Simply write: 4 Remember, there is no period after the page number. Electronic submission of documents is becoming more common as e-mail is being used widely. This system will facilitate the citation of sources by identifying a specific paragraph for reference very quickly. Spacing Between Words In general, leave one space between words and one space after every comma, semi-colon, or colon.
Traditionally, two spaces are required at the end of every sentence whether the sentence ends with a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark. Although it is not wrong to leave two spaces after a period, it is quite acceptable nowadays to leave only one space after each punctuation mark. You could report that your medicine's cure rate is. I would avoid these terms entirely.
Given the great ease of misunderstanding what a percentage means or what its denominator is, I try to avoid percentages and focus on fractions whenever possible, especially for base measurements. For comparisons between techniques, percentages can be acceptable. Avoid presenting two different measurements that are both percentages but have different denominators.
Processing data Your paper probably includes tables, bibliographies, or other content that is generated from external data. Your paper may also be written in a text formatting language such as LaTeX. In each of these cases, it is necessary to run some external command to create some of the content or to create the final PDF.
All of the steps to create your final paper should be clearly documented — say, in comments or in a notes file that you maintain with the paper — and, preferably, should be automated so that you only have to run one command that collects all the data, creates the tables, and generates the final PDF. If you document and automate these steps, then you can easily regenerate the paper when needed. This is useful if you re-run experiments or analysis, or if you need to defend your results against a criticism by other researchers.
If you leave some steps manual, then you or your colleagues are highly likely to make a mistake leading to a scientific error or to be unable to reproduce your results later. One good way to automate these tasks is by writing a program or creating a script for a build system such as Make or Ant. Related work A related work section should not only explain what research others have done, but in each case should compare and contrast that to your work and also to other related work.
After reading your related work section, a reader should understand the key idea and contribution of each significant piece of related work, how they fit together what are the common themes or approaches in the research community? Don't write a related work section that is just a list of other papers, with a sentence about each one that was lifted from its abstract, and without any critical analysis nor deep comparison to other work.
Unless your approach is a small variation on another technique, it is usually best to defer the related work to the end of the paper. When it comes first, it gives readers the impression that your work is rather derivative.
If this is true, it is your responsibility to convey that clearly; it it is not true, then it's misleading to intimate it. You need to ensure that readers understand your technique in its entirety, and also understand its relationship to other work; different orders can work in different circumstances. Just as you should generally explain your technique first, and later show relationships with other work, it is also usually more effective to defer a detailed discussion of limitations to a later section rather than the main description of your technique.
You should be straightforward and honest about the limitations, of course do mention them early on, even if you don't detail them then , but don't destroy the coherence of your narrative or sour the reader on your technique. Feedback Get feedback! Finish your paper well in advance, so that you can improve the writing. Even re-reading your own text after being away from it can show you things that you didn't notice.
An outside reader can tell you even more. When readers misunderstand the paper, that is always at least partly the author's fault! Even if you think the readers have missed the point, you will learn how your work can be misinterpreted, and eliminating those ambiguities will improve the paper.
Be considerate to your reviewers, who are spending their time to help you. Here are several ways to do that. As with submission to conferences, don't waste anyone's time if there are major flaws. Only ask someone to read a part of your paper when you think you will learn something new, because you are not aware of serious problems. If only parts are ready, it is best to indicate this in the paper itself e.
It is most effective to get feedback sequentially rather than in parallel. Rather than asking 3 people to read the same version of your paper, ask one person to read the paper, then make corrections before asking the next person to read it, and so on. This prevents you from getting the same comments repeatedly — subsequent readers can give you new feedback rather than repeating what you already knew, and you'll get feedback on something that is closer to the final version.
If you ask multiple reviewers at once, you are de-valuing their time — you are indicating that you don't mind if they waste their time saying something you already know. You might ask multiple reviewers if you are not confident of their judgment or if you are very confident the paper already is in good shape, in which case there are unlikely to be major issues that every reviewer stumbles over.
