Greetings all, Gary brings up an interesting topic that I would like to hear more about from other colleagues: the concept of single large versus several small (sounds like a Conservation Biology topic actually), or more accurately: single large verus several small + single large.
All else being equal, if an applicant has 10 manuscripts in regional journals and 3 in top-tier journals, versus the same applicant with only 3 manuscripts in top-tier journals, would one be preferred in lieu of the other? I understand the "Selected Publications" trick where an applicant can avoid listing the smaller publications, but I reject the notion that an applicant must do that to remain competitive. It has been suggested to me that publishing in smaller journals is sometimes viewed negatively regardless of your other important publications. I hope it is not the case that publications in regional or organism-specific journals are automatically assumed to be of lower quality. It is more likely the case that the scope of the article and the intended audience is simply narrower. I've always been perplexed at how some people view publication in smaller journals to mean the science or research is less rigorous, or the quality of writing poorer. It is very likely true that most ecologists fit into a finer speciality beneath the broad topic of ecology and, correspondingly, have research and data on entomology, botany, ornithology, etc. that are equal in rigor to their "bigger picture" manuscripts but perhaps less deserving of publication before a broad audience. Should they be penalized for taking the initiative to publish their data? I have alternatively heard it argued that we have an obligation to treat all our data as important and to publish them with consideration and diligence, provided the data are accurate and the methods appropriate. In contrast, when I review a CV where a person has three major publications, each separated by 2- or 3-year intervals where they haven't published, I often wonder if they have trouble remaining focused and productive or if they have had difficulty carrying their field research to fruition. Thanks for any additional perspective, Brian Brian D. Todd The University of Georgia Savannah River Ecology Laboratory Drawer E Aiken, SC 29802 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/staff/BTodd.htm office: 803.725.0422 fax: 803.725.3309 >>> "Dr. Gary Grossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/23/2007 9:25 AM >>> I agree with everything that Susan Kephart said - it's the "meat and potatoes" of a vita that get you the interview. The one exception would be if you're applying for jobs at small colleges where the open position may be the only ecologist in the dept. However, in those cases it probably would be best to put the relevant info in your application letter. Also your letters of reference should be commenting on the importance and relevance of your pubs. Finally, I'll bring up my pet peeve the "In Preparation" section. Frankly, I don't think that I've served on a search committee in which jokes weren't made about the vita's that had 1-2 publications and then a list of 5+ mss. "in preparation". If you don't have it in ms. form so that you can send it to the search committee with your application, then don't put it on your vita. By contrast, your application letter would be an appropriate place to describe your publication strategy for your dissertation work, but do it in a way that the committee can see that you're not bsing. For example, a throwaway line like "these studies should result in 4 major publications in international journals" is meaningless in comparison to several lines describing the content of each future paper and where you might send them. The truth is most anything that appears to be "padding" on a vita will elicit a negative response from some members of a search committee, although what constitutes padding will vary among members. Finally, I would make one minor comment on Susan's post regarding having lots of small papers. Although search committee's like to see a graduate student that publishes, if you have too many short papers then it may appear that you're more interested in numbers of publications rather than producing fewer high quality publications. This would certainly be a negative impression to leave the search committee with. IMO, most R1 institutions would favor a candidate with three papers in major journals like Ecology, Oecologia, Am. Nat. etc. over someone with 10 small papers all in regional journals. In conclusion, I would urge graduate students to work on their vita and application letter. Those are the first things the search committee's see and typically get you from the "pile" into the short list. Many searches don't ask for recommendations for applicants who don't make it on the short list, so you can't count on those to carry the day. You'd be surprised how many applications we see with poorly organized vitas, grammatical errors in application letters, etc. which result in low rankings when evaluated. cheers, g2 Gary D. Grossman Distinguished Research Professor - Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 http://www.arches.uga.edu/~grossman Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish
