Readit NewsI would like to share my experience on publishing my work in a top-tier conference, without any connections with academia. I have been working in industry and is considering shifting to academic research career. But the lack of publications made my chances very low. So I took up a research project, did research on it during "after the job hours". Once I was satisfied with the results, I created an account on IEEE paperplaza, wrote the paper as per the standards set by the journal and submitted. After five months of review, the paper got accepted. You can read more of my story here http://achuwilson.github.io/blog/2016/09/how_i_wrote_researc...
Thanks for the share! So you got a phd admit?
1. I find conferences on https://edas.info/rssConferences.php and then use my country's national ranking lists to figure out whether it's a good one https://www.tsv.fi/julkaisufoorumi/haku.php?lang=en, here, a score of 1 or better is worth submitting to.
2. I don't think "top publications" like found in http://csrankings.org/ turn down submissions because it's from an independent author. Instead, it would be harder because you are working alone. Now, you need more time, nobody is steering or affecting your opinions what is currently relevant, and nobody is giving you a fresh pair of eyes to identify your own biases. That's hard.
That helps! Thanks :)
I'd recommend starting by looking at the literature of the area you want to publish in. Familiarise yourself with the main journals, and try to get a feel for the customs of the field.
Almost all publications provide guidelines for authors, and most editors will be happy to answer questions on the submission criteria.
Speaking as a reviewer: the most important things, above everything else, are always (1) the quality of the science, and (2) the clarity of the presentation. If you get those right, you will have little problem publishing.
If you'd like any feedback, feel free to send me an email. My address is in my profile.
Definitely :) Thanks!
I can tell you from experience that academia is as cliquey as it gets. Depending on the field even having a good university affiliation may not see you getting through the submission and review process if you don't have one of the clique-members as a co-author. Reviewers will often find a reason to reject your submission (it's all too easy citing 'insufficient validation' or characterising the topic as 'outlandish').
I feel dirty for even saying this but the best way to get your work published in a good journal is to let a member of said clique, typically a professor with a good amount of publications on the topic, piggy-back on your article. Their presence on the author-list will lend credence to your work.
If you choose not to go the above route, and power to you for not playing their game, things get tricky. You can try applying to some well-known conferences and best-case you can get your work presented and published as proceedings (very common in the IEEE world). Depending on the topic you can try and submit to a decent journal with a strong impact-factor but depending on the editor you may not even get to the review process.
Lastly, it's mentioned elsewhere here, do not publish to rando journals that expect a fee. Even if your work is fantastic publishing in one of those will cast doubt on every single one of your words cause they're seen as completely predatory and lacking in credibility.
Makes sense. Thanks :)
World has changed quite a lot since 1905, my friend. Today, research is not done in silo and publishing new works typically requires significant understanding and knowledge about previous works and collaborators (unless you are doing pure math but even then...). If you are writing research paper in CS, you should have extensive citations in your paper. Top tier CS/ML conferences have typical acceptance rate of 25% or less. The 75% of the papers they reject often have nothing technically wrong with it except minor negligence like missing citations, not enough experiments, missing some baseline, not having confidence intervals in metrics and so on. It is being said that experienced reviewers often can tell you with high accuracy whether paper would be accepted or rejected in about 60 seconds because rejected papers usually has some signs of inexperience of author reflected in structure and presentation. Choosing right conferences is also extremely important because today’s conferences are very focused on specific topic and style. If you go bit off and you face rejection regardless of content of your paper merry because area chair and reviewers would say they are not confident. Typically you should know who has done related work in the field and which are the related papers in past 5 years at least. You should have at least one of those people as your co-author. This is needed because today’s research publications need very specific format, structure, target venue and you need someone to guide and review your work. It’s not just about correctness or achieving some great thing, you also need to compare your work with previous work using experiments and precisely layout pro and cons. Typically this is done by you being PhD student and your advisor helping you to navigate the space. Even with 2 or 3 experienced co-authors, typically writing good paper might take couple of weeks of brainstorming about presentation, content, back and forth, rewriting, rephrasing and re-reviewing. I don’t want to discourage you but if you have to ask these questions, most likely you are no where close to publishing your work. Publishing on arxive is pointless because it is considered non-peer reviewed and it would rarely get you any audience. I would suggest to look up ACM conferences in your field (IEEE is another option but I don’t like them).
No problem at all :) Thanks a lot for the info. I am actually looking for such realistic views about things to set a clear perspective on how to proceed forward. Will definitely look into that!
FullMetalJason commented on Ask HN: What tools do you use for note-taking, progress tracking and TODO lists? · Posted by u/storik
1. iOS reminders app for to-dos
2. google calendar for day to day tasks and meetings
3. Evernote for weekly, monthly and yearly progress(I should get a better tool for this)
papers in top journals/conferences supervene everything but let's be realistic: if you're asking here you're probably not publishing in nature/annals/nips etc so unless there's something else exceptional about you (that you're publishing in mediocre journals as a high school student) LORs would carry more weight.
You are right :) If I had something that's good enough that it gets through nature then it's a different game altogether. But let's say even if you had something that was good enough to be published in Nature, what are the chances that it will get through if I directly send it in myself as a single author?(do they even accept such submissions?)
https://arxiv.org/help/submit
It looks like registering for Arxiv involves naming your institution but it is not described as a strict requirement. Why not give it a shot? Take a direct approach. Try to mimic the tone they are used to and be respectful, acting like you belong can go a long way. I imagine that existing work would be valued over soft qualifications. If you have work that belongs there I can’t see why they would turn you away. Try the same thing with other publishers that interest you.
I guess that's one way to move forward :) Thanks! Will give that a shot then.
Since we are talking history - with some search - I found out that Person1 has recently put out a #metoo experience and called out some incidents at Caltech. Don't you think there's not even a little bias here against every possible "person2" who happened to be a male and just gave a technical feedback? Not like that's an invalid statement. He does have valid points in what he said(just the way he said it might not have been ideal). But it escalated very quickly!