Factors for Publishing Research in Top-tier Journals

To publish is to make content publicly known. However, for an article or paper to be published, there are certain criteria that it should pass. Reviewers or critics normally have factors that are being considered in choosing a paper to be published. Relating to research works, top-tier journals like ACM have high-standards that are set in accordance with how to select a paper to be published. ACM sets high standards of quality for its publications. It is paramount to uphold these standards in the development and selection of content.

According to an article of Kate Devine (2001), “Writing a paper that will get published”, Jeff Skousen, professor of soil science, West Virginia University, points out that there are varying levels of journal prestige and not every paper qualifies for the most well-known. Top-tier journals usually reject more than 50 percent of the papers submitted to them, and some have rejection rates as high as 70 percent, Skousen says. These journals are rigorously edited and require very sound science and results that have meaning and application in the field. Other journals have a much lower rejection rate and are not as tightly edited, but they generally contain good research.

While originality can be a persuasive factor, "People are still able to get their work published even if it seems similar to previously published work," observes Skousen. Although one may think that most of the pertinent questions in a subject area might be answered after long periods of testing and experimentation that does not seem to be the case, he continues. "I'm surprised that there are not that many new ideas in our journals today compared to past decades," he remarks. "Sure, we get new instruments and tools that allow greater precision or accuracy of measurement, but the ideas are not that dissimilar, nor are the results that dissimilar after data collection and interpretation." Flower-Ellis predicts that more and more papers will be assessed as "valuable confirmations" rather than as "original contributions to knowledge." Another consideration is the manuscript topic. A hot topic "is more likely to be published than is an equally sound paper dealing with a currently unfashionable subject," says Flower-Ellis The scientific community does display some of the proverbial characteristics of lemmings, in publication no less than in choice of research area."
The criteria publishers use as measures for accepting a paper vary a lot more than is sometimes realized, notes Lewenstein. Publication is not a cut-and-dried process--it's infinitely variable and flexible. In particular, "peer review" is not a simple criterion, he continues. Some journals may send an article to three to five reviewers, and the editors make an informed judgment by weighing all reviews. Other journals may send an article to a single reviewer and make simple yes/no decisions based on one review. Some journals may do a lot more editorial work with an author, while others take manuscripts more or less as submitted. Although the review process can be flexible, acceptance criteria are relatively standard. Experts consulted offer simple advice for optimizing publishing success. Many say influential factors include the need for clarity, originality of thought, novelty of finding, organization, completeness, and good writing. The experts' advice may seem evident. Skousen, however, states that the most elegant research is usually simple and direct. According to Byrne, who published an article last year on common reasons for manuscript rejection, flawed or poorly planned study design and lack of detail in methods were the two elements most often leading to rejection.
In addition, in a blog article, it was stated that some factors that are most observed by most top-tier journal in recognizing a qualified research paper for publishing in top-tier journals are uniqueness, relevance, presentation, and credibility.

Uniqueness or originality, in the sense that a research topic is uncommon, something that is somehow yet to be known and something different from the average topic studied. The relevance of the paper is also a great consideration for publishing. It entails the significance it delivers to the society. How a paper is presented is also an issue. The paper should be in a form of proper documentation. Another factor is the researcher’s credibility to conduct a study. To some, it is important to know that the researcher is of reliable researcher because usually many people normally give credit or recognitions to the researcher’s previous successful studies.

Evaluation of Research Work - Good or Bad?

Various criteria are set to how a research study should be properly assessed. There are different standards on how to define and identify if a research work is good. It varies accordingly to reviewers of diverse analysis and method of evaluation.

There are different kinds of research works, however the decisive factor for evaluation are comparable in ways. According to answers.com, a good research is well-informed, thorough, intelligent, and systematic, allows for the possibility that one may be mistaken and allows for verification. A good research should be knowledgeable with its subject. It should also be detailed with information regarding the focus of the study. The research must take on specific methods; it must be organized and ordered. Moreover, it should be falsifiable and should considerably be confirmed and be verified.

The study should be able to answer and support all questions related to the topic. It should contain sufficient information and resources to back up the study. If it takes on statistical matters, it must be precise and accurate. Figures and diagrams have to be explained and elaborated in manners that it can be understood. The terminologies to be used should be simple and clear.

