This document outlines IHTE's publishing strategy and best practices. The vision is for IHTE researchers to publish high quality papers in top journals and conferences by 2016 that clearly contribute to their fields and are referenced by others. The strategy involves well-planned research, choosing high-impact forums, getting support for writing, and setting publication targets. The policy prioritizes level 2 and 3 journals/conferences, aims for clear contributions, and guarantees travel funding. Researchers should identify key forums and get peer feedback. Support includes training, funding, and guidance from supervisors. Quality is prioritized over quantity and project reporting can directly inform publications.

1. 8.5.2015
1
IHTE’s publishing strategy: policy,
best practices & action for support
V. 0.2
TTY/IHTE
Heli Väätäjä & Other contributors
8.1.2012
1
8.5.2015
Why is this important (motivation)?
1. You (individual)/We (IHTE) are known by
• What you/we publish (themes, quality etc.)
• Where you/we publish (forums – community, audience)
• In a multidisciplinary field forums differ a lot!
2. You/we are assessed by the publications (forums, nr of
references to the papers, alone/joint papers etc.)
• Funding (personal/IHTE level)
• Career building, partnerships etc.
• Personal incentives in the future for publications?
2
8.5.2015
Outline
• Vision
• Strategy
• Policy
• Choosing forums
• Reaching the vision
3
8.5.2015
Vision (tentative)
We are known by 2016 for our high quality
research papers with clear contribution in
relevant research fields that are published in
best forums and referenced by externals.
Measures (examples):
• Xxx papers yearly in level 2 &3 journals and conferences
• Or yy% of research papers per year are by 2016 published in
the top (Forum list, levels 2 & 3) conferences and journals.
• Or By 2016 each research paper published by researchers @
IHTE has at least one reference by externals within two years
of publication.
• Or At least one research paper per year for each researcher is
referenced by externals by 2016.
4
8.5.2015

2. 8.5.2015
2
How is this made to happen (strategy)?
• Well-planned, high-quality research -> publications
• Each published paper has a clear contribution to the relevant field
• Support for writing good quality publications
• Making informed decisions on how to choose the forums where
publishing
• Timing of the publishing correct
• Other ways of making the publications known than databases
5
8.5.2015
Policy
• Aim for the best and most suitable publication forums for the topic (top)
• Travel funding guaranteed (once per year even when the project would not have
travel funding [TO BE ALIGNED WITH OHJ])
• Aim for journal and long papers, short papers by informed decision
• Look at the organizing committee or editorial board – tells a lot about the
quality and relevance – similarly look at previous articles in the forum
• Projects are planned so that the target forums and publication
themes known
• Each researcher should, together with his/her supervisor and/or project
team, identify their main publication forums
• Journals, flagship and 1st-tier conferences priority (impact factor),
• Other conferences case-by-case consideration prior to submission
• E.g. in case of first papers, when fast/focused publishing needed or if
funding for travel available
• Setting personal targets per year (or per half year)
• Research/project work planned around deadlines, when possible
• Project managers should reserve time for writing
6
8.5.2015
Choosing forums 1: Bibliometric factors as a
way to choose forums
7
8.5.2015
Bibliometric factors: Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Source Normalized Impact per Paper
(SNIP) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), H-index
• Note: also journal’s publisher provides information, check also these (including the
editorial board, gives a good hint on quality and suitability of the journal)
• Conferences provide usually info only on acceptance rate (not usually in less reputable
ones), but impact factors can be calculated!!!
• the master journal list of Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science,
• the title list of Elsevier’s Scopus,
• the journal ranking lists produced in Norway, Denmark and Australia, and
• European Science Foundation’s European Reference Index for the
Humanities (ERIH)
8
8.5.2015
Example: ISI Web of Science: journal citation report (query 11/2011)

