This episode is brought to you by Amazon.The holidays are here, and you know what that means?It's time to get your friends and family the gifts they deserve.
Take the stress out of shopping with Amazon's great deals and low prices on a huge range of items from toys to tech and much more.Whoever you're gifting for, Amazon has great prices on everything you need this holiday season.
Shop Black Friday week starting November 21st.
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down.So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing.
Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless!How do I get 30, 30, 30, 30, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month?Sold!Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.
$45 up front, payment equivalent to $15 per month.New customers on first three-month plan only.Taxes and fees extra.Speeds lower above 40 gigabytes.See detail.
This episode is brought to you by Allstate.Some people just know they could save hundreds on car insurance by checking Allstate first.Like you know to check you have the tickets in your wallet first before you drive two hours to the big game.
Seriously, you had one job.Now the closest you'll get to the 50-yard line is parking lot D. Yeah, checking first is smart.So check Allstate first for a quote that could save you hundreds.You're in good hands with Allstate.Savings vary.Terms apply.
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates, Northbrook, Illinois.
Welcome to the New Books Network.Hello, everybody, and welcome back to Scholarly Communication, the podcast about how knowledge gets known.I'm your host, Daniel Shea.I'm a linguist editor.I use my training in linguistics to help researchers publish.
This podcast is how I share that help with you. My guests on the show publish research in computing and computer science.
They have deep experience in the reading, researching, and writing, in the revising, reviewing, and publishing of expert research for expert researchers.
Therefore, the conversations here are intended to tell, plainly, candidly, how computing knowledge gets known to computer scientists.On today's episode of Scholarly Communication, I welcome
So I'm currently a software engineer and project manager for AI-driven product development at Marquardt in Germany.And I have been a PhD student at JKU in Austria, so Johannes Kepler University.
I also have my background from computer science, so I did my studies of software engineering for computer science and I'm actually from Brazil, so I came to Austria to do my PhD and since then I'm in Europe.
and now living in Frankfurt where I'm working.And yeah, I think you can find my public website if you search for my name and there you can find my email and yeah, we can have contact if you like.
Wonderful, yeah.You'll definitely be linked in the show notes and thank you for coming on the program particularly because of
Your background, which you've just laid out there for us, which begins, of course, in academia with some high-profile publishing and people also in software engineering and doing, in particular, models-type working.
in software engineering and now your place in industry as a practitioner.This has been a topic on this program before as to what some people have even called the sort of disconnect.
I know that your work has appeared at SPLC and you've reviewed there.
The SPLC conference has been noting a slow drift away by industry, and it's been a concern over the years as to, well, how do we get industry re-interested in the research that it is that academics here are doing?
Maybe give your own impressions of that conference and this problem that I'm describing, and we can take things from there, I suppose.
Yes, exactly.So, I think SPOC is a very specific conference, so it doesn't cover a wide range of topics.
So we have to take this into account that let's say the problems that we are tackling, they are limited by being software product line engineering topics and industry.Yeah.
I think software product lines are not used as like a platform for many companies when If it's a large company, then probably yes, but smaller companies, I guess they don't have the need to have a software product line and for the larger companies.
I think there are always some companies joining SPFC, at least from the years I participated.I remember that there were companies like Big Level, Pure Systems, and there are companies that work with producing solutions for software product lines.
But one interesting thing is that in the last year of my PhD, when I joined SPLC, it was in 2023, no, 22, I actually met Marquardt colleagues at the SPLC conference.
And in this conference, I discovered this company that were implementing software product lines and they joined the conference because they published a paper in the industry track.And that's how I met the colleagues and that's now why I'm working
So I think we have, yes, some companies joined the conference, but I think maybe to make it more attractive for the industry to make companies join the conference, we should try to perform maybe surveys with these large companies that probably need software product lines.
and understand their problems, like asking them directly what are their main pain points.Because if you are a researcher and you don't work closely with an industry partner, it's very hard to know exactly what kind of topics you should work on.
So for sure you can find if you do some research, but it's not necessarily where the companies are needing at the moment.So I think it's very important to talk with the companies and maybe SPLC could also
bring my industries to this conference when they have my workshops maybe for free or something that they can register with a discount because I think that's how they can attract more discussions and also get more
in depth of which topics these companies would like to be addressed, which problems they would like to be addressed.And this is a win-win in my opinion.So then the industry give the community what are their biggest problems.
