Publications vs. Presentations: Relative merits and limitations?

[Pragma]

I've gone through a lot of CVs lately - I've been on some faculty search commitees over the past couple of years. I'm also involved in the clinical training of graduate students, where I encounter CVs and questions about CVs a lot.

So let me first present a personal bias, and then a question.

At later stages in training and on the faculty job market, I really don't even look at the presentations section. I might take a look to see if someone was at a conference or if they at least actually attend conferences. But giving a poster or paper talk doesn't mean a lot to me. I give plenty of them, and I consider them to be fairly easy to do. Sometimes I find it laughable that I get credit for giving them, because shouldn't we all just be in the habit of giving them?

I do care a ton about the publications section. My personal bias (and that of a lot of people I have trained with) is that the proof is in the pudding - put yourself out there, do the work, get it peer-reviewed in a good journal, and let it be disseminated (sort of, at least to our academic clique...that happens to read that journal). To me, the effort to put together a paper from start to finish is so much more labor-intensive, constructively critiqued, and generally character-building when compared to a conference presentation.

I am not saying that conference presentations aren't useful - they are amazing networking experiences. I think they are very important for students and early career people to give, and fun for established academics to give, because they are more informal and involve some back-and-forth and actual relationship-building. If you go to grad school and don't attend conferences, then you will never understand the formal open exchange of complex academic ideas in a face-to-face manner.

What do you think? For people looking for jobs when they graduate, how do you view "scholarship" broadly speaking? Are you impressed by the person that is a conference wizard, the book writer, or the ruthless peer-reviewed journal person? All of them? Some of them?

I think the dicussion might help students see what different potential employers or supervisors could be thinking.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Poster <<<<Talk<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Chapter<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Peer-Reviewed paper

Not sure I've met anyone in academia who would disagree with that.

I do think some of it depends on where one is at in their career and what their goals happen to be. For an undergrad a (legit, not just tacked on nth author) poster looks good! Someone coming out of a grad program without at least a few posters looks pretty bad, regardless of their career aspirations. Someone who lists their published abstracts as "publications" just looks ignorant of the whole process (yet I still see this from time to time).

Basically, once you cross a certain point I feel like posters and talks are pretty much meaningless as a "credential". I've got about 30 of them, but would trade all of them in for a single additional pub in a heartbeat. I did a lot early on in grad school - it helped me show some productivity, but more importantly: 1) It helped me meet some big names I am currently interviewing for internships with - needless to say that is big and 2) Gave me an excuse to get started piecing through some data I otherwise might have procrastinated on because a paper seems a much larger undertaking. Don't discount #2 - I've found having these smaller goals hugely helpful (even if I do usually end up re-analyzing everything for the paper...) and unlike papers they provide hard deadlines that are sometimes needed for motivation.

So anyways - I think they are worth doing for now, can provide good networking opportunities and have other benefits too beyond what I discussed (e.g. I do think presenting has boosted my citation count a bit for other papers since we get talking and I describe previous work of relevance). But no, I don't look at anyone's CV and think "Wow, this person must be great, look how many posters they have done" nor do I expect anyone to do so for me. The only possible exception might be things like large plenary talks or major workshops since these usually signal a significant level of expertise and respect in a field...but of course, those usually only occur once someone is so well-established they've even reached diminishing returns on peer-reviewed publications and simply have a reputation as a leader in the field.

 

[Lisa44201]

Depends on the definition of "conference presentation".

Certainly, publications are invaluable on a CV - peer review, etc. Conference happenings can be divided into three categories, as opposed to the two you mentioned: workshops, paper talks, and posters. I've ranked them in what I personally consider to be the order of importance. I agree with you in that posters are a great step for students, and paper talks are good for students and early career professionals. I think leading a workshop session at a conference should be considered separately from posters/paper talks - personally, I think that puts you in a different category. My job is in alt-ac (alternative academia), and leading a session at a national conference looks nice on the CV. It helps establish you as someone who knows something about that particular field.

I will say that alt-ac is different from traditional tenure-track positions, where the publish-or-perish mindset still thrives in certain areas. When the Psych department here went through its last round of applicants, I focused more on publications. In contrast, as my office goes through the process of hiring a new Director, I'm looking at both publications and seminar presentations fairly equally.