Taken from the reportbd.com (2009), a research should satisfy the certain criteria. The purpose of the research should be clearly defined and common concepts be used. The research procedure used should be described in sufficient detail to permit another researcher to repeat the research for further advancement, keeping the continuity of what has already been attained. The procedural design of the research should be carefully planned to yield results that are as objectives as possible. The researcher should report with complete frankness, flaws in procedural design and estimate their effects upon the findings. The analysis of data should be sufficiently adequate to reveal its significance and the methods of analysis used should be appropriate. The validity and reliability of the data should be checked carefully. Conclusions should be confined to those justified by the data of the research and limited to those for which the data provide an adequate basis. Greater confidence in research is warranted if the researcher is experienced, has a good reputation in research and is a person of integrity.

According to faculty.goucher.edu (2009), how the research paper is evaluated is based on four (4) criteria. These are sources, thesis, audience and mechanics and documentation. This article is mainly intended for the research paper evaluation of students. With regard to the sources, it inquires if the paper uses the right kinds of scholarly or popular-scholarly sources to support its claims? It refers to the consideration if the resources used in supporting the paper are intellectual and logical enough. Is the paper based on at least some recent article-length sources? Articles are the sources of the most recent and most tightly focused analysis on your topic. Having updated source of information are also significant. Gathering latest information and updates on related topic should be observed. Are the sources recent enough to be persuasive? Scholarship in the social and natural sciences becomes outdated quickly. Conclusions based on out of date evidence fail to persuade. Students who want to succeed in these majors must become persistent enough researchers to seek out the most recent and authoritative sources on their topics. Humanities sources have undergone immense theoretical upheavals in the last decades of the Twentieth Century, and for many fields, secondary scholarship written much before 1980 can be suspect or unacceptable because its analytical methods are controlled by theoretical assumptions that are no longer acceptable. The fields cannot engage in wholesale book-burning and web-site erasure to eliminate these problematic sources, but an early part of Humanities' majors' upper-division work involves becoming familiar with the currently acceptable theories and analytical methods, and with the sources from earlier scholars work which are still acceptable.

Next is about thesis. Is the paper organized by an independent thesis which at least uses reasoning and/or evidence from one article to contribute substantively to the reasoning and/or evidence in any other article, thus avoiding mere summary of the research? Is the thesis carefully composed to avoid claiming absolute knowledge if its evidence supports only possible or probable conclusions? Is the thesis supported by logically sound reasoning?
These questions are asking whether the author has moved beyond the stage of merely reporting what others say, and into the stage of being able to think creatively about the topic. Early attempts to do this may be tentative and uncertain. To protect your reputation for careful thinking, make sure you distinguish clearly among certain, probable, and possible conclusions. Be content to claim your conclusions are "possibly" correct unless you can eliminate many of the contending conclusions to claim they are "probably' correct. Do not claim your conclusions "certainly" explain the evidence unless you have eliminated all alternative explanations. Logical fallacies often arise because writers unconsciously struggle to force their research to support to their earliest intuitions, guesses, hunches, or hypotheses about what is true. (Think of how often you heard high-school writers say "I'm going to do some research to get sources that support my thesis.") Beware your own prejudices about what you think the evidence will reveal before you've impartially examined it. Let the evidence speak and you can hardly go far wrong.

III. Audience: Does the paper address a scholarly audience and correctly estimate the level of knowledge that audience can be expected to possess? Does it avoid telling experts obvious things, like defining terms of art or basic concepts, providing needless "background," and identifying experts to each other with unnecessary specificity (e.g., "the biologist Lewis Thomas" in a paper addressed to biologists)? Does it always specify the source of generalizations about evidence by correct citations of scholarship?

IV. Mechanics and Documentation: Does the paper use standard academic English usage and sentence construction, coherent and well-ordered paragraphs, logical paragraph transition, and a fully functional title, introduction, and conclusion? Does the paper accurately and consistently use a documentation style appropriate to the discipline (MLA, APA, CBE, or U. Chicago), or does it at least use MLA style accurately and consistently?

Be especially careful when using terms of art and jargon from the discipline you're just entering. As an "apprentice," you may make mistakes that a more experienced scholar would not make, and they're the kind of mistakes that damage your authority, so you should pay special attention to those peculiar kinds of words and phrases.
Double your efforts to proofread your final draft in order to catch these old errors that will come back when you least want them to appear. You can prevent one typical source of dangerous errors if you start your paper's first draft with a list of sources as you accumulate them in your research, properly formatted in the documentation style appropriate for your topic's discipline. This is far to important to leave for the last five minutes of the writing process, and if you develop the habit of doing it early you will save yourself countless disappointments in later papers. Just build the paper on top of that source list, and add to it every time you develop a new source, and you can spend your last hours polishing your prose rather than worrying about documentation format.

