I explained myself very poorly. What I was trying to say is this: the present form of the paper focuses on techniques for reducing large networks of co-occurrences netween ethnographic codes. It uses data from three projects, and tries to present these techniques as generalizable, independently of the specific study that each dataset comes from. The paper is content-blind.
Parts of it are appropriately so. The effectiveness of each technique at reducing the number of nodes and edges is independent of the codes those nodes represent. Using three datasets, we show exactly that techniques work in the same way across different studies, and produce different effects.
If we bring content back into the picture, we need to add a lot of length to support sub-section Mapping network reduction techniques onto four major approaches in sociology and anthropology. It’s almost a second paper, growing inside of the existing one.
Unless… @Richard, @Maniamana, @Wojt: do you think it is possible to find, say, two examples per each technique, if I take your data and apply each technique to the “mother” graph?
I changed my mind on this, @Richard. I now believe that, with the correct emphasis, we can indeed improve the article this way. @Maniamana , @Wojt, can you make it to Monday’s seminar? Things will become much clearer after we present the paper.
Helllo @icqe22_authors, reviving this thread as I am preparing to submit the latest version of this paper to Applied Network Science. But I have a strategic problem, and would like your opinion on it.
Recall how the editor of Sociological Methods & Research had suggested that our paper would make a lot more sense with an example. Well, we now do have that example: it’s the analysis we submitted to ICQE22. However, in the ICQE22 paper, the description of the reduction methods themselves is much less developed than in the SM&R paper. So, we discussed a strategy was to revive the SM&R paper, and graft to it a section Application, which would be lifted from the ICQ22 paper.
The strategic problem stems from the issue of text recycling. The SM&R paper was never published, but some parts of it were used for the iCQE22 one, which is also, at this time, not published, but it could be (after revision). The new ANS paper would then consist of two parts: one introducing the method (partially recycled) and one with the example (totally recycled). The situation is complicated by the fact that, of course, ICQE22 is not a journal.
To the more experienced academics in the group: what do you think we should do?
Conference papers are basically expected to be published in journals. As long as the ICQE paper does not in and of itself become a basis for another publication, I think that should be fine.
The journals on which I am a member of the Editorial Board would not consider articles, large chunks of which exist elsewhere. (Of course, there’s no definition of what constitutes a ‘large chunk’.) The Applied Network Science paper would thus have to offer some data or analysis that is new. From an academic perspective, a journal article is worth much more than appearing in ICQE22. Are you required to publish with ICQE22?
As this is your baby, the final decision about where to publish should absolutely be yours but, speaking as an academic, publishing in conference proceedings (which is how I have understood the ICQE22 output to be) is of no value. If I were you, I would write to the editor of ANS and ask whether the proposed article submission would be considered sufficiently different from the potential ICQE22 publication (as per your table above) to constitute an original article. If not, I would prioritise ANS. But, of course, the decision is yours.
In my community, it is common practice to publish first to a conference (with proceedings not in a journal already) then an extended version to a journal if the journal paper contains at least 30% of new materials. It is also important to clearly wrote in the journal paper that it is an extension of a previous conf paper with new materials (to be listed) like we did here : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visinf.2020.09.005 (look for the paragraph in the introduction starting by: This paper builds on and extends a previous work…)
I have written to Hocine Cherifi on August 19th, but he never got back to me. Do you (and @melancon) think it is OK to submit, adding language to be equivalent to yours below? Or should I ask you guys to reach out to Cherifi?
This paper builds on and extends a previous work oriented on the presentation of the algorithm behind Jasper and its time and space complexity (Vallet et al., 2016). Instead, the contributions of the current paper are: (1) guidelines for designing community-oriented visualizations of social networks; (2) a revised presentation of Jasper which is designed to quickly produce an overview of a social network emphasizing communities and their interconnections.
A controlled user evaluation has been added to assess the performance of Jasper for analyzing the community structure of social networks, and compare it to a matrix visualization and two variations around node-link diagrams. In order to ease future work comparing Jasper, we have voluntarily used general tasks (not specific to any kind of data or domain) for community visual analytics, various and freely available datasets (for reproducibility), widely known and used visualizations allowing for indirect comparison with Jasper, and basic interactions (changing the color) which should be available in all visualization platforms.
Like all academics in France, I am pretty sure Hocine was away and on vacations. He should come back soon as everybody here.
I think it is ok and safe to submit after adding some lines to clearly explain the difference between both submissions. To be honest, is the best thing to do. As a reviewer I hate when authors try to hide a previous paper (immediate rejection in this case).
my experience publishing in viz journals coincides with Bruno’s (is that a surprise), and I also agree with his suggestions to clearly explain in what way(s) the submitted article differs/extends the conference paper.
Hello @icqe22_authors . I have followed the advice of Bruno and Guy, and put together a version of our paper for Applied Network Science. In the introduction, I explain (clearly, I hope) what, in this paper, is new and what is included for legibility.
I need a second pair of eyes, though: I have pushed around so muh text that my brain is fried. @bpinaud, since we are submitting to a netsci journal, could you re-read with fresh eyes? Link (with edit privileges):
Main problem I have here is with releasing the dataset for that paper.
I have a script that exports data as four CSV tables per dataset, but since we write the ICQE22 paper (and the first version of the ANS paper, of course) the POREBEL corpus shifted and grew. In particular, the corpus associated to the #ethno-rebelpop-polska-interviews tag is much larger than before (58 interviews instead of 19). However, I am reluctant to re-do the analysis – the project is ending, and we do not have much time.
Possibilities are:
release the data in the form of the Tulip file I used to create the visualizations in the paper.
redo the analysis, then release the data in CSV form (cleaner, longer).
I am not sure I fully understand the issue (why and where do we have to release the data?). I suppose this is about a VERSION of the data that was used for the first version of the paper. If so, I second Nica’s idea. After all, this is not our presentation of results but rather our technique.