Preparing for Science Conferences and Journal Submissions

✍️ Submitting to a top CS conference or journal? I just released an open-source, concrete, and opinionated checklist for CS paper writing — designed to prevent desk rejects, improve clarity, and save co-authors and reviewers a lot of pain. I have asked all my lab papers to go through this checklist before submission. 🧠 Inspired by real (painful) examples: 1. Forgot to include a co-author before submission (happened much more frequently than you can imagine) 😬 2. Revealed author identity via GitHub repo metadata 🔍 3. "Novel framework..." + no baselines + one giant equation = 🚫 4. Copy-pasted LLM citation hallucinations that don’t exist 🧨 ✅ The checklist covers many things (if not everything): title, abstract, method, experiments, figures, references, hallucinated citations, and final sanity checks. 📄 English & Chinese versions available. 🌐 GitHub: https://lnkd.in/gaQ85ChY Use it. Share it. Improve it. Save a paper (or a career). #CSResearch #AcademicWriting #MachineLearning #PhDLife #PeerReview #LLM #Reproducibility #OpenScience

This week one of my main goals has been to conduct a final review of a paper prior to journal submission - thus I thought it would be helpful to do a short post about the mental checklist I run through when submitting a paper. (This is a first submission to the target journal, not a submission of a revision; and applies primarily to empirical papers.) 1) Carefully review the title and abstract. Are both informative and accurate? Does the abstract meet word limits (usually 100 or 150 words, depending on the journal)? Note that any errors in the abstract make a hugely negative first impression. Check it again! 2) Check the bibliographic compilation. Careful copy-editing of every entry is not usually necessary at this stage (if you want to do this, AI tools can help) but ensure that there are no missing references, "ADD REFERENCE HERE" notes, "???" compilations in Latex, etc. 3) Review the footnotes. Often, footnotes accumulate during writing as a parking lot for extra notes that someone may think are important or wants to remember. Pruning of footnotes is wise at this stage. Longer or more complex background information is often more appropriately placed in an appendix (where it is more clearly separate, and less distracting) compared to a footnote. 4) Review the exhibits and the notes. Does every exhibit have appropriate notes that are complete and readable? Are the exhibit titles logical, clear, and of generally similar structure? Different people have different preferences, but it is not wise, for example, to have one table named "Results" and one named "Robustness check: Alternate construction of the roads variable." They should be roughly similar in length and structure. A reader who goes straight to the exhibits and reads them alone should be able to understand them and understand the primary story of the paper. 5) Review, quickly, the section and subsection titles. Again, preferences differ - there is no one structure of a paper that is always preferable - but ensure that the titles are logical and internally coherent. 6) Review the acknowledgments and ensure that funders, partners, and others are appropriately acknowledged. If original data was collected, ensure that information about ethical approvals and any pre-registrations is provided (I prefer to provide this in the main text but some provide it an acknowledgments footnote.) 7) Return to the journal requirements and note if there are any other required documents (conflict of interest statements, etc.) Cover letters are generally optional at economics journals and if optional, I usually do not provide them; as editor, I only scan them quickly. The primary goal of a cover letter should be to convey information other than "this is a paper about X", information that can be gleaned from the abstract. For example, if the analysis uses proprietary data, or if there is some important information about the composition of the team. Good luck with your submissions!

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻! 𝟭. 𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗔 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗚𝗡 → Formulate a clear research question by identifying gaps in the existing literature. → Plan the study: Choose a methodology, data collection, and ethical considerations. → Secure funding and approvals (e.g., IRB). 𝟮. 𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗔 𝗖𝗢𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗬𝗦𝗜𝗦 → Collect data following protocols and ethical standards. → Use statistical or qualitative tools to interpret findings. → Draft initial conclusions linking results back to your research question. 𝟯. 𝗗𝗥𝗔𝗙𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧 → Follow journal guidelines for structure, formatting, and referencing. → Write clear sections: Abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. → Seek feedback from co-authors or mentors. 𝟰. 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗔 𝗝𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗟 → Choose the right journal: Ensure scope and audience alignment. → Submit the manuscript with required documents (e.g., cover letter, ethics statement). → Confirm submission acknowledgment. 𝟱. 𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗥 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗘𝗪 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 → Editors review for relevance and quality. → Peer reviewers assess originality, validity, and significance. → Respond to revision requests with constructive updates. 𝟲. 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 → Address reviewer comments thoroughly and prepare a detailed response letter. → Resubmit with revised manuscript for further review or approval. 𝟳. 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗘𝗣𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 → Approved articles move to production: Proofreading and finalizing formatting. → Ensure citation consistency and visual appeal for publication. 𝟴. 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 → Online First: Articles published ahead of print issues. → Indexed in databases like PubMed for visibility. → Promote your article through conferences or social media. 𝟵. 𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗧-𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗔𝗖𝗧 → Track metrics (citations, downloads) to gauge impact. → Respond to questions from readers or the academic community. → Use feedback to refine future research projects. **************** ♻️Repost for others #AcademicJourney #ResearchLifecycle #PublishingTips #GraduateSchool