Our books

Become a Fan

« How to leave philosophy (Guest post by Greg Stoutenburg) | Main | How does the academic job market look so far? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


If it's the feeder conference for an Oxford Studies volume or something comparably fancy, you could just tell your letter writers to mention that it's accepted there. Everyone knows what this means, and if 1-2 letter writers mention it the committee will probably get the point.


There's a lot of issues with how people present publications. But most of them involve trying to present yourself as having publications that one doesn't yet. I agree with the advice that one shouldn't try to do that.

A different issue I have is with how people list teaching. There are lots of different ways you can be involved in the course: you might just be the teacher, or a teacher's assistant, or a grader, or any number of other things. I find it frustrating when I can't tell quickly how many class a person has been the teacher, since that's what they would replicate at my institution. I'm not sure if there is standard terminology here. But even just a quick note on a CV defining some terminology that's used on the CV would be good.

Peter Finocchiaro

To push Marcus's point about publications and book reviews into even more controversial territory: what about discussion/response pieces?

To be clear, I think that these sorts of things are valuable. But the difference between a discussion published in Mind and an article published in Mind is quite large. The difference is also quite hard to track on a CV. In my experience, some people clearly indicate when something is a discussion/response piece. (Sometimes it's obvious from the title.) But I've also seen people obscure that fact.

William Vanderburgh

Marcus is right, as usual. A few additional remarks:

I think the advice is different at different career stages.

Very early, when there are few items, you need at least three general headings--provided they aren't empty, in which case leave them out: Publications, Works on Progress, Conferences.

At later stages you can have categories for Books; Journal Articles; Invited Chapters; Books Reviews; Conferences: Refereed Paper; Conferences: Refereed Abstract; Conferences: Invited Keynote Addresses; Blog Posts; Podcasts: Host; Podcasts: Guest; Newspaper Op-Eds; etc. For me, the decision point for when I create a new category tends to be when I have more than one of a specific kind.

Provide a parenthetical remark in advance of each line item. The point is not to list bibliographic information but to communicate with your readers, so don't be afraid of providing detail especially for unusual cases. E.g.:
(accepted for print publication, expected in issue [#, date]; online as of [date])
(under review)
(response to R&R under review)
(invited chapter in preparation)
(refereed "Comment" paper)
(critical review)
(response to critics)

I have seen, but don't recommend, listing works in progress under Publications with (in preparation). Even with the right parenthetical remark, I think readers take it as padding, if not lying, to include a WIP under Publications. Accepted, Conditionally Accepted Pending Revisions, and similar official statuses seem okay to include in the Publications category rather than the Works in Progress category. Marcus is right that (under review) items are best left in the Works in Progress category until they have an official status change from the journal.

Definitely don't include conference presentations in the Publications category. For the Conferences category, use parenthetical remarks such as (referred paper) or (refereed abstract). Lately I've seen a few (refereed paper accepted but conference canceled due to Covid pandemic). Those still count, though perhaps not as much as if you had delivered the presentation. Ones like (refereed abstract accepted; presented via Zoom due to pandemic) definitely still count.

On these principles, my answer to the OP would be to list the conference presentation under the Conferences category as (refereed paper accepted for presentation; also under review for the conference proceedings). Then, in the cover letter, mention that most papers accepted for presentation at this conference are also later accepted for the proceedings with a separate round of refereeing. That's both honest and clear, two things c.v.'s should strive to be.

I think most readers think it looks bad when you list too many works in progress. I'd say not to exceed two or three, especially when your publication list is short or nil. You might want to include different projected works depending on the AOC/AOS of the position to which you are applying. But they should really be works in progress, i.e., you should have a completed draft or a well-worked-out sizable chunk written. Someone might ask you to describe that WIP during an interview, and having nothing to say will look especially bad. I.e., Works in Progress is not a place to list things you hope to eventually work on. It can't hurt here to include remarks like (first draft completed) and (completing final edits before journal submission). Where you plan to submit a WIP is a hope, not a fact, so don't mention it.

