Listing works in progress? What counts?

In our job-market do's and don'ts thread on CVs, there was some discussion of whether job candidates should list works-in-progress (WIPs), and if so, whether listing too many of them can decrease a candidate's credibility. On early career person suggested it might be good to run a new thread on these questions, so here it is!

My own sense is search committees care far more about what you've actually published than WIPs. But still, these are fair questions:

1. Should candidates list WIPs?
2. If so, under what conditions? What counts as a WIP?
3. Is listing too many WIPs problematic? 

I don't have any clear picture on what the answer to (1) is. On the one hand, listing WIPs can show that you have potential publications in your research pipeline. On the other hand, listing WIPs shows that you haven't actually published them, and in terms of getting tenure and/or promotion, actually publishing is what matters. 

On (2), Bill Vanderburgh writes, "Be prepared to answer detailed questions about anything you list as in preparation." But, this actually seems to me to be too minimal of a standard. I've always been told that you should only list something as a WIP if you would be able to actually provide a paper draft, if asked. After all, it's entirely possible that someone on a search committee might be interested in one of your papers at some point and even ask to read it. Maybe the probability of this is small. But still, if my recollection serves me correctly, it happened to me as a job candidate on at least one occasion. So, I think it's probably a bad idea to list papers that are only partially drafted or which you merely plan to draft. 

On (3), I don't know. Bill Vanderburg writes, "listing more than two works in progress decreases credibility." Another Assistant Professor adds:

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).

I guess I think the last sentence of this comment is the most relevant one: search committees will probably consider your WIPs in context. So, if you have no publications, or maybe just one or two, then listing (say) 10 WIPs isn't going to look very good. It will look like filler, or worse: it will look like you have a lot of things you just haven't been able to publish! On the other hand, suppose you are a candidate who has 8 publications, and you list 10 WIPs. In this case, I wonder whether you might come across as extraordinarily productive--as someone who has not only published a lot, but who is likely to continue to do so moving forward. Then again, if you have 8 publications, do you even need to list WIPs at all? I'm not sure. The longer I was on the market, and the more publications I had, I didn't even bother listing them.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts on questions (1)-(3). What are yours? 

Comments

[placement person]

I usually suggest a work in progress section when my students have 0 or 1 publications and are going on the market for the first time. I would think in such situations it is helpful to see that the student has some things under review, or R&R'd, or in draft form available to be requested by a committee.

I agree there shouldn't be tons of stuff in this section, but I think the rule is "if you're willing to send a draft to a hiring committee, it's okay to list". So that could be one thing, or five, depending on the person.

And for what it's worth I think we should try to very strongly create a norm against inferences from "things under review with few publications" to "has a hard time publishing". I understand there is an arms race for publishing, but PhD students simply haven't had enough time that they've been working on things for this to be a good inference. Many of my students' work is not ready to be sent to journals until late in their time as a grad student. Often when they list something as under review on their CV, it's under review at the very first place that they have sent it. And I don't think it helps anyone to make these kinds of inferences--it's bad for grad students to send papers to journals when they aren't ready, and we discourage our students from doing so (while encouraging them to try to publish!).

I do think that things are different here if someone is, say, 3-4 years out of grad school and has tons of stuff in a WIP section and only, say, 1-3 publications. Then one might start making inferences about the person having a hard time publishing.

[MindLang]

I’ve successfully been on the market twice for R1s. Each time, I’ve listed unpublished papers under review but never a paper that’s merely “in progress.” I think the category of “under review” is more meaningful. For example, a paper in progress may never be completed. A paper under review is already finished. Similarly, a paper in progress might be a long way off from being ready for publication. A paper under review presumably is not.

Note too that papers under review will check other important boxes. They will be completed papers you can send to committees if asked, and, if you list more than two, it doesn’t impact credibility. I usually go so far as to indicate where it’s under review and it’s status at that journal (e.g. initial submission, R&R). A bonus to this approach: you have an easy place to list R&Rs without presumptuously putting them in the “publications” category.

This approach doesn’t benefit those who have a lot of papers in progress but nothing submitted. But to me that’s a red flag. Listing as much raises the possibility that the applicant can’t convert papers from being “in progress” to being “under review.” Such an applicant might be one who would struggle to get tenure, or so someone might reason.

[grad]

MindLang, I've read (on the CV thread and elsewhere) that it's not a great idea to indicate where a paper is under review. Curious what your thoughts are on listing the venue where the paper is under review and why you think it works in your experience.

[Caligula's Goat]

Like all things having to do with the job market and search committees, general rules can be useful but everything is particular. It really depends on who the candidate is and what sort of place they're applying to: how important is research at that specific place? What sort of work are the faculty there doing? How much research have you yourself published already?

Here's an example:

Suppose I'm an advanced assistant professor hoping to move to a more research intensive university. I already have six or seven publications and the department I'm applying to has faculty who, by my stage in their careers, have at least six or seven publications. In such a situation I think it's okay to have far more than two things in the "In progress" section and that that material can be at various stages in development (this could even be listed as "draft available" "conference paper available" "extended abstract available" and so on). I've already demonstrated that I can publish regularly so committee members are less likely to think that I'm just blowing hot air. To be sure one ought to be ready to have conversations about these papers but I think the advice of "only put something as in progress for which you have a full draft" is not good general advice (it's only good advice for specific contexts).

Suppose instead that I'm an advanced assistant applying to a less reserach intensive university where most faculty at my stage have three or even fewer publications. In such a situation I might not put anything as "in progress" because I wouldn't want that committee to be worried about my being a flight risk (assuming of course that I really want to work at such a place).

The same sort of contextual features really should factor into our choices. Newly minuted PhDs will present themselves to different committees differently (in part depending on their publication history but also the type of institution they're applying to). Does the job ask for an AOC for which you don't have any publications but where you have a few papers ready to go or in deep development? Add them!

All application advice, like politics, is local.