Difference between revisions of "Checklist Scientific Paper"
From its-wiki.no
Josef.Noll (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "= Checklist Scientific Paper = Define on forehand a semantic, and be consistent in your wording * approach ''or'' a methodology * analysis ''or'' an evaluation Specifics * c...") |
Josef.Noll (Talk | contribs) (→Checklist Scientific Paper) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Checklist Scientific Paper = | = Checklist Scientific Paper = | ||
+ | Before writing, create a table of content (TOC) | ||
+ | * define a red line: ''what is the major story of your paper, what do you want to demonstrate/show?'' | ||
+ | * split that into sections | ||
+ | * put under each section/subsection a list of bullets on what to write | ||
+ | * Recommendation: use comment option in LaTeX to indicate the content, e.g. ''% analysis of first example, use only metrics for a and b'' | ||
Define on forehand a semantic, and be consistent in your wording | Define on forehand a semantic, and be consistent in your wording | ||
* approach ''or'' a methodology | * approach ''or'' a methodology | ||
* analysis ''or'' an evaluation | * analysis ''or'' an evaluation | ||
+ | |||
+ | Define a clear baseline/starting point of your approach | ||
+ | * what do we have today?, e.g. multi-metrics approach | ||
+ | * what are the deficiencies? - e.g. ''we are missing a complete system description'' | ||
+ | * comparison state-of-the-art in research | ||
+ | * what am I supposed to add? - e.g. ''complete system description. still some simplifications'' | ||
Specifics | Specifics | ||
Line 20: | Line 31: | ||
* start with a very short summary of what was performed | * start with a very short summary of what was performed | ||
* use numbers, be specific | * use numbers, be specific | ||
+ | * pick up on what you wanted to show/demonstrate | ||
== References == | == References == |
Revision as of 07:58, 16 October 2015
Wiki for ITS | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Checklist Scientific Paper
Before writing, create a table of content (TOC)
- define a red line: what is the major story of your paper, what do you want to demonstrate/show?
- split that into sections
- put under each section/subsection a list of bullets on what to write
- Recommendation: use comment option in LaTeX to indicate the content, e.g. % analysis of first example, use only metrics for a and b
Define on forehand a semantic, and be consistent in your wording
- approach or a methodology
- analysis or an evaluation
Define a clear baseline/starting point of your approach
- what do we have today?, e.g. multi-metrics approach
- what are the deficiencies? - e.g. we are missing a complete system description
- comparison state-of-the-art in research
- what am I supposed to add? - e.g. complete system description. still some simplifications
Specifics
- check each sentence:
- does the verb reflect the right relation to the object, e.g.
- simple constructions, use only 1 object with max 1 attribute, e.g. contributes to an extended approach
- avoid this. Wherever you use this, reflect on whether it is "crystal clear" or leaves doubt. Use rather: The approach ...
Evaluations
- evaluate your approach with respect to e.g.
- sensitivity (what changes if I change an input value)
- cost/benefit analysis - there is no such thing as a free lunch
- after the analysis, are there lessons learned, things you would have made differently?
Conclusions
- start with a very short summary of what was performed
- use numbers, be specific
- pick up on what you wanted to show/demonstrate