1

For my statement of academic purpose I want to highlight that I have a work on arXiv which has been submitted to a journal. How would I call such a work? Is the term "submitted publication" appropriate?

Welcome_Green
  • 111
  • 1

3 Answers3

5

Let me suggest a different approach. In the CV, create a section for "Work in Progress". List this paper (yes paper) there and mark it with "submitted" or "under review" or similar. List other things you have going. You can do this whether or not there is a public-facing version of the paper such as at arXiv.

Then, you only need to mention it briefly in the SoP, which should actually be focused on the future, not things you've done in the past. Mention the paper there only as it supports your future goals for study and thereafter.

A work in progress section is an advantage, IMO, in any application.

Buffy
  • 363,966
  • 84
  • 956
  • 1,406
1

Bibliography styles usually give provisions for that: see e.g. this APA FAQ. MLA has an entire collection of them, here is one for Chicago.

Pick your poison.

EDIT: Lumping unpublished works together with published ones in academic submissions may not be okay overall. This will then depend on submission guidelines. I am familiar with ones where it is okay to include something which has passed the revisions and was accepted, but not yet published. Otherwise, it is fine to reference it as any other preprint.

Lodinn
  • 8,379
  • 11
  • 45
  • Would it be okay to call such a work a "paper" when it is on arXiv? – Welcome_Green Dec 11 '22 at 12:44
  • Added an edit concerning publication lists specifically. Otherwise, it is a paper, no reason not to call it as such. As long as you are not misleading the committees about metrics. If you have multiple papers under consideration by journals, you may add another subheading just for those. Generally I'd say list it in the text with some description, but take care with inclusion in lists where people might gloss over it and mistakenly assume it was already published. – Lodinn Dec 11 '22 at 12:54
  • Thanks. Sorry for following up - So, if I make clear that it is submitted and not accepted yet (ie in the peer review process), can I call it "paper"? Or is the term "paper" per se implying published in a journal? – Welcome_Green Dec 11 '22 at 13:22
  • No, "paper" does not imply it was already peer-reviewed and published. If you are still working on a draft, you are working on a paper, even though it is not even under consideration yet. Unless it is completely bogus (which is rare), it usually makes its way into publication eventually, although the situation seems to be a bit different for CS right now. Either way, it constitutes a part of your research output, but it is understood more work is needed before it is "finalized". – Lodinn Dec 11 '22 at 14:02
  • Thanks. One of my professors said if it is on arXiv now and submitted then I can also call it technically a publication". Would you agree to this? – Welcome_Green Dec 11 '22 at 14:06
  • No. It is a preprint. I have been looking at Scopus statistics as well as arXiv for CS papers recently (papers on CNNs), and a substantial fraction of work is never formally peer-reviewed nor published, although this is uncommon in purely academic settings. Still, I would not call it a publication at this stage. – Lodinn Dec 11 '22 at 14:46
0

You refer to this work as 'submitted manuscript, currently under review'.

Optionally you can add 'at journal X' although opinions differ whether that's tasteful or not. Might depend on your subfield.

If you want you can add where the preprint is available. That's generally useful but its utility depends how much space you have and whether that information is already accessible elsewhere in your application.

user2705196
  • 5,354
  • 20
  • 27