Lecture Series “ Stars for Tomorrow”
at MSR Asia
Research


How to perform research ?
How to write a good paper ?

How to publish a (good) paper ?

How to make a good presentation ?
Development




The art and science of software development
Patenting your invention
Effective product transfer
Microsoft technology roadmap
Culture




Effective leadership
Professionalism
How to succeed in Microsoft and MSR ?
Microsoft’s culture
How to Publish a (good) Paper?
Ya-Qin Zhang
Managing Director
Microsoft Research Asia
April 2002
Outline
When to write a paper ?
What is a good paper?
How to get a good paper published?
When to Write a Paper ?
Passion with your invention/concept
Compelled to speak and write
Truly novel concept/algorithm/procedure/architecture
Vision and survey that provide value for the research
community
Solid, mature, and sustainable results
What is a Good Paper ?
Right Subject Matter
Well-Defined Problem
Simple and Compelling
Clear Contributions
Reliable and Reproducible Results
Repeatable Procedure
Good structure and logic flow (Ref. Charles Lin’s talk)
Frequent Referrals
A few misconceptions
The more, the better

Many new ideas
The bigger, the better

A revolution, paradigm shift, …..
The more complex, the better

Lots of math, theory, and formulas
The more selling, the better

First-ever, the best, breakthrough
The more authoritative, the better

Excessive use of own references and previous work
Three Steps in Publishing a Paper
Before Submissions – Choose a journal or conference


Journals -> for formal evaluation and archival
Conferences -> for quick presentation and interaction
After Submissions – Communicate with Reviewers/Editors




Reviewers’ comments
Revisions
Communications with Editors
Handling rejections
After the Publications – Expand the network



Paper referral
Follow-up work
Communications w/ Readers
Step 1: Before Submissions
– choose the right publications
Types
of Publications
Journals
-> for archival
Correspondence;
Conferences
Poster;
Factors
Subject
Prestige
-> for presentation and interaction
Regular, Plenary, Keynote
to Consider
Matter
and Impact
Exposure
and Visibility
Timeliness
Circle
Regular paper; Invited paper
and Responsiveness
of Influence
After Submissions
Reviewers’ comments
 Revisions
 Communications with Editors
 Handling rejections
 Building a network

A Technical Journal
Sponsors and Publishers (e.g. IEEE, ACM, SPIE)
Editorial Board



Editor-in-Chief (1-2)
Associate Editors (20-30)
Publication Editor (1)
Reviewers (200-500)
Authors
Readers
Random Thoughts About Internet Ventures
Internet is not a bubble !

The greatest revolution ever that will
profoundly transform the way we live
 Tremendous opportunities awaiting for new
technologies, products, markets, and ventures
 The revolution just began
Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief




Appoints Associate Editors;
Manages budget and operations of the journal;
Resolves disputes between authors and AE;
Makes final decision on paper acceptance and publications
Associate Editors


Assigns reviewers
Makes recommendations on the paper acceptance/rejection
Publication Editor

Handling all logistics on manuscripting, proofreading, and
publications after acceptance
Review Process
1: Submit your paper to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
2: EIC assigns a responsible Associate Editor (AE)
3: AE identifies 3-5 anonymous reviewers
4: AE makes a preliminary decision based on reviewers’ comments
 Acceptance (w/o or w/ minor revisions)
 Major revisions ( => Step 3)
 Rejection
5: AE makes final recommendation to EIC regarding the status of the
paper
6: EIC makes the final decision and inform the author
7: Author then works with the Publication Editor (PE) to get the paper
published
Reviewers
Experts and peers with in-depth technical knowledge on
the subject
Gives objective and professional assessment and
feedback on the manuscript
Typical reviewers


People who published several papers on the same subject (e.g.
by AE knowledge, your reference, …)
People who have no direct conflict of interests w/ you
 ( not: your colleagues, your advisor/students, your relatives,…)

People w/ different mix of background and seniority
 (e.g. one big shot, 1-2 active researcher, and 1-2 post-PhD type)

People who are within easy reach of the AE
An Example: IEEE T-CSVT Review Form
Copied
Rebuttal
When You submit a rebuttal




Point-by-point detailed response to each reviewer
Constructive and positive
Clear and to-the-point
Responsive (< 1 month)
It’s fine to disagree with the reviewers, AE may be
on your side


If there are many disagreements, exchange emails w/ AE in
advance, to minimize the # of rounds
You need to make some compromise, but not on principles
It’s your paper !
Reviewers carefully read my paper [T][F]
[F] A review typically makes up his/her mind after
5-minute browsing: Title/author=> abstract=>conclusions =>
references => introduction
Then spends < 1-H to justify (moving to main body of the paper)
Most readers follow the same pattern
Your Action:



Make your points EARLY
Bring up your results QUICK
Highlight your contributions FAST
Reviewers are responsive [T][F]
[F]






Reviewers are volunteers
Reviewers have piles of papers to review
Reviewers read your paper early if it’s “attractive”
Reviewers read your paper early if he can learn things from it
Reviewers read your paper early if his own work is related (or referred)
Typically senior reviewers are less responsive but more important
Your Action:


Put yourself in a reviewer’s shoes - visualize
Make your paper easy to read, clear to follow, good to learn (see CL’s
part I: How to write a good paper)
Reviewers are Professional and Fair [T][F]
[T] although there are small % of exceptions

Constructive critiques to improve the paper
 Mostly positive and constructive
 Do make some honest mistakes
 Some junior reviewers also want to establish their credibility (most
AEs come from good reviewers)
Your actions:
 Engage a dialogue w/ reviewers via AE
 Make reviewers your friends
 Acknowledge your mistakes and make corrections
 Acknowledge reviewers if a good point is made
 Make clarifications if reviewers are wrong
Handling Rejections
Understand that most papers (> 70%) are rejected
by a premier journal (e.g. IEEE Trans)
No feeling of shame or losing face
Thank AE/reviewers for their dedications
Ask AE what changes I can make for resubmission,
redirection to another journal, or withdraw
Display class and style – walk away amicably
After Acceptance
Taking care of the logistics – precise and
responsive
Follow up your own work if appropriate
Pay attention to follow-up work by others
Pay attention to paper referral
Communicate w/ readers
Expand your network
FAQs
Can I submit a paper to multiple journals/conferences ?

ABSOLUTELY NOT ! It’s OK to have a conference presentation
followed by a journal article w/ significant enhancements
Can I recommend the AE for handling my paper ?

No. But it’s OK to specify which AE to avoid under rare circumstance
What if I don’t hear from my AE for a long time (e.g. 6 months) ?


Send a VERY friendly reminder, but don’t be too pushy
Try not to involve EIC
What if I strongly disagree w/ AE’s decision ?



It’s OK to appeal to EIC (don’t do it too often and with strong backup)
What if I strongly disagree w/ EIC’s final decision ?
It’s theoretically possible to appeal to IEEE TAB: never do it !
Conclusions
Content is the Key !
Good writing skills are critical
Communications skills are necessary
Quality > Quantity

Understand why to publish
Building and expand the network of
influence