Financing science, conferences, etc. Bára Kozlíková DUVOD, 12. 12. 2017 1 Financing science • Money for organizations (= „institucionální podpora“) • Not meant for teaching students but for research • Government funding, across all scientific fields • Recipients: universities, research institutes… • Grants (= „účelová podpora“) • To support smaller working groups to meet their specific goals • Recipients: research groups, individuals (e.g., post-docs) • Industry • Private company decides whom to give money for what benefit • Recipients: organizations or individuals 2 Financing science • Government provides the greatest deal of money • Most of it goes to organizations, less via grant agencies • Grant agencies govern annual competitions for money • http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?id sekce=609 3 Financing science • Problems with direct financing • Need for a fair share of the budget • Attempt to evaluate organizations and give money accordingly • Research in different fields costs differently • Rules change from year to year 4 Evaluating science • Government passes money directly to organization as a whole • Organization needs to decide how to pass money further into its subunits • Often, the evaluation results are re-used 5 Evaluating science • Evaluation is mainly focused on publication activity • Organizations must manage reports of their results (IS, RIV) • Organizations tend to optimize • In Czech Republic: Evaluation happens every year based on RIV (still) 6 Grants • Fixed budget given for fixed period of time, for specified research tasks • Researchers specify that in grant applications, and compete for money • With grant you can improve your income, buy stuff you need, improve working environment, etc. • However, the acceptance ratio of grant proposals is usually low (<25%) 7 Grants • Grants are often granted to individuals (SomoPro, ERC grants) or teams (GACR) • https://www.fi.muni.cz/research/index.html.cs • European Union grants, EU H2020 (http://www.h2020.cz/), etc. 8 Grants • With grant you are often obliged for certain acts, e.g.: • Propagation of the grant agency • Promotion of the results, availability of the results (SW licenses) • Sustainability of the granted processed (e.g., DUVOD) • Lots of administration and "proofs" (e.g., photos) 9 Grants • Applications should... • be submitted right on time (deadlines), • be submitted to appropriate agency and panel, • be formally okay (and good looking), • be clearly formulated in terms of goals and actions to take, • contain reasonably ambitious goals, • take into account duties from the grant agency (e.g., promotion costs). 10 Grants • Experience (and little bit of luck) is a big advantage • Knowledge of evaluation processes is also a big advantage 11 Publishing procedure • Conferences vs. Journals • Presentations 12 Conferences vs. journals • Two main types of publication media • Conferences • Rapid dissemination of currently examined ideas • Reporting “smaller” results • Meeting people at social events • Journals • Reporting important (finalized/almost finalized) results • Longer validity of results expected • Automatically distributed to subscribers (global impact) 13 Conferences vs. journals • Understanding the purpose of each varies in different scientific fields • The term ’a good conference/journal’ varies as well 14 Conferences • Choose the right one! • Ask colleagues where they publish • Check publication lists of competing/cooperating groups • Check your favourite papers (where they are their references were published) 15 Conferences • Check citation databases and search engines with proper keywords: • Google, WOS, http://arnetminer.org/ • http://academic.research.microsoft.com/ • Check field specific list of conferences: • https://imagescience.org/ • Check publisher or society calendars: • Springer, LNCS series 16 Conferences • Institution evaluates the conference quality • Masaryk University relies on some metrics (rankings) • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comp uter_science_conferences • http://www.core.edu.au/conference-portal • At FI MU – prof. Hliněný defines the eligible rankings 17 Conferences • Eligibility at FI • According to the Evaluation of Employees (2015): A good conference is such that is included in at least one of the ranks below with ranking A, B, 1, or 2: • CORE: http://www.core.edu.au/conference-portal (A or B) • MICROSOFT: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype= 3&topDomainID=2 (FieldRating>=13) • WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_science_confe rences • Or qualitatively similar… 18 Conferences • There are many criteria to consider • Impact on the audience of the presentation: • Single- vs. multi-track, oral vs. poster presentation • Typical number of participants • Page number limit, full (long) vs. short paper vs. extended abstract • Organization behind the event, publisher • Acceptance ratio, deadline extensions, committee members • Variance of topics in the CFP