| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| rem4:related_work_references [2008/08/28 18:06] – thorisson | rem4:related_work_references [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| | 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. Last paragraph: Explain the structure of the paper. | | | 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. Last paragraph: Explain the structure of the paper. | |
| | Motivation | Explicit presentation of the motivation (or fold this in with the Introduction, if the motivation can be expressed in 1-2 sentences). | | | Motivation | Explicit presentation of the motivation (or fold this in with the Introduction, if the motivation can be expressed in 1-2 sentences). | |
| | Related work | Relatively dry discussion of prior work and how it is inadequate in addressing the problems that your idea addresses. | | | Related work / Literature review | Relatively dry discussion of prior work and how it is inadequate in addressing the problems that your idea addresses. | |
| | Contributions | Your idea, your work. This is the topic of the paper. Describe it as clearly as you can. | | | Contributions | Your idea, your work. 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 good idea? | | | Evaluation | How do you make sure your idea is a good one? How do you convince others that it's a good idea? | |
| | Support your main argument | Remember: A scientific paper is an argument. The section on related work needs to support the main arguments made in the paper: \\ — Be selective on what papers you present in the section. \\ — Construct a narrative (tell a story), to keep the reader interested. Nobody likes to read a long, dry recount of what has been done. Use your motivation(s) (what questions are you trying to answer?) to keep the story interesting. | | | Support your main argument | Remember: A scientific paper is an argument. The section on related work needs to support the main arguments made in the paper: \\ — Be selective on what papers you present in the section. \\ — Construct a narrative (tell a story), to keep the reader interested. Nobody likes to read a long, dry recount of what has been done. Use your motivation(s) (what questions are you trying to answer?) to keep the story interesting. | |
| | Use topic to steer inclusion of related work | The major topic of your paper will tell you what you need to review. Use your title and abstract to figure out what work to review. | | | Use topic to steer inclusion of related work | The major topic of your paper will tell you what you need to review. Use your title and abstract to figure out what work to review. | |
| | |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | |
| | ===The Potatostamp Method™=== |
| | |
| | | What is it? | A handy method to help you write a nice Related Work section | |
| | | Step 1 | Group the paper you have identified as related work into groups, where each group represents (a) a particular way of solving the problem at hand and (b) all the solution have particular shortcomings. | |
| | | Step 2 | (C) Write 2-3 sentences about what the researchers in the first group did; (d) write 1-2 sentences about the shortcomings of the work in this roup, wrt your own work (that is, write the shortcomings in a way that the reader sees why your own contribution is a direct response to these shortcomings | |
| | | Step 3 | Go back to Step 1. Repeat as often as needed (a reasonably-sized Related Works section contains at least 3 groups of related work papers). | |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| ===Finding Related Work=== | ===Finding Related Work=== |
| | When have I searched enough? | That depends on how "green" you are in your field of study. The bottom line is: You can be sure you missed at least one paper that is highly relevant to your work. Ergo: Keep looking until the last minute. Just don't miss the deadline. | | | When have I searched enough? | That depends on how "green" you are in your field of study. The bottom line is: You can be sure you missed at least one paper that is highly relevant to your work. Ergo: Keep looking until the last minute. Just don't miss the deadline. | |
| | Cited work: Is there a maximum? | No. Most journals and conferences put no limitations on the number of references one can have in a paper. | | Cited work: Is there a maximum? | No. Most journals and conferences put no limitations on the number of references one can have in a paper. \\ If the paper calls for a lot of references then you should try to include them all. \\ Using the rule of proportions: It is strange to see more than 30% of the words in a paper devoted to references (typically it will be between 5% and 10%). | |
| If the paper calls for a lot of references then you should try to include them all. \\ Using the rule of proportions: It is strange to see more than 30% of the words in a paper devoted to references (typically it will be between 5% and 10%). | | |
