English 中文

I summarize some experience from paper submissions, and perhaps there are some things worth writing down to constantly remind myself or might be useful for the people who are submitting papers to conferences or journals.

The following text is from the perspective of authors who submit their papers to conferences or journals.

Summarizing Past Submission Experiences

The key to acceptance: Novelty, Paper Organization, Experimental Results, and Most Importantly: Luck

Whether a research paper can be accepted by a conference or journal depends not only on the integrity and innovation of the experiments but also on the tastes of the reviewers encountered during submission. Truly innovative and groundbreaking research is not common — there might only be a few particularly pioneering studies each year. Most researchers work within the existing framework, attempting to make limited breakthroughs from different angles. While becoming a top researcher may require talents, the skill of "writing papers" can be cultivated through effort. The key is whether the logic of the paper's argument and the presentation of experiments can guide reviewers to analyze the issue from the paper's perspective during their reading. Often, a paper that doesn't seem fully complete to oneself can be appreciated by a reviewer who provides suggestions for improving the research. With good luck, after supplementing the experiments, the paper might eventually be accepted by a journal or conference. Even if the final result is rejection, the submission process will make the research increasingly complete, and upon resubmission, it will likely be accepted by some journal or conference.

Fun facts: Papers that I considered subpar inexplicably got accepted. However, papers that I particularly liked was harshly criticized by reviewers and repeatedly rejected.

Conveying an Idea in a Paper

Presenting "One" Perspective in a Paper with Extensive Argumentation and Evidence

Conveying an idea with others is something that requires a lot of practice over a long period and is by no means easy, especially in situations where there is two-way, intensive, and opposing opinions. Practicing communication through writing is a relatively simple, controllable, and trainable process because, in writing, there is time to organize emotions, sort out logic, cite and provide evidence, and edit and revise. The basic principle of writing a paper is to provide sufficient context, argue for "one" perspective within that context, and then design experiments to support that "one" perspective. Exceeding "one" perspective can easily lead to ineffective communication, goal divergence, and a lack of focus throughout the paper. The designed experiments and figures must clearly and directly convey the argument, organizing the message into the most digestible form, such as charts or tables, to avoid logical twists. More importantly, it's crucial to think from the reader's standpoint — what kind of information do they want to receive? In this world, no one besides oneself knows this research better. The ability to organize research results into a form that people from different standpoints can understand is an important skill that can also be widely applied in the workplace.

Fun facts: During the process of practicing paper writing, I found that communication with the opposite sex also became much smoother.

Review and Rebuttal

Preparing the Rebuttal in Advance and Setting the Debate Focus

When submitting a research work, based on experience and understanding of the research, one would prepare for some questions that might be asked, setting up the main points of defense for each issue in advance. Usually, after preparation, one finds that the suggestions and questions from the reviewers mostly fall within the anticipated range. At this stage, finding papers that support your argument, supplementing experiments, and guiding the reviewer back to the pre-set focal points for debate based on existing literature and experimental results are essential. The goal is to refute the reviewers' viewpoints or alleviate their concerns, hoping that they will raise the paper's score, increasing the chances of it being accepted by a journal or conference.

Fun facts: After so many submissions, my colleagues, my advisor, and I still feel frustrated when reading reviewers' comments.

Waiting for the Notification

Managing Expectations, Hoping for the Best, and Preparing for the Worst

After debating with the reviewers, the next step is to wait for the final review results. This period is the most nerve-wracking, especially when the scores are borderline. It's essential to practice letting go of the debate with the reviewers and returning to normal life. Going out for a walk and staying away from research for a few days is usually a good approach. Once you feel slightly recovered, take some time to organize and revise the paper, incorporating the reviewers' doubts into the main text or appendix of the paper. While remaining optimistic, also look into other journals or conferences for potential resubmission options in case of the worst outcome.