3. 8.5.2015
3
Choosing forums 2: Info given by the
Finnish Publication Forum
• Finnish publication forum has prepared a list of
publishing forums (journals, conferences) &
book publishers
• Current listings can be found in excel format at:
• http://www.tsv.fi/julkaisufoorumi/kanavaluettelot.
htmll
• Listing updated every three years
• New publications enter into Level 1
9
8.5.2015
Finnish publication Forum: Categorization
of journals and conferences to 3 levels
Level 1: Domestic and foreign scientific publication channels
• the central publication channels of domestic and foreign origin that meet the criteria
of scientific publication channel.
Level 2: Leading scientific publication channels
• the researchers from different countries publish their best research.
• Each panel rates to the level 2 at most 20 % of the journals and series belonging to
its area of research. This share is calculated from the number of publication
channels on the panels list.
Level 3: “Top”
• A panel may also choose to classify 25% of the level 2 journals and series in its list
to level 3 to mark out the world top publication channels in its field.
Notice:
• listing on conference categorization seems somewhat random on what the criteria
have been – level 1 is very wide in terms of what is the ”quality” and impact
10
8.5.2015
11
8.5.2015
Level 1 Level 2 (top) Level 3 (best of top)
IJMHCI IJHCI ACM Trans. on CHI
IJTHI IJHC studies HCI
IwC EJIS JMIS
Interactions IEEE Pervasive
Computing
ACM Trans. On IS
JITTA CSCW (journal) IS, ISJ, ISR
Mobile IS BIT
Scandinavian journal of
IS
PUC
JLBS
Examples of journals in the Forum listing
In the planned funding model of universities by Ministry of education (starting 2013),
10% of funding based on level 2,3 publications – 3% based on level 1.
12
8.5.2015
Level 1 (NOTE: very different ”quality”) Level 2
Mobile HCI SIGCHI (=CHI)
NordiCHI SIGGRAPH
ISMAR; ACM/IEEE Symp. Mixed & AR ICIS
TEI (Tangible and embedded int.) UBICOMP
DIS ACM Multimedia
HRI (ACM/IEEE c. on human-robot int.) CSCW
INTERACT
ECIS, HICS
MUM, DUX
UIC (ubiq. intelligence and computing)
IEEE Pervasive computing and comm.
ECSCW
IUI (intelligent user interfaces)
UIST User Interface Software and Technology
Examples of conference categorization by Forum

4. 8.5.2015
4
IHTE’s categorization (draft) with examples
(1-2 tier cut off points & criteria to be decided)
Flagship
(Visibility of IHTE
& personal
contribution)
1-tier (personal
contribution to ”top”,
impact factor per paper
>3)
2-tier (personal contribution in
other conf. with good quality,
proposal: impact factor >2, not
checked for all below)
CHI (JUFO 2) UIST Design & emotion soc. conferences
MobileHCI DIS, PDC Communities & Tech.
…? GROUP DUX
SIGGRAPH (JUFO 2) TEI
CSCW (JUFO 2), ECSCW PERSUASIVE
IUI OZCHI
NordiCHI, INTERACT
EUSIPCO
UBICOMP (JUFO 2)
ACM Multimedia (JUFO 2) ALL of these conferences need to
be on Forum list!
ICIS (JUFO 2)
13
8.5.2015
Conference listing by Oulasvirta
http://oulasvirta.posterous.com/81433178
14
8.5.2015
Consider before submission (note:
some of these are on Forum listing….):
Not recommended
- HCII, British conf. On CHI
- IADIS, IASTED conferences (there *may* be some exceptions)
Consider also:
• Workshops (except when you already have a full paper accepted or you
are organising the workshop yourself) – there *may* be some exceptions
• MindTrek or other conferences in Tampere area acceptable (because no
travel costs), in cases where the paper has not been accepted elsewhere
or some other meaningful reason
• Workshop papers are OK, when there is an accepted full paper in the
same conference
• E.g. Case papers, WIP in CHI? What is the policy and impact for these?
Workshop organisation is encouraged (in good conferences)
15
8.5.2015
How to reach high quality?
Do the basic work properly:
• Literature review in the beginning of the research gives a firm
basis.
Learning:
• Get the basic skills yourself – courses available on doing
literature reviews, writing articles etc.
• Read good papers, analyze the structure and writing.
• When writing the first papers, find more experienced partners
that are interested in your topic to write the paper jointly.
Infrastructure:
• Money for proof reading available (a requirement in high
quality conferences that articles proof-read)
• Support timewise, guidance etc.
16
8.5.2015