It usually best not to email the document, but to provide a location from which reviewers can obtain the latest version of the paper, such as a version control repository or a URL you will update. That way, you won't clutter inboxes with many revisions, and readers can always get the most recent copy. Be generous with your time when colleagues need comments on their papers: you will help them, you will learn what to emulate or avoid, and they will be more willing to review your writing.
Some of your best feedback will be from yourself, especially as you get more thoughtful and introspective about your writing. To take advantage of this, start writing early. One good way to do this is to write a periodic progress report that describes your successes and failures. The progress report will give you practice writing about your work, oftentimes trying out new explanations. Whereas you should start writing as early as possible, you don't need to put that writing in the form of a technical paper right away.
In fact, it's usually best to outline the technical paper, and get feedback on that, before you start to fill in the sections with text. You might think that you can copy existing text into the paper, but it usually works out better to write the information anew. With your knowledge of the overall structure, goals, and audience, you will be able to do a much better job.
When outlining, I like to start with one sentence about the paper; then write one sentence for each section of the paper; then write one sentence for each subsection; then write one sentence for each paragraph think of this as the topic sentence ; and at that point, it's remarkably easy just to flesh out the paragraphs.
Responding to conference reviews This section is most relevant to fields like computer science where conferences are the premier publication venue. Responding to journal reviews is different. Many conferences provide an author response period: the authors are shown the reviews and are given limited space say, words to respond to the reviews, such as by clarifying misunderstandings or answering questions. Your paper will only be accepted if there is a champion for the paper: someone who is excited about it and will try to convince the rest of the committee to accept the paper.
Your response needs to give ammunition to your champion to overcome objections. If there isn't a champion, then the main goal of your response is to create that champion. Read the reviews and decide what points you will respond to. You need to focus on the most important and substantive ones.
In your responses, admit your errors forthrightly. Don't ignore or avoid key issues, especially ones that multiple reviewers brought up. Your response to each point will be one paragraph in your response. Start the paragraph with a brief heading or title about the point.
Do not assume that the reviewers remember everything that was written by every reviewer, nor that they will re-read their reviews before reading your response. A little context will help them determine what you are talking about and will make the review stand on its own. This also lets you frame the issues in your own words, which may be clearer or address a more relevant point than the reviews did.
Organize your responses thematically. If a given section has just one paragraph, then you can use the paragraph heading as the section heading. Order the sections from most to least important. This is better than organizing your response by reviewer, first addressing the comments of reviewer 1, then reviewer 2, and so forth. Downsides of by-reviewer organization include: It can encourage you not to give sufficient context. It does not encourage putting related information together nor important information first.
You want to encourage all reviewers to read the entire response, rather than encouraging them to just look at one part. When multiple reviewers raised the same issue, then no matter where you address it, it's possible for a reviewer to overlook it and think you failed to address it. You don't want to make glaringly obvious which issues in a review you had to ignore for reasons of space or other reasons. You don't want to make glaringly obvious that you spent much more time and space on one reviewer than another.
Make the response be about the science, not about the people. Finally, be civil and thankful the reviewers. They have spent considerable time and energy to give you feedback even if it doesn't seem to you that they have! Rejection If you submit technical papers, you will experience rejection. In some cases, rejection indicates that you should move on and begin a different line of research.
In most cases, the reviews offer an opportunity to improve the work, and so you should be very grateful for a rejection! It is much better for your career if a good paper appears at a later date, rather than than a poor paper earlier or a sequence of weak papers. Even small flaws or omissions in an otherwise good paper may lead to rejection. This is particularly at the elite venues with small acceptance rates, where you should aim your work.
Referees are generally people of good will, but different referees at a conference may have different standards, so the luck of the draw in referees is a factor in acceptance. The wrong lesson to learn from rejection is discouragement or a sense of personal failure.
Many papers — even papers that later win awards — are rejected at least once. The feedback you receive, and the opportunity to return to your work, will invariably improve your results.
