Our books

Become a Fan

« Updated ADPA job placement data & table | Main | The journals we don't write in, because they don't exist »



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

Bill Vanderburgh

Clarity is key. Don't leave things ambiguous or open to interpretation. This is especially important around publications, presentations, and credentials. If you don't have enough publications to create separate sections for peer reviewed, invited, conference proceedings, etc., then use parenthetical remarks in front of each entry. Like this:

(peer reviewed)
(invited chapter in anthology)
(peer reviewed; co-authored with ABC, my effort was x%)
(refereed conference abstract; paper peer reviewed and accepted for publication in proceedings)
(accepted for publication; available online, expected in print ISSUE)
(revise and resubmit received DATE; new submission expected MONTH)


Yes, that's more text than you usually see on a pubs list on a cv, but that's exactly what I'm recommending.

In this vein, do NOT list works in progress in the same section as publications. (By the way, listing more than two works in progress decreases credibility.) Be prepared to answer detailed questions about anything you list as in preparation.

Don't list which journal you have submitted something to. That's irrelevant until it has been accepted. A cv is a place to list your accomplishments, not your hopes. Simply say (under review) or (article submitted for blind review).

You'll be helping the committee out if you give similar details in the teaching section of your cv. For example:

(TA for two n-student recitation sections of Prof. X's PHIL ABC)
(instructor of record, using common syllabus developed by department)
(co-taught with X; my effort was x%)
(sole instructor; developed the course from scratch; 250 freshman enrolled across two sections)

Dates of degrees, publication, etc., are the least important of the facts you are trying to communicate, so list them last instead of first.


One thing I see occasionally and which I think of as a 'don't': books reviews that aren't clearly labelled as such. It's a practice that can be very misleading.

The worst offenders are when I see what looks like a publication in Mind, Phil Review, JPhil, etc., and then it turns out it's a book review.

You can avoid that by placing your reviews in their own section, or when the title makes it clear that it's a book review (e.g. "Review of...").

review éses?


How would you handle review essays? I've seen people put them as publications, but I am worried about doing so, because it may be seen as misleading.


@ Michel; what do you mean exactly? The kind of papers that Philosophy Compass publishes? If so, then those are just like any other peer-reviewed publication in my view.


review eses:

I'm not sure. I'm more familiar with review essays in other fields, like psychology. I think those seem just fine to include amongst one's regular publications, but if they're invited and you have a separate section for invited material, then I guess that's where it should go. I wouldn't sweat it.

If, as Dan said, you've got something like a PhilCompass essay in mind, I think that's just fine in the regular publication list.


Like I said, I'm talking about _book reviews_ published in major journals like Mind, Phil Review, etc. (Perhaps you meant to direct the question to review eses, above?)

I often see these mixed in with someone's regular publications, and the title of the review does not make it clear that it's a book review rather than an original article.

review éses?



clarification request

A request for clarification: Bill Vanderburgh says above, "By the way, listing more than two works in progress decreases credibility." Does this mean listing more than two *works in progress* (e.g., papers or books currently being written to be sent out later for review), or more than two *unpublished works* (e.g., including papers currently under review at journals)?

I'm in the habit of listing all my papers under review in a separate section after my publications. I list them under a generic title, like "Paper on subject X in historical text Y (under review)," not naming actual title nor reviewing journal name. Often, those papers total greater than two. But maybe doing so is bad. Thanks in advance.

early career

I am not sure about Bill V's advice. Bill, could you say more?

It seems to me that if you have, say, two conferences coming up, each of which required a 3,000 word paper to get in, and then you add to that that you are an early career philosopher working up dissertation chapters into articles, then you pretty credibly have 5-6 works in progress. You have two 10 pages papers that with filling in are finished; and several chapters in a similar boat. So I don't see Bill's point.

Maybe Marcus should open up a separate thread on the very idea of works in progress. I'd like to hear from other people who have served on hiring committees about this.


Avoid saying where your ms is under review. It looks really cringe, as the kids say. It says nothing about the paper or its quality. (I've seen this often.)

Assistant Professor

I don't know that I specifically endorse Bill's "list only 2" works in progress cap as a strict rule, but I appreciate the spirit of it.

Early Career notes that if you are ABD and have several accepted conference papers in the mix then you likely have 5-6 works in progress. Sure, but those things are also already represented on your CV, right? If you are presenting on the main program of the APA, we all know that you submitted a 3K word paper to get in, and so it is already on your CV, and you don't need to list it elsewhere. If you are ABD then we all know you are writing a dissertation with probably 4-6 chapters (some of which, presumably, will turn into journal articles if you aren't trying to make the whole thing into a monograph). But that is also already part of your CV. It seems a bit odd to then also list these things that would be on your CV in other places already *also* as "works in progress."

I would use a works in progress section sparingly, only if it helps signal *new* directions on existing scholarship (though you could/should also talk about these in your cover letter or research statement) and not just as CV filler (which it risks looking like for most folks).

early career

Thanks Assistant Professor. That helps. I wasn't being as careful as I should've been when it comes to avoiding redundancy in my CV (e.g. no need to list a diss chapter-turned-article under works in progress; obvious from the diss itself).

Still, I find there to be an interesting philosophical question here about what constitutes 'work in progress'. It seems folks here have some different views on the matter.


Agree with Karl that saying something is 'under review' is a bit cringey. Whatever the intention, I think it comes off as a little insecure. Obviously a very minor issue though.

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