Does the fact that you've been acknowledged in a paper belong on a resume?
January 14, 2010 7:01 PM Subscribe
Is it better to leave off a resume that you've been acknowledged in a published paper?
posted by anonymous to work & money (18 answers total)
I've heard differing opinions. One of them made me worry: it's not just that putting it on your resume might be a harmless waste of space or distraction rather than a positive thing, but the fact that you weren't an author looks bad, and saying that you were acknowledged essentially points out that fact; putting it on there can only hurt me.
This is for an industry (not academia) job resume for a first real job after college. Some of the places I'll send it to are companies or non-profits that in fact do research and hire people with PhDs and all.
My instinct is that it's a good thing to write that the lab in which you worked in college produced a paper in which you were thanked or acknowledged. I mean, hey, you contributed enough to merit that. But the above opinion offerer (who sees lots of resumes, BTW) says that it's easy and common to add more authors to papers, and that (hyperbole ahead) anyone who came within 50 feet of a lab gets acknowledged in its papers. And that everyone who's been in academia (including people who might be evaluating the resume) knows this. And so writing that you were acknowledged will raise a red flag, if you will. Especially since plenty of undergrads have been authors in published papers.
Other people (like college career/resume counseling people) have said it's a positive and verifiable thing to say that you were acknowledged.
I do explain what I did in the labs I've worked in. The part where I'd say I was acknowledged would be additional.
Thoughts? Who's right? Could leaving it in there actually hurt my chances? Or, would leaving vs deleting that I was acknowledged really not even make a (or worse, the) difference in terms of getting that interview or job or whatever, and this is needless obsessing on my part?