Saturday, June 28, 2008

Too Smart to Fight, Too Smart to Kill for You

From the Post:
[Danielle Allen] boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the [Institute for Advanced Study]. . . .
God damn. And here I am, going back and forth on whether to put my grade school AV club on my CV.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't do it.

Anonymous said...

Sure, go ahead. Just give it a new heading to set it apart. I suggest "Irrelevant Awards and In-House Bullshit Sessions". You can also include breakthrough conversations had in the local watering hole.

Anonymous said...

On a somewhat related not (that is, related to getting a job teaching philosophy), I was looking for some information to help me put a teaching demo together and came across this paper (looks like it has been submitted to or will be published in Teaching Philosophy) on making a teaching demo for an ethics job:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1148580

Kind of interesting.

Anonymous said...

Sigh...Time to send a resume to Costco:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194332/

Anonymous said...

Danielle Allen is also a very personable, decent, and engaging person, and in many other ways the model of what an academic should be.

Anonymous said...

Did I mention I know Danielle Allen? Because I do.

Random Questioner said...

Hey this isn't exactly the same topic, but it is a cv question. I am starting to get my shit together for the October slaughter and I am wondering if anyone knows the answer to this question.

If we are listing a paper on our cv as 'under review' or 'submitted' are we supposed to list where we submitted it to? Thanks

juniorperson said...

I wouldn't list where you'd submitted papers to, simply because if you do it can appear that you're boasting of you (current) non-association with (e.g.) *Mind*.

Mr. Zero said...

RQ,

There was a discussion of this issue a while back. I don't remember where. There wasn't a total consensus, but it was pretty close. The near-consensus view is that you should not list the papers that are under review on your CV. The reasons are these:

1. That your paper is under review somewhere doesn't mean anything. Anyone can send any paper to any journal. The mere fact that you sent this to Phil Review is meaningless.

2. Everyone knows it doesn't mean anything. No one will be fooled. No one will draw any conclusions about the quality of your work based on your choice to send it out, or to submit it to any particular journal.

3. It will make you look bad, since the fact that you did it makes it seem like you didn't know either (1) or (2), when you should know both.

4. It is a potential threat to the double-blind protocol, especially if you post your CV to the internet.

So, the question is moot. You shouldn't list the journal you submitted it to because you should list papers under review at all.

Clayton said...

If we are listing a paper on our cv as 'under review' or 'submitted' are we supposed to list where we submitted it to? Thanks

No, you should not. A lot of people say it looks tacky. (Anyone can send a paper to Phil Review. Take it from one who knows.) There's also the worry that it will mess up blind review and if you're the kind of person who needs a job, I'm guessing that you don't want blind review compromised.

A tricky case is the revise and resubmit. I've heard some say that if it reaches the R&R phase, you can name the journal. I gather from friends with real jobs that this seems less tacky to members of search committees, although there is still the worry about blind review.

I actually think it might be wise to have two titles per paper. I've started putting this into practice. Have one title that is available to the public and another title that is available only to the journal. Use the public title for conferences, CV, etc... Three times I've had referees googling the title of my paper to my blog in what would seem to be an attempt to discover the identity of the paper they were refereeing. (I'm sure it's happened more than this. What are the odds that I've caught people doing this three times.)

Prof. J. said...

Clayton's judgment about 'tackiness' seems right, though I think it doesn't matter much. I don't pay attention to "Submitted for publication" lines on a CV, myself, unless I'm wondering what the person is currently working on.

Anonymous said...

1) Never ever ever list a paper under Works Published if it has not been published (or is not forthcoming).

2) Never ever ever list a paper under Works In Progress unless that shit is all but spit-polished and ready to be sent off. Why? Because guess what, someone on the committee might like to see it, and boy howdy won't you look like a doofus when you send him/her either nothing or an unworked steaming pile of shit.

3) Nothing irks committee members more than a candidate trying to look impressive by fudging the CV. We will know and you will never get a 2nd look.

Ben said...

