Is there any difference between an extended version of a conference paper submitted to a journal and a brand new paper?

Question

If I extend my paper accepted by the conference and submit it to a new journal. This journal also agrees to accept extended versions of conference papers.

https://www.computer.org/digital-library/journals/tc/call-for-papers-general-submissions

Extended versions of published conference papers are welcome, but they must have at least 40% new impacting technical/scientific material in the submitted journal version, and there should be less than 30% verbatim similarity as reported by a tool (such as CrossRef). Additionally, the conference papers and the detailed summary of differences must be included as part of the journal submission to TC.

Is there any difference between this paper and the brand new non-extended paper?

1. Is this extended paper a regular paper?
2. Can it be considered a new paper? Can I use it as a graduation?3
3. What is the format difference between an extended paper and a new non-extended version? For example, will the journal specifically mark extended papers? Or give a different issue number?
4. When I introduce this paper, do I need to emphasize that it is an extended version?

Thanks!!!

Answer 1

A journal paper extending a conference paper is a regular journal paper. I hve never seen a journal imposing any superficial distinctions on them like different format, numbering or special markings. There might a line in the frontmatter to designate the conference paper it is based on, but most of the time, referencing the conference paper is just handled by the authors as part of the introduction. How exactly to cite the conference paper has been asked and answered before:

How to cite a conference paper in an "extended" journal version?

An extended journal version supersedes the conference paper in many ways. For example, in most cases one would just cite the journal paper, not the conference paper anymore. I've often seen people listing the two versions as one publication on the CV (if using a single publication list), but I see nothing wrong with having a separate list for journal and conference papers. When compiling a "selected papers" or "10 top publications" or similar lists, including both a journal paper and the conference paper it extends would be very odd.

I would be very surprised if a university with a formal "3 papers for graduation"-rule would accept a conference paper and the extending journal paper as two of them. But the decision is ultimately made by whoever is in charge of enforcing that rule.