The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Disciplinary norms for forthcoming vs. published work in promotion reviews?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I wondering whether someone can shed light on this question: is it consistent with standard disciplinary norms in philosophy to count an article in a current promotion file as a publication, if it was previously listed as forthcoming – but not counted as a publication – in an earlier promotion review.

To provide some context, at the time of my promotion to associate professor a few years ago, I had a peer-reviewed article that had been accepted and forthcoming but not yet published. Because it wasn’t in print, I did not count it as a publication, consistent with standard practices and disciplinary norms; instead, I listed it under a separate section of my promotion portfolio – “evidence of ongoing scholarship” – as advised. The article was published three months after my promotion to associate professor.

Now, as I prepare my portfolio for promotion to full professor, I would obviously like to include this article in my record of published research. However, I wish to proceed in my promotion process with an abundance of caution and integrity.

My question is: is it consistent with standard disciplinary norms in philosophy to count this article as a publication for my current promotion file, given that it was listed as forthcoming (but not counted as a publication) in my prior promotion file?

I would assume that this is the case, but neither my department’s RTP guidelines nor the university contract address this question directly.

To be clear: I’m merely seeking clarification on whether a disciplinary norm exists for these situations. Thanks for any and all input and/or references.

I have no idea whether there's a disciplinary norm here. However, given that the OP explicitly listed the work as "ongoing scholarship" in their earlier promotion file and the work really was published only after they were an associate, it seems to me that they are probably fine counting it now. One potential issue, though, is that I would have thought the standing disciplinary norm is to list "forthcoming" under published works in a CV rather than "ongoing scholarship" since it was already accepted. Another thing I've always found a bit confusing is when pieces are "published online" (viz. Online First) but not yet assigned to a journal issue. But it's not clear that's an issue here in the OP's case.

What do readers think?

Posted in ,

4 responses to “Disciplinary norms for forthcoming vs. published work in promotion reviews?”

  1. Typical R-1

    The practice at my place and a few others I know is to count only accepted publications (regardless of whether they’ve been published yet) and to count them only in one promotion review — i.e. no double counting. So if it’s accepted during one review period, and you choose to count it then, you can’t use it as a new pub in the next review, even if that’s when it’s finally published. But whether and when you count an accepted pub, in the first place, is up to you.

    Reply
  2. Caligula’s Goat

    My (highly ranked SLAC without a graduate program) allows people to choose when to count a publication: at the acceptance of a final draft for publication OR once the accepted article/book appears in print. Once someone chooses a standard they should stick with it.
    Needless to say, everyone chooses the first one. Time to print can be years so everyone chooses to count a publication as a publication (for the purposes of tenure and promotion) once it has been formally accepted in its final form.
    The short answer is that I doubt there is a disciplinary norm (the APA won’t have a policy on this) but I bet that the average department works more like mine or “Typical R-1” in the sense that formal acceptance of an article is what makes it count as a publication and not necessarily its literal appearance in print.

    Reply
  3. Bill V.

    These things tend to be local rather than disciplinary, I think: In the discipline, we don’t usually see the way other universities handle the details of promotion files. If OP wants to get a good answer, ask your department chair, dean, and the head of the university T&P committee.
    I would be amazed if an evaluation committee compares the file for promotion to associate with the file for promotion to full to look for such discrepancies. They are wading through so much material already.
    But let me again advocate for a parenthetical explanatory note before the entry, e.g.:
    (This was listed under “evidence of ongoing scholarship” in my file for promotion to associate, and was published three months later.) “[Article],” [Journal], [details].
    I would have agreed with Marcus that an accepted publication should be listed under publications, but local differences make the difference. I have heard that in disciplines (e.g., History) that require a book for tenure, nothing short of being in print counts (because so much can go wrong and even books with contracts and submitted manuscripts can fail to appear).
    Maybe I’m wrong about this, but my impression is that at many places when someone goes up for full professor, their entire record is evaluated, not just what they have done since becoming associate. If that is true in OP’s case, then the worry dissipates, I think.

    Reply
  4. Charles Pigden

    What are you trying to do here? Surely the goal is to brag about your achievements on your CV but to brag about them honestly, a) because honesty is an important virtue and b) because promotions committees might react badly if they suspect you of gilding the lily. Since that’s the goal, Bill V’s suggestion is the obvious way to go. List the paper as a publication but add a note indicating that you listed it as forthcoming the last time around. That way you get a bit of kudos as a productive scholar and a little bit more as an honest person.
    Caveat. Disciplinary norms are not the issue. What counts are the rules for promotion applications at your university. If they forbid listing past forthcomings as actual publications don’t do it. If they do not, then list it, but with the accompanying note.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading