How much, if at all, do non-peer-reviewed publications matter?

[futureapppsy2]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm talking about editorially reviewed stuff--e.g., encyclopedia entries, invited commentaries, test or book reviews, etc.

Mainly in academic/research jobs and post-docs but also in the admissions process, match, etc.? I know they can't "make up" for a lack of peer-reviewed articles, but do they actually carry any weight?

Also, how about technical reports for agencies and projects? I've seen a lot of faculty CVs with these but admittedly know little about them. 😳

Thanks!

 

[aagman01]

My understanding is that some are ok, but that they do not help much towards getting an academic position and could potentially be harmful. My advisor warned me avoid or keep to a minimum non-peer reviewed pubs if I wanted to pursue an academic career - he said that too many will look like fluff pieces and lead faculty to question the quality of the research you are engaged with and wonder how you prioritize your time.

For internship and applied positions, though, I would think non-peer reviewed pubs could be (mildly) beneficial (especially non-research positions). I had 3 peer reviewed and 3 review pieces in small or non-peer reviewed journals (e.g. one review piece in the Communique, since your a school psych person). The "fluff" pieces were fairly easy for me to complete, since I had conducted research (either in a course or in actual research projects) in areas either directly related to or specifically on the topics of the review pieces.

During my interviews for internship last year, one TD (at a medical school site) said he normally didn't interview/take school psychs but interviewed me because, in his words, he thought I had a strong research record and I could be taught the clinical skills because of my analytical skills (whatever that means ). I do think my pubs may have helped at that site, but I can't really say for sure.

I'm talking about editorially reviewed stuff--e.g., encyclopedia entries, invited commentaries, test or book reviews, etc.

Mainly in academic/research jobs and post-docs but also in the admissions process, match, etc.? I know they can't "make up" for a lack of peer-reviewed articles, but do they actually carry any weight?

Also, how about technical reports for agencies and projects? I've seen a lot of faculty CVs with these but admittedly know little about them. 😳

Thanks!

 

[futureapppsy2]

My understanding is that some are ok, but that they do not help much towards getting an academic position and could potentially be harmful. My advisor warned me avoid or keep to a minimum non-peer reviewed pubs if I wanted to pursue an academic career - he said that too many will look like fluff pieces and lead faculty to question the quality of the research you are engaged with and wonder how you prioritize your time.

For internship and applied positions, though, I would think non-peer reviewed pubs could be (mildly) beneficial (especially non-research positions). I had 3 peer reviewed and 3 review pieces in small or non-peer reviewed journals (e.g. one review piece in the Communique, since your a school psych person). The "fluff" pieces were fairly easy for me to complete, since I had conducted research (either in a course or in actual research projects) in areas either directly related to or specifically on the topics of the review pieces.

During my interviews for internship last year, one TD (at a medical school site) said he normally didn't interview/take school psychs but interviewed me because, in his words, he thought I had a strong research record and I could be taught the clinical skills because of my analytical skills (whatever that means ). I do think my pubs may have helped at that site, but I can't really say for sure.

Interesting that they can actually hurt in excess. Thanks for the info--good to know. Do you mind me asking what your pub recorded looked like when you went through match? You can PM me if you want, of course. 🙂

 

[wigflip]

Hi aagman,

Thanks for your helpful information. I've been worried about this a bit as I've published pretty promiscuously (in terms of topic and venue). I wonder if this is why my friend with the huge pub list can't get an academic job...

Anyway, you allude to non-research-related internships...is there some formal division between internships which focus solely on clinical training vs those which require the intern to split time between clinical and research duties? I guess I'm wondering if there's a formally divided list (which I haven't yet found), or if it's simply up to the applicant to visit the websites of various sites and make that determination. Or does your program furnish you with this info?

 

[wigflip]

I'm talking about editorially reviewed stuff--e.g., encyclopedia entries, invited commentaries, test or book reviews, etc.

Mainly in academic/research jobs and post-docs but also in the admissions process, match, etc.? I know they can't "make up" for a lack of peer-reviewed articles, but do they actually carry any weight?

