Center for Analysis and Design of Intelligent Agents

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
public:rem4:rem4-20:writing_papers

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
public:rem4:rem4-20:writing_papers [2020/01/10 10:18] – created thorissonpublic:rem4:rem4-20:writing_papers [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
-[[public:sc-t-701-rem4-20-1:rem4-20-lecturenotes|<-BACK to REM4-20 MAIN]] +
-----------+
  
 ===== Writing Papers ===== ===== Writing Papers =====
  
-| Purpose of a scientific paper |  |+|  Purpose of a scientific paper  | To communicate knowledge about how the world works efficiently and effectively, through the standard communications style of the chosen scientific field.   | 
 +|  Types of scientific papers  | There are three main superclasses: \\ 1. Empirical (Experiment) \\ 2. Summary / Review \\ 3. Mathematical   | 
 +|  Structure of a typical empirical paper  | Abstract \\ Introduction \\ Related work \\ Method \\ Results \\ Conclusions   | 
 +|  Abstract  | A "mini paper": A single paragraph that gives the paper's context, the question/challenge, motivation, method, and conclusion in one go.   | 
 +|  Introduction  | Introduction to the topic, questions and challenge addressed, overview of the motivation and gives its context. The main theory/ies underlying the work. Defines terms to ensure correct interpretation.   | 
 +|  Related Work  | Overview of what others have done to answer/address the question(s) and why it was not sufficient. Quickly describes how it differs from the work described in the paper.   | 
 +|  Questions  | Questions to be answered, preferably in the form of hypotheses.   | 
 +|  Method  | The apparatus, approach, experimental design, etc. in sufficient detail so that someone with scientific training could reproduce the work.   | 
 +|  Results  | The main answers to the hypotheses posed in the Method section.   | 
 +|  Conclusions  | A summary of the main conclusions and results. Often includes future work: what the scientists plan to do or recommend shall be done next on the subject.    |
  
 +\\
 +\\
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
Line 11: Line 21:
  
 ====First 2 Questions: What is My Point & Who Do I Want to Read it?==== ====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**. 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.  | +|  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.  | 
-| 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. //   |+|  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. //   |
  
 \\ \\
Line 29: Line 39:
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
 +
 +
 +
 ===== Writing An Empirical Investigation / Experimental Paper ===== ===== Writing An Empirical Investigation / Experimental Paper =====
  
Line 36: Line 49:
  
 ====Typical Structure of an Empirical Paper==== ====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  | 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!  | |  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.  |+|  Introduction  | Overall context of the work, short summary of related work and a presentation of the motivation for the work - the problems/questions 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. | |  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.  | |  Questions  | Your questions. Your conundrum. This is the heart of the paper. Describe it as clearly as you can.  |
Line 53: Line 66:
 \\ \\
  
-====Writing Style==== + 
-| 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.  | +====The Five Key Points in A 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.  | +|  What is your topic and why is the topic worth studying?  | Present the context and motivation for your work.  | 
-| First person vs. third person | Pick your style - be consistent!  | +|  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.  | 
-| 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.  | +|  Why is your contribution important?  | To understand your ideas they will need some background (context in the form of motivations, related work). \\ How does your work build on what came before? What does it add? | 
-| A scientific paper tells a story | A story requires that the things described in it are connected: One thing leads to another. The same goes for scientific papers. The human mind has an easier time grasping things that follow logically. If you can't fit everything in the same paper (without making it disconnected or too long) write two papers - or a book.  | +|  Can it be believed?  | To evaluate and understand your ideas they want to see results of evaluations (results).  | 
-| Acronyms | Avoid them like the plague. Some are necessary, of course (e.g. "IBM", "NASA"). Don't forget to explain what acronyms mean: "...NASA (National Aeronautics & Space Administration)."  |+|  Can your results be trusted?  | To understand the results you need to explain how you got them (experimental setup).  | 
  
 \\ \\
Line 67: Line 81:
 \\ \\
  
-====The Five Key Points in Your Paper Exercise==== +====How the Five Points Map Into The Paper Structure==== 
-| What is your topic and why is the topic worth studying? | Present the context and motivation for your work.  | +|  Topic and motivation  | Abstract (1-2 sentences) \\ Introduction  | 
-| 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.  | +|  What's your contribution?  | Abstract (2-5 sentences) \\ Introduction (briefly) \\ Technology / Topic description  | 
-| Why is your contribution important? | To understand your ideas they will need some background (context in the form of motivations, related work). \\ How does your work build on what came before? What does it add? | +|  Why is your contribution important?  | Abstract (1 sentence) \\ Motivation paragraph/section (often part of introduction, sometimes its own short section)  | 
-| Can it be believed? | To evaluate and understand your ideas they want to see results of evaluations (results).  | +|  Can it be believed?  | Results section  | 
-| Can your results be trusted? | To understand the results you need to explain how you got them (experimental setup).  | +|  Can your results be trusted?  | Experimental setup / Evaluation sections  |
- +
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
Line 80: Line 92:
 \\ \\
  
-====How the Five Points Map Into your Paper Structure==== + 
-| Topic and motivation | Abstract (1-2 sentences) \\ Introduction  | +====Writing Style==== 
-| What's your contribution? | Abstract (2-5 sentences) \\ Introduction (briefly) \\ Technology / Topic description  | +|  Pick your style  |- be consistent !  | 
-| Why is your contribution important? | Abstract (1 sentence) \\ Motivation paragraph/section (often part of introduction, sometimes its own short section)  | +|  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.  | 
-| Can it be believed? | Results section  | +|  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.  | 
-| Can your results be trusted? | Experimental setup / Evaluation sections  |+|  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.  | 
 +|  A scientific paper tells a story  | A story requires that the things described in it are connected: One thing leads to another. The same goes for scientific papers. The human mind has an easier time grasping things that follow logically. If you can't fit everything in the same paper (without making it disconnected or too long) write two papers - or a book.  | 
 +|  Acronyms  | Avoid them like the plague. Some are necessary, of course (e.g. "IBM", "NASA"). Don't forget to explain what acronyms mean: "...NASA (National Aeronautics & Space Administration)."  | 
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
- 
  
 ====Common Mistakes==== ====Common Mistakes====
-| Writing to a particular person (e.g. your instructor) |If you are a fiction writer, it may work to write to your mother or lover, but scientific papers are always addressed to a group.  | +|  Writing to a particular person (e.g. your instructor)  | If you are a fiction writer, it may work to write to your mother or lover, but scientific papers are always addressed to a group.  | 
-| Not following standard templates or guidelines | Most conferences and journals have a standard format and provide templates. Follow the templates!  | +|  Not following standard templates or guidelines | Most conferences and journals have a standard format and provide templates. Follow the templates!  | 
-| Formatting the references wrong | Before you decide that your reference style is the most convenient/easiest to read/easiest to set up/best looking, know what conventions you are breaking! \\ To know what conventions you are breaking you must learn the conventions (this can take years).  | +|  Formatting the references wrong  | Before you decide that your reference style is the most convenient/easiest to read/easiest to set up/best looking, know what conventions you are breaking! \\ To know what conventions you are breaking you must learn the conventions (this can take years).  | 
-| 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 118:
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
 +
  
 ====Reviewing Scientific Papers: Key Roles of a Reviewer==== ====Reviewing Scientific Papers: Key Roles of a Reviewer====
/var/www/cadia.ru.is/wiki/data/attic/public/rem4/rem4-20/writing_papers.1578651510.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/04/29 13:32 (external edit)
Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki