=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1765/paper-07
|storemode=property
|title=Some Advice on Scientific Publishing from the Perspective of an Experienced Researcher
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1765/paper-07.pdf
|volume=Vol-1765
|authors=Kurt Sandkuhl
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/Sandkuhl16
}}
==Some Advice on Scientific Publishing from the Perspective of an Experienced Researcher==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1765/paper-07.pdf
Some Advice on Scientific Publishing
from the Perspective of an Experienced Researcher
Kurt Sandkuhl
Institute of Computer Science, University of Rostock, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22
18057 Rostock, Germany
kurt.sandkuhl@uni-rostock.de
Abstract. There are many possibilities for PhD students to publish research
work: workshops, conferences, book chapters, journals, open access
publications, etc. In many countries it is mandatory to have at least some
publications before being able to finish a PhD dissertation. In a special session
for the doctoral consortium participants at PoEM 2016 in Skövde (Sweden), an
experienced researcher offered his perspective on publishing opportunities. This
paper summarizes the content of the special session. One intention of the paper
is to encourage participants to consider extending their research publications
towards journal publications.
Keywords: Publication process, review process, Business Information Systems
Engineering journal, CSIMQ open access journal.
1 Introduction
PhD students, like all other researchers, have a number of different possibilities to
publish their research work: workshops, conferences, book chapters, journals, open
access publications, etc. In many countries it is mandatory to have at least some
publications before being able to finish a PhD dissertation. In this context, it is not
obvious which publishing possibility to choose. Should preference be given to the
publication outlets with fast processing times and reasonable acceptance rates? Or
should one aim for the most renowned publication channel?
In a special session for the doctoral consortium participants at PoEM 2016 in
Skövde (Sweden), an experienced researcher offered his perspective on publishing
opportunities. This paper summarizes the content of the special session. It includes
different aspects, such as the motivation for publishing, bibliometric considerations,
the importance of citations, etc. Special focus is on journal publications, including
typical review and publication processes. One intention of the paper is to encourage
participants to consider extending their research publications towards journal
publications.
The remaining part of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 briefly looks
into the motivation for publishing scientific work and the possible publication
channels. Section 3 introduces selected indicators from bibliometrics and their role for
deciding on publication channels. Section 4 presents a typical publication and review
process for a journal. Section 5 summarizes the paper.
2 Why publish? Where to publish?
Scientific communication, i.e. publishing the findings and achievements of scientific
work, for most researchers is part of their everyday work. The motivation for
publishing research results is not only to share interesting results with the scientific
community, but includes other aspects:
• In many countries and disciplines, publications are a mandatory precondition
for the next step in an academic career. PhD students often have to present a
certain number of publications before being allowed to hand in their
dissertation. The same is true for other academic grades, e.g., Dr. of Science,
habilitation or senior lectureship, and also for professorships. There is no
general agreement, how many publications of what quality are required. This
strongly depends on the academic context, e.g. on the institution where the
academic degree is awarded.
• Publications at workshops and conferences offer a possibility to discuss own
research with other researchers which can result in valuable feedback.
Presenting a paper offers the opportunity to get in contact with other members
of the scientific community working on the same topics and to collect
information about ongoing work which not yet has been published.
• Publications can be the key to become known in certain areas of the research
community if they are accessible to other researchers and cited by them (see
also section 3).
• In quite a number of countries, the number of publications and their quality is
used to award funding or bonuses to the individual researcher or the research
groups and organizations of the researcher publishing the work. PhD students
should be aware of the local rules in order to select the “right” publication
channels.
Different kinds of publications (publication channels) can be distinguished which –
in combination with acceptance rates and bibliometric indicators (see section 3) -
often are used as an indicator for the quality and importance of a publication:
• Conferences and workshops publish accepted papers in proceedings and invite
authors to present their papers during the event. Acceptance or rejection of
papers is based on a peer review process by the program committee members.
