This might be a funny question, but do you think it's better to list one's publications in chronological or reverse-chronological order? I have received strong but conflicting recommendations from two senior faculty members who looked over my CV. Thanks!
I sat on a committee last year for an R1 institution and I always thought it was odd when I saw pubs from 10 years ago listed first. The committee cares more about what you are doing now, so you should make that the first thing they see on your CV.
@R1_committee_member, do you have any specific tips you could share for applicants? This is my first time on the market and I'm applying to a few R1s.
I have seen it both ways and I have done it both ways, with my CV currently using chronological order. On the one hand, reverse-chronological order might be beneficial because your most recent work (which would appear first) might be of primary interest to the search committee. On the other hand, chronological order might be beneficial because the search committee can see the progression in your publication record over time, showing how you arrived at your most recent work (which would appear last).
Given all of the posts about how search committees skim through materials quickly, it seems pretty clear that you'd want your most recent publications first. A cursory look of CVs in psych, and especially social psych, shows that the vast majority of people do reverse chronological listing. Why go against the grain and risk annoying the search committee?
More recent first, definitely. For everything (publications, conferences, grants, etc).
As a faculty member who has served on a number of job searches across psychology areas, I can tell you that it doesn't matter in the least bit how you list your publications. There are a lot of details to fret about in this process, this is not one of them. Do yourself a favor and save your obsessing for the details that really matter.