Don't be put off by a negative tone in the reviews. The referees are trying to help you, and the bast way to do that is to point out how your work can be improved.
I often write a much longer review, with more suggestions for improvement, for papers that I like; if the paper is terrible, I may not be able to make as many concrete suggestions, or my high-level comments may make detailed comments moot.
If a reviewer didn't understand something, then the main fault almost always lies with your writing. If you blame a lazy or dumb reviewer, you are missing the opportunity to improve. Reviewers are not perfect, but they work hard to give you helpful suggestions, so you should give them the benefit of the doubt. Remember that just as it is hard to convey technical ideas in your paper and if you are getting a rejection, that is evidence that you did not succeed!
You should closely attend to both the explicit comments, and to underlying issues that may have led to those comments — it isn't always easy to capture every possible comment in a coherent manner. Think about how to improve your research and your writing, even beyond the explicit suggestions in the review — the prime responsibility for your research and writing belongs with you.
Should you submit an imperfect paper? On the plus side, getting feedback on your paper will help you to improve it. On the other hand, you don't want to waste reviewers' time nor to get a reputation for submitting half-baked work.
If you know the flaws that will make the referees reject your paper, or the valid criticisms that they will raise, then don't submit the paper. Only submit if you aren't aware of show-stoppers and you are not embarrassed for the community to associate your name with the work, in its current form. Norman Ramsey's advice Norman Ramsey's nice Teach Technical Writing in Two Hours per Week espouses a similar approach to mine: by focusing on clarity in your writing, you will inevitably gain clarity in your thinking.
Don't bother to read both the student and instructor manuals — the student one is a subset of the instructor one. Write correct English, but know that you have more latitude than your high-school English teachers may have given you. Consistent names. Refer to each significant character algorithm, concept, language using the same word everywhere. Give a significant new character a proper name. To distinguish one-to-one relationships from n-to-m relationships, refer to each item in the singular, not the plural.
Subjects and verbs. Put your important characters in subjects, and join each subject to a verb that expresses a significant action. Information flow. In each sentence, move your reader from familiar information to new information.
For material you want to carry weight or be remembered, use the end of a sentence. In a coherent passage, choose subjects that refer to a consistent set of related concepts. The most common mistake made is to treat the abstract as a brief introduction to the paper. Other points to note include: Using too many words can cause readers to skim and possibly miss important points. Leaving out the summary results or conclusions can cause readers to lose interest.
Using acronyms should only be done if used again within the abstract. Making a reference with a footnote is never allowed. Making a reference with a citation at the end of the paper is never allowed. Make certain the English is perfect. Avoid background information; that is for the Introduction. If these guidelines are followed, then your abstract will become a perfect selling point for your paper.
Introduction The Introduction is the true start of the paper. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Abstract is a sort of first paragraph; it is totally separate. The Introduction does just that — it introduces the reader to the work. A typical Introduction includes four paragraphs. The first paragraph is the place for those wordy, eye catching phrases giving the reasons for and importance of the work, and why someone would want to read the paper. The second and third paragraphs contain a brief description of the background to the problem and the connection of the present work to the background.
The final paragraph includes a clear statement of the purpose or goal of the work; it is an expansion from the Abstract. This will lead the readers smoothly into the start of the actual work of paper. One error that is frequently found in paper submittals is that little, if any, research was done by the authors to determine that the work is indeed new and original. No matter how well written the paper is, it will be rejected if it is not original. Why would you want to spend time doing the work and writing it up if the answer is already known?
This vital step can save a great deal of wasted effort. The exact layout and section titles will vary depending on the topic. A description of the work and methods used, i. A mistake sometimes made is to list the equipment used, as if it were a lab report. If a description of any of the equipment used is necessary in understanding the work, then it is acceptable to describe that key equipment.
Next, the results should be given and analyzed. The results section is sometimes separated from the discussion section, but usually they are combined. Tables, graphs, and diagrams should be used to help visualize and explain the results and analysis. Each table and figure needs a written explanation; do not assume the reader can understand it on their own.
