Before structuring the final work, a proposal should be considered, in order to effectively plan the experiment to be done.
First of all, the document must follow the coherence, deepness, clarity and novelty in each section. The goals must either answer two or three research questions or prove a single hypothesis. These goals are classified as the mandatory and the check-like. The latter goals are part of the former.
By temporality: mediate goals -> immediate goal.
By aiming: specific goals-> main goal.
By focusing: experimental goals -> theoretical goal.
Thus, discussion section must satisfy the accomplishment of the check-like goals, and the conclusion must explain the achievement of the mandatory goal.
The structure of a paper should be as follows:
A short Title helps, see this Article.
- Authors: We suggest the adequate number of authors of two in proceeding papers and three for a Journal. For the former, the two authors are the person who plans and makes the document and the other who elaborates the algorithm and carries out the experiment. In this case, there is no clear distinction for the main author, just for correspondence purposes. For the latter, the First Author is the architect/director of the work: It is the person who elaborates the document, designs the experimental setup, gives the main idea and goal of the work and elaborates the mathematical background and hypothesis. It is the responsible person for a successful work. It would suggest that these activities are all. However, the Second Author is the person in charge of the accomplishment of activities designed by the first one. He writes the document, deploys/tests the algorithms, display the results, elaborate the graphics and gives the discussion/conclusion guidelines. Finally, the Third Author is the producer. Although it seems like he does nothing, normally the third author is the person who coordinates the whole activities for the accomplishment of publication: it is the person who finds the contacts for the discussion of paper, pays for (or manage) the elements, personnel and equipment needed for the elaboration of work, teaches the theory/background required for elaboration of experiment, and tracks the paper. There are different hierarchies for the authors. Normally, the Ph.D. student/M.Sc. student/Professor is the ranking for most journal papers, and the M.Sc. Student/B.Sc student ranking is used for most proceeding papers. It can be understood as the movie making process: there is a director, who coordinates the deployment and correct development of history, the actors who develops the history, and the producer, who gets the contacts, manages and advertises the movie. This relationship explains the dedication that authors must give to the paper elaboration process.
- The path of the work. A one-way path is suggested to give a clear explanation to the reader about your work. The best path would be problem>intention>goal>method>results>conclusion. The three first elements of this path must be clearly provided in the Introduction Section. Therefore, the most simple a clear paragraphs must be written on this Section. Definitions, equations, and theorems are inserted after in the Background/Methodology Section. Likewise, this section must give a learning-based system: the most basic and simplest definitions go to the beginning of this section, going deeper and elaborated to the end. So, the reader can understand the terms conforming he is reading the document at top-bottom direction.
- Abstract: the paragraph which tells the promise and the way this one is accomplished. It must be short, concrete and provide numerical or measurable results. Despite of its shortage, this section normally comprises three basic facts: (i) the proposal, driven as the presentation of the "magic act"; (ii) the confrontation, when the proposal overcomes the unsolved-by-now problem into a novel contribution ; (iii) the discussion, where the given results evidence the novelty of the contribution. Note that the Abstract is neither a copy of the Introduction nor the Conclusion. The Abstract barely implies how the introduction presents the problem and how the conclusion closes the contribution.
- Introduction: it describes the problem, and tells the reader how one can learn and understand the methodology for adressing this problem. A bad explained introduction will discourage the reader to keep reading. It is the reason for the very importance of this section.
- Background. This section answers the following question: Did the author make a very deep study on the problem, such that he can clearly define the start point of his work based on the work of others? This is the difference between a very focused (and novel) work and a fuzzy and not novel work. Normally the background should be summarized (or just put) within the introduction section. In most of cases, the Background is somehow extensive, leading to a creation of such section.
- Methodology, which tells to the reader about your solution. A precise qualification for this section is "convincing". This term means that you have given a sufficient mathematical, teoretical, and/or experimental justification to give confidence to the reader. The main question to be answered here is: why your contribution/solution/idea is different form others or enhances/improves the method of others? The subsequent question shall be: How do you demonstrate that your claimed idea/solution solves the problem, and why do not the others?
