Signup date: 13 Mar 2013 at 9:53am
Last login: 17 Nov 2015 at 6:25am
Post count: 256
The deadline of conference could be extended as many as three times until there are more people. It is possible that many prefer to submit their proposal on the last day or last hour; they continue to revise the abstracts again and again.
One of the conference papers that i have recently submitted was assigned the number: 642; but they still extend the deadline two more times.
Based on my limited experience, a “reliable conference” may have the following characteristics:
1. The invited speaker is an editor of journal or someone prominent.
2. There is best paper award, excellent paper award or equivalent…
3. The venue is confirmed. (If the organiser is not sure of the venue, it could be the uncertainty in sufficient number of participants? The organiser has not booked the venue just in case the conference will be folded?)
One way of setting the dispute is to divide research investigations into five parts: conception of original idea, design of experiment, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation (Dickson et al. 1978). The order of authorship could be determined by ranking the number of areas in which significant contributions were made. However, the problem is preassigned roles can be changed when responsibilities are transferred during the project...
For these 5 parts of the research investigations, the relative contribution of each researcher can be assessed. For each part, total contributions should equal 100 percent. When all contributions have been assigned, the percentage values could be added, resulting in a score between 1 to 500. The relative contribution of all participants can then be assessed.
Alternatively, individual contribution in this research investigation can be specified in the manuscript.
The first author should be the person who contributed most to the research, including drafting of the manuscript. The sequence of authors should be determined by the relative contributions to the manuscript.
The attempt by “senior researchers” to force their way onto the publications of junior investigators in the absence of appropriate intellectual contribution, is sometimes known as the “White Bull effect”; in a sense, such behavior is a form of fraud and scientific misconduct.
My supervisor has difficulty understanding my paper, but recently she requests to be the corresponding author… sigh…but this is still acceptable as a supervisor.
Lastly, single should need even more time to look for true love in today’s world, right?
It was unfortunate that i re-opened my thesis almost immediately because i met a PhD candidate on the day of submission...
This PhD candidate looked quite sad because he had "Major Revision" despite three papers published.
I even thought of revise and re-submit; this was my decision, not the examiners.
Although i have visited many countries, tried fifteen different airlines..., i still want to emphasize the importance of travel!
My preparation for two more conferences now is not mainly on writing papers,
but where should i visit, which restaurant is good (Michelin star?), which hotel is strategically located...
Have no fear about viva!
Then i realize it may need minor revision.
After further reading over the weeks, the thought of major revision emerged...
And i feel that i am smarter after the submission of thesis.
Because i can spot more errors in my thesis now; realize the problem of flow etc...
Maybe my mind is more clear when the stress is lesser.
Maybe it helps to reduce the time for revision later...
in a sense, one may prepare viva in a relaxed way by slowly re-reading your thesis again...
But it is also good to enjoy a holiday trip say Hawaii :-)
You can check the "ACM Word Template for SIG Site"...
In Page 2 column 1, you can find this section...
Place Tables/Figures/Images in text as close to the reference as possible (see Figure 1). It may extend across both columns to a maximum width of 17.78 cm (7”).
In Page 2 column 2, you can find figure 1.
That is, the figure or table can come later...
Anyway, this is my interpretation of ACM guideline.
If figure 1 appears first, the reader may not be clear of its purpose.
But psychresearcher's suggestion is also possible for other writings...
I have just submitted a conference paper which is about 8700 words in 18 pages.
(They suggest 3000 to 6000 words.)
Anyway, they have already accepted it as Oral Presentation. So i feel safe to do it...
But maybe Dan wants to take a risk. just to check if this conference is interested in money? ;)
Actually, it can be quite dangerous if you share equipment with someone who is not meticulous.
When the equipment is spoilt, it may take some time to be repaired. Worst still, your experimental data could be questionable or your thesis deadline can be affected.
To be proactive, it may be good to understand this colleague's situation.
Try helping him to visualize hope or success...
They may not reject your paper.
But your paper just appears to be wordy.
Based on the word count, you may not have summarized your findings in table.
A good paper should have some nice figures... :/
Similarly, your powerpoint presentation should not be all words...
Masters DegreesSearch For Masters Degrees
An active and supportive community.
Support and advice from your peers.
Your postgraduate questions answered.
Use your experience to help others.
Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account
Enter your username below to login to your account
An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.
or continue as guest