We are writing a paper about an algorithm that takes a group of solutions and sorts them by their likelihood of being equal to the one and only ‘good solution’.

Internally, we refer to this ‘good solution’ as meromero, which is a Mexican street slang for ‘the most important’ or the precisely for ‘the one and only’.

I like the word because it allows naming an important concept with a funky and short sound. Also, it forces you to draw your eyes towards it, creating some kind of highlight about the ideas related to this ‘one and only good solution’.

However, I’m not sure of using it, precisely because it is a slang word and I don’t remember ever reading a paper using slang words.

Therefore, my question is:

Is using a slang word to name a concept bad taste in a scientific paper?

Notice that this is merely a personal curiosity, we have already choosen not to use the word.

I was applying for a research position in a very well known institute in the world yesterday (infectious disease). I have currently published 4 papers in journals and 1 more has already been accepted. However only 2 papers are actually with my name listed as first author while the rest of the papers are with my name listed somewhere along the author list. The institute requires me to only list papers with my name listed as first author. Does being the first author really matter? To think that they don’t even want to look at the papers published with myself as third or fourth author really says something

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’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

I am currently in the process of waiting for PhD verdict. I have submitted the thesis last 2 weeks for examination and I am thinking while waiting for PhD verdict, I want to write a review paper on my subject. The reason is because I have ran out results from my PhD study for publication and I reckon why not try on reviewing the subject I am studying. My area of research is biological science. My question is whether it is possible to write a review to journal without being invited to do so.

I have been tasked with extract Text out of PDF made out of images, that is, it is not possible to copy past or in general gather all of the text.

There are several tools that do this, and I am in the process of testing some of them. I’ve been told by the previous person in charge that they were using Tesseract, and reading documentation about it, I thought, ok this is a really complex matter, there has to be studies about this issue.

So I am reading stuff like Comparison of Text Extraction Techniques- A
Review

In which I can see someone has done proper research on what works in which cases.

Now to my question. How do I go from this to, ok, I would like to test this out. Are this tests and performance ever released in program form? Is it something possible to track, which technique is a program using, to see if it’s the one that has been theoretically defined to my particular case?

Because I understand that it is not always going to be possible to do so, but I find 0 implementations, and I have to wonder, what good is it to develop this techniques and studies, if no one else can use them?

Is there other way to go arround this? Because I obviously do not have years of experience nor I am writing a paper/thesis on this issue, so even if I were to start from scratch, I doubt I’d get to, say, 98% accuracy, as stated in some cases. I need the best tool possible, and I am being told that there are, indeed, people that were able to do this.

So is it possible for me, at least in some cases, to recreate what they have done? And if so, how do I find it?

I am currently in the process of waiting for PhD verdict. I have submitted the thesis last 2 weeks for examination and I am thinking while waiting for PhD verdict, I want to write a review paper on my subject. The reason is because I have ran out results from my PhD study for publication and I reckon why not try on reviewing the subject I am studying. My area of research is biological science. My question is whether it is possible to write a review to journal without being invited to do so.