Skip to main content
Academia

Return to Answer

replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

In most subareas of Computer Science having the paper with "at least 30% of new material" would be acceptable. This is particularly true of conference->journal paper transition, for instance when a conference version of the paper is extended with new results, more thorough description of the research contribution (and/or methods, materials, related work) and then submitted to a journal. Sometimes this also happens when a conference organizes a special issue of the best papers in a journal.

Nobody will measure how many words/letters you added, but you should be able to convince the reviewers/editors that the paper is extended. Pointing out the differences between the previous publication and the extended paper in the introduction would normally help to reviewers to assess if the extension is enough. Basically, what you want to avoid is Salami Slicing or Least Publishable Unit (see comment by BlackPudding at Is it unethical to submit for review multiple articles which overlap in some respect?Is it unethical to submit for review multiple articles which overlap in some respect?)

In most subareas of Computer Science having the paper with "at least 30% of new material" would be acceptable. This is particularly true of conference->journal paper transition, for instance when a conference version of the paper is extended with new results, more thorough description of the research contribution (and/or methods, materials, related work) and then submitted to a journal. Sometimes this also happens when a conference organizes a special issue of the best papers in a journal.

Nobody will measure how many words/letters you added, but you should be able to convince the reviewers/editors that the paper is extended. Pointing out the differences between the previous publication and the extended paper in the introduction would normally help to reviewers to assess if the extension is enough. Basically, what you want to avoid is Salami Slicing or Least Publishable Unit (see comment by BlackPudding at Is it unethical to submit for review multiple articles which overlap in some respect?)

In most subareas of Computer Science having the paper with "at least 30% of new material" would be acceptable. This is particularly true of conference->journal paper transition, for instance when a conference version of the paper is extended with new results, more thorough description of the research contribution (and/or methods, materials, related work) and then submitted to a journal. Sometimes this also happens when a conference organizes a special issue of the best papers in a journal.

Nobody will measure how many words/letters you added, but you should be able to convince the reviewers/editors that the paper is extended. Pointing out the differences between the previous publication and the extended paper in the introduction would normally help to reviewers to assess if the extension is enough. Basically, what you want to avoid is Salami Slicing or Least Publishable Unit (see comment by BlackPudding at Is it unethical to submit for review multiple articles which overlap in some respect?)

Source Link
al_b
al_b
  • 703
  • 4
  • 5

In most subareas of Computer Science having the paper with "at least 30% of new material" would be acceptable. This is particularly true of conference->journal paper transition, for instance when a conference version of the paper is extended with new results, more thorough description of the research contribution (and/or methods, materials, related work) and then submitted to a journal. Sometimes this also happens when a conference organizes a special issue of the best papers in a journal.

Nobody will measure how many words/letters you added, but you should be able to convince the reviewers/editors that the paper is extended. Pointing out the differences between the previous publication and the extended paper in the introduction would normally help to reviewers to assess if the extension is enough. Basically, what you want to avoid is Salami Slicing or Least Publishable Unit (see comment by BlackPudding at Is it unethical to submit for review multiple articles which overlap in some respect?)