i have lots of packing to do and little access to a computer for next two weeks.
but i promise, mid january, i'm back to my old self again.
xoxo, pink wallpaper
Senin, 03 Januari 2011
please forgive me....
0
komentar
i have lots of packing to do and little access to a computer for next two weeks.
but i promise, mid january, i'm back to my old self again.
xoxo, pink wallpaper
Being Brilliant vs. Writing Well
In the vast world of academic Computer Science publishing, I am about to tell you the greatest secret of all:
You can make up for lack of genius by being a good writer.
Being a good writer will never guarantee a paper acceptance. But I'll tell you, if your paper is like butter for a reviewer to read, it makes it all the more difficult for them to tear it apart. If your writing is crisp and clear and sharp and snappy, it makes reviewers feel joy in the hearts. Especially compared to the other poor abuses of the English language they had to sludge though before your paper walked through the door.
It's actually quite easy to learn to write well. Here are some tips:
1) Practice, practice, practice. A blog can really help, actually. Twitter probably not so much. You want to aim for cogent prose.
2) Read a lot. Read well-edited publications - newspapers, magazines, journals. Journalists are excellent at grabbing your attention and keeping it. This skill is invaluable in scientific writing.
3) Less is more. You are not getting paid by the word here. (In fact just the opposite - many conferences have page charges if you go over the limit!). It is not necessary to give every gory detail. It is highly unlikely you need to paste code into your paper. Just convey the information that is most important - what is it you want people to take away after reading your paper?
4) Once you're confident, take some risks. I know your 3rd grade teacher told you all of these things about structure and topic sentences and a conclusion section and an outline section and all that jazz. But really you need to figure out your own style that best helps you convey clear ideas.
5) Proofread your paper very carefully before submitting it. I am shocked when I read papers with grammar errors, spelling errors, and typos, particularly from senior academics who are fluent English speakers. Take the time to proofread, or outsource. (Occasional errors are understandable, but a paper should not be littered with them).
6) Practice!
You can make up for lack of genius by being a good writer.
Being a good writer will never guarantee a paper acceptance. But I'll tell you, if your paper is like butter for a reviewer to read, it makes it all the more difficult for them to tear it apart. If your writing is crisp and clear and sharp and snappy, it makes reviewers feel joy in the hearts. Especially compared to the other poor abuses of the English language they had to sludge though before your paper walked through the door.
It's actually quite easy to learn to write well. Here are some tips:
1) Practice, practice, practice. A blog can really help, actually. Twitter probably not so much. You want to aim for cogent prose.
2) Read a lot. Read well-edited publications - newspapers, magazines, journals. Journalists are excellent at grabbing your attention and keeping it. This skill is invaluable in scientific writing.
3) Less is more. You are not getting paid by the word here. (In fact just the opposite - many conferences have page charges if you go over the limit!). It is not necessary to give every gory detail. It is highly unlikely you need to paste code into your paper. Just convey the information that is most important - what is it you want people to take away after reading your paper?
4) Once you're confident, take some risks. I know your 3rd grade teacher told you all of these things about structure and topic sentences and a conclusion section and an outline section and all that jazz. But really you need to figure out your own style that best helps you convey clear ideas.
5) Proofread your paper very carefully before submitting it. I am shocked when I read papers with grammar errors, spelling errors, and typos, particularly from senior academics who are fluent English speakers. Take the time to proofread, or outsource. (Occasional errors are understandable, but a paper should not be littered with them).
6) Practice!
Rabu, 29 Desember 2010
Publication Venues in Computer Science
In academic Computer Science, there are basically three publication venues that "count": peer-reviewed conferences, peer-reviewed journals, and peer-reviewed workshops/symposia. There are of course many other perfectly credible ways to publish one's work (e.g., technical reports, books), but these are the top three.
Unlike in most scientific fields, including our closest cousins Engineering and Mathematics, journals are not the de facto place to publish papers. I can't speak for all subfields of CS, but basically everyone I know only publishes in journals because they feel they have to (e.g., multi-disciplinary tenure and promotion committees that expect journal publications, research rankings organizations that still don't seem to 'get' conferences, etc.). Some subfields this is not the case, such as in interdisciplinary fields like Bioinformatics and CS Education, but for most major areas of CS, conferences are where the action is.