Also, how about technical reports for agencies and projects? I've seen a lot of faculty CVs with these but admittedly know little about them. 😳

Thanks!

Thanks for posting this--I tried to launch a similar thread a while back but got no bites. I hate the idea that you can "over-publish" or "publish the wrong things in the wrong places."

 

[Ollie123]

RE: Research internships - nothing "formal" that I'm aware of beyond the handful of academy internships. More just a general sense of the places that will be a better fit for academics or even more evidence-based practitioners

RE: Pubs - yeah, don't get too many encyclopedias. Like I said in the other thread, I have two and will be stopping there at least until post-doc. My balance is a little off now but I think a 5-6:1 ratio is probably unlikely to raise much concern. I think book chapters are sort of seen in a different light (as long as its a legit book), but encyclopedias are a little more sketchy. There's a lot of "vanity" encyclopedias popping up that I seriously doubt anyone will actually buy, and clearly have REALLY low bars for inviting authors. One even invited a fellow grad student to author a chapter on a topic she had virtually no prior experience with...really, really sketchy.

I can kind of understand the idea of having the "right" kind of publications. The idea is to have a clear research area that you have a demonstrated expertise in and (in many places) the potential for extramural funding. Part of that is demonstrating you can surpass the highest peer-reviews possible. Basically, to demonstrate that your work can suffer through critiques and still be deemed worthy. Even with peer-reviewed journals its not all that hard to find a place to publish - certainly some places are very hard to get in, but others have very low rejection rates. I think its understandable that non-peer-reviewed publications will be viewed with even more suspicion given its such an obvious and easy way to inflate a CV without any actual talent, skill, or expertise. I'm getting to the point I almost want to just do "Selected presentations" on my CV for this very reason since I'm now hovering around 25 posters/talks and will likely be well past 30 by the time I graduate and even this early in my career it is already starting to seem like unnecessary padding.

 

[wigflip]

RE: Research internships - nothing "formal" that I'm aware of beyond the handful of academy internships. More just a general sense of the places that will be a better fit for academics or even more evidence-based practitioners

RE: Pubs - yeah, don't get too many encyclopedias. Like I said in the other thread, I have two and will be stopping there at least until post-doc. My balance is a little off now but I think a 5-6:1 ratio is probably unlikely to raise much concern. I think book chapters are sort of seen in a different light (as long as its a legit book), but encyclopedias are a little more sketchy. There's a lot of "vanity" encyclopedias popping up that I seriously doubt anyone will actually buy, and clearly have REALLY low bars for inviting authors. One even invited a fellow grad student to author a chapter on a topic she had virtually no prior experience with...really, really sketchy.

I can kind of understand the idea of having the "right" kind of publications. The idea is to have a clear research area that you have a demonstrated expertise in and (in many places) the potential for extramural funding. Part of that is demonstrating you can surpass the highest peer-reviews possible. Basically, to demonstrate that your work can suffer through critiques and still be deemed worthy. Even with peer-reviewed journals its not all that hard to find a place to publish - certainly some places are very hard to get in, but others have very low rejection rates. I think its understandable that non-peer-reviewed publications will be viewed with even more suspicion given its such an obvious and easy way to inflate a CV without any actual talent, skill, or expertise. I'm getting to the point I almost want to just do "Selected presentations" on my CV for this very reason since I'm now hovering around 25 posters/talks and will likely be well past 30 by the time I graduate and even this early in my career it is already starting to seem like unnecessary padding.

Thanks Ollie. You're always so helpful. I'm becoming more and more doubtful about any future in academia. I'm too old and have made too many blunders. And I'm gonna have to strike a lot of encyclopedia entries from my CV! Christ. What a waste of time.

As for the internships--I'm actually keen to identify which ones focus solely on clinical work with no research component. I know if I get into a psych doc program I'll have to produce a diss, but I'm burned out on research and know it's not for me in the long run.

 

[wigflip]

Even with peer-reviewed journals its not all that hard to find a place to publish - certainly some places are very hard to get in, but others have very low rejection rates.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that journals disclose their acceptance/rejection rates.

