How to Write an Academic CV: Publications and Grants

An academic CV is not a resume with extra sections bolted on. It is a living scholarly record-a complete, chronological account of your intellectual contributions, growing in depth and length with every paper published, grant won, and course taught. Where a resume compresses your career into one page, an academic CV expands to fill whatever space your record demands.

This guide covers every section, explains how priorities shift across career stages, and gives you the field-specific details that matter when a hiring committee reads fifty CVs in an afternoon.

CV vs Resume: which one do you need?

Outside academia, the terms “CV” and “resume” are often used interchangeably-incorrectly. In academic and research contexts, they refer to fundamentally different documents with different purposes, audiences, and rules.

The fundamental distinction: a resume argues you are the right person for a specific job. An academic CV simply documents everything you have done-and lets the record speak. It never shrinks. Removing items from an academic CV (outside genuine errors) is considered professionally improper.

Sections by career stage

The sections you include-and the order you list them-shifts significantly across career stages. A PhD student leads with education; a full professor leads with publications. The table below shows which sections are expected at each stage.

Section order is a signal. Early-career CVs open with Education because that credential is the primary qualification. As a scholar's record deepens, Publications migrate to the top-often immediately after contact details-because the body of work becomes the central argument for appointment. Moving sections prematurely (listing Publications first as a PhD student with two papers) reads as overconfidence; keeping Education first as a senior scholar reads as inexperience.

Publications

The publications section is the heart of an academic CV. Every formatting decision here signals professional fluency in your field.

Citation format by discipline: use the standard your field recognizes. Mixing formats within a CV is an immediate red flag to any hiring committee.

Organize by publication type, not chronologically across types. Standard order: peer-reviewed journal articles → book chapters → books → edited volumes → working papers → under review → in preparation. Do not conflate these categories; a hiring committee counts peer-reviewed articles separately and will notice if you have padded the list with non-peer-reviewed work.

Key formatting conventions:

• Bold your name in every author list-even when you are listed first. Committees read dozens of CVs and should not have to hunt for you.
• Include DOIs for all published work. Link them to make the PDF scannable.
• Papers accepted but not yet published: label clearly as “Forthcoming” or “In press” with the journal name. Do not inflate this category.
• Papers under review: list the journal name only if you are comfortable with the committee knowing your submission history. Alternatively, write “Under review at a leading journal in [field].”
• Do not list papers “in preparation” unless you are a PhD student who needs to signal active output. Senior scholars who list in-prep work look like they are padding.

Research experience

Research experience documents your active scholarly work outside publications: lab affiliations, funded projects, research partnerships, and independent work. For postdocs, this section is often the strongest argument for hiring-it shows a research trajectory that publications alone cannot convey.

Each entry should include:

• Institution and department
• Project title (descriptive, not just “Research Assistant”)
• Principal Investigator's name if you were not the PI
• Dates (month/year to month/year)
• Funding source and grant number if applicable
• 2–3 lines describing scope, methods, and your specific contribution-not just the project topic

Lab affiliations signal intellectual community. If you are affiliated with a named research centre, institute, or working group, list it. These affiliations communicate that your work sits within a recognized scholarly conversation and that you have mentors or collaborators who vouch for your trajectory.

For postdoctoral researchers, distinguish clearly between supervised postdocs (reporting to a PI) and independent postdoctoral fellowships (self-directed research with institutional support). The latter carries substantially more weight with search committees.

Teaching experience

Teaching records follow a strict hierarchy that committees read immediately. Getting the categories wrong undermines your credibility as a candidate for teaching-intensive positions.

Three distinct categories-always separate them:

• Instructor of Record: you designed and delivered the course, assigned grades, and held ultimate responsibility. This is the most valued category.
• Teaching Assistant / Section Leader: you supported instruction under faculty supervision. Critical to include early-career; deprioritize once you have instructor-of-record experience.
• Guest Lecturer: a single session in someone else's course. Worth including as a PhD student; remove by the time you are on the job market as an ABD.

For each course, include:

• Course name and number
• Institution
• Enrollment size (e.g., “enrollment: 85”)
• Semesters taught (e.g., “Fall 2022, Spring 2023”)
• Whether you developed the course from scratch

If you have strong quantitative teaching evaluations (top quartile in your department or above 4.3/5.0), mention the score and context in a parenthetical. Weak evaluations should not appear-committees will ask for the full file anyway. Curriculum development (syllabi written, new courses designed) belongs here; your separate teaching statement makes the narrative argument, but the CV needs the raw facts to support it.

Grants & funding

Funded research is the single most important signal for tenure-track hires at research universities. Hiring committees know that external funding takes years to build-they are evaluating trajectory, not just current balance. A clear, well-structured grants section communicates that you understand the funding ecosystem of your field.