For these fields, the top conferences have extremely low acceptance rates, many less than 17%. The program committees are comprised of the top scholars in the field. And in some fields, anyone who is anyone attends these conferences, so managing to get a paper accepted is a pretty big deal that gets a researcher much visibility.
Some journals have similarly rigorous standards of review and are known for their quality, for example the IEEE Transactions and ACM Transactions family of journals are highly regarded. There are occasionally other journals that are good, but the vast majority are either decidedly mediocre or utter rubbish. We don't really have any comparable C/N/S type journals.
Workshops and symposia generally have a much higher acceptance rate than conferences and journals, but they are still peer-reviewed and are often archival (e.g., ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore). They have quite a few advantages. First, they are usually co-located with a conference, which means you can often go to both on your University's dime. Second, they present a fantastic opportunity to float half-baked ideas and get one-on-one feedback from your peers. And third, oftentimes workshops are the only place you can meet other scientists interested in the same area of specialized research as you, which nearly always leads to good things.
But the most useful thing about conferences and workshops over journals is that you have the opportunity to tell potentially hundreds of people about your work. These are all people who learn your name and face and start to match it to a research area. This is invaluable, because it leads to professional relationships that will see you through your career - jobs, funding, tenure/promotion letters, etc.
Journals don't really get your name and face out there as well, unless some news outlet picks up on your article. People do read journals, but I suspect most readers associate papers more strongly with an institution than a name, particularly if it's a new name on the research scene.
So I think it's nice to have a diverse portfolio when it comes to publishing. It's good to have a mixture of papers in the top conferences with low acceptance rates, in journals that are well-respected, and in workshops that are useful to the researcher.
Unlike in most scientific fields, including our closest cousins Engineering and Mathematics, journals are not the de facto place to publish papers. I can't speak for all subfields of CS, but basically everyone I know only publishes in journals because they feel they have to (e.g., multi-disciplinary tenure and promotion committees that expect journal publications, research rankings organizations that still don't seem to 'get' conferences, etc.). Some subfields this is not the case, such as in interdisciplinary fields like Bioinformatics and CS Education, but for most major areas of CS, conferences are where the action is.
For these fields, the top conferences have extremely low acceptance rates, many less than 17%. The program committees are comprised of the top scholars in the field. And in some fields, anyone who is anyone attends these conferences, so managing to get a paper accepted is a pretty big deal that gets a researcher much visibility.
Some journals have similarly rigorous standards of review and are known for their quality, for example the IEEE Transactions and ACM Transactions family of journals are highly regarded. There are occasionally other journals that are good, but the vast majority are either decidedly mediocre or utter rubbish. We don't really have any comparable C/N/S type journals.
Workshops and symposia generally have a much higher acceptance rate than conferences and journals, but they are still peer-reviewed and are often archival (e.g., ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore). They have quite a few advantages. First, they are usually co-located with a conference, which means you can often go to both on your University's dime. Second, they present a fantastic opportunity to float half-baked ideas and get one-on-one feedback from your peers. And third, oftentimes workshops are the only place you can meet other scientists interested in the same area of specialized research as you, which nearly always leads to good things.
But the most useful thing about conferences and workshops over journals is that you have the opportunity to tell potentially hundreds of people about your work. These are all people who learn your name and face and start to match it to a research area. This is invaluable, because it leads to professional relationships that will see you through your career - jobs, funding, tenure/promotion letters, etc.
Journals don't really get your name and face out there as well, unless some news outlet picks up on your article. People do read journals, but I suspect most readers associate papers more strongly with an institution than a name, particularly if it's a new name on the research scene.
So I think it's nice to have a diverse portfolio when it comes to publishing. It's good to have a mixture of papers in the top conferences with low acceptance rates, in journals that are well-respected, and in workshops that are useful to the researcher.
Senin, 27 Desember 2010
2010 was a very interesting year...
we uprooted our life in charleston and moved to beaufort, we found out we were having a baby boy, i ate my first fried pickle (and loved every minute of it), i spent 13 wks on bed rest, my daughter turned 3, a best friend survived a near fatal car accident, i had the honor of being published, i turned 31, we made new friends, i gave birth to a healthy baby boy, i joined jazzercise (
so what does 2011 have going on??? well, my hubbie has a new job and we are moving to columbia, sc and that's about all i know for sure....but i am excited to see how it all unfolds!!
**to beaufort, our friends, and my parents- thank you from the bottom of my heart for a beautiful town and a very memorable year ;)
Kamis, 23 Desember 2010
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