Many established conferences have acceptance rates of 8 to 15%, i.e. it is a
challenge to get papers accepted. In comparison to such conferences, most
workshops have significantly higher acceptance rates of up to 50%. Many
established conferences are included in rankings, such as the CORE ranking
[1].
• Scientific journals also use a peer review process to evaluate papers. Accepted
papers are published in the issues of the journal. Traditional journals do not
charge the authors for publishing a paper but the readers, e.g., by raising a
subscription fee. Open access journals are freely available to their readers but
usually ask the authors for a processing fee. The journal impact factor (see
section 3) is an indicator for the quality of journals. Furthermore, there are
journal rankings, such as JOURQUAL [2].
• Book publications either are written by an authoring team or compilations of
various chapters. In the latter case, the book usually is initiated by its editors
who invite authors to contribute a chapter on a certain topic. In most edited
books, a peer-review process is in place. However, there is no ranking for
books or book series based on acceptance rates.
For all kinds of publications, the most important quality indicator probably is the
number of citations, i.e., how often the publication is included in the reference list of
other scientific publications.
From a PhD student perspective, the selection of publication channels is important.
What channel is the best one depends on the motivation discussed at the beginning of
the section. At the beginning of a PhD project, workshop publications usually are a
good starting point because the acceptance rate is reasonable and workshops offer a
good possibility to get in touch with other researchers in the scientific community.
Later in the PhD process, conference and journal publications should be added.
Whether book chapters are recommendable or not depends on the local traditions
regarding formal requirements to PhD work and reward systems. Most publication
activity on the long run is connected to achieving impact (citations) and visibility (by
publishing in highly ranked conferences and journals).
3 Role of Bibliometrics
Bibliometrics is the analysis of written publications, such as conference papers,
books or journal articles, with statistical means. Bibliometrics originates from library
and information science and is increasingly used to evaluate the scientific output of
research organizations and individual researchers, and the quality of publications and
publication channels [3]. Basic knowledge about bibliometrics is useful for PhD
students because some indicators often are mentioned in public information about
journals. Furthermore, indicators such as the h-index (see below) are more and more
used during recruiting processes for academic positions and thus could be relevant for
career opportunities after having finished the PhD.
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) measures the “impact” of a journal (not an article)
within a given subject area. The formula for the JIF is a ratio: the number of citations
to a journal in a given year from articles occurring in the past N years divided by the
number of articles published in the journal in the past N years. JIF is usually
calculated for the last 2 years (N=2) or for the last 5 years (N=5). One of the many
sources for JIF is the Web of Knowledge (WoK) [4]. Figure 1 shows a screenshot
from (WoK) for the Business and Information Systems Engineering (BISE) journal
[5]. The upper part of the screenshot shows journal information, the lower part the
impact factor (2.059) and its calculation.
Figure 1: Screenshot from Web of Knowledge [4] showing the impact factor of BISE journal
Frequently used bibliometric indicators for individual researchers are the h-index
and the g-index. The h-index was proposed by Jorge E. Hirsch in 2005 and is defined
as largest number h, where a researcher has at least h publications cited at least h
times. Example: a h-index of 25 means that an author with this h-index has written 25
papers which have each been cited at least 25 times. The g-index was proposed by
Leo Egghe in 2006. It is calculated as follow: all articles published by a certain author
are ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations they received. The g-index is
the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g2
citations.
Various possibilities exist to determine the h-index and g-index for a given author.
Two of these possibilities are shown in the next figures. Figure 2 is a screenshot from
Harzing’s Publish or Perish (PoP) tool [6] for the author “Kurt Sandkuhl”. Figure 3
shows a screenshot of Scopus [7] for the same author. Although the h-index
calculation is for the same author, the calculation reaches different results. PoP shows
an h-index of 17, Scopus of 7. The reason for this difference is that the calculations
are based on different (but overlapping) data sources. PoP uses Google Scholar which
includes for this author far more publications than Scopus’ own data source. Thus,
bibliometric indicators should not be considered as the only correct and adequate
source of information for judging quality or productivity of an individual. Such
indicators should more be interpreted as what they are: indicators, not absolute
measures.
