Writing a Publishable USENIXSAGE Technical Paper

1
Writing a Publishable USENIX/SAGE Technical Paper

• Joshua S. Simon
• ltjss_at_colltech.comgt
• Collective Technologies April 8, 1998

2
Quickest way to get published

• Bribe the Committee
• We may be easy
• But were not cheap!

3
Overview

• Why?
• What the Committee looks for
• Increasing your chances

4
Why me?

• Attendee busybody
• LISA 1994-1998
• USENIX 1995-1998 (1999?)
• Program Committee, LISA 97
• Practicum Track advisor, LISA 98
• Program Committee, LISA 99

5
Why you?

• Why not?
• Companies want their name associated with
  published papers
• Managers need justification to send people to
  conferences
• Good for your recognition in the field
• Good for your career

6
What the Committee looks for

• Extended abstract
• Relevance
• Presentation
• Quality
• Overall
• Comments

7
Extended abstract

• Maximum 5 pages
• Can be in outline format
• but include paragraphs!
• Can you write clearly about your topic?
• Can you organize your thoughts well?
• Can you convey sufficient information to readers?

8
Extended abstract (continued)

• Include graphs, figures, tables
• if central to the paper
• dont count against the page limit
• Include notes to the Committee

9
Relevance

• Is the paper appropriate for a USENIX conference?
• Marketing papers
• The Australian emus mating habits
• Is the work of interest to some or all of the
  attendees?
• Will some or all of the attendees want to attend
  a talk on this paper?

10
Presentation

• Is the paper readable?
• Is the language understandable?
• Is the problem well-stated?
• Are the goals of the solution well-stated?
• Are the tests of the solution well-stated?
• Are the results well-stated?

11
Quality

• Does the abstract briefly clearly state the
  goals and conclusions
• Is the work technically correct?
• Is the work any good?
• A new sort algorithm running in O(n5) isnt
• A new sort algorithm running in O(1) is
• Are the references sufficient?

12
Overall

• Should we accept this paper?
• Not an average of the previous 3 values
• Presentation, Relevance, and Quality can be
  improved between abstract and final paper
• Fudge factors for intangibles allowed
• Is it fun?

13
Comments

• Qualifications of the reviewer
• Written feedback for the author
• Comments for the Committee only

14
Questions we ask

• What are the weakest and/or least understandable
  parts of this work
• with respect to its presentation?
• with the technical aspects?
• Are the goals correct?
• if not, how should they be changed?

15
More questions we ask

• If you think this paper should not be accepted,
  what needs to be done to it to change your mind?

16
Statistics

• LISA 96
• accepted 29 of 76 papers (38)
• 1,058 of gt1,650 attendees new to LISA (64)
• LISA 97
• accepted 23 of 56 papers (41)
• LISA 98
• accepted 30 of 63 papers (48)
• 1,985 attendees

17
1998 LISA attendee affiliations
18
Increasing your chances

• Be clear concise
• Have an outline of the paper
• Include the introduction
• Include graphs, figures, tables
• Include references
• Answer the questions the Committee asks
• Bribe the Committee

19
LISA 99 conference info

• Extended abstracts due May 25
• Notification to authors June 30
• Final papers due September 19
• Technical sessions November 10-12
• Location Seattle, Washington

20
Incentives

• Intangible
• Recognition in the field
• More fudge factor in future submissions
• Tangible
• Cash awards Best Paper Best Student Paper
• One author of each paper gets complementary
  registration to the technical sessions

21
Online resources

• USENIX web site, http//www.usenix.org/
• LISA 99 CFP, http//www.usenix.org/events/lisa99/
  cfp/cfp.html
• LISA 99 Topics, .../cfp/cfp5.html
• LISA 99 Submission Guidelines,
  .../cfp/guidelines.html
• Submitting an abstract, .../cfp/submit.html

22
Questions

• Who are you?
• What do you want?
• Why are you here?
• Do you have anything worth living for?

23
Questions