And on the other hand, the community tries to work on these problems.
I think those are two very concrete and obviously insightful suggestions for the conference for SPLC.I mean, on the one hand, really surveying the larger companies.
I mean, knowing your audience, you make the good point of saying that, you know, software product lines are sort of geared towards particular size companies.
It's not going to be every company, mid-size and small companies may not even have a software product line of that sort.So surveying them is going to be not so useful.
And secondly, also getting presence at the conference through offering these free workshops, right?So they can register, as you say, there with a discount.
If you look to your own company, just as one case, Marquardt and Frankfurt, is this something that could draw interest from the company if that sort of work was going on there?
Yeah and also something that in my opinion would help a lot is if it's hybrid mode because it's very difficult that it's not all the companies that are willing to invest money in participating conferences and workshops.
So they have to prepare in a business trip in addition to the day out of work that the place have to go to the conference or sometimes is in a country not so close and this is our extra expenses.
And sometimes for the companies if they just go there and they listen to a lot of research papers that are not dealing with their problems, it's not so attractive.
So if it would be hybrid mode, it would be something easier, at least for the workshops where industry can participate.And this, in my opinion, would be very, very good for both sides.
So in person, I believe it's very good when we can go in person, it's better for networking and
it's also cooler that as I said other companies are willing to invest money for that so then it's always a highest chance that they join if it's a hybrid so that's what I think and I believe
Yeah, no, that's a good point.I mean, the fact that, you know, you have the hybrid to attract industry, but, you know, your own personal biography shows that the in-person has its benefits as well, perhaps even for industry, right?
I mean, saying where you were able to meet then your future colleagues by being there.
But getting perhaps to the heart of what some of these problems are, I mean, the suggestions that you make are all very hands-on and practical, and I can very much imagine them helping out.
But in particular, this question of surveying the larger companies, you pose it there as a win-win, which makes a lot of sense, obviously, because
You know, the companies have then perhaps potential research going into their problems, and the researchers have, you know, that steep connect to the real world and are able to apply their expertise on the things that matter.
But do we see sort of still, though, a disalignment in the way that researchers work and think as opposed to the way that companies work and think?
Yeah, usually companies they have a fast pace, so they don't have so much time to wait years and years of research to get into a product or, yeah, it's more on the innovation side, but research takes way more time and I think it's very
I would say the researchers, they try to have maybe teams collaborating with them so that they don't do everything alone, otherwise it takes too long.
And the companies, yeah, they need money, they need to sell products, so they cannot stop what they are doing to wait for a research result. So I think it has to be incremental, somehow the research has to be incremental.
Smaller steps that can be already included in the production and not waiting until the end of the research to get something. And I think that would be maybe something in general for the companies that want to have researchers.
And yeah, for the researchers, it could be something also helpful if they have some bigger teams working on the same topic, so they can arrive faster to a solution.
And those teams then would be also situated inside of the company.So that would be industry researchers.
Yes, some companies they have their own researchers and they have PhD students that work part-time for them.And part of the research is actually their thesis.So I know companies that do this.
Marquardt also had some master's students, bachelor's students, PhD students.I'm not sure.I think at the moment we don't have any. But I know from other industry companies that they have PhD students.
Some also have postdoc students or postdoc positions, researchers.
And yeah, so I think this is... Because I follow up on that simply because Rick Rabiza, who is well represented at SPLC and has looked into this precise issue of
you know, where do industry and academia meet and where do they not meet, was really sort of saying that there's a lot of potential for the future of this PhD in industry.
And he was really, you know, describing and exploring the ideas for having that be one of the reconnects between real world practice and software engineering research and academia.
Yes, so that is I think the best for the PhD student and for the company that is paying the PhD student because
Then they really work on the topics that the company need and the company then need to spend so much with a researcher because PhD positions by the company or master students, they are cheaper.
Although sometimes it requires more time when they are master students. Um, it requires maybe more time from the company that someone supervising is having more meetings and so on.
Um, but in the end, uh, it's, it's something that works and I see companies doing that.So that's a way they get what they need.And PhD students, they also have a topic where they can work on and being paid by the companies.
So I think in the end, it's, it's a good deal for about
And perhaps, and this was again, I'm more or less paraphrasing Rick Robbins' argument, and perhaps that would lead then the companies more naturally over to conferences, since let's say a PhD would be appearing as a presenter at that conference, say anyway.
