|
CV
Nov 26, 2014 18:03:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by i on Nov 26, 2014 18:03:56 GMT -5
I personally think you shouldn't even bother listing equal authorship. No one cares, it's really not going to help you, and it may annoy some people. If your name is at the end of the alphabet like mine, you just have to suck it up. It's unfortunate but all the more reason to be careful early on in the process.
|
|
|
CV
Dec 2, 2014 1:09:49 GMT -5
Post by seriously? on Dec 2, 2014 1:09:49 GMT -5
You actually think someone will be annoyed because someone correctly states that the authorship was shared equally on their own CV? These must be very annoyed as they go through life.
I personally have avoided being equal author--either I did the greater portion of the work and went first, or I let someone else do the heaviest lifting and they went first. But if I were an equal author, I do think I would note it somehow.
|
|
|
CV
Dec 2, 2014 23:06:53 GMT -5
Post by hm... on Dec 2, 2014 23:06:53 GMT -5
This thread took a weird turn. At any rate, in conference papers, probably list them all, as quality of the paper was what got you in, not your PPT abilities.
And can I get on my hobby horse and say how much I hate it when people use that NAME with "person 1, person 2, person 3" format, when they're not the first author on a publication? So scammy. Much better to bold your name or whatever.
|
|
forthcoming or in press?
Guest
|
CV
Feb 20, 2015 17:33:46 GMT -5
Post by forthcoming or in press? on Feb 20, 2015 17:33:46 GMT -5
If you have an article that's published online ahead of print, should it be listed as "forthcoming" or "in press"? Or doesn't it matter (i.e., either is fine)? Would you note after the citation that it's published online with something such as "[published online, ahead of print]" or is that pointless and likely to annoy people?
|
|
|
CV
Feb 21, 2015 0:32:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by atlien on Feb 21, 2015 0:32:38 GMT -5
^ how bout you list the year of the digital print and its corresponding doi number.
|
|
forthcoming or in press?
Guest
|
CV
Feb 21, 2015 15:33:18 GMT -5
Post by forthcoming or in press? on Feb 21, 2015 15:33:18 GMT -5
Do others think that's the best practice? Seems a bit shaddy to me, since I would be putting "2015" when it might not be in print until 2016 (this journal takes longer than most, so that's certainly possible). I don't see "doi" listed on too many cv's these days, either, but maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
|
CV
Feb 21, 2015 16:34:09 GMT -5
Post by I would say on Feb 21, 2015 16:34:09 GMT -5
Forthcoming
|
|
|
CV
Feb 21, 2015 17:35:25 GMT -5
Post by agree and... on Feb 21, 2015 17:35:25 GMT -5
I agree I'd put forthcoming instead of a year but also put "online firts DOI...", "published online ahead of print," or something like that, so that anyone who wants to know what it's about can see it
|
|
|
CV
Feb 21, 2015 21:31:28 GMT -5
Post by i think on Feb 21, 2015 21:31:28 GMT -5
I think forthcoming vs. in press is a difference between ASA and APA style.
|
|
|
CV
Feb 22, 2015 10:30:02 GMT -5
Post by Miss Ann Thrope on Feb 22, 2015 10:30:02 GMT -5
My understanding is "in press" is when it's still with the publishers and/or you - at the stage of proofs. Forthcoming is after you've submitted your profits.
|
|
|
CV
Feb 22, 2015 11:19:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by not what I assume on Feb 22, 2015 11:19:52 GMT -5
Weird, because to me "in press" sounds closer to the finish line than "forthcoming," which is why I usually use the former. I'm not sure it matters much, either is fine, but others might feel differently.
|
|
|
CV
Mar 3, 2015 20:32:37 GMT -5
Post by online articles on Mar 3, 2015 20:32:37 GMT -5
I've seen people use (forthcoming, now online)
|
|
nearly published articles
Guest
|
CV
Apr 7, 2016 14:52:07 GMT -5
Post by nearly published articles on Apr 7, 2016 14:52:07 GMT -5
The old conventions: Forthcoming - can refer to anything after final acceptance and before volume/page numbers are assigned. In Press - the old language to refer to articles that were at the typesetters. Rule of thumb: use after volume and page numbers have been assigned.
These days, the distinction between these usages seemed to have slipped a bit. To communicate more clearly to us old-timers, I would still recommend using Forthcoming for papers/books that have been accepted but not scheduled and In Press for papers/books that have been proofed and have a scheduled publication date. If you want to avoid the two stage approach, just use Forthcoming. When people use In Press prematurely, it generates more negative judgment than using Forthcoming more liberally.
It is now quite common to see "Forthcoming (Published Online Ahead of Print, DOI:xxxx)" on c.v.s and other publication profiles. I would recommend it. You can remove the link and replace with the final year/volume/page/ info after it appears in print.
|
|