Published abstracts and long-form published conference proceedings?

[futureapppsy2]

I've never presented at a conference that published abstracts, but my general sense of it was always that having published abstracts simply meant that you presented at a conference that, well, publishes abstracts and were really of no greater value than any other conference presentation. However, I've seen a fair number of people who represent them on their CVs as equivalent to or slightly below peer-reviewed publications, which makes me wonder if I'm missing some info here.

Similarly, I've also seen people list long-form (article-length) publications in "The Proceedings of XX Conference" as peer-reviewed publications. I know that such conference proceedings are prestigous in other fields, like computer science and engineering, but this is the first I've seen of it in psychology. AFAIK, these aren't indexed, and I'm not sure how they work in terms of selectivity given that only manuscripts presented at the conference can be submitted (does everyone at the conference submit their manuscript afterward, and then the editors pick the best Y number of them after peer-review?) . Any idea of how these are viewed in psychology?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

A lot of times they are published in a supplemental issue of a society journal (for that society's conference) and are indexed in that way.

Several of the conferences I present at publish the abstracts. I don't list them separately and likely won't unless specifically required to for an application. Others differ in opinion, but my advisor's view was "There is no better way to make sure actual academics don't take your CV seriously than listing posters as publications" which I think is a little harsh, but a point well-taken. If it involves going above and beyond what you would normally do for a presentation, that might be slightly different, but if its just a matter of going to a conference that happens to publish every standard 500-word abstract, I think its silly to list. If need be, maybe just tag them with an asterisk or something to indicate "Abstract published in conference proceedings".

I do know several conferences that will do extended-length "invited articles" based on conference presentations though....generally from things like award addresses or select symposia. I think those can legitimately be listed as articles since it is usually a separate submission process from the conference itself.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I have a few published abstracts, and have always viewed them the same as you, future--same as a poster.

 

[deleted343839]

Similarly, I've also seen people list long-form (article-length) publications in "The Proceedings of XX Conference" as peer-reviewed publications. I know that such conference proceedings are prestigous in other fields, like computer science and engineering, but this is the first I've seen of it in psychology. AFAIK, these aren't indexed, and I'm not sure how they work in terms of selectivity given that only manuscripts presented at the conference can be submitted (does everyone at the conference submit their manuscript afterward, and then the editors pick the best Y number of them after peer-review?) . Any idea of how these are viewed in psychology?

I have a few longer pieces published as conference/meeting proceedings (though sometimes the book titles don't make that clear). I treat them as book chapters for the purpose of my CV. The prestige of these publications depends on that of the meeting itself. Most conference proceedings are not a big deal, but if you are on a high-profile guidelines authorship committee or an Institute of Medicine report, those papers are more prestigious (even so, I wouldn't group them with peer-reviewed journal articles).

 

[futureapppsy2]

A lot of times they are published in a supplemental issue of a society journal (for that society's conference) and are indexed in that way.

I've seen published abstracts published/indexed that way, but I can't recall seeing article-length conference-proceedings like that. I don't doubt that it happens, though.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I do know several conferences that will do extended-length "invited articles" based on conference presentations though....generally from things like award addresses or select symposia. I think those can legitimately be listed as articles since it is usually a separate submission process from the conference itself.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

 

[Justanothergrad]

"There is no better way to make sure actual academics don't take your CV seriously than listing posters as publications"

There is so much truth to this.

I think it comes down to the numbers game and people trying to look like they've done more than they have. It's a viscous cycle because then everyone does as well. Dishonest and endless.

 

[WisNeuro]

"There is no better way to make sure actual academics don't take your CV seriously than listing posters as publications"
+1.

Yes. Advice to all of you applying for internships and postdocs. DO NOT list published abstracts under publications with journal articles. You will take a hit in ranking if you do that to make your publications section better. If you want to list those, make a new section.

 

[futureapppsy2]

There is so much truth to this.

I think it comes down to the numbers game and people trying to look like they've done more than they have. It's a viscous cycle because then everyone does as well. Dishonest and endless.

I don't think it's dishonest, so much as just kind of... tacky, like when people just put their under review (or even in prep) manuscripts under the same heading with no distinction. With that being said, I've seen lots of tenure track faculty at good universities (even R1s) do things like have one catch-all publication header or not differentiate under review and published manuscripts clearly, so apparently, these things aren't be-all, end-alls, even if I do kind of side-eye them.

