Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Experience on Publishing on ACM Journals Lee-Feng Chien Academia Sinica & NTU."— 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 Topic Hierarchy Generation for Text Patterns: A Practical Web-based Approach 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.Anchor Text Mining for Translation of Web Queries: A Transitive Translation Approach,

3

4

5

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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.

12 3-2. Seminars People –Moderator, colleagues, guest speakers –Good model Attitude –Brainstorming, critics, help/assistance, sharing & exchanging, active Tips: active to join seminars

13 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

14 4.1 Research Meeting Tips: –Form special interest groups CLIR, NLP, DRM, Video, DL Forums –Call for meetings once have ideas –Debates

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

16 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

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

18 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

19 C. PRESENTATION 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)

20 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 s Good luck –Never be submitted without peer reviews

21 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

22 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

23 Q&A Thank!


Download ppt "Experience on Publishing on ACM Journals Lee-Feng Chien Academia Sinica & NTU."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google