This doesn't come up in too many cases in Philosophy, but you need to make your contribution to any joint works clear. Make sure you agree in advance with your co-authors about the order in which names are to be listed (should match publication) and what percentage of the total was your effort: (First author; my contribution was 65%). It is very possible someone on the search committee knows or will call your coauthor(s) and a surprised reply from them will not be good for you.

Another commenter in this thread pointed out the sin of making your Teaching Experience category unclear. My advice would be to use subcategories and parenthetical remarks such as (teaching assistant under Prof. X; responsible for grading and leading two one-hour-weekly recitation sessions for a total of 62 students), (instructor of record; used a colleague's syllabus), and (instructor of record; designed this course from conception to delivery; converted from face-to-face to online instruction mid-semester).

Daniel Weltman

Some discussion of this topic with specific reference to notes/discussion pieces/replies: https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2020/03/potentially-deceptive-cvspublication-lists.html

A small additional point, which is of little practical importance but which may provide moral support: I agree 100% with Marcus and others that it is important to be very clear, that mistakes here can look like attempts to deceive and can make people very angry in ways that harm you, etc.

But, when I see these sorts of mistakes on a job candidate's CV I don't care. I assume it's an honest mistake rather than some attempt to deceive me. And many others are (I assume) like me. (I actually haven't checked, but I would be very surprised if I am the only person in the profession who doesn't fly into a rage about these things.) And many people don't even register these things as mistakes, since the norms are not 100% ironclad.

Of course, you're applying to a department, not to me or others who agree with me, so you still want to be careful so as not to enrage those who feel like you're trying to deceive them. But if you've made any of these mistakes before, don't think that everyone who looked at your CV now thinks you are a deceitful nogoodnik!


While I completely agree with Marcus, I would like to point to another important criterion for a successful CV: a CV should give a clear and lucid overview of your accomplishments. I am inclined to bring this point into the discussion, since one can also overdo the specification of the status of an item on the CV. And you should not have a heading for each of your items, if the differences are minimal (to be clear: published/under review, forthcoming/commissioned; article/review, peer-reviewed/invited talk etc. are big differences, in my opinion). A CV can get confusing, if you have too many subcategories. I would also discourage applicants to inform the committee about the status of each publication in the cover letter. The cover letter should outline why you are a good fit for the announced position, hitting all the boxes of the ad (mostly, research, teaching, and service). The CV should tell me whether a paper is accepted, under review, or published.

Another PhD

Huh, interesting. Many people seem to list papers accepted at Oxford Studies volume as "provisionally accepted" or "forthcoming pending final review" or so on. Does that strike you as similarly duplicitous?

Marcus Arvan

Another PhD: I think that's entirely fine. The important thing is to be clear about the actual status of the manuscript ('provisionally accepted' or 'forthcoming pending final review are both very different than simply listing the paper as 'forthcoming').


Marcus and others
Personally, if I am on a hiring committee I would read "provisionally accepted" as NOT accepted, as there is no grey space between ACCEPTED and not. What I mean is that anything less than an acceptance may in fact not be published. I experienced this, in an awkward way, with someone who was invited to contribute to something. But a review by referees made clear this paper was not going to be included - despite the invitation.


Thank you for the very insightful discussion!

I am wondering: what about invited contributions to edited volumes? These typically undergo peer-review by the editors, but I suspect it is extremely rare to get rejected. Do you think invited papers should be listed separately, or is it ok to list them alongside the other peer-reviewed articles?


Just advising everyone to be careful and explicit with how they list manuscripts and articles. The early stages of the two searches on which I've served were "whittling down" stages, where we were looking for excuses to discard applicants. Listing an only conditionally or provisionally accepted publication along with the full-blooded ones is misleading, so it is a good reason to toss a file.

Assistant Professor

@ Peter Finocchiaro - having a section for "responses" seems appropriate if this is something that in your sub discipline is common (especially in some applied fields in which it is very common) and you would do more than one time. If creating a whole section on the CV for a single reply paper then perhaps simply putting in brackets (reply to [title of paper or name of author]) would be best. But I agree about not over-selling a short reply. That said, I trust interested readers of a CV would be able to distinguish a couple page response essay from a multi-page original essay if they looked at the details and those details matter to them.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Subscribe to the Cocoon

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory


Subscribe to the Cocoon