Figure 2: Screenshot from Harzing’s Publish or Perish [6] for author Kurt Sandkuhl
Figure 3: Screenshot from Scopus [7] for author Kurt Sandkuhl
The results from a PoP analysis (see Figure 2) can also be used to reflect on the
potential impact of different kinds of publications in terms of the number of citations.
Table 1 shows for the publications of author “Kurt Sandkuhl” what the share of a
certain publication type is within the 10 most cited papers (“Top 10 cited”) and
among the 20 most cited papers. Example: 21% of the author’s publications are
journal papers; 25% of the 10 most cited papers and 27% of the 20 most cited papers
are journal papers. The figures indicate for the author that book publications and
journal publications are over-represented in the top 10 and top 20 while book chapters
are not represented at all. Table 2 adds more figures to this analysis by showing the
total number of publications of the author and how many of these publications never
were cited. All books were cited, but most book chapters (71%) were never cited. The
clear majority of journal papers were cited (77%) but a large part of the conference
and workshop papers (59%) were never cited.
Table 1: Analysis of publications for “Kurt Sandkuhl”, part 1
Percentage in total Percentage among Percentage among
Publication type no. of publications the “Top 10” cited the “Top 20” cited
Books 2% 10% 10%
Book chapters 3% 0% 0%
Journals 21% 25% 27%
Conferences and 74% 65% 63%
Workshops
Table 2: Analysis of publications for “Kurt Sandkuhl”, part 2
Percentage without
Publication type Total number any citation
Books 5 0%
Book chapters 16 71%
Journals 23 23%
Conferences and 243 59%
Workshops
This analysis is only based on the publication record of one authors and by no
means representative for all researchers. However, discussions of the author with
other researchers indicate that some aspects visible in the analysis are applicable for
many researchers: it is a good idea to write books because they receive attention
whereas book chapters seem not so attractive. Journal papers seem to attract more
citations than conference and workshop papers. However, conference and workshop
publications also receive citations and should not be neglected.
4 Publication Process
The intention of this section is to describe typical steps of a review and publication
process in a scientific journal which helps to explain why journals often need several
months to process papers. The purpose of this description is to show less experienced
PhD students what to expect when working on a journal publication.
Step 1: Preparation for submission. The most important activity when preparing a
submission to a journal is, obviously, to write an excellent article following the best
practices of scientific writing. However, there are additional activities which might
help to increase the probability that the journal accepts the submission:
Look at other articles published where you intend to submit. Other articles
might give an indication regarding the preferred style of writing,
argumentation, research methods, etc.
Ensure that your work is within scope. Scope and preferred topic usually are
defined on the journal’s homepage.
Check any guidelines given by the journal and follow them (e.g. templates,
maximum length of the paper, style of citation, etc.).
If you know people involved in the journal’s editorial board, it could be an
idea to discuss the intended submission before actually sending it to the
journal. This might give interesting feedback.
Make your objective of submission explicit. What is it that you want to
achieve with the submission? Is the content of the paper supporting this
objective?
Step 2: Submission and Screening. After the submission of your paper, usually via
an online submission system, the paper is managed by the editorial staff of the
journal. Often there is one Editor-in-Chief supported by several associate editors,
track editors or subject area editors. On submission, the article often is forwarded to
Editor-in-Chief who does initial check of the article (screening):
Is the paper within scope of the journal?
Does the article fulfill basic requirements of an article, for example abstract
and conclusions?
Was it already published in another publication channel (or something too
similar)?
An article that passes the screening is usually assigned to an area, track or subject
field of the journal with its associate editor who becomes the handling editor for the
paper.
Step 3: Finding Reviewers. Most journals have a pre-defined group of reviewers
for their subject areas or tracks. However, these reviewers work on a voluntary basis,
do not receive payments for their work and sometimes are not available due to other
obligations. Thus, finding reviewers can be a process that takes time. The handling
editor selects reviewers and invites them via an e-mail from the online submission
system. Some journals settle with two reviewers, other journals use three reviewers.
