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!