Guidance on Publishing Research Papers: Tips and Strategies for Success

1. Lecture Series “ Stars for Tomorrow” at MSR Asia • Research • How to perform research ? • How to write a good paper ? • How to publish a (good) paper ? • How to make a good presentation ? • Development • The art and science of software development • Patenting your invention • Effective product transfer • Microsoft technology roadmap • Culture • Effective leadership • Professionalism • How to succeed in Microsoft and MSR ? • Microsoft’s culture

2. How to Publish a (good) Paper? Ya-Qin Zhang Managing Director Microsoft Research Asia April 2002

3. Outline • When to write a paper ? • What is a good paper? • How to get a good paper published?

4. Passion with your invention/concept Compelled to speak and write Truly novel concept/algorithm/procedure/architecture Vision and survey that provide value for the research community Solid, mature, and sustainable results When to Write a Paper ?

5. What is a Good Paper ? • Right Subject Matter • Well-Defined Problem • Simple and Compelling • Clear Contributions • Reliable and Reproducible Results • Repeatable Procedure • Good structure and logic flow (Ref. Charles Lin’s talk) • Frequent Referrals

6. A few misconceptions • The more, the better • Many new ideas • The bigger, the better • A revolution, paradigm shift, ….. • The more complex, the better • Lots of math, theory, and formulas • The more selling, the better • First-ever, the best, breakthrough • The more authoritative, the better • Excessive use of own references and previous work

7. Before Submissions – Choose a journal or conference Journals -> for formal evaluation and archival Conferences -> for quick presentation and interaction After Submissions – Communicate with Reviewers/Editors Reviewers’ comments Revisions Communications with Editors Handling rejections After the Publications – Expand the network Paper referral Follow-up work Communications w/ Readers Three Steps in Publishing a Paper

8. Step 1: Before Submissions – choose the right publications • Types of Publications • Journals -> for archival • Correspondence; Regular paper; Invited paper • Conferences -> for presentation and interaction • Poster; Regular, Plenary, Keynote • Factors to Consider • Subject Matter • Prestige and Impact • Exposure and Visibility • Timeliness and Responsiveness • Circle of Influence

9. After Submissions • Reviewers’ comments • Revisions • Communications with Editors • Handling rejections • Building a network

10. A Technical Journal • Sponsors and Publishers (e.g. IEEE, ACM, SPIE) • Editorial Board • Editor-in-Chief (1-2) • Associate Editors (20-30) • Publication Editor (1) • Reviewers (200-500) • Authors • Readers

11. Random Thoughts About Internet Ventures • Internet is not a bubble ! • The greatest revolution ever that will profoundly transform the way we live • Tremendous opportunities awaiting for new technologies, products, markets, and ventures • The revolution just began

12. Editorial Board • Editor-in-Chief • Appoints Associate Editors; • Manages budget and operations of the journal; • Resolves disputes between authors and AE; • Makes final decision on paper acceptance and publications • Associate Editors • Assigns reviewers • Makes recommendations on the paper acceptance/rejection • Publication Editor • Handling all logistics on manuscripting, proofreading, and publications after acceptance

13. Review Process • 1: Submit your paper to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) • 2: EIC assigns a responsible Associate Editor (AE) • 3: AE identifies 3-5 anonymous reviewers • 4: AE makes a preliminary decision based on reviewers’ comments • Acceptance (w/o or w/ minor revisions) • Major revisions ( => Step 3) • Rejection • 5: AE makes final recommendation to EIC regarding the status of the paper • 6: EIC makes the final decision and inform the author • 7: Author then works with the Publication Editor (PE) to get the paper published

14. Reviewers • Experts and peers with in-depth technical knowledge on the subject • Gives objective and professional assessment and feedback on the manuscript • Typical reviewers • People who published several papers on the same subject (e.g. by AE knowledge, your reference, …) • People who have no direct conflict of interests w/ you • ( not: your colleagues, your advisor/students, your relatives,…) • People w/ different mix of background and seniority • (e.g. one big shot, 1-2 active researcher, and 1-2 post-PhD type) • People who are within easy reach of the AE

15. An Example: IEEE T-CSVT Review Form • Copied

16. Rebuttal • When You submit a rebuttal • Point-by-point detailed response to each reviewer • Constructive and positive • Clear and to-the-point • Responsive (< 1 month) • It’s fine to disagree with the reviewers, AE may be on your side • If there are many disagreements, exchange emails w/ AE in advance, to minimize the # of rounds • You need to make some compromise, but not on principles • It’s your paper !

17. Reviewers carefully read my paper [T][F] • [F] A review typically makes up his/her mind after 5-minute browsing: Title/author=> abstract=>conclusions => references => introduction Then spends < 1-H to justify (moving to main body of the paper) • Most readers follow the same pattern • Your Action: • Make your points EARLY • Bring up your results QUICK • Highlight your contributions FAST

18. Reviewers are responsive [T][F] • [F] • Reviewers are volunteers • Reviewers have piles of papers to review • Reviewers read your paper early if it’s “attractive” • Reviewers read your paper early if he can learn things from it • Reviewers read your paper early if his own work is related (or referred) • Typically senior reviewers are less responsive but more important • Your Action: • Put yourself in a reviewer’s shoes - visualize • Make your paper easy to read, clear to follow, good to learn (see CL’s part I: How to write a good paper)

19. Reviewers are Professional and Fair [T][F] • [T] although there are small % of exceptions • Constructive critiques to improve the paper • Mostly positive and constructive • Do make some honest mistakes • Some junior reviewers also want to establish their credibility (most AEs come from good reviewers) • Your actions: • Engage a dialogue w/ reviewers via AE • Make reviewers your friends • Acknowledge your mistakes and make corrections • Acknowledge reviewers if a good point is made • Make clarifications if reviewers are wrong

20. Handling Rejections • Understand that most papers (> 70%) are rejected by a premier journal (e.g. IEEE Trans) • No feeling of shame or losing face • Thank AE/reviewers for their dedications • Ask AE what changes I can make for resubmission, redirection to another journal, or withdraw • Display class and style – walk away amicably

21. After Acceptance • Taking care of the logistics – precise and responsive • Follow up your own work if appropriate • Pay attention to follow-up work by others • Pay attention to paper referral • Communicate w/ readers • Expand your network

22. FAQs • Can I submit a paper to multiple journals/conferences ? • ABSOLUTELY NOT ! It’s OK to have a conference presentation followed by a journal article w/ significant enhancements • Can I recommend the AE for handling my paper ? • No. But it’s OK to specify which AE to avoid under rare circumstance • What if I don’t hear from my AE for a long time (e.g. 6 months) ? • Send a VERY friendly reminder, but don’t be too pushy • Try not to involve EIC • What if I strongly disagree w/ AE’s decision ? • It’s OK to appeal to EIC (don’t do it too often and with strong backup) • What if I strongly disagree w/ EIC’s final decision ? • It’s theoretically possible to appeal to IEEE TAB: never do it !

23. Conclusions • Content is the Key ! • Good writing skills are critical • Communications skills are necessary • Quality > Quantity • Understand why to publish • Building and expand the network of influence