1 / 23

Insights from Publishing and Reviewing Experience at ACM Journals

This document covers the publishing journey of Lee-Feng Chien from Academia Sinica and NTU, detailing two influential papers on information systems. It delves into the reviewing process, highlighting roles as editor, program committee member, and conference chair, alongside practical tips for successful paper evaluation and writing. Key topics include topic relevance, methodological rigor, innovative ideas, and fighting review criticisms, providing valuable insights for emerging researchers and seasoned academicians.

admon
Télécharger la présentation

Insights from Publishing and Reviewing Experience at ACM Journals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Experience on Publishing on ACM Journals Lee-Feng Chien Academia Sinica & NTU

  2. Two Papers • Shui-Lung Chuang, Lee-Feng Chien, "Topic Hierarchy Generation for Text Patterns: A Practical Web-based Approach," ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Oct. 2005. • Wen-Hsiang Lu, Lee-Feng Chien, His-Jian Lee, “Anchor Text Mining for Translation of Web Queries: A Transitive Translation Approach,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 22, 1-28, 2004.

  3. Experience on Paper Reviewing • Editors for premier journals • ACM TALIP, IP&M, … • PC members for a dozen of international conferences • SIGIR, ACL, IJCNLP, AIRS, … • Program chairs • HLT 2005, Computerm 2002, IRWK’99, … • Reviewers for a dozen of journals • Technical consultations for Microsoft

  4. Research Steps • 1. Authority references • 2. Thorough reading • 3. Killer problem • 4. Innovative idea • 5. Refined methodology • 6. Sufficient experiments/justifications • 7. Well writing • 8. Fighting reviews • 9. Successful presentation Repeat at Step X

  5. 1. References • Authority • First-tier conference, premier journals • Affiliations, famous people • First hand • Editors/reviewers • Submitted manuscripts, review comments • Leaders’ opinions • Searching from the Web • Scholar.google (trend analysis) • Search skills • Tips: seek for after conference papers announced

  6. 2. Paper Reading • Tips: • Thinking before reading • Seminar presenting • Try to find values of an accepted paper • Scholar communications • Talking to colleagues • Don’t waste time on poor ones

  7. 3. Killer Problem • How to find? • Reviewing papers (first-tier, 2nd-tier) • Tips: reading review comments • Attending workshops/conferences/seminars • Tips: ask for leaders’ opinions • Scholar communications • Reading papers • Following previous work • Killer problem never comes early • Try and error

  8. 3-1. Conferences • Conference • First-tier, 2nd-tier, workshops • Conference quality • Acceptance rate is not always correct • Peer review, double-blind review, authorized reviewers • Tips: Decide your target conferences.

  9. 3-2. Seminars • People • Moderator, colleagues, guest speakers • Good model • Attitude • Brainstorming, critics, help/assistance, sharing & exchanging, active • Tips: active to join seminars

  10. 4. Innovative Idea • Creative may not derive from understanding • Tips: • Broad line study (through other people’s study) • Trading to and from different disciplines • Never only one idea • Never just an idea • Should be a bit crazy

  11. 4.1 Research Meeting • Tips: • Form special interest groups • CLIR, NLP, DRM, Video, DL • Forums • Call for meetings once have ideas • Debates

  12. 5. Methodology & 6. Justifications • Methodology refinement • Tips: Cascaded methods • Method I, II, III, … • Self improvements • Justifications • Reasonable baseline • Standard benchmarks • In-depth discussions & analysis

  13. 7. Writing • Not just English problem • Logic & organized • Professional wordings & descriptions • Good survey • Tips • Make presentation before writing • Let your advisor know more your work • Try to help review papers • Do it as early as possible

  14. 8. Fighting Reviews • Styles & strategies • Review speed, innovation or completeness, experimental or theoretical, … • Response to review comments • Critical but little chances to learn

  15. SECTION-I. EVALUATION • A. SUITABILITY OF TOPIC • 1. Is the topic of this paper relevant to TALIP? • X Yes _ Perhaps _ No • If no, should we suggest that the author(s) submit it to another journal? • _ No _ Yes • 2. Is the topic important to researchers within this specialty field? • X Yes _ Moderately so _ No • 3. Would the topic appeal to a knowledgeable individual outside this • specialty field? • X Yes Moderately so _ No • 4. Would it be timely to publish a paper now on this topic? • X Yes _ Somewhat premature _ Probably too late • B. CONTENT • 1. Is the paper technically sound? _ Yes _No -X Partially • 2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced? • _ Yes • _ Important parts of the topic are missing or treated superficially • X Somewhat unbalanced treatment but not seriously so certain parts greatly overstressed • 3. How would you describe the technical depth of the paper? • (More than on may be checked) • - Superficial • _ Suitable for the non-specialist (knowledgeable individual outside specialty field) • X Appropriate for a worker in the specialty field • _ At an expert level • 4. Do you consider the paper to be authorities? • _ Yes X Open to some question _ Not really • 5. Do you consider the content of the paper of high quality and • originality? • X Yes _ Open to some question _ Not really

  16. C. PRESENTATION • --------------------- • 1. Do the title and abstract provide a clear, accurate indication of the • material presented? • X Yes _ No • 2. Is there sufficient introductory material for the non-specialist? • _ Yes X Probably Not _ No • 3. Is the paper better suited for: • X An expert in the field _ A Non-specialist • 4. Are symbols, terms and concepts defined to the extent necessary for a • reader not familiar with the topic? • X Yes _ Not always _ Frequently not • 5. Are the discussions in the paper clear and well-founded? • X Yes _ Not always _ Poor • 6. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper? • X Satisfactory _ Could be improved _ Poor • 7. Are the references complete and accurate? • _ Yes X No • 8. How do you rate the English? • X Satisfactory _ Could be improved _ Poor • D. SUMMARY • 1. How would you rate the literary style of the paper? • X Excellent _ Good _ Fair _ Poor • 2. How would you rate the quality and originality of the paper? • _ Excellent _ Good X Fair _ Poor • 3. How accessible is the paper to the non-specialist? • _ Completely _ Mostly X Partially _ Not at all • 4. How would you rate the tutorial value of the paper to the • non-specialist? • _ High X Average _ Low • 5. How would the paper be perceived by specialists in the specialty • field? • _ Excellent _ Good X Fair _ Poor • 6. Overall, how would you rate this paper? • _ Excellent _ Good X _ Fair _ Poor • ========================================================================= • SECTION-II. RECOMMENDATION • RECOMMENDATION: • _ Publish unaltered • _ Publish, but suggest changes in Section III to the author(s) • X Publish, but changes in Section III should be mandatory • _ Check here if revision should be reviewed • _ Reject; encourage author to try a major revision • _ Reject; do not encourage another submission • ========================================================================= • SECTION-III. COMMENTS TO AUTHOR(S)

  17. Acquiring Peer Review Comments • At Microsoft • Colleague’s reviews are often more severe • Tips • Try top conferences • Hard deadline, peer review comments • Poster presentation • New idea but hard to evaluate, to hear comments • Ask for help via emails • Good luck • Never be submitted without peer reviews

  18. 9. Presentation • How can be successful • Clear, convincing, attractive, impressed • Tips • Begin from seminars • From local to international • From 2nd-tier to 1st-tier • Rehearse and rehearse • Tips in presentation file

  19. Quality of Research Work • Paper acceptance • Reputation of publications, e.g., SCI • Acceptance rate • Citations • Following works, life cycle • Scholar.google • Tips: good title & abstract, ACM portals, scholar communications • Impacts • Paradigm shifting

  20. Q&A • Thank!

More Related