Experience on Publishing on ACM Journals

1. Experience on Publishing on ACM Journals Lee-Feng Chien Academia Sinica & NTU

2. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 3-2. Seminars • People • Moderator, colleagues, guest speakers • Good model • Attitude • Brainstorming, critics, help/assistance, sharing & exchanging, active • Tips: active to join seminars

13. 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

14. 4.1 Research Meeting • Tips: • Form special interest groups • CLIR, NLP, DRM, Video, DL • Forums • Call for meetings once have ideas • Debates

15. 5. Methodology & 6. Justifications • Methodology refinement • Tips: Cascaded methods • Method I, II, III, … • Self improvements • Justifications • Reasonable baseline • Standard benchmarks • In-depth discussions & analysis

16. 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

17. 8. Fighting Reviews • Styles & strategies • Review speed, innovation or completeness, experimental or theoretical, … • Response to review comments • Critical but little chances to learn

18. SECTION-I. EVALUATION • A. SUITABILITY OF TOPIC • 1. Is the topic of this paper relevant to TALIP? • X Yes _ Perhaps _ No • If no, should we suggest that the author(s) submit it to another journal? • _ No _ Yes • 2. Is the topic important to researchers within this specialty field? • X Yes _ Moderately so _ No • 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 _No -X Partially • 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 • originality? • X Yes _ Open to some question _ Not really

19. 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 _ Poor • D. SUMMARY • 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. Overall, how would you rate this paper? • _ Excellent _ Good X _ Fair _ Poor • ========================================================================= • SECTION-II. RECOMMENDATION • RECOMMENDATION: • _ Publish unaltered • _ Publish, but suggest changes in Section III to the author(s) • X Publish, but changes in Section III should be mandatory • _ Check here if revision should be reviewed • _ Reject; encourage author to try a major revision • _ Reject; do not encourage another submission • ========================================================================= • SECTION-III. COMMENTS TO AUTHOR(S)

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Q&A • Thank!