Yeah, this also brings visibility for the company for sure.When the company goes to the conference with a published paper, so it gets more visibility.
I would say also it's a more empowered way of saying that the company values the human research because I think
When the companies have some PhD students and researchers, this is a way to show that a company cares about the society, that the company is trying to bring research somehow and improving what we had, the state-of-the-art approach methods, and this is also
I read that the company maybe brings new people, so it's visibilities and marketing, so it's also good if the company has students that can bring new robots to make patents, so you have something on the name of the company, that the company is owning the
the idea together, maybe with the university or the institute from the PhD students.So I think it's, it's very good and very important.
This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell.
With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands.Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase.That's shopify.com slash tech.
The holiday season officially starts when you get that first card in the mail.
Shutterfly makes it easy to add more meaning to the everyday with hundreds of holiday card designs that can be personalized in seconds with your favorite photos from this year.
Select your greeting, customize the color, and even add little extras like personalized foil to make a holiday card that really shines.Enjoy 40% off with code SMILE40 at shutterfly.com and sense something meaningful this year.
See site for more details.
I wonder though, sometimes following up directly on that, you know, these wins on the company side, let's say marketing visibility, you know, this demonstration for social awareness, patents, you know, these sorts of things are all great.
Clearly, the win, as you were saying earlier on the researcher side, is to really know where to apply one's expertise.You know, I mean, it's possible for a software engineer to drift off into
you know, topics which perhaps are still interesting, you know, from some theoretical standpoint, but they may not really turn into applications, or they may not really solve problems, which there are just so many of, because software is everywhere in our lives now.
I wonder though, with this sets of wins on both sides, who do you see moving more in whose direction?Well, who should be moving more in whose direction?What are the gains that are there for industry and for academia?
Who stands to gain more or really would it come out to be equal?
I'm not sure I understood that question, so you want to know?
I can repeat, that's fine.I suppose I'm just, it's a bit of a loaded question, which is why I came out unclear.I mean, my point is that it appears that the research needs industry more than the other way around.
That the research is more concerned about the potential disconnect there or the lack of flow of information back from practice.I mean, I suppose my first question should just be, is that impression right?
Yeah, it's a good question.So... I think it depends on the field.So I would say for talking about medicine, yeah, pharmacological research, something that is, I think this is not like the industry needs this research.
But when we are talking about software engineering, I think it's Maybe it's the other way around, that the companies, they manage to build software and stuff and not necessarily they need to connect with researchers for that.
So, because this is, the complexity is a little different.So for software, you can maybe just have your own laptop, your hardware and run some experiments and that's it.
But when you are talking about more other fields like medicine, I don't know, very specific things that you need for creating new pharmacy products and so on.
This is not something that I think industry can do so easily if you don't have a research institute and all the material and the people dedicated hours and many days doing that.So I think for software, it's easier.
That's why I think maybe there's this disconnection. And I think for the researchers that want to connect more to industry, they really have to investigate the problems of industry.
And as soon as they know what are their problems and they start working on their problems, the industry will automatically get attracted by these researchers. I think that's another way that you can connect to industry if you don't do this.
So I think you'll have to know the problems.
talk with industry and yeah, I think the problem is also industry sometimes have privacy issues, like they probably cannot tell their problems in detail so that you as a researcher can start working on a very specific challenge at the company.
So, you will need to assign some terms like that you were not disclosing the information outside of the company and so on.So, it's very sensitive data that is also in the game.
So, it's not something so easy for the companies to just be open and start talking about their problems. It's also about the company reputation.
Sometimes they don't want to share all the information because on the public side, they need to have a good reputation and sometimes revealing your problems can can make your reputation maybe not go so visible by the public.
So I think that's one of the problems with the connection between academia and industry.
Yeah, you're really putting your finger on, I think, important issues here.I mean, proprietary matters are going to be inherently a blockade to certain types of research.And they're also going to stand in the way, as you were saying earlier, getting
software engineer researchers in touch with industry, it's going to stand in the way of that step toward industry if the industry itself, you know, the partners in industry are, let's say, not disclosing everything, somewhat protective of certain secrets or certain matters or issues ongoing at the moment.
which is all understandable in the two different worlds, right?I mean, the researcher, him or herself, is interested in finding out.
And of course, industry or practitioners generally on the market are interested in reputation, profits, and very different matters.They have different time horizons, as you've said as well. Maybe to source some of your own personal experience.
