Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- public:rem4:rem4-16:writing_papers [2016/08/19 11:57] – [Typical Structure of a Paper Describing an Experiment] thorisson2
+++ public:rem4:rem4-16:writing_papers [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===== Writing A Comparative Experiment Paper =====
+[[public:sc-t-701-rem4-18-1:rem4-18-lecturenotes|<-BACK to REM4-18 MAIN]]
+----------
-Index
+===== Writing An Empirical Investigation / Experimental Paper =====
-  * Typical Structure of a Paper Describing an Experiment
-  * Audience: Who Will be Reading Your Paper?
-  * Writing Style
-  * The Five Key Points in Your Scientific Paper
-  * How the Five Points Map Into your Paper Structure
-  * Common Mistakes
-  * Reviewing Scientific Papers: Key Roles of a Reviewer
-  * More Information for Getting the Details Right
-  * Next Project: Review an Introduction
-\\
 \\
 \\
-====Typical Structure of a Paper Describing an Experiment====
+====First 2 Questions: What is My Point & Who Do I Want to Read it?====
-|  Title   | Sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate the main focus; sufficiently short to fit in two lines or less.  |
+| Ask this before you write your paper | Because a scientific paper has a title and a conclusion, they always have a **key point**. The answer to these two questions will determine the main message that your paper carries, which in turn determines the experimental paradigm, the methods, the presentation style, and your suggested future work.  |
-|  Abstract  | This section is key - it's a mini-summary of your paper, intended to allow others to decide whether your work is relevant to their work (and whether they should read on).  |
+| What Is My Point? | Your paper has a title which either states your point explicitly or conveys it implicitly. //Example title with explicit point: Best-Case Cubesort is Better Than Best-Case Comb Sort. / Evidence for Robot Uprising is Meager at Best. Example title with implicit point: Challenges to Piaget's Theory of Child Development. //   |
-|  Introduction  | Overall context of the work, short summary of related work and a presentation of the motivation for the work - the problems that are to be addressed.  |
-|  Related work  | Relatively dry discussion of prior work and how it is inadequate in addressing the problems that your idea addresses. |
-|  Contribution  | Your idea. Your thing. This is **the** topic of the paper. Describe it as clearly as you can.  |
-|  Evaluation  | How do you make sure your idea is a good one? How do you convince others that it's a great idea?  |
-|  Results  | Present the results so that they support the claims made throughout - and support the idea that your idea (the topic of the paper) is worth publication.  |
-|  Discussion  | Optional section - sometimes things that didn't fit anywhere else, but really belong in that paper.  |
-|  Conclusion  | This is the conclusion you draw from the work, as presented in the paper. Based on what has been said in this paper, what conclusions can you draw? This is often a semi-summary of the paper.  |
-|  Acknowledgments  | Who sponsored the work; who helped out (but not enough to count as a co-author).  |
-|  Citations  | Related work referred through in the paper.  |
 \\
@@ Line 34: / Line 15: @@
 \\
 \\
-====Audience: Who Will be Reading Your Paper?====
-| Ask before you start your research | This will determine your research context, experimental paradigm and the emphasis or slant you choose for your work. \\ This is especially important if you are working in interdisciplinary research or on projects that can appeal to more than one scientific community.  |
+====Audience: Who Will be Reading My Paper?====
+| Ask this question before you start your research | This will determine your research context, experimental paradigm and the emphasis or slant you choose for your work. \\ This is especially important if you are working in interdisciplinary research or on projects that can appeal to more than one scientific community.  |
 | Ask again before you start writing your paper	| Select the journal / conference first \\ Do a background search on papers recently published there, to verify that your background section and description of work fits into their context (less important for journals).  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+====Typical Structure of an Empirical Paper====
+|  Title   | Sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate the main focus, as found in the Contribution part of the paper; sufficiently short to fit in two lines or less.  |
