I've seen some chatter on the boards a bit ago regarding under review manuscripts, but most of the "talk" was devoted to the inclusion of these on one's CV more generally. Obviously, in press and published papers are better than a variety of under review manuscripts. However, I'm wondering if it is important, and maybe even advisable, to include the status of these under review manuscripts. For instance, denoting second rounds of review versus just generally writing that a manuscript is under review or indicating that a manuscript received a revise and resubmit. My thoughts are that such designations may provide an idea about what manuscripts are in your pipeline.
I'm asking because I recently received a revise and resubmit from a top journal in my field. Obviously this does not indicate that I'll be accepted or at least be invited for a resubmission next time. I'm sure if I'm invited to resubmit the manuscript that it will probably be accepted by the time I go on the job market next year. However, I'm still working to get something published in the crème de la crème journal in my field. I figured having a revise/resubmit from this journal would look better than indicating "under review."
Or am I over-analyzing, like many of us do? Do search committees care about such specifics?