1

I wonder what makes a paper publishable?

Is it because it provides a better solution to an existing problem?

Or is it because it identified a new problem that no one has found?

Thanks.

UPDATE: My field is electronic engineering.

closed as too broad by user3209815, Anonymous Physicist, Federico Poloni, Scientist, Richard Erickson Aug 15 at 20:43

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    Would you mind sharing the field that you are interested in? Publishing standards may vary from field to field. – Ben Linowitz Aug 13 at 1:11
  • 2
    If it is submitted and accepted it will be published. Depending on field and journal that could mean almost anything... – Jon Custer Aug 13 at 2:03
  • 1
    Regarding the close votes ("too broad"): We do have a couple of questions where a somewhat broad question is answered from multiple perspectives. An example is Assistant professor vs Associate professor, which includes one answer per country. We could easily see the question at hand as provoking one answer per research area, and I think that these answers would actually be insightful. – lighthouse keeper Aug 13 at 7:39
7

In my area, software engineering, the criteria for having a paper accepted (which implies later publication) are usually listed in the call for papers of the publication venue (conference or journal). They typically include the following:

  1. Novelty. The paper should contribute to the knowledge in its field. This could either include a new problem formulation, and a new idea to approach an existing problem.

  2. Relevance. The paper should make a point in why the presented work is relevant.

  3. Soundness. The work presented in the paper should apply a sound methodology. The argumentation presented in the paper (in particular, technical reasoning) should withstand scrutiny and be reproducible by experts in the field.

  4. Presentation Quality. The paper should be logically organized, self-contained, use appropriate scientific language and writing style, and be free of major language flaws. In some research directions, there is a standard paper organization that should be followed (for example: Introduction, Related Work, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion).

  5. Appropriate consideration of related work. The paper needs to depict its own contribution within the landscape of existing research. Closely related work has to be referenced and discussed.

  6. Validation. (Only applies to papers that contribute some solution to a problem; a counter-example to this are empirical study papers.) The paper needs to validate the presented solution, for example, using a theoretical validation with theorems and proofs, or an empirical validation in which the solution is applied to realistic instances.

There is a lot of variation in how these criteria will be interpreted specifically. Some venues will have much higher standards than others, with top international conferences and journals on the one, and small national workshops at the other end of the range. Some venues will offer special paper types (for example, experience reports or tool demonstrations) that de-emphasize some of the criteria.

  • Thanks. I wonder if I apply an existing method of another problem to a new problem, is it novel? – Lei Xun Aug 13 at 10:30
  • @LeiXun Yes, in my research area, that would be a common approach to achieve novelty. For publication at a top conference or journal, one would have to show that the new method achieves an improvement to the state of the art (Validation). – lighthouse keeper Aug 13 at 10:37

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