Each entry should include:

• Grant title
• Funding agency (spell out the full name on first mention)
• Grant amount (in local currency; include indirect costs only if standard in your field)
• Period (start month/year – end month/year)
• Your role: Principal Investigator, Co-PI, or Senior Personnel-these are not interchangeable

Organize into two subsections: Awarded and Pending. Listing pending applications is acceptable and expected-it signals active grant-seeking behavior. Never list declined applications.

Early-career scholars: include everything. Internal university grants, dissertation completion fellowships, conference travel awards, summer research stipends. The committee is not judging the size of the award-they are reading the pattern of funded activity. A candidate with twelve small grants demonstrates persistence and grantsmanship; a candidate with none raises questions about fundability.

Conferences & invited talks

Conference activity documents scholarly visibility and reception. Like publications, conference entries require strict categorical discipline-the type of appearance carries different weight.

Categories in descending prestige:

• Keynote / plenary address: invited, non-competitive. List prominently.
• Invited talk at another institution: a department or research centre invited you to present. This signals external recognition of your work and belongs near the top of this section.
• Peer-reviewed panel presentation: accepted through competitive abstract review. The most common entry type.
• Poster presentation: valid especially early-career; moves down in priority as your panel record grows.
• Workshop organized / panel chaired: service-adjacent; include under a separate sub-heading.

For each entry include: paper or talk title, conference name, location (city, country), and date (month, year). If the conference was peer-reviewed, note it in a parenthetical for lesser-known venues-everyone knows APSA or MLA is competitive; a regional symposium needs the note.

International conferences carry more weight than domestic ones, all else equal. If you have presented at conferences outside your home country, make this visible-either by listing location clearly or by adding a geographic note to your research interests section.

Length & formatting

There is no page limit on an academic CV. An assistant professor with five years of output might have a 12-page CV; a senior scholar with 30 years might have 40 pages. Length signals depth, not padding-as long as every entry is real and properly categorized.

If the same material also goes to an industry role or a university HR portal, our guide to ATS-friendly formatting covers what a parser needs from that version.

Typography and layout:

• Font: a classical serif-Times New Roman, Garamond, Palatino, or Georgia. Sans-serif (Arial, Helvetica) reads as corporate, not scholarly.
• Body size: 11–12pt. Never smaller than 11pt.
• Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides. Do not compress to fit more.
• Section headers: bold, slightly larger (13–14pt), or all-caps. Consistent throughout.
• No colors. No graphics. No headshots (in North American contexts).
• No creative layouts, columns, or sidebars. Linear, top-to-bottom only.
• Submit as PDF. Name the file: LastName_FirstName_CV.pdf.

Consistency rules:

• Date format must be identical throughout: either “January 2022” or “Jan 2022” or “2022”-pick one and never mix.
• Citation format must be identical for all publications in a given category.
• En dash (–) between date ranges, not a hyphen: “2020–2023”.
• All entries within a section should have the same structure and punctuation pattern.

Update cadence: update your CV immediately after every significant event-paper accepted, grant awarded, talk delivered. During active phases (job market, grant cycles), review monthly. A CV that is six months out of date on the job market tells a committee that you are disorganized or not producing.

Common mistakes

1. Including irrelevant industry or service-sector experience. Barista jobs and retail work from before your academic career have no place on an academic CV unless they directly relate to your research (e.g., ethnographic fieldwork context). Remove them.
2. Listing conferences attended but not presented at. Attendance is not a credential. Listing it pads the CV visibly and signals either inexperience or dishonesty. Only present if you presented.
3. Padding with non-peer-reviewed work. Blog posts, op-eds, departmental newsletters, and invited encyclopedia entries are not peer-reviewed publications. They belong in a clearly labeled “Public Writing” or “Other Publications” section-never mixed into your peer-reviewed list.
4. Inconsistent citation format. Switching between APA and Chicago within the same publications section suggests you have not internalized the conventions of your field. Hiring committees notice immediately.
5. Failing to distinguish invited talks from contributed presentations. An invited talk at MIT and a peer-reviewed poster at a regional conference are not the same thing. Mixing them in one undifferentiated list obscures your strongest entries.
6. Omitting grant amounts. Grant amounts are public record for most federal funders and immediately communicatable. Omitting them either looks evasive or suggests the amounts are embarrassingly small. Include them.
7. Not updating the CV before each application. Sending a CV with an “Under Review” paper that was published six months ago tells the committee you did not care enough to prepare properly.
8. Using a resume format for academic applications. One-page CVs, objective statements, skills matrices, and bullet-point summaries are resume conventions. Submitting a resume-formatted document to an academic search reads as not understanding the profession.