A student transferred to the "leader" of their research group, a named Professor, here referred to as Professor w's email to all members of the research group. This e-mail is mainly aimed at the five members of the group who recently submitted the review results of an important conference in their field IEEE infocom (the acceptance rate of papers is generally less than 20%). He expressed his feelings and issued guidance to all members. This time, the research group submitted five papers to the conference and received only one. This is one of the two times in their group that the proportion of papers accepted at this conference is relatively low in recent years (the other is in 2014). He told me, IEEE In order to purify the academic environment, reduce the impact of academic haze, and improve the academic quality and academic status of the conference, infocom has implemented a strict double-blind review measure for all papers submitted since 2015 (the paper review is 2014), that is, the names of the author and reviewer should be hidden during manuscript review, and the author should not be disclosed in any form in the manuscript The identity of the reviewer (e.g. suggesting the reviewer in the circle by excessive self citation in the references). One of the manuscripts submitted by the student did not cite any of his or her papers. He told me that on the one hand, this manuscript is a new research direction he is involved in, and it is not quite right to quote previous published papers; on the other hand, it is also a positive response to the call of the conference and support with practical actions. For this reason, I made a special inquiry about a scholar who published more papers at this conference in the past. Sure enough, in the past two years since the implementation of strict double-blind evaluation, this scholar published papers at this conference, presenting a scene of "ice and fire". In the past, there were three articles in the highest year, but now there is one or zero. Obviously, the adoption of double-blind evaluation mechanism can greatly reduce the "haze" effect of bad academic circles, improve the academic taste of the conference, and make the conference really become a place for academic exchanges, rather than a place for participants to "mix faces" or aunts to flatter "authorities".

The average acceptance rate of papers in Professor w's group has just reached that of this conference. In addition to paying more attention to the acceptance rate of doctoral dissertations in previous years, members of the research group should pay more attention to the acceptance rate of doctoral dissertations. We need to take a close look at what is going on.More importantly, instead of blaming your reviewers and lack of luck, you needto learn from your mistakes and upgrade your standards/expectations. Sayingthat “my paper was unfairly treated” is one of the things that would never helpyou more forward。 Obviously, the core meaning of the e-mail is very obvious. I hope you can treat rejection correctly, don't complain about reviewers and luck, find problems from yourself, and improve your academic quality. The only thing you can do is to find deficiencies in your papers. As I said in a blog post, "strengthening yourself is your only choice.". This fully shows the rigorous and pragmatic scientific attitude of an academic team leader. This is in sharp contrast to the complains, irrationality and indifference of some of us in the face of normal rejection of manuscripts. In fact, "complains too much to prevent intestines breaking", you still have to do what you should do.

The professor also has one thing to say about the rigorous style of study. Professor w will be the editor in chief of ieeetransactions on mobile computing in January 2017. It is said that there is usually a strict procedure for selecting the chief editors of a serious international professional mainstream journal. The chief editors of IEEE journals are mainly selected by some honest, rigorous and senior academics in their field. There are two candidates for the editor in chief of this magazine in the final stage. After careful discussion, the selection committee finally chose Professor W. The main reason is that Professor w enjoys a good academic reputation in the industry and wins over which candidate. It is said that there is no obvious style of study for the unsuccessful candidate. If so, it is impossible to enter the final candidate. But later someone found out that this man published 12 papers one year. Some people think that the candidate is usually so busy with his work that he has no time to publish so many papers. Therefore, he speculates whether there is a risk that his style of study is not too rigorous. Obviously, this is a secret reason. I think it will be inconvenient for the selection committee to inform the unsuccessful candidates of this view. For Chinese academic circles, there must be someone who publishes more than 12 papers a year. A few days ago, ScienceNet introduced a blog post about a "big paper user", and boldly suspected that the author might have academic misconduct, suggesting that the relevant departments should seriously investigate. From IEEE transactionson Mobile Two valuable ideas can be seen in the event of selecting editor in chief of Computing magazine: one is the serious, serious and cautious attitude towards the selection of editor in chief of the magazine, which puts the candidate's academic morality in an important position; the other is that Professor w's excellent academic quality has been recognized by his peers, and this student can work in such a team of academic leaders with "both ability and political integrity", which is very important for him to grow up into a leader It's a rare opportunity for a scholar with a rigorous style of study and an "international standard".

The students further told me that Professor w's project funds are sufficient, but there are not many students. At present, there are only five doctoral students. They are from Turkey, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. This is because Professor w strictly adopts the principle of "rather short than excessive" in recruiting students, never deliberately pursues the number of students, and has strict requirements for students. He strictly implemented the elimination mechanism in the process of students' postgraduate education. Therefore, there is basically no "mixed diploma" phenomenon in his place. Everyone is eager to learn some real Kung Fu during his doctoral program. In the words of Professor w's "Anming notice" to students, "if you can't meet the basic requirements, you have to leave halfway." the whole research group is full of a strong academic atmosphere of "chasing each other". Professor w's effective measures in guiding students are worth learning from our tutors. He asked each student to make a serious summary of each manuscript that he revised, and make a serious response to all his revisions, that is, to analyze and think about why Professor w revised it in this way, and to send the manuscript and response information to all members of the research group. If two manuscripts are calculated for each student, each of the five students can enjoy Professor w's detailed guidance on 10 manuscripts, which is very beneficial to the academic growth of doctoral students.

Professor w attaches great importance to the quality of the research group meeting. Because there are not many members in the group, he takes the group meeting once a month to make every member well prepared, as long as he is in the school. The research group will mainly discuss in depth the problems encountered by each student in scientific research. We will fully discuss and come up with ideas. The results of such a group meeting will benefit all members of the group. Members outside the group (including undergraduates, except for other guidance for undergraduates) are not welcome to participate in the group meeting, because he believes that members outside the group generally do not know the specific situation, and rash participation may affect the quality and effect of the group meeting.

Professor W is currently the head of a broad wireless access and Applications Center (bwac) organization funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of the United States. He is in charge of his university and composed of five universities including Virginia Tech. he has presided over a number of National Natural Science Foundation projects in the United States. He has a little unique understanding of the writing of foundation books. He said that when you are faced with the published guiding research fields, you should not rush to write a book, but focus on the "topic" of the research field, "Daydreaming" for several days (in fact, it is to give full play to your accumulation and savvy). I hope that in the process of daydreaming, there are several "ideas" for full comparison, and finally choose the best "ideas" writing book. Otherwise, if you write too early, you will have to start writing again and waste time. "Don't submit a fund application before the deadline," he said. In addition, he told the students not to use the word "Gao Da Shang" when introducing their own achievements in the basic research section of the fund book, because the reviewer will study your representative achievements and judge your research ability accordingly. If you approve your project, it naturally indicates that the reviewer has recognized your research foundation and level, and vice versa.

Professor W is modest. Sometimes he will say to the students who come alone to ask questions, I'm not very clear about this question. You can consult a young researcher in the research group. His mathematical foundation is better than mine, so he can answer your question very well. This seemingly ordinary performance is quite different from the "authority" performance we have with some honor hats. These "hat professors" are the producers of academic "haze" in China.