public:rem4:rem4-16:writing_papers
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| public:rem4:rem4-16:writing_papers [2018/01/11 19:59] – thorisson | public:rem4:rem4-16:writing_papers [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | [[http:// | + | [[public: |
| ---------- | ---------- | ||
| + | ===== Writing An Empirical Investigation / Experimental Paper ===== | ||
| - | ===== Writing An Experimental / Empircal Investigation Paper ===== | + | \\ |
| + | \\ | ||
| - | Index | + | ====First 2 Questions: What is My Point & Who Do I Want to Read it?==== |
| - | + | | Ask this before you write your paper | Because a scientific paper has a title and a conclusion, they always have a **key point**. | |
| - | * Typical Structure of a Paper Describing an Experiment | + | | 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 |
| - | * Audience: Who Will be Reading Your Paper? | + | |
| - | * Writing Style | + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | * How the Five Points Map Into your Paper Structure | + | |
| - | * Common Mistakes | + | |
| - | * Reviewing Scientific Papers: Key Roles of a Reviewer | + | |
| - | * More Information | + | |
| - | * Next Project: Review an Introduction | + | |
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ====Audience: | ||
| + | | 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 a Paper Describing | + | ====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. | | | 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 | | Abstract | ||
| Line 34: | Line 40: | ||
| | Acknowledgments | | Acknowledgments | ||
| | Citations | | Citations | ||
| - | |||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | ====Audience: | ||
| - | | 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. | ||
| - | | 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). | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 93: | 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 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. | | 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 103: | Line 102: | ||
| | Select well what you criticize | Make sure the comments you write are about things that really make a diffierence. | | 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. | | | Think like an advisor | Try to turn negative comments into helpful comments. | | ||
| + | |||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | \\ | ||
| - | ====More Information for Getting the Details Right==== | ||
| - | | SPORTSCIENCE sportsci.org | http:// | ||
| - | | Writing for journals | http:// | ||
| - | |||
| - | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| //EOF// | //EOF// | ||
/var/www/cadia.ru.is/wiki/data/attic/public/rem4/rem4-16/writing_papers.1515700763.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/04/29 13:32 (external edit)