- Experimental Setup. The description of the experiment. Despite of the easyness of the description, this is the core of the work. Provide data bases, materials, algorithms, machinery and test rigs, required to validate your methodology among the others. Just providing an experimental setup for only your method is a bad path. Backgroung should provide you the way to test the other ones. The setup is important, because it gives you the remarks or the experiment. It defines if results provide from a bad argument idea, from a wrong made algorithm, from a pointless experiment, or from a very importan discover (see that I give you four wrong effects and a one correct: It gives an idea how difficult this is). It can be considered like a song deployment. The experimental setup is equivalent to a draft song composition: After the song is written, you can essay lot of hours a day, for a long time, concluding at the end the following: This song sucks, the song is pointless, the song cannot achieve a very good succesful, or the song sounds good.
- Results. The organization of results, and the coherence with the experimental setup is the key for a clear interpretation of results. Every figure and table must be deeply explained and discussed. When discussion acomplished more than two paragraphs, the correspondent section can be created.
The number of figures and tables in the results is another thing for considering the work depth. It is clear that every figure and table must be thoroughly described (what is the intention of the figure? What does it show? Which results can be inferred? Which claimed arguments are evidenced?). However, too much Figures and tables can lead to a very dense/bad described work. For a proceeding, just one Figure and/or one Table is enough to determine a contingent evidence. For a Journal, the exceeding in the number of Figures/Tables comes out when there are not enough explanations for each one. In this case, the document itself shows a senseless stacking of Figures and Tables on one page (or in several pages, when figure and table takes more than one page).
- Conclusion. It is divided in two parts: the description of the solution of the problem, and the future works that derive from this solution.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
4a. Reviewing/Writing guidelines: Document Requirements.
A paper easy to be reviewed (and approved thereafter) should have:
- An attractive abstract. It does not mean a overwhelmed argument. It is just a brief explanation of what you do, why are you doing this work, an interesting result (the attraction), and clear conclusions.
- A clear justification about the reason of making it.
- A continuously written history: a beginning (introduction), a plot (methodology), a climax (results), an end (conclusions). All variables and definitions should be declared form the beginning of document.
- A name for the method, technique, case of study or discover. We recommend an acronym, namely the main acronym. The main acronym must be spread along the work paper. This allows to create a confidence about the explained term, and the reader will learn this acronym irremediably. However, one must consider a maximal number of acronym apparitions on text, avoiding annoyance.
- Your background, idea and argument must be "standing on the shoulders on giants", specially for review--type papers. I suggest the following:
- Creating things from nothing or from a not--so--good--made study, charges you in time and delusions. However, be careful if you aim at criticizing some work: normally, you will end losing, if you do not have a better idea.
- Plagiarism is never an option. Just like in music composition, the credit is important for authors. If you make music over a sampling melody without author's authorization, you are immediately criticized by stealing and abusing from that composition. So, please provide a strictly citation from those information (Tables, Figures) coming from other people, with its related discussion. There are websites where plagiarism is investigated.
- Creativity and talent of the authors relies on the impact that their work provides over the state--of--art. An example is related with painting, when you try to draw some masterpiece using other technique: if your artwork is similar to the original, you falls into plagiarism; if your technique is immediately leaded to the original artist's technique, your contribution will be not significant. You must deeply analyze the other theories (mathematical background, methodology, experiments), before proposing a new one.
- Search for a target-rich environment of knowledge. For engineering, and most of areas in science, the following are the common used goals for research:
- Enhancing or improving a recent technique.
- Proposing a new technique by opposing to the hypothesis of the current ones.
- Bringing a technique which works for some applications to the considered problem.
3. Dedication time differences.
First, I wish to introduce you with some terms. The following historical definition for "Doctor" comes from Wikipedia:
"The Ph.D. was originally a degree granted by a university to learned individuals who had achieved the approval of their peers and who had demonstrated a long and productive career in the field of philosophy (in the broad sense of the term philosophy, the pursuit of knowledge). The appellation of "Doctor" (from Latin: teacher) was usually awarded only when the individual was in middle age. It indicated a life dedicated to learning, to knowledge, and to the spread of knowledge.
The Ph.D. entered widespread use in the 19th century at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin as a degree to be granted to someone who had undertaken original research in the sciences or humanities."