 

[Ollie123]

APA does http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/statistics.aspx

Note that these tend to be a bit more competitive despite the fact that with a few exceptions (Abnormal, JCCP, Health Psych, JPSP and the review journals...think that's it) they are pretty low impact relative to many non-APA journals. Also note that those are "eventual" acceptance rates. In other words, even if the acceptance rate is 50%, the 50% that get accepted likely did so after several rounds of revisions. You can look up citations for many other journals on Cabell's - I'm not sure how they get the numbers so there is probably a margin of error but it has always been at least in the ballpark of what I expect.

There's also always the option of talking to faculty. Before I looked into all these, I knew several from speaking to various faculty members. If they are on the editorial board...they will know.

 

[cara susanna]

I wish I had access to Cabell's 🙁

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks Ollie. You're always so helpful. I'm becoming more and more doubtful about any future in academia. I'm too old and have made too many blunders. And I'm gonna have to strike a lot of encyclopedia entries from my CV! Christ. What a waste of time.

As for the internships--I'm actually keen to identify which ones focus solely on clinical work with no research component. I know if I get into a psych doc program I'll have to produce a diss, but I'm burned out on research and know it's not for me in the long run.

I would imagine it's safe to say that the majority of internship sites focus predominantly on clinical work, as that's essentially the entire point behind the required internship year. Even the "research-heavy" sites will probably still have you spending a minority of your time on research projects (unless the research can also be counted as clinical work). The >50% splits generally start to occur at the post-doc level; from what I've seen, anyway.

 

[futureapppsy2]

RE: Research internships - nothing "formal" that I'm aware of beyond the handful of academy internships. More just a general sense of the places that will be a better fit for academics or even more evidence-based practitioners

RE: Pubs - yeah, don't get too many encyclopedias. Like I said in the other thread, I have two and will be stopping there at least until post-doc. My balance is a little off now but I think a 5-6:1 ratio is probably unlikely to raise much concern. I think book chapters are sort of seen in a different light (as long as its a legit book), but encyclopedias are a little more sketchy. There's a lot of "vanity" encyclopedias popping up that I seriously doubt anyone will actually buy, and clearly have REALLY low bars for inviting authors. One even invited a fellow grad student to author a chapter on a topic she had virtually no prior experience with...really, really sketchy.

I can kind of understand the idea of having the "right" kind of publications. The idea is to have a clear research area that you have a demonstrated expertise in and (in many places) the potential for extramural funding. Part of that is demonstrating you can surpass the highest peer-reviews possible. Basically, to demonstrate that your work can suffer through critiques and still be deemed worthy. Even with peer-reviewed journals its not all that hard to find a place to publish - certainly some places are very hard to get in, but others have very low rejection rates. I think its understandable that non-peer-reviewed publications will be viewed with even more suspicion given its such an obvious and easy way to inflate a CV without any actual talent, skill, or expertise. I'm getting to the point I almost want to just do "Selected presentations" on my CV for this very reason since I'm now hovering around 25 posters/talks and will likely be well past 30 by the time I graduate and even this early in my career it is already starting to seem like unnecessary padding.

When you say a 5-6:1 ratio, do you mean non-peer-reviewed😛eer reviewed or the other way around? I have probably 4 non-peer-reviewed publications and 7 peer-reviewed Publications (and a non-peer-reviewed book chapter), so if it's peer-reviewed to non-peer-reviewed, I'm already really over the limit. 😉

I was wondering the same thing about selected presentations--I'm at about 18, and it's already starting to feel long. Otoh, I don't feel like my CV or "career" is developed to the point where I can really justify cutting things, either.

