The Process of Getting Published: Reviews and Rejection Prof. Marie desJardins (mariedj@cs.umbc.edu) Graduate Student Success Seminar October 20, 2004 Thanks to Rob Holte for permission to use some slides

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published Overview The review process The anatomy of a review Ethical issues Handling rejection  10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published The Review Process Program committees Selection process Senior vs. area chair vs. regular members Paper assignments Keyword-based Self-selection All for one and one for all Decisions Reaching a consensus Final decisions Conditional accepts (rare) Acceptance rates (~~~20% in good conferences/journals) 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published Journal Reviewing Length of decision cycle Quality/length/depth of review Decision options: Accept as is Accept with minor changes Accept with major changes (subject to re-review) Reject with encouragement to resubmit Reject out of hand 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published Where to Publish Workshops vs. conferences vs. journals Quantity vs. quality Aim high! (or at least appropriately) Acceptance rate vs. time to prepare/publish 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published Purpose of a Review Evaluate the paper’s scientific merit Check the validity of the paper’s claims and evidence Judge the paper’s relevance and significance Provide constructive feedback to the author 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Typical Conference Review Form 1. How RELEVANT is this paper? 2. How SIGNIFICANT is this paper? 3. How ORIGINAL is this paper? 4. Is this paper technically SOUND? 5. How well is this paper PRESENTED? Additional comments for the author(s) 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published Good Reviews Are... Polite Fair Concise Clear Constructive Specific Well-documented Represent the scientific community ... but you get what you get! Bad, unfair review that missed the point? Fix your paper anyway! 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Knowing Your Audience: A Reviewer’s Perspective First, I read the title: is it in my area? (self-selection) Next, I read the abstract: is it interesting? (self-selection) Next, I skim the introduction and form my opinion about the paper Next, I read the rest of the paper looking for evidence to support my view  By the time I get to Section 2, I already have a very strong opinion about whether to accept or reject. Your job is to give me the evidence I need in the title and abstract to select your paper for review, and in the introduction to result in the right opinion! 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published Ethical Issues Multiple submissions Journal versions of conference papers Authors and author order Listing papers in your CV 10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published

Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published Rejected!! Now What? Fix the paper! Read the reviews, rail and complain, berate the reviewer Calm down Read them again with an open mind Do more experiments, revise the paper, … Go back to the reviews again – have you addressed all the points? Have people read the revision critically Repeat until the next deadline  10/20/04 Prof. desJardins -- Getting Published