| | Cited work: Is there a minimum? | Yes: >1. \\ Work with no references will not get published. \\ Exceptions include: Letters of Opinion; Presidential addresses; published dialogue; and perhaps a few other ones. | | | Cited work: Is there a minimum? | Yes: >1. \\ Work with no references will not get published. \\ Exceptions include: Letters of Opinion; Presidential addresses; published dialogue; and perhaps a few other ones. | |
| \\ | \\ |
| ===Structure of the References Section=== | ===Structure of the References Section=== |
| | Name-Year system | **Name of author and year listed; alphabetical in reference section.** \\ Jones, J. P. (2002). Bass Playing Through the Ages. International Musician, 12(8): 232-234. \\ Pullman, J. (1999). The Effects of Toasters on Human Health. J. of Toasterology, 11(12): 11-22. | | | Name-Year system | **Name of author and year listed; alphabetical in reference section.** \\ Jones, J. P. (2002). Bass Playing Through the Ages. International Musician, 12(8): 232-234. \\ Pullman, J. (1999). The Effects of Toasters on Human Health. J. of Toasterology, 11(12): 11-22. | |
| | Citation-sequence system | Publications are numbered in the order they are cited. \\ [1] Pullman, J. (1999). The Effects of Toasters on Human Health. J. of Toasterology, 11(12): 11-22. \\ [2] Jones, J. P. (2002). Bass Playing Through the Ages. International Musician, 12(8): 232-234. \\ [n] ... | | | Citation-sequence system | **Publications are numbered in the order they are cited.** \\ [1] Pullman, J. (1999). The Effects of Toasters on Human Health. J. of Toasterology, 11(12): 11-22. \\ [2] Jones, J. P. (2002). Bass Playing Through the Ages. International Musician, 12(8): 232-234. \\ [n] ... | |
| | Kyed | [PULL99] Pullman, J. (1999). The Effects of Toasters on Human Health. J. of Toasterology, 11(12): 11-22. \\ [JON02] Jones, J. P. (2002). Bass Playing Through the Ages. International Musician, 12(8): 232-234. | | | Kyed | [PULL99] Pullman, J. (1999). The Effects of Toasters on Human Health. J. of Toasterology, 11(12): 11-22. \\ [JON02] Jones, J. P. (2002). Bass Playing Through the Ages. International Musician, 12(8): 232-234. | |
| |
| |
| ===Structure of a Reference=== | ===Structure of a Reference=== |
| | APA Style (Amer. Psychological Assoc.) | Very common -- possibly the most common reference style; used in many fields. The one we will use. \\ **Book** \\ Molich, Rolf (2003). //Brugervenligt webdesign.// Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag. \\ **Journal** \\ Thórisson, K. R., H. Benko, A. Arnold, D. Abramov, S. Maskey, A. Vaseekaran (2004). Constructionist Design Methodology for Interactive Intelligences. //A.I. Magazine//, 25(4): 77-90. [OPTIONAL:] Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence. \\ **Conference** \\ Melson, G. F., Kahn, Jr., Peter H., Beck, A. M., Friedman, B., Roberts, T. and Garrett, E. (2005). Robots as Dogs? Children's Interactions with the Robotic Dog AIBO and a Live Australian Shepherd. //Proceedings of CHI 2005//, Philadelphia, PA, April 2-7, 33-39. | | | APA Style (Amer. Psychological Assoc.) | Very common -- possibly the most common reference style; used in many fields. The one we will use. \\ **Book:** Molich, Rolf (2003). //Brugervenligt webdesign.// Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag. \\ **Journal:** Thórisson, K. R., H. Benko, A. Arnold, D. Abramov, S. Maskey, A. Vaseekaran (2004). Constructionist Design Methodology for Interactive Intelligences. //A.I. Magazine//, 25(4): 77-90. [OPTIONAL:] Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence. \\ **Conference:** Melson, G. F., Kahn, Jr., Peter H., Beck, A. M., Friedman, B., Roberts, T. and Garrett, E. (2005). Robots as Dogs? Children's Interactions with the Robotic Dog AIBO and a Live Australian Shepherd. //Proceedings of CHI 2005//, Philadelphia, PA, April 2-7, 33-39. | |
| | Other styles | see e.g.: http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/sci/Generalsci/sciwrit.html | | | Other styles | see e.g.: http://dal.ca.libguides.com/content.php?pid=860&sid=11818 | |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| ===Struture of an Introduction=== | |
| | General context of the work | A bit more detail on the first few sentences in the Abstract. | | |
| | Key related work | The main work that gives your work context \\ Keep references to a minimum; they should be handled in the Related Work section. | | |
| | Motivation | Why did you do this work? An expansion of the 1-2 motivational sentences in the Abstract. | | |
| | Structure of the paper | The last paragraph may start with "The structure of this paper is as follows:". | | |
| | Example (short) Introduction - very good example. Clear and concise.| Goldman, C. V. & J. S. Rosenschein (1994). Emergent Coordination Through the Use of Cooperative State-Changing Rules. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 171-185. | | |
| | Example (long) Introduction - actually a bit too long. | Giunchiglia, E. (1997). Representing Action: Indeterminacy and Ramifications. Artificial Intelligence, 95(2):409-438. | | |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| | EOF |
| |
