Experience on Publishing on ACM
Journals Lee-Feng Chien
Academia Sinica & NTU
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
3-2. Seminars
• People– Moderator, colleagues, guest speakers– Good model
• Attitude – Brainstorming, critics, help/assistance,
sharing & exchanging, active
• Tips: active to join seminars
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
4.1 Research Meeting
• Tips:– Form special interest groups
• CLIR, NLP, DRM, Video, DL• Forums
– Call for meetings once have ideas – Debates
5. Methodology & 6. Justifications
• Methodology refinement – Tips: Cascaded methods
• Method I, II, III, …• Self improvements
• Justifications– Reasonable baseline– Standard benchmarks – In-depth discussions & analysis
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
8. Fighting Reviews
• Styles & strategies – Review speed, innovation or completeness,
experimental or theoretical, …
• Response to review comments – Critical but little chances to learn
• 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
• 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)
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
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
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 com
munications
• Impacts – Paradigm shifting
Q&A
• Thank!