I mean, you have a, as I said, distinguished career in publishing, right?Your PhD and publications that you were involved in were at MC, JSS, SPLC, as we've mentioned, Sanner.You know, these are all reputable software engineering venues.
You've done the academic work and now you are situated for some two years, I believe. If I'm not mistaken, in the practice, in industry, could you maybe give us a sense of, because I often talk on this program about different cultures, right?
And I mean, there is a sort of industry mindset or culture and academic mindset or culture.Could you tell us about any culture type shock? you may have experienced moving over or was there nothing of that sort?
What is so different in your daily life now when it comes to the engineering as it was before when you were, you know, doing the research?
So from my experience in doing my PhD, I was working basically alone.So I wasn't working with a team.Let's say I was implementing the things, I was writing papers and basically everything alone.
Of course, I had the supervisor, but it was just for supervising to helping, maybe giving some ideas for evaluation or the math like hands on on the project.
And in the industry, when I migrated, I had, I entered already in a medium sized team, I would say around eight people, I think.And, and bundle dynamics are different.
You have to cooperate with other people, you need to implement things in combination with other implemented things, so you need to know how to implement features, how to merge these features at some point, so that many people can work in parallel at the same project.
And I think This was the main difference for me, because for my experience, I was alone in the PhD, basically.And I think it depends a lot on the PhD project.
Some projects I know they have many people collaborating in the same software and the same implementation, but it wasn't my case.And yeah, we also have an industry, at least at Marquardt, HR methods, so we have some
meetings, HR approach that we have to use in the project.So we have daily stand-ups, we have to have regular meetings and demos.And for example, for other teams that will work with the solution we're implementing.
So at some point you need to have demos.
and good documentation so maybe when you are doing your PhD the documentation yeah it's not that mandatory maybe it's something that you do but for industry you have to be more strict with documentation I would say because if you leave the company the others they need to be able to know how to
continue with your work while in the PhD.If you leave the PhD, yeah, maybe someone else will take your project.But it's like, yeah, the PhD is not fair.So it should do the documentation, let's say.And I think also from my experience,
The flexibility is something that I know many researchers they worry about when they migrate to industry.
They think that they won't have flexibility to work on topics they like or to have their times for working that they maybe can be more flexible in academia. So I think it depends on the company.At Marquardt, I didn't have any problems with that.
So I'm very flexible with time. I also can use my creativity, I'm not forced to just do some specific tasks that someone else tells me every day, so I have the freedom.
I think it's because I have the PhD, so they trust me, they know I'm able to learn things by myself, to suggest new things.
that they don't have to teach me or give me tasks like what I should do for the next days, because I'm able to organize myself and to decide what should I do, how should I start working on a specific task.
And all of these are abilities that you get during your PhD and they are totally transferable and very, very
valuable in the industry, so... Yeah, I mean, that's something that Rick Robbins... I keep mentioning him because... of SPLC and also the topics that we covered there were so similar to what you and I are talking about today.
He was saying that there has been over the past 15 years in industry, a greater recognition of PhDs.
So it's very, very interesting to hear you independently sort of, you know, corroborating that saying, it's true, you feel and experience the trust that's being given to you because of your education background.
Exactly, it makes a big difference.I have to say that especially in Germany, I don't know in other countries, but in Germany they they value a lot when you have a PhD.And I think it's very good because it's not easy.
It's so many years doing something complex and you have to think out of the box.You have to create something new.So I think we really deserve this because this is not easy.
And sometimes I've had the feeling that not everybody values the people with a PhD.And this is something, yeah. That is very important, in my opinion.
Yeah, no, I'm glad you state that plainly, because I think there is a lot of value in that ability to, as you say, arrange things for yourself, plan something long term, deal with complex matters.
But speaking just of those complex matters, to return to this question of cultures, sets of interest between academic research and industry practice.
You know, it's, and you'll know this better than me, but I mean, looking at papers, you'll see very often in the introduction and when talking to researchers, you'll see them very often trying to couch or frame their research study inside of a context that includes real world problems.
That is the solving of practitioner issues, right?There is also even this wish that, let's say, the
presentation at the conference or the paper itself is, at least in parts, really readable or understandable practitioners, that there's perhaps immediate uptake from what's being done there in the research.
And yet there's parts of this mentality or wish that seem to me to be a fiction, because it's not.And again, this is really the question to you.It's not a...
something I'm hearing from anyone I speak to that industry practitioners are really flipping through the proceedings of different conferences or really trying to find their tools or things that they can use next week in their production.
