I know people who have presented a version of a paper that becomes a publication later. Present the less refined version, and then work with the faculty member to refine more until it is publishable. Then, publish.
I'm actually a bit confused. I've never encountered this idea that presenting data at a conference somehow prevents it from being publishable later. How are the people who didn't attend the conference supposed to learn about your work?
So, you already have something under the "Conference" section of your CV? I would go for publication, and start working on that section. Shows your work is good in a variety of contexts.
I have the conference presentation mentioned here and a student conference presentation. So yes, it probably would be good to try for publication. Thanks!
Not even close. Peer-reviewed journal articles trump publications every time--unless the publication is a fifth-tier online journal no one has heard of and the conference is an ultra-competitive national conference with a very low acceptance rate.
Your earlier concern about getting two conference papers and a publication out of the same data set are unfounded. As long as your are testing new hypotheses, you have nothing to worry about.
Thanks for the input! The conference is pretty competitive but my guess is that publication in a respectable journal would still be more difficult. I'll ask some professors in the field just to make sure.
Comments 27
If I *had* to choose, I'd take publication. It lasts longer.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Your earlier concern about getting two conference papers and a publication out of the same data set are unfounded. As long as your are testing new hypotheses, you have nothing to worry about.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment