World Congress on Global Optimization in France and a Special Surprise

I returned last evening from Europe, having spent the past three weeks at conferences and transit points between. During this period I had the pleasure of being in 8 different countries. I delivered 2 conference presentations (in Dublin and in Kalamata, Greece), 1 tutorial (in Dublin), spoke on 2 panels (also in Dublin), presented at IBM Dublin, and also gave a plenary talk at the World Congress on Global Optimization (WCGO) in Metz, France. I blogged about the EURO 2019 Conference in Dublin and also about the Dynamics of Disasters conference that I had co-organized in Kalamata (yes, like the olives).

I thoroughly enjoyed all these conferences from the large, with over 2,000 delegates, EURO Dublin conference to the smaller Dynamics of Disasters conference and the mid-sized WCGO.

WCGO began with an opening remarks. The timetable for the conference can be downloaded here.

The plenary talk that I gave at  the WCGO was in the Constantin Caratheodory Prize session. This year I was tremendously honored and humbled and surprised to be the recipient of the 2019 Constantin Caratheodory Prize, along with Professor Anatoly Zhigljavsky of Cardiff University in Wales. More information about the prize and the previous recipients of this prize can be found on the International Society of Global Optimization website. As I said in my acceptance speech, I am standing on the shoulders of giants. I am very grateful to the Chair of the Prize Committee, Distinguished University Professor Panos M. Pardalos of the University of Florida (and former recipient of this and many other prizes), and to all the committee members for this truly distinctive honor. In the photo below, I am standing with, from l-r: Professor Yaroslav Sergeyev, a member of the prize committee, Professor Zhigljavsky, and Professor Panos M. Pardalos. Professor Sergeyev is also President of the International Society of Global Optimization.

A nice article on the prize was published by UMass Amherst - thank you! I very much appreciate the congratulatory messages that I have been receiving from faculty and staff  at my university and many other faculty and even former students from around the globe!

I have posted my plenary talk because it is on a very timely topic and on research conducted with one of my doctoral students, Deniz Besik, and other collaborators.

The WCGO was an intellectual (and social) feast with plenary talks given by renowned researchers, beginning on the first day with a breathtaking plenary by Pardalos on networks and brain research with applications to epilepsy and Parkinson's,  to a very dynamic, fascinating last day plenary by Professor Sergiy Butenko of Texas A&M University. Butenko, who is the Editor of the Journal of Global Optimization, spoke on his unifying framework for network analysis and cliques with applications ranging from social networks to material science! To have the opportunity to listen to these and such plenary speakers as Professor Ben-Tal of Israel, Professor Immmanuel Bomze of Austria (who is also the President of EURO and I had had the pleasure of seeing him at EURO Dublin), Professor Fukushima of Japan, and Professor Zhigljavsky of the UK, was simply fabulous!

Below I have posted a few photos from the talks of several of the plenary speakers.

Thanks to the organizers for taking the group photo of all the delegates below - a very happy group, I must say!

It was wonderful to have joint coffee breaks, delicious lunches served us, and a truly exceptional banquet, at which I had so much fun, I woke up twice the night afterwards laughing because of the stories and jokes exchanged.

I met researchers from so many different countries at WCGO, including: Botswana, Benin, Algeria, Israel, Morocco, Iran, Italy, Germany, Ireland, the UK, USA, Greece, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, India, Japan, among others, and even Kazakhstan! I had to take the group photo at the banquet with researchers from that country and a friend - so many women, which was great and even a rector of a university there!

It was also a delight to see Professor Christine Shoemaker, formerly of Cornell University, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering, who is now a faculty member in Singapore, at WCGO.

This was truly a World Congress on Global Optimization and I thank the organizers for an outstanding experience with new friendships made, and new research ideas generated. As a colleague from Germany said to me: this was a conference that we enjoyed not only great scientific exchanges but we also met wonderful new colleagues!

And, at the onset of the conference in France, the US women's soccer team won the World Cup - simply perfect!

The Joy of Revising a Scientific Research Paper

The title of this blogpost is neither an oxymoron nor satirical.

I really mean that one can find joy and, perhaps, even pleasure, in revising a scientific research paper of yours.

Of course, prior to submission of the original paper to a journal you thought, as did your co-authors,  that the paper that you all labored on for many weeks or months and, sometimes, even years (although, hopefully not to the exclusion of everything else), was "perfect." You found the results original and noteworthy and well-argued and presented. And, with Latex, you even made the paper "look good" with illuminating and captivating figures, tables, and results!

The journal Editor handled your paper expeditiously and, before you knew it, although sometimes the waiting seems like an eternity, you were reading the referees' reports from the anonymous peer reviewers of your paper.

Sometimes, when I revise a paper, I do feel like a lawyer in that one has to argue the validity of one's case (and innocence, of course).  And I get satisfaction in revising a paper according to (good) reviewers' reports that offer constructive criticism and insights.

Also, in revising a paper, one sometimes can better clarify the contributions. These may be apparent to you, the authors, but should also be clear to the readers of your paper.

I, typically, unless its a minor revision or accept as is (have, amazingly, had a few of those), will first read the reports and then ruminate over them over several days, during which my mind percolates as to the strategy associated with the revision.

Then I sit down, and, if the paper is co-authored, discuss with my colleagues, as to the strategy of how we will revise and address the reviewers' concerns.

It is very satisfying (at least to me and, I am sure, to others), when you work very hard on revising the paper and the pieces all fall into place.

The revised paper comes out stronger and better than the original and everyone learns and benefits from the process.

One resubmits the revised paper to the journal, along with the accompanying responses to reviewers, which itemize the changes made.

And, then hopefully, the story has a happy ending, and you hear good news, in time, that the paper is now accepted (or maybe just a minor revision, easily handled, is required).

The scientific process is iterative and doing one's best, whether in conducting the research, writing it up, revising and resubmitting the revisions to journals, etc., brings joy!

And, remember, even Nobel Prize winners have had some of their (eventually, best-known) papers, initially rejected for publication (sometimes multiple times)!