Outline

K PublishLwhyM

Publication Strategies K PublishLwhat, howM

K PublishLwhereM
Mary 'ean Harrold
ADVANCE Professor of Computing K PublishLprocessM
College of Computing
Georgia Institute of Technology Answer your questions anytime

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhyM
K To communicate new findings
– publication R ultimate result of scientific research
K To let the community know about your work
! recognition
! contacts, fruitful collaborations
K To get useful feedback from peers
– external, independent, frank (anonymous)
PublishLWhyM
K To communicate new findings
Remember
– publication R ultimate result of scientific research
Research is never finished until it is publishedZ
K To let the community know about your work
! recognition
! contacts, fruitful collaborations
K To get useful feedback from peers
– external, independent, frank (anonymous)

K To embellish your CV (W CV of colleagues) K To embellish your CV (W CV of colleagues)

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

1
 PublishLWhatM PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Write your papers for readers (in particular, Evaluation criteria for research papers
the reviewers) K Original contribution Title
– as communication K Significant Abstract
between you and the – problem Introduction
readers – solution in SE context
Body
– considering their K Sound results Evaluation
backgrounds K High-quality presentation Discussion
– with the evaluation Related work
ICSE 2HH1 PC members
criteria in mind
Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Original contribution Title K Original contribution Title
K Significant Abstract – specify objectives, Abstract
– problem contribution clearly
Introduction Introduction
– solution in SE context – compare with related
Body Body
K Sound results work carefully
Evaluation Evaluation
K High-quality presentation Discussion Discussion
Related work Related work
Conclusion Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

2
 PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Original contribution Title
Reviewers often say: K Significant Title
– specify objectives, Abstract Abstract
“the paper omits important
contribution clearly
Introduction
related work” Introduction
– compare with related
Body
“the authors describe the Body
work carefully
Evaluation
related work, but don’t
compare their work to it”
Evaluation
Discussion Discussion
Related work Related work
Conclusion Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Significant Title K Significant Title
– discuss why this problem Abstract – discuss why this problem Abstract
is significant is significant
Introduction Introduction
– discuss why your solution – discuss why your solution
Body Body
is significant (e.g., what it is significant (e.g., what it
its usefulness, why/how
Evaluation its usefulness, why/how
Evaluation
it scales up) Discussion it scales up) Discussion
– avoid least publishable unit Related work – avoid least publishable unit Related work
(LPU) papers Conclusion (LPU) papers Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

_
 PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Significant Title K Soundness Title
– discuss why this problem Abstract Abstract
is significant
Introduction Introduction
– discuss why your solution
Body Body
is significant (e.g., what it
its usefulness, why/how
Evaluation Evaluation
it scales up) Discussion Discussion
– avoid least publishable unit Related work Related work
(LPU) papers Conclusion Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Soundness Title K Soundness Title
– make paper technically Abstract – make paper technically Abstract
readable, verifiableL Introduction readable, verifiableL Introduction
K present algorithms clearly K present algorithms clearly
so readers can determine
Body so readers can determine
Body
correctness Evaluation correctness Evaluation
K explain algorithm in text Discussion K explain algorithm in text Discussion
K provide examples to help Related work K provide examples to help Related work
understanding Conclusion understanding Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

4
 PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Soundness Title K Soundness Title
– make paper technically Abstract – make paper technically Abstract
readable, verifiableL Introduction readable, verifiableL Introduction
K present algorithms clearly K present algorithms clearly
so readers can determine
Body so readers can determine
Body
correctness Evaluation correctness Evaluation
K explain algorithm in text Discussion K explain algorithm in text Discussion
K provide examples to help Related work K provide examples to help Related work
understanding Conclusion understanding Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Soundness (expr-based) Title K Soundness (expr-based) Title
– describe experimental Abstract – describe experimental Abstract
method carefullyLcan be Introduction method carefullyLcan be Introduction
assessed and replayed Body Method assessed and replayed Body Method
– provide separate Evaluation Results – provide separate Evaluation Results
discussions of data and discussions of data and
Discussion Discussion
its interpretation its interpretation
Related work Related work
Conclusion Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

h
 PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K Soundness (expr-based) Title K High-quality presentation Title
– describe experimental Abstract – high cohesion: one Abstract
method carefullyLcan be paper, one result
Introduction Introduction
assessed and replayed – self-containedFadd
Body Method anything needed to Body
– provide separate Evaluation Results understand results Evaluation
discussions of data and – say what you’re going
Discussion Discussion
its interpretation to say before saying it
Related work – avoid mere description Related work
Conclusion of work done Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Evaluation criteria for research papers
K High-quality presentation Title K High-quality presentation Title
– high cohesion: one Abstract – high cohesion: one Abstract
paper, one result paper, one result
Introduction Introduction
– self-containedFadd – self-containedFadd
anything needed to Body anything needed to Body
understand results Evaluation understand results Evaluation
– say what you’re going Discussion – say what you’re going Discussion
to say before saying it to say before saying it
– avoid mere description Related work – avoid mere description Related work
of work done Conclusion of work done Conclusion
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

I
 PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

Evaluation criteria for research papers Fruitful bedtime reading

K High-quality presentation Title K Lyn Duprj, Bugs in Writing. Addison-
– high cohesion: one Abstract Wesley, 199l
paper, one result
Introduction K R.A. Day, How to Write and Publish a
– self-containedFadd Scientific Paper. Cambridge University
anything needed to Body
Press, 19l9
understand results Evaluation
– say what you’re going K S. Schwartz, Towards Better Scientific Writing. 19l2.
Discussion
to say before saying it
– avoid mere description Related work K D. Solow, How to read and do proofs, Wiley, 199H.
of work done Conclusion K AvL, Tech Writing, Course Notes, UCL
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhat (cont’d)M PublishLWhat (cont’d)M

