I'm having a little trouble deciding what reprints to include with an application - of course the best thing would be to send first-authored papers in top journals in an area the department has expressed interest in. If you don't have 3 that meet those criteria, what's next best? A first authored paper from 3 years ago (good journal and topic for this dept), a first (single) authored review paper (ok journal, good topic for the dept), a paper in a good journal/good topic where you're somewhere in the middle? Is it ever ok to send a manuscript that's under review?
Date: 10 Dec 2010 14:46
Number of posts: 3
RSS: New posts
The general principle I was advised to follow was to send papers that represent what you're doing and going to be doing. Non-first author papers were said to be fine as long as they were within your area (though I can't see sending a paper where you are not at least 2nd or 3rd). Conceptual papers were less appealing than empirical papers, though I would probably submit one if it really laid out my current research activities. And I was explicitly told not to submit papers under review. I have submitted papers in pre-proof form if they were accepted for publication though.
I usually try to send my best papers even though one of them is now quite a few years old. In general I would advise against sending papers that are under review, although I went against this advice myself this year. Recently I began a new line of research and I had a paper submitted that had a good chance of being accepted (the initial reviews were positive). I consider it one of my best papers and it is highly representative of my current research, so it seemed appropriate to send it in with my job applications. The paper was accepted in mid-November, which gave me an opportunity to send an updated CV to places.
Additional advice: I would go with first-author papers, but if you don't have enough, then go with the second- or third-author papers that appear in the better journals.