 

[Pragma]

Depends on the definition of "conference presentation".

Certainly, publications are invaluable on a CV - peer review, etc. Conference happenings can be divided into three categories, as opposed to the two you mentioned: workshops, paper talks, and posters. I've ranked them in what I personally consider to be the order of importance. I agree with you in that posters are a great step for students, and paper talks are good for students and early career professionals. I think leading a workshop session at a conference should be considered separately from posters/paper talks - personally, I think that puts you in a different category. My job is in alt-ac (alternative academia), and leading a session at a national conference looks nice on the CV. It helps establish you as someone who knows something about that particular field.

I will say that alt-ac is different from traditional tenure-track positions, where the publish-or-perish mindset still thrives in certain areas. When the Psych department here went through its last round of applicants, I focused more on publications. In contrast, as my office goes through the process of hiring a new Director, I'm looking at both publications and seminar presentations fairly equally.

I anticipated some of this (e.g., keynotes, huge presentations with really high attendance, workshops) but preferred to be ambiguous at first.

I would view someone who leads a workshop or CE course (basically similar things in my eyes) at a conference as someone who is both getting paid and who is also well respected enough (depending on the conference) to be viewed as a leader in the field.

But I also do CE workshops get paid regularly for them myself. The thing is, in some cases, the scholastic value is more limited. It is less about academics at that point and more about a practical skill. I love practical skills but it is nothing to go scream in the streets about. If the workshop is about a new type of skill someone can learn, that is great. That is a little higher up in my book (but not automatically useful) compared to a recap of prior work.

So, "conference presentations" do mean a lot of potential things, I agree. I guess I brought it up in an effort to encourage people to think about what they get involved in during graduate school, rather than just say "yes" to everything. Personally, I did a lot of presenting at conferences, but was wisely guided towards writing when I was confronted with competing interests for my time.

 

[MCParent]

Poster >>>>Talk>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chapter>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Peer-Reviewed paper

All my pubs are for naught??? I should have been making posters???

Pac-man eats the big number, Ollie. ;-)

 

[erg923]

Well, I am one of those phds with a bunch of conferences and papers (mostly from grad school) and 3 publications at the moment. And one of those is non-empirical piece in a state psych journal. It was just never a priority for me to produce even though I was well emersed in the world during grad school.

If I am looking at a CV for a (clinical) job canddiate at my work, I want to see that you you have done things and been involved and exposed in the scientific arm of this profession. Your training as a psychologist in gernal lacks if you simply have a whole bunch of clinical stuff on the CV. Obvioulsy, my threshold for what satifies for clincial jobs is much different than what academci jobs would require though.

 

[WisNeuro]

If someone has a butt load of presentations but no 1st author pubs, red flag for me. I want to see that they can go the extra mile to turn that stuff into something good. Posters are of diminishing return at a certain point in your training. Honestly, After grad school, they're pretty much most useful to try and secure funding for conferences from your institution.

 

[Ollie123]

Pac-man eats the big number, Ollie. ;-)

Intended them to be arrows, but wondered if that would cause confusion!

That said, I changed it on the grounds that you worked in a pac-man reference. Kind of a trump card.

 

[Pragma]

If someone has a butt load of presentations but no 1st author pubs, red flag for me. I want to see that they can go the extra mile to turn that stuff into something good. Posters are of diminishing return at a certain point in your training. Honestly, After grad school, they're pretty much most useful to try and secure funding for conferences from your institution.

I've seen some faculty members like this before (conference wizards). They do it, as you said, to get some $ from their institution to travel to the conference, but also because it is a lot easier to present than to publish. I'll admit that there are some conferences that are tougher to get accepted into, so there can be some prestige involved with this type of scholarship. But it depends on your institution - I think there are some places (more teaching oriented) that are happy to view this is a primary means of scholarship.

IMO, publishing is more impressive because a) it take more work, b) it results in something that is tangible and enduring, c) it remains open to critique and doesnt really have a limited audience in this day and age, and d) generally the standards are higher (although now with a lot of pay-to-publish journals popping up, one must pay attention to where things are published even more).

I think it is worth noting that different fields seem to have different standards. For instance, I've seen some MDs and Allied Health professions that focus mostly on case studies. That doesn't really impress me personally, but in some fields, that constitutes significant scholarship.