K Each author should have contributed in some way
Remember
Fruitful bedtime reading
K Order of authors
Your
K Lyn research
Duprj, isn’t
Bugs in finished
Writing. until it’s publishedZ
Addison-
Wesley, 199lpapers with evaluation criteria in
Write your – normally reflects contribution weight
K in producing results
mindZ
K R.A. Day, How to Write and Publish a K in writing paper
Scientific Paper. Cambridge University
Press, 19l9 – discuss and make explicit early
K Each author must be aware of being
K S. Schwartz, Towards Better Scientific Writing. 19l2. an author
K D. Solow, How to read and do proofs, Wiley, 199H. K Authors should be invariant
throughout the review process
K AvL, Tech Writing, Course Notes, UCL K In case of doubt/problem, discuss with
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI
authors/colleagues
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

7
 PublishLWhere (cont’d)M PublishLWhere (cont’d)M
'ournals Proceedings My suggested targets for publications
– more (long-term) impact – faster process
– more highly rated by – direct contacts and K ACM/IEEE top journals K TOSEM, TSE, 'ACM,
promotion committees discussions at
– (much) deeper reviews
TOPLAS
conferences
– more space – community awareness K Other SE journals
– wider target audience of research K Top flagship SE K ICSE, FSE, ESEC,
(usually)
– fast-track special – one chance for conferences OOPSLA, POPL
issues acceptance K ISSTA, RE, CAV,L
K Specialized symposia
Note: Expanded version of conference paper can be K Workshop (often attached
submitted to journal (with details of differences in cover
letter to editors) to conferences)
New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLWhere (cont’d)M PublishLWhere (cont’d)M

My suggestions to avoid My suggestions to avoid

Remember
– poor-quality journals/conferences (e.g., needing – poor-quality
Research journals/conferences
is never finished until(e.g., needing
it is publishedZ
papers, lack serious reviewing process) papers, lack serious reviewing process)
Write your papers with evaluation criteria in
– low-impact journals/proceedings (check impact factor) – mindZ
low-impact journals/proceedings (check impact factor)
Publish in high-quality conferences and
– papers outside your community (example) – papers outside your community (example)
journalsZ

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

l
 PublishLProcessM PublishLProcessM
For a journal submissionL For a journal submissionL

K _-4 reviewers
Submit: Wait: reject Use reviews: Submit: (often disagree) Wait: reject Use reviews:
K paper K editorial K revise, improve K paper K editorial K revise, improve
K cover letter, contact information.. decision K coverK letter,
reviewers don’t
contact always
information.. decision
paper paper
K relationship to your other papers submit
K relationship to reviews onpapers
your other time
accept accept

Submit: Submit:
K same, other K same, other
journal journal
(usually) (usually)

Correct proofs quickly Correct proofs quickly

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLProcessM PublishLProcssM
For a journal submissionL For a journal submissionL
Minor revision: Associate Editor reviews Major: External reviewers (re)review

Submit: Wait: reject Use reviews: Submit: Wait: reject Use reviews:
K paper K editorial K revise, improve K paper K editorial K revise, improve
K cover letter, contact information.. decision K cover letter, contact information.. decision
paper paper
K relationship to your other papers revise K relationship to your other papers revise
(minor) accept (major) accept

Resubmit: Resubmit:
Revise: Revise:
K create detailed response Submit: K create detailed response Submit:
to editor on how K use reviews to K same, other to reviewers on how K use reviews to K same, other
revision addresses concerns improve paper journal revision addresses concerns improve paper journal
(usually) (usually)

Correct proofs quickly Correct proofs quickly

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

9
 PublishLProcessM PublishLProcessM
For a conference submissionL For a conference submissionL
K NEVER ask for paper
to be reconsidered K there is “memory”
from one conference
Submit: Wait: reject Use reviews: Submit:
to the next among
Wait: reject Use reviews:
K paper K PC K revise, improve K paper K PC K revise, improve
K cover letter, contact information.. decision reviewers,
K cover letter, contact information.. decision
paper paper
accept so BE SURE to accept

Submit:
Revise: K address reviewersRevise:
Submit:
Submit: Submit:
K use reviews to K another comments from aK use reviews to K another
K camera ready K camera ready
improve paper conference rejected paper before
improve paper conference
submitting to another
conference

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

PublishLProcessM Final Thoughts

For a conference submissionL
Remember – Research is never finished until it is
K NEVER ask for paper
Research Kisthere never finished until it is publishedZ
to be reconsidered publishedZ
is “memory”
Write your papers with
from one conferenceevaluation criteria in – Write your papers with evaluation criteria in
Submit:
to the next among
Wait: reject Use reviews:
mindZ
K paper K PC K revise, improve mindZ
reviewers,
K cover letter, contact information.. decision
Publish in high-quality conferences and paper – Publish in high-quality conferences and
so BE SURE to accept
journalsZ
journalsZ
Respond K address
to
Submit: reviewersreviewers Revise:
comments and concerns
Submit: – Respond to reviewers comments and
comments from aK use reviews to
K camera ready
rejected paper before
K another concernsZ
improve paper conference
submitting to another – Review when asked and be a good reviewerZ
conference

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

1H
 Acknowledgements

Thanks to
– Carlo Ghezzi, Politecnico de Milano
– Axel van van Lamsweerde, University of
ouestionsM
Louvain
for sharing their presentations

New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI New Software Engineering Faculty SymposiumFICSE 2HHI

11