Okay.I think I don't know if I understood your question correctly, but the researchers, they probably, they need to look more how to position themselves.I think sometimes they They learn a lot but they don't know how to sell themselves.
So you need to, as you said, a paper somehow you need to also sell your knowledge and
um that the problem you are solving is very important and maybe for that you need to use social media and nowadays even more because people are so much connected with social media so if you're publishing papers and you want to get attention
Because it doesn't help if you make a very good work and amazing solution, but nobody knows about that.So you need to spread it somehow.And social media, it's essential for that.It's like your own marketing.
So you have to do marketing for your solutions, for your publications.I don't know if I answered your question.
No, you're definitely touching upon an important issue there of the connection between the questions that researchers care to be asking or, you know, the expertise that they're trying to develop and what all of that means for industry, right?
And is anyone over in any company going to find out about this?Exactly.
And I think it's just very interesting to me, especially when looking at papers, which is really one of the focuses of this podcast, where a lot of effort is put into, at least in the writing and the message being portrayed, that this has real world application, that practitioners can have uptake of what we're doing right here.
And it appears that, you know, there's this belief in that, but there's not really a reality of that afterwards, right?
I mean, unless maybe this social media campaign is pursued that you're suggesting, or more work is done after the paper, around the paper.
Yeah, because I don't think companies, they start looking for proceedings and reading a lot of papers.So it has to be something that they easily can find out.So maybe using
I don't know, Twitter, LinkedIn, I think industries, they are using more these platforms so that you can make a pitch of your work and then they see like in three sentences, three lines, I don't know what you are doing.
And then if they see that it's something close to their problems, then they might read your paper and maybe they contact you.
I mean, that is showing also, though, how much goes into the communication of research.I mean, people, sometimes I find you know, it takes enough to get published at, let's say, ICSI or JSS, right?It's not an easy accomplishment, right?
And you certainly should pat yourself on the back for doing so, but that getting published is not then getting cited.
That getting published is also not getting, you know, actual application of your work or extension of your work in industry settings, or perhaps the sorts of, you know, cooperations that might grow out of industry being interested in your long-term research plans.
Yeah, that is I think one of the problems that if you have a solution but the companies they are not aware or they don't use at all.
Yeah, then it's good for research, yes, because then you're advanced at something, maybe someone else built something on the top of what you publish and maybe this comes to a solution that the industries will use and so on.But yeah, I think...
maybe the best way to get, it's also related to deployment, you know, because some solutions they work for maybe use cases for some case studies of the project, but for a large scale, maybe when you think about scaling the solution, when you think about deploying it somewhere to really use in a production scenario,
Then maybe you figure out there are so many more things to take into account and so many more things should be implemented and so on.
And that's hard if you work with a prototype and then to make it become a version for deployment and rollout in a company, it's a completely different story.So I think what we have usually is kind of prototypes and
to transform them to a version where we can release and roll out in a company, then it requires time and it's not something that out of the paper, you will already get something running the whole company.You know what I mean?
Very much so.And I think that's a very useful way of framing it for listeners.The idea that, I mean, to simplify what you've said, using your terms there, I mean, you have on the one hand in the research, a prototype focus.
You know, you're working perhaps on a case study or a limited set of case studies, or your data set is such that, you know, I mean, there's a lot of work, obviously, that goes into solving the technical problem.
But to roll that out, to make that a release, to bring that into a real industry environment, you run into issues, as you say, of deployment, implementation, scaling.
These things can break the idea when the idea runs up against that wall or some of those walls.I think the missing link clearly must be that the researcher has the technical problem in mind.
but doesn't have yet the experience in very many cases, unless perhaps they're a PhD over in industry, of exactly that, the release, the rollout, right?
Yeah.Yeah.So that's why I think the best is the collaboration of PhD student, for example, with the company, so that it's an incremental implementation that they shouldn't implement something and then it can be tested in the company set up.
And then after this testing, the company gives a feedback to the student.So the student know, okay, now I can continue my idea. Or, okay, no, this really won't work because of technical issues.So I already started doing something different.
And now that I arrived at the end of the prototype to then give to the company, and then the company tests and say, Aaron, no, you didn't think about that.And we also didn't think about that.
