The short answer
Start with the award's CV instructions and any required template. Put your strongest relevant evidence near the top, explain what you personally contributed, and describe publications at their actual stage. Keep it easy to scan. There is no single page length that fits every academic application.
Lead with relevant evidence
Place the sections that best demonstrate readiness for this particular opportunity near the beginning. The order can change between applications.
For a research award, research experience and publications go above teaching. For a professional fellowship, applied work and responsibility go above conference posters.
Core sections
- Contact information, an ORCID iD if you have one, and relevant professional links.
- Education with dates, institutions, classifications and thesis titles.
- Research experience with methods, tools and your own contribution.
- Publications, presentations and working papers with honest status labels.
- Teaching, professional experience and service where relevant to the award.
- Technical, language and analytical skills, with proficiency stated precisely.
- Awards, grants and funding, with amounts where they are public.
- Referees only when requested, and only after asking their permission.
Describe contributions clearly
- State the research or operational problem in one clause.
- Name the method, instrument, dataset or tool you used.
- Explain your own contribution, distinct from the team's.
- Report a result, output or decision that followed.
Label publication status honestly
Separate published work from accepted manuscripts, submissions under review and work still in preparation. Use the exact stage that you can substantiate, and add a DOI or link only when one exists.
If you do not yet have publications, leave the section out and show relevant research through a dissertation, project, presentation or dataset instead.
Quality check
- Dates and titles are consistent with your transcripts and other documents.
- Publication status is not overstated anywhere.
- The most relevant evidence appears near the beginning.
- Formatting is readable in the format the provider requests.
- The file follows any official page limit, without shrinking margins or fonts to comply.
- The filename contains your name and the document type, if the portal permits your own filename.
Example: A research experience entry (illustrative)
Weak version
Research Assistant, Department of Economics (2024–2025). Assisted with various research projects and helped with data analysis. Gained valuable experience in research methods.
Stronger version
Research Assistant, [Department and institution] (2024–2025). Combined survey and administrative data for a study of local transport access. Wrote the cleaning checks in R, documented missing values, and prepared a reproducible dataset for the research team.
Why the second version works
- It names the task and the tool, so a reviewer can judge the work involved.
- It separates your contribution from the project's, which is what is actually being assessed.
- The reproducible dataset is an output rather than a vague claim of value.
- 'Gained valuable experience' is removed: it describes a feeling, not a capability.
Example: A publications section (illustrative format)
Weak version
Publications - Paper on mobile money (in preparation) - Paper on financial inclusion (in preparation) - Conference paper, 2025
Stronger version
Publications and presentations Published 1. [Authors]. [Year]. [Title]. [Journal, volume and pages]. [DOI, if assigned] Under review 2. [Authors]. [Title]. Submitted to [journal], [month and year]. Conference presentations 3. [Your name]. [Year]. [Presentation title]. [Conference and location]. [Oral or poster]
Why the second version works
- Status categories are explicit, so nothing is ambiguous or inflated.
- Use complete, accurate citations and include a DOI only when assigned.
- Presentation type is stated, because an oral presentation and a poster are not equivalent.
- The placeholders make the structure clear without suggesting that the sample work is real.
Academic CV skeleton
Use this as a starting outline only. Follow the provider's template, headings and page limit when supplied, and remove sections that do not apply.
[FULL NAME] [Email] · [Phone] · [City, Country] · [ORCID, if available] · [Relevant professional link] EDUCATION [Degree, Class/GPA], [Institution], [Country], [Start-End] Thesis: "[Title]". Supervisor: [Name]. [Relevant coursework, only if it demonstrates method training.] RESEARCH EXPERIENCE [Role], [Group/Department], [Institution], [Start-End] [Problem]. [Method/data/tools]. [Your contribution]. [Result or output]. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed [Full citation, with DOI if assigned] Under review [Citation, journal, month submitted] Conference presentations [Citation, venue, oral/poster] TEACHING AND SUPERVISION [Role], [Course], [Institution], [Term]. [Scale: students, hours, responsibility.] TECHNICAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS [Software/methods, with level.] [Languages with framework level, e.g. CEFR C1.] AWARDS AND FUNDING [Award], [Awarding body], [Year], [Amount if public]. REFEREES [Name, title, institution, email — only if requested and with permission]
Common reasons applications are rejected
- Overstated publication status, which reviewers verify and which discredits the whole document.
- A generic CV reused across awards with no reordering for relevance.
- Listing responsibilities without contributions or results.
- Padding with secondary-school achievements or unrelated certificates.
- Missing a stated page limit, or squeezing the text until it is hard to read.
- Missing dates, or dates inconsistent with transcripts and the application form.
- Sending a file format different from the one the provider asks for.
- Language proficiency stated as 'fluent' with no framework level or test result.
How this changes by scholarship type
- Doctoral and postdoctoral applications
- Research, publications and methods may lead. Give enough space to substantive contributions while following the institution's format and length instructions.
- Taught master's scholarships
- Education and relevant projects or professional experience may lead. A publication section is unnecessary when you have no publications to list.
- Professional and leadership fellowships
- Scale of responsibility, budgets, teams and measurable outcomes lead. Academic outputs move below professional experience.
- Grant applications
- Many funders require a fixed CV format with strict section limits. Use their template exactly; a stronger free-form CV is often rejected administratively.
This is a broader relevance count across the guide's linked opportunity collections, not a claim that every record explicitly requires this document or action.
Opportunities that need this
- PhD scholarships · 8 opportunities
- Postdoctoral fellowships · 1 opportunity
- Research grants · 1 opportunity
- PhD scholarships in the United Kingdom · 2 opportunities
Official sources
Frequently asked questions
How long should an academic CV be?
Follow the stated limit or required template. If none is given, include the relevant evidence clearly and concisely; academic CVs do not have a universal maximum length.
Should I include a photo?
Follow the provider's instructions and local application conventions. If neither calls for a photo, leave it out so the space goes to evidence relevant to the award.
What if I have no publications?
Omit the section rather than padding it. For master's applications it is not expected. Substitute evidence of method training: a dissertation, a technical report, a dataset you built, or a conference poster.
Should the CV repeat what is in my statement?
No. The CV is the verifiable record; the statement explains what it prepared you for. Repetition wastes both documents' limited space.
Scholarship Signalguides support preparation. The provider's current application rules, templates and limits remain authoritative, and they change between cycles. How this guidance is written and reviewed