It was initially the aim to a Doctorate Degree: a Ph. D would be "Person who teachs, achieving a remarkable work as a result of his love of wisdom". However, actual Doctor degrees aim to other target. In the definition above, the time is not introduced, even noted, but most Universities coins the "due time" term, in order to acomplish their project dues and research results. A number between 5 and 6 years (like Medicine and Law) of formation to achieve a Doctor degree is required to be a professor, even for school teachers. Commonly, this requisite was fitted for a Master-degree graduate, and this would fix henceforth. But worse, they claims for shorter-time Ph.D. degrees, with same salary and investment of a Master or even a Bachelor. The concluding remark, industry pushes universities to outcome inventors, research leaders, managers, art direcfree tors and producers from barely nothing, with an investment only compared to a bachelor. As result, we will observe the spreading of intelectually-unmatured leaders with a worthless Ph.D. degree: not-willing-to-teach young people, lasting 3-5 years, performing everything what a tenured tutor require to finish some project.
So, time would not be a evaluating matter for achieving a Ph.D. degree. The M.Sc and Ph.D theses are suggested to be like compilatory albums, once the Single/Album has been published and referenced/cited. It is the reason for considering a very long time between thesis proposal and its dissertation. For M.Sc process, several proceeding papers and one journal paper compilation are suggested. A compilation of several journal papers is suggested for a Ph.D thesis. It provides the thesis impact by the importance and number of the references/citations for each publication. Moreover, a connection between M.Sc and Ph.D works is accomplished, since compilations of Ph.D thesis are provided by compilations of the respective M.Sc.
A remarkable example came into light past november 2013:
"Coventry University reports that on Nov. 19, Tony Iommi will receive an Honorary Doctorate of Arts at the university in celebration of his widespread musical influence on the world as the guitarist of Black Sabbath. Alongside Iommi, the Jordanian Princess, Her Royal Highness Princess Rym Ali, and artist George Shaw will also be awarded honorary doctorates at the ceremony for their respective contributions.
Tony Iommi is not the first metal or rock musician to be awarded an honorary doctorate, and now joins contemporaries like Iron Maiden‘s Bruce Dickinson and Brian May of Queen. Dickinson was awarded an Honrorary Doctorate of Music from Queen Mary University in 2011 and May received an Honorory Doctorate of Science in 2002 from Hertfordshire University. May has also earned his Ph. D in astrophysics from Imperial College in 2007."
http://youtu.be/QaktdxczhXE
So differing from music production, a researcher should not expect that their relevant work happens with the first article. For a musician, producing a hit in the first record is important, because this song or album keeps intact in the culture for larger time, unless for a remasterization. For scientific production, the work is cited, improved and rebuild through the time. So, the researcher can be involved with a sole research area through his whole work.
A relationship between both processes can be related to the childhood learning process. A child takes 2 years since birth to talk, and 5 years to properly talk to the world. So, the former time interval is considered for the M.Sc. process and the latter for the Ph.D. Note that the adequate way to achieve a short learning time is carrying out the M.Sc. process into the Ph.D. one. It would lead to a 2-year interval for the Masters and the remaining 3 for the Ph.D. Therefore, it is recommended that research areas for M.Sc. and Ph.D. processes are the same. As for children, this is the only way to achieve a successful communication.
"The Ph.D. was originally a degree granted by a university to learned individuals who had achieved the approval of their peers and who had demonstrated a long and productive career in the field of philosophy (in the broad sense of the term philosophy, the pursuit of knowledge). The appellation of "Doctor" (from Latin: teacher) was usually awarded only when the individual was in middle age. It indicated a life dedicated to learning, to knowledge, and to the spread of knowledge.
The Ph.D. entered widespread use in the 19th century at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin as a degree to be granted to someone who had undertaken original research in the sciences or humanities."
