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

How to list publications as a mid-career philosopher?

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

Can we go over how publications in C.V.s are supposed to be listed for mid-career philosophers? ‘Peer-reviewed’ seems to sometimes stand for blind-reviewed journal articles, but invited contributions like a chapter in an edited volume are also peer-reviewed. Is it better to just list by kind (journal article, chapter in ed. volume, book review/discussion, etc) or do you all have other ways of organizing the different kinds of publications?

I list “peer-reviewed journal publications”, etc., separating things out into different categories.

What do other mid-career readers do? Any other helpful insights?

Posted in

7 responses to “How to list publications as a mid-career philosopher?”

  1. MyTwoCents

    I have seen CVs list “Journal Publications (*peer-reviewed)”. I like this, since some journal publications are editor-reviewed (e.g., letters to editors or some response pieces) and others are peer-reviewed. This is useful in some subdisciplines like bioethics, where bioethicists publish in a wide range of journals. A letter to an editor or commentary can be published in a reputable medical journal (JAMA) and count pretty highly for a person’s portfolio even though it was not peer-reviewed.

    Reply
  2. invited?

    Why not just list articles and chapters together and do “* = invited”?

    Reply
  3. Trevor Hedberg

    There are many ways to do this (in terms of formatting), but I think it is important to differentiate the types of publications clearly. Edited collections do not usually undergo the same review process as peer-reviewed journals, so separating book chapters from journal articles is a good thing to do once one has publications of each type. Op-eds, short-from online publications, and similar works should also be separated from the rest. Otherwise, it creates the impression that these differing publication types are of roughly equal merit, prestige, etc., and typically they are not.

    Reply
  4. David

    I had put this on the “How can we help you” thread on typepad, but it would probably be best to put it here instead.

    To build upon cvorganizer’s question — and now with MyTwoCents’s and invited?’s comments– for mid-career (and even early-career), should articles which went through some form of blind peer review be marked as such on a CV, whether parenthetically, via asterisks, etc.? Or should this be assumed and left unmarked? The APA says, “Make sure to indicate whether something was peer reviewed” (https://www.apaonline.org/page/guidance_job_seekers).

    Reply
  5. Bill V.

    Here’s one way to do it. (Another way, if you have enough entries, is to further subdivide each subheading into “refereed” and “invited.” The main thing is to always correctly represent what you are listing without the possibility of confusion or mischaracterization.)

    PUBLICATIONS
    _Journal Articles_
    (refereed) “title,” journal, vol, pages.
    (invited) “title,” journal, vol, pages.
    (invited; refereed) “title,” journal, vol, pages.

    _Book Chapters_
    (invited) “title,” book, pages.
    (conference proceedings; further refereed for selection for publication) “title,” book, pages.

    _Other Publications_ (or _Public Philosophy_ or whatever fits the case)
    (Op Ed) “title,” publication, date.

    Reply
  6. Tim

    For the last few years, I’ve used four categories: Peer-Reviewed Articles; Peer-reviewed Book Chapters; Encyclopedia Entries; Book Reviews and Notes. That doesn’t cover all conceivable publications (though right now it covers all of mine!). But I think it does a decent job of separating out different kinds of publications.

    Reply
  7. David

    Does anyone have advice for how to list these kinds of peer-review or invitee parentheticals if you are following The Professor is In’s version of listing publications, where the year of publication should come first? It’s difficult to balance all the forms of advice and greatest clarity — should the year of publication come first, should a parenthetical statement about whether the publication was peer-reviewed or invited come first or last, should one use asterisks instead of parentheticals, should someone tap my head to keep me from overthinking all of this? I guess another way of asking this is, are there best practices for these sorts of questions OP is asking for philosophers which are distinct from / clashing with common advice sources like The Professor is In?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading