I'm cool with late-stage PhD students or early-stage post-PhD folks doing it ... to show that stuff is indeed in the pipeline ... but, yes, a one-sentence description of stage would be helpful
Yep - but "in prep" usually means neither. If you must list (for ECRs who wouldn't have an extensive list of completed projects and published outputs, for example), I think providing a statement of the stage would be appropriate. e.g. you could say "Data analysis complete, writing 50% complete".
I am not sure if that is more helpful. When does it qualify as 50%? Half of the text done? Without feedback from others it is then likely closer to 10% done. Data analysis done? Ok, but it's likely that you have to redo some or all of it during writing.. etc.
I like "in prep." because it conveys exactly that amount of uncertainty. "Under review" or a preprint is certainly better, but if you don't have either I think it is ok to list it. Because any other information is as unhelpful (and can easily be overstated as well).
Yep. I like it too. I like seeing it in applications and I liked using it when I was applying. And anyone who doesn’t like it sounds like a huge grump — ECRs are trying and doing their best. Give them some credit.
That seems reasonable to me! I wonder if any (senior) academics likely to review applications would be put off by statements like that. Although it's hard to imagine why someone would prefer the generic "in prep."
It’s tricky for job-hunting ECRs, especially as it can take a multi-author paper a while to complete the route to submission. Indicating ‘in prep’ papers that are at the full manuscript stage on a cv can be helpful
Yes, sorry, message was unclear - I would suggest listing them as ‘In prep, full draft stage’ or similar, if you’re ECR without a publication record yet. I would list ones that aren’t at that stage (I have dozens currently ‘in prep’!)
Comments