 

[InNae]

When I and my colleagues evaluate faculty candidates' CVs, the research product priority order goes roughly like this:

1. Peer reviewed empirical papers as 1st/last author
2. Peer reviewed empirical papers as middle author in a short list
3. Grants as PI

4. Peer reviewed non-empirical papers (reviews, theoretical pieces) as 1st/last author
5. Peer reviewed empirical or non-empirical papers as middle author in a short list
6. Peer reviewed empirical or non-empirical papers as middle author in a long list
7. Grants as co-PI

8. Non peer reviewed papers (some of the open access journals land here due to mistrust of the peer review or a lack of peer review)
9. Chapters
10. Invited conference talks
11. Conference talks as presenter (obviously big conference trumps local conference, etc).
12. Conference posters with students (usually as last author)
13. Conference posters without students but as presenting author
14. Conference posters without students and not as presenting author

Now, even though that is the list, we won't actually interview any junior people who haven't demonstrated a reasonable amount of items 1-3 (#3 not necessary, but very helpful). Items 8 - 14 are all far less valued.

We also don't (literally) count the number of conference talks/posters. As others note, we want to glance at the presentations under a separate header from pubs, and see some engagement with the field at conferences. We also want to see student engagement (for a brand new junior person obviously this won't be relevant).

I agree with the others who think that papers require more thought, effort, skill, and knowledge, because not only are we reporting our results, but presumably also thoroughly contextualizing the results within the larger literature as we add to the literature. A presentation can report the coolest data in the world, but it doesn't help move the field forward if other people can't read and cite it. Also, proper peer review for most papers is the essential ingredient that drives the status of the papers (and the grants, for that matter, although the money is also key!). Posters and talks are "reviewed", but most conferences accept most posters often based on hypothesized results for studies that are not yet complete, and the number of talks are limited primarily by logistics. We've all seen questionable posters/talks that never would have passed a true peer review.

At the graduate level, I agree with others who think that presentations are good early on, as the student gets acclimated to the culture and content of the field. Later in grad school (and this is easier in some subareas than in others due to the time it can take to collect data), pubs should start happening (by which I mean pubs driven by the student, not just middle authorship). If a postdoc is using the postdoc to learn new skills/new subarea, it's good to see presentations in the new subarea, but papers should follow soon after.

Also ditto the abstracts issue. None of the fields represented in my department use published abstracts as currency, and we probably wouldn't rank one above conference presentations.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I'm curious about others' thoughts about the first/last/middle author thing on papers? The reality is that there are some bean counters out there who will rank a CV with, say, 15 pubs of which 13 are middle author in a longish string, above a CV with 8 pubs of which 6 are first/last author.

 

[Pragma]

Published abstracts should never be listed as publications! Talk about misleading...

I agree with your points. It is a quality vs. quantity balance. That said, I would value a middle author paper in a really prestigious journal over a first author paper in a crappy journal.

 

[WisNeuro]

Published abstracts should never be listed as publications! Talk about misleading...

.

When people do this on applications, I automatically deduct points from my overall ranking of them.

 

[Member1928]

As for authorship on papers as a junior scientist, I've been told to try and stick close to the 40-40-20 rule. 40% of pubs should be first author, 40% should be second author, 20% should be other author.

 

[fresnel]

What is the point of your post? Someone who has been involved in recruiting should have a good handle on this one. Someone can have 2 high impact empirical papers in top shelf journals and 15 Keynote talks. Someone else could have 15 empirical papers in crappy journals on trivial topics and no impact.

 

[Ollie123]

I've seen some faculty members like this before (conference wizards).

At the university level?!?!? It wouldn't surprise me at a CC or a position with minimal/non-existent research expectations, but I can't imagine it happening anyplace that remotely emphasizes research. It seems like that would pretty much guarantee not getting tenure.

I understand faculty with large groups wanting to be well-represented at conferences. When my advisors have played a role in conference (i.e. serving as chairs, board members or elected officers of the society) they usually push us a bit harder to submit things just because they are already in the spotlight so its a good time to showcase their work, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I know some folks who present more but are perfectionist types who are a bit slower to get pubs out the door so have more presentations just because of a backlog on pubs (heck that's probably a majority of us), but this is honestly the first time I've even heard a question raised about the merits of the two. Heck, even most of our RAs would say "Duh - publishing is better."

