• Let's look at This paper as a reference.
• I would like to address section IV of the outline
• To do this, I will refer to Gastel and Day
• Format of the paper
  • They claim that the standard is IMRAD
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • and Discussion
  • As we have seen, CS papers tend to drift from this.
    • I suspect others do as well.
  • But somewhere near this form is expected of most papers.
  • Note this is not the textbook type reports you tend to write in high school.
• Does Boyd follow this format?
• The abstract
  • What is the purpose of an abstract?
    • Consider a conference where there are 10 different tracks running simultaneously
    • How do you decide which to attend
  • Or in your work
    • You have 20 different papers to read.
    • Which one?
    • Look at 2024 KDD program (Tuesday morning is the start of the conference proper)
  • The abstract should provide a clear statement of what is covered in the paper.
  • Gastel and Day say an abstract should
    1. State the principal objectives and scope of the investigation
    2. Describe the methods employed
    3. Summarize the results
    4. State the principal conclusions. This is not a murder mystery.
  • Since it refers to work accomplished, they say it should be in past tense.
  • Generally
    • No conclusions that are not stated and supported in the paper.
    • No citations, figures, tables,...
  • This is a stand alone work in some sense
    • This might be the only thing someone reads about your paper.
    • Especially if it is in a collection of abstracts.
  • In a paper
    • This is probably the first thing reviewers read.
    • A bad abstract sets a bad tone for the rest of the review.
  • Most are limited in word count.
• Read Boyd's Abstract
• (IV B) Introduction : Framing the Context
  • Gastel and Day say that the introduction needs to supply sufficient background for the reader to evaluate the rest of your paper.
  • Gastel and Day give the following guidelines for the introduction (quoted as directly as I can type)
    1. The introduction should present first, with all possible clarity, the nature and scope of the problem investigated.
    2. It should briefly review pertinent literature to orient the reader. It also should identify the gap in the literature that the current research was intended to address.
    3. It should then make clear the objective of the research.
    4. It should state the method of investigation
    5. Finally, in some disciplines the standard practice is to end the introduction by stating the principle results of the investigation and the principle conclusions suggested by the results.
  • I don't believe that we generally state the method of investigation.
  • We do tend to have a Previous Work section here or as the next part of the document.
    • Gastel and Day point out that this is normal in some disciplines.
  • We frequently end with an outline of the rest of the paper.
  • They point out that letting your reader know results early is important
    • This is not a mystery, a surprise ending is bad.
    • Why should I commit to reading your paper, tell me what you did.
  • In any case, this is very "funnel shaped" from broad to narrow.
  • They finish by stating that you should
    • Look for journal (or conference) standards
      • CCSC papers should follow these guidelines.
      • But they are more on formatting than on content.
    • Look at other papers in your publication destination
      • A paper from visweek
• Again, a quick look at Boyd
• (IV C) Overview/details : Methods
  • Gastel and Day
    • "The main purpose of the materials and methods section is to describe (and if necessary, defend) the experimental design and then provide enough details so that a competent worker can repeat the experiments."
    • "The other purposes include providing information that will let readers judge the appropriateness of the experiment methods ..."
    • "... and will permit the assessment of the extent to which the results can be generalized."
  • This section will frequently include algorithms and calculations
  • It can include a proof.
  • This is the reproducible research session
    • You need to provide sufficient detail so that someone could redo your work.
  • They point out that this section will probably have subsections.
  • Do not put your results in this section.
    • You are explaining what you did, not what you discovered.
• Materials
  • Our materials sections tend to be limited, or non existent.
  • If you do a timing or comparison of some sort this should be included.
  • But perhaps not in a separate section.
  • OS or other software used.
  • Hardware (when appropriate)
• (IV C) Results
  • In a pure proof based paper this section might be missing.
  • Present representative data, selectively.
  • Look at the Boundaries paper from above
    • They state how they tested their algorithm
    • This is reasonable, they really don't have a methods section.
  • Stick to presenting the results
  • This is not the place to express an opinion.
  • You might want to provide a pointer to supplementary material available elsewhere.
• (IV C) Conclusions : Discussion
  • This is really the only place you should be expressing opinions.
  • But they should be based on the results of your experiments.
  • Gastel and Day
    1. Try to present the principles, relationships, and generalizations show by the results.
       • Discuss the results, do not restate them.
    2. Point out any exceptions or lack of correlation and define unsettled points.
    3. Show how your results and interpretations agree with previously published work.
    4. Don't be shy; discuss the the theoretical implications of your work, as well as any possible practical applications.
    5. State your conclusions as clearly as possible.
    6. Summarize your evidence for each conclusion.
  • They point out that the introduction and the conclusions should function as a pair.
  • It is good if the discussion here goes from specific to general.
  • Make sure you address the question (if you posed one in the intro)
• (IV X) : Future Work
  • This is not in the outline but is important in CS at least.
  • State next directions, items for further investigation, or where the results might be applied.
  • This is probably part of the conclusions section.

(IV D) Illustrations and Figures

• G & D state
  • Use sparingly
    • I'm not sure I agree
    • Use when needed
  • Make sure they will be readable
    • Even in the reduced form for a journal
    • And in black and white.
• Use the graphs your audience expects
  • A radar or doughnut graph might be pretty
  • But can your audience interpret it properly with unknown data?
  • Don't get to the point where you need to write a paper on your data visualization.

(IV E) Quotes and Footnotes

• See the style guides below.
• Give credit for all quotes.

(IV F) Constructing a bib

• Make sure that citations are accurate
  • The sources are the ones you used.
• Make sure that you cite everything you use.
• Make sure that you use everything you have in the bib.
• G & D strongly recommend EndNote, RefWorks, ...
• They are opposed to "Smith [4] covered this."
  • If it is worth citing, you should tell the reader why you cited it.
  • "Smith [4] did a basic study of the ..."
• Don't put the citation at the end of the sentence, put it where it was used
  • "The earthworm can crawl, but it can not fly[1,2]."
  • "The earthworm can crawl[1], but it can not fly[2]."
• Citation styles:
  • Use the style of the journal/conference you wish to publish in.
  • Or use IEEE style
  • Or use ACM style.

(IV G) Annotated Bib (Done I think)

In general

• The paper is not a place to complain about how hard things are.
• How you failed at something
  • Unless this is relevant to the discussion
  • Everyone fails, we don't want to know about this.
• How you failed to do something.
  • Or really, any other discussion of your shortcomings.
• Should not be first person.

Review the

• Assignment
• Look at the two rubrics.