Now it won't be useful or not for all the use cases we thought it would be.And sometimes then it will cost extra money to fix or to make something third impact or the size that the company would need.
So I think that's why it's very important the students collaborate together with the company and not just creating something and after at the end expect that some company will benefit from that.
And a way to mitigate when you cannot work closely to a company
is to try to, in my opinion, to use real-world examples for the datasets and so on, and try to maybe talk with some people working in industry to get their own perspective if the solution you are implementing
will help them if they think it will be useful.Because for example, I had in my PhD the situation that I didn't have a close industry partner, but I worked with really old examples.
And when I want to test my solution or to get, let's say, some kind of confirmation if what I was doing is really useful, I interviewed software engineers that are working in industry. I showed them my solution and asked for their opinion.
And that's how I got a feedback.And this validated my, let's say, my solution so that when they said, yes, this really is something we are struggling with and the solution would be something that we would use, it's very useful.
And yeah, maybe then it's just about how to integrate or with the pipeline of a company.So you would have, of course, to go further with meetings and see if the company would like to have the solution.
But then, yeah, I think that's another discussion then.
But that actually leads us nicely here towards the end of our interview into a few words, at least about reviewing.You have a pretty broad experience of reviewing in SPLC, also at VAMOS, even for the journal JSS, Journal Systems Software.
So, I mean, indirectly, I might be able to say that, you know, this addition to a manuscript or to a project of really using a real-world dataset, really considering issues of scaling, perhaps including interviews or actual even cooperations that have developed with industry could very much be plus points, I would think, when the reviewing comes about.
Yes, yes.From my experience, we, the papers I try to submit, there are the reviewers, for example, they always had a strength, so they think that the strengths of the paper, they were related to
datasets from real world examples, real world use cases.Of course, this was public available, so they could also be reproducible.
Also about having surveys, interview with industry, and this was something that really makes total difference for accepting a paper.
Also, when I review papers, I always take into account in the evaluation which kind of data they use, if it's public available.If it's not public, what is the reason?So, if it's for an industry set, then we understand, but we always want something
to be able to to write this this is not available so why if it's something that we could get maybe if it's not possible the whole data set what kind of information we can get from that so that we know that we can really validate the work and somehow
This has to be provided, otherwise it's hard to accept a paper, at least in high rank conferences and journals.So you need to have as much as possible information to reproduce your work. And this is the biggest plus.
If your paper is good and you can reproduce your, the others can reproduce your work, that's one of the biggest strengths of your paper.
So that certainly gives us a very good sense of, you know, the strengths of a paper coming in and submission and the sorts of things that a reviewer like you and clearly other reviewers, because you've said that, you know, in your own submissions, you've noted that these things are noted as strengths, you know, the data sets and also perhaps surveys of practitioners.
What would you say are sorts of manuscripts that you encounter on a somewhat regular basis where you see a particular weakness resurfacing?
What are some of the things that you tend to find yourself often flagging and thinking, this is something the editor, if it's at a journal, is going to have to perhaps decide upon, or this is really perhaps even a reason to reject?
When the problem is not clear and you have doubts about the problem, so if the writer is not able to put on the paper
the the problem and um the foundation of the problem why is this really a problem it's a bit hard uh to say that this paper serves something a significant um problem and and then yeah then why will you accept something that is not really a problem so the the main things uh that the
The main weakness point, I think, is when the problem is not clear and it doesn't have a support on the claims.So you need to have somehow proof of what you are seeing to be a problem, that it's really a problem. And it can be many ways.
It can be maybe you collect from different literature surveys, or you can collect from surveys with companies or with, I don't know, other practitioners and researchers.And you add this also as part of your methodology.
So that's how you got the problem.So I think it's important you you somehow prove that what you are solving is really a problem, otherwise it won't get published, or that's my opinion.
Yeah, no, I mean, this is something that I've heard definitely other guests on the program talking about, particularly in the reviewing mindset, right?What sort of problem we have.
In an interesting conversation I had with Paul Gazillo, he talked about how he submitted one paper of his on automated program analysis to a programming conference, and it was more or less rejected for just the reasons you're talking about.
The problem wasn't appreciated. Turning around to a software engineering conference though, the problem was immediately recognized in the paper, got a quick accept.
So, I mean, it's interesting to hear what you're saying in that respect of where is it getting submitted to?Who is appreciating which sorts of problems?
So, I mean, if you take SPLC as opposed to JSS, I imagine the reviewing that you've done there and the sorts of papers you've seen have a different notion of what a problem is.
