A faculty application starts with the requested documents. An academic CV, a targeted resume, a research statement and a teaching statement serve different purposes; the posting determines what to submit.

This page uses a fictional biology-faculty example to explain how to select relevant evidence. It is not a documented conversion of an actual nine-page CV, and it does not provide a verified twenty-paper publication record or guarantee a two-page rendered result.

Fictional example: Alaina Reyes, the institutions, teaching history, research project, training and recognition below are invented. Contacts are placeholders. The PhD date is 2018 and teaching begins in 2016; fixed claims such as “six years post-PhD” would become inaccurate over time.

The embedded sample contains employment, education, skills and a project. It does not contain a Selected Publications section or a separate service section. Add your actual scholarly record where requested rather than copying invented citations, grants or credentials.

Follow the explicit instructions, including for adjunct, teaching-focused and administrative searches. These roles can also request a full CV. A careers portal does not override a request for a CV, and email submission does not automatically imply a full-CV requirement.

Oxford’s academic-application guidance describes academic CVs and supporting documents. Requirements vary by institution, discipline and country. If the wording is unclear, ask the hiring contact what document and length they expect.

If a posting accepts either document, choose the format that best addresses its criteria and any length instructions. A selected resume can be appropriate, but an offer to send a full CV later does not replace a complete record explicitly requested now.

Use clear headings and check uploads in any portal. See CV formatting guidance; no portal name alone proves a particular parsing or screening sequence.

The table below is an editorial planning checklist, not an audit trail of a real CV. It shows questions to ask before shortening a scholarly record. Required information stays even when it does not fit a preferred page count.

There is no universal rule that a professor’s resume must be exactly two pages or can never reach three. Academic CV length follows the record and application requirements. A targeted resume is usually selective, but the right selection depends on the role. See length guidance.

The fictional sample shows three appointments at different institutions, not seven verified appointments consolidated from a source CV. Adjunct, lecturer and assistant-professor roles should retain their accurate institutions, titles and dates.

Do not describe appointments at different institutions as internal promotions or claim a curriculum project caused an offer without evidence. Concurrent adjunct roles can be shown clearly without hiding overlap.

Grouped adjunct appointments can be concise if institutions, dates and roles remain clear. Separate entries are equally valid when they explain different responsibilities or satisfy required work-history fields. Neither format inherently signals instability.

Choose detail by relevance rather than a mandatory decreasing bullet count. See chronological formatting and bullet selection.

When a selected list is appropriate, label it “Selected Publications” and use accurate citations and status. If a full record is requested, provide it. The sample on this page does not establish that five papers represent an actual twenty-paper record.

Choose work relevant to the position and explain your contribution where useful. Authorship order and the importance of books, articles and conference proceedings differ across fields.

Distinguish published, accepted, preprint, submitted, under-review and in-preparation work. A submission is not an accepted paper, and a preprint is not automatically peer reviewed. Do not fabricate a DOI or list an intended journal as an acceptance.

Whether to include work in preparation depends on disciplinary norms and the application. Oxford’s guidance allows a separately labeled working-papers category in appropriate circumstances; there is no universal ban. Avoid double-counting the same work as a preprint and publication in a total.

DORA recommends against using journal-based metrics as a substitute for assessing an individual research contribution. That is a research-assessment recommendation, not proof that every hiring committee follows the same policy.

Teaching scope can be described through subjects, levels, sections, modality and responsibilities. Define what a number represents: four sections are not necessarily four distinct course preparations, and enrollment across sections is not necessarily a count of unique students.

Specific duties can be informative without a numerical outcome. As with the project-manager example, distinguish your contribution from the result of a larger team.

Do not treat larger enrollment or grant totals as automatic evidence of better teaching or research. Student evaluations need a scale, response context and limitations; a higher mean is not by itself a causal measure of learning.

Use permitted aggregates and avoid identifiable student information. Advising, supervising a research assistant and chairing a thesis committee are different responsibilities. Student placements are shared achievements, not outcomes attributable solely to the supervisor.

For an actual award, state the funder, project, award period and your official role. Distinguish PI, co-PI, senior/key personnel and other contributions; proposal writing or project participation alone does not establish PI status.

If including money, distinguish total award value, your institution’s allocation, a subaward and funds you personally managed. Funding requested, recommended and awarded are different statuses. Never convert “co-PI” into “won and managed the entire budget” unless that accurately describes your responsibility.

NSF Award Search can help verify public NSF award details. Check the award record and authorized institutional information rather than inventing a federal grant for a sample. This example makes no actual NSF-award claim. Internal funding can also be relevant; prestige and dollar value alone do not establish the quality of a contribution.

Select service that addresses the role’s criteria, including genuine committee, assessment, professional or community responsibilities. There is no universal four-line budget. A member’s contribution can be meaningful without chairing the committee.

Describe what you contributed to a review, event or working group. Participation in accreditation preparation does not mean you personally secured accreditation. Include relevant memberships or references when requested; do not assume all portals collect the same information separately.

For an industry application, translate responsibilities into language the target role uses while preserving their meaning. Research roles may still value publications, patents or conference work; deleting them first is not a universal rule.

A career change requires selection, not a fictional rewrite. A professor who used R for ecological analysis can explain the analysis without claiming a software-engineering title or production deployment. Keep official employment titles and use a target-role summary when helpful. See career-change guidance.

Use the vacancy’s required and preferred qualifications as a checklist. This page does not establish universal screening frequencies or claim every university portal applies an automated keyword filter before human review.

List platforms and methods you have actually used. Looking up the institution’s LMS does not make that platform your skill; relevant experience on another system can be described honestly.

Support relevant teaching, research and service claims with accurate context. A number is not automatically stronger evidence than a clear qualitative explanation. See application-format guidance without treating keyword matching as a guarantee.

Compare the draft with the required documents and criteria. If a qualification is missing, determine whether your experience supports it; do not add it merely to match wording. A Roleframe match assessment is an editing aid, not the institution’s ATS score.

Keep factual base documents and tailor selections for different roles. Preserve scholarly status, grant responsibility and appointment dates. Follow accepted file types and inspect exports and upload previews rather than assuming PDF always parses correctly.