It was initially the aim to a Doctorate Degree: a Ph. D would be "Person who teachs, achieving a remarkable work as a result of his love of wisdom". However, actual Doctor degrees aim to other target. In the definition above, the time is not introduced, even noted, but most Universities coins the "due time" term, in order to acomplish their project dues and research results. A number between 5 and 6 years (like Medicine and Law) of formation to achieve a Doctor degree is required to be a professor, even for school teachers. Commonly, this requisite was fitted for a Master-degree graduate, and this would fix henceforth. But worse, they claims for shorter-time Ph.D. degrees, with same salary and investment of a Master or even a Bachelor. The concluding remark, industry pushes universities to outcome inventors, research leaders, managers, art direcfree tors and producers from barely nothing, with an investment only compared to a bachelor. As result, we will observe the spreading of intelectually-unmatured leaders with a worthless Ph.D. degree: not-willing-to-teach young people, lasting 3-5 years, performing everything what a tenured tutor require to finish some project.
So, time would not be a evaluating matter for achieving a Ph.D. degree. The M.Sc and Ph.D theses are suggested to be like compilatory albums, once the Single/Album has been published and referenced/cited. It is the reason for considering a very long time between thesis proposal and its dissertation. For M.Sc process, several proceeding papers and one journal paper compilation are suggested. A compilation of several journal papers is suggested for a Ph.D thesis. It provides the thesis impact by the importance and number of the references/citations for each publication. Moreover, a connection between M.Sc and Ph.D works is accomplished, since compilations of Ph.D thesis are provided by compilations of the respective M.Sc.
A remarkable example came into light past november 2013:
"Coventry University reports that on Nov. 19, Tony Iommi will receive an Honorary Doctorate of Arts at the university in celebration of his widespread musical influence on the world as the guitarist of Black Sabbath. Alongside Iommi, the Jordanian Princess, Her Royal Highness Princess Rym Ali, and artist George Shaw will also be awarded honorary doctorates at the ceremony for their respective contributions.
Tony Iommi is not the first metal or rock musician to be awarded an honorary doctorate, and now joins contemporaries like Iron Maiden‘s Bruce Dickinson and Brian May of Queen. Dickinson was awarded an Honrorary Doctorate of Music from Queen Mary University in 2011 and May received an Honorory Doctorate of Science in 2002 from Hertfordshire University. May has also earned his Ph. D in astrophysics from Imperial College in 2007."
http://youtu.be/QaktdxczhXE
So differing from music production, a researcher should not expect that their relevant work happens with the first article. For a musician, producing a hit in the first record is important, because this song or album keeps intact in the culture for larger time, unless for a remasterization. For scientific production, the work is cited, improved and rebuild through the time. So, the researcher can be involved with a sole research area through his whole work.
A relationship between both processes can be related to the childhood learning process. A child takes 2 years since birth to talk, and 5 years to properly talk to the world. So, the former time interval is considered for the M.Sc. process and the latter for the Ph.D. Note that the adequate way to achieve a short learning time is carrying out the M.Sc. process into the Ph.D. one. It would lead to a 2-year interval for the Masters and the remaining 3 for the Ph.D. Therefore, it is recommended that research areas for M.Sc. and Ph.D. processes are the same. As for children, this is the only way to achieve a successful communication.
This is coined as the "third album theorem ". It means, that the best produced/worked album for a music band is the third one. It directly relates the bachelor-master-doctorate degree, with the first-second-third albums, respectively.
One can find differences among the different education levels (highschool, undergraduate. Postgraduate, doctorate) by detecting common errors in semantic, expression level or even orthographic mistakes. However, the main aspect to detect the depth level of the report is the level of research worked on it. To give a comparison, I give the following "Homo" species in the knowledge:
One can find differences among the different education levels (highschool, undergraduate. Postgraduate, doctorate) by detecting common errors in semantic, expression level or even orthographic mistakes. However, the main aspect to detect the depth level of the report is the level of research worked on it. To give a comparison, I give the following "Homo" species in the knowledge:
- Homo Sapiens: The man who knows - related to the highschool last-year level students.
- Homo Habilis: The man who makes - related to a professional bachelor level. The undergraduate student finishes a task to demonstrate that he has the ability to accomplish something, obtaining a degree.
- Homo Propono: The man who proposes - related to the Master's student, who proposes an idea or methodology to solve something. It differs from the Homo Habilis in the ability to resolve something by his proper idea, instead of an order or command.
- Homo Novationem: The man who innovates - it is the person who initiates his work as a scientist and professor. This person is in charge of giving an idea different and novel from the others to solve something.
