Research CV: UK Format, Structure and Examples [2026]

A research CV is not a longer version of a normal CV. It answers a different question. A commercial CV argues that you can do a job; a research CV evidences what you have already produced and where it was judged. Panels read for outputs, funding, and independence, and they read fast.

This guide covers the UK convention specifically: the section order, how publications and grants are listed, what to do when your record is still short, and how long the document should run at each career stage.

What a UK research CV is for

Most UK research posts are filled by a shortlisting panel working through applications against a person specification. They are not looking for persuasion. They are checking, line by line, whether the evidence is there: the publications, the methods, the funding, the teaching, the collaborations.

Which changes how you write it.

Nothing should require interpretation. If a paper is under review, say so and name the journal. If a grant was co-written, say what your role was. Vagueness reads as padding, and padding is the most common reason a strong record scores badly.

Order also matters more than prose here. A panel member spending two minutes on your CV should find your outputs without scrolling past a personal statement.

Section order that matches how panels read

For a UK research CV, this order works across most disciplines:

1. Name and contact details. No photo, no date of birth, no marital status. UK employers do not expect them and some will treat them as a problem.
2. Research interests. Three or four lines, not a paragraph. Name the questions, the methods, and the systems or datasets you work with.
3. Education. Degree, institution, dates, supervisor for doctoral work, thesis title.
4. Research positions. Current post first. Institution, group or PI, dates, and what you were responsible for.
5. Publications. Peer-reviewed first, then preprints, then conference proceedings. Numbered, newest first.
6. Funding and awards. Amount, funder, dates, and whether you were principal investigator, co-investigator, or named researcher.
7. Teaching and supervision. Modules, level, student numbers, and any students you supervised to completion.
8. Service and outreach. Reviewing, committees, editorial work, public engagement.
9. Technical skills. Methods, instruments, languages, software. Concrete only.
10. Referees. Two or three, with their institutional email addresses.

Fellowship applications sometimes prescribe their own order or a two-page limit. When the call specifies a format, the call wins over any convention in this guide.

Where career stage changes the order

A postdoctoral researcher leads with publications because that is where the evidence sits. A doctoral applicant has almost none, so leading with a thin publication list draws attention to the gap. Lead with education and research experience instead, and let conference posters and any preprints sit lower down.

Someone applying for a lectureship inverts it again: teaching and funding move up, because the post is partly about whether you can carry a module and bring money in.

How to list publications

Use one citation style consistently and stick to it for the whole document. UK panels do not care whether you use APA, Vancouver, or your field's house style. They care that the author order, year, and venue are visible without effort.

The conventions that matter:

• Bold your own name in every author list. A panel member checking whether you were first author should not have to search for you.
• State your contribution when it is not obvious. For a paper with fourteen authors, a short parenthetical such as "(led analysis and wrote first draft)" is worth more than the citation alone.
• Separate published from unpublished. Keep peer-reviewed work in its own numbered list, then a clearly labelled section for preprints, submissions, and work in preparation. Blurring the two is the fastest way to lose a panel's trust.

Retyping author strings by hand is where most of the errors creep in. If you paste a DOI, PubMed, or arXiv link into a publication entry, the academic CV builder pulls the title, authors, date, and source straight from the publisher's record, so the citation matches what is actually indexed.

Funding is the section most people undersell

If you have brought in money, that section should be as precise as your publication list. Panels use it to judge independence, which is the quality that separates a postdoc from a future group leader.

For each award, give the funder, the scheme, the amount, the dates, and your role. A line like "EPSRC New Investigator Award, 900,000 GBP, 2024 to 2027, principal investigator" carries more weight than a paragraph about research vision.

Small awards count too. Travel grants, seed funding, and internal awards all demonstrate that you have written applications and had them assessed. If you were named on a bid you did not lead, say that plainly rather than implying otherwise.

How long should it be

There is no page limit on a research CV unless the call sets one. Length should track your record:

The failure mode is not length. It is a long document with no structure, where a panel cannot find the publication list. If your CV runs past three pages, the navigability of the headings matters more than the word count.

Running headers help here: from page two onwards, your name and a page number in the header mean a printed CV separated across a table can still be reassembled.

Narrative CVs are now common in UK funding

If you are applying for funding rather than a post, check whether the scheme wants a narrative CV instead of a list. UKRI's Resume for Research and Innovation (R4RI) format and the Royal Society's Resume for Researchers both replace the publication list with prose under set headings, usually four:

1. How you have contributed to the generation of knowledge
2. How you have contributed to the development of individuals
3. How you have contributed to the wider research community
4. How you have contributed to broader society

Each section asks for a small number of examples with context, not a comprehensive record. A narrative CV that reads as a list with sentences bolted on defeats the purpose, and reviewers notice.

Keep your full conventional CV as the source and write the narrative from it. The format asks you to select rather than to remember, and selecting from a complete record is far easier than rebuilding one.

The headings also reward evidence a list cannot hold: mentoring that produced a specific outcome, a dataset other people now use, a review process you improved. Note those as they happen. Digging them out of memory two years later is harder than it sounds.

