The academic CV, publications first.

A CV is not a long resume

The two documents share a name in casual speech and almost nothing else. A resume argues that you can do a job. An academic CV documents a record of scholarship, and is read by people who will verify parts of it.

• Length. A resume is one or two pages. A CV is as long as your record — four pages early, twenty later. Nobody is impressed by brevity here.
• Order. A resume leads with recent employment. A CV leads with publications and funding, because that is what is being assessed.
• Selection. A resume omits ruthlessly. A CV is comprehensive, though very long lists may be marked "selected" with the full version supplied separately.
• Tone. A resume persuades. A CV states. Adjectives about your own excellence read as unserious to a search committee.

Sending a resume for an academic post signals you do not know the field. Sending a CV to industry signals the same thing in reverse.

The order that matters

A search committee reads in a fixed sequence, and your document should match it. For a research-focused post:

• Name, position sought, contact, ORCID
• Short profile — three sentences with your output, funding and field
• Education — degrees, institutions, years
• Academic appointments
• Publications — the section that decides
• Research funding — separated by PI and co-investigator
• Supervision — doctoral and masters completions
• Teaching — courses with codes and enrolments
• Service, review and professional bodies
• Conferences and invited talks

For a teaching-focused post, move teaching above publications. That single change matters more than any amount of rewriting, and most applicants never make it.

Listing publications properly

• Reverse chronological, newest first.
• Full citations. All authors, year, title, journal, volume, pages. Never abbreviate to save space.
• Bold your own name in every entry so position is visible instantly.
• Mark first and corresponding authorship explicitly.
• Separate the categories. Peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, preprints and under-review work must not be mixed — mixing them is read as inflating the count.
• Include DOIs where the submission format allows.
• Never list an accepted paper as published, or a submitted one as under review at a journal that has not acknowledged it. These are checked.

If the list runs past about fifteen, mark the section "Selected Publications (n total)" and offer the complete list. This reads as confident, not evasive — provided the number is stated.

Funding is read closely

After publications, awarded funding is the most scrutinised part of an academic CV, because it is externally verified and hard to overstate without being caught.

State four things for every award: the funder, your role, the amount, and the period. Separate Principal Investigator awards from co-investigator ones under different headings — a committee that has to work out which is which will assume the less favourable reading.

Include unsuccessful applications only if the scheme is prestigious and you reached the final stage, and only in a clearly labelled subsection. Some committees value it as evidence of ambition; others read it as padding. If in doubt, leave it out.