COMP80122 Academic Life Publishing & Scholarly Communication Carole Goble | Uli Sattler School of Computer Science University of Manchester
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 Is it “true”? correct and method convincing and repeatable. Can I repeat it? Am I convinced? Is it plausible? Review & Learn Verify the results empirically. Trust. Understand. Convince, comfort, credibility. Can I use it? Reuse Use the explained and Can I reproduce it? trusted results (data, method) Is it a useful contribution? for new / my science on demand. Compare. Extend.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access 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
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/
Recommend
More recommend