Regarding authorship order - I personally think its too complex to have hard and fast rules. Review papers are generally not thought of as highly as empirical ones...but at the Psych Bull/Psych Review level they are arguably more impressive than the vast majority of empirical papers. I'd take 4th authorship on a Nature paper over a first author publication in North American Journal of Psychology any day of the week. I know some folks with lots of first author pubs but they are all small carve-outs of a single survey study or clinical database that in some cases they didn't even collect the data for themselves. I've met some pretty un-impressive grad students and even junior faculty with great publication records just because they are really good at piecemeal publishing and churning out papers. Someone with fewer first authorships but from far more time-intensive projects (e.g. clinical trials, intensive laboratory studies) is generally more impressive to me than someone who published a dozen papers from a single surveymonkey study. Of course, sometimes the survey is really groundbreaking theoretical work with very complicated modeling (meaningful complicated...not just abusing SEM to generate pubs or doing generic psychometric papers - making short-form measures or validating translations is useful but does not "wow" me), in which case that can also be very impressive. Obviously whether these things are actually getting cited matters too. If you have unique or valuable skills (e.g. writing, stats, physio) you might get tacked on as middle author on a lot of things just because you can add something unique. This can throw off any attempts to maintain some kind of "ratio" but I don't think that is bad as long as the person is still productive independently and not only working on other people's stuff.

Personally, I just strive to be involved with good research, do good research myself and do all of this at a reasonable pace/volume. If I do that, I'm willing to let the cards fall where they may. I'm not big on trying to game the system or come up with some kind of formula for these things...to me, its more about the "gestalt" of making a substantive contribution to science and the advancement of the field. That comes in many forms, so beyond some very general guidelines (i.e. don't just make posters all the time) I try not to sweat the details.

 

[Pragma]

What is the point of your post? Someone who has been involved in recruiting should have a good handle on this one. Someone can have 2 high impact empirical papers in top shelf journals and 15 Keynote talks. Someone else could have 15 empirical papers in crappy journals on trivial topics and no impact.

To have a discussion about this topic, to inform students about various opinions out there regarding scholarship, etc. If you don't see the value in it, then feel free to ignore it. The example you give in your post is a good reason to discuss it.

 

[Pragma]

At the university level?!?!? It wouldn't surprise me at a CC or a position with minimal/non-existent research expectations, but I can't imagine it happening anyplace that remotely emphasizes research. It seems like that would pretty much guarantee not getting tenure.

I know people at a few types of Universities. At some of the more teaching oriented places, I've seen some folks talk up their conference presentations and really focus on that as their primary means of scholarship. So I guess the point of bringing it up is that there are some divergent views out there, even if I think "duh" regarding what seems to be the prevailing view. I also think that some people view non peer reviewed work as highly important (e.g., books or book chapters). The level of value placed on that seems subjective in some ways - I don't view those things as "rigorous" per se, but at the same time, writing a book is a huge endeavor and should be worth something.

Obviously, that wouldn't fly at most places that place any significant priority on research.

 

[MCParent]

As for authorship on papers as a junior scientist, I've been told to try and stick close to the 40-40-20 rule. 40% of pubs should be first author, 40% should be second author, 20% should be other author.

One thing about this too--When I applied, on my CV I starred the names of my undergrad mentees on the publications they had, on which they were first. This draws attention to successful mentorship, and at many universities during tenure reviews a paper first-authored by your student counts the same as a paper first-authored by you.

I also think that some people view non peer reviewed work as highly important (e.g., books or book chapters).

Definitely agree one this--I'd look where the chapter was published for sure. APA handbook chapters are invited but also peer-reviewed, for example, and I'd consider a chapter in an APA handbook to be a major asset while I might not think of a lit review chapter in some XYZ book to be the same value.

 

[Pragma]

Definitely agree one this--I'd look where the chapter was published for sure. APA handbook chapters are invited but also peer-reviewed, for example, and I'd consider a chapter in an APA handbook to be a major asset while I might not think of a lit review chapter in some XYZ book to be the same value.

Well book chapters in general involve some editorial review by those doing the compiling, but it is not the same as a blinded peer review process. Does the APA handbook actually have blinded reviewers?

