Differences

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

--- rem4:writing_papers [2008/08/24 21:12] – thorisson
+++ rem4:writing_papers [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===== Writing Scientific Papers =====
-.0 Index
+Index
-  * 2.1 Typical Structure of a Scientific Paper
+  * Typical Structure of a Scientific Paper
-  * 2.2 Audience: Who will be reading your paper?
+  * Audience: Who will be reading your paper?
-  * 2.3 Writing Style
+  * Writing Style
-  * 2.4 The Five Key Points in Your Scientific Paper
+  * The Five Key Points in Your Scientific Paper
-  * 2.5 How the Five Points Map Into your Paper Structure
+  * How the Five Points Map Into your Paper Structure
-  * 2.6 Common Mistakes
+  * Common Mistakes
-  * 2.7 Reviewing Scientific Papers: Key Roles of a Reviewer
+  * Reviewing Scientific Papers: Key Roles of a Reviewer
-  * 2.8 More Information for Getting the Details Right
+  * More Information for Getting the Details Right
-  * 2.9 Next Project: Review an Introduction
+  * Next Project: Review an Introduction
 \\
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 \\
-| **2.1**          | **Typical Structure of a Scientific Paper** |
+===Typical Structure of a Scientific Paper===
 | 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). |
 | 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. |
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 \\
-| **2.2** | **Audience: Who will be reading your paper?** |
+===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. |
 | 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 41: / Line 41: @@
 \\
-| **2.3** | **Writing Style** |
+===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. |
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 \\
 \\
+===The Five Key Points in Your Scientific Paper===
+| 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. |
+| 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? |
+| Can it be believed? | To evaluate and understand your ideas they want to see results of evaluations (results). |
+| Can your results be trusted? | To understand the results you need to explain how you got them (experimental setup). |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===How the Five Points Map Into your Paper Structure===
+| Topic and motivation | Abstract (1-2 sentences) \\ Introduction |
+| What's your contribution? | Abstract (2-5 sentences) \\ Introduction (briefly) \\ Technology / Topic description |
+| Why is your contribution important? | Abstract (1 sentence) \\ Motivation paragraph/section (often part of introduction, sometimes its own short section) |
+| Can it be believed? | Results section |
+| Can your results be trusted? | Experimental setup / Evaluation sections |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===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. |
+| 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). |
+| 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. |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===Reviewing Scientific Papers: Key Roles of a Reviewer===
+| Highlight the paper's strengths | When reviewing, it is always important to note a paper’s strengths, so that the author will not lose these in the process of revision. |
+| The author often forgets the big picture | This happens because it is easy to forget oneself in all the details that have to be right. \\ Point out how the paper could be organized differently to better convey its topic. |
+| 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 |
+| Quick and fun read | http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3fs8i/air/airpaper.html |
+| Writing for journals | http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.html |
+| Writing scientific papers | http://faculty.fullerton.edu/kkantardjieff/C340/The%20Scientific%20Paper_1.pdf |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\