Heavy dry goods, delivery as soon as possible.

/question/349454074

/question/349454074/answer/90336849 1

The rejection of papers is really a blow to students' morale. As a test paper, it is not so difficult to adjust your mind when your beloved test paper is rejected. After all, you've been around for so many years. Now I find it difficult to be a cheerleader, always cheering for students and helping to greet bad critics.

Take myself as an example, my class activation mapping has been rejected twice, and the current reference number is1500+; The early coherent filtering was proud when it was submitted, but it was a blow. It was rejected twice before it was published. TPAMI was submitted by Dynamic Agent and revised twice, which lasted for more than a year, and was finally rejected, and then switched to IJCV again. The two favorite jobs recently are Quanjude, which can only be promoted by arXiv himself (everyone expects).

So, what else can I do? Submitting a paper is to move forward in frustration. How many roads must a man walk before you can call him a man?

But then again, many times the revised version after rejection will be a big step higher than the first submission. At present, in this era of rough ddl, the first edition of students staying up late is often rough. The process of being refused to modify can urge them to dig some points that they didn't notice before, and the experiment will be deeper and the work will be more complete.

So I think you might as well change your mind and assume that the first submission is rejected by default, which will make you feel more comfortable. In fact, the rejection rate of 80% is put here as a prior probability, and no one is spared.

May there be no pain and exclusion in the world. Hallelujah.

I think I need to evaluate the value of my work first, and then I want to continue to invest. If you firmly believe that this job is valuable, then continue to invest in almost conference journals, or just put arxiv directly. After all, gold always shines in these days. The biggest feeling of investing in papers for so many years is that most reviewers are qualified to judge your papers. Many times, only you can truly judge the value of your work. Give two examples.

The first one is adabn that we made in 16. Maybe at least 3 4 times at first. Every time I come back from reviewing the manuscript, I say, well, I think this thing may be really useful, but I think it's too simple (simply rejecting the manuscript is an absurd reason) and refuse. Later, a classmate changed it, voted for a slightly poor journal, and put it there after winning the prize. However, this thing will basically be the standard of adaptation competitions in various fields, and the citation will be more than 100.

The second paper, which summarizes various extraction methods from the perspective of mmd in 17, has also been missed many times. The judges are always obsessing about your method, but it doesn't seem to go up much in the end. Later, a classmate just joined the job, and the demand for paper was not so great, so arxiv was released. It was not until this year that cvpr iccv found that two papers were actually our special cases, and even one was an oral test that I was relieved. After all, today's more popular stories are easier for critics to understand.

Therefore, time will prove everything, and it is most important to grasp your own heart when doing academic work ~

Many teachers and students like to gradually reduce their contribution from a very high level, which is euphemistically called never losing money ...

But you may not know that if you are rejected many times in the magazine ... the editor will reject you by default. Of course, there is another high-sounding reason: a person who can't correctly evaluate his work is not an excellent scientific researcher.

In fact, the acceptance probability of the whole platform will also affect the editor's judgment on you, such as Elsevier system. As long as it is the contribution record on this system, the editor can find it.

Moreover, even if the above factors are not considered, the time cost should also be considered. There are only two kinds of missed papers: serious overestimation and serious injury.

The former can be degraded and solved, while the latter is basically rewritten. As a scientist, you should have your own judgment. If it can still be saved, it will be downgraded. Otherwise, it can only be a trash can.

In addition, too many papers far below the level of journals may be blacklisted. ...

However, don't lose heart. There were only two shots, but they missed. Generally, I think it's basically cold after four or five times without a positive reply. It's time to look back.