October 1999 ICML-03 Mini-Tutorial The Three R’s of Publishing Machine Learning Papers: Research, ‘Riting, and Reviews

Marie desJardins Rob Holte Rob Schapire Saturday, August 23, 12:30-2:00

September1999

The Process of Getting Published

October 1999

Marie desJardins ([email protected]) ICML-03 Mini-Tutorial The Three R’s of Publishing Machine Learning Papers: Research, ‘Riting, and Reviews Saturday, August 23, 12:30-2:00

September1999

Tutorial Overview



Programmatics and Publication

   Review process Ethical issues Handling rejection  

Writing and Being Reviewed

   Reviewing Writing a paper Knowing your audience 

Machine Learning Methodologies

  Empirical methodology Formal methodology

October 1999

8/23/03

October 1999

The Review Process

 Program committees  Selection process  Senior vs. area chair vs. regular members  Paper assignments  Keyword-based  Self-selection  All for one and one for all  Decisions  Reaching a consensus    Final decisions Conditional accepts (rare) Acceptance rates (~~~20%) 8/23/03

Journal Reviewing

 Length of decision cycle  Quality/length/depth of review  Decision options:  Accept as is     Accept with minor changes Accept with major changes (subject to re-review) Reject with encouragement to resubmit Reject out of hand

October 1999

8/23/03

Where to Publish

 Workshops vs. conferences vs. journals  Quantity vs. quality   Aim high! (or at least appropriately) Acceptance rate vs. time to prepare/publish

October 1999

8/23/03

October 1999 Knowing Your Audience: A Reviewer’s Perspective

  First, I read the

title

: is it in my area? (self-selection) Next, I read the

abstract

: is it interesting? (self selection)  Next, I skim the

introduction

about the paper and form my opinion   Next, I read the

rest of the paper

looking for evidence to support my view 

By the time I get to Section 2, I already have a very strong opinion about whether to accept or reject.



Your job is to give me the evidence I need in the title and abstract to select your paper for review, and in the introduction to result in the right opinion!

8/23/03

Ethical Issues

 Multiple submissions  Journal versions of conference papers  Authors and author order  Listing papers in your CV

October 1999

8/23/03

Rejected!! Now What?

 Fix the paper!

 Read the reviews, rail and complain, berate the reviewer     Calm down Read them again with an open mind Do more experiments, revise the paper, … Go back to the reviews again – have you addressed all the points?

   Have people read the revision critically Do more experiments, revise the paper, …

Repeat until the next deadline



October 1999

8/23/03