On a related note, what do you think of people listing peer-reviewed book reviews with peer-reviewed articles. On one hand, I can kind of see the justification, as they are peer-reviewed and published in the journal; otoh, the level of review of the nature of article seem different.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I don't think it's dishonest, so much as just kind of... tacky, like when people just put their under review (or even in prep) manuscripts under the same heading with no distinction. With that being said, I've seen lots of tenure track faculty at good universities (even R1s) do things like have one catch-all publication header or not differentiate under review and published manuscripts clearly, so apparently, these things aren't be-all, end-alls, even if I do kind of side-eye them.

On a related note, what do you think of people listing peer-reviewed book reviews with peer-reviewed articles. On one hand, I can kind of see the justification, as they are peer-reviewed and published in the journal; otoh, the level of review of the nature of article seem different.

I think the reason I would deem it dishonest is that the level of review that is given for a conference paper is not nearly the same. I see plenty of people do things with their C.V.'s to make themselves look more impressive, including those at good universities. I work with a research professor who keeps a desktop folder he calls "Gaming" there he tracks people he knows who game their C.V.s. He has a list of favorite tactics. One of the favorite ones I've seen has been to list things under review in the MIDDLE of the published manuscripts so people don't see it as easily.

My theory on books/book chapters is that they are better to have separate, but only if you have 2-3 of them. Otherwise you have an entire section for one thing and thats kind of weird/not needed. Its definitely a different level, but so are national/regional posters. I didn't separate those until I had more than one national because that would be pointless.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think the reason I would deem it dishonest is that the level of review that is given for a conference paper is not nearly the same. I see plenty of people do things with their C.V.'s to make themselves look more impressive, including those at good universities. I work with a research professor who keeps a desktop folder he calls "Gaming" there he tracks people he knows who game their C.V.s. He has a list of favorite tactics. One of the favorite ones I've seen has been to list things under review in the MIDDLE of the published manuscripts so people don't see it as easily.

My theory on books/book chapters is that they are better to have separate, but only if you have 2-3 of them. Otherwise you have an entire section for one thing and thats kind of weird/not needed. Its definitely a different level, but so are national/regional posters. I didn't separate those until I had more than one national because that would be pointless.

I was actually referring to book *reviews*, not book chapters., just to clarify.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think the reason I would deem it dishonest is that the level of review that is given for a conference paper is not nearly the same. I see plenty of people do things with their C.V.'s to make themselves look more impressive, including those at good universities. I work with a research professor who keeps a desktop folder he calls "Gaming" there he tracks people he knows who game their C.V.s. He has a list of favorite tactics. One of the favorite ones I've seen has been to list things under review in the MIDDLE of the published manuscripts so people don't see it as easily.

My theory on books/book chapters is that they are better to have separate, but only if you have 2-3 of them. Otherwise you have an entire section for one thing and thats kind of weird/not needed. Its definitely a different level, but so are national/regional posters. I didn't separate those until I had more than one national because that would be pointless.

(speaking to futureapppsy's question): I would list book reviews separate from articles, as it seems like an inherently different undertaking. If I only had 1 or 2 of them, I might lump them with something at least semantically related, like my own book chapters.

In my own case, I would agree with the above. I have a bit of a "catch all" category on my CV that says something like, "Book chapters and non-peer reviewed publications" where I throw all that stuff, as there are a couple items of which I only have one. I then have separate sections for peer-reviewed manuscripts, published abstracts, and poster presentations. I figure people can then go through and assign whatever weights they'd like to each item.

 

[Pragma]

In the past, when I had fewer miscellaneous pubs, I used "Other Publications" as a heading for that section, but I didn't put published abstracts there.

Even if you just have 1, I think the most responsible thing to do is list that 1 under a "Published Abstracts" heading to avoid any confusion or the appearance that you are trying to pass it off as a pub.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

In the past, when I had fewer miscellaneous pubs, I used "Other Publications" as a heading for that section, but I didn't put published abstracts there.

Even if you just have 1, I think the most responsible thing to do is list that 1 under a "Published Abstracts" heading to avoid any confusion or the appearance that you are trying to pass it off as a pub.

Agreed, and I've done the same (even though I only have 2 at last count).