 

[MCParent]

Well book chapters in general involve some editorial review by those doing the compiling, but it is not the same as a blinded peer review process. Does the APA handbook actually have blinded reviewers?

I don't think I saw the names of my reviewers. I don't know if they saw mine. My recollection (this was a few years ago, so maybe I'm completely mixing this up with a journal pub but I don't think I am) was that I had two or three reviewers, none of them being the book editor.

Ya, lots of books have reviewed chapters; didn't mean to suggest it was only APA handbooks. I am aware of some books that don't, or have a wimpy process, though, which is what I meant.

 

[Pragma]

Personally, I just strive to be involved with good research, do good research myself and do all of this at a reasonable pace/volume. If I do that, I'm willing to let the cards fall where they may. I'm not big on trying to game the system or come up with some kind of formula for these things...to me, its more about the "gestalt" of making a substantive contribution to science and the advancement of the field. That comes in many forms, so beyond some very general guidelines (i.e. don't just make posters all the time) I try not to sweat the details.

I think you've articulated a good philosophy to follow, similar to the approach I've generally taken and did as a student. To some extent, as students, there are so many things within your control. Keeping a solid pace with those opportunities (doing your own studies and working on others' studies) is one of the things you do have control over. I am not one for specific ratios, but I was told that as a student, trying to be sure to at least publish and present something every year will show continuity, engagement, and potential. Of course, on the faculty market, you are going to want even more than that if you can given how competitive the market is.

Now that I am in a faculty gig, I still try to attend 1-2 conferences a year and present, but I put almost all of my efforts towards writing. Conferences are a nice change of pace, fun to attend (especially if your trip is paid for), and a good place to maybe get some feedback on pilot data. But for the most part, I don't view presentations as a highly rigorous exercise - indeed, the conferences are often a little more about students too.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Publications will continue to carry a lot of weight for (most) faculty positions; they along with grant funding are what will get someone in the door/promoted.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm always curious about how the authorship ratios compare to articles numbers. For example, does having 15 articles, 6 of which are first author, look worse than having 8 articles, 6 of which are first author, because the ratio is worse, even if the number of first authors articles is the same? Currently, I'm in the former situation (21 articles, 6 of which are first author), and I'm wondering if the ratio will hurt me, even if the raw numbers are good. I do have more first author manuscripts in the pipeline, but I tend to work with a lot of collaborators and on some large projects (where authorship is split up between manuscripts), so getting a majority of my articles to be first author when I apply for faculty jobs is not likely. On the other hand, it seems contradictory--and quite possibly bridge-burning--to turn down authorship on good manuscripts because they aren't first author.

 

[Ollie123]

Personally, I don't think the ratio really matters as long as you are producing at a reasonable rate - for that very reason. As long as you are getting some first-author pubs, I think its nuts to turn stuff down. If someone always publishes as first author that can even raise questions about their ability/willingness to collaborate and help others out, so you don't want to go too far in the other direction either! The situation you described is actually the exact reason I don't think the ratio matters. One person is clearly more productive than the other. Any academic institution that would prefer the second person to the first person in that scenario is not a place I would want to work (all else being equal, though my earlier point is that all else is NEVER equal😉 ). Heck, higher-ups usually have terrible ratios. Everyone wants their opinion and they get put as Nth author on everything.

 

[MCParent]

For example, does having 15 articles, 6 of which are first author, look worse than having 8 articles, 6 of which are first author, because the ratio is worse, even if the number of first authors articles is the same?

My opinion--it's so nuanced. I think you want your application to tell a story that relates to your research program. Are you second on a few papers authored by junior grad students or undergrads? Then mentorship should be party of the story. Are the collaborators at other institutions or did they offer special expertise? Then thought-out, meaningful collaboration should be party of the story. All the parts of your application should work together, so you should be able to put together that kind of story.

 

[Marissa4usa]

I asked this question a while ago but never really got a response. I am currently a first year doctoral student, but came in with 2.5 years of undergraduate research experience, a master's degree and 2 years as a full-time RA. I currently have ~25 papers and posters, about half of which are first author. I also have one first-author publication in a reputable journal (and are about to submit two additional ones as first author). Most of the first author presentations are from my time getting the masters at a SLAC where professors highly encouraged students to attend conferences but rarely/never pushed for us to actually turn things into pubs. Most of those first author posters were on sub-findings to my master's thesis that by itself weren't enough for an entire publication.

