Some of my friends are always asking about my work. What are you doing, how are you doing that "research work".
Research is quite a challenging job. You are doing or at least you plan to do new things, that have never done before. You are creating new ideas. However, it is not sufficient to produce these new things (software, algorithm, procedure, etc) but you have to publish them as well. In a company this is called "selling the product". A researcher can not sell (in some cases is possible by selling a software or patenting some procedure, etc) but he can publish the work.
A research paper can be published in a proceeding of a given conference or in a journal. The reviewers of the paper will judge the quality of the work. These reviewers are prestigious persons in the field able to judge about the novelty of the work. If they considered it worth to be published you got yourself a publication, otherwise the paper is rejected and should be re-written and and add some extra parts and re-submit.
A researcher is judged based on his/her publications. While in some fields the journal publications are more welcomed, in computer science some of the conferences are considered as well, prestigious publications. A more detailed description of this paradigm specific to computer science can be found here.
Ps. A few day ago I found out that one of my journal papers is available on-line. This is how a research paper should look like. If something is not clear, please let me know.
Research is quite a challenging job. You are doing or at least you plan to do new things, that have never done before. You are creating new ideas. However, it is not sufficient to produce these new things (software, algorithm, procedure, etc) but you have to publish them as well. In a company this is called "selling the product". A researcher can not sell (in some cases is possible by selling a software or patenting some procedure, etc) but he can publish the work.
A research paper can be published in a proceeding of a given conference or in a journal. The reviewers of the paper will judge the quality of the work. These reviewers are prestigious persons in the field able to judge about the novelty of the work. If they considered it worth to be published you got yourself a publication, otherwise the paper is rejected and should be re-written and and add some extra parts and re-submit.
A researcher is judged based on his/her publications. While in some fields the journal publications are more welcomed, in computer science some of the conferences are considered as well, prestigious publications. A more detailed description of this paradigm specific to computer science can be found here.
Ps. A few day ago I found out that one of my journal papers is available on-line. This is how a research paper should look like. If something is not clear, please let me know.
1 Comment:
-
- Johann Stan said...
11 March 2010 at 05:30I read the article, great work. When do you come to present it in the Bell Labs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