The citations I have itemized are some references of how a research work is evaluated. As I have mentioned, there are various ways of evaluating a research work and it usually varies on the critic or reviewer. To further analyze and weigh up the appropriate procedures of evaluation, additional comprehension of the range should be performed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_qualities_of_good_research
http://www.reportbd.com/articles/57/1/Criteria-Qualities-of-Good-Scientific-Research/Page1.html
http://faculty.goucher.edu/eng105sanders/research_paper_evaluation_criter.htm

Research ?= Future Career

What do you think is the role of research topic in deciding your future career?

This has been by far, one of the very toughest questions I have encountered. This had actually made me profoundly think of many matters. It had me reflect on the significance of a research study in our future profession. It even made me thoroughly analyze if there is a relationship between the two ideas.
I am no genius. Only an average, a mediocre type, I supposed. And what I have attained at the moment are the products of my determination and hard work. I am not degrading or looking down at myself and my capabilities. It is just that after reading the question, it made me think of how my future career would turn out to be and it made me evaluate my competence and potential particularly in the field of IT.

I have thought of numerous research topics but I suppose none was suitable enough to be considered. It was a frustration. I was not able to come up of a good research topic. That was when thoughts hit my mind. Am I not capable enough? Do I suit to be in this field? Do I have any interest at all in IT? Well, it was really bothersome. I guess this is where the connection of the research topic in settling on my future career in IT.

Research is basically developing and improving an existing initiative. It is to conduct further search and investigation on a particular development or discovery. It is through which critical thinking is being practiced. In my perspective, an individual possessing an adequate knowledge regarding a certain field of expertise should be able to come up with research ideas relating to it. With the scope of familiarity, awareness, and intellectual capacity of a specific field, it would heighten the probability of originating or putting together a topic for exploration and analysis.

To be able to think up or formulate an exceptional subject matter for research is to be able to shape out the opportunities that would be set down to someone. With a good research study, possibilities and chances or even breaks may be prearranged to the researchers. A breakthrough of a study will possibly lead to one’s successful path of career. I believe this would define and assess your capacity and range of knowledge. Your research topic may be the determinant in which area you are most engrossed with and through this, validate where your field of interest lies. This may determine and establish a definite forte or strong point of an individual particularly in the field of IT.

With the establishment of a research study, its conduction, principally its completion would be a great contribution to the society of information technology. This would also be representation of an individual’s involvement in the progress of IT. Through this, new information and further learning would be made available to the community particularly IT society.

Not only that an individual may be able to have contributions to the society with having a research study, but this will also provide great chance of being compensated for the development of an initiative. Everything today is of value. A topic itself possesses its own worth. More on if the study will be productively undertaken. There is always a valid equivalent value for all that is shaped out of a person’s potent mind. These ideas are owned and of value to any individual. And we are all undeniably aware that these are possessions and owners have certain legitimate rights over the property. We normally refer this right as the intellectual property right. It is crucial for the developers and researchers to be familiar that formulating a topic would significantly cost enough.

We should be mindful with the understanding of the significance of a research topic alone. It may be of little value but it is the stepping stone in proceeding and conducting a research study. It is the part where the commencement of undertaking a study is. It is an element of a research study which is the root and origin of the whole process. This section of research would notably shape and influence an individual’s upcoming career thus we should give it value.

Computer Science Research Current State

Computer science is an extensive field of information technology. In this fast paced time, progressive researches on computer science are rampant. With regard to this, there are a variety of articles and information regarding computer science research, its state, its technical issues and concerns that various companies or organizations have notions and opinions with their individual activities and undertakings. One of it is the IBM’s Almaden Research Center.

The Computer Science group at IBM's Almaden Research Center leads the next generation of research in information-based computing, user productivity, healthcare IT and the theoretical foundations of computer science. They invent new algorithms and architectures for finding, integrating, managing, analyzing and protecting information, and explore and prototype new modes of user interaction. And also, they are creating the technical underpinnings for a national healthcare network and do fundamental research into game theory and mechanism design, lattices and the theory of semantic mappings. The innovations they have played a role in creating entirely new disciplines such as relational database management and have also led to novel research areas such as information mining, schema mapping, data disclosure management and activity management.

The said group explores these areas from theory to systems, and from the laboratory to practice. They apply their technology to problems faced by companies in a broad range of industries including finance, healthcare, telecommunications and retail, directly interacting with clients and leveraging IBM's unparalleled technical sales and services teams. They pursue a mix of medium- and long-term research, including high-risk/high-reward projects with the potential for disruptive and revolutionary business impact. They measure their success by their strong publication record and their impact on IBM’s business and the world. The IBM’s Almaden researchers are active and respected members of their scientific communities and collaborate with universities.

