1. We toiled, we submitted, … we conq got rejected Discussion on close rejects Saptarshi Ghosh CNeRG Retreat

2. Typical review process (SIGIR) 3 reviewers review paper Primary Area Chair discusses with reviewers, writes meta-review  Secondary Area Chair double-checks reviews, and may provide additional review  Area Chairs  PC chairs: Accept / Reject / Accept If Room PC chairs rank papers by average score  Clear accepts, clear rejects identified  “Accept if room” papers discussed further

3. Methodology and Disclaimer What I should have done, but did not  Did not read the papers  Did not find out about state-of-the-art  So, I believe what reviewers said What I did  Read the reviews carefully, formed my own views  Discussed with 1 st authors why they think paper got rejected Views are not personal attacks on anyone

4. Rejects WorkVenueEvaluation Nested query segmentation SIGIR 2013 19.9% (73/366) 5, 3, 3, metareview:2 (1-5, threshold: 3) Community detection WWW 2014 12.9% (84/650) -4, -2, -2 (-4: should reject, -2: marginal) Twitter topic search WSDM 2014 18% (out of 356) -1, 2, -2 (weak reject, accept, reject) Broadcast delay in DTN INFOCOM 2014 19.5% (320/1645) 3, 3, 3, 1 (3: accept if room, 1: reject) Attack tolerance of time-varying networks PRERejected after editorial review

5. Rejects turned into Accepts WorkFailuresFinal success Spam and link farming in Twitter Rejected at IMC 2012 Rejected at WSDM 2012 Accepted at WWW 2012 Coverage maximization under resource constraints Initially rejected after PRE editorial review Normal review process after report by Editorial Board members Finally accepted to PRE

6. SIGIR 2013 (5, 3, 3, 2) Submission  Nested Query Segmentation for Information Retrieval  Rishiraj, Anusha Suresh, NG, Monojit Choudhury Reasons for rejection  Dataset used not well-known, 2 reviewers advise TREC  Improvement in proposed method is very low  No comparison with method in [Metzler, Croft], “the most commonly used method to segment queries”  How important / necessary is nested query segmentation?

7. SIGIR 2013 (5, 3, 3, 2) Scores in range 1 – 5, accept threshold: 3 Scores from 3 reviewers, one meta-reviewer (last)  Relevance to SIGIR: 5 – 4 – 4 – 5  Originality of Work: 4 – 4 – 4 – 4  Technical Soundness: 4 – 4 – 2 – 2  Quality of Presentation: 4 – 4 – 4 – 4  Impact of Ideas or Results: 4 – 2 – 3 – 3  Adequacy of Citations: 4 – 4 – 4 – 3  Reproducibility of Methods: 3 – 4 – 3 – 3 Overall Recommendation (1-6): 5-3-3-2 (meta-review)

8. WWW 2014 (-4, -2, -2) Submission  Stay where you belong: on the permanence of vertices in network communities  Tanmoy, Sriram Srinivasan, NG, AM, Sanjukta Bhowmick Reasons for rejection  Presentation: other community detection methods heavily criticized  Incomplete literature survey  Evaluation: compared local measure with other local measures, not to global measures like modularity

9. WWW 2014 (-4, -2, -2) Reasons for rejection  Questions over basic approach of how metric is defined  Contribution not enough Permeanence maximization yields a poor performance on the LFR benchmarks Poor performance for mu=0.6 questions the whole usefulness of the measure. “Why would one need it if there are already better techniques?”

10. WSDM 2014 (-1, 2, -2) Submission  Searching for Topical Content in Microblogs: On the Wisdom of Experts vs. Crowds  Bilal, Parantapa, NG, Saptarshi, Krishna Gummadi Reasons for rejection  Motivation / story-line was not clear – reviewers did not realize solution to a new type of search was proposed  Evaluation – more quantitative results required  Writing / presentation was not good

11. INFOCOM 2014 (3, 3, 3, 1) Submission  Segmented message broadcast in delay tolerant networks: An analytical and numerical study  Biswajit Paria, Rajib, NG, AM, Tyll Krueger Reasons for rejection  Positioning of the work as a DTN paper was not clear  Justification for some technical design choices not given  Presentation not good – lot of missing information

12. PRE (rejected after editorial review) Submission  Attack tolerance of correlated time-varying social networks with well-defined communities  Souvik, NG, AM Reasons for rejection  “will consider only papers with significant and new results”  “your manuscript is a variant of existing work in the literature, displays predictable results, and lacks novelty”

13. Failure  Success: PRE Submission  Coverage maximization under resource constraints using nonuniform proliferating random walk  Sudipta Saha, NG Editorial review: not suitable for publication in PRE Review by two Editorial Board Members  Statistics of random walks is a reasonable topic for PRE  Results are a rather small technical incremental advance with respect to the previous methods  Basic idea suitable, but awkward presentation of theoretical arguments, limited numerical experiments

14. Failure  Success: PRE For first review  Addition of more results on some different types of graphs  Reorientation of the content For second review  Added a small theory to explain the whole phenomena Possibly the physics community is not as excited by development of an algorithm, as they are by a new theory or model which explains some phenomenon

15. Failure  Success: WWW Submission at IMC, WSDM  Who let the spammers in? Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Twitter Social Network to Spammer Infiltration  Saptarshi, students at MPI, NG, Fabricio, Krishna Rejected at IMC (3, 3, 2, 2, 2)  3: Good paper: can accept, but will not champion it  2: Weak paper: should reject, but not strongly against it Rejected at WSDM: -1, 0, -2  -1: weak reject, 0: borderline, -2: reject

16. Failure  Success: WWW IMC and WSDM: most reviewer issues were on  Not enough done to identify spammers  Not much distinction between spammers and marketers  Study explains only a small fraction of spammers’ links  Observations are mostly obvious Accept at WWW (12%): 2, 2, 0, 2 (meta)  Understanding and Combating Link Farming in the Twitter Social Network  Focused more on marketers than on spammers  Clearly differentiated between the two

17. Summary of reasons for rejection VenueReasons SIGIRLow improvement / contribution Motivation, significance of problem not clear Lack of comparison with related work WWWLow improvement / contribution Lack of comparison with related work WSDMPositioning of the work not good INFOCOMPositioning of the work not good Motivation, technical decisions not clear PRELow improvement / contribution

18. Questions: Are we … choosing the right journals / conferences in terms of scope? addressing sufficiently important problems? aiming too high for some projects without realistically estimating the novelty / contribution? contributing sufficiently for the chosen problems? doing sufficient literature survey? comparing with state-of-the-art? using acceptable evaluation methodologies / metrics? thinking of alternative / counter arguments? writing the paper well? giving sufficient time to a project?

19. Possible solutions Do a comprehensive literature survey ‘early’ Establish that the problem is really important Discuss works in progress with others  To know alternative points of view / positioning  Better to be grilled by peers than by reviewers  Use reading group

20. Thank You