Yeah, you have to submit the paper to the right venue, otherwise, yeah, if you submit, I don't know, a paper for automated software engineering, you submit to our conference, our requirements engineering, that's really not related to requirements engineering, but it's just automating something for software engineering.
Maybe they won't accept, not because web problem is not a big problem or a real problem,
But because for the conference that is about requirements engineering, it's much more interesting the other topics, the other papers that are talking about requirements engineering.So you need to know the right venue that you can submit your paper.
Yeah, also sometimes it can be rejected even if it's the right venue because maybe your problem is not so impactful like other problems submitted.So I think there is a priority list, of course, because we don't get all the papers accepted.
There is a limit of number of papers that can get accepted. And if the problem you are solving is not as impactful as the other problems, then of course it will be rejected.
There is no way we can accept all the papers and it's a priority list, I would say.
That's a really interesting point because that's one of those things that
show how perhaps as a reviewing researcher, which most people as they advance in their career start doing more and more of, you gain an insight as to what impactful work will be.
I mean, what you're saying to be concrete is at SPLC, the right sort of contribution may still get passed over because of the other contributions being submitted during that year.In other words, relatively, it just doesn't carry the same impact.
And this is that somebody can only really prognosticate or anticipate because they are, you know, at the pulse of what's being researched.
Yeah.Yeah.And of course, you have to do what is under your control.
You cannot predict what will be the other submissions, but you can do whatever you can to make the paper well written, easy to read, organized with clear picture, clear approach, documentation, and
a very good evaluation if possible with quality evaluation and quantity evaluation.So as I said, if possible with practitioners included, I don't know if it's testing your tool or maybe just a survey or yeah.
If possible, making the data available and all of this counts positive points.So you have to make this as possible, but then it's optional now.
I would say it's not under your control if the reviewers will accept or not, but at least you did your best and you included everything necessary.Yeah.
Gabriela, to close out as a final question, we've explored in our conversation a lot about industry and academia, and your own particular experience there is obviously very useful because, I mean, you've completed your PhD and now you're working over as a practitioner in industry.
Now, what was it that drew you away from academia?Because obviously the academic career path would still have been an option as for very many other PhDs, right?And there must have been something about that choice of career that was incisive for you.
And what you think about that choice?What is it that you're gaining perhaps over in practice that you think you wouldn't have been finding in academia?
Yeah, so it's a very good question.During my PhD, so when I started my PhD, I thought I would try to get a professor position.But during my PhD, my life course changed.So it is a decision that it's personal to each person.So everyone has its own
life goals and lifestyle.So some people like to have a specific thing for their lives.They like to live maybe with more flexibility, which is my case.I didn't want to be in a location that I cannot work outside of this location.
You know, when you are a professor, usually you have to be always in the university and you sometimes, of course, you can do home office, but you cannot maybe do a remote work abroad and
to have this 100% remote work, I saw that it wouldn't be possible as a professor in academia, or at least not with all the other things I'm aiming for.
life goes there, as I said, a lifestyle that I aim and I felt like industry would give me more opportunities to come to this stage, this life dream I like and I would like to have.Another point is also the number of opportunities you have.
So in academia, you don't have so much professor positions, and at least in Europe, there's a small number of positions available for permanent positions.
And if you don't have a permanent position, for me, I don't see any stability at all, because you always have to
write projects to get funding and the thing that is the most motivating part for me of academia is that your salary has a ceiling, let's say, that when you reach that It's a bit difficult that you can get more.
It's usually if you have a postdoc position for many years, you will get the same salary for many years.And although it's a pity because I think will deserve to have the salary increasing with the impact we bring.But it's not like in industry.
In industry, you have more opportunities to grow, to have a career path where you can reach higher salaries. That, as I said, depends on the person, the life dreams.But if you are not too ambitious, maybe you don't think about industry.
It's also about your mindset.If you have an entrepreneur mindset, you probably won't be happy in academia.So it's something that depends on your profile.So some people, they have a different behavior, a different
profile and they like to be entrepreneurs or they like to be more in a business environment.And this is also something that for me, that's why I decided to change to industry when
Thank you very much for that, Gabriela.That is Gabriela Michelon, software engineer and project manager for AI-driven product development at Macquad, Germany.I am your host, Daniel Shea.Bye bye.And until next time here on Scholarly Communication.
