Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals [2016/10/23 21:01] – [Getting Your Work Published] thorisson2
+++ public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 \\
 \\
+\\
 ==== Submitting Your Academic Research for Publication ====
 |  When to submit  | When you think your paper is ready to get published.   |
-|  Where to submit  |    |
+|  Where to submit  | What audience do you want to reach? Who should read your work?   |
+|
+|  When you have submitted  | General description of a typical submission process given in next table.  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===The Peer Review Process===
+|  Step 0  | Scientist does research, writes up results and submits a scientific paper to a selected outlet.   |
+|  Step 1  | Editor or conference chair receives submission, decides who should review. The selected review group, typically 3 or more scientists knowledgeable in the field in question, is called the peer review group.   |
+|  Step 2  | Paper sent to peer review group (typically 3 reviewers) with a deadline for returning their review, along with instructions.  |
+|  Step 3  | Editor gets reviews back from reviewers.  |
+|  Step 4  | Editor has to decide, based on reviews, whether to (1) accept paper as-is, with no changes (very rare!); (2) accept paper with minor revisions; (3) accept paper with major revisions; (4) reject paper.  |
+|  Step 5  | Editor sends result of reviews along with his decision for 1, 2, 3 or 4 above.  |
+|  Step 6  | Conclusion 1, great! You're done. Your paper will be published as-is. \\ Conclusion 2: Use the reviews to improve your paper, send back to editor. Editor may request a shortlist of how you improved the paper. Your paper will be published with your changes. \\ Conclusion 3: You will need to do major work to improve the paper (e.g. more experiments or compare more algorithms or systems). Your paper will probably be reviewed by the same 3 reviewers. The editor may ask you for a shortlist of how you addressed the reviewers' concerns.   |
+\\
+\\
+SEE ALSO: http://cadia.ru.is/wiki/public:rem4:rem4-16:reviewing_scientific_papers
+\\
+\\
 \\
 \\