Take the 2-minute tour ×
Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I worked on an interesting project as a PHD student. It was rejected from a top conference with all but 1 reviewer agreeing that it was an ok paper but not good enough for that conference, because more work was required. The other reviewer said it was in top 15% papers. Do the reviewers mean "trash paper" when they say "ok paper" ? I don't have the time to finish it because I have switched my research area. In the project, I also collected and processed a large amount of data which would be useful for the computer vision community. Should I just put the paper and associated data/code on my website? Or should I put it on arxiv? In either cases, I wanted to acknowledge and include a link to the reviews from the conference. Is that a bad idea? The review process was double blind and hence the reviews are anonymous.

share|improve this question
8  
The reviews could be confidential. See, for example, academia.stackexchange.com/questions/545/… and academia.stackexchange.com/questions/647/… –  Joel Reyes Noche Nov 6 '12 at 9:18
3  
In a blind review, if the reviewer feels like the paper is bad, he will often make his dislike abundantly clear. "OK" probably means "OK", not top tier, but not trash. –  Joe Nov 7 '12 at 1:22
6  
@JoelReyesNoche: Not so fast. Confidentiality of reviews applies to the referees, but not necessarily to the authors receiving the reports. (Read the questions you point to carefully!) I don't see any ethical problem with an author publishing reviews of their own paper. It might be in bad taste, but that's a different issue. –  JeffE Nov 7 '12 at 3:11
1  
@JeffE, at academia.stackexchange.com/a/550/64, Lars Kotthoff said "I think publishing reviews for your papers would in general be frowned upon, even if there's no explicit rule saying that you can't." Also, at academia.stackexchange.com/a/648/64, Lars Kotthoff commented "I would also assume that the confidentiality extends to everybody involved in the process." (But your view is represented at academia.stackexchange.com/a/546/64, where Kieran said "The author can show them to whomever they like.") –  Joel Reyes Noche Nov 7 '12 at 4:36
1  
Thanks @JoelReyesNoche . After reading the discussions you linked to, I thought it's better to be on the safe side by asking the program chairs. They said I can publish the reviews. Legalities aside, I still don't completely see why people should should NOT include available sound reviews, specially when they are submitting exclusively to places which do not explicitly require peer approval for acceptance –  Abhishek Nov 7 '12 at 20:00

3 Answers 3

up vote 13 down vote accepted

Do the reviewers mean "trash paper" when they say "ok paper" ?

Definitely no. As Luke points out, since the reviews are blind, reviewers tend to be honest, if not leaning to the negative side. If they were explicit that the paper is fine, though still somewhat preliminary, understand it as a positive feedback.

Should I just put the paper and associated data/code on my website?

I think the answer is yes, unless you want to "hide" the paper from the public.

I think about these things this way: the public (through taxes, NGO's, etc. and the subsequent redistribution to higher education and research) is paying us to do research with the hope that something good and beneficial will come out. Once you do the work, regardless of whether top-notch, or only somewhat significant, as far as it is a result of a serious effort and of reasonable quality (workmanship-wise), the public deserves reporting back on our work, as well as deserves the results. It is up to others to decide whether our work is useful to the society, or not.

Or should I put it on arxiv?

Do both. Yes, going for arXiv is a good idea in such a case. If you feel so, you can prepend the paper with explanation of why you publish it as it is.

Either way, my advice is to publish the work. Actually, your situation is quite common. What many people do in a situation you describe, is to publish and present the work in a workshop associated with the (major) relevant conference. Or re-submit it as a poster, or short paper, if the conference has such a track. Those are definitely for quality, but still somewhat preliminary results.

In either cases, I wanted to acknowledge and include a link to the reviews from the conference. Is that a bad idea?

No. I think you idea is good. Honest and open. How about including the reviews in an appendix of the arXiv submission?

share|improve this answer
12  
I agree with this answer apart from the last point. I wouldn't publish or link to the reviews. –  silvado Nov 6 '12 at 12:56

Have you considered submission to a journal? As reviewers are not identified, it is reasonable to trust their judgement that the paper is "okay", and of course "okay" at a top conference in CS could still be quite good, especially as it's within the top 15%. Although perhaps the top-tier journals would render a similar judgement, there may be a venue where it is appropriate (I'm not familiar with the computer vision area), and you could publish without an excess of additional work.

Alongside this you can (usually) always put a preprint on ArXiv, few journals or conferences take issue with this now, which allows you to make it available in the meantime, regardless of what else you decide to do with it in the future.

However I would definitely not include the reviews. Although there is no rule against doing so, particularly as the reviewers shouldn't be identifiable, it contributes nothing to your research - the reader should be assessing the value themselves. The inclusion of reviews would only indicate that you want to boast about your work, or that you want people to accept it because someone else said it was good.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks Luke. I'll clear some misunderstanding. I don't have much to gain from the paper. I have changed my area completely and this paper is so unrelated now that I cannot include it in my theis. But I think the ideas and data might be useful for the vision community. When I put a footnote saying the paper was rejected and put not-so-positive reviews, my intention isn't to boast. My reason is that when I buy a product on Amazon, it helps to see unbiased third party reviews. Similarly, If someone wants to build up on my work, the reviews might be useful(esp. as I don't have time to address them –  Abhishek Nov 6 '12 at 16:42
6  
Never underestimate the utility of an extra publication on the CV, even in a different area - it demonstrates your productivity and ability to engage in publishable research. Having said that, it's really up to you to judge whether the effort would be worth it (but definitely make it available, that's the real point of research!). With regards to the reviews, I didn't expect you wanted to boast, but to someone from the "outside" this is one possible inferred intention, which you undoubtedly wouldn't want. –  Luke Mathieson Nov 7 '12 at 2:30
    
I don't have much to gain from the paper. — I don't believe you. If that were really true, why did you waste your time submitting it? –  JeffE Nov 7 '12 at 3:07
    
because i worked on it for 1 year and i had an emotional attachment to it. I was very very passionate about it when i submitted it 5+ months ago. Few months after submission, I have permanently changed my area, and I guess in 5 months, some of that emotional attachment has waned. Also, many people I talked to suggested that publishing a rejected paper might hurt my career. But I agree with @LukeMathieson and walkmanyi that I should make it available to the public –  Abhishek Nov 7 '12 at 4:06

Don't feel bad if your paper was rejected, if you really want to publish, you could always submit it to another conference in its current form trying to address some of the concerns of the reviewers.

The problem with conferences (most) is that you don't get a second chance to submit it. There is nothing wrong with putting your paper out there in Arxiv, but remember that if it has not been published before, you could always suffer the danger of being plagiarized to certain extent.

Like Luke mentions, reviewers are most of the time a toss in the air.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.