Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Publication lite

A relatively new digital publication that focuses partly on issues of interest to pseudologists has decided to publish a piece I wrote for them.  The link is live now!  My short essay appears alongside a piece by a bigshot pseudologist; I'm a little humbled by the juxtaposition.  I'm proud to be there, even if the editors managed to insert a grammatical error not present in my original manuscript.  (I'm a really careful proofreader.)

So now, of course, I must update my CV.  What subheading should I put this under?  It's certainly not a peer-reviewed journal.  It's also not "popular press," as I understand the term: the readership is relatively small and limited, and a high percentage (a plurality, I think) of the published writers are professional academics.  It's not like I published a piece in Newsweek.  Is there a precise way to describe this kind of publication credit in a way that communicates both "I am smart and at least moderately respected by my peers!" and "Normal people (might) actually care about what I have to say!"?  I'm at a loss for the appropriate phrase, and with my job hunt slogging on without fruit this year so far, I'm kind of anxious to keep my CV as polished as possible.  Ideas?


  1. Is there any component of peer-review? Like, someone who knows your field read and thought about your piece, and responded to it (and inserted errors)?

  2. Congratulations!

    I often see newer PhDs on the job market put such publications under the general heading "Publications" (this can be followed by a subheading "Articles"). Everything gets put under that title (including encyclopedia entries and the like). I've never seen anyone have a problem with that. Search committee members can choose to ignore it, but it IS a publication.

    For 3rd year evaluation and tenure review, your university might require different classifications, such as a section just for "peer-reviewed articles."

  3. Yay! Congrats! Hmm, would "Publications" and "Online Publications" for headers make the little piece seem too unimportant? You could also try "Peer Reviewed Publications" and "Other Publications."

    And...is it available to link? Or is it hidden behind some sort of firewall? Tell, tell!

  4. As long as your CV is general (publications), I'd put it there. People in the area will recognize it for what it is, and if others are too lazy to look it up, their loss. As long as you don't call it something it isn't (peer-reviewed), why not put it there? Nice article!

  5. @Renaissance Girl: Not to my knowledge, no. There are people in my field on the editorial board, but I have no idea how they distribute submissions for review. From what I glean, it's straight-up 'editors' choice' situation, but the editors are generally pretty erudite.

    @Mom and Sis (wow, how familial!): I'm sold now on just billing it as an "Article," and listing "Peer-reviewed Articles" in a separate subheading.

    @Sis: Yes, of course it's available to link, what a question! Why do you ask, anyway? ;)

    @Shedding: I'm actually making a distinction on the CV, because I'm gunning hard to rack up a few career-building credits these days. I already have one peer-reviewed article to my name, and I want to emphasize the fact that I'm doing the meat-and-potatoes publications, not just general stuff that I put on my CV for padding. Oh, and thanks for the props!

  6. 'Cause I wanna see, duh! Linky, linky, don't be stinky!