0

Three months ago, I submitted a paper in an IEEE conference. The paper described a method to detect 'X' in images and a method to recover detected 'X' areas.

Now we want to show the performance and results of such an application on an android smartphone. For this, we have implemented the same detection method that we proposed earlier, however, we have also borrowed ideas from some other papers for a different recovery method (the recovery method proposed earlier was computationally expensive).

To summarise, the present work differs from our previous work in following aspects:

  1. First work to demonstrate detection and recovery of 'X' in an android smartphone.
  2. A new recovery method, but which it is inspired from other's work.

Does it make a good paper for publishing in a conference like: ICPR?

closed as off-topic by Captain Emacs, Massimo Ortolano, Bob Brown, Enthusiastic Engineer, gman Feb 6 '16 at 16:03

  • This question does not appear to be about academia within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a topic-specific question and not related to academia in general. – Captain Emacs Feb 6 '16 at 11:37
  • @CaptainEmacs: How can I improve it? Basically, I want to know if the new paper is good for publishing. – kunal18 Feb 6 '16 at 11:39
  • Your question does not generalise to a question on academia in general. So, there is nothing one can learn if one does not happen to be in precisely your area of work, which is the purpose of this site. Either you formulate it in such a way that, say, a biologist could profit from the response, or you would have to put the question to some other suitable site (or ask your adviser, which is, in any case, a better route). – Captain Emacs Feb 6 '16 at 11:41
3

Stepping away from the details of your particular study, what you are more generally asking about is the distinction between studies of theory and of practice.

The first paper you speak of introduces a method and demonstrates that it can work, but does not characterize its performance. The second paper would then be characterizing its performance in a particular environment of interest. From a scientific perspective, that is certainly a contribution of new knowledge (even if incremental).

To determine whether it is of sufficient interest to be published, you need to focus on the question of motivation: who will want to know about the performance and why? What else will they need to know, such that you can create a complete and informative study. The answers to these questions will depend critically on the precise details of your work and its context.

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