Referencing Unpublished Papers and Presentations

[mrjeffy321]

How does one go about referencing / citing one’s submitted, yet unpublished pending peer-review, papers? Specifically on something like a CV, is something special done to distinguish it from published papers?
Would it be just like an ordinary citation, but only including the title and authors (since the rest has yet to be determined)?

How about poster presentations given at a conference?
I remember someone asking about this a few years ago, but I can no longer find their question or the responses given.

 

[Choppy]

I'm not sure there's a standard way of doing this. And different institutions will have different ways of organizing things (so it pays to read the format requested if there is one). If a paper has not yet been accepted, it doesn't count as a peer-reviewed publication. If it has been accepted, but is still awaiting publication, I record the date of acceptance.

Personally, I keep a running publications list which I break into sub-sections:
Peer Reviewed Publications
Submitted Manuscripts (includes date of submission - some journals have considerable turn-around time)
Conference Abstracts (includes Posters/Presentations)
Other (includes other notable work such as departmental seminars, graduate seminars, published work not subject to peer review, etc.)

I'd be curious to know how others handle this.

 

[Mapes]

I concur with Choppy's approach of separating the submitted drafts from the accepted articles. After all, anyone can submit anything; peer review is the hurdle. It's typical to state the authors, the title, and "(submitted)" or "(submitted to xx on xx/xx/xx)".

After the paper is accepted but before it's published, it's typical to append "(in press)".

Conference work gets its own section, and I like to append "(poster)" when applicable to let people know it wasn't a full talk.

 

[Moonbear]

I keep peer-reviewed publications and abstracts in separate sections of my CV, and that's how most other CV's I've seen do it too. As for submitted work, I leave it out...it doesn't count until accepted, at which time you can list it as "in press" instead of the volume and page numbers. The ONLY time I recommend to people that they include submitted publications are grad students applying to post-doc positions, and post-docs applying for their very first faculty position. Neither of those two groups of people are likely to have a long list of publications, and showing productivity of manuscripts submitted is helpful for them. Those should go into a separate section of "Manuscripts Submitted," so it's clear they are not being counted as peer-reviewed publications yet.

 

[mathwonk]

i usually have three separate sections in my bibliography:
1) published in:
2) accepted by:
3) submitted to:

all include dates,

I used to also have a fourth section called "in preparation",
but almost none of those papers ever got completed, so I realized that was a BS or pipe dream category, and dropped it.

I feel "submitted to:" is legit, since I have never had a submitted paper that did not ultimately appear in a refereed journal. It also documents activity.

 

[mrjeffy321]

Thanks all.
It seems that the general consensus is to divide it up into separate sub-sections, which is what I will do.

After all, anyone can submit anything; peer review is the hurdle

As for submitted work, I leave it out...it doesn't count until accepted
[…]
The ONLY time I recommend to people that they include submitted publications are grad students applying to post-doc positions, and post-docs applying for their very first faculty position. Neither of those two groups of people are likely to have a long list of publications, and showing productivity of manuscripts submitted is helpful for them.

Quite so, merely having submitted manuscripts is not as impressive accomplishment as having then accepted, but I can only work with what I have.
At this early stage in my career (undergrad apply for grad school) I am not commonly expected to have any papers at all. I do, however, have a bunch of research experience and (as mathwonk said) it documents activity. I want to show that I was actually doing something productive during all this time (I am at least working towards publications even though I do not have any yet).

 

[Mapes]

Agreed, mrjeffy321. Having manuscripts in submission at the end of undergrad is a good demonstration of your research abilities and should be included.

You didn't mention it, but I don't care for "(in preparation)," which doesn't mean anything. I don't think these additions help anyone's CV; they just get me thinking how in bad shape those papers really are.

And to broaden the discussion a little, I find it poor form to list under "Patents" one's provisionals and applications. These are better listed under "Patenting" or, better, given their own section. The distinction between applications and patents is analogous to that between submissions and articles.