Another article is the summary report of Professor Krithi Ramamritham presented by the Office of Naval Research, Asian Office about Computer Science Research in India. It embarked on the matter of India’s state of research in computer science. Has India realized its potential for high-caliber computer science research? The summary paper addressed this question in the context of computer science. It stated that India has shown the potential for high-caliber computer-science research because of the basis that India's pool of technical man power is one of the largest in the world, the growth rate of India's software industry has been tremendous in the recent past, and the demand in the West for students from India's top science and technology educational institutions has been very strong.

Many computer science researchers in India have endeavored to carry out high caliber research in spite of limited infrastructure and resources to conduct and communicate their research. Many of the researchers are involved in collaborative activities with institutions abroad, primarily in the US. Given the untapped potential that exists, researchers abroad may find it profitable to seek collaborators within India to further their research goals.

Indian computing industry must play its part, providing challenging opportunities that will bring out the potential in its employees. It cannot afford to sit on its current laurels for too long. The country needs technically-oriented leadership in the government to make this possible. Areas requiring attention include better incentives and appreciation for good research productivity, prudent management and use of research funding, enhanced salary levels for researchers at all ranks, appropriate means to set and demand accountability, and improved opportunities for peer interactions within India as well as for interactions between industry and academics.

In reference to the College of Engineering of NC State University, their key research areas are in Theory (Algorithms, Theory of Computation), Systems (Computer Architectures and Operating Systems, Embedded and Real-Time Systems, Parallel and Distributed Systems, Scientific and High Performance Computing), Artificial Intelligence (Intelligent Agents; Data-Mining, Information and Knowledge Discovery, Engineering and Management; eCommerce Technologies; Information Visualization, Graphics and Human-Computer Interaction), Networks (Networking and Performance Evaluation), Security (Software and Network Systems Security, Information Assurance, Privacy), Software Engineering (Requirements, Formal Methods, Reliability Engineering, Process and Methods, Programming Languages), and Computer-Based Education. The department has a number of teaching and research laboratories, centers and other facilities that support its educational and teaching mission.
Based on Wikipedia’s definition, Computer science, or computing science, is the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation and their implementation and application in computer systems. And there are different branches of computer science which are theory of computation, algorithms and data structures, programming languages and compilers, concurrent, parallel, and distributed systems, software engineering, computer architecture, communications and security, databases, artificial intelligence, computer graphics, and scientific computing. From these, we could derive the concept of the organizations of the state and their individual future undertakings in the field of computer science.

Based on the article “The Future of Computer Science Research in the US”, it was affirmed on May 12, 2005 at Washington, DC the Computing researchers informed a receptive congressional panel that the nation's dominant leadership position in information technology is at risk from cuts in research funding and changes in focus at federal mission agencies. The Computing Research Association, in written testimony endorsed by five other computing-related organizations, told the committee that the changing landscape for federal support of computing research threatens to derail the “extraordinarily productive” research enterprise that has enabled the innovation that drives the new economy.

The joint testimony notes a number of factors that imperil U.S. long-term leadership in IT, including DARPA's withdrawal from its historical support of university-based computer science research and cuts to the proposed IT research budgets at NIST, NASA, the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health.
"The impact of IT research on enabling of innovation resonates far beyond just the IT sector," said James D. Foley, Chair of CRA and professor of computer science at Georgia Institute of Technology. The computing research community testimony concluded with a call for the U.S. to maintain leadership in IT. "The U.S. still has the world's strongest capability in fundamental research in IT, and the most experience in how to leverage that capability towards economic growth," Foley said. But there are risks in letting uncertainty about funding that research linger.

Numerous conditions and situations of computer science in diverse organizations are varying in the researches’ extent of productivity and significance. As we look at their different states, we could run through that there are computer science researches that are ramping and mounting in investing and developing their researches while others are deteriorating and some are taking less consideration on its importance and advantage in the society.

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/agency/krithi2.html
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/research/
http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/archives/000334.html

Sample Scientific Researches

Which database is more secure?
Oracle vs. Microsoft
David Litchfield [davidl@ngssoftware.com]

Summary:

The paper examined the differences between the security postures of Microsoft’s SQL Server and Oracle’s RDBMS based upon flaws reported by external security researchers. Only flaws affecting the database server software itself have been considered in compiling this data. A general comparison is made covering Oracle 8, 9 and 10 against SQL Server 7, 2000 and 2005.