Am I actually going to be at a disadvantage because of that? Should I take those of my CV or would that be considered dishonesty? Should I be okay if from now on my number of presentations approximately match my number of publications?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The only thing I'd consider cutting would be local/regional poster presentations…as they can look like padding once you get over 12-15 total presentations/talks. The pubs and whatnot are all fair game at this stage of your training.

 

[Pragma]

I asked this question a while ago but never really got a response. I am currently a first year doctoral student, but came in with 2.5 years of undergraduate research experience, a master's degree and 2 years as a full-time RA. I currently have ~25 papers and posters, about half of which are first author. I also have one first-author publication in a reputable journal (and are about to submit two additional ones as first author). Most of the first author presentations are from my time getting the masters at a SLAC where professors highly encouraged students to attend conferences but rarely/never pushed for us to actually turn things into pubs. Most of those first author posters were on sub-findings to my master's thesis that by itself weren't enough for an entire publication.

Am I actually going to be at a disadvantage because of that? Should I take those of my CV or would that be considered dishonesty? Should I be okay if from now on my number of presentations approximately match my number of publications?

Well, no, I don't think so. Presumably, these all happened over time, so that is evident on your CV (dates are listed). You can basically tell the story of how your scholarship has progressed, and it would be normal to have more presentations earlier that gradually turn to publications.

But, be sure you don't combine presentations and publications. They are different things and I know it is a pet peeve for me to sift through and figure out what is what. I know other folks who complain about applicants like this as well. Publications ought to be separated by type as well (i.e., peer-reviewed vs. not peer reviewed, if applicable).

 

[Pragma]

The only thing I'd consider cutting would be local/regional poster presentations…as they can look like padding once you get over 12-15 total presentations/talks. The pubs and whatnot are all fair game at this stage of your training.

Interesting, haven't heard that perspective. I mean, I am not exactly impressed by tons of presentations, but I wouldn't suggest leaving off state or regional conference presentations. I just think that folks should balance their efforts between presenting and actually publishing their work. If you have a lot of presentations and low pubs, it suggests a lack of initiative to me. Of course, I would pay attention to when the presentations occurred (more earlier is fine in my opinion).

 

[Marissa4usa]

Thank you, only 5 of the presentations are from regional organizations, the rest was presented at national/international conferences, so most of them would still be on there.
Now, that I am at a doctoral program, I definitely plan to focus on getting things published, but I do like to go to conferences but to get the funding I will need to present 😉.

 

[WisNeuro]

Interesting, haven't heard that perspective. I mean, I am not exactly impressed by tons of presentations, but I wouldn't suggest leaving off state or regional conference presentations. I just think that folks should balance their efforts between presenting and actually publishing their work. If you have a lot of presentations and low pubs, it suggests a lack of initiative to me. Of course, I would pay attention to when the presentations occurred (more earlier is fine in my opinion).

When most of people's presentations are at their school, or always at their state association, it does look bad. You need presentations at the national level, with real organizations. We're not too impressed that people presented to 12 people that they already see all of the time.

 

[Pragma]

When most of people's presentations are at their school, or always at their state association, it does look bad. You need presentations at the national level, with real organizations. We're not too impressed that people presented to 12 people that they already see all of the time.

Well "duh," but I had never heard of an arbitrary cutoff of 12 to 15 presentations. I agree that national and international presentations are almost always better, but I am not sure I would recommending dropping state or regional psych association talks just to keep your presentations to 15. I mean, if you are someone with 25 pubs and 40 presentations, for instance, does dropping a handul of state talks add to the applicant's value? Seems way too arbitrary to me.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well "duh," but I had never heard of an arbitrary cutoff of 12 to 15 presentations. I agree that national and international presentations are almost always better, but I am not sure I would recommending dropping state or regional psych association talks just to keep your presentations to 15. I mean, if you are someone with 25 pubs and 40 presentations, for instance, does dropping a handul of state talks add to the applicant's value? Seems way too arbitrary to me.

Kind of depends on the ratio, I'm talking about when 80% of presentations are of this ilk. We do look upon "padding the stats" negatively. This and listing "unpublished manuscripts," listing a dictionary or encyclopedia entry as a pub, and listing published abstracts (which are just posters), are all negatives.

