Using an R&R as a writing sample?

A reader writes in:

I wanted to ask a question about writing samples on the academic job market. First, I suspect that using a paper that has a revise and resubmit status (that is still under review) from a solid journal would be fine, but is it prudent to share with the committee that it's under review or has an R&R status? For instance, is it prudent to have a note at the top of the paper that says "This paper received a major revision from Journal X and is currently under review" The only issue I see is that one of the committee members is a reviewer but that seems unlikely. 

What do you think? 

Good question. I've wondered about this too, and about even listing R&Rs on one's CV.

Is it worth it to risk violating anonymized review? What do you all think?

Comments

[nah]

I don't know that there's a real benefit to listing the R&R status -- this isn't a promise of publication just an indication that your paper wasn't rejected by the editor and reviewers (yet). It may be a great paper that will eventually be published at the journal in question, but for now it's an R&R.
Search committee members might value this as evidence that you are indeed producing work (something they will want to see because a productive output is often necessary for tenure) but the existence of the paper itself should be evidence enough for this without listing its R&R status. Worst case scenario: listing the R&R comes off as looking a bit desperate. (I wouldn't view it this way -- I would ignore the R&R info altogether -- but others might).

[I rolled my eyes]

Yes, I would not list the R&R status ... it looks a little desperate or tacky. If the committee does not like the paper, it does not matter if it was going to be published in J Phil.
While on the market years ago I presented a paper that was later published in a PSA proceedings, address Philip Kitcher's work. At one very provincial place, someone on the hiring committee suggested that I might reframe the paper to take on a bigger fish. (I rolled my eyes ... and did not get the job)

[search committees care about this stuff]

I disagree with nah--I think it is valuable to list R&Rs on a cv when on the job market. Sure, an R&R isn't a promise of publication, but it is an indication that both an editor and referee(s) thought highly enough of the paper to allow it to be resubmitted. That's valuable information to most (not all) departments. Of course there are some fancier R1 departments that would prefer to use their own judgment, especially if you are submitting the paper as a writing sample, but it's just a fact that very many departments are using external markers of success/quality (like publications and R&Rs!) as indicators of quality of job candidates. I wouldn't put it on your website, of course, and I'm not sure that I would put it on a writing sample *and* put it on your cv, but I think I would put it on your cv--if they are seriously considering you, they will be paying attention enough to know that the writing sample is referred to on the cv as having an R&R status.

[Chris]

I like "search committees care about this stuff" suggestion as well. As a compromise, I think it is OK to list it on your c.v. (though I wouldn't put it on the sample) as "R & R" without mentioning the journal, if you're worried that might sound a bit like c.v. inflation (and of course it should be in the "work in progress" section, not under "publications"

[Daniel Weltman]

I would probably mention the R&R for the opposite of "I rolled my eyes"'s point. They write: "If the committee does not like the paper, it does not matter if it was going to be published in J Phil." On the contrary, I think that people's judgments of papers are not as unbiased as we like to imagine. Someone who might've formed a lukewarm or negative judgment reading your paper might instead form a positive judgment if they read it in the context of knowing it received an R&R. We don't like to think we're subject to these sorts of biases, but we are.

[Sean Aas]

I wouldn't put it, like, on the title page of the draft, or anywhere else on it for that matter, but I don't see the harm in having it on your C.V. with the journal as a "work in progress".

I think it's pretty routine to do this, and particularly for early-career people, it does give substantial information about how much and where the person will publish. Thus you include it without thereby presupposing that this could or should affect the evaluation of the paper itself by the committee.

[FWIW]

I did this last year when I was on the market (my journal wasn't that impressive, if that matters). I used it as a sample without mentioning that it got an R&R, but I listed it on my CV as an R&R. I think you definitely should put it on your CV. AND if you get an interview and your work gets accepted in the meantime, you should send a revised CV to them, including the publication. The odds of getting an R&R in a decent journal is like less than 20%? It's an accomplishment in its own right. And people do care about other people's judgments. They shape or revise their judgments according to the judgments of the people whom they consider to be experts in a field, i.e., your referees. Writing it on your sample is kind of on the nose though.

[A success story]

I've had the opportunity to redevelop my research profile a bit recently. Then I've also used a couple of R&R papers as samples in the last year, as they've represented my current and future research plans better than older work. It has worked perfectly well: last application season I got 5 interviews (for jobs I really wanted) as opposed to 1-2 in previous years, and I ended up landing a great gig.

Here I have been super explicit about the R&R status of the papers, as well as the journals they have been sent to, both in the CV and in the papers themselves. I see this as a question of "Honesty is the best policy", and not at all on the nose, as some people suggest. It's comparable to self-citation: some undergrad students sometimes seem to think that looks facetious, but you want to be transparent about relevant information so readers (or, in the case of applications, committees) get a full view of what is going on in your paper or candidacy. In this case, for me, the R&R papers have reflected both my current and future work and level of ambition better than older work.

(NB. All my applications and interviews have been in Europe, so not sure how my applications would translate to other continents.)