2. The difference between a proceeding paper and a Journal Paper
No, it is not the number or pages. A proceeding paper must accomplish short--time requirements. Normally the process between the fabrication of experiment or debating the theory takes a lot of time. So, proceeding papers provide only a short discover or result achieved from the whole experiment. It lets time to the author to write a two-month description about this discover. We consider that these two months are the regular time between the initial call--for--papers advice and the abstract/document initial paper submision deadline. Thus, author should have the time between the review process and final version submision to adjust, correct and write the finished work about the part of the experiment.
Therefore, since a journal paper demands the description of the whole experiment, time is not important here. But hurry, our life in this world is sometimes shorter. Recently, some editorials provide a comfortable time of 60 days for the reviewing process, and another 60 days to provide corrections. Different from the Accept/Reject decision for a proceeding paper since time restrictions, the journal process gives the following evaluations: Accept/Accept with changes/Revise/Reject. So, writting process for a journal article can be stated in different revision stages, improving quality process.
An interesting special case occurs, when an evaluation of many methods (more than 3, usually) appears for a revision in a conference proceeding. In this case, a high percentage of paper length is devoted to explain the considered methods, either in Background, Methods or Experimental Setup section. There are two possible solutions: one, each method should be explained in a separated document; second, translate this lot of information into a Journal paper proposal. The suggestion for these solutions is making the number one first, and once these short documents are published, then you have enough reviewed information to do the second one. This prevents your work to be rejected due to the high amount of information in just 4-6 pages required for a conference publication.
An interesting relationship is found on music producing. For instance, proceeding paper is like a song, where involved authors create a short piece of work. Besides, the journal paper is the song album, where the whole work concept is described and carefully organized. Normally, producers publish just a song from the album, namely a Single. It tests the work made by musician and provide the impact that the related album can achieve. Likewise, the publication of a proceeding paper gives the reviewing and impact that journal article can provide. For both cases (music and scientific writting) the editorial impact factor is very important for the life of the idea, concept and development that authors want to exhibit.
Depending on the successful achieved on the proceeding publication process, the journal writting process continues. Most conferences promotes their best proceeding papers to a Journal publication, after corrections and further peer review is made. In this case, we recommend to construct the journal paper with different other proceeding publications, instead to extend a sole proceeding publication. This process is quite different form adding songs in the album: adding procedding papers into the journal one implies adding theory, experiments, results and discussion of the proceeding papers into each respective section of journal paper.
The same methodology occurs for talking about your work. The sufficiency on the scope or topic depends of the deep that author knows. It is just a fact of training. A mechanic or soccer player can achieve many words properly, while those words are kept in training: experience helps to achieve the desired knowledge level. However, one the proper words and definitions are properly handled, it is when the trained person must follow the speaking process. It is can related with the work of the journalist.
- A break-news reporter is able to present a short notice. Likewise, a last-year undergraduate student announces your short idea like a technical report or a short communication.
- A daily-news reporter presents a summary of diverse events. It is related to the master student that has the ablity of present varios experiments and methods, all related for solving an specific problem. It is ideal for oral and poster presentations, as journalist presents the events in a news segment.
- An opinion-talk journalist has the capability of presenting a deeply analyzed idea, based in the analyzed history report and very reviewed list of events. Making an analogy, a doctor student or professor presents in a Journal an analyzed arrangement of facts and a very reviewed list of experimental results.
Moreover, one can find that the difference between an oral and a poster presentation is nothing more than the audience level. A oral presentation is given for a broaden public than for a poster. So, a poster is focused for a specific topic and a more specialized public. Hence, the relevance of both kinds of presentation remains equal.
Therefore, since a journal paper demands the description of the whole experiment, time is not important here. But hurry, our life in this world is sometimes shorter. Recently, some editorials provide a comfortable time of 60 days for the reviewing process, and another 60 days to provide corrections. Different from the Accept/Reject decision for a proceeding paper since time restrictions, the journal process gives the following evaluations: Accept/Accept with changes/Revise/Reject. So, writting process for a journal article can be stated in different revision stages, improving quality process.