 

[Pragma]

Kind of depends on the ratio, I'm talking about when 80% of presentations are of this ilk. We do look upon "padding the stats" negatively. This and listing "unpublished manuscripts," listing a dictionary or encyclopedia entry as a pub, and listing published abstracts (which are just posters), are all negatives.

Well I am in agreement with you there. I view padding as inflating your credentials...all of the things you mentioned I would never recommend. But I don't know about leaving off legit things that people have done...that smells somewhat dishonest, too. If you have 40 presentations and list 15 to avoid "padding" (defined differently, I guess), I don't think you are portraying yourself accurately.

There is value to state and regional involvement....shows engagement in the local scientific community. Not as prestigious as INS or APA, but still worthwhile, IMO, so long as it doesn't keep you from publishing.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well "duh," but I had never heard of an arbitrary cutoff of 12 to 15 presentations. I agree that national and international presentations are almost always better, but I am not sure I would recommending dropping state or regional psych association talks just to keep your presentations to 15. I mean, if you are someone with 25 pubs and 40 presentations, for instance, does dropping a handul of state talks add to the applicant's value? Seems way too arbitrary to me.

The 12-15 range was a wholly unscientific approximation that I made. I don't mean to knock regional conferences, but being able to best highlight the national/international conference would probably be of more interest (to me at least) because they tend to be a bit more difficult to achieve as a student.

 

[KillerDiller]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone have any thoughts on where on the CV to list any colloquium presentations we have given? They are similar to conference presentations, but different enough that I don't want to lump the one I've done in with those, especially since colloquium topics don't go through the peer-review process. Maybe it should go under teaching experience?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Hmm…interesting question. I have never listed them, though I guess they are a part of academic work. I honestly lost track of much of those kind of things once I got out of training.

As an aside, I have attended a number of meetings/presentations/talks about the Promotion & Tenure (P&T) process, and one of the best pearls of wisdom I picked up was to keep a second document of "other" academic and administrative duties so I can get credit for them in addition to my main responsibilities. Once I started the document, I was surprised about how many other things I do as part of my faculty duties that isn't included on my standard C.V.

I don't want to side-track this conversation, so I'm going to open up a new thread to talk about preparing for P&T review.

 

[Pragma]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone have any thoughts on where on the CV to list any colloquium presentations we have given? They are similar to conference presentations, but different enough that I don't want to lump the one I've done in with those, especially since colloquium topics don't go through the peer-review process. Maybe it should go under teaching experience?

I have a section for invited talks/guest lectures that I keep under my teaching section. For Promotion and Tenure purposes, that kind of a thing is also sometimes considered service.

 

[Lisa44201]

Opinions, then: I'm going to the annual conference of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association (they're an accreditation body for Universities). The conference organizers asked during the registration if I would like to host a a round-table discussion session; I said yes, and submitted a topic. This is not a talk, or a presentation - I'm not standing in front of an audience and presenting research; however, my name will appear in the conference proceedings. So: list on the CV and/or résumé?

 

[InNae]

Opinions, then: I'm going to the annual conference of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association (they're an accreditation body for Universities). The conference organizers asked during the registration if I would like to host a a round-table discussion session; I said yes, and submitted a topic. This is not a talk, or a presentation - I'm not standing in front of an audience and presenting research; however, my name will appear in the conference proceedings. So: list on the CV and/or résumé?

Maybe a separate section titled something like "Other Service", and list "Discussant: [topic] Round Table. Annual meeting of the ..."?

At this point I list invited research talks (colloquia or seminar talks in departments other than my own) under a separate heading for "Invited Talks". Other talks (non-research presentations, colloquia in my own department) go under "Presentations" but are clearly labeled. I figure most people reading my full CV at this point probably just skim the presentation pages - they're more interested in pubs and grants, and of course the actual funding entities have their own biosketch formats that are very brief (NIH 4 pages, NSF 2 pages) and exclude presentations of any kind. Participation on panels of various kinds goes under Service along with committee service, etc., and my Teaching section is separate.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I just finished my biosketch…and it took me a lot longer than I initially anticipated. Now I just need to stick to 1-2 funding sources so I don't have to change much each time. 😉

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, biosketches are tough because everything needs to be relevant to the study and space is limited. It can be tough to pick out what to put in and what to leave out.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I must have re-written my professional statement 4-5 times because it didn't flow how I wanted when I'd take a small part out. The word limit made it extra fun.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone have any thoughts on where on the CV to list any colloquium presentations we have given? They are similar to conference presentations, but different enough that I don't want to lump the one I've done in with those, especially since colloquium topics don't go through the peer-review process. Maybe it should go under teaching experience?

