1. The Process of Getting Published: Reviews and Rejection
Prof. Marie desJardins
Graduate Student Success Seminar
October 20, 2004
Thanks to Rob Holte for permission to use some slides

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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