One for the academic folks:
One of my articles was recently reprinted in a book with a much larger distribution than the original. Should I cite the recent reprint of the article on my CV, just the original, or both in some fashion?
FWIW, there is no citation on the reprint that the article previously appeared anywhere. This is essentially a case of a very expensive volume previously accessible only in library reference sections being released as a trade paperback by a major distributor.
You cite it once. But list both appearances in the entry. E.g.
“My Plan to Conquer the World”, Journal of Crackpots, (Vol etc.). Reprinted in “Evil Genius Encyclopedia”, Dr. Evil, Ed., (other info).
I think ftg is correct from a proper usage standpoint. That said, if this is your only publication, I might list both items separately to make it look like two citations on a quick glance, especially if the resume is otherwise a bit short and needs some padding.
I agree. Formally, I think ftg is correct, but I also don’t think it’s wrong to list it as separate pubs on your CV. Maybe you could split the difference and list is twice but clarify that the second printing is a reprint and not another submission with the same name.
Thanks, all, for your suggestions. I’m going the **ftg **route, but will list it according to the reprint’s sequence. The reprint is from a more well-respected press, so there is a pragmatic side to having it appear on top.
I definitely agree with ftg, especially if you’re on the tenure track. If you try to make it look like two pubs I suspect you’ll attract unwanted attention as a “CV padder.”