I've stuck mine under "Non-referred presentations," separate from conference presentations (my presentation and poster section divides by presentations and posters and than by national/international and regional/state level).

On another note, what do you all think of people listing invited book reviews or commentaries with journal articles? IMO, it looks like CV inflation or possibly like the person doesn't really get the relative difference in prestige between a peer-reviewed article and another journal publication. Otoh, I've seen lots of grad students and junior faculty do this.

 

[InNae]

On another note, what do you all think of people listing invited book reviews or commentaries with journal articles? IMO, it looks like CV inflation or possibly like the person doesn't really get the relative difference in prestige between a peer-reviewed article and another journal publication.

This. A book review isn't a scholarly publication unless it's a humanities field (and not sure even then). A commentary is a commentary, not a peer-reviewed means of moving the field forward. We had a faculty candidate list multiple items from the equivalent of a departmental newsletter under publications. We immediately routed that one to the circular file.

I think a lot of people get really caught up in the "more is better", but for some reason they think "more" means "more lines" regardless of what the items are. The mentors should be correcting this misconception if possible, but some trainees just don't seem to agree, and there's only so much an advisor can say. And yes, there are some advisors who advocate CV padding because that's what they did/do.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think a lot of people get really caught up in the "more is better", but for some reason they think "more" means "more lines" regardless of what the items are. The mentors should be correcting this misconception if possible, but some trainees just don't seem to agree, and there's only so much an advisor can say. And yes, there are some advisors who advocate CV padding because that's what they did/do.

I agree. To me, padding by mixing other things in with peer-reviewed articles really backfires on people. It makes the peer-reviewed articles they *do* have seem suspect or less impressive because it makes it seems like the author is either trying to compensate for a low number of peer-reviewed publications (even if their publication count is actually fine) or doesn't know the difference between peer-reviewed and editorially-reviewed publications. It's why I err on the side of "over-organizing" my CV (e.g., one heading for peer-reviewed articles, one for book chapters, and one for editorially reviewed publications [with subheadings for encyclopedia entries, reviews and commentary, Division newsletters, etc]). Honestly, I *want* to draw much more attention to my articles than to the side publications, and I figure at least I'm not running the risk of misrepresenting myself.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

After this discussion I think it is best I re-organize my research section into: "NEJM/Nature/Science/JAMA", "Also Rans...in the 20's-30's", and "Everything Else".

 

[futureapppsy2]

After this discussion I think it is best I re-organize my research section into: "NEJM/Nature/Science/JAMA", "Also Rans...in the 20's-30's", and "Everything Else".

I think that system could make plenty of tenured full professors look like utter n00bs. 😉

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I agree. To me, padding by mixing other things in with peer-reviewed articles really backfires on people. It makes the peer-reviewed articles they *do* have seem suspect or less impressive because it makes it seems like the author is either trying to compensate for a low number of peer-reviewed publications (even if their publication count is actually fine) or doesn't know the difference between peer-reviewed and editorially-reviewed publications. It's why I err on the side of "over-organizing" my CV (e.g., one heading for peer-reviewed articles, one for book chapters, and one for editorially reviewed publications [with subheadings for encyclopedia entries, reviews and commentary, Division newsletters, etc]). Honestly, I *want* to draw much more attention to my articles than to the side publications, and I figure at least I'm not running the risk of misrepresenting myself.

I would agree; at least to me, it looks better for a person to "just" have one item listed under their peer-reviewed articles section than for them to confound that section with things like encyclopedia entries, "in prep" manuscripts, published abstracts, etc. And if you don't have any peer-reviewed pubs, that's ok, just own it and don't try to quasi-fool others into thinking that you do.

 

[Milk Milk Milk]

On a somewhat related note -

What constitutes a desired research record for hiring of an Assistant Professor in an AMC, especially when the position requires a 75/25 split of clinical to research work?