What do people think about sending in submitted manuscripts with your application? Part of my future research plans include a new technique that I have not published on yet. I currently have a paper in revision that I think is likely to get accepted but it will take at least another month until that happens (and maybe longer). Some of my deadlines are October 1st or 15th and I don't know whether to submit a manuscript as a reprint. I included the manuscript on my CV (even though I know that some here disagree with that) and I was averse to submitting a manuscript rather than published reprints but some of the ads specifically mention preprints. What is a preprint? Does it have to be accepted? What have others done in this situation?
Date: 25 Sep 2013 23:43
Number of posts: 10
RSS: New posts
preprint means "in press"/"accepted" - it is a bad idea to submit anything that hasn't been given the green light. People frown on that, as it means that it hasn't passed the peer review process yet. And "in revision" can still lead to rejection - that isn't the same as "accepted with revision".
As devanon mentioned, a preprint is a paper that has been accepted or is in press. A paper in revision is not a preprint.
With regard to including a paper in revision as part of your application, it is generally frowned upon, but might be okay under some circumstances. For example, I did it once for a paper that I considered to be one of my best pieces of work. I don't know whether it helped or hurt my application, though. However, the paper did eventually get published in a top-tier journal.
Submit your best work.
I landed a great R1 job with a packet that included 3 published papers and one submitted manuscript. The submitted paper was a new direction for me, by far my best work to date, and 60% of my job talk. Focus on telling the most compelling research story you can.
I disagree with the first couple posts.
I only submitted unpublished work when the ad explicitly stated that was okay. That said, if you have something you're proud of, why not go for it? If you take too much advice from others, you'll never stand out.
Personally (now I'm giving advice), I'd submit it, and make sure that you dedicate a portion of your research statement to it. Perhaps toward the end explain what the papers contains, and how you're going to move forward with it.
bad idea….it won't help you and (if the SC has some "old timers" on it) it could actually hurt your application
If the ad happens to mention that it is acceptable, then go for it. Otherwise, I think post_doc-ing_around makes a good point - it is more likely to hurt than help your situation. You could mention it in your research statement, or perhaps your cover letter, offering to give them a copy of the submitted manuscript should they like to read it.
I disagree with the last two commenters and totally agree with NoOne: submit your best work. If the SC wants to see your published work they can find it on pubmed in two clicks. By submitting a stellar under review manuscript you're showing them what they have to look forward to.
i couldn't disgree more with them. put your best stuff out there. this is no time to be shy or reserved. and its really no time to fit in with what the flock is doing.
I found out last night that my manuscript was accepted! I have already submitted a large number of applications but would like to update my CV and provide them with a copy of the manuscript. What is the best way to do this? Should I send a copy of the manuscript to places that didn't request reprints? Should I email the search committee chair or simply send it to the administrator who is likely handling things? What about schools that have online submission systems?