# of Publications

# of Publications

Anon3514 (guest) 27 Aug 2009 20:33

I was curious what y'all think is an adequate number of publications to make you competitive for a TT position at a R1 institution. I'm not applying this year (I'm in my 5th year at a clinical psychology Ph.D. program) but am curious what to expect. I suppose in addition to the total number of publications, where they are published and if you're 1st author would make a difference as well. I have 6 first authored publications (none in "top" journals, but all in journals with impact factors over 1, and a couple in journals with impact factors around 3). Also, do you think that having your own grant is necessary to get a R1 position, or simply having the potential to attract extramural funding?

Thanks!

Re: # of Publications

vd 27 Aug 2009 22:40

Last year I was able to find out who was invited for many of the job interviews in my discipline at major research universities. From looking at their CVs or websites, the number of peer-reviewed journal articles ranged from 5 to 15 and the majority of the articles were first-authored and in mainstream journals. That might give you a sense of what makes a person competitive enough to get an interview. One other thing worth noting is that all of the aforementioned interviewees were postdocs. I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for grad students to get interviews, much less faculty jobs, unless they are absolutely stellar.

I have been told that once you have enough publications to make you competitive (e.g., 8), then having more than that doesn't make too much of a difference (unless it's a lot more, like 25). Having 8+ publications — most first-authored — is proof enough to most people that you can conduct and publish research. As for where they are published, I think it makes a difference mainly if the articles are at one of the extremes: If you have an article or two in the very-best journal in your discipline, then that's a plus, whereas if you have a bunch of articles in unheard-of journals, then that's a minus.

As for grants, having one would make you a lot more competitive, but most people don't have one (I am thinking of R01s here). I doubt that many search committees expect people who are finishing or fresh out of grad school to have grants already. The emphasis will be more on the potential to get grants.

Re: # of Publications

charisma pancreas (guest) 19 Sep 2009 04:15

How do people generally view CVs with a bunch of listings for papers that are "submitted" and/or "in prep"? How many is too many? Naturally, these can become a problem if they are the only papers on your CV, but I already have 6 pubs and am debating about whether or not to add 3 more that will be submitted within the next couple of weeks. I would like to showcase the fact that I've written additional first-author publications, but I don't want to fall into the trap of the papers not making it through the revision process.

Re: # of Publications

A.J. (guest) 19 Sep 2009 15:14

I think they are fine AS LONG AS they are not listed under publications. If you put it under publications it looks like an attempt to vita pad or fool the search committee into thinking that you have more pubs than you do. I'd suggest you have a separate category labeled something like "Manuscripts Under Review & In Prep."

Re: # of Publications

vd 19 Sep 2009 15:31

I agree with A.J. Keep them in a separate section where they are clearly labeled as Manuscripts and not as Publications. Regarding the number, I think it is okay to list 3 manuscripts.

Re: # of Publications

allisen (guest) 30 Oct 2009 19:23

I wouldn't include anything unless you're able and willing to produce the manuscript if they ask for it. Personally, I don't include anything unless it's under review (and I agree, it needs to be in a separate category so it doesn't look like padding).

Re: # of Publications

vd 30 Oct 2009 20:44

I agree. I think it is okay to list manuscripts that are under review (in a separate section from publications) because you can produce the complete manuscripts upon request. I don't bother listing in-prep manuscripts on my CV at all.

APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

anon987 (guest) 25 Nov 2009 18:43

I'm trying to convert everything to the 6th edition, but I'm seeing conflicting information. For submitted papers, do you use: (2009), (in press), (n.d), or (under review)?
For manuscripts that you're still working on, is it: (in preparation), (n.d.) or (2009)?
Thanks!

Re: APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

vd 25 Nov 2009 18:56

I don't have the 6th edition, but I don't think it really matters how you do it, as long as it's clear what kind of manuscript it is. For submitted manuscripts, I use (submitted) and indicate the journal and date of submission. For example:

Applicant, J. (submitted). Title of manuscript. Manuscript submitted on November 25, 2009, to Journal of Job Applicants.

For in-prep manuscripts, I would use (in preparation), although I usually don't include them on my CV.

Re: APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

anon (guest) 25 Nov 2009 19:51

One of the cardinal rules of the CV-DO NOT mention the journal name to which you have submitted a paper if it has not been accepted. Several heavy-hiiters have told me this is a huge no-no-a) no one will be impressed as it has not been accepted b) blind review and c) you look silly if it doesn't end up there…

Re: APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

vd 25 Nov 2009 21:06

Good point. I did it for personal record-keeping purposes rather than to impress anyone, but I see the value of omitting the journal name.

Re: APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

Guest (guest) 28 Nov 2009 19:18

Why does it look silly if it's not published there? I think you are a bit exaggerating. Not being accepted to your first choice of journal is nothing to be ashamed of. It happens to everyone. I think it can show the level of journal you aspire to. In either case, it really seems like a minor point. I doubt that comittees are putting any weight if it isn't published yet.

Re: APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

anonymous (guest) 29 Nov 2009 00:32

I've been told it's OK to list the journal if it's at least a revise-and-resubmit, but I don't think it matters *that* much.

Re: APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

anon (guest) 30 Nov 2009 21:46

I agree with above-and wasn't trying to exaggerate. I used to list where I had my pubs submitted for the same reasons mentioned above. One of the more famous psychologists in the field then told me I had broken the "cardinal rule." Is it going to affect your getting hired? No-but I'm just passing along what I was told.

Re: APA style for submitted papers and manuscripts

Guest (guest) 01 Dec 2009 00:14

…and I was encouraged by two famous psychologists to include this information when applying for a job. This just tell us that unlike other CV related issues, some things are a matter of taste and committees may perceive them differently, and in any case will have little effect on hiring.