An interesting special case occurs, when an evaluation of many methods (more than 3, usually) appears for a revision in a conference proceeding. In this case, a high percentage of paper length is devoted to explain the considered methods, either in Background, Methods or Experimental Setup section. There are two possible solutions: one, each method should be explained in a separated document; second, translate this lot of information into a Journal paper proposal. The suggestion for these solutions is making the number one first, and once these short documents are published, then you have enough reviewed information to do the second one. This prevents your work to be rejected due to the high amount of information in just 4-6 pages required for a conference publication.
An interesting relationship is found on music producing. For instance, proceeding paper is like a song, where involved authors create a short piece of work. Besides, the journal paper is the song album, where the whole work concept is described and carefully organized. Normally, producers publish just a song from the album, namely a Single. It tests the work made by musician and provide the impact that the related album can achieve. Likewise, the publication of a proceeding paper gives the reviewing and impact that journal article can provide. For both cases (music and scientific writting) the editorial impact factor is very important for the life of the idea, concept and development that authors want to exhibit.
Depending on the successful achieved on the proceeding publication process, the journal writting process continues. Most conferences promotes their best proceeding papers to a Journal publication, after corrections and further peer review is made. In this case, we recommend to construct the journal paper with different other proceeding publications, instead to extend a sole proceeding publication. This process is quite different form adding songs in the album: adding procedding papers into the journal one implies adding theory, experiments, results and discussion of the proceeding papers into each respective section of journal paper.
The same methodology occurs for talking about your work. The sufficiency on the scope or topic depends of the deep that author knows. It is just a fact of training. A mechanic or soccer player can achieve many words properly, while those words are kept in training: experience helps to achieve the desired knowledge level. However, one the proper words and definitions are properly handled, it is when the trained person must follow the speaking process. It is can related with the work of the journalist.
- A break-news reporter is able to present a short notice. Likewise, a last-year undergraduate student announces your short idea like a technical report or a short communication.
- A daily-news reporter presents a summary of diverse events. It is related to the master student that has the ablity of present varios experiments and methods, all related for solving an specific problem. It is ideal for oral and poster presentations, as journalist presents the events in a news segment.
- An opinion-talk journalist has the capability of presenting a deeply analyzed idea, based in the analyzed history report and very reviewed list of events. Making an analogy, a doctor student or professor presents in a Journal an analyzed arrangement of facts and a very reviewed list of experimental results.
Moreover, one can find that the difference between an oral and a poster presentation is nothing more than the audience level. A oral presentation is given for a broaden public than for a poster. So, a poster is focused for a specific topic and a more specialized public. Hence, the relevance of both kinds of presentation remains equal.
1. Introduction
“It (doctorate) is a proof that you can handle academic stuff and that you can keep on task for quite a while,”
Dr. Peter Richter, a correspondent in New York for the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung
Writing a scientific paper: the truth of the results should be enhanced with poetry, temporized with the precision of a musical composition, structured as a best-selling literary writing, and so coherent like a theater or movie masterpiece. This article comes from the times where I wrote the first paper publications. In this frustrating stage, I normally say the following:
"Today is the last day. The bad end of a bad beginning. I apologize for all mistakes made and the waste of fellowships. Concluding, researching is not for me |:("
To prevent researchers falling into a tragic and disgusting paper reading process, this work aims to determine some guidelines for a not so traumatic scientific writing process. This guideline is related to examples in the music, movie and novel literature producing, illustrating authors from other disciplines that the working process converges regardless of the kind of work.
Dr. Peter Richter, a correspondent in New York for the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung
Writing a scientific paper: the truth of the results should be enhanced with poetry, temporized with the precision of a musical composition, structured as a best-selling literary writing, and so coherent like a theater or movie masterpiece. This article comes from the times where I wrote the first paper publications. In this frustrating stage, I normally say the following:
"Today is the last day. The bad end of a bad beginning. I apologize for all mistakes made and the waste of fellowships. Concluding, researching is not for me |:("
To prevent researchers falling into a tragic and disgusting paper reading process, this work aims to determine some guidelines for a not so traumatic scientific writing process. This guideline is related to examples in the music, movie and novel literature producing, illustrating authors from other disciplines that the working process converges regardless of the kind of work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)