decidingwheretopublish( telecommunica6ons(research(turnaroundmes examples"...
TRANSCRIPT
Deciding Where to Publish Telecommunica6ons Research A discussion
Luiz DaSilva Professor of Telecommunica2ons 12 November 2015
Publishing: the philosophical argument Irish and American versions
“To be is to be perceived”
– George Berkeley (1675-‐1763), Master’s degree, TCD, 1707
“It is no use to keep private informa6on that you can’t show off”
– Mark Twain (1835-‐1910)
Publishing: the pragma6c argument
Publishing is expected of scien6sts, especially in academia, at all stages of their careers
– PhD students are expected to have published at the 2me of their thesis submission
– More senior researchers are expected to publish for career advancement, funding, etc.
Scien6fic publishing requires peer review
“Publish or perish” cliché
Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Percep6ons of peer review Survey of 4000 scien2sts in 2009
Publishing is not difficult The perils of no (or extremely poor) peer review
Publishing is not difficult
Publishing is not difficult
Publish for impact, not for bean coun6ng
The more impacNul venues have stronger peer review
– Where to publish is a cri2cal ques2on
– Both authors and reviewers self-‐select with respect to publishing venues
More pres6gious venues require more rigorous work
Conferences are not the same as journals
– Because they include liWle or no opportunity for revisions in the publishing cycle
(Good) Journals
Rigorous results of mature research
– OYen (but not necessarily) contain mathema2cal analysis
Careful review process
– Usually mul2ple (2-‐3) rounds of review
– Typical turn around 2me 4-‐6 months for first round
Impact factor
Verdicts With some minor varia2ons, e.g. special issues, leWers, …
Rejectt
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Accept as is
ü Rethink: is there sufficient contribu2on? ü Resubmit: address perceived weaknesses,
carefully think about the appropriate venue
ü Definitely resubmit ü Response leWer is cri2cal: proac2ve, describes how
the current version addresses the comments ü A Major Revision verdict requires a major revision
ü Yay! ü One last chance for minor edits in the
prepara2on of the ‘camera-‐ready’
Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Response to reviewers
Comment: How does Log-‐Gaussian Cox process generate paWerns of mul2ple operators? How does a generated point determine its operator? Response: We have extended our goodness-‐of-‐fit analysis on three wireless network sharing scenarios, which beWer reflect the applica2on of our model, with results now included in Sec2on IV.E. This approach leads to stochas2c models which provide a close match to the coverage evaluated from a real network. We also included addi2onal discussion to Sec2on V to clarify this point.
Comment: How does Log-‐Gaussian Cox process generate paWerns of mul2ple operators? How does a generated point determine its operator? Response: The paWern of mul2ple operators is generated by the superposi2on of mul2ple realiza2ons of a Log-‐Gauss Cox process, each of which has its own parameters, corresponding to deployment decisions by different operators.
Turnaround 6mes Examples
Manuscript received June 12, 2014; revised October 30, 2014; accepted December 15, 2014. Date of publica2on December 19, 2014; date of current version April 7, 2015. This material is based upon works supported by the Science Founda2on Ireland under Grants No. 10/CE/I1853 and 10/IN.1/I3007.
Manuscript received January 5, 2014; revised May 12, 2014 and July 18, 2014; accepted August 23, 2014. Date of publica2on September 30, 2014; date of current version April 21, 2015. This work is par2ally supported by the Na2onal Science Founda2on under Grants CNS-‐1443917, ECCS-‐1405121, CNS-‐1265268, and CNS-‐0953377, and by the Science Founda2on Ireland under Grant 10/IN.1/I3007.
TWC 2015
Manuscript received February 8, 2014; revised August 28, 2014 and December 20, 2014; accepted January 4, 2015. Date of publica2on January 13, 2015; date of current version March 13, 2015. This work is par2ally supported by the Science Founda2on Ireland under Grant 10/IN.1/I3007.
