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.
•
A.
SUITABILITY OF TOPIC
•
•
1.
Is the topic of this paper relevant to TALIP?
X Yes
_ Perhaps
_ No
•
•
EVALUATION
If no, should we suggest that the author(s) submit it to another journal?
_ No
_ Yes
•
•
2.
•
•
•
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
•
•
•
•
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
Is the topic important to researchers within this specialty field?
X Yes
_ Moderately so _ No
_No -X Partially
•
•
•
•
•
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
•
D.
•
•
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.
•
=========================================================================
•
SECTION-II.
_ Poor
SUMMARY
Overall, how would you rate this paper?
_ Excellent
_ Good X
_ Fair
RECOMMENDATION
_ Poor
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
communications
• Impacts
– Paradigm shifting
Q&A
• Thank!