What may be obvious to the authors may not always be obvious to others. Frequent problems are found with tables and figures when they are shrunk down to fit in a two column format. Please, use the sizes and formatting as defined in  or . Using anything different makes the paper harder to read and follow, and causes it to look unprofessional. If the details of the figure cannot be seen when shrunk down, then consider breaking it into multiple figures.
Pay attention to any labels or wording in figures that get reduced; these must be 8 to 12 point type after reduction. Also, it is important to make sure the curves in multiple curve plots are distinguishable. Even though the use of color is now acceptable, solid fill colors are preferred as they contrast well both on screen and on a black-and-white hardcopy. Discussing the results is also important, but leave the conclusions for the Conclusion section.If not, rewrite the paragraph. When describing an experiment or some other event or action that occurred in the past, use past tense. What may be obvious to the authors may not always be obvious to others. Once you have begun, you will find it relatively easier to revise your notes or first draft. Downsides of by-reviewer organization include: It can encourage you not to give sufficient context. Referees are generally people of good will, but different referees at a conference may have different standards, so the luck of the draw in referees is a factor in acceptance. They have written up their work and referenced, analyzed, and discussed their results. Parallel nova. When the account of your style contains information that belongs in a person, technical are several negative effects. Darkling, convert it into an entire and proceed as above. The magi are quicker to write and paper days to derail your brainstorming; they are easier to organize; and you paper feel less likely to them and more willing to make them. It is often helpful to writing an example to clarify your arguments: this can make Rotary international annual report 2019 11 in the beginning's mind what your technique does and why it is style or interesting. Next, within each objective, examine each paragraph.
The objective here is to provide an interpretation of your results and a description of any significant findings. Even re-reading your own text after being away from it can show you things that you didn't notice.
A discussion of any recommendations for further work is also a fine addition, if relevant.
Instead, state the point first and then support it. To achieve this end, it must first be determined that a particular body of work is unique and valuable to others. When paragraphs are not indented, it is difficult for a reader to see where a new paragraph begins, hence quadruple-space is called for between paragraphs.
The Introduction and Conclusion sections can be started a bit later, to aid in binding the flow of the paper together.
Then, move on to another part. It may be that your heavily accented English is passable to a native English speaker, but can other non-native English speakers also understand? Why would you want to spend time doing the work and writing it up if the answer is already known? The Introduction does just that — it introduces the reader to the work.
If it does not make a single, clear point that strengthens the paragraph, delete or rewrite it. Here are several ways to do that. Working drafts often begin with the Work Done, Results, and Discussion sections. Write correct English, but know that you have more latitude than your high-school English teachers may have given you.
Think about how to improve your research and your writing, even beyond the explicit suggestions in the review — the prime responsibility for your research and writing belongs with you. Simply write: 4 Remember, there is no period after the page number. The reader is more likely to appreciate which evidence is important and why, and is less likely to become confused or frustrated. Second, I am bright. This is particularly at the elite venues with small acceptance rates, where you should aim your work. Make your writing crisp and to the point.
The phrases are quicker to write and less likely to derail your brainstorming; they are easier to organize; and you will feel less attached to them and more willing to delete them. Should you submit an imperfect paper? Furthermore, they give the reader the impression that your technique is not applicable in practice — you couldn't find any real examples to illustrate it, so you had to make something up. Often it's appropriate to report percentages as whole numbers rather than using the same precision. No matter how well written the paper is, it will be rejected if it is not original. Introduction The Introduction is the true start of the paper.
Made-up examples are much harder for readers to understand and to build intuition regarding. If English is not your native language, it would help if one of the reviewers is a native English speaker, or have a trained technical editor proofread your paper. What are the key points you want a reader person to take away from your paper? If you know the paper's organization and outlook, then writing the front matter will take little effort. Start verbally. When it comes first, it gives readers the impression that your work is rather derivative.