I have some new ideas regarding a concept in computer science and have done considerable independent reasearch work.None of the faculty members in my university seem to be interested in helping an independent undergrad thesis in computer science.I have some time to complete it formally, though.

Could anyone please tell me the steps to get my paper published ? What should I ensure about my paper before sending it for publication ?

I am confused as to what to do , there are so many things- transations, journals , proceedings, conferences ..etc , How are these different and where it is the best to send a research paper ?

  • 2
    there are lot to learn for a successful worthy publication and you need to find someone interested to help you. The best way is to do whatever you can do by yourself. Once you have some tangible contents (perhaps prematurely written and organized), then try to find a potential co-author with good record of publications and see if he/she agrees to help you with the rest. This is better way to succeed. I am sure if you try you can find. You may not look for well-known professors in MIT or Harvard, I guess an enthusiast postdoc or last year PhD students with couple of papers can be of great help.
    – Espanta
    Jan 1, 2014 at 10:56

2 Answers 2


Generally for computer science the accepted methodology is to publish your initial idea or concept with some preliminary results in a conference. Then afterwards if there is still more to discuss you can continue publishing conference papers or target a journal for an in depth publication.

To get started you need to find a conference that suits your area of research. For example if you are working in computer vision you might target CVPR. There are a number of databases full of conferences, which should help you find an appropriate venue. Then read the submission requirements. Usually conferences have a LateX template you can use for your paper.

You should ensure your paper conforms to all conference regulations, has been spell checked and proof read by yourself and someone else.

  • 1
    CVPR is probably way too hard for an undergrad, unless guided by a person with a track record publishing in CVPR. You don't want to discourage the student :) May 7, 2021 at 2:40

First ask yourself: are your results groundbreaking?

If so, then it is going to be very difficult to get it published as an independent researcher, because no one will believe that you are capable of obtaining such results. Mathematicians get journal submissions and emails proving the Riemann hypothesis all the time; unless the person has a track record of having a valid publication, your submission will not get taken seriously. It is a sad fact that academics judge you based on whether you are associated to an institution or not, but because of so many "cranks" who contact us, the attitude of mistrust has developed over many years.

However, if you honestly believe it to be a valid piece of research work, then you should look at how the previous work that you base your results on were handled (if your research is completely independent of ALL previous literature in your field, then it is another sign that your work may be invalid, or that it will take a tremendous amount of effort to convince the academics that it is valid). Try to write your paper in the similar manner to the previous works (in particular, use LaTeX), and as a rule of thumb, submit your paper in the same conference/journal (or slightly worse) as those.

  • 1
    "If so, then it is going to be very difficult to get it published as an independent researcher, because no one will believe that you are capable of obtaining such results.". Again this is mostly nonsense and based on your own personal opinion/experience. A well-written paper speaks for itself and in any case, many submissions are double-blind.
    – badroit
    Jan 3, 2014 at 15:09
  • @badroit Sure. If you are capable of writing a research-level article, you submit it to a journal and see what happens. I happen to get several emails a month from independent researchers claiming to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, having a non-computer proof of the four color theorem etc. and EVERY one of them was bogus (with the error being spot-able within 10 minutes of actually reading the paper), and the papers were so poorly written that no one would have believed them to contain real results.
    – user10269
    Jan 4, 2014 at 21:20
  • @badroit Not knowing whether how new the OP is to the research thing, I am actually more inclined to believe that he is one of the cranks. "New idea regarding a concept in computer science" is a phrase that makes me nervous enough, in any case, and the fact that none of the faculty in his university wanted to help is another clue.
    – user10269
    Jan 4, 2014 at 21:22
  • 1
    Well, simply put, I think the OP has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't see how it is productive to label people as "cranks" on a whim.
    – badroit
    Jan 5, 2014 at 17:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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