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 much does having papers under review matter on the job market?

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

How much does it matter to have papers under review on your CV? I’ve had some recent publishing success and I’m hitting the job market for the first time, but my next few papers need substantial work before they’re ready to send out. I’d like to take the time to get them into shape and shoot for some really good journals, but I’m feeling pressure to do some quick and dirty revisions and submit earlier so that I can demonstrate active progress in my research. It would help me to know whether this sort of thing matters to hiring committees–whether having a big clump of ‘in preparation’ papers without anything under review is some kind of red flag, and so is worth making an extra effort to avoid.

In general, I don’t think having papers under review is likely to matter much on the market. Search committees in my experience tend to be much more concerned with publishing success, as anyone can put papers under review. That said, if you have only published a few papers, a list of papers under review on a CV might convey to search committees that you have a lot in the pipeline and are likely to publish more. Then again, a list of papers “in preparation” might suffice for that, and sending papers out to journals that really aren’t ready seems like a bad thing to do, given the “referee crisis.”

What do readers think?

Posted in

13 responses to “How much does having papers under review matter on the job market?”

  1. Committee member

    Our committee would not make a distinction between “in preparation” and “under review” and neither would really boost your chances with us.. Anybody can send a paper to any journal, and most papers get rejected. We certainly would not take it as demonstrating active progress in your research.

    Reply
  2. Hiring committee member

    Having papers under review matters not at all. If you are on the market and have no publications, then 1,000 papers under review will not make a difference. And, if you are are on the market and you have a few publications, then you will be assessed on those, not on the 0 or 7 or 3, or whatever number of papers under review. Imagine this conversation around the table during a hiring committee meeting: “hey look, this person with a paper in APQ, and one in CJP, and one in Erkenntnis, also has a paper under review.” If you want to talk about your research programme, then do that in a separate document or save it for the interview – and here you can say what you are working on (and there is no need to mention that they are papers under review).

    Reply
  3. Christopher Hitchcock

    Having good quality papers helps on the job market. Typically, after we have decided on an interview list, we invite candidates to upload any additional writing that they would like to have considered. We might also look on candidates’ websites to find additional papers (beyond those submitted as writing samples). It doesn’t matter whether these papers are under review or not, but it does matter how good they are.

    My suggestion to OP is not to worry about having papers under submission, but to work to get one or more of the papers in preparation to the point where they would be happy sharing them with a search committee.

    Reply
  4. What about R&Rs?

    Could previous committee members comment on whether it makes a difference if the papers have been issued a revise and resubmit or conditional acceptance verdict? Thanks 🙂

    Reply
  5. Daniel

    Different people might have different views on this but for me there is no difference between a CV with some number of papers under review and the identical CV with zero papers under review. I don’t even see the point of listing papers under review on a CV. It is to be assumed that you are working on stuff. Whether that stuff is currently under review or about to be under review as soon as you finish it is irrelevant. You can mention it in a research statement or something but to me it won’t matter if you mention that it’s under review or in preparation or whatever.

    Reply
  6. Hiring committee member

    What about R&Rs:
    Really, it does not make much difference if you have an R&R on a paper – many R&Rs are not transformed into acceptances and publications. And it would never come down to an R&R being a deciding factor between candidates for a job. The market is not like that. Just get a publication in a good journal. And once you have done that aim higher …
    The key is to publish good research – and strong journals are a great place to start.

    Reply
  7. Christopher Hitchcock

    An R&R at a good journal counts for something, but not as much as an acceptance. But you shouldn’t get the sense that it is all a matter of bean-counting: this candidate has 3 points for 2 accepted papers and 2 R&Rs, this candidate has 3.5 points for 3 accepted papers and one R&R, etc. Ultimately it’s about the quality of the work and general productivity. If a candidate has no publications–especially if they have been out of the Ph.D. for a while or spent many years doing the Ph.D.–that is a worry. But if two candidates both have some publications in good places, it will come down to the quality of the work, not the number of publications or the exact venues.