There was a discussion of this here:
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/06/09/cv-for-the-academic-job-market/

It seems people thought listing the journal isn't really so bad. If referees want to circumvent blind review, I'd imagine that they often could anyway (if you've given a paper to conferences or such). If they're googling to identify the author, when supposed to be blind, I'd say that's probably unprofessional on their part.

As for what listing the journal says on the CV, sure if you send it to a top journal with no real chance of acceptance, it doesn't show much. But where you're sending the papers does communicate something about your ambition and perhaps where you think you have a realistic chance of getting published. It's probably better if you have some existing publications of similar calibre to prove that your targets are realistic.

tenured prof said...

I've been on a number of SCs. I think there's something to be said for listing your papers under submission (including where they're under submission): it won't count for much, but it at least shows that you've *got* papers to be sending off and that you're ambitious. I would definitely take into consideration a candidate's R&Rs as a good thing, so I think it's well worth listing these. (One interesting problem though: someone could lie about both of these and there would be no way of ever knowing it.)

BUT: do not, do not, DO NOT list works that are under submission (whether or not they've received an R&R) under the 'publications' heading in your CV. You might think that's obvious - you might think it's analytic that only publications are publications - but I've seen this done SO OFTEN. This practice actively hurts the applicants, because it makes you look like you're trying to fool the SC into thinking you've got more publications than you have. If you're going to list works in progress or works under submission do so in *clearly separate* sections in the CV. If that means you've got an empty publications section: tough.

tenured philosophy girl said...

I think the point about blowing the blind review process is a really good one. I try to use my will power to only google titles of the papers I review after I have already written up and sent in the review, but when I do, the paper is almost always listed on a conference site or online cv. It is trivial to undo the blind review process these days. This is generally not to your advantage if you are still a grad student! So I like the idea of having two titles in circulation very much.

I also agree that it is tacky, pretentious, and not in your favor to list the names of the journals you have submitted to. Who gives a crap? I can send my drycleaning receipt to J Phil if I like. Also, if your paper then does NOT come out there, it looks bad. No possible advantage to list this.

On the other hand, unlike some people here, I do think that people who are just starting out should list papers as submitted, because it is helpful for prospective employers to know that you do have stuff in the works and that you're not one of those people who is afraid to let go and send something off.

So I vote for listing submitted papers, without saying where they are submitted to, and using a special public name for the paper that is distinct from what you use for the journal.

Anonymous said...

You should have a section that lists works that are under review or about to be. It shows that you have (or at least claim to have) a body of research that is at an advanced stage. Many if not most CVs list works under review and in progress.

The suggestion that you should use a different title on your CV (especially if it is online) than you use in your paper, because it could otherwise compromise the blind review process is silly. First, the referee shouldn’t be searching for your paper before they review it. (But I see this all the time. Analytics reveals it. . . .) The referee is compromising the review process, not the CV. And if the referee is going to search, then, second, they will likely be able to find out the author. If you’ve presented the paper at a conference--standard practice (in the conference, revise, submit pattern)—then the referee will be able to find out your identity. That is, unless you change the title again. Even then, third, blind reviewing is a often a sham. If you are active in a sub area, you can often tell the identity of the paper from the position, the examples, having been previously sent the paper by the author for comments, or from having seen it at a conference . . . .

philo said...

Hey this isn't exactly the same topic, but it is a cv question. I am starting to get my shit together for the October slaughter and I am wondering if anyone knows the answer to this question.

Also, depending on the journal, it is possible that by the time the October slaughter arrives, you'll know the story anyhow about that article...

Anonymous said...

Firstly, on this 'what to list on your CV thread', I did my PhD at a non-august, non-US institution, and a friend with a PhD from our department got a TT job at an R1 philosophy department (and was also interviewed by a number of other departments, including NYU!) with a CV that broke every rule in the book. This CV listed articles that my friend was speculatively working on.

Secondly, re: Allen, I note from her CV that she undertook her second PhD while already an Ass. Prof. at Chicago.

