CV Conundrum, Part Deux

A while back I wondered whether it is advisable to identify specific journals at which one has manuscripts under review in the "Publications" section of one's CV. Earlier this week this very same question was posed to the Sociologists for Women in Society listerv, and I wanted to share the opinions of several SWS members. Here are some of the responses opposing identification of a specific journal (or press) at which a manuscript is under review:

• "If your article is a revise and resubmit, then I think it's ok to say that it's under review at a specific journal. If, however, it's in the early stages of review, I don't think it makes sense to list it as such. I actually find it quite misleading when papers are listed under review at particular journals, especially if the paper has only recently been sent out."
  
  
• "I think it is an exceedingly bad idea to list where an article is under review on one's c.v. If a paper is an R&R then listing it is as R&R at a particular journal is fine. I'd say the same about the university press. If there's no contract, don't name the press. Both of those things could look like one is padding, and that's the very last thing you want a [search] committee to think."
  
  
• [regarding listing a book manuscript that is awaiting a contract] "I would leave the name off - if she doesn't get the contract there and she has talked up that press too much people will wonder why it didn't work out. She should make it clear thru informal ways that it is getting positive feedback but I wouldn't mention the specific press on a CV or letter." [regarding listing article manuscripts that are under review] I used to think that was a good idea - as per my mentor's advice but thinking about it like a book contract I now think it's better to not specify."
  
  
• "I always advise against listing the place where something is under review -- who needs to know if you land at your second choice eventually? Re presses, however, if it is under review at one good press, why is it not under review at more than one? The best contracts come when presses have to compete for you (you are the "raw material" they need to have a product), and you are always more likely to get a contract quickly when other presses are also in the hunt. A press will be more eager to close the deal deal to get your good manuscript nailed down if they are worried they may lose it otherwise."
  
  
• "This is just my opinion as a many time mentor and a reader of appointment files. I think it best just to provide the more general information -- under review -- university press; article under review; (sometime people do say R&R at a specific journal because that is a little more sure but not 100% of course). While I don't think that people really pay that much attention, you really wouldn't want to leave a paper trail of where a paper/book was rejected (My first academic publication was rejected 6 times before it finally appeared in the ASR!). These academic works get rejected for any number of reasons but sometimes we tend to over analyze what it means to have had a paper that was under review at X journal, why it came out in Y journal. Much of this depends on your level of tolerance for
  uncertainty. Hope this is helpful."
  

Not everyone agreed, though, as some members encouraged this practice:

• "First, why not list where the book is under review? The fact that it is under review at all says that it is in fact a 'real' ms., and not just a promised one. And if it is under review at a top-tier press, then it also shows that one is thinking about where to go and aiming high. Sounds good to me! And in the case of an article under review, it should definitely say where -- again, this makes it clear that it really IS under review. One of the mistakes I see on CVs is a too-long list of 'work in progress'--which I don't take to be 'real' (you can't be working on 7 things at once). But having a trajectory--that shows things at different stages--is great. So, for instance, one under review (and where); one being revised after review; some (smallish number) in progress (and if you can say that ms. #1 will be submitted to journal A that also makes it sound more like it is really in progress)...That's how I'd set it up."
  
  
• "Yes, a book manuscript under review is meaningful, because it doesn't get to the point where the editor sends it out for review unless the editor is interested in the idea of publishing it. So I would tell her to go ahead and list it. I don't know about whether or not she should list where articles are under review. Let's face it, an article under review doesn't mean much unless it's an R&R."
  

Finally, someone pointed out that a similar discussion about CV style issues occurred not long ago over at Scatterplot. This discussion also addressed the question of whether to list declined grants/awards for which one has applied.

Happy CV formatting!