    Reply
  8. Associate Prof

    It can be good for the optics, especially if you have forthcoming paper(s) on a related topic. It can indicate productivity and show good focus.

    Reply
  9. Bill V.

    I’ve said this on Cocoon before, but it seems relevant say it again: While “under review” means almost nothing in a job search (hard agree with previous commenters on that), “under review at fancy journal” is an obvious attempt to manipulate and makes a candidate look bad. Most papers (often, 90% or more) sent to a fancy journal do not get accepted at that journal (and I bet the rejection rate is higher for junior scholars). Upshot: “under review at fancy journal” really means “I hope fancy journal will accept this paper but, almost certainly, it will NOT be published by fancy journal.” Think of it this way: CVs are records of accomplishments, not hopes and possibilities. This means, BTW, that “under review” papers belong in the Works in Progress section of the CV, not the Publications section.

    If someone has no publications, an “under review” can show that they are trying, but the competition is so fierce right now that that isn’t enough to have a shot. Or if someone has a couple of publications already, an additional paper under review can show a research trajectory, and that could lead to a line of conversation during an interview. That’s about it.

    Having an R&R is a good sign, but many of them don’t get accepted even after revision, so they still don’t count for much. By all means include them if you really have them, and hope you can tell the committee between the deadline and their decision that it has been accepted.

    Reply
    1. grad job candidate

      I want to push back on the idea that listing something “under review at a fancy journal is an obvious attempt to manipulate”. Last year I (and the other grads on the market at my program) all listed the journals where our papers were under review — not because we were all trying to manipulate the process, but because the placement director advised us to do so. (And not because they hoped people would misread ‘under review’ as ‘published’! Rather, because they thought it was a way of showing we had ambition.) Not saying we didn’t *send* the signal that we were trying to manipulate the process — people in your position would know better than I would. But the signal was inaccurate — we are just grad students who learn best practices by taking other people’s advice. I’m not sure if you had later-career people in mind — but I hope that grad student job candidates get interpreted charitably with signaling/etiquette of this kind (because in order to participate in a signaling system, we have to know more about the system than many of us do.)

      Reply
      1. Trevor Hedberg

        I agree with Bill V. that listing a particular distinguished venue as being where the paper is under review is likely to be interpreted as trying to manipulate the reader, especially since one could just list “under review” without specifying any journal to communicate the status of the work in progress. There are other ways to communicate one’s ambition in the cover letter and research statement that don’t look sketchy, so I think the placement director just offered bad advice in this instance.

        I will also say with confidence that early career folks don’t generally get any special (or charitable) treatment with signaling / etiquette: search committees review hundreds of applications for every position, so they are look for reasons to reject people and whittle down the number of submissions to something manageable. They will almost never hunt for reasons to keep a candidate in a search during the initial cuts, and may pounce on any reason to throw out an application file.

  10. Bill V.

    Meant to add re: the final comment in OP’s post: *Don’t* have a big clump of “in preparation” papers” on your cv, even if you think you have a bunch of ideas that you will eventually try to publish. Two are three is okay. Pick the ones most relevant to the AOS/AOC of the ad. More than that, like a long list of AOSs and AOCs in a junior candidate, looks like padding/looks implausible/looks like the candidate doesn’t understand how the profession works.

    Reply
  11. Charles Pigden

    The only circumstance in which listing ‘under reviews’ MIGHT help is if you were neck and neck with some other candidate wrt *actual* publications (out or genuinely forthcoming). But actually I would advise against listing them at all, since as a search committee member I would be disposed to dismiss them as bullshit and blather. Search committees have to read their way though mountains of applications and are likely to look with an unfriendly eye on applicants who make their task more onerous by boasting about lots of merely aspirational material. Wrt CVs etc, less can be more. A succinct CV, listing solid achievements, with a relatively brief account of future plans, might actually beat out a longer submission with a similar set of solid achievements but bloated with ‘under reviews’, R&R’s etc.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading