3 ms·

Fyi, it's quite common to have a paper rejected on the first (couple of) submission(s). With feedback along the lines of "not interesting enough", it's usually

by t_mann 2y ago

Fyi, it's quite common to have a paper rejected on the first (couple of) submission(s). With feedback along the lines of "not interesting enough", it's usually worth it trying it again somewhere else. Sounds like that venue was looking for methodological innovation within optimization, you could try it at a more domain-oriented outlet that would appreciate how your solution improves upon the SOTA for cloud resource selection. What I'm also saying: just because you had a paper rejected once with a specific comment doesn't mean that every other paper where such a comment could vaguely fit needs to be rejected as well.

firesteelrain 2y ago
I had several comments. I posted below but here are some This was my first and only research paper submission under my MS in Systems Engineering. It wasn’t a requirement but the department head was impressed that any Masters student might try to submit at all. It was to IEEE. Maybe that was hard mode? It was for a Cloud Conference in 2023. One of the comments “ This paper shows a linear programming problem to address cloud security. It's not clear why the LP program addresses security. Comparison with SOTA is also lacking.” “ The paper attempts a fresh perspective on Cloud Security Decisions using a well-known approach. Unfortunately, as currently presented, it does not deliver any significant research results, and thereby its contribution is limited. The paper as formulated is closer to a vision paper -- not that it actually is -- than to a research paper. This reviewer notes the limited results. No surprises, the paper is also missing an evaluation analysis of the results.” I had evaluation of results. I had never heard of a vision paper. This was one of the better comments that actually provide the best feedback. The section that they mention was exceptionally long was my literature review: “ This paper describes the idea of leveraging linear programming to determine how to allocate security resources in the cloud. It would be better if the paper focused more on describing the proposed solution. The current description in Sec III is insufficient. First, there are many assumptions that were made to explain and formulate the linear programming for security resource allocation. These assumptions need to be explained further, e.g., to provide information on parameterizing values such as the budget and weights. Second, it would be better if the paper describes the system models based on a current cloud service provider so that the discussion is more concrete. The implementation section can be reduced significantly, e.g., the Sec V.B. can be condensed to only show important lines of code. There is no evaluation of the proposed solution. It is hard to assess how well the proposed solution will work without evaluating the formulation based on existing cloud service providers. Additionally, it is important to choose some baselines to compare the proposed solution. The related work section takes 2 out of the 6 pages and feels unnecessarily long. It might be sufficient to describe how prior work solves this problem and how this paper differs. A final remark is about the problem formulation. It is unclear what the challenges of allocating security resources are and how those challenges differ from other cloud-based resource allocation problems.”
- t_mann 2y ago
  It's hard giving feedback without having seen the paper. I think you need to ask yourself how much you'd value having a peer-reviewed publication and how much effort/frustration tolerance you want to conjure up for this. Getting it accepted might entail multiple submissions and significant extra work on top of what you've already done. The value of the bragging rights might be limited on the non-academic job market. And getting it published is still a different thing from having impact. Up to you to decide.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    Can I email you the paper?

by t_mann 2y ago

firesteelrain 2y ago

I had several comments. I posted below but here are some This was my first and only research paper submission under my MS in Systems Engineering. It wasn’t a requirement but the department head was impressed that any Masters student might try to submit at all. It was to IEEE. Maybe that was hard mode? It was for a Cloud Conference in 2023. One of the comments “ This paper shows a linear programming problem to address cloud security. It's not clear why the LP program addresses security. Comparison with SOTA is also lacking.” “ The paper attempts a fresh perspective on Cloud Security Decisions using a well-known approach. Unfortunately, as currently presented, it does not deliver any significant research results, and thereby its contribution is limited. The paper as formulated is closer to a vision paper -- not that it actually is -- than to a research paper. This reviewer notes the limited results. No surprises, the paper is also missing an evaluation analysis of the results.” I had evaluation of results. I had never heard of a vision paper. This was one of the better comments that actually provide the best feedback. The section that they mention was exceptionally long was my literature review: “ This paper describes the idea of leveraging linear programming to determine how to allocate security resources in the cloud. It would be better if the paper focused more on describing the proposed solution. The current description in Sec III is insufficient. First, there are many assumptions that were made to explain and formulate the linear programming for security resource allocation. These assumptions need to be explained further, e.g., to provide information on parameterizing values such as the budget and weights. Second, it would be better if the paper describes the system models based on a current cloud service provider so that the discussion is more concrete. The implementation section can be reduced significantly, e.g., the Sec V.B. can be condensed to only show important lines of code. There is no evaluation of the proposed solution. It is hard to assess how well the proposed solution will work without evaluating the formulation based on existing cloud service providers. Additionally, it is important to choose some baselines to compare the proposed solution. The related work section takes 2 out of the 6 pages and feels unnecessarily long. It might be sufficient to describe how prior work solves this problem and how this paper differs. A final remark is about the problem formulation. It is unclear what the challenges of allocating security resources are and how those challenges differ from other cloud-based resource allocation problems.”

t_mann 2y ago
It's hard giving feedback without having seen the paper. I think you need to ask yourself how much you'd value having a peer-reviewed publication and how much effort/frustration tolerance you want to conjure up for this. Getting it accepted might entail multiple submissions and significant extra work on top of what you've already done. The value of the bragging rights might be limited on the non-academic job market. And getting it published is still a different thing from having impact. Up to you to decide.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Can I email you the paper?