Writing CV for PhD application

[maNoFchangE]

I have been engaged in some laboratory projects during my master study. But only one of them which has been written as a paper, it has been accepted but not yet published. Now I want to write a CV for my PhD application, and wondering what I should write in the research experience section. Will it not make me look like a kiddy/amateur applicant if I only write of those lab projects under the research section? If I were to wait for the paper I mentioned before to be published it will take some weeks may be, if possible I want to contact the future supervisors as soon as possible while giving them a good impression about myself.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Definitely list the paper with the journal name and put (to be published) in parantheses at the end of the citation. Post it on arXiv and include a link so they can read it.

You want to include the lab projects too. Hopefully, you'll have a letter of recommendation from a supervisor saying more about them.

 

[maNoFchangE]

Definitely list the paper with the journal name and put (to be published) in parantheses at the end of the citation.

I also thought that way, but what is actually the etiquette of revealing the title of a paper before it was published? I'm concerned with the confidentiality issue, I know that in some journal the author is not allowed to post his paper in another journal before the final decision of its acceptance is issued. Besides, I'm not the main author of that paper so I'm afraid I don't have that full of permission to post it somewhere else.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

It is common and accepted practice to list the title, authors, and journal of a paper that has been accepted followed by (to be published). There may be exceptions for journals with strict embargos on pre-publication publicity, but I've never encountered that. If the journal does not prohibit you from listing the paper in a CV prior to publication, you are good to go.

 

[Choppy]

Just a note, and this may be field-specific, but I would use either the phrase "accepted for publication" or "in press" as opposed to "to be published." The latter could apply to an article at any stage of preparation whereas the former two imply that the article has been through the peer review process and the journal has accepted it. Articles that have been submitted and are currently going through the peer review process would be labelled "under review" or "submitted." Articles that are currently being prepared would be labelled "manuscript in preparation."

In general there is no confidentiality or ettiquette issue with listing the title of work that you've done prior to publication. It may be a different story if you were to post the entire article, but even that is faily common, what with the prevelance of the pre-print server these days.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Good point. Less ambiguity with your wording.

 

[maNoFchangE]

In general there is no confidentiality or ettiquette issue with listing the title of work that you've done prior to publication. It may be a different story if you were to post the entire article, but even that is faily common, what with the prevelance of the pre-print server these days.

Thank you Choppy, that's a relief.