The publication process Once you paper is finalized, you have to - PDF document

30/01/2020 Where to publish? The publication process Once you paper is finalized, you have to decide where to publish it. Giorgio Buttazzo It mainly depends on the degree of novelty of the achieved results. g.buttazzo@sssup.it http://retis.sssup.it/~giorgio/h2d.html 2 Types of publications Conference ranking Acceptance ratio: 25-30% (Hard) Novel contributions Established material 30-50% (Medium) 50-80% (Easy) importance  Technical Report  Magazine Type Evaluation Acceptance ratio  Work ‐ in ‐ Progress  Book chapter IEEE Very good 25 ‐ 30  Workshop  Book ACM Very good 25 ‐ 30 International Good ‐ Medium 40 ‐ 60  Conference National Low 60 ‐ 80  Journal Workshop Low 80 ‐ 90 GII-GREEN-SCIE Conference rating: http://gii-grin-scie-rating.scie.es/ 3 4 Journal ranking Journal ranking Scimago Journal & Country Rank Impact factor: index measuring the average number of citations to recent published articles. IEEE Transactions on Computers Type Evaluation Impact Factor Comput. Theory and Math. IEEE Transactions Hardware and Architecture Very good 3.131 on Computers Software IEEE Transactions Very Good 7.377 Theoretical Computer Science on Ind. Informatics 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Journal of Systems Quartile index Medium 1.159 Architecture Q1 Scimago Journal Rank ( SJR indicator ) accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance IEEE Trans. on Sys. Q2 Very Good 7.351 of the journals where such citations come from. Man, and Cyber. Q3 Q1 to Q4 refer to journal ranking quartiles within a Nature Excellent 43.070 Q4 subdiscipline using the SJR citation index. 5 6 1

30/01/2020 Conference organization structure Organization Committee  General Chair Takes strategic decisions: Conference Chair in charge of logistics (hotel, lunches, coffee breaks, banquet,  Topics  Technical Tracks social events) and finance (set registrations and budget report);  Dates Steering Steering  Location  Finance Chair Committee Committee  General Chair in charge of taking registrations, planning and reporting the  Program Chair budget and making actual payments for services.  Publicity Chairs Organization Organization Program Program in charge of advertising the conference, send the call for papers Committee Committee Committee Committee and the call for participation. (General Chair) (General Chair) (Program Chair) (Program Chair)  Local Organization Chair In charge of logistics In charge of the in charge of setting conference rooms, signs, facilities, last minute and finances technical program changes, wi ‐ fi connections, power plugs, pens, paper, etc. 7 8 Program Committee (PC) Program Committee (PC)  Program Committee Chair (PC Chair)  How many PC members  chooses the PC members (how many?); # reviews  manages the submission process (choose a suitable tool); estimated # of per paper submissions   assigns papers to the PC members (3 reviewers/paper); R * S  manages the PC meeting ; N = K  sends the review results to the authors;  makes the conference program, organizing the papers into # reviews per PC member a set of sections (based on common topics).  chooses the Work ‐ in ‐ Progress Chair (WiP Chair) R = 3 reviews per paper S = 100 submissions N = 30 PC members  chooses the Session Chairs K = 10 9 10 Journal organization structure Publication Timing Conferences Journals Editor-in-Chief Takes strategic decisions:  Topics submission submission  Dates Editorial Board Editorial Board  Associate Editors 2 m 4-5 m  Special Issues notification notification Associate Associate 1 m In charge of the 1 m camera ready revised version Editors Editors reviewing process 1-2 m 3 m final result 6-8 months 2 w External reviewers camera ready publication 6 months 1-2 m reviewer 1 page proofs 3 d Author corrections EiC EiC Associate Editor Associate Editor reviewer 2 3-5 m reviewer 3 publication 10-15 months 11 12 2

30/01/2020 The Reviewing Process Submission The reviewing process is typically managed by a web tool Carefully read the submissions rules on the that allows handling all the different phases: conference/journal web site (instructions for the authors).  Submission: authors upload their papers; Things to pay attention to:  Bidding:  Page limits PC members select their preferences;  sometimes they are hard  Assignment: PC Chair assigns papers to reviewers;  are extra pages allowed for appendices  Review: PC members submit their reviews;  Submission deadline (sometimes it is hard)  PC meeting: the PC selects the accepted papers;  Format (use the available templates)  Notification: PC Chair notifies authors;  Topics (listed on the web page)  Final submission: authors submit the final version. 13 14 Bidding Conflicts of Interest (COI) To best match the PC reviewing expertise, after the There is a COI when the reviewer submission deadline, each PC member is asked to specify  is an author of the paper; his/her preferences.  has a relation with one of the authors, such as: For each paper, the review must select one of the following options:  is relative, a friend, or an enemy;  I want to review it  is from the same institution;  wrote a paper with the author in the last 3 years;  I'm able to review it  is a partner in a common research project;  I don't want to review it  I have a conflict of interest 15 16 Assignment Writing a review Assigning the papers satisfying all constraints and  Summary maximizing PC satisfaction is a difficult problem. Web tools use an iterative procedure to produce a  General comments tentative assignment that the PC Chair can manually  Detailed comments modify to improve the result. Finally, each PC member receives K papers to review:  Typos # reviews per paper # of submissions R * S K = N # of PC members 17 18 3

30/01/2020 Writing a review Writing a review Summary General Comments  Judge the paper in general, evaluating organization,  Summarize in 4 ‐ 6 lines the main contains of the presentation, originality, and technical correctness. paper, specifying the main contributions, the  Is the paper related to the conference/journal? assumptions, and the main results.  Is the title representative of the contain?  No evaluations, just facts.  Are there missing references?  This is for the PC members, PC chair, and yourself.  Are experiments complete?  Explain in one sentence why the paper should be rejected, or accepted, provided that the main concerns are addressed.  State positive features first, followed by major issues. 19 20 Writing a review Writing a review Detailed Comments Typos  Express your opinion on specific points, explaining Reports all writing errors, indicating the exact position why they are weak, what is missing, and suggesting where they appear and how should be corrected. how they could be improved. For example: For example:  page 2, Section 1, left column, line 3 from top:  Section 2: the work by Martin et al. (ECRTS 2011) is related to your "algoritm" ‐‐ > "algorithm" work, so it should be cited and compared with your approach.  page 3, Section 2, right column, line 5 from bottom:  Figure 2 does not report values on the axis and plots cannot be "the the value" ‐‐ > "the value" distinguished. Please use larger fonts.  page 4, Section 3, right column, line 12 from top:  Section 5: the paper does not explain how system parameters are randomly generated and which distributions were used. a period is missing at the end of the sentence. 21 22 Evaluation summary Program Committee Meeting  Presentation …………….. PC members meet in a room for one day to select the papers 1 2 3 4 5 6 to be published.  Originality ………………… Papers are discussed one by one. 1 2 3 4 5 6  Relevance …………………. Handling COI 1 2 3 4 5 6  You cannot review a paper if you have a COI with one of  Technical soundness …. the authors. 1 2 3 4 5 6  You have to leave the meeting room if you have a COI with  Overall evaluation ……… the paper being discussed. 1 2 3 4 5 6  Reviewer confidence … Low Medium High 23 24 4