+|  Abstract  | A mini-summary of your paper, intended to allow others to decide whether your work is relevant to their work (and whether they should read on). This section is key!  |
+|  Introduction  | Overall context of the work, short summary of related work and a presentation of the motivation for the work - the problems that are to be addressed.  |
+|  Related work  | Relatively dry discussion and summary of prior work that is relevant to the present work, and how it is inadequate in addressing the problems that your idea addresses, thus necessitating yours. |
+|  Questions  | Your questions. Your conundrum. This is the heart of the paper. Describe it as clearly as you can.  |
+|  Method & Execution  | The apparatus and setup you used to answer your questions. How you performed the experiment.  |
+|  Results  | What was the outcome of the experiment? Present the results so that they support the claims made throughout - and support the idea that your idea (the topic of the paper) is worth publication.  |
+|  Discussion  | Optional section - sometimes things that didn't fit anywhere else, but really belong in that paper.  |
+|  Conclusion  | This is the conclusion you draw from the work, as presented in the paper. Based on what has been said in this paper, what conclusions can you draw? This is often a semi-summary of the paper.  |
+|  Acknowledgments  | Who sponsored the work; who helped out (but not enough to count as a co-author).  |
+|  Citations  | Related work referred through in the paper.  |
 \\
@@ Line 46: / Line 49: @@
 | Pick your style  |- be consistent !  |
 | The fewer words the better | Occam's razor works here: As few words as possible, but not fewer (to paraphrase Einstein). \\ A scientific paper must be clear and consistent - there may be no way around being "dry", compared to e.g. creative writing. Your exciting research subject should make up for it.  |
-| Clear sentence structure | Shorter sentences are better than long ones. Shorter = better; longer = worse. **Short = good!** \\ A paper that is hard to read is a bad paper!
+| Clear sentence structure | Shorter sentences are better than long ones. Shorter = better; longer = worse. **Short = good!** \\ A paper that is hard to read is a bad paper! \\ Note: When you have written what you think is a really good sentence, there is always a better one that says exactly the same and is shorter.  |
 | First person vs. third person | Pick your style - be consistent!  |
 | A scientific paper is an argument | A paper presents arguments for a certain state of the world being true. This goes for all papers, including exploratory ones. **There is always an argument.** Try to make that argument as strong as possible and you will be on your way to a good paper.  |
@@ Line 57: / Line 60: @@
 \\
-====The Five Key Points in Your Scientific Paper====
+====The Five Key Points in Your Paper Exercise====
 | What is your topic and why is the topic worth studying? | Present the context and motivation for your work.  |
 | What's your contribution? | Scientists are interested in your ideas (the "meat" of your paper). What are you working on? What is your key contribution / idea? \\ Remember, the main emphasis is for the particular paper - do not explain the point of a multi-year research program in a single paper (in any detail), just the point of the material presented in the paper itself.  |
@@ Line 88: / Line 91: @@
 | Not letting the material drive the layout and flow of the paper | If you have answered the question about what your contribution is up front, your material will suggest a certain layout and flow. (Remember, a scientific paper is an argument - it's almost like a lawyer arguing in court.) Try to follow that flow as much as possible. If you try to cram material into a format where it won't fit you will end up with a paper that is difficult to read (i.e. a bad paper).  |
 | Not connecting the major points in your paper by a the necessary A-follows-B logic | The only way the human mind can comprehend things is when there is a logical relationship between phenomena and events. Make sure there is a story in your paper.  |
 \\
 \\
@@ Line 98: / Line 102: @@
 | Select well what you criticize | Make sure the comments you write are about things that really make a diffierence.  |
 | Think like an advisor | Try to turn negative comments into helpful comments. |
 \\
-\\
-\\
-\\
-====More Information for Getting the Details Right====
-| SPORTSCIENCE sportsci.org | http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9901/wghstyle.html  |
-| Writing for journals | http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.html  |
-\\
 \\
 \\
 \\
 //EOF//