JSAC 2015
TComm 2015
4/2
4/2/1
6/4/0.5
Top journals (and magazines) in telecommunica6ons
1. IEEE Comm. Surveys and Tutorials
2. IEEE Wireless Communica:ons Magazine
3. IEEE Communica:ons Magazine
4. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communica:ons
5. IEEE/OSA Journal of Lightwave Technology
6. IEEE Transac:ons on Mobile Compu:ng
7. IEEE Network
2014 Journal Cita2on Reports study (released June 2015)
8. IEEE Trans. on Wireless Communica:ons
9. IEEE Transac:ons on Mul:media
10. IEEE Transac:ons on Antennas and Propaga:on
11. Pervasive and Mobile Compu:ng
12. IEEE/OSA Journal of Op:cal Communica:ons and Networking
13. IEEE Transac:ons on Communica:ons
14. IEEE Systems Journal
15. IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology
Impact factor
A metric to reflect the average number of cita6ons to papers recently published by a journal
Calcula6on of impact factor in 2014
– A = number of papers published in the journal in 2012-‐2013
– B = number of 2mes those papers were cited in indexed journals in 2014
– IF = B/A
Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Impact factor Examples
Proc. IEEE 4.934
IEEE/ACM Trans. Net.
1.811
IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm.
2.496
IEEE Trans. Mobile Comp.
2.543
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory
2.326
IEEE Trans. on Comm.
1.992
Computer Networks (Elsevier)
1.256
EURASIP Journal Wireless Comm. and Networking
0.72
Wireless Personal Comm. (Springer)
0.653
IEEE Journal of Op2cal Comm. and Networking
2.06
Journal of Communica2ons
0.00
Magazines
Lighter content
– Few equa2ons, references Tutorial in nature
Can be an effec6ve venue for ideas-‐based papers
IEEE Wireless Comm.
5.417
IEEE Network 2.54
IEEE Comm. Mag. 4.007
Conferences
Work at various stages of maturity
Quick review cycle
Different levels of pres6ge, visibility
Selec6vity is a factor
– IEEE mandates maximum acceptance ra2o, minimum number of reviewers
Archival publica6on is not the original goal of conferences
Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin
Conference selec6vity Examples
IEEE ICC (2014) 38%
IEEE CAMAD (2015)
50%
IEEE Globecom (2013)
37%
IEEE INFOCOM (2014)
19.3%
IEEE WCNC (2012)
44.1%
IEEE SECON (2013)
28.3%
ACM Mobicom (2012)
15.1%
ACM Mobihoc (2012)
20%
IEEE/IFIP WiOpt (2015)
38.8%
IEEE/IFIP NOMS (2014)
28.9%
IFIP Networking (2015)
23.8%
hWps://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~almeroth/conf/stats/
From a conference to a journal paper
It is acceptable (even expected) for a conference paper to evolve into a journal paper
– Material is at different stages in its evolu2on
You MUST cite the previously published work and clearly state how the current submission differs from it
– The 30% rule that people talk about is not IEEE policy – Full-‐length conference papers (e.g., Infocom, Mobicom) cannot be
also published verba2m as a journal paper
It is acceptable to combine mul6ple conference papers to produce a (coherent) journal paper
IEEE guidelines
Who is ci6ng your paper?
Increasingly used for cita6ons, h-‐index
– A scholar has an h-‐index of h if he/she has authored at least h papers, each of which has been cited at least h 2mes
– Google Scholar does not eliminate self-‐cita2ons, so it includes some error, but it provides an up-‐to-‐date rough idea of how much your work is being cited
scholar.google
Concluding words
Quality is more important than quan6ty
– The key objec2ve is for the work to have impact
– The more senior you are in the profession, the more you will believe this statement
You should have a ra6onale for selec6ng the venue you select
– Timing, suitability of a special issue, desire to reach a new community
Journal impact factor and conference selec6vity maler, but they are not the only things that maler
– Selec2ng the right venue is crucial for the work to have impact
Thank You