(Apologies if this topic is better suited for a different forum - please move if inappropriate.) Conference proceedings are meaningless when evaluating a CV, as they are not peer reviewed. However, nearly all well regarded journals require exclusivity for the publishing of data (i.e., that it has not appeared in print in any form, including conference proceedings). As a result, the only work that should appear in a proceedings paper is the work in progress. Given the fierce competition for funding and the ease with which some groups (particularly those in China) can scoop the results and publish/patent your ideas first, it would be wise to never publicly disclose your work in progress. Thus, the dilemma - how does one attend conferences where you are obligated to present your findings in a manuscript while at the same time preserving your ability to publish novel results in peer-reviewed journals? Why must conferences continue this antiquated tradition? Wouldn't it make more sense for the conference to be an opportunity to speak about recently published/accepted-for-publication work (i.e., within 6 months of the abstract deadline) that has already been peer reviewed?? This would serve the true purpose of the gathering - dissemination of ideas, building new collaborations, etc. - without the expense of your professional work product (i.e., papers/patents). It would also assure quality of the presented content in a more robust manner than the current standards. As you can tell, I am quite frustrated by my inability to be a speaking participant at major conferences due to the incompatible restrictions w.r.t. journals and public openness of the audience. I am simply unwilling to give incomplete accounts of my work for the presentation and accompanying paper - it is antithetical to how science should operate.