vs. your paper scope • Recommendations of your colleagues and supervisor 19 Bad conferences • Recently we’ve started to dislike: • WSEAS, IASTED, and INSTICC organizations • Generally: • Watch out for strings in CFPs: • “multi-conference”, “Orlando Florida”, “World Congress” • SciGen story: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ 20 Review process • Paper bidding: 2 days – 1 week • Reviews: 4–5 weeks • Rebuttal (optional): 1 week • PC discussion: 2–3 weeks • Full version: 1–2 weeks 21 Reviewers • PC members, 2 – 20 papers each • Primary, secondary, external, … • Many distributed to subreviewers • PC member is responsible for the subreviewers, participates in the • discussion 22 Review assignment • PC bids for papers, few days after submission deadline • Can be accelerated by the abstracts first policy • Conflict of interest must be declared • Each paper requires 2–4 reviews 23 Review process • Nowadays almost exclusively ”distributed” • The first pass: remove clear accepts and rejects • Ask for additional reviews if necessary • Some papers initiate a long discussion • Gray zone: somebody must fight for the paper • Luck always plays a role in success … • Rebuttals: not for adding new material but respond to reviewers’ comments! 24 Tips and tricks • Check who is in the programme/review committee • Cite their work (usually relevant if the conference is chosen appropriately …) • Check time-zone of the submission server to find out how much you can be late • Fill metadata ahead of the deadline (e.g., a day earlier) 25 Presentation • Extremely important moment of your work • Both content and form matter • It can change your career (important people are listening to you) • Moral: never underestimate the presentation of your work 26 Presentation • Prepare your slides before leaving for the conference • Test talks • The presentation ought to tell the story of your paper • Do not add new results w.r.t. the paper • Take into account the community you are going to face • Get familiar with the program and guidelines (usually known several weeks ahead) • Length of the talk • Switch on the slide numbering (for the audience, questions) 27 Presentation • Double check the grammar when preparing slides • Be careful about style • Font size • Minimize text • Attract audience attention – a picture is worth a thousand words • By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. (B.Franklin) Presentation • Questions and discussion after talk • Be polite to the inquirer (“thank you for asking this question”). • If you do not understand, excuse yourself and suggest a face-to-face discussion after the session. • If you are “under attack”, suggest a discussion after the session. Journals • By access • Traditional — subscription based (serials crisis) • Open access (outside funding vs author pays) • Hybrid open access • Delayed open access • The “big three” • Elsevier • Springer • John Wiley Journal selection • By contributions • Longer (10–50 pages) • Also check the IF! Taxonomy of journal papers • Regular paper • Special issue • For a conference/workshop (selected papers only) • Anniversary (person/area) • For active new topics • Survey • Short paper • Editorial Not appropriate journals • Those published by Hindawi • Those who desperately invite you to publish Review process • Editorial board • Active members • Ceremonial members • Associate/assistant editors • By topics • Additional advice to editors • Chief editor(s)/Editor-in-Chief Review process • Two types of editors • Academics (may, or may not be paid) • Professional editors (should have at least postdoc experience) Journal vs conference • Journal • Takes much longer (months/years) • Much more thorough • Guided by the editor • Multiple iterations • Decision is not binary (accept/reject) Journal review outcomes • Accept, no changes • Accept, minor changes (no extra refereeing needed) • Accept, subject to major changes (new round of refereeing) • Reject Books etc. • You can also publish a book, once you negotiate a deal with some publisher. • More likely, you may get invitation to publish a chapter in a book. • You can publish an extended version of the conference paper as a journal paper. • You can publish an extended version of the conference paper as a technical report, if you feel the need. • https://www.fi.muni.cz/reports/ Impact factor • Defined for journals • The ratio of the number of citations to the previous 2 years of the journal divided by the number of articles in those years • Essentially the average number of recent citations per article • Only for journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports IF – related measures • 5-year Impact Factor • Journal Immediacy Index — the number of citations that year to articles published the same year • Journal Citing Half Life — the median age of the articles that were cited by the articles published in the journal that year • Journal Cited Half Life — the median age of the articles in the journal that were cited by other