Listing a paper under external review as an MA applicant to PhD programs?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I am a masters student in philosophy and I currently have a paper under external review at one of the "top-25 general philosophy journals" listed on this webpage:
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2022/07/best-general-philosophy-journals-2022.html

Of course, I am happy and excited and nervous and somewhat terrified about this at the same time! And I have a couple questions about this kind of experience:
1. Since I'm applying to PhD programs in the upcoming cycle, I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to list the paper in the "under review" section of my c.v.? (I've seen many early career philosophers do that, so I was curious.)
2. If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, then what is the best way for me to do that? (I.e., should I list the journal title? should I indicate what stage it's in?)
3. How do I cope with the anxiety associated with waiting to hear back from the journal? Any tips, advice, suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
4. Lastly, what does it mean to have a paper under external review at a journal at the Masters stage? (I know that there are many people who have done this, but I just don't know any of such people personally, and so I was hoping to get a better, general sense of what this whole publication thing means at this stage in my career/life.)

Thank you so much in advance!!

First of all, best of luck to the OP with both the paper and PhD program applications! In terms of their questions, I'm not sure about (1), (2), and (4), as I don't know how much can be inferred from a paper being sent out for external review at a journal. Then again, I've never served on a PhD program admissions committee, so I don't have any inside insights on matters like these. 

In terms of question (3), I don't have many tips for coping for anxiety other than this: I try to put submissions as far as possible out of my mind. One must always remember that selective philosophy journals tend to have rejection rates of around or over 90%, and peer-review can take many months. So, unless you want to remain stressed out, my suggestion is simply to try to focus on other things. That's what I try to do, at any rate! 

Do other readers have any helpful answers for the OP?

Comments

[P]

I agree with Marcus's answer on (3) and with his good wishes for your applications.

Like Marcus, I've never served on a PhD admissions committee, but I've served on 9 or 10 job search committees, where the same issue arises. I would answer (1) with a yes and (2) with the suggestion that the name of the journal should definitely *not* be mentioned, and the "stage" mentioned only if you mean it's already received an R&R or a conditional acceptance. It should also not be listed in a 'publications' section of the cv, but rather in a 'works in progress' section. (In the case of a conditional acceptance, I'd include the journal's name: at that point, it's legit to say where the paper is almost certainly going to wind up, but I still wouldn't put it in my publications section.)

As far as (4) goes, the answer is that it means nothing to have a paper under review at a journal--anyone can send anything anywhere. However, if one or more of your letter-writers can mention the paper and suggest that it is of high quality and likely to find a good home eventually, then that would indeed mean something. If you're already producing excellent work at this early stage of your training, that can be a very positive mark in your file.

[PhD admissions committee chair]

1. I agree with P, yes fine to list it (though I admit not everyone seems to agree). If you do that make sure it is very clearly listed as under review, and in a distinct list from any publications (if you have any). I take it as a good but defeasible sign that you are engaged with the profession in the sorts of ways that we want PhD students to be.

2. I also agree with P. I would not list the journal. Anyone can send anything to any journal, so putting it just means some people will think you are trying to 'trick' people.

3. Not much I can say here. I'm still nervous after many years, but I just try to ignore it the best I can. Don't get into the habit of checking any online system as you'll end up trying to analyse any small update as being significant when they normally are not.

4. Depends on the journal. At Phil Review and Ergo, journals that do substantial review internally, external review means quite a bit (it certainly does NOT mean it'll get published; I mean just that they reject a lot before sending things out to review). Most other journals to my knowledge go straight to external review (if the paper is not desk rejected). Some journal desk reject a lot, some very few (if any - Synthese, I think basically does not desk reject), so what it means for it to be at external review will really depend on the journal. Perhaps ask your supervisor about how that journal works as they might be able to let you know (and then also as P says, put it in your reference letter)

Best of luck with the paper!

[Anony]

Here's what I will say for 3 (though I expect this won't work for everyone).

When I submit to a journal, I just try to assume that it will be rejected. Then I am just waiting on a rejection email. That way, my hopes (which will likely be dashed) never get too high.

I also like to think about how much randomness is involved in getting a journal article accepted. Getting an interested editor and then multiple favorable reviewers is unlikely even for exceptional papers. I don't feel bad when I lose the lottery - and getting even a high-quality paper accepted at a good journal seems (to me, at least) more akin to a lottery than to an actual test of philosophical worth.

My approach probably over-states the randomness, but it is good for my mental health to think about it in these terms.

[AnonyLocs]

I'm still trying to get past the idea that master's students have CV's. I'm quite sure when I applied to PhD programs that I had no such thing. There were transcripts, a writing sample, letters of reference, perhaps a statement or two. But we didn't have CV's at that point and I'm not sure why these are needed. Surely one could just state in a cover letter any pubs one had or have one's letter writers mention it or something. I suppose this is just another pat of the (unfortunate, in my view) professionalization of graduate school. I'm not faulting the OP just noting this.

[Chris]

Re; AnonyLocs: it is worse than you realize: many undergraduate applications already have c.v.s.

On the substance of the responses to OP, I agree with PhD Admissions Chair.