COMP80122 Academic Life Publishing & Scholarly Communication - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Academic Life Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Carole Goble | Uli Sattler

School of Computer Science University of Manchester

COMP80122

COMP80122 Organisational

• Talk to me if you haven’t handed in critiques
• Prepare for your presentation:

– first presentations to be given on Feb 20th – start preparing a 15 minute presentation

• See today’s attendance sheet:

– you are allocated a group

• Mon-X or
• Wed-X

– you are asked to tick whether you can

• start an hour earlier/later on Mondays/Wednesdays

– assume that presentations will be done alphabetically within groups

Academic Life

• Research
• Teaching
• Administration
• Citizenship
• Networking
• Writing papers, proposals, references
• Organizing Conferences
• Reviewing papers
• etc.
• ....and supervising students

http://www.vitae.ac.uk

Scholarly Communication

• Supervisor/research group members

– have a wealth of knowledge to share – busy writing papers and reviewing papers

• You too are expected to communicate your scholarship

– write and publish papers – travel and “give a paper” – research training – research dissemination

• ... how does it work?

It is on record that when a young aspirant asked Faraday the secret of his success as a scientific investigator, he replied, 'The secret is comprised in three words— Work, Finish, Publish.'

– J. R. Gladstone, Michael Faraday (1872), 122.

Purpose of Scholarly Communication

• 1. To Announce

– Contributing your ideas and results to research – Staking a claim: citation and recognition

• 2. To Convince

– Defend/test your ideas/results through peer review

• Travel to meetings to present and discuss

– Contact with people in the same field or with similar problems – Acquire test data, use cases, ideas – Explaining it makes you understand it better

• Part of research training
• Evidence of achievement

– CV, boss, supervisor, govt, funding body, parents ...

Announce and Convince

Defend results are plausible or

correct and method convincing and repeatable.

Review & Learn Verify the

results empirically. Trust.

• Understand. Convince, comfort,

credibility.

Reuse Use the explained and

trusted results (data, method) for new / my science on

• demand. Compare. Extend.

Is it “true”?

Can I repeat it? Am I convinced? Is it plausible?

Can I use it?

Can I reproduce it? Is it a useful contribution?

Reproducibility

“An article about computational science in a scientific

publication is not the scholarship itself, it is merely advertising of the scholarship. The actual scholarship is the complete software development environment, [the complete data] and the complete set of instructions which generated the figures.” David Donoho, “Wavelab and Reproducible Research,” 1995 SIGMOD Reproducibility effort Benchmarking Contests and challenges

Where to publish?

• Doctoral Consortiums

– rough ideas, mock reviewed

• Workshops

– on-going work, ideas, small extensions to existing work, rough reviewing

• National Conferences

– new ideas/applications/tools, medium extensions, more serious reviewing

• International Conferences

– mature work, serious reviewing, but time- constrained, check track

• Journals

– lots of mature work (e.g., 2 conference papers into 1 journal paper), serious reviewing, not time-constrained

Scholarly Communication Forms

• Proposing an idea or view

– Position statement, Commentary, Perspectives, Magazine Department – Highly cited, editorialised, low rigour, established figures

• Presenting a preliminary research finding

– Short paper, workshop paper, poster – Medium rigour, peer review

• Presenting a research finding

– Conference paper, Journal article, – High rigour, peer-review

• Making an impact

– Demo, Magazine articles: reviewed – Blogs, twitter, forums: unreviewed – Technical reports

• Open access

Where to publish

• Different workshops/conferences/journals,

different value

– “established, leading in field” – “not really serious, publish almost everything” – “publish anything as long as you register”

• Value of a paper depends on value of the

medium

– A “good paper” on a “bad medium”

• Ask for advice
• When reading papers, check

– where they were published and learn. – different styles, compare.

Open Access

• By April 2013 all publications funded by the UK public

purse must publish either Green or Gold Open Access.

• Green OA Self Archiving

– Publish in any journal. – Self-archive author's refereed, revised final draft (pre-print) or publisher's version of record (post-print). – In institutional repository eScholar, central repository (Pub Med Central), or on some other OA website. – Green OA journal publishers endorse immediate OA self-archiving.

• Gold OA Publishing

– Publish in an open access journal that provides immediate OA to all of its articles on the publisher's website. – Hybrid open access journals provide Gold OA only for those individual articles for which authors pay an OA publishing fee. – Examples: BioMed Central, the Public Library of Science. – Gold Open Access Journals: AUTHOR PAYS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access

Reviewing: Citizenship

• Program committees and Editorial

Boards

– Members do/supervise the reviewing – Chosen/elected/picked by Program Chair / Editor on the basis of expertise and reliability – Sign of recognition and esteem

• No one is paid
• A lot of work, time consuming

and often time-pressed

• Be clear, follow guidelines
• Know the rigour expected

Reviewing: Conference/Workshop

• Call for papers circulated

– Submission instructions & deadlines

• Papers are assigned to PC members (maybe bidding phase)

– Not all your reviewers are experts in your subtopic

• PC produces reviews

– Following the conference’s reviewing guidelines

• PC discusses papers, mainly ambivalent ones

– Often “clear accept/reject” computed from marks – Confidence of reviewers is taken into account

• Authors are notified

– Reviews visible but not their reviewers – If accepted, they are told how/by when to prepare final version – Prepare the Camera Ready copy

• At conference, accepted submissions are presented

– Published in proceedings, sometimes entirely electronic

Reviewing: Journal

• Call for papers circulated for special issues, otherwise not

– Submission instructions & deadlines

• Papers assigned to editorial board members

– Request expert reviewers in your subtopic

• Reviewers produces reviews

– Following the journal’s reviewing guidelines

• Editors discuss the paper

– New reviewers may be sought

• Authors are notified

– Reviews visible but not reviewers – May be accepted conditional on revisions or to resubmit with revisions and go round the loop again

• Article will be (eventually) published

– Proofs, published online and later printed. – Supplementary materials

Reviewing: some criteria

• Relevance to the conference/journal/workshop…

– does your paper fit the scope of the conference/…?

• Originality

– are you doing something new? – new problem/technique/solution/concept/..

• Significance

– will your paper be of interest to somebody? – because its problem/technique/solution/concept is interesting

• Technical soundness

– are your claims correct and proven correctly?

• Quality of evaluation

– are your test/proofs of sufficient detail/quality?

• Presentation

– is your writing faultless, clear, scholarly, readable? References? ...

Reviewing: a typical form

• Brief Summary of the paper and contribution claimed:
• Major contributions and strong points:
• Major problems and weak points:
• Overall recommendation:
• Detailed remarks:

Publish or Perish

http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm http://scholar.google.co.uk http://academic.research.microsoft.com/