1 / 9

Marie desJardins Rob Holte Rob Schapire Saturday, August 23, 12:30-2:00

ICML-03 Mini-Tutorial The Three R’s of Publishing Machine Learning Papers: Research, ‘Riting, and Reviews. Marie desJardins Rob Holte Rob Schapire Saturday, August 23, 12:30-2:00. The Process of Getting Published. Marie desJardins (mariedj@cs.umbc.edu) ICML-03 Mini-Tutorial

elias
Download Presentation

Marie desJardins Rob Holte Rob Schapire Saturday, August 23, 12:30-2:00

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ICML-03 Mini-TutorialThe Three R’s of Publishing Machine Learning Papers:Research, ‘Riting, and Reviews Marie desJardins Rob Holte Rob Schapire Saturday, August 23, 12:30-2:00

  2. The Process of Getting Published Marie desJardins (mariedj@cs.umbc.edu) ICML-03 Mini-Tutorial The Three R’s of Publishing Machine Learning Papers:Research, ‘Riting, and Reviews Saturday, August 23, 12:30-2:00

  3. Tutorial Overview • Programmatics and Publication • Review process • Ethical issues • Handling rejection  • Writing and Being Reviewed • Reviewing • Writing a paper • Knowing your audience • Machine Learning Methodologies • Empirical methodology • Formal methodology

  4. 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%)

  5. 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

  6. Where to Publish • Workshops vs. conferences vs. journals • Quantity vs. quality • Aim high! (or at least appropriately) • Acceptance rate vs. time to prepare/publish

  7. 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!

  8. Ethical Issues • Multiple submissions • Journal versions of conference papers • Authors and author order • Listing papers in your CV

  9. 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 • Do more experiments, revise the paper, … • Repeat until the next deadline 

More Related