The reviewers hopefully respond to the invitation and hopefully accept it. Depending
on the journal, the reviewers get 3 to 8 weeks to perform the review. Reminder is sent
if the reviewer is late. The feedback to authors may be delayed because reviewers are
not responding or delivering on time.
Step 4: Review. During the review, most journals and their reviewers evaluate
papers regarding the aspects novelty, technical quality, clarity of presentation and
importance of the work for the field. The reviewers are expected to judge the papers
for these aspects on a defined grade scale, e.g. excellent, good, fair and poor.
Comments to the authors to help improving the paper (if necessary) is an important
part of review work. Furthermore, reviewers are expected to look for similar
publications, i.e. authors should not try to re-publish work or use too much from a
previous paper. In case of similar previous publications, authors should cite their own
work and explain the relation.
Step 5: Decision. As a final result, a reviewer proposes to accept the paper as it is,
to perform minor revisions or major revisions; or to reject the paper. Since there are
several reviewers with sometimes different final results, the handling editor will look
at the comments and in particular the severity of the comments, weigh different
reviewers’ comments against each other (in particular if there conflicting reviews),
and weigh the reviewers’ recommendations against each other. If it is not possible to
take a decision, the handling editor might need to invite an additional reviewer or to
perform an own review. Finally, a decision e-mail is sent to the author(s).
Step 6: Revision. In case the decision is “minor revision” or “major revision”, the
authors needs to improve the paper to make it publishable. Based on the comments
and recommendations in the reviews, the author should improve the paper and write a
review response letter which explains how the different comments have been treated,
i.e. authors should explain what has been done, but also explain and motivate why
some comments might not have been considered. When the paper is re-submitted in a
revised version, the handling editor in most cases tries to decide based on the new
version and the review response letter. In some cases, reviewers are re-invited.
Step 7: Publication. If the paper has reached the “accept” status, the handling
editor makes a recommendation to publish the paper and the Editor-in-Chief finally
decides. The actual publication process often happens in an organization unit which is
independently organized from the editorial team. This unit produces of the final
layout and typesetting of the article, handles the copyright forms, puts together an
issue of the journal with input from the Editor-in-Chief, provides proofs to the
author(s), manages pre-prints orders, and publishes the actual electronic and printed
issues of the journal.
5 Summary
The intention of this paper is to provide information about publication
opportunities for PhD students who are not very experienced in publishing. This
includes different publication channels, the role of bibliometrics in selecting a
channel, typical review processes for journals and the motivation for publishing in
general. This paper cannot be more than a piece of advice which always should to be
complemented with guidance from the supervisors of a PhD student.
Some guiding questions to PhD students
When starting PhD work, one of the first questions after having selected the PhD
topic might be:
Who is working on similar topics? At what conferences are the results
published?
This is where you should go and try to position your first publications!
Furthermore, you might want to discuss two questions with your supervisor:
Are there any formal requirements how many publications and what kind of
publications (journal, conference) are required for a PhD degree?
Is resource distribution to the research unit or evaluation of the quality of
research based on bibliometric indicators? If so, what publication channels and
what kind of publication should be preferred?
The answers to these questions might help in selecting publication channels.
References
1. Computing Research & Education (CORE) Conference Ranking. http://
http://www.core.edu.au/conference-portal Accessed 14.11.2016.
2. German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB) journal rating,
edition 3. http://vhbonline.org/en/service/jourqual/vhb-jourqual-3/complete-list-
of-the-journals/ Accessed 14.11.2016.
3. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics.
4. Web of Knowledge. Offered by Thomson Reuters.
http://www.webofknowledge.com/ Accessed 14.11.2016.
5. Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE). Journal published by
Springer Verlag. http://www.bise-journal.com/ Accessed 14.11.2016.
6. Harzing, Anne-Wil (2013) The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective
and responsible citation analysis. ISBN 978-0-9808485-0-2 (PDF).
7. Scopus. Offered by Elsevier. http://www.scopus.com/ Accessed 14.11.2016.