How will the departments view the PhD, PostDoc, and AP applicants with SJR tier Q3(4) publications and/or publications on open access journals?

Personally I believe that at the specialization level of Postdoc and AP, committees are looking after publications on specific good journals rather the name of the publisher. But at PhD level I am not sure what will happen. I doubt that the super busy faculties in top departments will bother reading the applicant’s publications in detail just because s/he paid $100 application fee.

Is a publication on a Springer journal (but with SJR tier Q3) looks better than an open access journal with tier Q2?

We often do not have time to go through an article in detail. In academia, will you pay more attention to articles published by prestigious publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Sage, academic societies, Etc.), provided that all the other credentials (affiliations, ranks, names) of a paper are the same?

If I am publishing a conference paper and/or journal article which is about an ongoing, larger project, is it acceptable or even heard of to not only announce expected future work but also to explicitly request collaboration/support regarding said future work? — since the quality of my work (and the work of many others) is directly influenced by the amount and quality of the data available to work with, I would like to polish a framework which I use to collect data for a particular phenomenon of interest into one which is even more easily set-up and executed than it is now. Of course, this could also be then used for other people to easily collect the same sort of data… and so it would be nice if other parties interested in the work did so and we ended up pooling our data together.

I haven’t seen this sort of implicit “I only have so much time to run experiments so it’d be totally awesome if you guys did it too”, so I’m not sure if it’s just not done that commonly or if it’s not “a thing” at all.

I’m trying hard to achieve state-of-the-art results on a well-known dataset by introducing a new technique in my research area. By doing so, I can submit my work to IEEE CVPR (Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition) Conference -one of the top in computer vision community-.

However I’m afraid of getting bad results after tons of trials, since these trials will be my last shot until conference submission deadline.

I wonder if I achieve similar results compared to current SOTA, what will be my chance of acceptance?

I have finished 5 years of my PhD, and I have 5 publications in top tier (A* computer science) conferences based on work done during PhD. However, most of the publications are in unrelated areas. I am finding it almost impossible to compile a thesis from all my publications.

All my publications have me as first author and my advisor as second author. My advisor hasn’t read any of the publications, and he is incapable of judging them even if he reads them. I know that the work done by me can’t be compiled into a thesis. Due to the completion of PhD duration, I have stopped receiving scholarship from my Institute.

Even without my PhD degree, I can easily get a high paying job. My other option is to compile my work in the form of a thesis and hope that the thesis reviewers accept it.

What should I choose?

I want to ask a question regarding an issue in one of the papers i recently read. the author of the paper is a person with academic degree witch may receive lots of emails daily.
i want to choose a proper subject for my email and as short as possible. i have come with these ideas for the subject:

  • question
  • question?
  • a question about your paper
  • a question about paper xxx

if you have any better suggestions witch are common in use let me know them. so my email will be formal, polite,audible that will persuade him to open and answer my question.

I am going to have a private meeting with an institution next month, and I would like to use what will be said there as a reference in my doctoral thesis.

What would be the most appropriate way to do this?

I thought about taking detailed notes, or even recording the meeting (with the consent of everyone involved) so to be able to transcribe it and include the transcription as an appendix, after allowing the other participants to review the notes/transcription to correct eventual mistakes.

Are there other alternatives? Is this somewhat usual?

Background:
I am a PhD student and am one step away from graduating. I have created a dataset in 3D microscopy vision, particularly 3D surface reconstruction from scanning electron microscope images, and the work has been already published in a highly respected journal. I would like to share the dataset with the research community to draw attention and possibly evaluate the contribution(s).

Question:
I am wondering what are the typical channels that scholars use to share datasets?

I’ve written this document developing a new theoretical model, with many definitions, some examples (with diagrams), and some fundamental uses of this model which are closely intertwined with its definition (specifically, without them it is not clear why it’s interesting at all). It does not present nor discuss experimental results.

So, this thing is shaping up to take somewhere between 45-50 pages (still working on a few parts of it). Granted, that’s in 1-column mode and in the default font size of the article document class, and there are generously-sized diagrams, a TOC, references and an index – but still, pretty long. I don’t think that a reasonable 10-12 page conference paper can be cut out of it: Either it would have no grounding and be based on hand-waving; or it would be bits-and-pieces all over the place; or it would be a long series of definitions which doesn’t go somewhere very interesting. On the other hand, this is not book-length material.

My question is: How / in what kind of venue could I try to get this thing published?

Notes:

  • I’m in applied computer science, even if the document is somewhat theoretical/reflective.
  • I’m open to outside-the-box suggestions