public:rem4:rem4-18:scientific_environment
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
public:rem4:rem4-18:scientific_environment [2018/02/06 13:13] thorisson |
public:rem4:rem4-18:scientific_environment [2018/02/06 13:15] (current) thorisson |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ====== RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT ====== | ====== RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT ====== | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Concepts==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | | Conference | A gathering of scientists for the purpose of presenting their own work to each other. | | ||
| + | | Workshop | Conferences often have workshops on selected topics. These draw crowds from 8-40 people, depending on the size of the conference. Typically papers submitted to workshops are published in the conference proceedings. | | ||
| + | | Conference Proceedings | A publication of all the work presented at the conference, in the form of scientific papers. | | ||
| + | | Journal | A professional outlet/publication for scientific work. | | ||
| + | | Technical report | Anything can be published a technical report. Tech reports published by university departments are typically not peer-reviewed. | | ||
| + | | Measuring scientific prestige | Scientists compete. They compete for **prestige**, as measured by: \\ 1. Number of publications. \\ 2. Number of publications they are listed as first author on. \\ 3. Number of publications per year. \\ 4. Number of quotations by others to their work. \\ 5. Quality of publications that papers get published in. | | ||
| + | | Prestige of scientific outlets | From low to high: \\ * Tech report \\ * Workshop paper \\ * Conference paper \\ * Book authored \\ * Journal paper | | ||
| + | |||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| ====== Authorship: Author List on Papers ====== | ====== Authorship: Author List on Papers ====== | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 50: | Line 65: | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 61: | Line 75: | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 76: | Line 88: | ||
| | 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. | | | 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. | | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 89: | Line 99: | ||
| | Language quality | Nothing is as annoying as a good paper that falls flat on bad use of English (which, let's face it, is the language of science, at least until China overpowers us with Mandarin). Be brutal! Do not be nice to badly written papers. NB: There is always room for improvement in this regard. | | | Language quality | Nothing is as annoying as a good paper that falls flat on bad use of English (which, let's face it, is the language of science, at least until China overpowers us with Mandarin). Be brutal! Do not be nice to badly written papers. NB: There is always room for improvement in this regard. | | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| SEE ALSO: http://cadia.ru.is/wiki/public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals | SEE ALSO: http://cadia.ru.is/wiki/public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 106: | Line 113: | ||
| | Second mistake | Thinking it's not so important. Your review could affect a fellow scientist's career! | | | Second mistake | Thinking it's not so important. Your review could affect a fellow scientist's career! | | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 124: | Line 129: | ||
| * You should take notes while you read, some of which will probably change in a second pass | * You should take notes while you read, some of which will probably change in a second pass | ||
| * Keep these questions in mind at all times: What are the most important things for the author to address? What is the most useful way for me to explain what these issues are? | * Keep these questions in mind at all times: What are the most important things for the author to address? What is the most useful way for me to explain what these issues are? | ||
| - | |||
| - | ====== Research Grants & Proposals ====== | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 131: | Line 134: | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| - | | Conference | A gathering of scientists for the purpose of presenting their own work to each other. | | + | ====== Research Grants & Proposals ====== |
| - | | Workshop | Conferences often have workshops on selected topics. These draw crowds from 8-40 people, depending on the size of the conference. Typically papers submitted to workshops are published in the conference proceedings. | | + | |
| - | | Conference Proceedings | A publication of all the work presented at the conference, in the form of scientific papers. | | + | |
| - | | Journal | A professional outlet/publication for scientific work. | | + | |
| - | | Technical report | Anything can be published a technical report. Tech reports published by university departments are typically not peer-reviewed. | | + | |
| - | | Measuring scientific prestige | Scientists compete. They compete for **prestige**, as measured by: \\ 1. Number of publications. \\ 2. Number of publications they are listed as first author on. \\ 3. Number of publications per year. \\ 4. Number of quotations by others to their work. \\ 5. Quality of publications that papers get published in. | | + | |
| - | | Prestige of scientific outlets | From low to high: \\ * Tech report \\ * Workshop paper \\ * Conference paper \\ * Book authored \\ * Journal paper | | + | |
| \\ | \\ | ||
/var/www/ailab/WWW/wiki/data/pages/public/rem4/rem4-18/scientific_environment.txt · Last modified: 2018/02/06 13:15 by thorisson
Page Tools
