What is the purpose of a conference publication (with peer-reviewed full paper, indexed in popular repositories such as Google scholar, Scopus, dblp, etc.)? I am wondering about the purpose of the publication (not the conference). My specific queries are: (1) if there's not a second round of review to verify whether the review comments have been addressed, are we giving the due respect to the entire peer-review process? (2) why is there two kinds of rejection algorithms in the scientific community: rejection of a journal paper is dictated by the opinion of atleast one reviewer who is against the publication whereas rejection of a conference paper is dictated by the average score received over all the reviewers?
Monalisa - in my mind, it's about logistics and planning. Journals do not run to specific timelines in terms of when it has to publish submitted manuscripts. Therefore, they can run a more longitudinal review process (if needed). Conferences have a finite timeline and attendees have to pay attendance fees. Conference organisers would be unwise to ask for abstract submissions long before the conference - just so that they could potentially fit in two review rounds - and would not want to put too many hurdles in place for fee-paying attendees. That said, established conferences look to put in place very robust processes for abstract review. For instance, for a decade or so, I have been an expert International Scientific Committee Reviewer for the annual Royal College of Nursing (UK) conferences. It is a 'stringent' process and abstracts that get through do so on quality merit reviewed by experts. The conference proceeding publication is only awarded to the 'best' submissions.
Monalisa - in my mind, it's about logistics and planning. Journals do not run to specific timelines in terms of when it has to publish submitted manuscripts. Therefore, they can run a more longitudinal review process (if needed). Conferences have a finite timeline and attendees have to pay attendance fees. Conference organisers would be unwise to ask for abstract submissions long before the conference - just so that they could potentially fit in two review rounds - and would not want to put too many hurdles in place for fee-paying attendees. That said, established conferences look to put in place very robust processes for abstract review. For instance, for a decade or so, I have been an expert International Scientific Committee Reviewer for the annual Royal College of Nursing (UK) conferences. It is a 'stringent' process and abstracts that get through do so on quality merit reviewed by experts. The conference proceeding publication is only awarded to the 'best' submissions.
Acceptance of quality abstracts into international conferences is really such an effective way to share your scholar work with the world once proceeding for publication.
1- to decrease the time required for publication, especially international conference.
2- my university required three Scopus papers and a conference local or international. to get your degree.
Thank you Dean Whitehead Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak Mohammed I. Rushdi for your kind replies. A special thanks to Dean Whitehead for the detailed explanation of the various concerns understanding my specific query.
Mohammed I. Rushdi I understand that there are various protocols dictating the award of a degree. But I wanted to know from the point of view of the research community, why is there not a standardized procedure for the acceptance of a scientifc work? Or if you think the other way round, if you come across a conference paper from one of these repositories (which are common to archiving the proceedings of most conferences and journals), how much confidence do you have on the analysis of the study presented in the conference paper?
I would also like to mention here a reply of another fellow researcher pertaining to this discussion which may add to clarifying the scenario:
"The two avenues of publication: an archival journal and conference proceedings are aiming for different purposes. Archival journals may contain information that may be useful for researchers in that field for next few decades. Hence, the constant back and forth and having a more rigorous approach to criticism by peers. For Conference proceedings, peer review is quite preliminary review of the work, and is intended to bring researchers together to discuss more and address their issues. That distinction is more general and recently in fields like computer science, AI, robotics actually conference proceedings' review process is very black and white, either in or out. So the reviewers comments have to be very minimal for acceptance to a conference, otherwise the paper is automatically deemed to be rejected as the authors need to make significant changes and a lack of second round of reviews doesn't make it possible."
Thank you all for your time and interest. Good luck with your future endeavours.
Very informative discussion. I think it is an opportunity to share scholar work to get inspiration to achieve more dignity in near future.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Conferences