Anonymous said...

Also, my friend's CV listed all kinds of piddling crap from high school.

Anonymous said...

First, the referee shouldn’t be searching for your paper before they review it. (But I see this all the time. Analytics reveals it. . . .) The referee is compromising the review process, not the CV. And if the referee is going to search, then, second, they will likely be able to find out the author. If you’ve presented the paper at a conference--standard practice (in the conference, revise, submit pattern)—then the referee will be able to find out your identity. That is, unless you change the title again. Even then, third, blind reviewing is a often a sham. If you are active in a sub area, you can often tell the identity of the paper from the position, the examples, having been previously sent the paper by the author for comments, or from having seen it at a conference . . . .

Not convinced. The referee is subverting the process by using the CV. It's true that taking away the CV won't stop a motivated misbehaving referee, but the same could be said for door locks and cat burglars. I assume you lock your doors. As for your final remark, the possibility that a ref has seen your paper before is a possibility. What matters are probabilities. It's not a ton of work to have two titles for your paper and it seems it can help your chances.

On a totally different subject, what are people's attitudes about contacting journals that are taking too long to contact you about decisions? I've started contacting journals at the 6 month mark and friends have told me that they start at 4 and send a nag message each month. Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

1) Two thumbs up to what Tenured Philosophy Girl said.

2) I would list papers that are under review in the "works in preparation" section and put "(under review)" after the title, where appropriate. At the same time, I wouldn't want to bloat this section of the CV. It shouldn't give the impression that you're looking for padding.

3) If the referee intentionally ruins blind review, yes, that is the referee's lack of professionalism and ethics, not yours. But as TPG pointed out, it might be to your advantage to remain anonymous... especially if you're "just a grad student". Nothing wrong with two titles, and it's not that hard to implement.

Anonymous said...

Six months is a totally reasonable amount of time to re-contact a journal. I'm not so sure about the nagging e-mails every month. but six months is so obviously bordering on irresponsible. seriously. i hate this shit. there needs to be some accountability. i've been asked to review some things for an in-house journal and i feel really guilty after 3 months (i've never taken longer than 4). why have we let things get to this point!!!???

Anonymous said...

I hassle journals at three months. The current situation is absolutely ridiculous. It takes an afternoon to referee a paper. If you don't think you're going to have a spare afternoon this month, don't agree to referee. If you agree, get it done within the month. There's no excuse for journals to take as long as they do to turn papers around, and no excuse for most reviewers to take as long as they do. What can be done??

Anonymous said...

What can be done??

The APA should make a statement that they support multiple submissions (submitting one paper to more than one journal). The (ethical?) argument against this has always been that we should feel sorry for and grateful to the journals for the time they put into reviewing, and so we owe to them the "promise" that they can have sole rights to an article that we submit (should they accept it). But why do we owe the journal that courtesy, when so many of them have become so reckless with their turn-around times?

ed said...

12:55,
I think that suggestion would be incredibly counterproductive. If everyone submits their papers to, say, six journals at once, the amount of refereeing that needs to be done will skyrocket (it won't go up by a factor of six, since a lot of those papers would eventually be submitted to some of those other journals anyway, but it will more than double). That will make it much harder to get reviewers, which will mean every paper will take longer to referee.

There's no 'ethical' argument against a policy of sending papers to many journals at once. It's just a practical policy that journals have adopted. It's probably worth a try to see what would happen if, say, half a dozen good journals dropped the restriction, anyway. My bet is that it makes things worse at those journals.

Anonymous said...

