How Should I List Unpublished Research on My PhD Application CV?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around how to appropriately list unpublished research on a CV for a PhD application. Participants explore the etiquette and best practices for including accepted papers and lab projects in the research experience section of the CV.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about appearing inexperienced if only lab projects are listed, questioning the best way to present their research experience.
  • Another participant suggests listing the accepted paper with the journal name and indicating its status as "to be published," and also including lab projects, ideally supported by a recommendation letter.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the etiquette of revealing the title of a paper before publication, particularly in relation to confidentiality and permissions, especially since the participant is not the main author.
  • It is noted that it is generally accepted to list the title, authors, and journal of an accepted paper, provided the journal does not have strict embargoes on pre-publication publicity.
  • One participant recommends using "accepted for publication" or "in press" instead of "to be published," as the latter may imply different stages of the publication process.
  • There is a consensus that there are typically no confidentiality issues with listing the title of work done prior to publication, although posting the entire article may be more sensitive.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the practice of listing accepted papers on a CV, but there are differing opinions on the specific terminology to use and concerns about confidentiality and permissions related to authorship.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention that practices may vary by field, and there are nuances regarding the terminology used to describe the status of research papers.

maNoFchangE
Messages
115
Reaction score
4
I have been engaged in some laboratory projects during my master study. But only one of them which has been written as a paper, it has been accepted but not yet published. Now I want to write a CV for my PhD application, and wondering what I should write in the research experience section. Will it not make me look like a kiddy/amateur applicant if I only write of those lab projects under the research section? If I were to wait for the paper I mentioned before to be published it will take some weeks may be, if possible I want to contact the future supervisors as soon as possible while giving them a good impression about myself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Definitely list the paper with the journal name and put (to be published) in parantheses at the end of the citation. Post it on arXiv and include a link so they can read it.

You want to include the lab projects too. Hopefully, you'll have a letter of recommendation from a supervisor saying more about them.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: maNoFchangE
Dr. Courtney said:
Definitely list the paper with the journal name and put (to be published) in parantheses at the end of the citation.
I also thought that way, but what is actually the etiquette of revealing the title of a paper before it was published? I'm concerned with the confidentiality issue, I know that in some journal the author is not allowed to post his paper in another journal before the final decision of its acceptance is issued. Besides, I'm not the main author of that paper so I'm afraid I don't have that full of permission to post it somewhere else.
 
It is common and accepted practice to list the title, authors, and journal of a paper that has been accepted followed by (to be published). There may be exceptions for journals with strict embargos on pre-publication publicity, but I've never encountered that. If the journal does not prohibit you from listing the paper in a CV prior to publication, you are good to go.
 
Just a note, and this may be field-specific, but I would use either the phrase "accepted for publication" or "in press" as opposed to "to be published." The latter could apply to an article at any stage of preparation whereas the former two imply that the article has been through the peer review process and the journal has accepted it. Articles that have been submitted and are currently going through the peer review process would be labelled "under review" or "submitted." Articles that are currently being prepared would be labelled "manuscript in preparation."

In general there is no confidentiality or ettiquette issue with listing the title of work that you've done prior to publication. It may be a different story if you were to post the entire article, but even that is faily common, what with the prevelance of the pre-print server these days.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: maNoFchangE, DEvens and Dr. Courtney
Good point. Less ambiguity with your wording.
 
Choppy said:
In general there is no confidentiality or ettiquette issue with listing the title of work that you've done prior to publication. It may be a different story if you were to post the entire article, but even that is faily common, what with the prevelance of the pre-print server these days.
Thank you Choppy, that's a relief.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K