IEEE Access: 想畢業還不能投?

之前寫過一篇文章，IEEE Access: 我該不該投這期刊?，分析這新興期刊的優劣。最近發生一件事，讓人不吐不快，於是有了這篇：IEEE Access: 想畢業還不能投?

最近我有一篇 IEEE Access 期刊論文發表，第一作者是我指導的 TIGP（台灣國際研究生學程，其下有許多不同領域的學程，此學程為中央研究院和清華大學、政治大學合作的社群網路與人智計算學程）博士生，當該學生要拿此著作申請畢業時，卻遭受百般刁難，有些畢業審查委員不認可這個期刊，認為只有 IEEE Transactions 等級的期刊才算數，也許他們是想捍衛此國際學程的水平，也許他們是想要找我或我的學生麻煩，也許他們是《高等教育怎麼辦？：兩岸大學心件的探討》一書裡提到的「心件不足」的例子，也許他們是苦口婆心、恨鐵不成鋼…

這件事對我影響事小（甚至沒什麼影響），但學生被耽擱事大，尤其是半年前同一學程有另一學生以一篇 IEEE Access 論文畢業，雙重標準當然令學生難以接受。

這學程如果開宗明義就講明我們不接受 IEEE Access 期刊，只接受哪些哪些期刊，那我沒意見，但偏偏沒有，也沒有任何學生可參考的期刊列表。學程也進入第五年，學生都博五要畢業了，無所適從，然後依循成功的前例提出畢業申請時再打槍你的期刊選擇，這算什麼呢？

我每年教學程學生的機率課，今年期中考成績慘澹，往年也相去不遠。這些學生也不是我審查並收進來學程的，盡心盡力在帶，要畢業時就以高標準刁難，這算什麼呢？

在台清交，有學生沒有 IEEE Transactions 期刊論文就畢業的，也有老師策略性的把學生掛為 IEEE Transactions 期刊論文的第一作者，讓學生畢業，雖然論文不是學生主做的。我學生的 IEEE Access 論文都是自己做的，不錯了。

坦白說，我個人也不是特別喜歡 IEEE Access，但交大資工系在 2017 年 11 月 3 日教評會通過，將 IEEE Access 列為可接受畢業的期刊，聽說台大電信系也快了。相信不久的將來，其他系所也會把 IEEE Access 列入，屆時不知這些委員還是如此堅持嗎？

我個人雖不是特別喜歡 IEEE Access，也認為審稿員（reviewer）的專業性和給予意見的深度與 IEEE Transactions 等級期刊有差距，但我認為這是趨勢（不論你喜歡或不喜歡），「快」是趨勢，「既然人人可出書，為何不能人人出論文？」也是趨勢，此趨勢亦可從三點印證：1) 許多學者將發表前甚至投稿前的 preprints 放上 arXiv，等於未審查即發表，2) IEEE 今年將成立 14 個新的 open access 期刊（包括 IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing 等，https://www.ieee.org/about/news/2019/14-new-open-access-journals.html），3) 美國加州大學系統今年（2019）起不再訂閱全球最大的出版商 Elsevier，因為高額的訂閱費（UC terminates subscriptions with world’s largest scientific publisher in push for open access to publicly funded research: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly）。在資訊爆炸的時代或許搶時間和能見度比崇尚名牌更重要（網紅若在網路平台有廣大的觀眾，未必要上名牌實體電視台）。智者懂得順勢而為，這也不代表就一定會降低論文發表的品質。

如果你抵抗趨勢，你很可能是在抗拒未來。擁抱趨勢，你才能順風而行。
— Jeff Bezos

之前我寫過一封信給學程論文審查委員參考，如下：

Dear TIGP SNHCC Thesis Review Committee,

Thank you for your time and efforts in reading Mr. A’s thesis and providing your assessments and opinions. Thank you also for the opportunity for me to clarify a few things and provide additional information.

IEEE Access is a relatively new journal. Yet, it has quickly established itself as an effective publication venue. It has a high impact factor and good visibility and all that. It somewhat challenges our traditional knowledge about IEEE journal publication (it takes a year or longer from first submission to publication). Thus, it is not surprising that people may have divided opinions about this journal. In my opinion, it is a new publication model (quick turnaround, open access, online only) that may very likely reshape the future publication landscape and our reading and publishing behavior just like how self-publishing and e-books have reshaped the book publishing industry. IEEE Access will continue to attract top-quality submissions. In my field, I have already seen many world-renowned researchers choosing to publish in IEEE Access instead of IEEE Transactions, not because it is easier, but because it is faster and perhaps having higher visibility thanks to open access. Note that “fast” is important in this era – one example is that people post their papers on arXiv.org directly (without review, direct publishing in some sense, the fastest)! If we are comfortable with arXiv that has existed for a while, why are we not comfortable with IEEE Access? Perhaps in the future, scientific publishing would be even easier and faster, which becomes a mainstream – who knows?

For Mr. A’s IEEE Access journal paper, we did not submit the work to any other journals before we submitted it to IEEE Access. IEEE Access was the first and only journal venue we submitted the work to and we were accepted there. We chose this journal because it is fast and, especially, from Mr. A’s graduation point of view, because it was accepted as a “legitimate” journal publication for the graduation purpose in Mr. B’s case. Mr. B was Mr. A’s peer in the same TIGP program, who has successfully defended his thesis and graduated earlier this year (2018) with one IEEE Access journal and two conference publications. Mr. A’s work could have been accepted and published in a different journal (e.g., IEEE Transactions) if we had submitted the work to that journal in the first place. Since the rules and standards for graduation in this TIGP program are not crystal clear, it is natural that Mr. B’s case becomes more or less the de facto standard. This affects our strategy, including journal selection. If we had known the “game rules” that exclude IEEE Access from the list of acceptable journals, then, obviously, we would have customized our strategy differently. Again, since the “game rules” at TIGP are not crystal clear, the denial of IEEE Access as a legitimate journal publication for the purpose of graduation puts the student and myself at an unfair and cruel disadvantage.

I really hope there were crystal clear rules and standards for graduation so that students have some tangible goals and milestones to achieve along their Ph.D. journey. But it seems this is not in place in this TIGP program, yet.

Mr. A has comparable publications as compared to Mr. B. If the publication venue itself does not endorse the quality, I invite you to read Mr. A’s thesis itself to assess its academic value and provide critical comments, if any, using your knowledge and expertise in the areas of social networks, etc. I invite you to judge the thesis on its own merits. Many Ph.D. students in the U.S. defended their thesis before their work was accepted or published in journals or conferences, in which case the committee judged the student’s work on its own merits, and also respected the student’s advisor’s assessment.

I believe most people tend to stick to their own opinions and the value they believe in and uphold. Sometimes these opinions are not compatible with each other. I respect your final decision as a committee, either way. But if Mr. A was deemed unqualified, I would greatly appreciate if you can kindly advise on the following, so that we know how to proceed from here:
1) Please provide clear pointers on how Mr. A may improve the quality of the work itself and the thesis.
2) Please provide clear pointers on the quantitative next step, i.e., how many additional journal or conference papers Mr. A should have (and the acceptable publication venues).
3) Please update the TIGP graduation standards as quickly as possible so that they are crystal clear for current and future students. Explicitly specify all the quantitative performance measures (acceptable publication venues, number of journal/conference papers a student should have, etc.), and uncompromisingly uphold the same standard for all current and future TIGP students even when it turns out very few students can meet the standard.

If you have any further questions or concerns, I would be happy to clarify. Thank you for your advice and your time in reading the letter.

Sincerely,

Ronald Y. Chang, Ph.D.