How to list conditional acceptances?

In our January "how can we help you?" thread, ECR asks:

A paper of mine was recently conditionally accepted for publication in a journal. The report states that a conditional acceptance constitutes an acceptance of the paper and that only minor changes (e.g., typographic, bibliographic, cosmetic) are necessary. Where (and how) should this be listed on a CV? Is it OK to list it as a forthcoming publication, if one adds that the acceptance is conditional? Or would it be more appropriate to list the paper as ‘work in progress’?

If I recall, we've discussed this in the past and there was some disagreement about it. My own view is that one should list an article like this as 'conditionally accepted.' More generally, I think one's job in a CV is to give true information in the most perspicuous way available. As examples of a couple of other "no-no's", I think it's bad practice to:

1. List articles under review under 'publications'
2. List book reviews under 'publications' 

Both of these, I think, belong under separate headings: namely 'book reviews' and 'articles under review.' But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Comments

[Peter]

It’s not an acceptance until they’re no longer asking you to make changes. However, after submitting the revised version, the turnaround time for a conditional acceptance to flip to an acceptance is usually quick. So if you’re itching to list it as an acceptance, just get those revisions in!

[Gambling Addict]

List it under "works in progress" but write [Conditional Acceptance @ journal] after the title. Nothing wrong with communicating where the paper is in the process.

[Assistant Professor]

I find most people (who have enough publications to warrant it) have subheadings under the main publication heading that include "peer reviewed articles" "invited articles" "book chapters" etc. and that this section could also include "book reviews" - but I agree with Marcus that if you have book reviews on your CV they should be clearly labeled as such (and I found the recent thread on whether book reviews are a good use of grad student time a total mixed bag with a lot of different opinions).

For job/grant/funding apps ONLY for people still in graduate school (or perhaps in a postdoc) I might include a section with "articles under review" and put that conditionally accepted article there indicating that it's current status is "revise and resubmit." But for most other purposes and at later career stages I would not include "articles under review" or "under R&R" on a CV.

[Tim]

List it under a category 'papers under review.' Until it has been accepted, it has not been accepted. I know of cases where a paper received a 'conditional acceptance,' and was then rejected.

[J]

On the point about articles under review, should you mention where it is under review, or leave that blank?

[old salty]

As someone who has been around a while, I say: do not list anything that is merely under review. I could have papers under review with JPhil, PhilRev and Nous, but that is worth nothing if none of them are ever published. You look like you are trying to get something for nothing. And do not list conditional acceptances - I even wonder about the category. If one is told a paper will be accepted if the following revisions are made, then the journal usually processes such R&Rs quickly. So, hold tight. It will be accepted in time (or rejected!)