5. 8.5.2015
5
Support from peers
Peer support for reviews – ask to read and
comment the paper draft:
• The project group
• Someone working on the same topic – or closeby
(internal, external)
• A fellow researcher writing to the same conference etc.
Return the favour at some point & Remember to
thank in acknowledgements!
17
8.5.2015
Support: supervisors, research fellows
Professors, PhD supervisors
• High quality feedback in predefined schedule
on the content and contribution.
Research fellows (yliassistentti)
• As above as part of the teaching tasks
18
8.5.2015
Writing process example
• Take template
• For each section responsibilities and schedule
when section ready (to be expected from the
responsible)
• Schedule Includes writing, commenting etc.
• The first sentence of the paragraph written first –
tells what is in the paragraph
• Things within the paragraph first as bullets or
listing of issues to be included.
19
8.5.2015
Principles for author names in the
paper - example
20
8.5.2015
• If writes – author in the paper definitely
• If comments – in acknowledgements
• If research questions or idea for the paper
by someone - author in the paper
• If applied for the funding (with a
significant contribution in the application
process) – author in the paper
Discuss and agree on the principles early!

6. 8.5.2015
6
Best practices
• Aim for quality over quantity
• Project reporting directly used for publications
• Publication venues planned according to the phase
of the researcher in his/her career, espeacially for
PhD students guidance by the supervisor
• Journals should be considered as early as possible
in the research career, when supervising available.
• Make sure, that your work fits to the venue – check
earlier publications in the venue
21
8.5.2015
Commentary
• Short papers are not bad or should not be forbidden
• for example Satu has a short paper in ACM multimedia 2005, with 27
citations currently, acceptance rate about 11%.
• Focused short paper that has a clear, important contribution is good!
• Good results need to be published fast sometimes, not always
possible to wait for the ”best conference” to be the first to publish
(to get the references).
• Also as short papers
• Sometimes journals have too slow publication process to be able
to make the contribution in time - > conference.
• If you have personal/ project funding, use also your common
sense in publishing – on forums and on the length of the paper!
• Keep in mind, however, the categorizations to different levels.
22
8.5.2015
Ideas, needs
Joint papers between projects on related research themes
• Wider research agendas and articles taking a stand in addition to ”only reporting”
List of conferences with main topics/themes
• Could check if it is useful to focus the paper to a certain conference
• align with physical calendar with short description (see below)
Article writing plans could be shared/presented in the weekly meetings (e.g. in
monthly what’s happening flash, or longer?)
Accepted papers presented in weekly meetings – what about those in writing?
2-3 year calendar of conferences (timetables) on coffee room wall
• Flagship conferences ready
• Everyone can add their own conference
• Makes it easier to plan joint trips and make peer reviews (needs to provide info who is
aiming for the conference)
• Efficiency: not everyone needs to use time for looking up timetables
Google calendar for main conferences’ timetables
• This could also be used to mark those who are aiming for the conference
23
8.5.2015
Changes expected to financing of universities by
OPM (link below) – will drive also action within
universities on publishing – impact at TUT??
The proposed research-based funding criteria:
1. doctoral degrees awarded (9 %),
2. publications (13 %, of which 10 % international refereed
publications and 3% other scientific publications - from 2015
the number of the Finnish Publication Forum classification
levels 2 and 3 publications instead of international refereed
publications and the number of level 1 publications instead of
other scientific publications);
3. competed research funding (9 %, of which 3 % international
competed research funding and 6% other competed research
funding);
4. doctoral degrees awarded to foreigners (1 %); and
5. foreign teaching and research personnel (2 %).
FROM:
http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2011/li
itteet/okmtr26.pdf
24
8.5.2015

7. 8.5.2015
7
On writing
Zobel, J. Writing for computer science
Mäkinen O. Tieteellisen kirjoittamisen ABC
Kari Räihä’s course on scientific writing – materials on samba
http://webcgi.oulu.fi/oykk/abc/kirjoittamisprosessi/
25
8.5.2015