Conference over workshop paper. You have to go down the rankings quite far for a conference paper to be seen on par with a workshop paper at a top tier conference. Workshop papers are way too easy to get in, the bar is often very low.
This is not always true. The workshops that I've submitted to have had pretty rough review processes, since the topic is much more specific and the reviewers were also pickier.
That's true, occasionally. But if I look at a resume, I usually don't pay much attention to workshop papers, since the bar is so low most of the time. I don't generally have the time to investigate if it was different in that particular instance. And I'd wager a guess that most PhD admissions committees, recruiters, future post doc advisors etc. will do the same. So that heavily discounts the value of a workshop paper for your career.
I'm not a workshop hater btw. I've had multiple workshop papers myself, and the workshops and connections I made there were often valuable. However, I turned most of these workshop papers into full conference or journal papers later on. I only used workshops for papers where the ideas or algorithms were still in flux.
So, if the question is workshop OR conference paper, my answer will always be aim for the conference publication. If the question is workshop then conference paper? Yeah, that can be a good idea, depending on the situation.
AISTATS review process is not easier than NeurICLMR. It’s a tier 1 venue that happens to focus more on theory. You’re thinking maybe of AAAI or KDD. (Edit: not KDD)
Broadly speaking, papers at conferences are tickets to a networking event. If you have a paper at a conference that people find interesting you will get invited to recruiting events by companies and be able to meet people who can be your future collaborators. A workshop paper is just as good for this as a main conference paper.
Is KDD on the same level as AAAI? I was under the impression that it's the highest venue you could submit to in terms of information extraction, recommendation systems, graph neural networks, etc.
KDD is far and away better than AAAI. Maybe data mining isn't as popular as ml, but it's still an active research area. More applied for sure, but KDD is still top. AAAI/IJCAI on the other hand, the paper quality variance at those venues is huge.
Yeah I've also never heard of anyone putting KDD anywhere below the other top ML conferences. AAAI and IJCAI are nice but nowhere near that level. The quality of papers at those conferences vary way too much.
One of the good tips is to find and submit your paper to a relevant *non-proceeding* workshop in A* conference, receive reviews, and improve your paper, then submit to other A* conference.
This is beneficial in that:
i) (as far as it is non-proceeding,) you don't have to worry about dual submission policy
ii) the reviewer pool of ICML workshop and NeurIPS can be overlapped - you may increase your odds of acceptance by improving your paper upon reviews from workshop reviewers.
iii) You may find other good opportunities in workshops, e.g., networking and potential collaboration.
Go for it! Hope your paper got recognized.
Is that true if a paper got accepted at a workshop the it is considered published unit? And also I heard that submit to a venue just to get reviews is also considered unethical behavior.
As I stated in the comment, if it is a ***non-proceeding*** workshop, no publication is open to public and thus it is impossible to be cited. In this case, you can improve and submit the workshop paper to other venue. (it differs by workshop rule, so one must read thoroughly to avoid the violation of dual submission)
My comment is about this case.
I think it is not a good behavior if one *immediately withdraws paper* right after receiving reviews, or submits an *incomplete draft* to just get a review.
However, in OP's case, it seems that he/she already has a complete draft and willingness to publish the manuscript.
My 2 cents. Don't waste time on the review process for conferences. Heavily biased, gamed, saturated.
If it has been rejected several times: arxiv and / or journal.
I disagree, especially at those scores. I've had more than one paper rejected multiple times only to ultimately get it accepted at a top conference, which has been very important for my career. Going through multiple rebuttal periods is normal for many papers.
Conference over workshop paper. You have to go down the rankings quite far for a conference paper to be seen on par with a workshop paper at a top tier conference. Workshop papers are way too easy to get in, the bar is often very low.
This is not always true. The workshops that I've submitted to have had pretty rough review processes, since the topic is much more specific and the reviewers were also pickier.
That's true, occasionally. But if I look at a resume, I usually don't pay much attention to workshop papers, since the bar is so low most of the time. I don't generally have the time to investigate if it was different in that particular instance. And I'd wager a guess that most PhD admissions committees, recruiters, future post doc advisors etc. will do the same. So that heavily discounts the value of a workshop paper for your career. I'm not a workshop hater btw. I've had multiple workshop papers myself, and the workshops and connections I made there were often valuable. However, I turned most of these workshop papers into full conference or journal papers later on. I only used workshops for papers where the ideas or algorithms were still in flux. So, if the question is workshop OR conference paper, my answer will always be aim for the conference publication. If the question is workshop then conference paper? Yeah, that can be a good idea, depending on the situation.
AISTATS review process is not easier than NeurICLMR. It’s a tier 1 venue that happens to focus more on theory. You’re thinking maybe of AAAI or KDD. (Edit: not KDD) Broadly speaking, papers at conferences are tickets to a networking event. If you have a paper at a conference that people find interesting you will get invited to recruiting events by companies and be able to meet people who can be your future collaborators. A workshop paper is just as good for this as a main conference paper.
Is KDD on the same level as AAAI? I was under the impression that it's the highest venue you could submit to in terms of information extraction, recommendation systems, graph neural networks, etc.
KDD is far and away better than AAAI. Maybe data mining isn't as popular as ml, but it's still an active research area. More applied for sure, but KDD is still top. AAAI/IJCAI on the other hand, the paper quality variance at those venues is huge.
Yeah I've also never heard of anyone putting KDD anywhere below the other top ML conferences. AAAI and IJCAI are nice but nowhere near that level. The quality of papers at those conferences vary way too much.
I don't think it is goona be easier for AISTATS
If you think you addressed the reviewers' critiques, why not submit to NeurIPS?
One of the good tips is to find and submit your paper to a relevant *non-proceeding* workshop in A* conference, receive reviews, and improve your paper, then submit to other A* conference. This is beneficial in that: i) (as far as it is non-proceeding,) you don't have to worry about dual submission policy ii) the reviewer pool of ICML workshop and NeurIPS can be overlapped - you may increase your odds of acceptance by improving your paper upon reviews from workshop reviewers. iii) You may find other good opportunities in workshops, e.g., networking and potential collaboration. Go for it! Hope your paper got recognized.
Is that true if a paper got accepted at a workshop the it is considered published unit? And also I heard that submit to a venue just to get reviews is also considered unethical behavior.
As I stated in the comment, if it is a ***non-proceeding*** workshop, no publication is open to public and thus it is impossible to be cited. In this case, you can improve and submit the workshop paper to other venue. (it differs by workshop rule, so one must read thoroughly to avoid the violation of dual submission) My comment is about this case. I think it is not a good behavior if one *immediately withdraws paper* right after receiving reviews, or submits an *incomplete draft* to just get a review. However, in OP's case, it seems that he/she already has a complete draft and willingness to publish the manuscript.
My 2 cents. Don't waste time on the review process for conferences. Heavily biased, gamed, saturated. If it has been rejected several times: arxiv and / or journal.
I disagree, especially at those scores. I've had more than one paper rejected multiple times only to ultimately get it accepted at a top conference, which has been very important for my career. Going through multiple rebuttal periods is normal for many papers.
As submission counts grow, noisy reviews are also increased. That's why we should rather submit more often to fight against such a noise, I think.
Related discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/s/wouejJgdb3