched, well-written, and making a new contribution," though I had missed what they took to be a clear objection. Fair enough, I thought. But hearing about R&Rs in need of major revision, given my experience of getting rejections whose revisions seem rather minor, leaves me perplexed.

[publisher]

Grad
You should talk to a mentor - perhaps your thesis supervisor - about the rejections you have got. S/he can review the referees' reports with you, and then explain what the issues are that you need to work on. To be frank with you, the publishing part of the business is far less mysterious than many suggest it is. I find it remarkably straightforward. And I have had my share of rejections.

[Committee Member #42568]

Don't list it under "Publications." Have a separate section for work-in-progress. Then include it. Search committees are looking for signals that you'll be able to get tenure. This means you want to signal that you are at present research active. An R&R is a good signal for that, to demonstrate that you don't just have a pub or two in the bank, but that you are actively pursuing more work.

[Nicolas Delon]

I do list R&Rs under Work in Progress (not publications!), including the journal name. I've never had a paper rejected after R&Rs, though I've sometimes had to go through a couple rounds of revisions and have had lots of rejections. I don't think listing or not listing the R&R is going to be a tie-breaker but it does signal something and I'd be surprised if it hurt.

[TT]

Grad,

A very original idea with far-reaching consequences might get a major revisions verdict because it needs some key parts improved (but where the potential is enough to keep it from being outright rejected). A paper might get rejected despite only a minor problem because even with that problem fixed it is only an epicycle. So it's possible for there to be a difference between R and R with major revisions and rejections with minor problems. It's like a gymnastic routine with three mistakes scoring higher than one with one mistake (because of a disparity in level of difficulty).

[Martin]

Grad, my understanding was the Major Revisions and Revise and Resubmit are roughly synonymous (as are Minor Revisions and Conditional Acceptance, perhaps slightly more roughly). I know journals that have one pair or the other but I wasn't aware of journals that have distinct categories of, for example, Major Revisions, Revise and Resubmit, and Minor Corrections. I would however be very glad to be corrected on this.

[Trevor Hedberg]

I think it's fine to listed papers under review on one's CV, but to reiterate a point made by the first commenter, they should be listed in the "Works in Progress" section. A paper should not be labeled as a publication until it is formally accepted for publication.

[Prof L]

Oddly, a lot of advice here is at odds with some advice in an earlier thread that having an “under review” section on ones CV looks like “padding” or is dishonest. I don’t agree with that—I think an “under review” section is fine.

I wouldn’t list the journal, but that’s a personal preference—lots of R&Rs turn into rejections, and then I’m making (relatively) “public” my rejections, which is a bummer. If the journal is tippy-top-notch, I guess I might. If I just had one or two publications, I would list the R&R. If you have 3-4 or more, I wouldn’t list the R&R.

[early career]

To add one point in response to Grad, I imagine that this response could be due to the journal and its situation with accepted papers. For what it's worth, I once received the same response--great paper, significant contribution to the field, one major objection missed--from the top journal in my subfield. But they added that they are simply too far backed up with accepted papers to embark on an R&R, and so they sent me two helpful referee reports and encouraged me to submit elsewhere. The paper ended up in the #2 journal.

[grad]

Lots of helpful replies here. Thanks everyone!

[historygrrrl]

@Martin: One journal I refereed for had two categories for R&R - minor revisions and major revisions. It was a pretty good journal, one that (at least BITD) was recommended as a good venue for early-career researchers. I thought it was pretty cool to have the option, and ultimately used it for a paper that I otherwise would have had to reject.

As far as listing things on the CV, I'm with commenter #1. I always list works-in-progress with a parenthetical remark about their status (draft, submitted for review, revisions for R&R in progress, etc.) I don't list the journal names, though with R&Rs at respectable venues, I've found it helpful to mention the venue in interview situations.

[Jichikawa]

An R&R is a rejection. It's a rejection with an invitation to resubmit, which is a signal that the editor thought there was a significant chance that a different version of the paper might be published. That can be a useful signal to send on your CV in some contexts.

One thing to note: you can have different CVs for different purposes. I would not recommend listing article titles and journal names for work under review (including R&R) on a PUBLIC CV, like on your website, but this could be appropriate material to include on a CV you send with a job application, especially if it's a fancy journal.

And yes, like others have said, make it clear that it's not yet a publication — for instance by not listing it under the a section called 'publications'. A separate work in progress section is a fine. (Lots of people don't include this kind of thing at all but lots do; either choice is normal.)