journals during the year H-index • After Jorge E. Hirsch (physicist, UCSD) • For an individual scientist • h number of papers that have at least h citations each • Measures productivity and impact of the published work • Accessed from Web of Science or Google Scholar • Useful only for comparing in the same field • Grows with academic age • Demonstrated to have high predictive value for National Academy membership or the Nobel Prize Publication records • Web of Science = WOS • http://apps.webofknowledge.com/ • Formerly known as ISI Web of Knowledge • Operated by the Thomson Reuters • Provides many tools: IF via JCR, h-index w/o self citations, citation reports etc. • ResearcherID — a must-have in the academia world in CZ Publication records • Scopus • http://www.scopus.com • Operated by the Elsevier publishing group • Also: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ • All services are paid Publication records • Google scholar • http://scholar.google.cz/ • It offers free services to users to update and correct links between data • Service is free of charge Publication records • DBLP • http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/ • Operated jointly by Universitaet Trier and Schloss Dagstuhl • Source of good bibliography data, overview of collaborators • Microsoft Academic Search • http://academic.research.microsoft.com • Both services are free of charge Publication records • Common issues • Major problem: Inconsistent data • Completely different numbers • Errors in data • Spelling of Czech/Slovak names • Multiple people with the same name • Self-citation vs. no self-citations • GACR accepts h-index and citation counts predominantly from WOS and Scopus • Especially WOS tends to respond to correction requests slowly Publication records • IS MU • Building our own list of publication records • The list can gather also the publication itself • Used for generating internal report figures, for submitting records to RIV • RIV checks obtained records against WOS: provide WOS and DOI identifiers Obtaining publications • https://ezdroje.muni.cz/ • Directly from publisher (IEEE Xplore, SpringerLink, Science Direct, ACM DIgital Library …) • http://arXiv.org, technical reports, dissertation theses, … • From web pages of the lab, the person’s homepage, mail request DOI • DOI = Digital Object Identifier • Example: 10.1000/182 (identifies the DOI Handbook) • Permanent, resolves to URL • Resolved through http://dx.doi.org • Not available for old publications Paid access • Most of the papers are restricted to download until you pay • MU has paid and is paying a lot • Current status: http://ezdroje.muni.cz/ • Access is granted typically based on your IP • http://vpn.muni.cz arXiv.org • Archive of electronic preprints • Hosted and operated by Cornell University • Supported by many other institutions • Guarantees long-term availability • Fields: mathematics, physics, astronomy, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics, and quantitative finance • Not peer reviewed • Organized by category • LaTeX sources are compulsory (if the paper was written in LaTeX) • Supports versioning and comments Good habits • Once I manage to download a paper, I’ll keep it • It is not always the case that the paper will be available even the next day (server error, subscription may end) • Good even for full-text search within the content of the papers Citation records • Usually from reference databases, typos can be better detected • Prefer journal to conference • Keep full names and titles in your citation records • When referring to software or data check the web page, cite the tool paper (if it exists) Storing papers • How to Organize the PDFs? • In a nice folder structure with nice names (works well for most citation managers) • Consider: occasional non-standard access, disaster of the tagging system • Observation: After some time, the folder structure will change; the filenames will not Citation records • How to Organize the Citation Records? • Human-readable (e.g., .bib for BibTeX or the widespread bibliography format .ris) vs. some binary (proprietary) format • Locally vs. “in a cloud” (e.g., EndNote) • About citation records: http://kuk.muni.cz/ BibTeX • For managing bibliography • Traditional, complements LaTeX • Many frontends: e.g., JabRef, KBibTeX, . . . • Inherently desktop-based • Bibtool – good for managing bib files Mendeley • Mendeley Desktop - PDF and reference management • Mendeley Web - online social network for researchers • Platforms (Desktop): Qt based - Windows, Linux, Mac • Citation data must be stored online (free version: 2GB) • Papers may be stored online (you have to set this in folder properties) • PDFs: metadata extraction, inline comments (annotations), file organization on disk • Bookmarklet for browsers, working on many websites • Exports to Word/Libre Office/BibTeX/EndNote • Multiple computer synchronization (via online space) • Groups for sharing (pretty limited in the free version: 3 members, up to 100MB of space)