"The APA should make a statement that they support multiple submissions (submitting one paper to more than one journal). The (ethical?) argument against this has always been that we should feel sorry for and grateful to the journals for the time they put into reviewing, and so we owe to them the "promise" that they can have sole rights to an article that we submit (should they accept it)."

except that it isn't in anyone's interest to increase significantly the volume of submissions that journals have to manage at any given moment. the inevitable consequence of which will be even longer delays. why not set some sort of review-time maximum? If a submission gets no response within, say, 4 months, the author would have the option of notifying the journal that he/she is retracting the submission and sending it elsewhere. That wouldn't add any significant burden to journals, and would give submitters more control of the process. Perhaps it would create some incentive for journals to speed up their review process in order to avoid losing submissions (this would obviously apply more to journals that aren't already completed flooded with submissions). Actually, now that I think about this, I'm unclear: can authors retract papers that have not yet been reviewed? Is this regarded as unprofessional? If retracting is already a possibility, then I can't see that any further change is needed.

mr. zero said...

I always thought that we were free to withdraw a paper at any time. I mean, suppose you withdrew a paper and the journal didn't want you to. What would they do? Publish your paper against your wishes? Sue you for breach of offer to publish? Probably more likely, nothing.

However, I can't agree that this shows that no further change is needed. Although the simultaneous submission idea is impractical, it would still be nice if the APA would use its vast statement-issuing power to condemn these long review times.

Anonymous said...

can authors retract papers that have not yet been reviewed? Is this regarded as unprofessional? If retracting is already a possibility, then I can't see that any further change is needed.

You can retract. I don't think it is widely viewed as unprofessional, but what matters is what the editor thinks. You don't want the editor to think of it as unprofessional, and I can imagine a few of them thinking that you're just jerking them around if you retract. (Further qualifications: if it is _really_ egregious case, you'd think that the editor would assign a new referee. If you were to retract at that point, I can't see that it would be rational to submit to a new place and the editor might (rightly) be annoyed. If, however, your editor does nothing to assist you, your retraction might annoy them but what good would a decision not to annoy such an editor be? They aren't concerned enough with you to intervene on your behalf and chances are you wouldn't send to them again.)

There was a remark above from a previous anon to the effect that we don't owe the journal any courtesy because of their recklessness. I guess there's a sense in which this is right. The journal is not the sort of entity you can owe courtesy to, but I think that misses the point. More often than not, I'm guessing that the irresponsibility is due to the referees and so it rarely makes sense to treat the journal as if it (or those in charge of it) doesn't deserve consideration.

Anyway, I'm pretty fed up with the whole process. I'm sick of referees trying to subvert blind review. I'm sick of referees taking their sweet ass time to get reports in when careers are at stake. Erkenntnis has been sitting on one of my pieces for 14 months. My experience with them has been basically 1 page = 1 month of review. J Phil just passed the year mark (to be expected, I suppose). Mind is at about 8 months and Synthese just broke the 6 month barrier.

RQ said...

Thanks for al teh helpful comments!

Thank God for PJMB!

Anonymous said...

One thing to do, about journals, is to try to submit to ones that have a reputation for quicker turn-around time and for treating authors well. There is a wiki that talks about this somewhere, and I think there has been a thread about it on Brian Leiter's blog.

I also think that polite queries at appropriate intervals is a good idea. Depending on the particular circumstances, I think withdrawing from consideration could be a good idea if inquiries generate neither progress nor a plan for fixing the problem (e.g., sending to a new referee).

Anonymous said...

5:18, well reasoned.

More often than not, I'm guessing that the irresponsibility is due to the referees and so it rarely makes sense to treat the journal as if it (or those in charge of it) doesn't deserve consideration.

I'm sure this is right, but how do you explain the large variation in average response time among journals? Nous has a median response time of about ten weeks. We don't know the statistics for Mind, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it takes about twice that long to respond on average; in any case it takes much longer than the more efficient journals. Doesn't this mean the editors bear some responsibility?

rabbit said...

Here is the thread from Leiter on this topic.

And here is one wiki detailing response times from philosophy journals. There may be other such wikis.

What to put on your CV--in his Discworld novels, Terry Pratchett mentions a card-game, 'Cripple Mr. Onion'. Prof. Terence Tao helped to formalize the rules for 'Cripple Mr. Onion'. Yet the Prof. seems not to record that fact on
his CV
. Surely an opportunity lost.