I have a master’s degree in computer science. I wanted to publish my thesis as paper because I got a good grade, and I because I want to get accepted for a PhD degree by a top-200 university or to get work as a TA at a university.

I used existing resources and applied them on a different data set, but the results were not clear and need optimization – which will need more time (I'll do it if I have a chance to get a PhD or getting a job in this matter).

I wrote the paper according to my naive knowledge in publishing and the whole field. My goal was not acceptance, but rather getting feedback and a taste of how things work. I sent my paper to a conference; of course it was refused. I sent it to a journal, who refused. The feedback was that my paper is a draft, has language mistakes, and most of references were old. Of course I asked my supervisor for assistance, but things didn’t went well for many reasons. One of these reasons is that we have no clear results although the method was very good and promising on the long run.

I was wondering if I can get assistance from other parties like doctors from other universities, but it didn't work for me. Maybe this is because I asked doctors from high-ranked universities so they may already have a heavy load.

What should I do?

  • 2
    I fail to make sense of why getting help from your supervisor didn’t work. Why does a lack of clear results keep your supervisor from helping you? It’s not what your paper was rejected for.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Aug 8, 2018 at 9:59
  • this is my point of view, may be because it will need time, and it is not obligetary for him. and the fact that I travelled as soon as I finished my master degree, made the communication harder Aug 8, 2018 at 10:11
  • 1
    Helping someone write a paper is serious work. People don't do that without a compelling reason or sufficient reward. Why should someone who doesn't know you, doesn't know your work (and you hint at the work not being outstanding), and doesn't get monetary compensation invest any effort into your manuscript?
    – user9482
    Aug 8, 2018 at 10:29
  • 1
    "My goal was not acceptance, but rather getting feedback and a taste of how things work". You seem to have achieved your goal already, so it's not clear to me what your new goal is. Aug 8, 2018 at 12:00
  • "We have no clear results" — you don't have to look any farther for the reasons your paper was rejected. It seems like, instead of rewriting the paper, the most productive thing to do is to work on getting clear results. Aug 9, 2018 at 16:27

1 Answer 1


Inviting a professor with whom you don't have an established relationship to co-write a paper with you is rather futile, I think. In the first place, such people are extremely busy. Second, they don't know you and the quality of your work. Third, they don't know whether your findings are without blemish (by this I mean that the results, your analysis, the data and the methods were conducted to their satisfaction). Finally, they would wonder, as do I and I'm sure a number of us here, why you would be approaching them and not your supervisor or other teachers. Perhaps your supervisor turned you down for the reason that the work, while garnering a high score, isn't worthy of publication. This last one would be my biggest concern.

On the other hand, you might attract early-career academics hungry for an easy publication given that the thesis is already written.

Just a few things to note:

  1. It seems to me that the rejections you've received from previous attempts have been due to language issues. In most cases, if the language of the submitted manuscript is substandard, then the paper is not sent for review. I think you should make an effort to correct the mistakes and resubmitting the manuscript. You might then be able to receive feedback about the content of the work rather than the language.

  2. Instead of spending time finding strangers with whom to collaborate on this paper, I suggest that you resurrect the relationship you had with your supervisor.

  3. If you do choose to try to attract strangers, be very careful about their motives and be clear about your expectations.

  4. You might be focusing on the wrong thing here. If your goal is entry into a PhD programme, then a publication isn't the only way you can prove your capabilities. By focusing on this, you might be neglecting other areas that require attention as, for example, bolstering your language abilities, especially if there is a language requirement that you need to hurdle.

PS. Just by-the-by, I have seen a number of such invitations on ResearchGate, which was one of the many, many reasons I've abandoned by profile. You might try your luck there, though.

Good luck to you!

  • "This last one would be my biggest concern" actually yes he went me down. and yeah may be my findings are not ready for publication. and yes I want to publish mainly for getting phd degree. and I have IELTS so its fine for me from this point Aug 8, 2018 at 13:25
  • this one or the reviewer feedback:I do not see the originality of the proposed work. The paper looks like a draft of a paper which has been written quickly . It should be enhanced to attend the required quality of a journal paper. Aug 8, 2018 at 13:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .