Organization of Publications in CV

[modestmousktr]

Hello y'all!

I know that it's best to be clear on the CV about stating which publications are not peer-reviewed manuscripts, but I am noticing mine looks a little crowded as a result. For example, it reads like this:

Peer Reviewed Articles
Article 1 citation
Article 2 citation

Research Monographs
Research Monograph 1

Encyclopedia Entries
Encyclopedia Entry 1

Book Chapters
Book Chapter 1

I am wondering since, at this stage in my career, it would be better to just have an overall heading and lump everything together like this (organized by year), so it's easier to see visually. But I don't want to mislead people or try to look like I have more peer-reviewed manuscripts than I have. Also, the book chapter and encyclopedia entries went through a peer-review process, the research monograph did not since it was a grant evaluation published and given to the institution.

This is what I would like to do, if appropriate:

Publications
Encyclopedia Entry 1
Research Monograph 1
Article 1 citation
Article 2 citation
Book Chapter 1

Thanks for the advice!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pragma]

That's kosher, or maybe have "peer reviewed" vs "other" for the misc stuff

 

[AcronymAllergy]

That's kosher, or maybe have "peer reviewed" vs "other" for the misc stuff

This is basically what I've done. I don't remember the exact headings, but I think I have sections for articles, published abstracts, book chapters and non-reviewed publications, and posters/presentations.

Even with chapters and such going through reviews, I still consider them different from journal articles, so I separate them accordingly.

 

[futureapppsy2]

This is basically what I've done. I don't remember the exact headings, but I think I have sections for articles, published abstracts, book chapters and non-reviewed publications, and posters/presentations.

Even with chapters and such going through reviews, I still consider them different from journal articles, so I separate them accordingly.

I organize mine as such:
-Peer-reviewed articles, subdivided by year of publication
-Book chapters
-Editorially reviewed publications, with subheadings for encyclopedia entries, published reviews and commentaries, and professional newsletter articles

For presentations, I organize them by:
-National/international invited presentations
-National/international peer-reviewed presentations and symposia
-National/international peer-reviewed poster presentations
-State and regional peer-reviewed presentations and symposia
-State and regional peer-reviewed poster presentations
-State, regional, and local invited presentations (not guest lectures--things like colloquia, etc)

The more stuff I've gotten on my CV, the more I've found myself dividing and subdividing sections so that it doesn't just become a wall of text. I think the most important things to distinguished are peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, books, published abstracts and other publications. IMO, it looks a bit naive when people lump their short encyclopedia entry or newsletter article in with a peer-reviewed journal article and can distract from the more "important" accomplishments (i.e., peer-reviewed articles).

 

[Pragma]

When you only have a handful of things I think it is okay to lump things together - at least that is what I did, noting that it was "Publications and Presentations" - once I had more than 5 or 6 things then I began subdividing.

I actually don't subdivide my presentations but I suppose that might be useful.

I generally don't spend time doing non peer-reviewed articles or other non peer-reviewed work so I only have a handful of the "other" types of publications, so one category works in my case. If you have lots of chapters and stuff then it might make more sense.

Again, this is all subjective. I'd personally think it looks silly to create subsections where there is only one item underneath them. Some people like that. It's a crapshoot in some ways, but becomes less relevant the more stuff you have to put on the CV.

 

[deleted343839]

I think either way is OK if you are still in training. If you use subheadings for your publications and there aren't many in each category, people may just assume that you're using a template from a mentor, etc., which is fine.

I only recently started dividing out presentations by international, national, and state/regional, only because the list was becoming a "wall of text" like futureapppsy2 mentioned. Headings, used judiciously, make it easier to read and navigate a CV.