How disciplines differ

The structure above holds across UK research, but what fills the publications section varies enough to matter.

Lab sciences. Author position carries specific meaning: first author for the person who did the work, last author for the group leader. Say which you were, and if your field uses co-first authorship, mark it explicitly, because a panel outside your subfield will not assume it.

Mathematics and theoretical physics. Preprint servers are the primary record and publication lags are long, so an arXiv-heavy list is normal rather than a warning sign. Say where each preprint stands.

Humanities. Monographs outrank articles, and edited volumes, translations, and critical editions all count as outputs. A single-authored book under contract belongs high in the list with the publisher and expected year, not buried under "in preparation".

Social sciences. Datasets, survey instruments, and policy reports are outputs. If a report you wrote changed a practice or was cited in a consultation, that belongs in the record, not just in a cover letter.

Clinical research. Trial registrations, protocols, and guideline contributions are legitimate entries, and panels expect them alongside papers.

One entry, rewritten

The most common weakness in a research CV is not what is missing, it is entries that describe duties instead of contribution. A postdoctoral position written the weak way:

Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Leeds, 2023 to present Responsible for conducting experiments and analysing data. Attended group meetings and contributed to publications.

Every word of that is true of every postdoc who has ever held the job, which is exactly the problem. The same post, written so a panel can assess it:

Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Leeds, 2023 to present Designed and ran the imaging arm of a three-site study, contributing the data for two papers, one first-author. Rebuilt the analysis pipeline in Python, cutting processing from six hours to forty minutes; now used by four other group members. Supervised one master's student to completion and trained three incoming researchers on the rig.

Same job, same three years. The second version says what you produced, what you changed, and who you developed. That is what a panel is scoring.

Common mistakes

A personal statement at the top. UK research applications ask for a separate research statement or cover letter. Duplicating it on the CV pushes your outputs below the fold.

Listing every conference you attended. Presenting is evidence. Attending is not. Separate talks and posters you gave from meetings you sat in.

Skills sections full of adjectives. "Excellent communication skills" tells a panel nothing. "Presented at four international conferences; peer reviewer for two journals" is the same claim with evidence attached.

Hiding teaching. Even for a research-only post, teaching and supervision demonstrate that you can explain your work and develop other people. Include it, briefly.

Inconsistent dates. Mixing "Sept 2024", "09/2024", and "September 2024" in one document reads as carelessness on a document that is partly a test of precision.

Adapting a UK research CV for elsewhere

Within Europe, the structure above travels well, but two things change. Some countries and most EU institutions expect a photo and date of birth, and several public-sector schemes ask for the standard EU format specifically. If a call asks for it, the Europass CV format has its own header and a language self-assessment grid that a normal CV does not.

For US academic positions, the document is called a CV rather than a resume and follows broadly the same shape, though tenure-track applications often ask for separate research, teaching, and diversity statements. The difference between the two document types is covered in CV vs resume.

A worked structure

For a postdoctoral researcher three years past submission, a strong two-column-free layout looks like this:

• Research interests: four lines naming the question, the method, and the system.
• Education: PhD with thesis title and supervisor, then undergraduate degree.
• Research positions: current postdoc with three bullets on what you own, then the doctoral post.
• Publications: eleven numbered entries, own name bold, two flagged as under review in a separate list.
• Funding: fellowship, plus two travel grants.
• Teaching: two modules with student numbers, one master's student supervised to completion.
• Service: reviewer for three journals, organiser of one workshop.
• Technical skills: methods and software, grouped.
• Referees: three, including your PhD supervisor.

That document runs to four pages, and a panel can find any part of it in seconds. The length is fine. The findability is what most CVs get wrong.

Getting it typeset without fighting the layout

Most academic CVs are written in LaTeX for a reason: the record is long, the formatting has to stay consistent across pages, and a word processor fights you by page three.

JobSprout typesets with Typst, a modern engine in the same lineage, and ships New Computer Modern among its fonts, so the output sits next to a TeX-set CV without looking out of place. Publications, funding, and teaching are first-class sections rather than things you improvise with tables, and the document stays consistent however long the record gets. The academic CV builder shows the same record at doctoral, postdoctoral, and lecturer stage.

Frequently asked questions

Does a UK research CV need a photo?

No. UK convention is no photo, and including one can create problems for institutions with anonymised shortlisting. Some other European countries do expect one, so check the call.

Should I include my thesis title?

Yes, for anything within a few years of submission, along with your supervisor. Panels use both to place your training.

How do I list a paper that is under review?

In a separate list from your peer-reviewed publications, with the journal named and the status stated: "under review at Water Research". Never mix it into the main numbered list.

Do I need a different CV for every application?

The core document stays the same. What changes is the ordering and emphasis: a teaching-heavy post wants teaching earlier, a fellowship wants funding and independence foregrounded. You do not need to rewrite it for every application. You do need to reorder it.

Is a research CV the same as an academic CV?

Broadly yes, and the terms are used interchangeably in UK adverts. "Research CV" tends to signal a research-only post where outputs and methods dominate, while "academic CV" is often used where teaching and service carry more weight.