The number of security flaws in the Oracle and Microsoft database servers that have been discovered and fixed since December 2000 until November 2006. Graphs indicate flaws that have been discovered by external security researchers in both vendors’ flagship database products – namely Oracle 10g Release 2 and SQL Server 2005. No security flaws have been announced for SQL Server 2005. It is immediately apparent from the result graphs that Microsoft SQL Server has a stronger security posture than the Oracle RDBMS. The conclusion is clear that if security robustness and a high degree of assurance are concerns when looking to purchase database server software, given the results one should not be looking at Oracle as a serious contender.

Evaluation:

In my standpoint, I believe having conducted such research is of assistance to users of database in opting which database is more functional in terms of security. Comparison of two particular databases’ security stance could provide acquaintance and information of how these databases perform security. Assessing the paper’s format and flow of study, I could say that it was more of a statistical study. I am not certain on how the results and data are acquired. The fact is, the paper did not provide proper definition of its methodology as well as its abstract. However, regardless of that issue, the study is a competent research. The study is definitely of great significance and contribution to the concerned database users but I would like to suggest that further enhancement on the construction of the paper should be practiced.

Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
Tadayoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefielf, Aviel D. Rubin, Dan S. Wallach
February 2004

Summary:

The study is concerned with U.S. federal adopting paperless electronic voting systems. Analysis showed that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. Researchers identify several problems including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. The most fundamental problem with such a voting system is that the entire election hinges on the correctness, robustness, and security of the software within the voting terminal. They concluded that the voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election. Any paperless electronic voting system might suffer similar flaws, despite any “certification” it could have otherwise received.

Using publicly available source code, an analysis was performed of the April 2002 snapshot of Diebold’s AccuVote-TS 4.3.1 electronic voting system. Significant security flaws were found. Based on analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project was not maintained. There appears to have been little quality control in the process. The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run elections appears to be unreliable, and if the process of designing the voting systems is not changed, there will have no confidence that the election results will reflect the will of the electorate.

On the other hand, an open process would result in more careful development, as more scientists, software engineers, political activists, and others who value their democracy would be paying attention to the quality of the software that is used for their elections. Alternatively, security models such as the voter-verified audit trail allow for electronic voting systems that produce a paper trail that can be seen and verified by a voter. In such a system, the correctness burden on the voting terminal’s code is significantly less as voters can see and verify a physical object that describes their vote. They suggested that the best solutions are voting systems having a “voter-verifiable audit trail,” where a computerized voting system might print a paper ballot that can be read and verified by the voter.

Evaluation:

In accordance to perform a steadfast election, concerns on what and how a voting system is implemented is always being considered. With regard to the study, I deem that conduction of this kind of research is significant to the public and to the assurance of trustworthiness of an election. In conformity with evolving technology, an electronic voting system is being manipulated to try out the reliability of security of adopting paperless electronic voting system. Testing and simulation of the said system is done to be able to examine its security assurance. I actually find this research complicated to perform. Findings showed that such system may be unreliable and recommendations of exploiting open process and other particular system is advised. The study is commendable and I would like to propose that to further elaborate the function of the study, I think a number of systems should be taken into consideration to become subjects of the study.

Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source
Davide Cerri and Alfonso Fuggetta
CEFRIEL - Politecnico di Milano
January 2007

Summary:

The paper proposed some comments and reflections on the notion of “openness” and on how it relates to three important topics which are open standards, open formats, and open source. Often, these terms are considered equivalent and/or mutually implicated: “open source is the only way to enforce and exploit open standards”. This position is misleading, as it increases the confusion about this complex and extremely critical topic. The paper clarified the basic terms and concepts. This is instrumental to suggest a number of actions and practices aiming at promoting and defending openness in modern ICT products and services.

This paper concentrated on some of the issues and claims associated with open source. In particular, it will discuss the relationship among open source, open standards, open formats, and, in general, the protection of customers’ rights. Indeed, many consider open source as the most appropriate way to define and enforce open standards and open formats. In particular, the promotion of open standards and open formats is confused with the open source movement. Certainly, these issues are interrelated, but it is wrong to overlap them. For these reasons, the ultimate goal of the paper is to provide a coherent, even if preliminary, framework of concepts and proposals to promote the development of the market and to address customers’ needs and requests.

Evaluation:

It has always been an arguable issue about openness, open source and its relevant concerns. We too have discussed and tackled these issues. I believe the impact of this kind of study is favorable. It has identified a number of definitions for the term “open standard”, based on the different practices in the market. Moreover, the paper contains some proposals to deal with the different issues and challenges related to the notions of openness, customers’ right, and market development. The study used some historical data in compilation of various definitions of open standard. It is an evaluation or overview of related subjects of open standard. This study is somewhat a descriptive research.