| The currency of Science | The scientific paper appearing in a peer-reviewed publication is the “currency” of science. |
| Date of publication, reception, acceptance | In addition to having a particular date of publication, many journals publish the date a paper was first received by the editors, before the reviews and revision process started. |
| Ethics - Misaccredidation (plagiarism) | It is unethical to repeat verbatim from another author without proper accreditation. It is unethical to accredit oneself with work done by others. |
| Abstract | Short and concise! No extra words! “Like reading the whole paper in 1 minute.” This is the part of your paper that will be most frequently read, by far. |
| Introduction | Please do not copy the abstract and expand it into an introduction. Your readers already read your abstract. Don't make them read it in a more verbose version again! |
| Related work | A concise yet thorough explanation of what others have done and its relation to what you have done. This motivates your work described in this paper. |
| Description of work | Your contribution - What you did. |
| Results | What the measured readings were. |
| Summary or Conclusions | A summary summarizes what has been said. It is different from the abstract in that the motivation is typically not restated. Conclusions describe the conclusions drawn. Some (especially longer) papers have both these sections. |
| Acknowledgments | You probably got some help on your paper. Make sure you thank those who helped you! |
| References | The point of a reference list is to enable the reader to quickly and reliably locate the prior work you refer to in your paper. Make sure you follow the guidelines for how to structure the references. Make sure you include all info (volume numbers, publisher, page numbers, etc.) so that the references can be used for what they are there for! |
Example paper: http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1574/1473
| Author list | Either alphabetical or in order of level of contribution. |
| Alphabetical list | All authors contributed at a similar level (at least in theory). |
| First author | This is the main author of the paper, that is, the person who: - is the driving force behind the work presented - is the author of the ideas presented in the paper - did most of the work and implementation. Ideally it is also the person who wrote most of the paper. |
| Reality | First author is often a professor who sticks their name on every paper published by a laboratory or department or group. |
| Second author | This is the “second person in command” for the work presented in the paper |
| Third, fourth, fifth, etc. author | Typically a list of people who did some of the work; sometimes these are also people who had a hand in the writing of the paper, but very often they are not (mostly for practical reasons). |
| Extremely long authorship lists | Becoming increasingly common in group projects |
| Last author | Increasingly advisors/professors are putting themselves at the end of the authors' list on papers describing the work of their students. |
| Acknowledgment vs. author? | If a person is not the authors' list (for whatever reason) but contributed something to the work, it is customary to put in a thank-you note in the Acknowledgment section. |
| Not very different from standard scientific publications | The scientific paper provides the basic model |
| Authorship | A thesis is supposed to represent an original contribution of its main author, that is, the student's. |
| Co-authorship on papers derived from thesis | Often an advisor co-authors papers with the student based on the thesis work. It is considered beneficial for a student to publish with their advisor because (typically) the advisor is better known than the student. It is not the godsgiven right of the advisor to co-author papers with a student, especially not to be the first author of such work. This needs to be evaluated in every case… |
| Research Proposals | The major method for funding scientific research |
| Sources | Rannís, European Union |
| Form | All the same information that appears in a scientific paper will typically have to appear in a research proposal. Additional material includes researchers' CV, financial plans, names of student researchers, and a description of where and how the research will be conducted. |
| Application process | Find a 'call for proposals'. Carefully read the description. Note the proposal due date. Get the forms. Write the application, fill in the forms. Send everything in before the due date. Cross your fingers. |
| If you get the grant | Congratulations! Now you must do the work and write progress reports, typically once per year. |
EOF