 

[Ollie123]

5-6 peer-reviewed for every "fluff" piece. Again though, this will vary depending on the quality of the pieces. There is plenty of "fluff" in peer-reviewed journals, and I'd wager someone coming out with 5 encyclopedia entries and 5 peer-reviewed articles exclusively in Science and Nature will still be in good shape🙂

I'm over that right now too, but I think by the time I graduate I can at least be close to it. I'm expecting to have to do a post-doc (though if I get my F31 I suppose its not out of the question to apply straight out) so I should be able to tidy things up by then. Note that the 5-6:1 isn't any kind of "rule" I've heard from faculty or anything like that...more just something I've decided on my own seems like an appropriate balance. Frankly, I hate writing chapter/review style writing anyways so that won't be a huge sacrifice on my part. I'm an engineer at heart...give me a nice methods/results section with a 2 paragraph intro and discussion any day.

 

[futureapppsy2]

5-6 peer-reviewed for every "fluff" piece. Again though, this will vary depending on the quality of the pieces. There is plenty of "fluff" in peer-reviewed journals, and I'd wager someone coming out with 5 encyclopedia entries and 5 peer-reviewed articles exclusively in Science and Nature will still be in good shape🙂

I'm over that right now too, but I think by the time I graduate I can at least be close to it. I'm expecting to have to do a post-doc (though if I get my F31 I suppose its not out of the question to apply straight out) so I should be able to tidy things up by then. Note that the 5-6:1 isn't any kind of "rule" I've heard from faculty or anything like that...more just something I've decided on my own seems like an appropriate balance. Frankly, I hate writing chapter/review style writing anyways so that won't be a huge sacrifice on my part. I'm an engineer at heart...give me a nice methods/results section with a 2 paragraph intro and discussion any day.

See, I like discussion sections and review style writing, but I'm sort of creative writer at heart, so... 🙂

Just out of curiosity, how many publications do you have, Ollie? You seem to be one of the most research-focused SDNers, an it seems like you have a good sense of what it takes to be competitive of research/academic jobs and post-docs.

Speaking of CVs, should ad hoc peer reviews be listed, or is that too filler-like, even if they're for reputable journals? Thanks!

 

[aagman01]

Pubs are same as now. I went through match last winter, and am in internship now. Should have 1 more pub in pipeline, but match numbers were the same (3 peer reviewed, 3 weaker/review type pubs).

Interesting that they can actually hurt in excess. Thanks for the info--good to know. Do you mind me asking what your pub recorded looked like when you went through match? You can PM me if you want, of course. 🙂

 

[Ollie123]

3 peer-reviewed, 2 encyclopedia entries, 1 under review, 1 more going out in the next week or two.

Three more that are "clearly" in preparation and will get out sometime within the next 6-9 months, and 3-4 more I want to get out but are a bit more distant. With one exception, all of these should be in IF > 2 journals, with at least a few in IF > 4 journals.

It should be sufficient to get me where I'm going, but I'm actually not too happy about it given the amount of work I've put in and the fact that I'm going to be doing either 6+1 or 7+1 years so my pub/year rate is not that great. Combination of poor planning on my part, the nature of the research I do, and a lab that has lots of data but little success getting things out the door😉

I list ad-hocs reviews. I doubt it makes or breaks a CV, but I think its nice to show you have some editorial experience even at the early stages.

 

[wigflip]

I have probably 4 non-peer-reviewed publications and 7 peer-reviewed Publications (and a non-peer-reviewed book chapter), so if it's peer-reviewed to non-peer-reviewed, I'm already really over the limit. 😉

Jeez, future, you are a machine! Congrats! 🙂

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

I think it's hilarious that sometimes people put publications that are "in preparation" on their CVs. Is this par for the course?

 

[Ollie123]

Actually, this came up recently in another thread. NIH explicitly states to include them when applying for training fellowships (F31's...possibly F32's, I haven't checked). Given that if anything, they are usually far more restrictive about what "counts" for inclusion in a biosketch I think it is quite reasonable to include them as long as they are clearly labeled. I'd always debated about it myself when I had to submit my CV for anything official, but felt okay including it once I found out that at least at this stage it is not only allowed, but encouraged.

Personally, I like it even when senior faculty do so since it gives a sense of what direction their work is going. Not sure I see the harm as long as everything is properly identified and no one is trying to "pass them off" as already being publications.

 

[cara susanna]

I put it on my CV, but only if the document in question actually exists. Haha.