6 ms·

Publishing to arXiv [1][2] is your best bet in the short term. - Free - Lots of subject areas (not just computer sci.) - People may cite your work - People

Publishing to arXiv [1][2] is your best bet in the short term. - Free - Lots of subject areas (not just computer sci.) - People may cite your work - People may offer feedback You do need to get endorsed first though [4] (as another comment mentions). However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published, you need to start looking around at conferences. They're usually easier to get something through, as they tend to expect much shorter papers. There are industry led conferences (like RuhrSec [3] for Cyber Security) which might be a good route to start with. But, really, there's no shortcut for getting into a "proper" journal / conference. You need to research, have funds, time and, sometimes, a bit of fame already. [1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16832/why-upload-to-academic-preprint-sites-like-arxiv https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16832/why-uploa... [2] https://arxiv.org/help/support/faq#1C https://arxiv.org/help/support/faq#1C [3] https://www.ruhrsec.de/2019/ https://www.ruhrsec.de/2019/ [4] https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hprotagonist 8y ago
Conferences as easy places to publish is highly field-dependent. It's true in the biosciences (ask me how i know!). It is not true in, say, theoretical computer science.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  Computer science in general is conference-oriented, and even more so in security. It makes sense, simply because by the time you get published in a journal, the state-of-the-art would have likely already moved forward. So it follows that the state-of-the-art work is centered around conferences. In CS at least, journal articles are used to meet the "requirements" for faculty positions and/or promotions (e.g., 5 journal papers). On the other hand, in EE, journals are more prestigious in general, partly due to the slower-moving nature of the field. A 9-12 month wait to get your article into a journal is not a huge deal. Further, a journal article typically shows more "complete" work than a conference article would, because it usually takes much more time to fully validate your work (relative to CS, for example). For instance, if you're presenting a novel low-power circuit, you could get away with a simulation and/or a hastily taped-out version for the conference paper (ISSCC is the top conference for this). But publishing your results in a high impact journal like JSSC will require that you have a fully tested version, etc.
srouhaewaehy 8y ago
> However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published. So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays? It should be a means to achieve something else. Just for the challenge? I mean besides arXiv there are many ways you can get your knowledge out there if you want to give people free (or even paid) access to it. This will also create a lot of Feedback if it's the least bit interesting. If you want your knowledge to generate new products and companies you will also find that Startups nowadays don't wait for peer review before they launch. So the only practical reason I can see is if you want to get funding. And Then you use the funding to create more papers. To… well… get more funding. TL;DR: If you think about that you want to have "proper" peer review meaybe you should spend some time thinking about what you actually want to achieve and if there aren't better ways to get there.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Absolutely. None of the modern advancements in knowledge and understanding involve the waste of time known as "peer-review". See http://timecube.2enp.com/ http://timecube.2enp.com/.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    We know peer review is unnecessary for quality and progress in science because it only became a standard after WWII. Einstein published one peer reviewed paper. There are multiple fields that have routed around peer review; everything that works on preprints and working papers. It takes more than two years to get an Economics paper published. If it took that long for things to get eyeballs progress would be exceedingly slow. Peer review may have some good points but it certainly isn’t necessary to modern advancements in knowledge and understanding.
    - dijksterhuis 8y ago
      That one economics paper, as an example, could have made one seemingly innocuous assumption that might be overlooked by later work. Let's say a paper that relies on the preprint take that assumption for granted. And then another paper references that one. And again. And again. Then the fifth paper gets adopted by a government in some esoteric policy, which causes their economy to implode. May not be necessary to just publish "stuff", but it is necessary to mitigate against the dangers of invalid assumptions.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hprotagonist 8y ago

Conferences as easy places to publish is highly field-dependent. It's true in the biosciences (ask me how i know!). It is not true in, say, theoretical computer science.

Cyph0n 8y ago
Computer science in general is conference-oriented, and even more so in security. It makes sense, simply because by the time you get published in a journal, the state-of-the-art would have likely already moved forward. So it follows that the state-of-the-art work is centered around conferences. In CS at least, journal articles are used to meet the "requirements" for faculty positions and/or promotions (e.g., 5 journal papers). On the other hand, in EE, journals are more prestigious in general, partly due to the slower-moving nature of the field. A 9-12 month wait to get your article into a journal is not a huge deal. Further, a journal article typically shows more "complete" work than a conference article would, because it usually takes much more time to fully validate your work (relative to CS, for example). For instance, if you're presenting a novel low-power circuit, you could get away with a simulation and/or a hastily taped-out version for the conference paper (ISSCC is the top conference for this). But publishing your results in a high impact journal like JSSC will require that you have a fully tested version, etc.

srouhaewaehy 8y ago

> However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published. So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays? It should be a means to achieve something else. Just for the challenge? I mean besides arXiv there are many ways you can get your knowledge out there if you want to give people free (or even paid) access to it. This will also create a lot of Feedback if it's the least bit interesting. If you want your knowledge to generate new products and companies you will also find that Startups nowadays don't wait for peer review before they launch. So the only practical reason I can see is if you want to get funding. And Then you use the funding to create more papers. To… well… get more funding. TL;DR: If you think about that you want to have "proper" peer review meaybe you should spend some time thinking about what you actually want to achieve and if there aren't better ways to get there.

mcguire 8y ago
Absolutely. None of the modern advancements in knowledge and understanding involve the waste of time known as "peer-review". See http://timecube.2enp.com/ http://timecube.2enp.com/.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  We know peer review is unnecessary for quality and progress in science because it only became a standard after WWII. Einstein published one peer reviewed paper. There are multiple fields that have routed around peer review; everything that works on preprints and working papers. It takes more than two years to get an Economics paper published. If it took that long for things to get eyeballs progress would be exceedingly slow. Peer review may have some good points but it certainly isn’t necessary to modern advancements in knowledge and understanding.
  - dijksterhuis 8y ago
    That one economics paper, as an example, could have made one seemingly innocuous assumption that might be overlooked by later work. Let's say a paper that relies on the preprint take that assumption for granted. And then another paper references that one. And again. And again. Then the fifth paper gets adopted by a government in some esoteric policy, which causes their economy to implode. May not be necessary to just publish "stuff", but it is necessary to mitigate against the dangers of invalid assumptions.